Comment 13795

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2007 at 13:08:21

First, let me apologize for taking a shot at Don. That was uncalled for.

Second, Jason, has anyone measured the health effects of living near the linc these past 10 years? The linc runs behind my house, so I am someone who would care. When vehicles travel on the highway they burn fuel more efficiently than when big trucks are trying to go down Highway 20 (that is why some people are concerned about the increased pollution from converting King and Main to two-way, something I support by the way). You call the highway “government subsidized”. It is the government’s responsibility to provide roads. Would you accuse health care of being government subsidized? What are we paying taxes for then?

Willy, you make some excellent points. I do not ignore the points you have raised. Not only will the expressway improve the flow of transportation but it will allow us to increase our tax assessment by developing the Glanbrook and Airport industrial parks. Both of which would not be marketable without proximity to the highway. (Hamilton has lost many industrial investments to Brantford and the GTA because of a lack of industrial land; as a result, we have to commute to neighbouring cities in our polluting cars). The servicing for these industrial parks would come from development charges and possibly higher industrial taxes. Willy, you are basically asking for a cost-benefit analysis of the highway. If the highway leads to more industrial parks (and their resulting commercial and industrial tax assessment) then the highway should be a net benefit. If the highway leads to more residential, it will be a bust. We need to end the debate on building the road, accept that it is there, and figure out how to make sure that this benefits Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools