I think may have been brought up already, but maybe deserves its own thread.
If we are not going to tax people (through property taxes) at a rate commiserate with the cost of servicing their property, this alternative idea (of instead folding that cost into the development cost) is worth considering.
Plan good for core area
By TIM OLIVE
Wed, Sep 21 - 4:54 AM
The Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in the Capital district are pleased to see the recommendation from the HRM finance committee regarding additional capital cost contributions (CCCs) for development to help pay for recurring costs of infrastructure and services in newly developed areas of HRM.
However, our similar proposal to HRM was formed under the presumption that these additional development charges would be site-specific to suburban and rural areas. This would encourage the developers to review options for the urban core, as recommended in the Regional Plan and the Economic Strategy.
If developers are required to pay the real incremental costs of infrastructure and services over the life of new developments, they may reconsider rural and suburban development in favour of meeting the proposed 25 per cent increase in the population of the Capital district.
Not charging urban developers the CCC, or charging at a reduced rate, is what the BIDs had envisioned in order to ensure the sustainability of our urban centres. In the Kitchen and Slack report attached to the HRM recommendation, they allow for this option: "As the Kitchen & Slack study indicates, the CCCs presented are intended to be an approximate upper limit and council may agree to recover less than the eligible amount for a variety of reasons, or exempt some or all of a charge to encourage certain kinds of developments in particular locations.
the rest of the article can be found here: