Comment 59806

By A Smith (anonymous)
Posted February 15, 2011 at 12:58:26 in reply to Comment 59794

MattM >> Maybe this would be possible if they didn't just spend a giant amount of money

As of 2010, NYC had $12,908 in net debt (including capital assets) per resident. In 2009, Hamilton had $7392 in net assets per resident (including capital assets).

That's a difference of $20,300 in debt per resident.

Boston has net assets of only $860 per resident in 2010.

As of 20009, Toronto has net assets per resident of $5,358.

If Hamilton's financial picture was to match that of Toronto, we would have to incur an additional $2,034 in net debt per resident, or $1.07 billion.

If the things we spent money on had a long lifespan (bridge, building, fibre optic network, research facility equipment, LRT, subway, etc) or returned some portion of the debt to the taxpayer (fixing and selling the Federal Building to homebuyers), the net debt would be reduced further.

Before I looked at the numbers myself, I assumed that Hamilton was poor because it had squandered money. Now I'm starting to think that Hamilton is more like the corner bum, who just happens to have an investment account worth millions. He may look poor, but he's just really, really frugal.

Reply | Permalink | Context

Comment Score: 0 (6 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds