City land transfer tax a bad idea

Proposal could cost Toronto much more than it brings in, expert warns
Mar 24, 2007 04:30 AM
Bob Aaron

The City of Toronto's proposal to impose a municipal land transfer tax on the purchase of all real estate in the city has the potential to cause a major disruption to the city's economy.

The effects on the building and housing industries could well be serious enough to create losses far exceeding the money that would be added to the city's coffers.

The idea of a municipal land transfer tax was broached in a discussion paper issued by the city's corporate finance division last week. The paper suggests a rate ranging from 0.1 per cent to a flat 1.5 per cent.

When the news broke, I called Barry Lebow, one of the foremost experts in the value of Toronto real estate. Lebow is a professional realtor, appraiser, and educator who has testified as an expert witness on real estate market values in more than 500 court cases.

He was blunt when I asked him what he thought of the proposal to have a municipal land transfer tax. "It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard," he said.

He explained that it could easily cause an urban exodus to the 905 regions, massive job losses in the construction industry and a ripple effect that could lead to chaos in the real estate sector in this city.

Provincial land transfer tax is payable by the purchaser of real estate on registration of the transfer or deed of land. The rates are 0.5 per cent on a purchase price of up to $55,000, plus 1 per cent from $55,000 to $250,000, plus a further 1.5 per cent on the value exceeding $250,000 up to $400,000.

On the amount exceeding $400,000, the tax is a full 2 per cent where the property consists of one or two single-family residences.

Using this formula, a $300,000 house is subject to a one-time transfer tax of $2,975, while a $600,000 house is taxed at $8,475. A $1 million house is zapped for $16,475, but a $1 million commercial property is only taxed at $13,425.

The average land transfer bill for a resale home in Toronto last year was $3,890. In total, the land transfer tax raises about $1 billion for the provincial treasury every year.

Under the new City of Toronto Act, 2006, which came into effect this past Jan. 1, the city acquired sweeping new powers of taxation, including the right to impose a tax on the transfer of any kind of land – residential, multi-unit residential, commercial or industrial.

Existing exemptions from the provincial tax would not necessarily apply to the proposed municipal land transfer tax. First-time buyers of newly constructed homes, who are currently exempt from the first $2,000 in provincial transfer tax, could get hit with a similar municipal tax. This would effectively cancel a long-standing provincial incentive that has allowed tens of thousands of homebuyers to acquire their first homes without the added burden of $2,000 in land transfer tax.

The city's discussion paper is based on a study of potential new tax measures conducted for the city by Hemson Consulting Ltd. The study suggests that a city land transfer tax pegged at 0.5 per cent has the potential to raise $102.7 million assuming 2006 transaction levels and sales prices.

The Hemson study goes into considerable detail on the cost of collecting the tax, the ability to avoid the tax (for example, by buying elsewhere or under-reporting the sale price), and the start-up and administration costs.

Without any supporting evidence, the study suggests that there could be some pressure on real estate agents to absorb at least part of the new tax in their fees.
http://www.thestar.com/article/194722

Now I wonder why the real estate guy might think it's a bad idea.

Funny Paris seems to get away with it.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/03/23/2438294.htm

With density concerns almost mandatory now - I suspect this aspect will be more prevalent as single dwellings are replaced with multiple units.

I see Paris has adopted my transaction fee idea I'd like to see for Toronto.

You may be rather surprised at the extra +/- 8% on the purchase price that you have to pay to the Notaire. Only a small portion of this goes to the Notaire for his fee. The bulk of the rest is a one time state property purchase tax.

The consolation is that thereafter, the annual property tax is a relatively low sum, usually only a few hundred euros. :clap:

Paris thinks 6-7% is fine - and this guy balks at 2%

My guess is if he doesn't like it it's the best thing the city could do. :D

Thoughts??

MD: TO should go for it with eyes wide open.

Note what you didn't bother bolding in your quote:
"Without any supporting evidence, the study suggests that there could be some pressure on real estate agents to absorb at least part of the new tax in their fees."

And,
"The consolation is that thereafter, the annual property tax is a relatively low sum, usually only a few hundred euros."

presumes that the extra revenues are not just wasted.

So, TO voters, this is a type of Tobin Tax and it can help (and, no, it is not MD's, despite his claim ;) ), but don't let your politicos screw you over. I think this form of tax, similar to the provincial one, can help (devil in the details) but what funds does it offset? As a cash grab, be careful.

Note to MD: Maybe control the self-affirmation? From predicting Dion's win (you didn't, you hypothesized) to "I see Paris has adopted my transaction fee idea" you clearly like a certain type of spin. I know (hope) you understand the difference, but you leave a different impression.

Exactly - I'd rather see the property tax formula base ONLY on city service costs to the property period.

Reduce property and raise this tax over time. Maybe over 5 years.
No easy task.

I'd say the supporting evidence was evident in the guys reaction :D

"On April 9, 1974, the Ontario government imposed a land speculation tax of 50 per cent on real estate profits. Even though it was later ruled unconstitutional and reduced to 20 per cent, the market collapsed overnight. By the next morning, real estate values had dropped 30 and 40 per cent.

Having lived through the "spec tax" nightmare, I can confidently predict that a city land transfer tax has the same potential to cause chaos in the housing industry in Toronto."


This from the article. I have no problem with Tobin-type taxes but I'd like to know more about this. The "analysis" sounds simplistic (even aside from the source). Other input (not just gut politics) about this previous example?

You are making the assumption that the "collapse" was a bad thing.
Sounds like a bubble that needed pricking anyway.
High land prices are a horror that leads to all sorts of issues including the current property tax issues, sprawl, lack of control over planning, embedded/addicted interests.

Then to ameliorate those housing has to be subsidized, the actual functional structures within the city have less value than the land, industry/jobs move out farm land values get distorted the ongoing issues are legion.

I'd love to see a projected GTA budget over a 5 year period that froze or reduced property tax totals to the actual service provided tax and moved transaction taxes and a few others to fill in the shortfall.

It's a massive undertaking and overdue to get off the spiral.
and yes the GTA should appoint Hazel to undertake it.

I see she's a driving force behind the GTTA.

•••••

or charge Queen's park 1/2 billion rent. :D

maybe a few other Federal buildings as well. ;)

I disagree with your analysis MD, finding it a tad simplistic.

Sprawl and lack of control over planning do not stem directly from high land prices. Sprawl owes as much to our love of personal motorized conveyance (and cheap oil) as it does to soaring land values... that, and an individual's distaste for city life. I think it's a mistake to draw a direct correlation between the extent of suburbia and the cost of land at a megalopolis' centre. There are other mitigating factors involved. Some people simply want bigger yards. Some people want to be confronted with less glaring disparities in terms of poverty. Lots and lots of reasons to go around, actually.

As for planning, or rather, a distinct lack of that, I think it's more prudent to examine developers the political partners they bed in order to seal the deal. Blaming bad planning on high land values doesn't cut it.

It strikes me that we would have to be very careful indeed in any attempt to artificially devalue the cost of real estate... it could well be one of those instances in which the cure ends up being worse than the disease.

I did not say it was simple -

a) the current tax flow structure sucks - both the propery tax situation and muncipalities power to tap into the activity generated for their needs. They are third in line.

b) the need for densification is clear and hard to tackle - cities need the power to direct development and make high density rewarding based on STRUCTURE not land

Bottom line it's broken and there are many examples from around the world of different ways to approach the problem. The pressures are only going to get greater.

I didn't do the study - the city did.
Tells you something doesn't it.

It's broke and needs fixing.

At least I see some vision here.

The problem with 'vision' is that all of the jolly blue-skying you can do won't necessarily matter when it's time to implement a strategy that's impervious to being bogged down in bureaucratic minutiae and the folly of unexpected consequences.

Yep it's broken. But we had better be careful of the supposed fix.

Well Paris seems to have done okay by putting on the transaction tax and keeping property tax very affordable.
Why the hell should 20 people on a street suffer an increase when ONE person sells their house for more.
That's just plain stupid right on the face of it.

Right now a million dollars looking for a development has little incentive NOT to just speculate with it rather than build structure.
Look at the difference if the developer pays a one time hit for the property in the form of a transaction tax, does not impact the neighboring taxes, developer puts up 6 structures for an income flow and can sell the STRUCTURES based on it's cash flow if it wishes to unload- not on it's dirt value.
This would require both anti speculation tax reform and tax on transaction. I think we need both - stick and carrot.

By all means I think property taxes have their place but not the crazy system we have now.

The guy that likes living in the city - has paid off his house, on a fixed income -gets no additional services and ends up forced to move by spiralling property tax through no action of his own.
He's going back to rent level payouts - on property he already owns $150,000 a year property tax on a million dollar house in that case in Victoria Australia.
- and who's getting fat on that.??
Realtors, banks, lawyers, insurers, muncipalities all locked to ever rising dirt prices instead of structure values.
His neighbor sells.....he doesn't he pays.
When there is no added value it's a mugs game and it's made worse by this ridiculous property tax structure that as seen in that Australian article, taken to extreme, is ludicrous.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs
__________________

And then hoops get jumped through for "affordable housing" :rolleyes:

What a stupid way to run planet.

The Swiss also have a conveyance tax

One-time taxes and charges on purchase of real estate

Real estate transfer taxes

Most cantons levy a conveyancing tax on the transfer of real estate (Handänderungssteuer; droits de mutation). The federal government levies no taxes of this kind. The remunerative transfer of ownership of real estate is normally taxable. As a rule, the basis for assessment is the purchase price or the taxable value of the real estate, the tax rates varying between 1% and 3% in the different cantons. In most cantons, it is usual for conveyancing taxes to be shared 50–50 between buyer and seller


also in Switzerland the capital gains on realty transactions occurs in the area of the transaction - has a sliding scale to zero under certain circumstances and only is levied at point of capital gains realization.

Capital gains tax

There is a capital gains tax on real estate at the cantonal level. It is known as real estate gains tax (Grundstückgewinnsteuer; impôt sur les gains immobiliers). It is levied on the difference between the cost of procurement and the revenue obtained from the sale. It is payable by the seller and is independent of his/her income and asset circumstances.

It is calculated on the basis of the tax rate applicable in the canton and the duration of ownership (the longer this duration, the lower the tax rate). In the case of a ‘normal’ duration of ownership (from 4 to 6 years), the maximum tax rate ranges from 30 to 40% in most cantons. This rate declines as the duration of ownership increases by about 50 to 70%, and increases for short durations by about 25 to 50%.

Only real estate transfers resulting from a sale are considered for capital gains tax. Real estate transfers based on gifts, inheritances or settlements of matrimonial property regimes are normally not taxable. However, in the event of a sale subsequent to a tax-free real estate transfer, the capital gains tax then payable is calculated on the basis of the original purchase value.

If an owner-occupied property is sold and the revenue from the sale is used within an appropriate period to acquire or build a replacement property for immediate occupation (known as a replacement acquisition), the capital gains tax is deferred.

Capital gains with regard to real estate are, however, taxed if they result from a business activity (i.e. if the real estate constitutes a business asset) or if the seller of the real estate falls within the definition of a ‘professional real estate dealer’ as developed by case law in the tax administration and the courts.

http://www.swissnetwork.com/?page=PrintArticle&id=14

and how's this for a little speculative damper

Other taxes and charges

Considerable access charges must be expected for new buildings (e.g. charges for connection to the public sewerage system).

If the activities of a private real estate investor exceed the limits of ‘normality’, he/she risks being regarded as a property dealer from the viewpoint of taxation. In that case, all income from real estate (gains from sales as well as current income from rentals) is regarded as earned income and is liable to regular income tax. Social security contributions of about 10% are additionally payable.

Clever these Swiss....what the hell is normality!!!???

I can't quite get their property tax structure in my head but it's a wealth tax based on the net between what you owe and value of what you own in the case of real estate.

Wow have they ever put the taxation power into local hands !!!

Net wealth tax

In Switzerland, the cantons tax the assets of natural persons, whereas there is no wealth tax at federal level. Here, too, differences between the cantons are considerable. The tax schedules are usually progressively structured. For assets up to 250,000 Sfr the tax ranges between 0.2% and 0.4% in most cantons. For assets of 1,000,000 Sfr and more it is between about 0.4% and 0.7% per year.

Half the cantons also levy a special wealth tax on real estate, as already mentioned above. It is calculated on the taxable value of the property (excluding any debts which encumber it) and varies between 0.05% and 0.2%.

T'would seem there are many better ways to run a planet or a city than we have here.

Let's import a few Swiss to run it....or at least plan it. :D

••••

So Max how's the sky look in Switzerland.....pretty damn blue in my mind.

Pretty damn blue in your mind... you have to stop those awkward sentence structures, MacDoc... everything being in your mind and all. I mean, I know it's just gotta be a huuuuuuuuuge mind to fit all of that stuff in.

However, back to what we were talking about: I don't know what the Swiss are really up to, and while it's worth examining at what seems to work for them I'd really be happy to come up with solutions that work for us. Which might mean something home-grown. I mean, my friend's brother is living in Switzerland right now and he's amazed by how 'governed' the people are. It's not an easy transition to make.

"Well Paris seems to have done okay by putting on the transaction tax and keeping property tax very affordable.
Why the hell should 20 people on a street suffer an increase when ONE person sells their house for more.
That's just plain stupid right on the face of it."

Of course, the flip side of it is that my neighbour gets a huge amount for selling her house and the rest of us on the same street glow with the realization that our houses / land are possibly worth significantly more than we thought and it might just be an idea to consider selling and moving up... you know, it's only "stupid" if you look at it from one angle. Like I should have to remind you of this.

Same "glow" Max - no tax increase.

I'd say the Swiss have a much better structure worked out just even starting from the premise that the tax STAYS in the canton.

I also note they clearly have a dislike for foreign real estate ownership and "flippers" hiding as private owners.
Love that "normality" clause.

Max - let's face it - it ain't working here and yes there are some cultural aspects and differences but the GTA in particular and municipalities in general - where 80% of the population now dwell need a better deal.

Yes there is some improvement but as the Swiss system ( which I'm sure has it's share of headaches ) shows keeping transaction taxes in the communities and basing taxes when the transaction occurs has merit in their eyes.
Mine too.

••••

BTW I came across an odd observation. About 1/3 of Swiss own their homes - most rent.
Yet they have very low unemployment and a strong economy.

THEN I came across this.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199906280006 :eek: ......
Very interesting thesis and one I would not have suspected.

In the 1950s it was the US that looked enviously at Europe's low unemployment and worried about whether it, too, should adopt a generous welfare state and strong trade unions.

Really? I don't think so.

However, there's a big difference between European countries where home ownership is a near-impossible dream, and attempting to institute "renting" as a desirable policy to affect employment.

The U.S. Census Bureau also differs with that idea indicating that ownership rises and falls depending on economic opportunity:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

Mind if I quote myself? Seems appropriate here:

MacDoc's right, we're wrong, all the time. One gets sick of the self-righeous, overbearing know-it-all posturing.

Yes, let's encourage more renting.

That way, vacancy will fall back to unrealistically low rates in the GTA, landlords like me can go back to renting out decrepit slums at exhorbitant rates with virtually no attention to management, energy efficiency, building management, etc.

And still, it's likely that very little new rental stock would be built, since even *if* it at last became more profitable to build more rental stock in Toronto instead of condos, few would want to take on the headaches of property management, so owners of the existing buildings could just rake it in.

And hey, landlords in Toronto (though not throughout 905) pay ~ 4 times the property tax for an equivalently valued single-family residence, so with the profitability of the buildings going up, the assessed value goes up and that's more money in the city's coffers for providing overpriced ratholes.

Wow, then I guess I can just stop employing and tradespeople to maintain the buildings and cancel all the renovations work since I can just charge higher rent for equal product, thus allowing me to live like a queen while doing virtually nothing.

Sign me up. :)

Interesting article, MD, thanks.

I've questioned the presumed wisdom of home ownership as a social goal but never thought of that link. I do know from my experience that I've never felt under greater financial stress or pressure to keep an unsatisfying job than when I owned a place.

That said, the correlation is questionable but deserving of research. Lots of problems with the analysis, even if the mechanisms sound sensible. It sounds like two isolated cross-sections, which is easy to over-interpret.

2003:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/2/18538055.pdf

http://www.photius.com/rankings/homeownership_rates.html

Unemployment is highest for France, German and Italy. Lowest in the UK and U.S. by far. Home ownership is highest in Italy, about middle for the UK and U.S. and lowest in France. Also, I think Germany is known for relatively low home-ownership rates.

In the end, removing the pro-ownership bias could be good (e.g. capital gains exemption) and the topic looks fun to research, but the theory has a ways to go.

Mind if I quote myself? Seems appropriate here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SINC
MacDoc's right, we're wrong, all the time. One gets sick of the self-righeous, overbearing know-it-all posturing.


Yes I do mind. If you have nothing intelligent to add to the discourse then shut up for a while. You can't even be original with your own graffiti. :rolleyes:

••••••

The US currently has a low unemployment rate but also an historically high very high poverty rate and there is good evidence this "home ownership" campaign is now coming back around to bite big time.

•••

That there is an uproar over property taxes just about everywhere in Ontario ( note the freeze in place - if THAT wasn't political expediency I don't know what is.

That Toronto is looking at such a fundamental change in how it deals with taxes is indicative of a broken system that needs restructuring.
I do wish tho that the GTA had a better decision making system and also a better track record in financial management of tax dollars.

Need a Auditor General for the City. Would make changes a bit more acceptable if people know it's being spent wisely.

I also suspect people are more tolerant of tax regime changes when they know the results are going to benefit locally first.

••

Sonal I think you just nutshelled exactly WHY the current system sucks as it's an upward cost spiral for you.
You quite righltly identify the need for your income to be based on the structure and the rent flow from it - without being burdened with never ending property tax increases.

The whole idea is get out of that spiral and make development for rental/density viable over time. If structure is focused on then as you point out local jobs benefit.
I don't think you are well served by the existing structure.

•••

Beej I thnk the article about the cities in England and the labour mobility make more relevant sense. I had never thought about a employment/home ownership link either - surprised me.
Of course we have primed the spiral by freeing capital gains on homes but putting capital gains on shares.

Transactional tax on properties to slow the upward spiral with a reduced capital gains on biz especially density development and energy retrofit would be brilliant in my mind.

Another thought, particular to Canada but may apply elsewhere:
Our EI system (and government regional pork programs and equalisation itself) encourages people to stay put in economically depressed regions and, more absurdly, in seasonal work.

This could be behind high home ownership rates in Atlantic provinces. That's somewhat the reverse of the theory in that the government policy encourages lack of mobility and higher unemployment (through direct $ to people and funding government services), leading to home ownership.

Again, the correlations don't match up precisely, but this little bit of Canadianna would also be a weakness in the theorised causality.

"In the end, removing the pro-ownership bias could be good (e.g. capital gains exemption) and the topic looks fun to research, but the theory has a ways to go."

Yes it does. Thankfully we don't have to decide on it tonight.

Yes I do mind. If you have nothing intelligent to add to the discourse then shut up for a while. You can't even be original with your own graffiti. :rolleyes:


Not intelligent or original?

Simmer down, bubbles. ;)

Yes, there's something ironic in a man using a little scowling blue emoticon to tell someone else that they're terribly unoriginal.

I'm not convinced of theory either - my main campaign is the locking upward spiral of property ( dirt ) as opposed to structure.
The employment link came out of the blue.

Be a brave gov that actively discouraged home ownership. :eek:

••
BTW Beej Max- I respond in kind. Twas ever thus.

BTW Beej Max- I respond in kind. Twas ever thus.

Now understand the depths of your hypocrisy: training to keep in shape to respond in kind when needed. I can respect such dedication, bubbles.

The theory presented in the Statesman is extremely flawed. If we eliminate land transfer taxes and all of the onerous requirements imposed by governments to buy and sell homes, then homeowners would be quicker to sell and move to a place with a better opportunity. Socking people with some sort of Parisian-sized home purchase tax is a perverse method of making home ownership--and labour mobility--more difficult.

Besides, the whole concept of the massive property purchase tax just shifts the taxes to the mortgage. I can't imagine anyone getting excited about lower property taxes they are giving to the bank instead.

Glad you understand :clap: ...took a while ;)

•••

Interesting dialogue here on the topic of home ownership. ( original hoe ownership for Macury's beneift - which as we are discussing self imposed serfdom may be most apt )

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/03/oswald-vs-bush-on-homeownership.html

point that stood out

Anonymous said...
Patrick: if home-ownership weren't subsidized, paying off one's home would be a lot more expensive than renting - people would be better off putting the difference into a well-diversified, risk-balanced index fund. In the long run, it would be a wash, except for no exposure to idiosyncratic real-estate risk

Someone said in the 60s that America would be far better off to concentrate it's asset base in factories and producing assets than in land speculation.

Certainly that proved the case in Japan.

Interesting dialogue here on the topic of hoe ownership.

Take your hands off my hoe'!

MF
Yes the shift is to the mortgage but the tax flows locally and ONLY when there is a transaction.
Unlike current property taxes which rise regardless of the transaction.

Real estate is not a frictionless market by any means - talk about pie in the sky.

Glad you understand :clap: ...took a while ;)


Tip o' the hat to MD. Well played. :clap:


"Someone said in the 60s that America would be far better off to concentrate it's asset base in factories and producing assets than in land speculation."

Land value should be based on the rest of the economy (location, location, location) and not boosted with warped tax schemes. However, as a basic non-moveable asset, it also makes a tempting tax target (thus reducing its value). Add in social aspects, and governments love to meddle in the land market. They can't resist.

Isn't the underlying problem that there is an inherent conflict in the need of a city state to plan??

It's one reason that land lease with structural ownership seems an interesting middle ground to me.
( it's also one reason China can move so quickly - mind you lots of people get trampled )

Private ownership and city planning seem destined to conflict especially now.

Agreed tax incentives simply magnify the problem but perhaps could damp it down as well if similar incentives were spun toward structure and biz instead of land.

I noticed Harper increased small biz lifetime capital gains exemption levels. That's a good thing in the right direction.

Do you think Miller can carry out the "ding the realtors" program????

Isn't the underlying problem that there is an inherent conflict in the need of a city state to plan??

It's one reason that land lease with structural ownership seems an interesting middle ground to me.
( it's also one reason China can move so quickly - mind you lots of people get trampled )
.........................
Private ownership and city planning seem destined to conflict especially now.
.........................
Agreed tax incentives simply magnify the problem but perhaps could damp it down as well if similar incentives were spun toward structure and biz instead of land.

I noticed Harper increased small biz lifetime capital gains exemption levels. That's a good thing in the right direction.

Do you think Miller can carry out the "ding the realtors" program????

No, their plans should not ignore what people and business (market) value. The conflict is necessary to represent competing interests that are valid and important.
.........................
Yes. Competing interests happen all the time, especially between a one person one vote system and a one dollar one vote system. Now a "one person one vote for one corrupt individual that is able to thereby multiply their dollars" system...;)
.........................
I'm not so favourable to small biz exemptions. They already get lower tax rates, but are hit with a relatively higher paper burden. I'd prefer that everyone (not just farmers, or other isolated groups) get about $300k-$500k in lifetime capital gains exempted for any type of capital gain. Then the existing exemptions for various business types and for primary residences could be tossed. The RRSP program should also be rolled up (keep RESP) so maybe $500k should be closer to $1 million.

I don't know much about Miller but expect little based on what I've seen. Sadly, I think it may soon be time for Torontonians to hire a "man with an axe". Leaching money from other government levels will just delay and worsen the problem. The city expanding it's own tax base is a good sign, though.

That lifetime across the board sounds like a good approach.

What I'm getting at in the planning aspect is what "sovereign power" a city could expect to wield in meeting larger social goals - trumping individual desires/plans.

I'm not sure the axeman is right for the head honcho but a city treasurer with a sizeable hatchet and the power to wield it.

Miller and Hazel......yum -....vision, feel good and cold steel when it comes to finances.

I think a city needs a visionary leader ( countries too ) with a right hand person to do the not so nice dirty work of balancing budgets, axing inefficiencies and embeeded interests ( brahmin class - Ontario hydro etc :D )

What I'm getting at in the planning aspect is what "sovereign power" a city could expect to wield in meeting larger social goals - trumping individual desires/plans.


What I've seen with planning is that cities don't set aside the land early (ie. plan) and thus aren't ready to develop infrastructure later. That's their failure and a system that inherently devalues land (term limit) would destroy economic value to make a planner's job easier (wait it out) with no reason to expect better planning. Better to tax full economic value and go from there.

Another reason to not give government more power is this: the "commons" are much easier to abuse than privately owned property.

All in all though, I don't consider it big a deal because "good" planning is deeply subjective and will be dominated by the same politics. Same s**t, different path.

As you've identified, the problem is taxation. All the other problems and potential tweaks really don't amount to much considering how many different approaches there are but no "right" model.

We're stuck without constitutional cities but if the provinces open up the tax base to them, that'd be something. Not something without great danger but, what the heck, couldn't be worse than splitting the atom eh?

What I've seen with planning is that cities don't set aside the land early (ie. plan) and thus aren't ready to develop infrastructure later. That's their failure and a system that inherently devalues land (term limit) would destroy economic value to make a planner's job easier (wait it out) with no reason to expect better planning. Better to tax full economic value and go from there.
Agreed. Substituting one form of bad plannning for another makes no sense to me. It's a crap shoot anyway, considering that politicians are often more concerned with getting into power and then staying in - one election at a time; a task as complex and comprehensive as carefully considering where a city should be in twenty years' time is almost beyond the constraints of the current political system.

Actually, my point was more how screwy the property management/landlord industry is. Up until recently, the business (in Toronto, anyway) consisted of collecting money and doing very little else.

Increased vacancy due to lower interest rates and increased home ownership is the best thing that happened to it--forced many landlords to actually start making improvements, actually start putting in energy-efficient measures, etc. Better for the buildings, better for the tenants, better for the environment.

But for all the crying about vacancy from many landlords, it's still lower here than in the hottest rental markets in the US.

Virtually no new rental stock has been created in Toronto either, so the existing rental stock is largely about 40 years old. It's not profitable to build new rental housing when you can build condos instead and make at least twice the money with little subsequent management hassles.

Whether increased rental vs. home ownership is desireable or not, I don't know. I do know that the existing rental housing industry in Toronto cannot handle it.

Sonal - I sort of figured there was a large tongue in your cheek on that - thanks for clarifying.
What changes in tax/development incentives would you like to see??

•••

if the provinces open up the tax base to them, that'd be something. Not something without great danger but, what the heck, couldn't be worse than splitting the atom eh?

I do believe that is exactly why we are having this dicussion and why that transaction tax is being floated.

Certainly Mississauga had a fairly strong municipal plan but circumstances can change rapidly.

Getting by the "the way they run it sucks" acknowledgement surely looking at the Swiss approach and that in Paris - I'd like to hear about others as well - Portland for instance -
There's gotta be a better way.........:(

No Hazel did a decent job but it was based on steady growth and ding the developers for all she could squeeze.....now there are transit issues and she faces the the property tax/value issue as well. :(

I do beleive the GTA is only major NA city without federal transit assistance/subsidy - might be wrong on that but thought I read it somewhere.

I like the light rail initiative but there are going to be howls about that ala Spadina.

I do beleive the GTA is only major NA city without federal transit assistance/subsidy - might be wrong on that but thought I read it somewhere.Didn't they just give $962 million to extend the TTC's Spadina subway line?

I can see a federal gov't helping to build, but not maintain, that should be up to the municipalities with help from the Provincial gov't. I think that it is smart that the federal gov't is giving towards a cause and not just blindly giving cities a percentage of whatever they think they deserve. Knowing Miller time he'll spend it on 3 subay cars from his friends up at Bombardier.

While I agree that spiraling real estate values are neither desirable nor sustainable, I don't think a property transfer tax will chase the speculators out of the market.

It's worth noting that BC has had a Property Transfer Tax for a while (details here: http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/rpt/ptt/ptt-faq.htm), and real estate speculation is still alive and well in BC.

I don't believe that increasing density in urban areas is a panacea. While 80% of the population may live in urban areas, it would be interesting to see how many do so because they prefer urban areas as opposed to because of real or perceived economic necessity. I expect there are many folks who would prefer to live in a smaller community, so there should be some initiatives aimed at improving employment opportunities in smaller centres.

You know, someone asked me a little while ago what the property management/apartment investment industry needs, and the truth is, I don't know. There's too many competing interests, and/or related industries that would need to change with it to make it all work.

I have an interesting perspective on this at the moment, since I do some work on the ownership/investment side, the management side, a little bit on trying to get things through city planning and I'm currently a tenant.

-There are the tenants, their rights and interests, and the legal issues of that.
-There is property management, and how to allow them or incent them to do their jobs properly.
-There are the owners/investors--which in Toronto is changing from independent operators to large international REITs--and their interests (ROI) and how to provide incentives for appropriate investment.
-There's the finance industry, and its standards and practices for financing the purchase and development of residential property.
-There's zoning and urban planning and the numerous conflicting interests therein, including the strangeness of municipal politics.

Property tax is the least of the issues--it's a number on the income/expense statement. That affects ROI and financing. If the taxes drop, it affects the tenants (the city decreases the rent somewhat) but not if taxes increase. If the rent goes down, property management gets paid less. But this is not a major issue.

In Toronto, the rate is very high for mult-residential and commercial and pretty low for single family residental, but (my assumption here) that's because Toronto doesn't need to use taxes as an incentive for commercial/multi-res growth. That will be here regardless, so the city can milk that. This allows them to keep taxes relatively low for single-family residential. And there are more voters who care about single family taxes than commercial/multi-res.

Contrast this to Pickering, where single family is very high and commercial/multi-res is low, because (I presume) Pickering is trying to increase commercial growth, and es. (I know this, because my ex moved to Pickering, he pays as much or more tax on his townhouse than we did on our former house in Toronto, which was sold for more than twice the price of his townhouse.)

But it all depends on what your goal is. You can't optimize for everyone here. The only conclusion I have is that it's a big tangled mess.

I believe MacDoc is right... just read in yesterday's Globe that Toronto's system is the least publicly subsidized transit system in North America... it has been this way for years now.

Kind of encourages a circular argument, doesn't it. Blame the TTC for gridlock and urban sprawl, but don't grant any one entity, TTC or otherwise, the authority and funds to effectively plan, build and maintain the kind of transit infrastructure that would carry the GTA into the future. Instead a lot of fat gets chewed, a lot of fingers are pointed and more cars keep steadily piling onto the roads. What was once a very good system has been allowed to go to seed. Stupid boondoggles like the Shepard line get built but the busses are falling apart and our roads... man, I was on Leslie today just north of Eglinton. Hadn't been on that stretch of road for I don't know how long, but wow was it ever in bad shape. I remember seeing roads like this in New Jersey and New York State back in the early 80s, and I guess I'm still shocked to see it in Toronto now. It's going from bad to worse.

Anyway, not to yank things totally off-topic.

PenguinBoy, I agree that many live in the burbs simply because they like them, period. They like that pace, the relative scale of buildings, the layout of residential streets... and the aggregate comfort such factors provide. It doesn't always follow that people live there because they can't live downtown... in fact that's a myth we should lay to rest.

PenguinBoy, I agree that many live in the burbs simply because they like them, period. They like that pace, the relative scale of buildings, the layout of residential streets... and the aggregate comfort such factors provide. It doesn't always follow that people live there because they can't live downtown... in fact that's a myth we should lay to rest.
I agree that many like the 'burbs, I expect that there are quite a few who would like to live in small communities that are "out in the sticks" as well.

Yeah. But that's a whole other kettle of fish. Much depends on one's age. Nowadays, with so many boomers greying, proximity to decent medical becomes a concern. Even if you're not even remotely considering retirement yet, commuting to and from work can become a quality of life issue. Time spent on ever more congested roads translates to more stress and less face time with partners/family. Not to mention fuel costs. Cool if your employment is in the very hamlet you live in, of course; I have friends who are going this route and they're gradually settling in but it's not been an easy couple of years to make the transition and you really have to have something you can contribute to the local economy.

Not trying to dissuade people from going this route, you understand - more power to you if you can pull it off. I've often felt that I would be happiest either living in the centre core of a large city or in (or very near to) a small town... a few thousand people. The middle ground (smaller cities or edge cities or sprawltopia) doesn't cut it for me. Been there as a teenager and lived to tell the tale. Can't go back.

Being out in the sticks confers many fine advantages. The only problem is that the sticks tend to disappear if they're located anywhere near a land gobbler like a megalopolis. Just ask long-term residents of Milton. Those folks can't believe what's happened to their formerly sleepy neck of the woods. You have to get pretty far away in order to slow things down and get a cleaner signal to noise ratio... it takes more and more effort with each passing decade.

The TTC should behave more like a business. When a business has trouble attracting clients, it generally increases service, and/or lowers price. The TTC responds by decreasing service and increasing price. I don't blame the TTC for either gridlock or urban sprawl. I blame it for running--year in and year out--a frighteningly undependable service. I live within walking distance of a subway station, but unless I want to spend three to four times as long getting somewhere, I drive. Even a relatively simple ride along the Yonge line is a gamble if te trip is time-sensitive.

The moment the TTC gets nearly a billion dollars in federal funds it immediately announces it intends to spend another billion--which it admittedly does not have--to expand even further. This isn't just wishful thinking; it's insanity.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to do a comparative study of how transit is funded and operates in comparable cities on this continent. I suspect we'd find interesting differences in terms of how much money gets funneled toward the transit system and how many political strings are attached.

I can agree with the "TTC should act like a business" argument only so far. Again, other cities heavily subsidize their subways, streetcars and busses to a much greater degree than Toronto does; we're not on an equal playing field. The rest of the recipe amounts to bad management and bad will on the part of city planners, politicians and we the people.

Too, we seem to have no such philosophical problems extensively subsidizing our road, tunnel and bridge infrastructure. I find that double standard curious, not to mention downright depressing. But never let it be said that cities aren't a living statement of the folly of its people as much as evidence of their greatness.

The problem with TTC is that it takes 14 TTC workers to repair a short stretch of street car track. Two do the work and 12 watch the two.

If I were a Provincial or Federal government I wouldn't throw money Toronto's way either unless there were some heavy duty strings attached. If there's money for obscene raises, building offices and speed bumps there's some money for TTC.

Hazel has run Mississauga like a business. It's about time Toronto did likewise.

While I agree that spiraling real estate values are neither desirable nor sustainable, I don't think a property transfer tax will chase the speculators out of the market.

I don't think it will either - it might slow it a bit - that's why I said it needs a capital gains disincentive for that aspect. The Swiss and others seem to ding quick flips heavily.

Transaction taxes put the burden on the time of sale so that others don't get hit when a property sells. In my mind that's a better approach than ever escalating property taxes that go up cuz your neighbor sells and because the municipality is addicted and has no other way of raising money.

••••

Little bit of irony there MF - you drive on subsidized roads.

Transit like schools and roads and libraries are considered "public wealth" with desirable consequences for the community at large.

Once more it points to the idea of taxes in the region being designated by the region instead of filtered back down in hand outs.

I'm sure the city wants the light rail system BEFORE the subway money but the Feds made the subway decision.

••

Adagio that's a universal issue - look at the provincial boondoogles of power generation any number of inefficient federal programs. Toronto has no lock on poor value for the tax payer dollar.
The point is it requires leadership and oversight at the point of delivery - not remotely monitored. A top notch leader like Hazel delivers value to her constituents.

Saying "run like a business" is no descriptor - any number of businesses are corrupt and a wasteful and **** away shareholder value as well.
Good efficient non corrupt management is desirable in either private or public affairs.

>>Little bit of irony there MF - you drive on subsidized roads.

If I could pay to drive down a private one, you bet I would. This choice has already been taken rom me.

Saying "run like a business" is no descriptor

If you're referring to my quote, I did give it a descriptor. When business sucks, the TTC should lower prices and improve service, not scare more customers away with fare hikes.

Toronto supposedly has a population that loves the idea of public transit, yet people stay away from it in droves. The only way you'll get people to ride that service is by beating them into submission with the bloody end of a tax instrument. If the TTC somehow managed to get close to a break-even situation, I'm sure they would decide they embark on some sort of expansion program that would put them back in hock.

But their attitude is so incredibly bad. Entrepreneurs on the ill-served Lakeshore route were offering a for-profit bus service that was becoming very popular. The TTCs attitude: "Shut it down--this is unfair to us." The TTC is like that office worker who does the bare minimum. When you decide you'll have to take on a job yourself, you hear the predictable wail: "But I was going to do that!!!"

The TTC should behave more like a business. When a business has trouble attracting clients, it generally increases service, and/or lowers price. The TTC responds by decreasing service and increasing price. I don't blame the TTC for either gridlock or urban sprawl. I blame it for running--year in and year out--a frighteningly undependable service.

Bang on assessment. My thoughts however are that mass transit systems usually are regionalized and fail to account for the fact that many people have to travel outside of the region they serve. I not a huge proponent of multiple layers of infrastructure costs associated with duplicate systems doing the same thing in a tiny region. We don't need six accounting departments for each transit system that serves the golden horseshoe... there is an easy way to cut out costs.

DJ: I'm curious to see whether a subway system that reaches Vaughan will increase ridership, or just raise the price of tickets. An expensive experiment.

I was surprised to read a little while ago that Yonge Street's original streetcar system ran dozens of miles north of Toronto, basically acting as a train service for satellite towns. In 1910, City Council quashed plans for a subway system, one running under Queen Street and the other under Bloor.

DJ
That's why the GTTA was organized to get rid of that and have a unified system throughout the horseshoe.

••••

MF
Much of the TTC is actually generally overcrowded not under used so staying away in droves is because of the crowding - not lack desire. As for subsidy - it's here so make the best of it.

http://www.stevemunro.ca/?p=317

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200601252316.shtml

Another reason the LRT route makes way more sense that a subway tho York U has needed one in that corridor for decades.
The LRT would take some of the regional traffic off crowded routes.

Much of the TTC is actually generally overcrowded not under used so staying away in droves is because of the crowding - not lack desire. As for subsidy - it's here so make the best of it.

But if the claim is overcrowding we must assume that the TTC is operating at ridership capacity. Idf that's the case then why is the TTC advertising for people to use the service?

I would guess it is overcrowded only at peak times.

The conundrum that the TTC must deal with is that adding lines generally tends to funnel people toward the most heavily used part of the service, rather than spreads them out. Example: extending the subway to Yorkdale results in more people along the extension visiting the Eaton Centre, rather than people from the city core visiting Yorkdale.

I once had high hopes for a proper tube system in Toronto, like what you see in the great cities of the world. Alas, it's too late. There's neither the obscene amounts of money nor, more importantly, the collective civic will to commit to it and see it through. Nor am I assured that this entire region, home to several million people, understands the gravity and scope of the transit woes we face. It's fine to debate about mass transit until the cows come home - fine to even bicker for a time, if that's what's required as but one stage among many for an eventual solution to work its way through. But I am growing concerned that many North American cities are, by their own inaction and lack of political will, consigning themselves to losing their competitive edge and becoming irrelevant. They'll bleed people. First, a trickle. Then, a deluge.

Whatever we come up with, we had better be very good at tying together all of the infrastructure linkages - looks like light rail is the plan but there must also be the consolidation of all that conflicting duplication of services and layers of bureaucracy between neighbouring authorities (as has been noted in this thread already) - and forge a strong master authority to run the thing.

Because the bottom line is that the health of this megalopolis and its satellite settlements depends on a healthy economy. That is what is in jeopardy. You know the line if we build it they will come... in our case we might do well to contemplate if we don't build it they will flee.

Cities are not impervious to falling victim of their own successes. If we in the GTA don't start acting more responsible as a region, one serving almost a third of the entire country's population, people will pack up and leave - and do business and raise families elsewhere. This applies to all cities behind the curve and doing studies but committing to nothing.

The region is too big and crowded and getting more so for the transit available.
Encouraging transit use will be ongoing - like encouraging fewer people to drive.
That's built into their mandate.

They won't stop that campaigning.

Even the GO is super crowded at times I understand.

THe LRT and the Subway are long overdue ( thanks in part to Mel ol buddy :mad: )

••

Good post Max but you can't lay all the blame on the city as without support from the province/feds large scale infrastructure is very difficult to finance.

I suspect if you looked at Tokyo or Paris or London you'd see massive funding at all levels.

It requires national will as much as the city - I agree by waiting it's that much more difficult now.

The consolidation is the GTTA and that Hazel is involved gives me hope.

New board will try to untangle regional traffic knot
Agency gets idea of enormity of task at its first meeting

JEFF GRAY
The province's new regional transportation agency met for the first time yesterday to begin drafting a multibillion-dollar plan to fight traffic congestion, providing a glimpse of the tensions between Toronto and its suburbs.

The Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, an 11-member body made up mostly of municipal politicians from the region, including Toronto Mayor David Miller, is expected to come up with an action plan on public-transit expansion by early next year.

The new board, on which Toronto has four seats, got a sense of the enormity of their task by looking at a consultant's study yesterday.

The projections from the IBI Group suggest that with $17-billion in investments in light rail, buses and subways, the proportion of GTA commuters riding public transit would rise from the current 18 per cent to 23 per cent. Many felt these numbers were too low.

Future controversies will no doubt centre on one of the GTTA's powers, as outlined in a briefing by ministry staff yesterday: The agency will be able to charge fees for "revenue generation."

Needed - 17 billion+ - received 2 !!???

No, it's not due to Mel ol buddy - like he alone is responsible for an entire region's tragic lack of cohesion and preparedness. And it's precisely this sort of casual finger-pointing which makes me despair for mankind... we have some real work to do and here we are indulging in the petty superficiality of the blame game. Come on, MD - you can do better than that.

Mel did not go to a SINGLE meeting of the Regional Board for Consolidation. He flat our refused to get the larger GTA into group action mode.

Without the support of the Mayor of Toronto what hope is there of progress.

Fingerpointing is very much warranted.

If you recall Max even as Mayor of North York Mel fought tooth and nail against amalgamation - even going to rallies.

The projections from the IBI Group suggest that with $17-billion in investments in light rail, buses and subways, the proportion of GTA commuters riding public transit would rise from the current 18 per cent to 23 per cent.

I'm sorry, they can't have that much.

Then don't complain about transit issues.

Keep proving my point MD... assigning blame, and being smug about it, is paramount for you, isn't it? Man oh man... what a dark comedy.

So you deny Mel fought tooth and nail against amalgamation both before and after he was mayor.??

Other regional mayors Hazel in particular tried to make progress but how the hell are they supposed to with Lastman at odds over it.

Of course he's not the only problem - hell Toronto elected him - but to say he was not a major obstacle to earlier progress in unification I think flies in the face of reality.

Admittedly funding was and to a degree still is an issue but had the mayors been united perhaps that may have been addressed sooner.

Admittedly funding was and to a degree still is an issue but had the mayors been united perhaps that may have been addressed sooner.

Had the Persians and Spartan only united, their grievances might have been addressed sooner.

Once again, MD: we ought to move past the futility of the blame game. In the end I really don't care whose fault it allegedly was. If you want to pretend that Mel Lastman is some kind of supremely powerful ogre, have at it. When you're ready to move forward it would be a welcome change. We need lots of people to wake up and be ready to do stuff rather than jawbone about who did what and how badly so and so screwed us all. The issue is what to do now, not what went wrong then. I really shouldn't have to stress this point.

Well, maybe I do! LOL

I pointed it out when someone said it should have been done a long time ago - I think we can all agree the city stalled out. ....you know the old "each time we fail to learn it gets more expensive"......in this case very apt.

Moving forward is actually occurring on the funding, planning and with the GTTA formation.
How united is this council I wonder in supporting Miller?
I really don't know a lot about the inner workings of council tho I can see on the surface the mayor seems to have his hands full.

Would a party system work at the muncipal level?? Seems some US cities that's the norm I believe......for better or worse.

I imagine there is going to be a massive amount of politicking, maneuvering, shuffling and posturing. With uncertain ground ahead some of the astute politicos probably realize that a changing of the guard will bring all sorts of fallout, yet present new opportunities. It will be difficult to see through all of the smoke until things settle down a bit.

One of the grave problems facing a megalopolis trying to organize itself is the collective din from the various sub-regions clamouring for attention and special consideration. In other words, expect a ton of politics and impossibly shiny appearances.

It's also good to get some perspective. What are people complaining about (at the muni-politic level) in cities that we think "got it right". Also, objective comparisons of problems help too. Sometimes everybody complains about roughly the same thing and thinks the they've got it bad while elsewhere does it right.

Downtown TO is actually quite nice, aside from the hideous smog in the summer (cleaner than many Chinese cities, but that's not exactly an achievement). Doing something right now to address that (to the extent that a muni government can) doesn't take vision. It just takes a little spine from the voters.

Sometimes that gets lost in the noise, but yeah, downtown TO can be quite nice. Visiting American tourists still say good things about the relative cleanliness and low crime levels. And the pollution? Well, that certainly sucks. Which is why I am, more than ever, a proponent of better mass transit and better integration of it into our city infrastructure. The less vehicles powered by the infernal combustion engine the better our air quality will be... one hopes.

As for vision and spine, having the latter does unfortunately not guarantee that you're going to get anywhere near the former. Vision is something we need, but of course we have to settle with what we can get... a broad general consensus still beats bitching and kvetching.

Mel fought tooth and nail against amalgamation because overall, almagamation came at a deteriment to North York. Pre-amalgamation, North York had a higher quality of service than any of the other cities in Metro and (I think) a balanced budget to boot.

What kind of a mayor for North York would Mel have been if he was in favour of something that was a detriment to his constiuents?

Still, despite amalgamation, most things at the municipal level still seem to be divided. City planning--a massively huge department--is still divided by the old cities. Zoning is still divided by the old cities--there is a huge mass of conflicting zoning laws from the old cities. What amalgamated? Snowplowing and garbage.... and there were agreements already in place to manage plowing on the borders. All that so that North Yorkers could get half the garbage service they used to get, but it's equal across the city.

A friend of mine is fairly active in municipal politics. Most councillors are re-elected every year, and it takes several elections before a new contender can acheive enough name recognition overturn the incumbent. You can change the mayor fairly easily but council largely remains the same.

I mean, how many people can name their councillor off the top of their head? How many can name one competitor? And this is a group that pays some attention to it.

Sonal his problem was he carried it over to the merged city - as I said not one meeting attended and we have the still unmerged mess but yeah everyone tends to turf protect.

I mean think about this - if the GTA was a province it would be run and governed very differently and that is needed.

I don't think original muncipal structure envisioned 5.5 million people with a $200+ billion GDP and 1.4 billion capital budget.
and what do we have governing this.........a rat's nest. :eek:

Where's a Napoleon when need one. ;)

and the same "principles" are supposed to apply to the smallest municipality.

Careful of what you wish for, MD. Make the GTA a province, you might as well follow suit and make the GVA one too and toss in the Ottawa/Hull and a who knows what else... I suspect this could encourage more partisan regional bickering, not less.

Hey I'll take my chances on the provincial status - after all - could it be worse than now??!!! ;)

I LIKE the Swiss canton concept.

Let the Feds be last in line :D

oh you wanna new tank......let me think about that for a while...let's see streetcar.....tank...hmmm. Sorry - you'll just have to wait on the tank.

Just for MF

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/205348_4.JPG

Merci!

Hey I'll take my chances on the provincial status - after all - could it be worse than now??!!! ;)

I LIKE the Swiss canton concept.

Let the Feds be last in line :D

oh you wanna new tank......let me think about that for a while...let's see streetcar.....tank...hmmm. Sorry - you'll just have to wait on the tank.

MacDoc, I've witnessed your stated opinions about Canadian military preparedness; I find them laughably inadequate. We've gone through this before. Based on your previous posts in here I find your view of national defense, and what is necessary for it, tragically naive... surely you've been told this before within this very board, by individuals other than myself. When will it sink in, I wonder? Perhaps never.

I'm prepared to accept that - though of course when it comes to thinking critically about national defense, yours is one of the last opinions I'd solicit.

The Swiss, by the way, are armed to the teeth. LOL

Then there are other inconsistencies to explore; you're busy fesitvely disparaging the feds today, but elsewhere you call for greater regional, centralized authority for how cities fund and govern themselves. Like the song says, how bizarre. At least the furshlugginer song provides a lovely lilting guitar lick to accompany the sentiment.. what can you supply, hmmmm?

MacDoc, I've witnessed your stated opinions about Canadian military preparedness; I find them laughably inadequate.

I'm prepared to accept that - though of course when it comes to thinking critically about national defense, yours is one of the last opinions I'd solicit.

The Swiss, by the way, are armed to the teeth. LOL

Then there are other inconsistencies to explore; you're busy fesitvely disparaging the feds today, but elsewhere you call for greater regional, centralized authority for how cities fund and govern themselves. Like the song says, how bizarre. At least the furshlugginer song provides a lovely lilting guitar lick to accompany the sentiment.. what can you supply, hmmmm?

The trouble with MacDoc is that he's so smart, he thinks he's smart and therefore he is simply one confused guy. You can't be thinking you know-it-all, all the time and actually know much about anything. ;)

The unmerged mess is not solely an issue of turf protection.

Zoning, for example, cannot be merged without massively re-engineering zoning laws throughout the entire city, taking into account existing bylaws and uses. I remember chatting with some people in the zoning department about this--it's a huge multi-year project.

Amalgamation sounded very easy on paper--just cut all the duplication--but there is an enormous amount of information to be diseminated, digested and done all over again first, all while carrying on with existing business. (And if you've seen all the new development in the city lately, you know that the zoning and planning folks are hugely busy.)

I would bet that it will be at least another decade before municipalities are fully internally amalgamated, regardless of who is mayor.

Let's just amalgamate everything and call it a country.,

Sonal, I think you are spot on... maybe even too optimistic! It may take an entire generation before amalgamation of the GTA actually works. It may even never work.

MF:

If everything amalgamates into a country I think we need to go one better and start amalgamating planets. Next up: the Amalgamated Universe™.

Max you oddly forget that I fully support the kind of National Service program the Swiss use to underpin their miltary - I'd move to see a similar program here geared to our specific needs.
The Swiss are landlocked - ours would be geared around our coasts and SAR expertise in a big nation.
Having a strong community based expanded program for the Coast Guard, SAR and Fire Services built around a mandatory National Service I'd support. I hate to see the capability of our coastal citizens unable to make a living from the ocean anymore go to waste when we need patrols and the ships and equipment to support them.

Missile defence and such US inspired garbage....spare me. Brilliant thread derail BTW

••

Sonal indeed it's a huge undertaking. The GTTA is a good start - I suspect it will be decades as well tho decarbonization targets may help focus some coordination between the areas in building standards.

••

There is nothing at all inconsistent in disparaging the Feds - I've long called for far less power in the PM office and the Federal gov in particular.
The problem exists that it's not set up that way so the GTA goes hat in hand...for now.

That you can't make the connection.....well...too bad. I've been very consistent in supporting local initiative - but the Feds funnel the taxes their way and then deal them out according to the flavour of the day.

The GTA needs and is in the process of change. Cities all across the nation need to have reliable consistent funding/tax bases that don't lead to issues like the current property tax mess in Ontario.

Consistent property taxes meaning that taxation is the same across all cities?

If so, I'm not so sure of that idea.... a city can raise or lower the tax rate to encourage different types of investment, and each city has different goals in that respect.

If you are talking about how property is assessed and valued, that is a very different thing. Fact is, people want to live in Toronto far more than they want to live in, say, Bowmanville.

Granted, MPAC is a huge ugly mess... we appeal frequently due to errors they make, or some very bizzare valuations they come up with which apparently ignores the data we send them. But then again, the price of rental property is largely based on net operating income, which is largely based on gross rent, which changes in part based on location.... people want to rent an apartment at Yonge & Eglinton more than they do at, say, Jane & Finch.

Well the "theory" was consistency in valuation.....practice - I guess there is a good reason for the freeze ;)

In my mind services should be funded by property taxes not on the basis of the property value but on the services provided.

Other city funding through transaction or other tax forms that reflect actual activity at the point of the activity.
That way the addiction of the cities to ever rising property values is shortcircuited and when your competitor sells a building HE pays a tranasaction tax- you don't get a tax rise hit as you do now.

Clearly there is no simple solutions but the "simple" aspect of putting city funding on property values...regardless of actual service costs or actual use/transaction actvity is simply unsustainable. ;)

One reason the GTA is looking for a solution ( one of them being the property transaction percentage buyer and seller share ), increased parking fees, etc.

Provincially the property tax system has been frozen...to what end??

McGuinty

http://www.jugglingworld.biz/images/misc_images/animated_gifs/stevie_vegas_anim.gif

with an election due.

MacDoc... who said anything about missile defense? Not me. Jump off of that soapbox, laddie, I think you have altitude sickness. Thanks for calling my alleged derailment "brilliant." Coming from you it is indeed dubious praise but I'll take the comment in the sprit of spite and laugh it off. Coming from a veteran linkbomber like you, you have to admit it is pretty funny. Thread abuse... it's everyone's problem.

Y'know, you keep talking about change. The GTA, you inform us, is changing. The climate is changing. The world is changing. We need to change. The government is changing but we need to change it some more. Spare some change? Change, schmange. Keep repeating that mantra and it becomes terribly empty. What is static, anyway? Your cells are changing even as you read this, MD. Should we warn the world? Assemble an authority mandated to delegate emissaries to all of the changing countries around the world? Good golly man, sometimes you sound like a broken record on the matter. Your concerns are genuine but you ought to question your own methods once in awhile.

MPAC is frozen because it is a complete mess that makes thousands of errors a year, and untold number of poor decisions. It's under review. The results of the to be seen, but that part of the system is horrifyingly bad. I can give you anecdotes.

For example, I recently purchased a building. After the sale, MPAC re-assessed it, and values it at 133% of the purchase price. The bank does not, the insurance company does not, the sellers did not, we did not--we got a good deal, but not THAT good. ;)

Taxes on commericial property do not usually rise upon a sale, as the value (and the purchase price) is determined by the income.... we spend many days gathering and then submitting financial data to MPAC yearly, which is allegedly used to come up with the assessed value but more often seems to be ignored.

I don't know WHAT is wrong with that group, but they make far too many errors.

Thin skin there Max??.... get my point now.

•••

Star cartoonist getting good these days

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/205709_4.JPG

•••

Sonal thanks for that clarification - isn't kind of odd to use property tax in that way as it would appear it/s mimicking some form of income or economic activity tax in the case of rental properties. :confused:

Does this apply only to multi-unit buildings?

Not odd at all. That is how the price is determined. The insurance company uses it, real estate appraisers, the banks, the investors, the sellers, etc.

The price of multi-unit res and commerical property (e.g., apartment buildings and plazas) is based on the net operating income and a market factor. The market factor (capitalization rate) varies based on how desireable that particular asset class happens to be... for example, apartments are pretty hot right now. Lots of people want to invest in them these days, lots of REITS popping up, lots of multi-nationals REITS are buying up in Canada, etc.

There's sometimes additional variability based on location, condition of the property, upside potential, etc., but keep in mind that these are investment properties--the price is based on how good an investment it is.

Why would MPAC value it any differently than the rest of the industry?

I'm not sure how industrial property is valued, and I'm not familiar enough with commericial to know if there are other valuation methods for other types of commerical property, but this is how multi-res works.

I meant odd in that it's using property tax as a vehicle for what from your description represents commercial activity tax.

In the case of banks etc insurance it makes sense for valuation purposes and protecting income in case of a problem but it seems the city is indirectly putting an income tax on the property via the property tax as it can't levy income taxes directly.

That's the awkwardness I refer to.

With Hotels I understand the city can take a room tax thereby tapping directly into activity levels.

MacDoc, I don't get your point. Neither last night nor before. What might it be?

MacDoc, I don't get your point. Neither last night nor before. What might it be?

The simple point is that MacDoc wants to see a giant windfarm in that bit 'o heaven he calls Mississauga, and a massive influx of cash to the GTA--where he lives.

I can't even begin to decipher this great pile of BS about nation states and Swiss cantons, military service, ocean farming and his prescription for property tax reform--which, gauged by his surprise at Sonal's posts--he clearly does not understand to begin with (but let us be like Paris anyway).

For example, I recently purchased a building. After the sale, MPAC re-assessed it, and values it at 133% of the purchase price.

I've heard many complaints about their estimations and I'm starting to wonder if they just have some simplified interpolation software that weights most recent sale price with nearest sale prices + an overall market factor.

Now I'm curious about their equations (or, possibly, their magic dartboard).

Miller's Smorgasbord ....step right up, pay right here.........

Drinks, movies among tax targets

IAN BARRETT/CP FILE PHOTO
Toronto Mayor David Miller.
2007 City Budget
Proposed wallet bites by city hall

Suggested taxes with estimated yearly revenue:

(all taxes based on pre-GST values)

Vehicle registration tax: $40 per vehicle: $43 million

Land transfer tax: 0.5 per cent of sale price: $103 million

Alcohol: 5 per cent tax at beer, wine and liquor stores: $44 million

Alcohol: 5 per cent tax on drinks in bars and restaurants: $24 million

Tobacco: 5 per cent tax: $25 million

Movies: 5 per cent tax: $4 million

Live sports events: 5 per cent tax: $7 million

Live entertainment tax: 5 per cent tax; $6 million

Parking: $100 annual fee per space for parking lot owners: $7 million

Billboard tax: $2 million

Road tolls or congestion tax: $75 million

Total: $340 million

Miller vows quick action to impose new 'revenue tools'
Mar 27, 2007 04:30 AM
John Spears
City hall BUREAU
The new City of Toronto Act gives the city a $340 million smorgasbord of possible new taxes and fees to draw on – and Mayor David Miller says he wants to tap some of them this year.

On Miller's motion, city bureaucrats have been ordered to conduct a quick round of public consultations and report back in June on which new taxes should be levied.

And although the staff have said it could take a year or more to set up the machinery to collect many of the taxes, Miller said he wants at least some of money flowing in this year.

"There are obviously going to be some difficult decisions when they come back," Miller said. "But I think it's important we start. It's important to act reasonably quickly.

"The sooner we do that, the sooner we will be able to invest in city building."

Many of the proposed levies are "sin taxes" that would tack 5 per cent on to the cost of alcohol (at LCBOs or table service), tobacco and tickets at cinemas and live events. Parking lots would pay the city a yearly fee per space while an unspecified road toll is suggested for the Gardiner and DVP.

Miller said he wants the money from any new taxes and fees – he insists on calling them "revenue tools" – to be earmarked for specific purposes such as new recreation centres, road repairs or fighting climate change.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/196305

Hmm road tolls......wonder where??

I can't even begin to decipher this great pile of BS about nation states and Swiss cantons, military service, ocean farming and his prescription for property tax reform--which, gauged by his surprise at Sonal's posts--he clearly does not understand to begin with (but let us be like Paris anyway).
That's just it... I'm waiting for him to enlighten me because I'm sure it's bound to be a rich feast of an answer. Many things elliptically hinted at, many veiled threats about ocean farms on slow boil tho the Dutch are up to some progressive things in the biosphere and the Economist 'bout right and things that have to be DONE now in my mind, etc.

Yes, I'm still waiting.

The bank recently had our house appraised as they do every few years as part of my agreement with them for a line of credit, which they keep increasing, tempting me to spend more I guess.

The appraisal of two weeks back came in at $375,000 but my banker told me flat out the bank undervalues homes by 15% and to add that back on for real market value of $431,250.

I thought that an interesting way to go about it. Incidentally, homes here regularly sell for from 103% to 107% of list price and do so in days, not weeks.

Max: Oh yeah?

http://www.toronto.ca/finance/pdf/cota_revtoolsfinal.pdf

I still don't get what's odd.

The current property tax system is based on the value of the property.
The value of commercial property is based on its net operating income.

What's odd?

********

Beej, I vote dartboard.

Another example. We recently severed a property with 9 townhouses into 5 individual townhouses and then a block of 4. (Long story why it was done that way.)

MPAC gave us new assessments for the 5 individual units.
Then they gave us one for the block of 4, which was valued as if there were 9 townhouses on it.

Yes, it's an error, but errors seem to happen ALL the time.

Thanks for that Beej. Good if long read. This is particular stood out as good mission statement for city revenue generation principles. High falutin' words.....we'll see what reality is.

• Simple and Understandable – Taxpayers and remitters should be able to
understand the tax structure and the policy rationale behind it. Simplicity
has also been proven to increase the rate of voluntary compliance.

• Fairness – A tax should be balanced so as not to affect one group in an
overwhelmingly disproportionate manner. If a tax is implemented to
advance a policy objective, the revenue generated should also be aligned to
advance the policy.

• Impact on Business – A tax should not create a large competitive
disadvantage either for a particular sector or for Toronto businesses in
general.

• Stability – From the City’s perspective, tax revenue should be as predictable
and as stable as possible so that programs relying on the revenue can be
planned with certainty.


••

Max if you can't keep things juggling in your linear mind - which apparently from your admission you cannot - despite understanding ellyptical - I'm not doing a PowerPoint presentation for you.
Easter Island was quite straight forward....Beej had no difficulty tho we had some fun exchanging interpretations. Keep trying it'll dawn....or not.

As to commercial building valuation - I 'm not involved with it so appreciate Sonal's explanation - which reinforces my opinion....as does the pdf Beej supplied that the property tax system as the major underpinning of municipal funding is flawed.
I'm quite intrigued at how these changes ae coming about and being implemented for this aspect alone

From the City’s perspective, tax revenue should be as predictable
and as stable as possible so that programs relying on the revenue can be
planned with certainty. :clap:

Easter Island was quite straight forward....Beej had no difficulty tho we had some fun exchanging interpretations.

That one may have been a miss.

Sonal in my view it was a round about way of introducing income based tax revenue into a property tax system.
Think if you were a movie theatre and taxed on your seat revenues ( which appears to be happening ) - is that a property tax or a form of income or sales tax...I thin the latter??
The new tax powers should start to unkink some of that and separate transaction/income flow taxes from property taxes for service purposes.

I love it when MacDoc applauds his own post.

MacDoc, we both know this is your standard condescending deal with it I'm in a hurry to fling disparate points at the wall to see what sticks and I won't let you slow me down schtick. It neither frightens nor discourages me from attempting to wring more sense from your word salad posts. As for dragging Beej in as a show of support, well, the less said about that the better.

You see, your habitual props do not explain your positions as well as you like to imagine. And you do indeed need a lot of props... Star cartoons, excerpts from The Economist, movie posters, assorted netbits galore, various emoticrutches, etc. Alas, I am more interested in hearing you frame cogent arguments; you often begin to do so but then slip into chronic linkism... the voice is no longer nor own and your haphazard fashion of spraying a fusillade of links into the room is not, in and of itself, helpful. I suppose you think it's like driving while talking on your cell, so in that sense you are being internally consistent.

About the only thing I can agree with at this point is that the current tax structure is screwy and that tax changes should be transparent and easily explained. How we get there is the sticking point.

Sonal in my view it was a round about way of introducing income based tax revenue into a property tax system.
Think if you were a movie theatre and taxed on your seat revenues ( which appears to be happening ) - is that a property tax or a form of income or sales tax...I thin the latter??
The new tax powers should start to unkink some of that and separate transaction/income flow taxes from property taxes for service purposes.

I think Sonal's point is that the property's market value is based on income (primarily). It's not a round about way of introducing income based tax revenue. Causality is reversed.

The same goes for houses except the "income" to owners, embodied in the value, is not so obvious (personal enjoyment of lovely downtown smog). While, in a rental building, all these qualitative values are summed up in rent. Property taxes are not a roundabout way of introducing a comfort and convenience tax onto homeowners, the comfort and convenience is what naturally builds value.

As for dragging Beej in as a show of support, well, the less said about that the better.


Less said the better? 'bout right :rolleyes:

:D

I think Sonal's point is that the property's market value is based on income (primarily). It's not a round about way of introducing income based tax revenue. Causality is reversed.

That is my point exactly.

The industry primarily uses income to determine value. (There are other ways to determine value which are occasionally brought up, but this is generally the most used and most important.)

Property tax uses the industry's valuation system.

LOL

The comment was about MD needing props, Beej. Nothing against you, y'unnerstan.

LOL

The comment was about MD needing props, Beej. Nothing against you, y'unnerstan.

You are undermining my potential source of income as a prop. :rolleyes:

And you are laughing about it. :rolleyes:

And you are trying to suppress this information from reaching the public (less said the better). :rolleyes:

;) <-- probably not neccessary but I'm still below my emoti-quota.

Down with emoticrass little blue balls of concentrated anger!

Max has a generic dislike for emoticons....nothin' better to pull his chain than fling a few.

•••

Beej- not a miss - you knew what I was getting at you just choose to spar a bit on alternative takes on the nature of the "lesson". Don't be coy.

••

Commercial property values.
I'm not arguing that VALUING a property based on it's income/cashflow is in anyway inappropriate.

I'm arguing, as I have been, that deriving the vast majority of city income from property taxes alone has negative consequences. - that property taxes levels should instead reflect the service costs to those properties instead of jacking them continually to meet city budgets.
ie there are known service costs - garbage pickup etc and schools for two.

I do beleive that's what this effort by the city is .....to get at least partially off the property tax treadmill and onto a different basis - mostly on commercial activity.

CFIB has some interesting points - and this goes back a decade.

http://www.cfib.ca/research/reports/overlod1.asp

my point and theirs

Municipalities should, as a matter of policy, tax property classes in proportion to the levels of local services they consume. This principle will bring fairness to the property tax system and restore government spending accountability to their electorate. Local spending costs versus benefits would become more directly linked, allowing voters and government officials to properly assess the true value of local services.

Then get the rest of the needed funding through activity taxes which is currently underway.

Max has a generic dislike for emoticons....nothin' better to pull his chain than fling a few.

I can only guess here MD, but I suspect you meant "genetic." Not that this is the case mind you - I'd say in my case it's culturally embedded - a hardy meme, if you will - but that might be splitting hairs in your mind.

Let's just say that I'm against your type of catch-all use of emotifarts precisely because they serve to dilute your own character - they're generic, you see. The extent to which you resort to them is what I'm appalled at. I soldier on, grimly resolute, but remains my sacred duty to point out these injustices wherever and whenever they pop up. Just as it's your duty to resort to emo-botlettes when you cannot otherwise find the means to inform people of whatever it is you imagine you are trying to say.

I hope this clears things up!

Beej- not a miss - you knew what I was getting at you just choose to spar a bit on alternative takes on the nature of the "lesson". Don't be coy.


Ooogghh. This is getting sad.

Not to mention deeply odd. Let's take it back to property taxes, shall we? Safer that way, with the added bonus that it feels much less icky.

The stained blue emoticon will provide ample evidence of what MD and I were doing. Ok, that was too far. Bad Beej! :rolleyes: beejacon

I dub thee Sir Max of the Dogged Soldier clan. Shall we concoct up an appropriate coat of Arms. No emoticons on it I promise.
••

Max I backup my points with text and links supporting the argument - you don't like it - don't read it. Unlike MF who supports nothing.....ever.

You seemed to have no trouble recognising the connections as elliptical - if you can't be bothered to think a bit - or pretend not to. Your choice.
Now do you have some cogent comments on topic??
At least your graffiti is well written.
••

Toronto property-tax hike double the inflation rate
Budget hits home owners with 3.8% rise

JENNIFER LEWINGTON
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
Toronto residents will be on the hook for a property tax hike of 3.8 per cent -- more than twice the ceiling Mayor David Miller promised during last year's election campaign -- as well as higher costs and user fees under a "tough" city budget unveiled yesterday.

Mr. Miller, who had promised to hold the increase "in line" with inflation -- which is 1.5 per cent for the City of Toronto -- defended the move to raise taxes beyond the 3-per-cent mark set every year since 2003.

"Torontonians expected there would be a tax hike of around 3 per cent," he said, adding that the extra 0.8 per cent will go to fund the $14-million for new or improved services this year.

There will be no transit fare increase this year, officials said.

Although city departments and agencies were told not to increase spending, their budget actually jumps 9.3 per cent to $3.4-billion, led by a 9.3-per-cent rise for the Toronto Transit Commission and a 7.4-per-cent rise for solid waste services.

The mayor defended a 29.7-per-cent boost in his own office budget, which is increasing to $2.4-million, arguing he has new duties under the City of Toronto Act.

Councillor Doug Holyday (Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre) said the city had done too little to rein in property taxes. "We have a bunch of socialist activists running this city," he said.

This year's proposed taxes and fees are separate from future city plans, discussed yesterday, to levy new taxes permitted by the City of Toronto Act, which took effect last Jan. 1. Even though the city's executive committee moved to speed up a final decision on possible new taxes, they will not come fast enough for the 2007 budget.

Meanwhile, even after draining about $212-million from reserves, the city says it still has a $71-million hole to fill in the overall budget of $7.8-billion, which includes spending on city operations and payments from other governments.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070327.BUDGET27/TPStory/?query=property+tax

and around it goes again...one last slug at the property tax spigot.

This too is yet another tired ruse you trot out. When people point out your flaws you must snipe back and suggest something cogent has been lacking. It's very transparent, ya digski? BTW, love the passive-aggressive thing where you complement on the one hand then slap with the other. Very clevah!

My comments on your style of postings stand. For it's your very style which interferes with the supposed substance of your posts. You chain your links together into one long crazy train but dude, it's going off the rails.

Anyway, OK! You prefer word salads. What can I do mention the strange menu once in awhile but keep reading? It's like rubber-necking on the 401. You don't want to do it, but it's repugnant and fascinating all at once.

It's not hard to see how we got into a Toronto deficit--we're holding competitions for a $40-million dollar renovation of Nathan Phillips Square while the mayor goes around with cap in hand.

With this kind of nonsense going on, MacDoc, you're still worried about some nebulous property tax reform scheme to RAISE revenue?

Max I backup my points with text and links supporting the argument - you don't like it - don't read it. Unlike MF who supports nothing.....ever.
................................
and around it goes again...one last slug at the property tax spigot.

Lucky number 13.
................................
How likely is it that Torontonians will support, say, $100 million in traffic taxes? It would be a good litmus test for matching talk to action on GHGs and smog. Baby steps.

Based on usage.... hmmm... how do you propose that working for commercial property then?

I'll use my own building as an example. There are roughly 60 people living there. What city services are we using?

There's no parking, so no one in the building is driving and using the roads more. They are using transit, but they pay for that usage. My superintendent clears the snow on the sidewalk in front of the building.

We use more water, which is a city service, but we pay for that.

I do have city pick up for garbage, but what if I opted for private pickup for garbage? (Many apartments use private pickup--not sure if it's an added service or if the city does not serve them.) I can certainly get my garbage carted out for FAR less than the cost of my property taxes. There are no kids in the building, so no one is using schools.

Wow, so under a pay-for-service scheme, I could pay a token amount for say, a share of sidewalk/road maintenance; my building is a very narrow frontage, so that's not much.

That cuts a huge amount of my expenses, and brings up my net operating income. With the current cap rates (the market factor), the value of my building just went up by over 1,000,000 dollars. Sweet, and here I was trying to do work to make raise the value. :) Now I can refinance, take my downpayment out of the building, and let the cash roll in while the building goes to hell.

Seriously. If you did that, every commerical and residential property manager in the city would outsource every possible city-provided service it could to reduce the tax. Suddenly, you lose a huge source of revenue.

In the city of Toronto, multi-res properties pays almost 3 times the tax rate of single-residential. Commerical pays nearly 5 times, and Industrial is just over 5. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'm betting that a very large chunk of the cities coffers are funded by these three classes, and but these are not necessarily huge users of city services.

Pay-per-service might make some sense across single-residential use but it stops making sense across the other property classifications. If you were to apply it across the board, you would have to make the service price pretty expensive to make up for the losses from multires, commericial and industrial. If you weren't applying it across the board, well, how is that fair?

The news and the voters focus on the single-res side of property tax--after all, there are more homeowners than office building owners. But it's not a complete or realistic picture.

Sonal: I propose a tax on bizarre theories of property taxation, with extra tiers for each link posted on the internet. Little blue balls of concentrated anger at 5 bucks each. Pretty soon the coffers would be flush!

Great.

Then I propose that my tenants pay my tax for me in addition to the rent, and the pay me an additonal "super-cute property mananger" charge, oh, and pay the cost of the utilities they use, and do their own repairs.

That'll give me some time to buy more shoes and get my hair regularly styled. Hmm... maybe I need to up that super-cute manager fee.... :)

http://www.toronto.ca/finance/pdf/bs06_far05_vol4.pdf

There's a pie-chart of the expenditure categories a few pages down. Better stick to one pair of shoes, Sonal, there's still a lot to allocate to you. ;)

TTC, Police and provincially mandated services are about half the total (minus some direct funding offsets).

A "true" cost allocation estimate can be done (always some subjectivity) but you've identified why it isn't. And sprawl is how surprising? People wouldn't be so eager to get their own house if they actually had to pay for it.

Hmm... looks like I'm stuck with Payless Buy One, Get One free. No Stuart Weitzman for me. :(

Still, it's an interesting question--how much does an office building use city services? I mean, waterfront revitalization is a benefit to single-family residents in this city, it's arguably a benefit to tenants (and therefore arguably applicable in the mulit-res class) but to a plaza? A factory?

Sonal the CFIB seems to think the "for services" concept is a preferred approach for them.
You do mention you pay for other categories ;)

That pie chart is interesting. Have to read the entire budget.

••

ahhh Max interesting choice of phrase snipe back

I do indeed snipe BACK.... And yes I MEANT generic hatred - it's actually a rather common phrase if you care to check :D

••

MF - having a "fair" and "responsive to economic activity tax base" is a different issue than spending it wisely.
I thought the four main points in the "mission statement" were appropriate.
Oversight in spending needs a Hazel or an independent auditor to keep corruption and political interference in expenditures at bay.
Different issue and I agree with you Toronto in particular - not so sure on the rest of the GTA - is in sore need of better oversight.

oops kid to school....more later ...of course ;)

Ahh MD... LOL this is getting silly... [i]ahh, my dear Watson... [i/]snipe back, tripe hack, give the dog a paddywack. I mean, vot's de diff? Upon which sombre foundation do you attempt to stand this time, mmmm? And you can go doggedly on with your "I was being deliberate" excuse but we both know better. Save it for the cheap seats.

You can be such a silly man when you're in a high dudgeon. Flinging the little emoticrutches hither and yon, shouting and bolding to brilliantly UNDERSCORE your devastating points, sputtering in indignation and fine venom... try relaxing! No need to sulk all night before coming back swingin' the big baton.

•••••••••••••••••

Ahh, it's spring again. I can taste it in the air.

"Generic hatred" isn't all that common a term. Most of the online citations (About 1,000) refer to "generic hatred" in reference to anti-semitism and Simon Wiesenthal.

That can't be. MD is never wrong! We need to bury those results, MF - ASAP, and on the QT.

Property management is a very strange sort of independent business. ;)

As an investor, anything that brings my property taxes down without affecting the land value is good--brings up the value of my investment. Anything that brings my taxes up lowers the value of my investment. It's not a moral, ethical or fairness issue--strictly numbers.

As a former and future homeowner, I have to wonder--if multires/commercial/industrial properties, who probably pay a very large portion of the cities taxes suddenly get their taxes lowered, who makes up the shortfall? Single-family residences, i.e., me.

As a property manager, all I want to know is how much paperwork is going to be involved. Takes me days to pull together all the data for MPAC as it is. Tracking my services used is just going to be ugly.

As a property manager, all I want to know is how much paperwork is going to be involved. Takes me days to pull together all the data for MPAC as it is. Tracking my services used is just going to be ugly.

If you weren't such a damned cute property manager I'd say you just like to complain.

Uh-oh. Now this thread is really derailing.

But hey, the world needs cute property managers. Hell, it even needs taxes. It's, like, complicated, man.

Sonal I don't believe the concept is individual services charged out tho that would be nice on a tax bill to see what proportion goes where. Off load the work and make then show what it's spent on.

This from the CFIB in January is exactly my point

• Ontario is too dependent on property taxes as a source of government revenue, it is the highest in the developed countries which are part of the Organization for Economic Co?operation and Development (OECD).

• Property taxes are income insensitive, they make people vulnerable to the loss of their homes and/or businesses.

• Accordingly, both residents and businesses are super sensitive to property taxes and property assessments.

• Politicians have attempted to minimize residential anger over property taxes by overtaxing small businesses owners.


http://www.cfib.ca/legis/ontario/pdf/on0289.pdf

CFIB’s Three?Point Plan for Equalizing Property Tax Rates
(Abbreviated Version)

ONE: Equalize both municipal and education property tax rates for all classes of properties over a period of 10 years using the Threshold Method.

TWO: Simultaneously reduce total municipal and provincial property taxes to 1.5% of the provincial GDP over the next ten years to avoid pushing additional property taxes on homeowners. (The current percentage is 3.7%.
It is the highest in the OECD world.) Ontario is far too dependent on property taxes as a source of government revenue.

THREE: Give municipalities room to reduce their property tax rates by reorganizing provincial and municipal spending responsibilities so that municipalities provide services to property and the province provides services to people.


Sounds like they are in your corner and certainly making the same point about addiction of govs to property tax in Ontario.

Now the flip side of doing that is setting up the other tax flow streams as they are doing now.

••

Max et al.....in many cases completely new militants not carrying some fanatical generic hatred of other cultures,

http://www.newagebd.com/2006/sep/30/oped.html

Just one - lots more. General use. Tough. get over it..

"flinging"??........ I respond in kind always have always will. Not in the least in a high dudgeon - amused at your thin skin tho.

Once more anything cogent on topic??

Just one - lots more. General use. Tough. get over it.

That's quite rich. "I didn't make a mistake ...I said it on PUR-pose. :ptptptptp "

MD at al...

Oh no.... the stern, patented MD "get over it" directive. I am quaking in my booties at that one. [involuntary shudder]. EgoMan strikes again! Telling people to get over themselves while basking in the eternal sunlight of his own mind... ahh, well. Part of being a grown-up is learning to tolerate such indiscretions, I suppose.

Tax codes are a good thing to look at but the devil is in the details, as Sonal has pointed out. I am reminded of that disappointment, Mayor Miller, he who brashly wielded a broom in the heady days of his win... he now understands that the councillors can be a tough and stubborn lot to work with... rather than crow about cleaning house he is faced with trying to get these carbuncle pols in line so as to painfully crawl forward via politics by consensus. I think much of the same glacial pacing occurs in most political circles here in Ontario.

Too, as I've suggested before, I for one am wary of political cures that are worse than the disease. These danged tax thingies have to be carefully changed lest they wind up screwing city dwellers in fiendish new ways... remove one problem yet saddle us with an equally horrendous fresh one. The net gains are sometimes tough to gauge. I am pretty confident we'll muddle through but it will take years. Should be fascinating to see what shape the GTA will be in come the year 2020, and for that matter, how Van and Calgary and Edmonton will be doing, too.

Max: This is why I so despise people's love of consensus, You not only have to get a majority vote, but you have to make everyone feel good about it at the same time.

If you weren't such a damned cute property manager I'd say you just like to complain.

Job requirement. The complaining bit, that is.... cute is a bonus. :)

I'm not sold on this scheme... perhaps I am not understanding it through the many twists and turns this thread has taken, most of which I have not paid close attention to. ;) MPAC is broken, and is under review, but beyond that, what's the core issue? That the province relies too heavily on property tax as a revenue source? Is that another way of saying that the province has downloaded too much to the cities?

Well then, that doesn't imply that the property tax system needs to change--that implies that there is poor balance between provincial and municipal revenue sources.

Sonal: MacDoc's main beef seems to be that cities--as the economic engines of the country are getting a raw deal--because they send out more tax revenue than they receive. He just wants the cities to get more so that they can implement the many programs he would like cities to implement without relying on provincial or federal governments to do so.

My argument is that, if you accept a mixed socialist model, then cities HAVE to send out more than they receive...because that's accepted socialist practice; from the haves to the have-nots. If they want to raise more money that stays here, they HAVE to take it from taxpayers' pockets. Take it from businesses' pockets and the consumer winds up paying for it. There is no magic trick that will somehow pull the cash out of subspace without sticking it to the individual.

MF: I don't think you have to make people "feel good" in consensus politics... let's face it, if you can manage to have all the parties be able to stand looking at themselves in the mirror after all the deal-making, you ain't doing half bad.

I guess I like consensus politics more than you do... but it's definitely a slow boat.

...if you can manage to have all the parties be able to stand looking at themselves in the mirror after all the deal-making, you ain't doing half bad.

But Max, we're talking about people who can stand looking at themselves in the mirror after being caught shoplifting, taking massive vote-buying bribes, or switching to parties that represent everything they previously stood against. Their brand of consensus only requires people to agree on something--ANYTHING--whether it's meaningful or not.

Ah, so it is what I thought it was, and all this property tax/real estate transacation/etc ranting is just implementation details.

I don't like the phrase "raw deal" because it implies a fairness issue, and then we get all bogged down in ideology and competing needs. Can't agree to that, exactly.

But I would agree to this: The cities have significant problems and require money to fix them.

Who wants to pony up the cash? Or better, in whose overall best interest is it to pony up the cash?

Start with who. Then we can get into how.

Sonal: What I find rather disingenuous about a lot of these ideas--and I'm not including MacDoc here necessarily--is that there seems to be a process by which politicians try to allocate costs to the parties we would most enjoy seeing slapped silly by a tax increase.

The idea appears to be that if we can hide the ultimate costs to "ordinary" individuals and heap them on bad people--businesses, landlords, polluters, smokers, drinkers--then nobody will complain. Then David Miller can build a huge offshore windfarm without having to justify the costs to any other level of government.

Sonal: What I find rather disingenuous about a lot of these ideas--and I'm not including MacDoc here necessarily--is that there seems to be a process by which politicians try to allocate costs to the parties we would most enjoy seeing slapped silly by a tax increase.

The idea appears to be that if we can hide the ultimate costs to "ordinary" individuals and heap them on bad people--businesses, landlords, polluters, smokers, drinkers--then nobody will complain. Then David Miller can build a huge offshore windfarm without having to justify the costs to any other level of government.

i don't know why tolls are not imposed on those commuters entering the city by private car and leaving it each day, using up city resources and not giving anything back in property tax

commuters using public transport would be exempt

But Max, we're talking about people who can stand looking at themselves in the mirror after being caught shoplifting, taking massive vote-buying bribes, or switching to parties that represent everything they previously stood against. Their brand of consensus only requires people to agree on something--ANYTHING--whether it's meaningful or not.

Ugh. I agree, natch. Politics corrupts most people. The longer they are in public service, the less apt they are to retain a willingness to serve. The gig becomes a self-perpetuating scam; perks and horse trading abounds.

I yam depressed. I almost need a sad emoticon, because I don't trust anyone will believe me otherwise.

i don't know why tolls are not imposed on those commuters entering the city by private car and leaving it each day, using up city resources and not giving anything back in property tax

commuters using public transport would be exempt

I could get behind this, at least in principle; again, the devil is in the details. But I think congestion taxes are almost inevitable.

I keenly await (subtle) howls of outrage from MF.

Ah yes, I know all about us evil landlords, who throw tenants out for looking at them funny, and then apply for above guideline increases for changing all the faucets to brass-plated taps. (I'm both a tenant and a landlord, so I get a lot of "Tenant's Rights" things in the mailbox.)

The blame in all the dialogue does not make it easy to talk about real solutions... instead of talking about what the problem is, it becomes who's fault the problem is.

Sonal: MacDoc's main beef seems to be that cities--as the economic engines of the country are getting a raw deal--because they send out more tax revenue than they receive. He just wants the cities to get more

Close enough....it's almost more a control of taxes originating in the municipal regions - both the amount and nature.
The municipalities have to go cap in hand to the govs "above them" and when you have 14% sales tax plus income taxes flowing to Prov/Fed it's really hard to justify additional tax load for the "cities to pay for themselves". The out and then back after begging issue irks me the most.

As a result of the restrictions on the nature of taxes municipalities can impose ( it's a wider range now ) - what has arisen is an out of whack property tax system ( as the CFIB notes ).
Since other G8 nations happen to have cities and seem to do things differently to keep their property taxes "civilized" then it seems worth a look.

In principle "user pays" is a good idea - transit, roads etc but what about parks and other aspects.
I DO like a hotel tax as funds spent making a city attractive can be partially paid by the tourist crowd.

Interesting side note there is some thnking that the US passport rule may benefit Canada for tradeshows.

I LOVE to have "furriners" pay for things......buy them lottery tickets too ;)

Major infrastructure is really a national issue and all levels need to be onside - but way too much gets bogged down in politics, pork, pointing fingers and poor management.
So little gets accomplished.
Ottawa delivers a subway fund as it's pork treat, Toronto ( rightly I think ) wants an LRT system......

Well at least there seems to be some addressing the issues - damn long time this has been brewing. Really ever since the downloading began.

••
Sonal ( aka evil landlaird ;) )
Am I correct in thinking there is a higher vacancy rate for non commercial rentals just now??

Sonal ( aka evil landlaird ;) )
Am I correct in thinking there is a higher vacancy rate for non commercial rentals just now??

The short answer is yes.

The complete answer is that vacancy in Toronto is around 5% right now and has been so for a few years. This is considerably higher than the historical less than 1% vacancy that existed up until a few years ago. (Before I got into this business--drat. ;) )

Low interest rates, which led to more people buying homes, is believed to be the cause of rise in vacancy--rent is comparable to mortgage payments for a lot of people these days.

Though the rise in vacancy initially caused a panic among landlords, it's mostly seen as pretty healthy now--forces more landlords to do needed major repairs, implement energy efficiency measures and upgrade units in the face of greater competition.

Incidentally, I heard at an apartment owners conference that this 5% is still lower than the hottest rental markets in the US.

I support road tolls, provided they're collected efficiently and are instituted to support road maintenance and construction, rather than thrown into some massive pool. Shift the road budget to tolls, then remove the road budget from the general budget.

I support it more for specific projects -both Skyways on the QEW were funded that way. The 407 WOULD have been an appropriate toll road :mad:

Vehicle licences I believe also contribute some as well as fuel taxes.

I assume you are talking major arteries not city streets???

Thanks Sonal.

What I'd be curious is to see what the property tax assessor office would do if the real estate market dropped 40% as it did not all that long ago in Toronto after the 80s bubble busted. :eek:

( not that I I think that's imminent - still I would suspect some assessments should have dropped over the last year. ).

But Toronto's municipal taxes are not based on market value, but market value in comparison to all other homes.

If the total tax pool consisted of two homes worth $1 million each, then each home would pay $10,000 for a tax pool of $20,000. If both homes slipped together in value by 50%, they would still pay $10,000 each. If one dropped to $500,000 while the other rose in market value to $1,500,000, the the first home would pay $5,000 while the second would pay $15,000.

Agreed that instigating toll roads is a good idea, whereas pooling the income into one massive catch-all fund is a bad idea. Income should be tied to specific infrastructure elements (i.e.. maintenance, improvements, widening, etc. for said element). Money collected on the Gardiner, say, should be primarily poured back into the Gardiner - just keeping that sucker up is hella expensive.

MD says major infrastructure is a national issue - good luck in convincing the far-flung Canadian electorate that this indeed should be seriously considered. I can't see most people out west being all that concerned about how well the GTA stretch of the Trans-Canada is holding up. Nor would I as a GTA citizen be very much into a multi-million dollar bridge cutting through a section of the Rockies - I mean, I'd be very interested on the level of engineering and planning said bridge, but having my tax dollars help pay for it? I'm not nearly as excited about that.

I wasn't quite old enough to be involved in real estate during the 80's burst, but my dad was, and was much more heavily involved in the industry then... from talks with him, there are 2 very big differences between then and now. (Okay, there are probably more than 2, but these are the ones my mind latched onto.)

1) Interest rates are low, not insanely high.
2) There is a lot less speculation than there was in the 80s. Most people these days are buying to own themselves--not to speculate on rising prices.

Rising values are based far more on rising demand. I'm not seeing much a drop in values anytime soon... demand will fall if interest rates rise sharply... of course, then rental vacancy will likely drop. But there are very, very few areas in the city where prices are falling. (I think it's pretty much just Malvern--and well, that's Malvern.) From what I have seen, most assessed values are still far below the market value.

Mind you, I still can't believe how much my old house sold for, but that area has been steadily and steeply increasing in price.... every sale goes to multiple offers. Ah well--in houses, you aren't buying the house, you are buying how much someone else wants to live there.

It's heart-warming to see such bitter enemies come together and agree on good economics. beejacon

I assume you are talking major arteries not city streets???

Yes, tax the major arteries, then use the money to pay for residential streets--some percentage anyway. Institute the "use-dependent" toll lane in which people may enter the fast lane, but pay a spot-price based on the number of people using it. If you're really in a hurry, you'll pay spot market prices for driving the fast lane. If traffic is light, you can enter it at a lower fee. The concept has been introduced successfully in California and elsewhere.

More public private partnerships in road building as well. Let private companies build and operate toll roads, but under a predictable scheme involving long-term revenue sharing and cost assumption by the private concern. Makes income and costs very predictable and amortizes costs over the long haul, while private companies assume most of the risk.

Max to a point I agree BUT since taxes from ALL municipalities are flowing up to Prov and Fed to the limits of pocketbooks - the Fed and prov become the handout daddies. Slice the pork pie a little more or less depending on vote swing potential.
One more point for keeping the taxes at home.

••

MF if an assessment is too high ( and this has happened many times - one reason it's a mess ) then people will appeal.
If the market skids deeper - more will appeal - more clogs in the system, less dependable flow to city coffers. Seems to me a while back there was a movement afoot NOT to pay any property tax until the system was redone. ( I was going to say fixed...but that may be too close to the truth already ;) )

••

Sonal - I agree the severity here is nowhere near what it is in the US where bubbles have popped.
It's more to point out the foolishness of a large structure such as a city depending on the vagaries of the property values.

The Feds don't - it looks like Ontario was getting addicted in general.

Still this is a cautionary article

Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Housing drop may deepen
Forecasters say prices could plunge 30% to 50% more


By Craig Wolf
Poughkeepsie Journal

Economists at a forecasting center in Westchester County say the nation's housing market is far from being done with its downturn.

Too-high home values, heavy consumer debt and harder-to-get loans will combine to push prices down, predicts the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center in Mt. Kisco.

How much? There's 30 percent to 50 percent left to go, they say, in a prediction that would have a huge effect on homeowners if it proves true, something not everyone is ready to buy.

"Flimsy financial arrangements," or risky lending practices, are being curtailed as people struggle to meet their mortgages and delinquencies skyrocket, the Levy crew said.

That's a national forecast not a regional.
Point being still - not a good basis for tax income for cities to plan around.

•••

Voluntary taxation..gotta love it....step right up take your chance...in more ways than you expect. ;) Make that merchant a HAPPY man.

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/206220_4.JPG

I still can't believe how much my old house sold for, but that area has been steadily and steeply increasing in price.... every sale goes to multiple offers. Ah well--in houses, you aren't buying the house, you are buying how much someone else wants to live there.

Too true about the centre core. You are competing with many others who also want to be in the centre core... the house itself becomes almost a secondary consideration; it's proximity to work, services and cultural stuff that collectively amount to a huge draw. Also, though Toronto is experiencing a slow-down in population growth relative to other Canadian cities, you'd never know it by the amount of in-fill going on... lots of low-rise stuff being demo'ed in favour of mid-rise buildings and of course the by-now ubiquitous town home development. Though there are many who balk at cities because they're possibly agoraphobic or merely find them exhausting or alienating, clearly for many of us more people can translate (on the positive side) to more excitement, more vitality. People, especially the 20 and 30 somethings, follow "buzz" and are keen to join in. You know, the kind of vibe you pick up when you're walking through a downtown neighbourhood and there are tons of people about, all of them doing their own various things... it's about the people and the energy they radiate.

Healthy cities are forever undergoing such transitions, of course. Certain older neighbourhoods in Toronto, my own included, are generating buzz... I am witnessing this almost daily on Queen East, where a host of galleries, shops and restos keep bursting forth. We still need true "neighbourhood" anchor institutions like butcher and produce shops, but I'm confident it's all coming... we got a very nice cheese shop a few months ago and the last six months have seen the opening of some wickedly good indie java zones (as well as the practically obligatory Starbucks)... all of this growth steadily arising as they keep in-filling and replacing dowdy older buildings with higher-density residential.

The cool thing about true neighbourhoods is that they are not car-dependent; the idea is to be able to be within a reasonable walk of all your groceries, restos and bars without being obliged to hop in a car (or even own one) and then proceed to do battle with other cars, limited and expensive parking, etc. This is happening but it's still slow to arrive. I guess it takes awhile for it to catch on with the masses. For some of course it may never... I guess for them the option will be to leave the cities in search of peace and quiet; you won't find it here. I'm hoping we move closer to a human hive like NYC, "the city that never sleeps..." quiet in many places, yet if you are the nocturnal sort there's all sorts of pockets of activity. That, to me, is what a livable city should be all about. If it takes more people to generate that sense of excitement, I am all for it. I can always visit my friends in the country if I need a break.

But taking this back to what Sonal was saying, that's what you're paying for in a house - popularity as much as practicality. Supply being eclipsed by a ravenous demand... prices can only go up. And yes, the diff between now and the last crash was the hideous interest rates circa 1990. It's a different scene now.

Sonal - I agree the severity here is nowhere near what it is in the US where bubbles have popped.
It's more to point out the foolishness of a large structure such as a city depending on the vagaries of the property values.

Vagaries of property values?

It's not that vagarious. Real estate value on the whole tends to grow about 10% per annum. Plus, the province is well diversified across many types of markets--urban, rural, growing, falling, etc.

Even a city like Toronto is really a city of neighbourhoods--they rise and fall at different rates. Toronto overall tends to grow. (Somewhere, I have a paper listing of average house prices in Toronto over the last 50 years or so. It's always gone up--I think even when the bubble popped in the late 80s.)

A bubble popping in an individual area does not crash the entire system. It's analogous to one stock in a portfolio plummetting while the rest rise or remain stable.

ETA: Nope, found my piece of paper and I stand corrected. Average price did dropped from 1990 - 1996, but increased steadily since. But over just about any 10 year period, it increases.

I am witnessing this almost daily on Queen East, where a host of galleries, shops and restos keep bursting forth.

As long as they leave B&B Fish and Chips alone...

Real estate value on the whole tends to grow about 10% per annum.

How cute are you to expect that? ;)

Maybe recently, but that's a surge across the country (Canada was an extremely cheap place to live in the early 1990s).

If someone can buy a home and expect 10% per year, long-term, then there's no reason for the stock market.

Maybe you mean a growing city's total portfolio?

I agree with your post about neighbourhoods - it's the bane of the burbs to have to drive for EVERYTHING.

That said for every vibrant Queen St there are 10 Bathursts between Lakeshore and Eglinton than haven't shown any spark of change. It depressed me driving up the other night how little change there was,

•••

Housing crash?..... the rates aren't high in the US either and it's in a nose dive - I'd say it's more due to nowhere near as big a bubble here rather than any fundamental difference. What lower rates do is FUEL the bubble.

If a deep recession hit - there's going to be some blood spilled here too.

LOL

Yeah, B & B rocks. There are others in the area, but they are pale imitators.

Beej, I mean over the long term. Much like the stock market.

EDIT: Ah, I found the little piece in my brain that's hung on to that tidbit, and have dusted it off and examined it closely. Nevermind what I said. A real estate investment grows like that, but that includes an increase in equity.

http://www.mississauga4sale.com/avgprices.JPG

The only reason it's at all sustainable is interest rates are so low - any combination of interest rate rise and economic slow down is very risky as incomes have nowhere near come close to increasing at a similar pace.

MD, finding a neighborhood / location that is on the way up is the key... it's something of a magic recipe. All of the ingredients need be present or it's just not going to taste very remarkable. Lots of neighbourhoods are in sore need of rejuvenation, and each of them will undergo such transformation... eventually. The thing to do is get ahead of the curve by keenly anticipating settlement trends and getting in at the right time. It's kind of loosey-goosey - a weird admixture of science, esthetics and instinct.

There are whole swaths of Toronto I avoid because they are dingy and trapped in time. There are just as many barren patches of this calcified lameness in Hazel's Dominion, too. In short, there's lots of work to be done. But it shouldn't deter us all from demanding better from our cities.

Oh I'm not defending the burbs...believe me - there are a few like Streetsville and downtown Oakville that qualify as neighborhoods but way too few.
Tokyo and Paris to name two I know seem to be able to have a neghborhood feel desptie their size - I suspect density helps and also design - look to St. Lawrence.

Mississauaga works as a car community - little else.

My real point was the magnitude of the task to get that vibrancy and renewal to spread......in a planned manner......not entirely sure that's possible - look what planning" did to Port Credit :(

Part of Queen Stree magic is it's so organic.

••

Sonal - the OTHER part of the chart,

Incomes.....

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/13-605-XIE/2003001/chronology/2003provincial/images/pdi01.gif

Chart 1: Per capita personal disposable income relative to Canada1

Beej, I mean over the long term. Much like the stock market.

EDIT: Ah, I found the little piece in my brain that's hung on to that tidbit, and have dusted it off and examined it closely. Nevermind what I said. A real estate investment grows like that, but that includes an increase in equity.

That makes more sense. For a total financial increase of 10% for a given investment (of less than 100% of the value and including interim cashflow). Recently, of course, much better.

Chart 1: Per capita personal disposable income relative to Canada1

You're mixing apples and oranges.

Not really - incomes have not risen to any degree ( agreed not the best chart ).

Personal income is the sum of all incomes received by residents of each province, including returns for labour and investments, and transfers from the government and other sectors (including old age security payments and employment insurance). Personal disposable income is the amount left over after payment of personal direct taxes, including income taxes, contributions to social insurance plans (such as the Canada Pension Plan contributions and Employment Insurance premiums) and other fees.] It is a measure of the funds available for personal expenditure on goods and services and personal saving for investments as well as personal transfers to other sectors of the economy.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/13-605-XIE/2003001/chronology/2003provincial/pdi.htm

••••••

Beej you have to adjust for property tax and maintenance as well to get a return level.
Recently of course better BUT the next 5 years may not seem so sweet as costs soar while values retreat or stagnate.

If it was charted against inflation and income things would change as well.

The "relative to Canada" bit made it useless when compared to what appears to be nominal housing prices (include shifts in housing quality).

Also, when you take pre-spike numbers (87 instead of 95), they aren't that far off what would be expected.

[Disposable income tripled, for Canada, from 1980, but I'm not sure about from 1987 or TO specifically]

Not useless - just indicative of flat income trends for Ontario- real income rises are very marginal.

I saw something recently in Toronto Star poverty series showing the top 30% with substantively rising real incomes and the bottom 40% with lower real incomes over the last 5 years.

So the top 1/3 is driving the boom and the interest rates are luring the lower mid income earners to extend.

THEN we end up funding a poverty alleviation drive....as housing is taking a huge chunk of income for low wage earners... :eek:

Not useless - just indicative of flat income trends for Ontario- real income rises are very marginal.

I saw something recently in Toronto Star poverty series showing the top 30% with substantively rising real incomes and the bottom 40% with lower real incomes over the last 5 years.

So the top 1/3 is driving the boom and the interest rates are luring the lower mid income earners to extend.

THEN we end up funding a poverty alleviation drive....as housing is taking a huge chunk of income for low wage earners... :eek:

No, relative to Canada means it cancelled out inflation and national changes. The "Canada" line in that graph would have been flat at 1 the whole time period because it was relative to Canada. It would have been flat at 1 for a 100 years.

As I said, nominal disposable incomes have increased a lot (comparator to your first chart, though no quality adjustment is made).

And, furthermore, for homeowners's markets, the income gains in the top 50% is more important than the bottom 50% due to the renter vs. owner breakdown. You may segue to equity aspects, but you still posted apples and oranges.

Please don't do your ever so tired "too stubborn to admit an error" dance and redirection (as you've already started doing). It was a simple "oops". Move on.

I didn't like the chart.
Don't prejudge my reaction - I'm quite happy to see your point but I want an explanation.

It appears to me that Ontario incomes have drifted down over the period against the Canada relative while housing prices over the period are up substantionally.

I would suspect a "cost of housing as percentage of disposible income" would climb when done on the same basis. Ontarians spending more on housing as a percentage of income.

Renters are affected as rents also rise tho perhaps not in complete step with property values.

http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/house.pdf

Includes interest rate changes but remember that now is more "normal", give or take 1%, than the 1980s.

And this uses median income (relevant for social equity discussions) which is not representative of the real housing market (skewed upwards). But then we're into social implications of ownership and such...

MD, for the sake of integrity, can you say that the second graph you posted did not add to the story of the first, but was actually largely unrelated? After all, lies damn lies and such. To the non-policy geek it may have seemed to add to the first graph, but on further reflection, it didn't. Not a big deal to admit an oops.

Oh I'm not defending the burbs...believe me - there are a few like Streetsville and downtown Oakville that qualify as neighborhoods but way too few.
Tokyo and Paris to name two I know seem to be able to have a neighborhood feel despite their size - I suspect density helps and also design - look to St. Lawrence.

Mississauaga works as a car community - little else.

My real point was the magnitude of the task to get that vibrancy and renewal to spread......in a planned manner......not entirely sure that's possible - look what planning" did to Port Credit :(

Part of Queen Stree magic is it's so organic.

Streetsville? Yes, I fully agree. I've been back to Streetsville a few times over the past few years and its core run of shops and grand old buildings reminds me of the folksy charm of Unionville circa 1980 or so. And the Port Credit I recall from last time I was there (Ok, let's say 7 years ago now) was indeed funky and vibrant... so much so that I was pleasantly shocked. Back when I was living in Mississauga, up by 5 and Winston Churchill, Port Credit was a pretty sleepy, fairly static neighbourhood. But much had changed in the interim - pretty much all for the better, too.

An irony here is that the kinds of sustainable communities we are talking about are very much old-world ideas. That there is a renewed interest in them speaks volumes about car dependency being sorely tested.

As for Queen St. magic, it's a result of that somewhat elusive magic recipe I was referring to... the happy collision of a number of diverse factors. Not to make it too mystical or anything; I just don't think these things can be successfully planned or legislated, although you can certainly do your best to remove whatever governmental roadblocks lie in the way of their spontaneous creation.

Beej I have no issue with it but you have not explained how the second graph does not indicate flat or somewhat falling disposable income over that period of Ontario where housing prices were rising steadily

Seems to me this from your link confirms that affordability has improved now house costs have flattened out while affordability was an issue earlier when housing prices were rising....which is all my point was.

Toronto

Source: Statistics Canada, Royal LePage, RBC Economics Research
Moderating price growth fuels Toronto’s affordability
improvements

Toronto had the strongest affordability improvements among key metro markets in the final quarter of 2006. The gains were strong enough to reverse most of the deterioration that hit Toronto markets in the second and third quarter. More affordable conditions were primarily driven by three key factors — decelerating house price gains, more attractive fourth-quarter financing conditions and a sharp decline in monthly utility bills. Incomes were up for a second consecutive month with the fourth quarter reporting the strongest gains in more than a year. Prices declined in both the detached and condo segments. This marks the second consecutive quarter of price declines for condos with average prices falling from $266,705 in the second quarter down to $259,934 in the final quarter. However, annual gains in the condo sector still remain in the healthy 6% range.


Anyways I was not thrilled with the graph and will simply claim that income gains in vulnerable segments for the GTA have not matched increased housing costs. Happy to be disabused of that opinion.

http://www.thisnext.com/media/230x230/Paisley-Gauntlet-Glove_3BBFDD7E.jpg ;)

Max - Port Credit West is not bad but East of HWY 10 they really screwed up. :(

I think zoning that is too restrictive prevents magic from spinning up - the little shops and eateries mixed in with residences and small offices.
The Dufferin area just north of the CNE has some good aspects.
How do you feel about the Beaches strip??

I DO love the Indian restaurant stretch of Gerrard :clap: and the Greek area on the Danforth.

but you have not explained how the second graph does not indicate flat or somewhat falling disposable income over that period of Ontario where housing prices were rising steadily


It is relative to Canada. It ignores inflation and national changes. I don't mean to be cryptic, but am I the only one who doesn't see the obvious flaw regarding, "flat or somewhat falling disposable income over that period"?

Nominal housing prices were rising steadily but Ontarians' disposable income relative to the rest of Canada were not. Apples and oranges. The relevant comparison would be Ontarians (TOers, actually) nominal disposable income or mapping TO housing costs relative to Canada.

MD: If CDN nominal disposable income (including ON) went up 10x, that graph would show nothing. It is apples and oranges.

Sort of like looking at Toronto's nominal GDP versus its per capita GDP relative to the rest of Canada. One is on a permanently increasing trend (with wiggles) while the other is anchored to 1.

You may correct me but that graph is anchored at 1.00 is it not??
Basically inflation is pulled out.

