Comment 103341

By Kevo (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 21:18:11 in reply to Comment 103338

The same could be said for almost anything the government funds, especially anything involving roads (this is especially true of highways and car-dependent suburbs).

Part of the benefit is that vacant or inefficiently used lands (parking lots, strip malls, etc.) are replaced by developments that can increase the tax rolls by a substantial amount. Furthermore, those denser infill developments are more efficient to service (water, sewage, telephone, cable, gas, electricity, schools, rec centres, parks, etc. already exist) and save the taxpayer substantial amounts of money in the near and long term than the wasteful expansion that we've seen take place in Stoney Creek and on the Mountain.

Plus, everyone's got to make concessions in a city. The old city funded/funds the expansion outwards that depends on government subsidies for the initial capital, more expensive servicing, and more expensive repairs in the future. The lower city is where a fair number of the jobs in Hamilton exist and the lower city was built on the back of the street railway (much like the streetcar suburbs of Bloor West Village, the Danforth, College St, etc. in Toronto), so it makes sense to build something that raises tax rolls, pays for old in-situ infrastructure to be replaced, increases the viability of running a business downtown, and moves people in areas that have the most need and use.

My 2cents anyways... I'm a bit of a capitalist when it comes to government infrastructure (mainly because I'm an urbanist).

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds