Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Great article out of Ottawa (from a fellow I went to High School with!):
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...as-history
Posts: 2,015
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
77
I came across this old diagram of the which helps to answer my own question of a few pages back about what exactly is being installed at the platforms now and later:
http://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/...pdf#page=4
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Posts: 495
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
20
08-28-2016, 03:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2016, 03:36 PM by Elmira Guy.)
Charging fees to the townships for services they do not benefit from is absurd.
While the title of this article is slightly (and deliberately I'm sure) inflammatory, it's absurd to charge fees for services that do not exist. Why should reisdents of Conestogo, Maryhill, Heidelburg, Wellesley, et al pay for transit when there is no transit available in those communities? Elmira and St Jacobs have transit (sub par though it may be), and residents of those communities rightly pay for it. But the other communities in the townships are not going to see transit service for decades, yet the region may very well decide to charge $3,600 per new home no matter where in the township they are built? If the chooses this option, is it unfair for residents of the townships to expect some transit service in return for their money, or is that asking too much?
I am an unswerving supporter of LRT but I don't think people should have to pay for something when there community is not serviced by it.
Region Eyes Fees On Township Builds To Help Finance LRT.
http://observerxtra.com/2016/08/18/regio...nance-lrt/
Posts: 1,935
Threads: 102
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
18
I agree with you Elmira_Guy but I think the argument would likely be:
"Rapid Transit will prevent suburban sprawl protecting all the townships from these changes.
While I agree it will cut down suburban sprawl and the associated costs that come with it, I just don't see how that significantly benefits the individual Township homeowner.
I hope this idea does not come to pass as it may prevent future rapid transit extensions and lines within the region.
Posts: 495
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
20
08-28-2016, 04:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2016, 04:13 PM by Elmira Guy.)
Is it not already the case though that the cities are not permitted to expand out into the townships? For example, is there not a green belt between Waterloo and Woolwich?
Seems to me that residents of the townships should be getting some sort of rebate seeing as they had their waste transfer stations shut down and are now being forced to bring all rubbish and yard waste (that can't be curbed) into Erb St landfill. I mention that as I see it as indicative of the view held by the region towards the townships. Less important, but still a good source of revenue even if the services being charged for are not made available.
I'm curious to see what others think. It will be quite indicative of how people view the townships and their residents
Posts: 7,554
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
Taxes in general are levied against people who don't directly benefit from the services all the time, because we think it's something that benefits society as a whole. That's just how taxes work.
It is obviously a little more subtle than that, and I don't specifically have an issue with pro-rating township taxes for no transit service, but I don't find the "I don't directly benefit from this service" argument very compelling. I mean, everyone who lives in Canada pays federal taxes which support Via Rail but many Canadian's live in cities not serviced by Via Rail. Same in Ontario for GO Transit I believe.
Posts: 4,297
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
178
(08-28-2016, 04:09 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Is it not already the case though that the cities are not permitted to expand out into the townships? For example, is there not a green belt between Waterloo and Woolwich?
Seems to me that residents of the townships should be getting some sort of rebate seeing as they had their waste transfer stations shut down and are now being forced to bring all rubbish and yard waste (that can't be curbed) into Erb St landfill. I mention that as I see it as indicative of the view held by the region towards the townships. Less important, but still a good source of revenue even if the services being charged for are not made available.
I'm curious to see what others think. It will be quite indicative of how people view the townships and their residents
The idea of a “no waste transfer station” rebate based on township/city is questionable. For some residents of Wellesley, the Erb St. landfill is closer than it is for almost anybody in the City of Waterloo. A rational basis for such a rebate would have to be related to driving distance from the landfill, although I would accept straight-line distance as an acceptable compromise for practicality.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Quote:I'm curious to see what others think. It will be quite indicative of how people view the townships and their residents
Not that I was really interested in sharing my thoughts on this anyway, but you basically just already told us you're not interested in hearing any opinion that differs from your own.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(08-28-2016, 03:36 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Charging fees to the townships for services they do not benefit from is absurd.
I am an unswerving supporter of LRT but I don't think people should have to pay for something when there community is not serviced by it.
I don't have kids so I want a discount on my school board taxes. I don't drive a car, so I don't want to pay road taxes. I don't get sick, so I want a discount on my medicare taxes. I never go to the townships, so I want to make sure that none of my tax money goes to them ever since I don't use their facilities.... I also want them to pay for the department of agriculture, which I never use either.
You get the picture, taxes do not work on a per use basis. We pool revenues on to the city/regional/provincial/federal pot and we entrust them to spend in the ways that society benefits the most from that money. Me? I'm pretty happy some of my tax monies are going up north to improve the quality of drinking water in isolated communities.
Posts: 10,242
Threads: 64
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
(08-28-2016, 07:19 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: (08-28-2016, 03:36 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Charging fees to the townships for services they do not benefit from is absurd.
I am an unswerving supporter of LRT but I don't think people should have to pay for something when there community is not serviced by it.
I don't have kids so I want a discount on my school board taxes. I don't drive a car, so I don't want to pay road taxes. I don't get sick, so I want a discount on my medicare taxes. I never go to the townships, so I want to make sure that none of my tax money goes to them ever since I don't use their facilities.... I also want them to pay for the department of agriculture, which I never use either.
You get the picture, taxes do not work on a per use basis. We pool revenues on to the city/regional/provincial/federal pot and we entrust them to spend in the ways that society benefits the most from that money. Me? I'm pretty happy some of my tax monies are going up north to improve the quality of drinking water in isolated communities.
And this, in short is the answer. It's neither realistic or desirable to micro-target taxes to only people who benefit from specific services. Elmira Guy, you yourself said that St Jacobs and Elmira residents do get transit, so are you saying people in only those two towns should pay, and other towns should not? How far from town? Should Heidelberg, Breslau and St Jacobs residents get a rebate on their Woolwich taxes because they don't benefit from the street maintenance in Elmira? Why should mennonite residents pay to Woolwich for recreation centres they never use?
Really, this kind of thing simply doesn't work. In the end, a plurality of people will elect a government (at each level), and that government then sets priorities for spending and taxation. If you don't agree with the government spending money on project X or Y, work on getting a different government elected next time there is an election.
|
