There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By JonC (registered) | Posted July 09, 2009 at 16:30:22
"There you have it, new home buyers are the ones who must now pay the cost of expanding water treatment facilities, not because the average cost is going up by 37.7%, but because previous homeowners allowed spare capacity to run to zero."
If the new homes aren't built, there is sufficient capacity, so, to increase the number of homes being serviced (particularly at a distance) the new homes (not the existing homes) require the increase in facilities.
"If the city had actually planned for future population growth, they would have built up a capital fund over the years, not simply charged the last straw on the camel's back to have to pay to fix it."
You're right, they should have increased the development fee years ago and created a capital fund instead of caving into builder's demands. Of course, your argument is that they shouldn't increase the fee, so I'm confused as to whether you are in favour of the increase or not.
"Because assets depreciate (that means they wear out) over time, the development fees charged to older homes have long since been used up. That's why people have to pay to fix their cars, homes and even their bodies. Assuming that a one time payment 50-80 years ago will cover the costs associated with the upkeep of city infrastructure is ridiculous."
The initial development fees went into infrastructure capital costs which is maintained by property taxes.
"All taxpayers should have to pay a portion of their taxes into a capital improvement fund, which is then used in the expansion and upkeep of city infrastructure as needed. Not simply waiting until things wear out and then pushing the costs onto the newcomers."
I want to get this clear, YOU WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES TO SUPPORT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS. Just checking.
"Therefore, to the extent that infrastructure was under invested in for decades, it's only fair that ALL taxpayers pay to fix the problem."
Again, property taxes go into maintenance. New infrastructure for increased capacity should be covered by those asking for it.
Permalink | Context