Raise the Hammer

Jason, I wholeheartedly agree. One comment, though: Your photos are a little misleading. The Hamilton pictures are aimed at the traffic-laden streets, while the Montreal photos are of the sidewalks.

However, point taken, and I enjoyed the article.

That's the point of the photos. We have no streets like those in Montreal because we have designed every street in this city to be traffic laden - so nobody wants to be downtown let alone on the sidewalks brushing up against highway traffic.

yea, its tough finding exact photos to compare, but I tried to get one of each city looking across a street and one looking straight down. the bus stop and Main/John is a good comparison with the street corner in Montreal. Regardless, if you've been to Montreal, you'll know that you could take thousands of pictures on hundreds of streets and have zero chance of recreating the same scene anywhere in Hamilton, except perhaps, Hess Village.

Nice photo illustration. The streets are totally comparable; both are main 'throughfares' through downtown. King might be a better example because there is alot more pedestrian activity, but the same disgusting amount of traffic. Anyway it's also worth pointing out that these are cities with much higher populations and greater need for traffic capacity yet they maintain slower streets. The drivers just deal with it.

Jond, great point. I noticed that last week in Montreal. I didn't see a 5-lane one way street anywhere. While walking down St Laurent Blvd my wife asked 'why can't we do this in Hamilton?'. I said, 'Hamiltonians would never allow it', referring to the pedestrian-friendliness and calm traffic.

Sorry for nitpicking. I certainly agree with the entirety of the article, and one might well add Vancouver to the discussion, with its vibrant Gastown and Robson districts, among others. One hopes that the future pedestrianization of the Gore (at least the south side) will give city councilors something positive to build on. Now, if only, like Vancouver and Montreal, Hamilton could encourage more people to live downtown on some of its already pedestrian-friendly streets (James N, King E, St. George, etc.). Some of those vacant shop fronts downtown may actually one day be grocery stores!

Sorry, I think I meant George St. :)

Jason, another big difference between Montreal (and most other big cities in North America) and the old city of Hamilton are the property tax rates. In Montreal, they are about half what we pay here. I know people will say that's because our assessments are lower, but that is an excuse.

If people in the downtown demanded that the city start lowering the rate at which their properties were taxed, I guarantee you would see greater interest in the area. Over time, this would result in more people with disposable income, more shops, restaurants, condos and more reasons to stay in the area. Thus, instead of being a place to drive through, the downtown would pull people in. This alone would likely slow traffic measurably, even without lower speed limits.

A Smith: property tax rates mean nothing. Property taxes are calculated by multiplying the assessed value by the tax rate, therefore it is not an excuse but fact. You can't look at one side of the coin.

Another note, the City presently gives 5 year tax breaks if you do something with a property in the downtown, it is called the Enterprise Zone program and has been around since 2001.

Balance, tax rates do matter. In 1963, the top federal marginal income tax rate in the U.S was 91%, while overall government receipts were 26.71% of GDP. Today, the top rate is 35% and receipts come in at 29%. To be clear, governments have not only got more overall money from individuals, but also a higher percentage then they did before. Therefore, the idea that city government can't lower rates is ridiculous.

By lowering tax rates, you decrease the costs of owning property, thereby increasing the return on investment, which translates into greater demand for property. When demand for land in the city goes up, it pushes up prices, thereby offsetting the lower tax rate that the city charges property owners. Furthermore, even if the property owner ends up paying the same, or even slightly more in taxes due to increased assessment, they will more than make up for it in larger equity.

I have heard about the tax break you are referring to, but it is more of a steadily decreasing subsidy that only applies to new developments, not existing properties. If the city really wants to increase property values long term, it should permanently decrease the costs associated with owning land in the city. By doing this, the city would more than make up any revenues it thinks it would lose by giving property owners a good deal and in fact would become a magnet for investors across the country.

Ha ha ha ha ha take a look at average growth and investment rates during the high-tax post war period and compare average growth and investment rates since the 1970s when taxes started going down. Oops it's the exact opposite of what you're saying but why let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

TTLG, government involvement in the economy includes taxes, spending and regulations. In the post war period you mention, tax rates were higher, however, domestic spending was much lower than we see today, as were regulations. The net effect is that the government was much less involved in the economy than we see today. This also explains why Bill Clinton had such a great economic record, even though tax rates were almost as low as today.

