Comment 82768

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted November 12, 2012 at 15:04:38

A potential gain of a measley $600,000 needs to be carefully weighed against the projected increases in property values that will accompany the ongoing changes currently making downtown a more desirable place to live and raise a family.

Some existing property owners may not see that as a problem since it makes what they own more valuable, and it's likely to be a long-term outcome of a successful downtown anyway. I get your point though - the potential to discourage livability and certain types of investment is something to consider.

As I see it, the gain should first be weighed against the potential to increase social assistance costs for both the city and the organizations that provide support systems.

I seem to recall Brantford's mayor saying that didn't happen there, yet others have written anecdotal perspectives that indicate it has been an issue. Has their staff done the forensic accounting to really know what the balance of impacts has been? To strip out the effects of other developments like the Laurier campus, and learn what the true impacts of the casino have been? Would the same thing hold true for a city five times Brantford's size, or would the social impacts be magnified?

I agree that it's important to preserve a revenue stream, but if it also increases a stream of costs, what is the point? Could the net effect be a loss? Could that loss even be greater than what is currently generated at Flamboro Downs? There are lots of questions to ponder and I hope the city takes the extra time to examine them.

Comment edited by ScreamingViking on 2012-11-12 15:07:13

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools