Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
There is no "Flamborough" anyway--and as a resident of the new City of Hamilton your taxes will continue to support infrastructure THROUGHOUT the entire city, that is a reality that you ought to accept. There would seem to be a disconnect when someone argues that rural residents ought not complain about increased taxation, but at the same time launch protestations when infrastructure projects go forward in areas that you arbitrarily deem to be "unacceptable"...or, to quote it all sucks.
|
fastcars - please step back for a second and look at this conversation. The entire point of the thread has revolved around the fact that, despite paying (on average) less tax than the rest of the city, Flamborough's residents (through the councillor they voted in and presumably support) are aggressively fighting a tax increase which still won't get them "up to par" when it comes to the averages in other wards.
Their main argument is that they shouldn't pay for services they don't receive and that they feel like they are propping up the rest of the city with their tax money.
So some of us commented on here to point out some of the financial burdens that the entire city must bear in order to service Flamborough (using their ward as an example, but applicable to other lower density areas as well).
Our argument all along has been that the entire city has to share the burden equally. We brought up these infrastructure projects in Flamborough as examples to show that they are not as self sufficient as they think.
You are asking us to accept the very point we have been trying to make all along....!?
Meanwhile, we derailed a bit on the clappisons project. Personally, my fundamental objections to that project are completely beside the point of which ward it's in. It just happens to be in waterdown which is why it got brought up here.
So, clearly we are all on the same page when it comes to the idea of every ward pulling its weight since we are all in the same city. But maybe there is disagreement about who pays more than their fair share?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
RTH--no need to respond--the interchange isn't going in to service those retailers--that was the statement that was made by another poster--all other arguments aside--in fact the retail would be more easily accessed if it remained a regular, signalized intersection.
|
Did you read my post about this? I'm not claiming that the interchange will make it easier for any individual to access any given retailer. I'm saying that the main driver of traffic on hwy 5 in the near future is going to be big box retail. There's no denying it. And there's no denying that the flow through clappison's intersection was and is sufficient now. And the true 5/6 bottlenecks are downtown waterdown and morriston respectively.
So, while the ramps won't plop into a parking lot like in burlington, they are definitely being built due to traffic increases which are greatly due to car-centric, non-walkable retail development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
As for markbarbera--that is exactly what I'm suggesting. My own feelings aside, the consensus here is that Flamborough should pay it's magic "fair share" including paying for services it doesn't receive. Therefore, I'm suggesting, assuming that to be the case, there is no argument from anyone in the "old" City, or any of the other former municipalities, if the "new" City invests in infrastructure in Flamborough, or anywhere else.
|
Again I just want to reiterate that we only brought up these infrastructure projects to make a point about how ridiculous flamborough's general idea of "pay for what you use" is.
That being said, I'd support pay-for-what-you-use any day because I'd save a hell of a lot on my taxes
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom
Regardless, I believe the funding formula is 50/50 with the MTO...am I correct? If so, I'm technically paying for it too, even though it's no where near my current residence.
|
hehe but you are ok with it because clappison's interchange is a provincially significant project