If you want to cap city spending to population plus inflation then that would be the equivalent of what happened in the post war years. The net effect would be to decrease the role government plays in the economic affairs of the city.

TTLG, how do you explain the fact that the government extracted more money by using lower rates? That is my main point with regard to city taxes. I am not arguing about economic growth in this discussion, simply demand for city property. If you increase demand for property, you increase the amount of people with disposable income, which increases the amount of shops, restaurants and traffic in the area. Please address my point regarding lower tax rates and increased tax revenues if you can.

I think we're going to start a contest here at RTH to see who can write a blog that can't be hijacked into the 8 billionth discussion on libertarianism or government bashing. Even someone like myself who is no fan of politicians or government can only take so much.

A Smith, I was talking about property tax rates.

If I have a building building in Hamilton assessed at 500,000 and a tax rate of 1% my property taxes are $5,000.

The exact same building on a property in a GTA community is worth more and therefore assessed more let's say 1,000,000. The tax rate may be 0.5% but at the end of the day the end result is the exact same. The payment of $5,000 in property tax.

Do you get it? Looking simply at the tax rate makes no sense. You are not comparing apples to apples accross communities where values in property vary significantly.

Balance, I know you were talking about property tax rates and so was I. You believe that tax rates don't matter, only the "total" tax figure that the city charges property owners, I disagree. If the city lowered the tax "rate", it would lower the cost associated with owning property in the city. For example, on a $1,000,000 investment in Hamilton's residential property market, the city takes about $15,500. In Toronto, the city only takes $8,500. Where would you rather invest your money?

The fact is, if Hamilton started lowering the rate at which it taxed property owners, you would see a proportional increase in demand for land. This is easy to understand, because the city would be making it easier for investors to make money. Over time this would drive up assessments and the city would likely have more revenue than before, even thought they charged a lower rate. That was my point regarding lowering income tax rates.

I can agree with 40 km/h... but 30 is just plain unlikely.

But all the more unlikely is enforcement. 40 km/h was recently added to parts of Locke Street, and there are still folks who drive down it at 80 km/h and more. And I'm pretty sure none of those people were ever caught.

Doesn't TO use speed bumps to slow traffic on residential streets? Could do with some of that on my strip.

Strangely enough, when I drive throo Montreal, which is seldom, I don't find it difficult to get around, even on busy streets like St. Laurent, which is one-way, by the way, as is St. Urban. Montreal does have its wide central throughfares and expressways too, like Rene Levesque.

Montreal also has decent public transit. That too is essential to putting pedestrians on pavement. But when you actually want to do something "in" Montreal, it's best to walk or ride. Dragging two tons of metal around is work, not fun.

Parking's part of it. Too much available parking in downtown Hamilton, though you wouldn't know it listening to surburban drive-throos. When they talk about not-enough-parking they mean free parking, like at the mall, and forget the winter walk from the corner of the Limeridge lot. That's about as far as you'd have to walk from an available meter to the line-up outside Schwartz's on St. Laurent. The bus stop's closer, usually.

I have family in Montreal. For a while they lived within a block of St. Laurent. Great lifestyle, close to entertainment, work, outgoing people, but not for everyone. Suburban lifestyle can be good too, but it's not for everyone. Hamilton's biggest problem is that some want it to be all suburban, all the time. Downtown Business Ass. keeps talking about "bringing people down to shop." From the suburbs, they mean, and their intent is to make downtown more like a suburb, to attract people who don't live there and who state frequently they'd never go there. But downtown South Ont. is now Yonge St., Bloor St., Spadina etc. Cities like Hamilton have to focus on liveable communities for nearby residents.

50, 40, 30 km/h would be fine if the road is designed for that speed. Before lowering the speed, change the street - narrow the lane, add a meridian, speed bumps etc. Its far more effective to lower speeds by design than by fiat. Cootes Drive is a prime example; designed for 80 km/h but declared 50 km/h. Narrow it to one lane under the Mac bridge and there might be more compliance. But please don't advocate 4 way stops and lights, traffic needs to flow not stop.