Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce
OK, I'll bite. I don't have a horse in this race but allow me to play Devil's Advocate (and to mix a few metaphors). Convince me, resident of this quasi-rural area, that this massive, uninspired block of concrete will...
*'improve' my neighbourhood (to the degree that it is one)
*increase the value of my property and
*lower my taxes.
BTW, do property taxes ever go down (outside of failed regions the likes of which you might find in Michigan and Upper State NY)? And if the value of my home does go up, won't my taxes also go up? If I'm a senior on a fixed income, I might not be very happy about that.
And I understand full well that the vast majority of people don't have an aesthetic bone in their body. Sometimes it feels like we've been served so much beige and grey over the decades that we've forgotten other colours even exist! And for lack of beauty and taste (and very low expectations), we turn to DENSITY - if only there were more people in this block, surely it would be better! This is more about statistics and vague macroeconomic factors than what's actually best for the residents of a given area. We're not in a SIM game here, remember.
I have no idea what the answer is but as a resident I'd be asking the City why I should want this development and to back it up with some sort of evidence. I guess that will come with the final report.
|
While one project wouldn't have that much affect on taxes, projects like this are way better for the tax rate than the single family housing that whiners like Em Del Sardo live in. The mill rate is higher for a rental apartment such as this (which it shouldn't be, but that's what you get from historic tyranny of the single family home owner) and the services (roads, sewers) demanded for an apartment is way cheaper than single family housing.
Assuming $2500 in annual property tax per apartment, that's $742,500 total per year.