(01-04-2023, 04:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(01-04-2023, 03:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: He proves himself exactly the kind of status quo leader that the comment was about--a non-leader with no vision...and in a single comment proved that the comment was exactly about him.

He's an individual council member, a representative of his constituents but no more a leader than our local MP is. An individual member of {council, legislature, parliament} cannot set direction or implement strategy.

At least he is not actively trying to block progress.

(01-04-2023, 03:53 PM)bravado Wrote:

(01-04-2023, 03:15 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Um, you can certainly argue around the edges about development fees, but there is absolutely no reason why I should be paying for new parks, roads, schools, and utility servicing for a new development, nor why the people moving into new development should not have to pay.

To the extent that public services are required in order for new development to exist, it’s perfectly reasonable to charge the new developments for the expansion of said public services.

I wouldn’t be surprised if development charges in older areas of the city were too high; after all, the services all exist already. On the other hand, as the city densifies, eventually sewers will have to be replaced with bigger sewers (for example) so it’s not unreasonable to collect a bit of money from each new development as it occurs so the money will be there when the replacement is needed.

I think that if the public was forced to equally pay for new public goods, we would make better decisions. Even if you don’t use a park or road, it’s still public property and we might make more sustainable investments if everyone was actually invested in their creation.

I don’t see this as any different than paying for a new hospital or school I might not end up using. It’s owned and paid for by everyone…

(01-11-2023, 01:37 AM)nms Wrote: Opening up development everywhere all at once would lead to a tragedy of the commons.  At some point, the unseen infrastructure (hydro, gas, water and sewer) would need to upgraded to serve the denser development.  I could also imagine that this would be a headache for the Cities and/or Region to manage given that many of their major infrastructure plans are on 15-20 year lead times due to costs and resources.  Would someone who suddenly wanted to add density where none had been planned for be able to successfully argue that they should be able to build on their property right now rather than waiting for the infrastructure to catch up?  The only neighbourhood that saw a rapid denisty surge was Northdale, but even that was relatively compact so I imagine tapping into higher level infrastructure along Albert, University, King and Columbia wasn't as much as a barrier.

If not the development fees, taxing everyone else so a developer can make more profit (sorry..."provide lower housing prices) isn't very palatable.  Perhaps one option might to offer a lower deferred property tax rate to recognize the upfront cost of the infrastructure upgrades?

As for Marseille, if they have 800,000 people, that puts them about 200,000 ahead of Waterloo Region.  To whom do we pray for the transit upgrades before we too reach 800,000?  I note that their tram network includes 32 stations along 15km of track (compared to our 19 stations on 19km of track). (And then there is their 31 metro stations along 22km of track...) And don't get me started about dreaming of their train station or I'll never get to sleep!