Hendsbee talking about tolls to downtown again.

[ILoveHalifax]

So a person living in Tantallon and working in Burnside would pay a toll to get on the peninsula and also to cross the bridge.
It annoys me that these people we elect seem to think they know where everyone is going and the reason why they are going. There are 415,000 of us in Halifax and another 100,000 nearby and we are all going somewhere different. They (councillors) should stop trying to put us all in the same box. We all want options. Some like highrise, others like country, some need their cars for a variety of reasons and some prefer to take a bus. They (councillors) should be looking to provide all the options in the best way possible. Stop putting us in boxes.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

While toll roads was considered one, what interested me more was a sales tax. If HRM had the power to levy a 1% sales tax on all purchases, I can't imagine how much money that would raise. Just looking back at the Toronto stats, I seem to recall that it was somewhere in the $2 billion range, at 1%. Looking at the economy of scale principle, that would likely be somewhere around $500 million in HRM I'm guessing, but would rise over time? But the key was the tax could not be used for anything other than public transit - which a recent pole showed 67% of GTAA residents would support. I suspect you would get a similar response in HRM if they saw that it was going to support new rapid transit (LRT, high speed ferry, etc.).

The problem is that adding a 1% sales tax in Calgary would not be that big a deal, but adding even 1% in Halifax would make us [b]the single most heavily-taxed jurisdiction in the country[/i]. The average Haligonian probably has much, much less disposable income than the average Calgarian. So I think it would be extremely hard to get Haligonians to support this.

What I would personally like to see would be an infrastructure levy applied to all new developments in the suburbs. This seems like the most fair way of doing it and would probably yield the best overall results (avoids tax reform for now, discourages sprawl, raises money for roads/transit etc).

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

So a person living in Tantallon and working in Burnside would pay a toll to get on the peninsula and also to cross the bridge.
It annoys me that these people we elect seem to think they know where everyone is going and the reason why they are going. There are 415,000 of us in Halifax and another 100,000 nearby and we are all going somewhere different. They (councillors) should stop trying to put us all in the same box. We all want options. Some like highrise, others like country, some need their cars for a variety of reasons and some prefer to take a bus. They (councillors) should be looking to provide all the options in the best way possible. Stop putting us in boxes.

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

...

The issue I have with congestion charging and looking at the London example is that while it did reduce the traffic volumes, eventually they came back to the same levels pre-tax. PBS's series E squared did an episode on it and I was shocked by this because I expected, it would've actually stayed low but it didn't. My concern would be we'd be charging this 'toll' and if the goal was to reduce traffic - would we actually see that in say 10 years after everyone got used to it or would it be like London and eventually people just paid it and the amount of traffic went back to the way it was?
...

But that isn't really the point though. Sure the traffic levels might have returned to pre-tax levels after 10 years, but they've been able to raise significant revenue for that 10 years which they can use to do something about the traffic - like building more road and transit infrastructure, And they've managed to take pressure off the roads during the 10 year period required to do it.

Without the tax, congestion levels would have remained just as bad for the full 10 years - or even gotten worse - and they would still be stuck looking for funding to remedy it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

Maybe his wife works in Tantallon and can't find anything as good in the city, and she doesn't want to live in Dartmouth as she'd be the one spending a long time commuting. And he was able to find an amazing job in his field in Burnside that he just couldn't pass up.

Remember, we're not always talking about someone. Many people make decision about where to live as a couple.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

Sometimes it's not so simple, though:

(1) For example, people tend to purchase a house on where they would like to live, including vicinity to schools, etc., and although the commute is factored in it is not necessarily the deciding factor for everyone.

(2) People change jobs. They might have purchased their house due to the vicinity to their job, but later take a better job in another area but do not want to move as they love their house, neighborhood, etc. I personally know somebody in this position.

(3) In some cases both spouses work. While their house may be a convenient commute for one it may involve a longer one for the other.

None of these cases should be penalized by policy conjured up by the elected officials who are supposed to be looking out for their needs.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I also agree that HRM should increase population density to the peninsula area to make it more affordable to those who choose this lifestyle. Peninsula living should not only be affordable to the rich. I believe the free market would likely determine the saturation point.

I agree with you, and would like to contribute to this notion of density by proposing it isn't limited to the peninsula.

I would also like to express my concern about people believing there is a 'choice' in urban/suburban living arrangements, when future generations clearly don't have a 'choice' with the debt we force upon them as we go further into debt subsidising the suburbs.

Our thinking, perhaps, needs to be less along the lines of what we can 'choose' and instead more focused on what we can afford.

We cannot afford to not bring density to the peninsula and every other core region of HRM.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Purchase price is the smallest factor though. Owning a car is actually very expensive in NS on an annualized basis. If you took that price and placed it on top of the rent differential of the north end or parts of the west end it would probably make living in the suburbs much more expensive.

As a lifelong NS resident and car owner, I'm very aware of the costs of owning a vehicle here. My only point is that a savvy car owner can do it quite inexpensively, but it sometimes involves gaining knowledge and exerting effort (and occasionally getting your hands dirty). To take it further, if you consider the cost of owning a car in most of Europe or many parts of Asia, it is dirt-cheap to own a car in Canada. That wasn't really my point, though.

Again, my main point is the idea of dictating where somebody should live based on their perceived income is somewhat absurd. I like living in a free country where things such as this are still choices.

That's all.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

The point is we should not be basing policy around anybody. People live where they want and work where they want. Maybe the guy's wife works in Tantallon and he works in Burnside, but it is not for us to decide for them. Policy should be to develop the nicest city we can for everybody with lots of options.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

The point is we should not be basing policy around anybody. People live where they want and work where they want. Maybe the guy's wife works in Tantallon and he works in Burnside, but it is not for us to decide for them. Policy should be to develop the nicest city we can for everybody with lots of options.

I didn't mean that that shouldn't be allowed, and I don't necessarily agree with the tolls idea, but what I did mean is "we shouldn't have tolls on/off the peninsula because that would make it harder for someone to live in Tantallon but work in Burnside" is kind of a weak argument when you think about what you're saying, especially in light of the current planning regime - ie. reduce live-work distances and increase the efficiency of infrastructure.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by Hali87

when you think about what you're saying, especially in light of the current planning regime - ie. reduce live-work distances and increase the efficiency of infrastructure.

The point is that politicians should not be making these choices for anybody. 'The regime' has no place in our private lives. Their job is to plan the nicest city possible and let the individual decide how they will use the infrastructure.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

The point is that politicians should not be making these choices for anybody. 'The regime' has no place in our private lives. Their job is to plan the nicest city possible and let the individual decide how they will use the infrastructure.

'The regime' can easily be 'the corporation', especially one that has monopolised industries.

Unfortunately, letting individuals decide what they want often means little to no regard for how they'll pay for it, hence the high levels of personal and public debt.

[ILoveHalifax]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

'The regime' can easily be 'the corporation', especially one that has monopolised industries.

Unfortunately, letting individuals decide what they want often means little to no regard for how they'll pay for it, hence the high levels of personal and public debt.

Seems like a lot of assumptions. How does personal freedom relate to debt? That's a big jump in logic. The regime is our current government, not a corporation and again a big jump to monopoly.

[someone123]

The Vancouver-area transit agency gets some of its funding from a gas tax.

HRM doesn't need to raise taxes to pay for transit, it needs to change its spending priorities and come up with more compelling transportation projects that are eligible for provincial and federal funding, like the BRT project was. The fact is that the city already has a huge budget (nearly $1B per year) and it is often spent on initiatives that should be relatively low priority. The province similarly is constantly spending money to expand roads; if they wanted, some of that could be diverted to transit. That sort of investment probably makes more sense in Halifax at this point than the 102 expansion that they are contemplating.

It might be useful for the city to shift the tax burden around by raising suburban development fees and dropping fees elsewhere, but development fees are a notoriously fickle revenue source.

[Hali87]

NSP = monopolized industry.

Personal freedom relates to debt in that the municipality cannot necessarily afford to allow people to live "wherever/however they want" and still receive municipal services. In order for the municipality to function, not everybody can get exactly what they want all of the time. However, most people (everybody, really) should be able to get most of the things they want most of the time (within reason). This is easier to accomplish when everything isn't a total free-for-all.

I should clarify that by "planning regime" I meant "planning strategy", as in the current plan for the nicest city possible acknowledges that allowing people to live closer to where they work will make for a more efficient city. I guess I sometimes equate "allowing people to live closer" with "encouraging people to live closer", although really they're not necessarily the same thing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I agree with you, and would like to contribute to this notion of density by proposing it isn't limited to the peninsula.

I think there is density increasing in the suburbs - look at the Larry Uteck area, for example.

I would also like to express my concern about people believing there is a 'choice' in urban/suburban living arrangements, when future generations clearly don't have a 'choice' with the debt we force upon them as we go further into debt subsidising the suburbs.

Please explain this. Who is going into debt? Are suburban areas truly being subsidized by other areas? Why do you think the younger generations will no longer be able to choose where they live? Will they not have jobs?

Our thinking, perhaps, needs to be less along the lines of what we can 'choose' and instead more focused on what we can afford.

To my way of thinking, "choice" and "affordability" are contiguous. Are you suggesting that the younger generation is attempting to live beyond their means?

We cannot afford to not bring density to the peninsula and every other core region of HRM.

Agree, but density has to be backed up with infrastructure (focusing on but not limited to, transit, IMHO), so it's not a simple matter of just building density where you want to - it needs to be backed by all levels of government. Will this infrastructure and service involved with suburban density cause an increase to the debt that you have referred to above? Does that mean that increasing density in the suburbs will increase the subsidization of the suburbs that you were pensating above?

[halifaxboyns]

One of my major issues with people's 'choice' to live in the suburbs is that they have a tendency to look at the cost of the houses and say - oh I could get bigger/better in the rural or suburban than on the peninsula and then they buy. What they forget (or purposely factor out) is the cost of the car they will need (for the most part), the gas, maintenance and if it's a couple - perhaps even two cars? When you factor those things in - the cost gap closes rather quickly.

But the key thing that people never factor in, which I think is the critical element, is the cost of their time. What is your time worth? Toronto is talking about the issue of congestion with their 'what would you do with 32' campaign. If nothing is done, congestion will add another 32 minutes to the commute. But that is what people factor the least, if at all. How much would you value your time if you had to commute from some rural area 1.5 hours each way to get downtown? For me - my time is hugely valuable, so I would pay the price to live on the peninsula in a house/condo whatever because I do not particularly want to be in a car/bus for 3 hours a day. But that's just me...

[halifaxboyns]

Oh I forgot to look at those presentations (like I said I would earlier), but if you go to the City of Toronto's website on congestion they have listed all the revenue generators that I was mentioning.

There is everything from a vehicle registration tax, highway tolls, congestion charging, to sales/fuel taxes, value capture tax (a tax on increase value of your home) to payroll taxes on businesses over a certain size. It's really interesting because you can actually try to help figure out how to raise the $2 billion/year they need to help build transit.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Oh I forgot to look at those presentations (like I said I would earlier), but if you go to the City of Toronto's website on congestion they have listed all the revenue generators that I was mentioning.

There is everything from a vehicle registration tax, highway tolls, congestion charging, to sales/fuel taxes, value capture tax (a tax on increase value of your home) to payroll taxes on businesses over a certain size. It's really interesting because you can actually try to help figure out how to raise the $2 billion/year they need to help build transit.

That website is the brainchild of their chief planner—unfortunately, with the curent mayoral regime there, there's no chance of any of this being implemented in the short term. (They used to have a vehicle registration tax of 60 bucks, but Ford killed it his first month in office, and they currently have a land-transfer tax on home sales, but that's being phased out as well. Discouraging.)

[beyeas]

The biggest single easy-to-implement thing that council could have proactively done, but did not, is stop subsidizing the sale of cheap land in business parks for non-industrial uses.

They have to cure their addiction to the revenue they get from that sale. Until they do so, combined with increasing the tax revenues from the businesses that open on that cheap land (by comparison to the expensive commercial taxes paid by downtown businesses), we are just going to end up with more and more businesses moving out of the core. At that point, people's housing and entertainment choices will follow, and the move to high tax burden subdivisions will continue.