freshcutgrass
Senior Member
The VRF and LTT need(ed) to go, but a responsible mayor would have implemented a property tax increase to make up the difference.
It's very uncommon for large cities to rely heavily on property taxes for revenue.
That's true. The fact Queen's Park still constrains Toronto as if it was some rural town is very unique among global cities of the world.
It was very responsible of Miller to do something about this...Bill 53 was one of the best things to happen to Toronto during Miller's term. Allowing Toronto to structure its revenue sources specific to Toronto's dynamics has no downside.
And the VRF & LTT were probably the best ways to implement this.
Why?
The VRF was a logical target, because whether we like it or not (and apparently we don't) we are entering an era of reversing the subsidization of the car. Between congestion and environmental concerns, car drivers simply have to start paying more of the costs associated with it. That's an inevitability regardless of our temporary denial of it. It was a small fee that didn't amount to much, but it was a step in the right direction. You can join the mayor and pretend the "war on the car" is over....but all you are doing is putting off the inevitable. That $60 you think you are ahead, is going to be paid back....with dividend.
The LTT was even more logical. When you need a significant chunk of money, where do you get it? Where there's tons of money being made. And in Toronto, the condo capital of the planet, there's big money being made in real estate. That's where you tap in.
Going back to the same watering hole (property tax) every time you need more is just a stupid idea.
NYC's fortunes live and die by Wall Street bonuses. They have fiscal powers Toronto couldn't even dream of....they actually have their own municipal income tax.