nfitz
Superstar
Under Miller business property taxes were increasing at a much slower rate than residential taxes. I expect that this rebalancing will end under Ford.
|
|
|
Greater Toronto's Sprawl
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,448
- Reaction score
- 1,507
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
doady
Senior Member
It was told to me in class by Alan Walks. Maybe you do know more about these things than him.
Being opposed to something and successfully opposing it are two different things. I would have thought this is obvious. But I guess not.
Btw, Markham has only has half the social housing Richmond Hill has, despite having twice the population. But on the other hand, Markham has twice as much as Vaughan. I'm not sure what to make of that.
Mr.Tang
Active Member
I actually really worry about this happening. Populism trumping policy.
taal
Senior Member
This almost isn't possible ... Miller didn't do much of anything - the province now enforces all municipalities can only increase commercial rates at 3:1 ratio i.e. a 3% rise in residential rates can be accompanied with a 1% rise in commercial rates. So to get large increases you need to have even larger increases on the residential side.
Ford specifically mentioned commercial rates actually in one interview to my surprise - at the time the reporting asked will commercial rates also face no increase this year ? - he actually replied by stating the above (i.e. that those rates can only be raised with a 3:1 ratio) and continued to say .33% * 0 = 0.
More importantly though, if you look at the rates in say Markham: 2.5%, Toronto: 3.6%.
Even if Ford stops any and all commercial rate increases and Markham continues at a slow rate of 1-3% a year for their commercial rates ... do the math ... it'll take forever for them to get anywhere close to each other still. This isn't the solution (maybe in the long term) - but someone more immediate is needed.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I'm curious about what Walks said, then.
But I'd suggest that if Markham was opposed to having social housing they wouldn't be honouring a deceased colleague by naming a complex after him.
Social housing is the responsibilty of the upper tier (ie York Region) so it's hard to say what to make of where facilities are located. A lot of that has to do with where land is available, what agencies are building them etc. They're not libraries that get built by the municipality as new communities go in etc.
I find it hard to believe there is less in Markham because of NIMBYism, or a desire to keep 'poor people' out. The region actually just acquired (after a long court battle) a 100-townhome social housing facility in Markham (their side of Yonge, in Thornhill) but I don't think the town had much to say about it either way, except through their representation on regional council.
nfitz
Superstar
However, the city didn't raise their residential tax rate last year, and still lowered their commercial rate. The City of Toronto residential tax rate dropped from 0.60% to 0.59%. A drop of 0.01%. However the commercial rate dropped by 0.11% from 2.043% to 1.937%.
I'm not sure why we keep blaming this on the city. There is also the Education tax. In 2010 it was 0.24% for residential but 1.66% for commercial. The commercial rate iss 6.9 times the residential. It's hard to think of any justification why businesses would pay any education tax - let alone at a much higher ratio than the city tax, where the commercial rate is on ly 3.4 times higher the residential rate.
doady
Senior Member
Maybe Markham's attitude has changed since then. Markham did elect a new mayor after all in 2006 (Prof Walks talked about their opposition social housing money around 2007).
Even ignoring the social housing issue, I don't Markham is much better than the rest of the 905. Look at the subdivision being built north 16th Avenue. Still typical suburbia, and still gobbling up farmland. Cornell puts garages behidn the house, which I like, and Markham Centre is/will be high density, but other 905 municipalities are doing the same. Remember Markham's population growth between 2006 and 2031 will be almost as much as Vaughan (55 percent vs 68 percent), not a huge difference, no way Markham can handle that growth without developing a lot of farmland.
Btw, I find it ironic that in the Star article at the top of this thread, that they use a picture of an old part of the Hurontario corridor, the busiest transit corridor in the 905, showing dozens of high-rise and mid-rise of apartment and office buildings. Probably not the photo I would have chosen to illustrate the problems of past suburban sprawl, but I guess that's just me...
Electrify
Senior Member
Yes because semi-skilled people don't deserve good paying jobs. We're doing just fine shipping those off to Asia. Besides we need people trying to start a life for themselves working at McDonald's after all.
On topic, "New" Markham looks to be in a prime location for transit. If all the tangible transit plans fall into place (big 'if'), you will have frequent GO train service connecting it to both downtown Markham and Toronto, plus GO BRT connecting it to Langstaff Gateway/Yonge subway and York University via the Spadina subway in the west, and Durham Region in the east. Finally Viva BRT buses will work for local commutes such as to Markville Mall, Fairview Mall, Beaver Creek business park, and the employment areas in the Milken/Scarborough/North York area
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
^I don't think Matt privileges creative sector jobs more than blue collar jobs - just that Toronto, particularly downtown Toronto, was sort of a natural growth centre for creative jobs, whereas blue collar jobs - particularly unionized blue collar jobs in the auto industry - are things that we have to devote public resources to saving. It's funny that Don Cherry considered "artsies" to be elitist, because increasingly it's the tax revenues generated by workers in the creative sector workers that's used to save blue collar jobs.
It sucks that we are shipping semi-skilled manufacturing jobs to Asia, but what can we do about this at the municipal level?
It sucks that we are shipping semi-skilled manufacturing jobs to Asia, but what can we do about this at the municipal level?
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,448
- Reaction score
- 1,507
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
taal
Senior Member
You're right about the provincial component - but that's actually going to be addressed by 2015 i.e. everyone will be on equal footing. But at that point Toronto's rates will still be 1% point greater or somewhere between50-70% still very significant.
It's historical I think and clearly a mistake yea.
Anyway my point is - none of our initiatives will do much to fix this in the short term - maybe 20+ years out they'll be a lot closer. BTW I don't care what the ratio is between our residential rates and commercial rates (that's a social argument - which has merit) but simply, all I care about is our absolute rate compared to the 905s commercial absolute rate.
I understand why some argue this makes little difference - I've seen the arguments - I think in the downtown core I'll still argue it has an impact but I'll concerned to say it's not as significant - what I'm mostly concerned about is 416s outer suburbs - they're suffering the most from this!
And btw some shift the suburbs is expected out of the core! Moving call centers out! That happens, it happens everywhere - and that's fine. Even other moves. But the point is where they decide to relocate the outer 416 or 905.
Anyway, I think the only solution would be offer commercial developers intensive. You'll actually see that the rental rates between the 416 (outer) and 905 are really close! This is because property owners take most of the property tax hit over the long run not the tenants so there's no incentive to build more! In terms of incentives I'm simply suggesting a tax rate at equal rate to the 905 (not closer / lower - but equal) I think from this you'll start to see quality commerical buildings and tenants will be largely attracted to these!
taal
Senior Member
btw a couple other points:
1) Downtown Markham:
Yep - this has a lot of potential, a lot! Possibily at a loss for Toronto as well - not in terms of the residential but the commerical. But this actually may not happen! Rents in this part of Markham are quite high actually so I don't see them as being huge draws out of Toronto - rather they'll be places where a lot of firms already up there will expand or move.
2) Toronto waterfront:
Recently I learned Toronto apperently is pushing the waterfront area as a tech center so to speek. This could (and I say this with a lot of hesitation) be amazing! My only concern is I can see it drawing a lot of businesses out of other parts of the core i.e. the west where a lot of smaller care tech firms already locate. We should be going after some of growth in Markham that already have large firms! Clearly they'll want to keep there mega campuses up there but maybe they can expand a little in this new area.
This will only happen with a lot of incentives, but that's fine!
1) Downtown Markham:
Yep - this has a lot of potential, a lot! Possibily at a loss for Toronto as well - not in terms of the residential but the commerical. But this actually may not happen! Rents in this part of Markham are quite high actually so I don't see them as being huge draws out of Toronto - rather they'll be places where a lot of firms already up there will expand or move.
2) Toronto waterfront:
Recently I learned Toronto apperently is pushing the waterfront area as a tech center so to speek. This could (and I say this with a lot of hesitation) be amazing! My only concern is I can see it drawing a lot of businesses out of other parts of the core i.e. the west where a lot of smaller care tech firms already locate. We should be going after some of growth in Markham that already have large firms! Clearly they'll want to keep there mega campuses up there but maybe they can expand a little in this new area.
This will only happen with a lot of incentives, but that's fine!
doady
Senior Member
The Financial Post said:
So there you have it folks. Subways cause sprawl. Vaughan Corporate Centre is a rural location. And new subway lines have to be subsidized. Great insight as usual from the National Post.
Rowe
Active Member
It is a good article but I do not think it will cause more sprawl.
All of these cities, regardless of effort, must intensify or they can not grow their tax base. Mississauga is a prime example of this. It was the 'first' major sprawling suburb of the GTA that has filled it's boundary... it has no option but to promote density. That is a fact in city building. What P2G and the Greenbelt do is to encourage these cities to grow UP before you are forced or have no option too.
Vaughan is just getting started but I think it is important to note that subway/train is the only way someone from the suburbs will give up their car/driving to work in their car. If anyone should get a subway, it should be Mississauga.
All of these cities, regardless of effort, must intensify or they can not grow their tax base. Mississauga is a prime example of this. It was the 'first' major sprawling suburb of the GTA that has filled it's boundary... it has no option but to promote density. That is a fact in city building. What P2G and the Greenbelt do is to encourage these cities to grow UP before you are forced or have no option too.
Vaughan is just getting started but I think it is important to note that subway/train is the only way someone from the suburbs will give up their car/driving to work in their car. If anyone should get a subway, it should be Mississauga.