Comment 51375

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted November 11, 2010 at 11:32:46

There is much more to the city of Hamilton than the downtown core.

Mark, I'm sorry but overall your response comes across as nothing but contempt for the downtown core. I know you love to extol the virtues of our suburbs and they give you the lifestyle you enjoy, and that's fine. You still need to realize that the downtown will always define the city whether most of us care about it or not.

Meanwhile the Greenfields on Hamilton mountain and Stoney Creek mountain are being developed at a furious pace, at least ten local developers are raking in millions, while adding more owners to the property tax base, who presently pay 85% on the costs.

Surely you realize this is the problem? As I said, the focus of developers has been abundant greenfields, especially when the taxpayer builds them a half billion dollar highway system. Of course this is lucrative. The error I am pointing out is to assume that the only money to be made is in the suburbs. The truth is there is easy money to be made in the suburbs, often at the taxpayer's direct expense.

In your story you mention two buildings, who pay commercial taxes. I wonder what their contribution is, and if they are in tax-arrears? What kind of incentives did they get from City Hall? This group (commercial) contributes less than 10% of our costs. Industrial taxes are even lower, percentage wise, and shrinking (US Steel for example).

Again, surely you realize this is the problem? The 85% needs to go down, the 15% needs to go up. The two buildings I mentioned are part of the solution - a solution in which the developers and the city make money. These buildings were sold on the open market. They have new owners, they are not in tax arrears. City Hall rightfully has incentives to develop downtown properties because this is crucial to the success of our city. However, I can tell you that there is no residential component to either of these properties thus they did not qualify under the residential loan program. Let me think of how many ways the city makes money. -The building is fully occupied. Higher taxes. -Millions in construction is done by a local company. That company pays taxes. -Building permits. Apparently our beloved home builders don't always need one.
-Increased property assessment. Higher taxes. -New business on ground floor pays fees and permits. These are only direct revenue, and they're only off the top of my head. Who paid for these projects? Private capital. They were funded because they are going to be profitable.

I can't believe your suburban cheerleading would suggest that an affluent outer city surrounding a disinvested core is an acceptable state of affairs. You're describing a bedroom community economy in which homeowners pay 85% of the taxes and suggesting that more suburban homes for people who increasingly don't work here is going to fix it? This way of thinking is what has kept downtown struggling and led the city into the economic nightmare it's in. Fortunately, not all of the developers think that way.

Comment edited by jonathan dalton on 2010-11-11 10:33:44

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds