It may not be common, but it can happen that an old, established becomes trendy and the property values of that neighborhood skyrocket compared to the rest of the city/municipality. In that case, people who have lived there for a long time can see a significant increase in taxes. For those cases, I would like to see some type of property tax control (similar to rent control) that limits how much the assessed value of a home can rise while it is under the same owner (without significant upgrades to the house). Once the property is sold or a major renovation is done, it would be reassessed to its current market value. This is a completely different case than what is being discussed though, where the whole city sees an increase in property value.
The term you are looking for is gentrification. It has happened in many place within Toronto and it's suburbs.
Maybe in Sudbury you don't do much planning for growth, but here in Ottawa at least, city council does a lot of growth planning. It may not be the type of growth you like (sprawl vs. densification) but you can't say city council isn't planning for it.
One part of growth planning we are weak at though is with schools. The province is very reactive rather than proactive. They will wait until the existing schools are bursting at the seams before they will even consider a proposal to build a new school, which will take another 5 years to plan and construct (and even then they will wait a few years before approving it).
In Sudbury, there is no real demand for housing like down south. A house for $300k is a really nice house, possibly waterfront. What does $300k get down in the GTA? Not much. You can still find some decent properties in London for around $300k that are worth getting. That is what I am talking about.
I wish Ontario would create an
Agricultural Land Reserve, like they have in BC to help protect valuable farm land.
I hope that never happens. It is one part of the problem that has caused the skyrocketing prices for land in the GVA. Having said that, the Green Belt in both Toronto and Ottawa was supposed to be a similar thing, and look at what has happened there.
That is not VIA's job. That is the job of local authorities.
So, you are saying that if you know that your project will cause bad things, you are not going to mitigate them somehow? Via could go to the city and tell them they need a solid growth plan before they get HSR extended to it. I'd think the city council would move heaven and earth to ensure the plan is great as they know what a HSR station would mean for the city.
First off, the "explosion" will not be as huge as you think. Yes, there will be more commuters from London. But the kind of folks who have jobs that will allow them to WFH substantially and pay enough to afford an HFR/HSR a few times a week is a rather small set. They are a big enough set to provide base ridership for such a service. But not such a large set that London's growth rate would explode. This is a far bigger issue for cities that haven't seen the same ex-urban growth, like Peterborough. For London, those Toronto yuppies are already coming. They just won't be clogging up the highways now.
Next, don't blame VIA, Queen's Park or the Feds for shit planning in London. Blame the locals. Just look at the war that is going on with SHIFT. I saw the same crap in Ottawa a decade and a half ago. Locals who are convinced that their medium sized metro is some small town that they grew up in, and unwilling to invest in transit. Ottawa was able to push through. How London deals with it, is entirely up to London. They can choose to invest in transit and densify to keep housing affordable and convenient. Or they can keep building the crap Mississauga style subdivisions they are building at virtually every edge of the city today. Their choice.
This isn't about blame. This is about mitigating the inevitable. Yes, housing costs will go up. However, the rate is what causes the problem. The clogged highways is what is the only think keeping the growth slow. Without a good solid plan, HSR could cause housing prices to become unaffordable. Growth is good, unafordable isn't.
And? I have relatives in Toronto who complain about the price of housing there. Should we stop building all infrastructure and trash our immigration policy because some people are unhappy?
Ironically, if we had built this infrastructure decades ago, we would have see far more even development in these satellite cities. London, Kitchener, etc. would have been larger. The GTA would have been smaller. Being larger would have also allowed those cities to offer better amenities and public services. And made them more competitive attracting investment and jobs.
You talk about housing costs in London. Ever asked those young relatives of yours how the job market is? There's a reason my wife sees so many folks she recognizes from London on the subway in Toronto.
I have about 10 cousins who live in London. All are gainfully employed. They all have different education from barely high school to some college. They all make a decent living. As far as they say, the job market is good, if you are willing to work. Some work in insurance. A couple work in manufacturing. Others work in the automotive sector, and a few are in the food service. One even works for a farm. I'd say they have had no issues. We keep talking that f I ever moved, I could get a decent job too. I am one of those weird people that like winter, and their winters are sad.
Additional sidings, if not double track, would be certainly be needed if they were to share the track, but that could be co-ordinated.
Would having all station on a siding be enough?
Maybe double track for the GO sections and then single with sidings for the rest might be enough.
London will never {thank God} become like Kitchener. Unlike KWC, London will never be a Toronto commuter town and GO rail to the city would be a supreme waste of money. It will never become part of the Toronto urban blob as it is simply too far. London, unlike KWC, is also a regional centre and arguably the province's 3rd most important city.
London's fast growth is not due to Toronto commuters but rather Toronto escapees. People who are fleeing Toronto's high prices, horrid traffic, and high pressure do not look to KW as it is simply to close and sort of negates the purpose. London is growing due to seniors cashing out, young people fleeing to a more affordable city, telecommuters who only have to make it into the city once or maximum twice a week, and those simply looking for a more relaxed and less rushed lifestyle. KW & Hamilton simply don't offer those amenities. Conversely London does not offer the affordable alternative for people who still work in Toronto full-time that those 2 cities offer.
Don't be so sure. I never thought Barrie or Kitchener would be connected with GO. It isn't too much of a stretch to see the extensions over time getting to London.
I have always been told that Via does not and will not operate a commuter rail system. If HSR is built, they will. Either that or they make the cost and timing so bad that it is HSR, but not useful for the commuter.
