10-29-2020, 05:46 AM
(10-28-2020, 09:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for condo fees, I do find it funny that people are so up tight about them, ultimately, the money being spent is to maintain the building you live in, I would rather live in a well maintained building than a building that is poorly maintained but cheap. That being said there are obviously differences in ammenities, as well, my experience shows there is certainly differences in efficiency...some of the nonsense we've shut down in our building is frustrating...
I've had a few hotels here with milk for tea, not a carton, but the little containers.
Ironically, I find you get more of these niceities at hotels like Best Western, rather than expensive hotels.
I mean, I'm also in favour of playing taxes. It's the same thing at a different scale. I am not in favour of paying for things in a condo that don't bring sufficient value for the amount paid, like a swimming pool, but I can simply not buy a unit in a place with a swimming pool.
There's a kind of phenomenon where really cheap hotels don't provide services at all, midrange hotels provide all the services for free, and expensive services provide the services for (large amounts of) money.
(10-28-2020, 10:05 PM)tomh009 Wrote: What I proposed was not to lower taxes in an area with affordable housing, but to lower taxes for actual affordable housing units: an inexpensive house or apartment would attract a lower tax rate. This is basically the same concept as progressive income taxation, which is generally accepted.
The very high condo fees (such as 276 King St W and 64 Benton St S) are primarily due to a maintenance backlog, which results in very high reserve fund contributions to catch up. And that drags down the selling prices.
Yeah, progressive taxation of property would also make sense but is not allowed by legislation... Maintenance backlogs are terrible but sometimes people are cheap.