Comment 31180

By C. Erl (registered) - website | Posted May 21, 2009 at 00:00:05

Mr. Smith, you are making us think and are helping us fine tune our arguments so that they can withstand even the strongest attacks, so thank you for that.

That aside, I wanted to take a shot at your question.

In short: It doesn't. Yet, no one was advocating any sort of redistributive measures in the article posted. What has been advocated is investments that would attract both businesses and more creative individuals (who, as studies have proven, also attract new businesses) to this city. By redefining municipal restrictions and placing regulations on what is necessary (sprawl that is costly to taxpayers, living 'nodes' that are costly to maintain and force the city to raise taxes, etc) we can draw more businesses in and, therefore, revitalize the city.

What can't be justified is taking money away from successful businesses to spend on absolutely unnecessary suburban projects, built at the whim of a developer who does not have the interests of the greater Hamiltonian business community in mind. We can't penalize businesses for the mistakes of other businesses, in this case, developers.

To keep taxes low, we have to set and stick to urban boundaries. To attract investment, we have to spend on infrastructure.

I hope that answers your question!

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds