Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity
Would this not also encourage people to live further from transit? Seems to go against traditional TOD intentions.
|
Only people who own (expensive) vehicles most likely.
The current issue is that the cost of land is the largest portion of the redevelopment costs, so who cares if it's 100% more or 10% more or whatever, that just gets passed on to the presale buyers who most are going to try flip anyway.
What would make sense, is having a specific "amenity tax" that goes directly into services that are unique to the building location that offsets the continued operation of that amenity (eg rail stations, bus stops, parks, playgrounds, pools, etc) and if people don't like it they can move. People who are primary occupants of such buildings would have amenity passes that give them use-it-or-lose-it* access.
* By which I mean that occupants and businesses must register themselves as a beneficiary of the building, and if they fail to renew it at tax time, it expires, but the tax is still paid. This is to avoid "selling" benefits by registering more people than the building unit owners pay taxes for, or owners or strata councils having to be involved in rentals.
Threaded Mode