Comment 32377

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted July 10, 2009 at 14:13:18

JonC >> they must have 3367/2442 times the average people, so to higher tax levy reflects that the the average house on the mountain has more residents consuming services and infrastructure.

If you believe that, then why do you call these houses sprawl? Sprawl is low population density housing, but if you're saying that these higher value homes have more people than downtown, than it isn't sprawl, right? Furthermore, if it isn't sprawl, then the infrastructure being built/person is not a waste, because many people will use it.

>> what we're talking about existing homes already have X products, so in your analogy, the new store would come to your home and demand money for the product you already have.

No, all that needs to happen is for the water folks to charge the true cost of delivering x amount of water. This cost should include not just the variable cost of water, but the all the fixed costs that are required to keep the system running. In this way, if you use lots of water, you pay a higher amount, because you are taxing the system more than others.

>> So you want to INCREASE YOUR TAXES to subsidize increased pumping capacity.

No, I want to see water bills pay for water infrastructure. If that requires even higher water bills than we have today, so be it. At least that way, people would be rewarded for conservation and punished for wasteful water use.

>> you haven't addressed Oakville's fee being twice Hamilton's Are they completely ripping off new developers.

It could be that they are. Just to reiterate, I do think that developers should pay the true cost of laying pipes, building sidewalks, setting up new police stations, etc. These things are located in the area of the new homes, so they will benefit disproportionately as a result.

However, Jason mentioned that sprawl should stop until a new treatment facility is built on the mountain. Okay, if that was done, then would the rest of the city want access to the new water facilities? Could they use the brand new water system, instead of having to fix the old one? Would that be fair, seeing that they didn't pay to build it?

>> I bought an existing home, so I strained nothing.

If you use more water than someone else, than you DO strain the system more. It has nothing to do with how old the house is, it has to do with how much water you draw and how much you put down the pipes. What if you used 10x as much water as the original homeowner, are you not more responsible for using up spare capacity than someone with a new home who uses 10x less? Of course you are.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools