Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
This part is correct.
This part is not correct.
It's not correct because the street-side parking that some businesses receive cannot rationally be construed as a "benefit." Why? Because the commercial property taxes such businesses pay to the city are far in excess of the cost of their portion of all the public services they receive in return, including street-side parking. Simply put, the street-side parking businesses receive is fully paid for by the businesses themselves, not by the city or anyone else. Thus, businesses are no more receiving a "benefit" than a person who receives an item for which he himself has paid the full purchase price.
Properly understood, therefore, the only persons to whom street-side parking can possibly be construed as a "benefit" are residential property owners and renters, who pay only a fraction of the taxes paid by commercial property owners.
|
But it is then also paid for by other businesses that don't have it in front of their stores. Why is it fair that some businesses get on street parking while others don't. Shouldn't the ones that get on-street parking have to pay more to the city? That would more fair. What ever you call it, some businesses get it and it according to the study, it has economic value to them. The ones that don't, don't get that economic value.