Comment 20225

By g. (anonymous) | Posted March 21, 2008 at 18:52:47

i can assure you, staffer, that "city people" don't want amalgamation either! why would they? all of a sudden they are paying for new servicing of suburbs, new highways, new roads, none of which directly benefit them. the city itself admits in its own studies that the development charges and new tax base don't cover the cost of building and maintaining the new infrastructure. what do the "city people" get out of it? certainly not lower taxes! certainly not equal and fair representation! no, they get a city hell bent on pushing through an urban boundary expansion and 3,000 acres more unneeded "employment lands" that further erode the value of the lands that sit idle in the lower city. i'm not suggesting the suburbs should be cheering amalgamation, but they should at least do their research about what taxes really are in the lower city and what it costs to service different areas befoer crying foul. i think the real winners are as always the developers.

area rating is unfair and will dissapear. in closing, i leave you with this thought: are not all the people who would be paying for transit which doesn't yet exist in their area in the same boat as all those currently paying for roads which they can't use because they don't own cars? isn't the choice not to, or inability to, live where there is transit the same as the choice not to, or inability to, own a car?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools