Raise the Hammer

Sounds more like a "hung jury" to me Ryan, another way our elected officials fob off their responsability to the whole. If good transit raises all boats, we should all be paying the same tax rate on assessment. I personally don't mind kicking in my fair share even though I own and drive a car. Renters pay even more. And Hybrid Bus fleets are all the rage everywhere but here. LOL. Voters have to wise up next municipal election.

Somehow I think the jury is going to play "follow the leader" and go with the staff report.

We need to fix this city's finances and that includes in the short term 1) A fair tax levy for all 2) Better use of tax dollars and 3) Making investments that will save money and spur growth in the long run.

For example: LRT, at least on the East-West corridor is likely to not need operating subsidies (based on the very low subsidies for the routes it is replacing large parts of, increased ridership, and decreased per passenger operating costs). As well it will stimulate development (don't ask me HOW but the data does not lie).

What i'd like to see less of is things like tearing up a road twice in rapid succession when it only should have been done once, and other un-frugal uses of tax dollars.

Ryan >> The city would collect over $7 million in additional transit funds if all wards of the city paid what the lower city pays today.

That assumes that tax rates on property won't influence the underlying value of the properties being taxed. Ryan, I know you are a smart guy, have you ever considered that Hamilton's high tax rates are keeping assessments artificially low?

You have cited both Boston and Portland as examples of how transit can help improve the quality of life and economy of Hamilton, but both of these cities also have spending/revenue caps that limit their politicians ability to spend taxpayer's money. Have you ever asked yourself why this is?

Furthermore, even if LRT is a net positive for this city, it won't help if the politicians simply take the added revenue that it creates and waste it on projects that aren't.

Think of it this way, let's say the LRT will cost $10 million/year to operate and produces $20 million a year in added tax revenue. The politicians can then take that $20 million and spends it on projects that only return $10 million in added tax revenue. Therefore, the net result of the LRT without a cap on taxation is ZERO. All the LRT has done is to allow the politicians to waste money on things that don't produce good returns

In contrast, by capping taxes at the rate of inflation + new growth, politicians will be forced to spend efficiently. Furthermore, since the economy usually grows faster than the rate of inflation, people's incomes will grow faster than their property tax bill and this money will be left to flow into local businesses. This will create new jobs and decrease poverty.

In Boston, through the introduction of Prop 2 1/2, which limits spending, has been robust assessment growth and property tax rates that have fallen from over 2% to around 1%. There is nothing wrong with asking politicians to be more efficient with our money and history has shown that unless citizens make it easy for politicians to restrict their spending they just won't do it. The temptation to spend other people's money is just too strong.

Lastly, if the politicians felt they needed new money for a sure bet investment, there could even be a provision for holding a referendum. If 2/3 of voters felt that a new expenditure was necessary, it could get passed. Otherwise, spending would be limited to the rate of inflation.

Cals' Blog:

Ryan writes: Let's be honest: the status quo isn't working. I know change can be scary, but we need to stop reacting in knee-jerk fashion to new ideas and start forming our opinions based on real evidence.

I went to a committee meeting yesterday on another issue but this comment holds so true. Things are not working, yet we seem to keep following the same path.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/articl...

We need to get Gene Hackman up here to engineer the selection of a proper jury.

I'm not hopeful about this. Anyone with any real knowledge of the issue will be declared 'biased', representatives will be chosen by ward rather than population density, and we'll end up with a bunch of knuckle-draggers heavily tilted toward the suburbs.

It is time to do away with area rating. Phase in a revenue neutral approach over three years or so.

Ryan, transit doesn't need any more money from Hamilton's already overburdened residential taxpayers.

As for this "citizens jury", what do we have a city council for? or city staff? This is just a way to pass off responsibility of the issue.

Ryan >> I strongly disagree with you about funding transit, for reasons I've already articulated in several places.

Ryan, if the $30 million that currently goes to propping up the HSR was returned to the taxpayers of Hamilton, how much of this money would find it's way back to the HSR?

In other words, how confident are you in the abilities of the government to create mass transit that doesn't require annual bailouts just to stay in business?

I have a great idea. What if we capped tax rates at 0.1 percent for the next 10 years and got rid of all public services so that people could just flop over and die on a big pile of garbage on the dirt pathway in front of their home?

It's so logical, how is nobody else seeing this??

Jason, why can't the HSR make a profit, yet taxi services can?

A Smith: Are taxi services profitable right now? Wages paid are not so great and affects many who work in this industry. Paying wages that do not allow workers to sustainably live is no the answer either, since it puts more presssure on social systems such as food banks.

Also there are many health ans safety issues for the workers who drive. How many have been injuried? Since the change by the Harris regime where health and safety issues are left with the employer, how do we know that these issues are really being addressed? Isn't this one issue, in terms of workers the most important, worker safety?

no to mention the city creates an artificial monopoly by restricting taxi licences. hardly a good example of the free market at work..

Why Jay, why?!?!?

Lol. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

At the root of this, there is a good idea in terms of promoting the notion of having citizens more engaged. However, the parallel to a "jury", the method of selection contemplated and the topic to tackle, are just some of the many factors that signal for me, that this is a half baked idea. As I said on my blog, I think the Mayor's intent is good. I don't think this has been well thought out.

Cal DiFalco