Quote:
Originally Posted by MastClimberPro
1. The fetishization of personal choice and concern that people of different stripes will get priced out of one type of development or another or that people won't get to live in one style of neighbourhood or another seems a little pollyanna IMHO. Different neighbourhoods will be more "desirable" (a sliding scale based on personal preference). If what's desirable to me is only desirable to me, the cost will be very low indeed. However if many people want the same sort of existence, the price will inexorably go up. it will always be the case that many, many people will not be able to afford everything they want in a residential opportunity.
2. The tax code could of course be built such that taxation more closely mirrors cost of service per civic address. The point is that it currently doesn't and that some development is lauded as adding to a cities bottom line while actually diminishing it. Anyone who takes advantage of this inefficiency is not evil or a leech or an enemy of the city. As members of a capitalistic society we are taught that it is a net moral good to take advantage of these inefficiencies. However the system should also react or close those gaps if a truly responsive free market is to exist. In the long run, there is no free lunch.
3. The other thing to consider is of course the fact that not all roads within a city are created equal. Some suburban roads are used only by their residents, who, in addition to paying taxes that are below the true costs of the services their roads require, also don't have to share those roads with more than a handful of their neighbours. They are the only ones who benefit from those services. Imagine our taxes as fees for paying for the plowing, policing and sewage flow in front of our residential addresses. I live on North Street, close to the MacDonald Bridge, so my taxes are paying for about 20' of road that a significant percentage of this cities residents use for one reason or the other, not to mention commercial and institutional vehicles of all stripes. This is not a complaint. I knew what my place cost, what my taxes would be and what the traffic levels would be mere feet from my front step long before I signed the lease so i got what I paid for. But having been in business long enough to know how creative accounting can be, I know there is a rational argument to be made that I should expect to pay a fraction of what I do because fairly half of the resident directly benefit, and the other half indirectly benefit from that road being clear of snow and potholes and passable to vehicles. This is all to say that to think of a city in term of how specifically it meets the needs of the individual, financially or service-wise is missing the point. One personal reaction to a city isn't really the point. Its is a collective project with collective problems for which there must be collective solutions.
|
1) I don't know that "fetishization" and "pollyanna" are the terms I would use for my rebuttal of the video, but of course opinions vary. I do think the points that you make are already taken care of by the housing situation that has developed across the country by way of supply/demand/investment (and perhaps laundering), though.
My point is that the tax base always covers infrastructure and services that not every individual uses, but pays for (to some extent) with their property tax, so I thought that the concept of cities making it more difficult for a family to live in a detached house didn't seem fair (cold hard accounting case aside).
I tend to view cities more macroscopically, so IMHO pitting the financial viability of one aspect vs another has to be balanced with the benefits to its inhabitants.
So, for example, perhaps the cost of maintaining roads in Sackville might be more, per capita, than downtown, but there is a quality of life benefit to those people who would prefer to live in a detached house in Sackville vs a condo on Barrington Street. Much in the same way that the cost of the skating oval on the commons improves quality of life for people who live downtown, yet its expenses are covered by the entire tax base. I like the fact that in Halifax the average citizen still has choices available that are relatively affordable, though understandably there will be variances in opinion.
I think that a city is in good shape when it can offer various living arrangements for its citizens to hopefully provide a decent quality of life for as many as possible. Perhaps all that would be off the table if Halifax was on the verge of financial collapse, but I don't think we are headed in that direction.
Of course, we all know that we live in a capitalist society and that the nicest things go to the people who have the most money, that has been the case as long as I can remember, yet our society also tries to be inclusive by providing benefits to all citizens, regardless of financial status. Hence sidewalks, bike lanes, parks and sports fields, etc.
2) I basically disagree, as I don't think people typically choose their living situation based on how much they can take advantage of "inefficiencies" in the system. Perhaps the financial/investment crowd may differ, but I think most people just want a nice place to live that they can afford... i.e. they aren't grinning to themselves as they make their morning commute because they are getting a better deal on road maintenance than somebody who lives downtown, but they appreciate that their commute is possible, as it allows them to live where they are happy.
3) I think I covered much of this in point 1, but your argument also applies to many streets on the peninsula that are only used by residents, or by particular businesses and their customers... or downtown amenities that are paid for from the tax base, but not used by most citizens. Again, macroscopically, all these things work together to create a good city that is a nice place to live for the majority of people - it's not about "one personal reaction to a city" or the needs of one individual over another, it's about covering a variety of situations that work for a variety of people. Maybe that's what you were trying to say... I'm not sure at this point. So maybe we agree?
As a side point, it occurs to me that the increasing costs of living in a detached house (combined with the lack of availability) within the city can lead to situations like the development of commuter communities such as those being built in Lantz and other areas... these are the bane of urbanists, yet also may be the side effect of being indirectly promoted through their urban strategies..
Just IMHO. YMMV...