Raise the Hammer

seancb >> and base it on what?

I bring up the idea of every property paying the same tax bill, regardless of housing value, simply to show the insanity of how government works. Regardless of how Jason or the rest of you feel about sprawl, I'm sure the sprawl people feel the exact same way about downtown residents, that they subsidize you.

The point is, without numbers to show how much each person pays versus how much they receive, all of our opinions are equally irrelevant. I admit that. I am speaking from only one side of the equation, the cost side, without truly knowing how much suburbanites receive. But so are you. You can't accurately tell me how much downtown residents receive in benefits, because government doesn't charge people for what they use. It could be that they receive 50% more than you think or 50% less, no one really knows.

>> It's OK for you to make up your own assumptions in your head about the "unknown" value of these services ... The rest of us, however, must back up every word with a number.

I am not the one writing an article on how sprawl is being subsidized by the rest of the city. Therefore, the burden of proof doesn't lie with me, it's up to you to provide numbers accurately showing how Hamilton residents are getting less and paying more. All that Jason did in this article was to declare that this is the case and appeal to our common sense.

Perhaps Jason can find out from City Hall how man hours are distributed across the city, because as I stated before, employee costs make up the lion's share of people's tax bill. If these numbers showed that city employees spend a disproportionate amount of time in suburban areas, then I would likely agree with his theory.

>> otherwise your whole argument that new suburban residents are getting screwed over is based on nothing but your opinion.

I am not making the argument that suburban homes subsidize inner city residents. I don't have the numbers to prove that, or even suggest that with any confidence. All I am doing is throwing doubt on your numerically challenged assumptions. Jason is making the argument that suburban homes hurt city finances, but what if he's wrong. Doesn't it make sense to quantify this with numbers before making decisions that may actually hurt city finances, rather than help them.

It would appear that many people on this site are not so much interested in the truth, as they are in promoting their beliefs. That's fine, but please don't try to sell these personal biases as factual, or having any basis in reality. Without numbers to back up claims over money, you can't prove who is getting the better deal, period.

Could we all agree that this argument is a draw?