Originally Posted by ediger
apples and oranges, people. We've talked at length about how new sub-developments and sprawl are hurting the city and how we can't support it. Now we have a guy who doesn't think those people should pay their fair share. It's garbage pure and simple.
My mobility and lack of investment? Because I don't have the cash nor wish to spend the cash on a house? What the hell do you know about what I spend and how I spend it? And mobility? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I suppose I'm a crappy person because I don't visit the 'burbs.
Firstly, mobility refers to your macroscopic ability to move; not your day-to-day movement down the sidewalk or across the street. I'm trying to make you see how thoughtless your point is. You have freedoms property owners don't. You can move to an area to be closer to your job with one months notice. You can leave the province if the labour market takes a dive. You are not invested in the city in the same way that property owners are. If the neighbourhood becomes overrun by crack houses and derelicts, you can abandon your suite and take up residence elsewhere. You are incented in a backwards fashion. All of that ownership and investment costs money and creates the stability necessary for decent communities to prosper, irrespective of where they are.
The idea that you're subsidizing anything other than somebody's mortgage is hilarious given that you pay month to month rent to live in somebody else's property. Worse yet, you enjoy protection from the whims of the market and true costs of living by virtue of a government arm created solely
to ensure you're subsidized, the Residential Tenancies Branch.
So tell us all a little more how much you're subsidizing the lifestyles of those living in the suburbs with your rent...