Comment 28653

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted February 12, 2009 at 22:47:55

Councillor Bratina, >> You're saying "who needs Manhattan when you can live in Rahway, or Chicago when Downer's Grove beckons.

No, I'm just pointing out what the market is telling us and that is that Hamilton is not a very attractive place to locate. I agree 100% that Hamilton has a great history, much more so than I realized even a few years ago. However, because people and businesses are greedy and do tend to act in their self interest, having the highest tax rates on properties is limiting the potential that Hamilton should be fulfilling.

If tax rates on commercial properties were cut to 3% tomorrow, that would automatically increase the profit margin of every business in Hamilton. As a result, property values would soon be bid up as word got out about the low total cost (current lower land values plus new lower tax rate) of owning property in Hamilton. This lower total land cost, would give businesses currently located in Hamilton a temporary competitive advantage over their competitors and would send new businesses to Hamilton to try and get their share. This would increase developments in Hamilton, increase the value of land and create new employment opportunities in the process.

As it stands today, the city is capping the price of land by insisting on high tax rates. Since we know that the total cost of land is how businesses think about things, why not decrease the tax rate, which would allow the underlying value of the land to rise. This would materially help every person that currently owns land and would ensure that buildings not sit vacant and neglected.

This city deserves way more than that.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds