Quote:
Originally Posted by TimB09
How's it my fault that the City decided to keep sprawling so I should pay more because I chose to live there with my family for numerous reasons?
What a weird take.
|
I don't think it's about punitively trying to get people to pay more because we're mad at them or that something is "their fault". Instead it's an attempt at recognizing that of the various reasons people chose to live where they may, the true cost of maintaining that development as part of the city usually isn't one of them because that costs has been masked and subsidized. Our choices are generally removed from the shared consequences of those choices.
I also don't think it's fair to act like the city has grown the way it has because it is something that "The City" wants . It's people making choices because they can be removed from the true cost, and those choices contributing to demand, which makes continued outward development profitable, which creates a political pressure for the city to "choose" to support it. Your choices, do - in the collective sense inform how the city chooses to develop.
I'd argue though that this form of development has always been unecomical, but the true cost of it takes decades to have it's impact as infrastructure ages and costs rise. So yes, it may be unfair to solely call out the farthest out of the suburbs when we've been in a financial spiral for over half a century that has cumulatively created the current situation we are in. The reality is that apart from a few dense areas, the majority of the residential development in the city is subusidized by those central areas along with commercial/industrial properties.
It's a systemic failure more than a personal one. People in the suburbs (and I mean the suburbs in the sense that most of Edmonton is suburbs) are not bad people, but for the most part probably don't realize how expensive their lifestyle is and that the current reckoning is partially due to a need to cover those costs.
Threaded Mode