Comment 119491

By RobF (registered) | Posted June 21, 2016 at 09:56:01 in reply to Comment 119488

A more appropriate analogy is your parents going to the bank to get a mortgage to buy a house or take out a loan to start a business. This is spending on a capital asset not discretionary spending. The real question is whether the long-term benefits to the city and province justify the investment ... i.e. does it put the corporation of Hamilton in a more sustainable fiscal position and grow the local economy. Roads aren't free and neither is the space used for off-street parking. A more compact, denser form of city is more efficient to service and offers cheaper mobility for residents. That provides real social and economic benefits if it is implemented well ... big infrastructure projects are always subject to poor execution for a number of reasons.

And as Kevlahan says below we aren't going broke ... we have a growing population and economy and that requires spending on infrastructure and services to support it. And we need policies to help us grow in ways that are less damaging to the environment and our pocket-books.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds