Tax freeze? Count on an increase

[eemy]

Hah, "bring a gas mask" - I think Cullen

[Cre47]

Two drastically different sides on the issue of taxes published on the SUN today. I've removed the names to keep the opinions anonymous.

There is no chance of achieving a balanced budget when you have councillors like Jan Harder pushing for a minimum 4% tax increase. It's unfortunate the majority of city council members are budget veterans who feel that a modest tax increase is an acceptable compromise.

Amalgamation was supposed to reduce operational costs, yet tax increases continue to be tacked on to our municipal bills every year. Maybe it's time for council to start taking a businesslike approach to budgets and stop spending money they do not have. A simple solution would be to terminate all mega-projects and to implement a hiring freeze at the City of Ottawa and determine ways to generate income for the city coffers. Hire more traffic cops, increase parking fees, but stop making the taxpayer the scapegoat for your budget deficits.

That would mean the city has no vision at all and would continue to be decades behind other cities such as Calgary and Edmonton. And I guess he supports mass-transit cuts, mass-library cuts, mass-community service cuts, possibly fire hall cuts, etc, etc.

Bravo to Coun. Jan Harder and all the other councillors who have had the courage to speak against the 0% tax raise. It is unreasonable for us to expect services and keep the quality of life we enjoy, but not provide the means to maintain them. Nobody likes to pay more taxes, but we have to face the fact that there is a cost to everything.

The cancellation of light rail could cost us in excess of $400 million in penalties. That is already too high a cost too pay without having to sacrifice libraries, pools, community centres, day care and road improvements. Let's make sure the city can account for every penny of what we give them, but let's make sure they get what they need to get the job done.

At least he has a more realistic approach then the previous

The good news though is that we may avoid the lawsuit and with some Councillors intentions on making a rally to pressure the feds for a 1% of the GST being send to the feds. Instead of having the GST cut being directly applied to the citizens it should have gone to the municipalities in the first places which it will have a more significant impact then just a few bucks more per purchase. Makes more sense and kudos to Diane Deans, Clive Doucet and other who have thought about it.

[lrt's friend]

1% GST for municipal use will never happen. The Conservatives want to look like heros, especially to those sales tax adverse Albertans.

I was disturbed also about news that electoral redistribution is going to be biased towards the west. It will take less population gain in Alberta to add a federal seat compared to Ontario. An attempt to make Parliament more responsive to the regions. Sounds undemocratic to me.

[rodionx]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Accoording to the Sun, some councillors are planning to limit the budget debate to a few minutes and that the tax hike will be 4%, though still taxpayers will not lost all the goodies giving by the feds.

The media has given the city manager a bit of a free ride by not challenging the logic behind his proposed cuts. Instead, they focus on the resulting squabbles between the politicians, as though the cuts are a given and it's a question of where and how much. You'd think that people in a government town like Ottawa would realize that the classic first response of a manager to proposed funding or staffing cuts is to counter with 'options' for cutting just those services that everyone likes best. It's the poison pill approach and it will work as long as the mayor and the counselors are deadlocked.

A zero percent increase is absurd, of course, but a rate of inflation increase of 2% annually (and 3-4% this year, to make up for last year) is reasonable. Sooner or later, the municipal government is going to have to go through the same grinder that the federal government went through in the nineties, and learn how to discipline itself. Better now than later.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by rodionx

A zero percent increase is absurd, of course, but a rate of inflation increase of 2% annually (and 3-4% this year, to make up for last year) is reasonable. Sooner or later, the municipal government is going to have to go through the same grinder that the federal government went through in the nineties, and learn how to discipline itself. Better now than later.

What government is the municipality going to cut funding from or download costs to?

[rodionx]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

What government is the municipality going to cut funding from or download costs to?

True, to get through the current crunch they're going to have to cut services, but they don't necessarily have to use the menu the City Manager has given them. It's the menu of an institution that is willing to do fewer things, as long as it can do them the same way as always. If the city doesn't change the way it plans and budgets at some more fundamental level, there will be another menu of cuts next year and the year after that.

And lest I start sounding like the Mayor, I'll add that I'd happily support a big fat tax increase if I knew it was going toward a service increase or major capital project or something like that. Instead, we get tax increases just to maintain the status quo. It was general dissatisfaction with this state of affairs that led Ottawa to elect Mr. Zero Means Zero in the first place.

[lrt's friend]

It was general dissatisfaction with this state of affairs that led Ottawa to elect Mr. Zero Means Zero in the first place.

General dissatisfaction was really manufactured by a seductive tax freeze slogan made by a local entrepreneur who really said next to nothing substantive (hence created no controversies) during the campaign. I went to a all candidates meeting and it really was amazing how little Mr. O'Brien actually said. If you really look at it, the city had been well run with tax increases averaging below inflation for several years. This cannot continue indefinitely without damaging city services. We also have to understand that even the consumer price index does not correctly reflect actual inflation that we all face including the city. Certain things have been taken out, and this allows the government to control inflationary pressures (wage increase demands) on the economy. A lot of the concerns more properly relate to the unpredictability of the property assessment system. In my case, property taxes are now lower than they were 15 years ago.

[p_xavier]

For those who are interested in seeing how much your tax increase would be, here is an interactive map from canada.com:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/flash/taxmap/index.html

[p_xavier]

Denley's article on next year's tax increase:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=b700c51b-21ff-495b-a24d-a8b9b0b4dc69

First of all, I'm not against reasonable tax increases, five percent is more than reasonable. Except that I got my property assessment this year. Well it went up 250%. So I'm now paying $515 a month for a less than 800sf condo. How ridiculous is that!

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Denley's article on next year's tax increase:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=b700c51b-21ff-495b-a24d-a8b9b0b4dc69

First of all, I'm not against reasonable tax increases, five percent is more than reasonable. Except that I got my property assessment this year. Well it went up 250%. So I'm now paying $515 a month for a less than 800sf condo. How ridiculous is that!

Bare in mind that assessment increase percentage does not equal tax increase percentage.

An assessment increase will only increase taxes to the degree that it increased over average assessment in the city.

So for example if an assessment increases 15% in a year but the average increase city-wide was 25% taxes will actually drop 10% (prior to any increase coming from council).

Assessments were frozen for a few years so I suspect there will be a few dramatic numbers. I have not heard what the city-wide average was....they really should include it in peoples assessments...it helps avoid bitching and heart failures.

The other thing about these is that different neighbourhoods really go in cycles. I recall in the mid to late 90's when the Kanata assessments were shooting up, but now I think they are generally below average on the increases. Right now downtown and the near west-end is hot. Once it becomes to high to be affordable (sounds like it is getting close by your numbers) some other neighborhood (Alta-vista- maybe?) will take over as the popular spot to live.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

The other thing about these is that different neighbourhoods really go in cycles. I recall in the mid to late 90's when the Kanata assessments were shooting up, but now I think they are generally below average on the increases. Right now downtown and the near west-end is hot. Once it becomes to high to be affordable (sounds like it is getting close by your numbers) some other neighborhood (Alta-vista- maybe?) will take over as the popular spot to live.

And thus the whole system should be scrapped. It should be based on the services provided. It only favors urban sprawl. My tax and condo fees are now higher than my mortgage.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

And thus the whole system should be scrapped. It should be based on the services provided. It only favors urban sprawl. My tax and condo fees are now higher than my mortgage.

I just depends on moments in time...as I said a few years ago Kanata assessment were driving people to move elsewhere...like downtown. Once upon a time...not so long ago...Westboro was dump...where no ones really cared to live...as was lowertown...etc...


As for fees vs level of service...I would say be careful what you wish for....the burbs generally have considerably less service in many areas (no sidewalks, less snow removal, now less LRT, etc...), it would be pretty easy too build a service level model where the burbs would taxes which are far less than downtown.


The think one of things that has to really be somehow questioned is the prices is of some real estate. Your condo is the same condo it was, same cement, same titles, same floor space, same view, same windows, same doors, same location, etc... How on earth could it cost 2 and half times as much...its the same thing it always was....actually older! Construction costs have not increased that much! This is what also pisses me off with developers and their overly inflated prices. It is the price inflation of real estate that is causing the tax system problem.

The basic concept of MVA is the more expensive house you have, the more tax you pay..which is a perfectly reasonable idea....it is the screwy prices that cause the problem.