Comment 35836

By James (registered) | Posted November 27, 2009 at 22:12:21

I appreciate the constructive debate here, but I'm still waiting for somebody to prove me wrong.

JonC - you raise a good point. I would be quite willing to pay more for roads to reflect Flamborough's portion if it meant our proprotion of other taxes decreases proportionally to reflect our usage. Roads are the second largest budget item so I would aniticipate this to increase; however, with social services being the largest item (of which there is almost no need in Flamborough) and Culture & Rec being third largest (of which we also receive nothing) I'm positive that on balance we would be better off (ie: taxes lower) I stand by my position that no one on this message board has been able to prove that the city is being short-changed by the outlying areas with empirical evidence. As for sewers and water, that is not part of our property taxes so is not relevant.

Rusty - if you really believe the conspiracy theories you expound, you should work towards implementing a moratorium on development forever. Let me know how that works put for you.

TreyS - you may be right, value for money may be top notch in Hamilton. You're missing the point though- if the services are not provided, needed and/or wanted (depending on what we're talking about), it doesn't matter what the value is - the demand is not there which results in a subsidy from areas where there is no demand to areas where the demand exists.

Jelly - let's do it. Tax rates in Hamilton would jump and I'd stop subsidizing services I don't use.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools