Raise the Hammer

JonC >> those people that are tossing the extra $100,000 at that home should be well aware of the associated tax increase that accompanies it.

They're aware of it, but apparently no one else on this site is aware of it. At least you're now admitting that new homes produce more in revenue (especially over many years) than inner city homes. Because of this fact, that new homes bring in more than $1,500/year more than downtown homes, why be an @sshole about development fees.

If the goal is fairness, then it's the inner city properties that should start paying higher tax rates to account for their lower market values. Fair is fair.

JonC >> you forgot to factor in distance to the amount of consumption

If it takes more money to pump water farther distances, which makes sense, this should be reflected in people's water bills, so we agree on this point.

Jason >> developers are NOT being ripped off anywhere.

That's right, in Hamilton, they simply pass on development charges
to new home buyers, who, because they live in nicer homes, pay at least 50% more in property taxes than downtown residents, even though they have smaller libraries, less transit access and none of the HECFI cultural amenities within walking distance. The truth is, inner city residents get the lion's share of services, but pay the least in taxes.

Do you really want to keep arguing that inner city residents are subsidizing the suburbs? If so, please tell me why it's fair that inner city homes pay the lowest amount of property taxes.

If everyone should pay for what they consume, then how come people with easy access to the Central Library, Copps, AGH, the largest # of transit routes, pay the least amount of property taxes. The city simply can't afford to subsidize these great services if the revenue in the area is so low? Does that sound about right Jason?