Against the other graph - yes it's a very poor choice in direct comparison as the other graph does not pull inflation out.

anyway I'll grant you that it's a poor comparison and move on.

anyway I'll grant you that it's a poor comparison and move on.

Not only does it pull inflation out, it pulls general changes in Canada out (relative to Canada). If Canada and Ontario income went up 50%, the graph would show a flat line. It was apples and oranges.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Except it didn't ;)

Max - Port Credit West is not bad but East of HWY 10 they really screwed up. :(

I think zoning that is too restrictive prevents magic from spinning up - the little shops and eateries mixed in with residences and small offices.
The Dufferin area just north of the CNE has some good aspects.
How do you feel about the Beaches strip??

I DO love the Indian restaurant stretch of Gerrard :clap: and the Greek area on the Danforth.

Don't remember which stretch of Lakeshore in Port Credit I was visiting (it was a film shoot quite early in my career as an art department hired gun) but I'm pretty sure it was actually closer to Truscott... anyway it looked pretty good. A fair amount of sidewalk life (always a good sign) and plenty of signs of busy commerce. But that was many years ago now.

Dufferin and King... now that's a neighbourhood I used to haunt back in the 80s. Had a good friend on Fraser Ave. Fantastic neighbourhood back in the day, if grimy, grubby, under-used light industrial was your cuppa tea. It certainly was for the lot I knew, but since then rents have rocketed up and some of the buildings we used to rent for dirt have been pulled down and new mid-rise stuff has risen in its place. I remember the first time I set foot in one massive building just north of the tracks and the CNE... found out years later this massive, hanger-sized behemoth that seemed to go on for miles was a major munitions factory back in the war days. Cool stuff like that really turns my crank. Anyway, all of the renewal is probably very good for the long-term health of that neighbourhood. In fact I'm sure of it... it's actually become a much more viable location to live in... in time the build-out presently unfolding will add several tens of thousands more to West-central Toronto. Still a cool chunk of history - so much of the city's earliest industrial life was there; if you have the nose for it, you can still sniff it out. I love the history of cities.

The Beach / Beaches? Well, not my kind of neighbourhood. Too homogenous and vanilla for my tastes. Also too genteel in its steadfast, stubbornly low-rise way. A nice plasticky stretch of Queen St. playing host to plenty of shops and restos but it feels mundane and rather safe; a few exceptions to the rule but otherwise it seems like a tourist trap. Good place to raise kids though, I suppose, and the boardwalk is a goldmine. Summertime, especially on weekends, it's a people-watcher's mecca. You can barely navigate the freakin' sidewalks, what with the bladers, the dog-walkers, the cruisers and the baby buggies. And road traffic is a nightmare; I don't envy anyone owning a home in there... too little avenues to get in and out of this storied neighbourhood. Still, plenty of wonderful, stately homes (if not insanely overpriced), and lots of old greenery abound - always a big sell in a city. I just find the zone as a whole way too tame and steeped in sameness. Nice but too nice. I like a little more grit and gristle. I certainly like more than white on rice.

Anyway, that's my take. Plenty of east-enders love the Beach. Not I. Give me the boardwalk and you can have the rest... still, great sunsets and true access to the lake. It always appalls me how easily we GTA'ers forget that we are parked on the shores of one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. It's a damn shame we don't 'own' our lakeshore real estate a lot more than we do.

Sonal might know this - anyone jump in- how rigid is the city in zoning for use.
This separation of work and home drives me up a wall.

••

Max - I suspect you went pre renewal in Port Credit. The screwed up tho as I say the west side of the Credit is okay.

I love those redone building with studios and lofts and small biz. I remember telling my dad I was doing the same sort of work as he used to do - roaming around an old factory fixing things.

He carried a toolbox.
I carried a hard drive.

Little Italy is another fav area for me.


I concur Queen/Beach has gone too up market - one reason we liked the Gerrard area.
I surely enjoyed living in the city when no kids.
Could not imagine doing it with kids....gotta be brutal.

I don't know about that. Two of my friends, brothers actually, are raising sons downtown... one is six months, the other is a year and a half. Both sets of parents seem to be having a great time and are as delirious as any new parents you've ever met. One of the guys brought his kid to an art opening on Queen East by Broadview last week; the little guy couldn't get enough of the art and the press of people. I don't think it's any tougher raising kids here than where you live, honestly.

You mentioned Little Italy. One of those brothers I was referring to lives in Little Italy, actually, as does their sister. Great area. Fantastic cafes and street life, but there's a price; come the summertime some of the club kid patrons are real drunken pigs, pulling stunts like urinating on people's lawns, leaving behind beer bottle and ciggie butts, etc. Not to mention how loud some of those patios get when it's 1:00 am and the night is in full swing. It sure ain't for everybody.

Gerrard St. is particularly attractive between Broadview and Leslie... south Riverdale / Leslieville, I guess you'd call it. Degrassi is a very nice street but there's quite a few in the immediate area that can handily match it. Nice houses, plenty of mature trees, personable streets, human scale to the structures. Lots of up-market stuff but lots of authentic old-school stuff too. A good mix of amenities and incomes. And lots of folks raising families. You'd have to ask them how brutal they find it; I'd imagine most would answer that it's all in one's attitude. Being younger helps, I'm sure. One of my pals, a friend from Erindale days, is my age - think mid-40s... but his wife is thirty. Makes it a tad easier for them, I'd say. At least on one level, anyway.

Well that's good to hear that young families are doing well and staying in the city - That's one reason I like mixed housing regions so that you get different ages and wealth levels interacting.

Sonal might know this - anyone jump in- how rigid is the city in zoning for use.
This separation of work and home drives me up a wall.

There are certain types of business that can occur residential zones, but it varies based on the type of residence, the type of residential zone, etc.

Otherwise, you can always apply for a rezoning.

Poked around the city planning site a bit for details. The application fee for a zoning bylaw amendment is about 5,000, plus an additional 12,000 if it requires an Official Plan Amendment--this of course, does not include the fees for the drawings and impact reports that the city may require as part of the application.

The City targets a 9 month process to get to a decision by Council. Public meeting is required for zoning amendments and an OPA.

There is, of course, no guarantee that applying will get you a rezoning... it helps if you have a precedent. A good planning consultant is EXTREMELY useful here.

You're looking at $30,000 - $50,000 here, assuming there is a good reason for the City to approve it.

Residential to commercial is tricky, though there is a CR designation that possibly easier, assuming the commercial use you want is available under CR.

That of course, is just Toronto. Different cities, different process, different zoning, different fees, different timelines, etc.

In Los Angeles, they try to grab an extra chunk of income tax from home-based businesses foolish enough to advertise whatthey're doing.

Thanks Sonal -.

One thing I loved about Tokyo was there was such a mixed use invironment.
Very vibrant in my mind as a result.
Hard to describe.
'Course there a no street addresses in Tokyo as we know them so its very different. :eek:

So here's a question.

What city would that you know would you most like Toronto to take notes from.

I'd vote for Barcelona from personal ( too limited tho ;( ) experience. I really enjoyed the city - even tho we had a car we left it parked.

Portland Oregon for their green plan.

Ottawa for their National Capital Commission greenbelts, the city's general cleanliness and zillion miles of bike paths. And if we could transplant the Rideau Canal... mind you no one will be skating on it anyway if the winters contine to grow ever milder.

Anyway, the GTA could definitely take a page out of the NCC playbook.

Ottawa?? I agree 100%. A well done and liveable city ( tho sprawly )

I asked that question a while ago how much Ottawa benefits from the power of the NCC.
I don't know how it interacts with municpal plans/financing.
My daughter LOVES Ottawa.

Except it didn't ;)

Actually, from 1987 to 2005, inflation was about 50%.
So if real incomes were roughly flat over that period, they did increase about 50%, nominally.

Yeah, Ottawa too is afflicted with sprawl. I'm afraid that it's a common malaise in contemporary North America. The rest of what it has to offer is pretty nice, though. If you're an outdoors enthusiast, especially winter sports, it's a positive town to be in... proximity to the slopes, cross-country and skating opportunities galore. I'm less impressed on the cultural side... the town's too steeped in government blahs and a certain clinging parochialism to be all that sexy about culture, but hey - you can't have everything.

I have to say that in several visits to Ottawa I've found the city--on its own-to have a very cold esthetic. I think people romanticize it in the context of its surroundings.

Sure they do... it is indeed in a wonderful setting. But do you mean the architecture lacks imagination or that it feels like a small town or... ? Because we can only fairly compare the centre cores of these places. Much of Kanata or Gloucester looks like Mississauga or Pickering or Richmond Hill or Delta... the great homogenizing factor of burbtopia.

No, Ottawa does not have a particularly attractive skyline. The scale of it has been deliberately held in check so that lovely old edifices like Parliament Hill and the Chateau Laurier are not diminished by any modern monstrosities. They build 'em higher in Hull, though.

No, I appreciate the low skyline. I just didn't find much appealing beyond the original edifices.

If you want to see a real tragedy, watch how Saskatoon zoned the area in front of its beautiful CPR hotel for commercial and offices. The billion dollar view was destroyed by a few clumsily placed junky looking office buildings.

An all too common move, I'm afraid. Modernist blandness clashing mercilessly with older specificity of decoration... all those cornices, pediments and stone treatments thrown up against Orwellian mirrored boxes that reveal nothing of themselves.

I thought you might appreciate a low skyline. Not so much myself, although there are plenty of ugly skyscrapers loose in the world and the GTA has more than its share of tall yet unremarkable buildings. I wish we could challenge ourselves more in that regard.

Taking it back to the question of taxes, it's obvious that we're going to have to sort through a number of different models before we hit on one that makes sense for our neck of the world. But the fact remains that populations the world over are trending towards urban settlement as opposed to rural. Cities around the world must increasingly be facing the same frustrations and reaching for practical solutions, ones which will discourage sprawl (and the additional pollution via the internal combustion engine that comes with it ) and encourage efficiency of services.

I do wish we appreciated and used architects more ( maybe they are to blame tho).

There is a terrific building in Richmond Hill that blends the older small town street front stone into a low rise modern glass extension just seamlessly. Works with the village look. Royal Bank I think.

That low rise OPP building on the waterfront in Toronto is a masterful and interesting blend of old and new. Too bad there are a few "horrors" nearby. :mad:

I found Sparks Street pedestrian mall very delightful and local neighbourhoods - Byward where my daughter is - superb.
Yeah some is bit boring in the core but along the water the city is very people friendly.

What's Montreal like these days? - I have fond then sad memories of it's vibrancy and then horrid decline.

Byward Market is one of the places I'd think of, were I to ever move back to Ottawa. But I prefer the Glebe... reminds me more of Riverdale or parts of Parkdale (back in its glory days, decades ago now). More of a neighbourhood feel there, whereas the market is a destination place for food and entertainment. Had me many a beer at ye olde Laf... the Lafeyette, natch. I'm sure they're still packing them in at this venerable libations depot.

Montreal? It's quite the town still. But I only seem visit once or twice a year and it's rare that we actually take the time to just explore it. It's certainly steeped in history - the old town is a great place chock full of great nooks and crannies and the people watching in Montreal is fantastic... but of course I'm talking about anything but winter time. Bloody cold winters they have. But I'll say this: plenty more Montrealers know how to bundle up stylishly than they do in my burg.

If Quebec ever figures out what the hell they want to do about their future Montreal could take the world by storm. It used to be a serious money town; certainly in a diminished sense it still is, but it's a mere echo of the old power that once flowed through its veins. I dig the French take on culture and I admire their passion for it. Montreal is a great place to take street photographs... it's just so profoundly different from any of the cities West of it.

I am way too immersed in Toronto to really say. Though I do like San Francisco. To me, this city was most similar to Toronto in that it's also a city of neighbourhoods. And you can walk everywhere in San Fran.

Getting in a lot of low-rise is unlikely--the City has a mandate to increase densitiy. That's why we are seeing a lot of condo towers and a lot of in-fill development. I think the self-sustaining neighbourhoods are being encouraged--places where you can walk everywhere for everything.

For years, North York had a zoning height limit of 40 ft or so... made for a lot of sprawl and Mayor Mel's downtown North York a barren wasteland since there was not enough population to sustain anything there. Now, we have condo towers at Yonge & Sheppard, and the neighbourhood is picking up. It's probably another 10 years before this becomes then next Yonge & Eglinton, but I am happy to see it grow. I remember what it was.

Still, there are a lot of really boring towers. :(

I used to live in Don Mills. It still gets studied for it's well-designed plan. It is still a car culture there, but everything is a 5 minute drive. Parks are everywhere, neighbourhoods are mixed, kids still draw hopscotch boards in chalk on the roads. It is a very suburban feel (which isn't really me) but not bland cookie-cutter house, no big box stores, and you can get to downtown in 15 minutes.

Mind you, house prices have gone crazy there.

Bang on for Montreal - warned my daughter about damp cold there - she visited in December and said afterward I was right - Ottawa more livable in winter.

You are correct that Montreal could rule again. The exodus sure kicked off sleepy old Toronto the Good tho. Our gain.

Four and five story buildings I can take... make it a little more Euro in the density patterns. It's the gigantic condo towers placed willy-nilly alongside old two-story detached homes that makes a mockery of the word "planning." It's monstrous. You have to gradually 'step up' as you transition from a lo-rise neighbourhood to a condo forest if you want things to work. This sudden and brutal plunking down of monster towers in the midst of gentle old neighbourhood splendour is really tragic.

Actually, I don't even think condo forests work. They ruined Harbourfront as far as I'm concerned. Blunt curtains of grey concrete and mirror glass everywhere you look. Access to the lake strictly curtailed. What a mess. Or look at Van city. Man, most of those condos do not age well, do they? I guess it makes more sense to go tall condo in that town considering the mountains and whatnot. Sort of like needing to go vertical in a place like Hong Kong. But if you have a chance not to go that route, all the better. Four and five story mixed residential/commercial is much more human scale.

Yeah, Toronto was the principal beneficiary of Montreal's decline. Weird to think that, in 1960, the year I was born, Montreal was easily Toronto's rival in terms of corporate head offices and big banks. Much has been lost since then.

Now it's perhaps Toronto's turn to take a beating. Well, we're already struggling, aren't we? The exodus to the West has already involved a great many Ontarians, Toronto folks among them. The real signs of power shift will occur when big firms close up shop here in the GTA and relocate to Calgary. I'm guessing this is coming. Toronto may be in for a prolonged spell of rough weather.

Many of the buildings being replaced were built with incredible attention to detail and structures that nobody could afford to duplicate. Most of these condos are headed for major structural and surface problems 20 years hence, part of the beauty of handing the building over to the "condo corporation"--and often the dissolution of the builder's company--after the building is completed.

Toronto's "intensification" strategy strikes me not as an urban plan for a liveable city, but a plan to increase tax revenues exponentially while increasing services geometrically. I don't think it goes beyond that. Building towers near TTC stations looks more like a way of creating future TTC customers, than any plan to encourage transit use.

I like Paris' approach with quite a rigid "skyline" look mandatory for central streets containing apartments.
Towers are regulated to a cluster.

So 13 million fit into a space smaller than the GTA and it's very livable tho there are "ghetto" issues in the outlying "burb".
City core works as a liveable and gorgeous city but damn very rigid building look" parameters.

4-5 stories max for me and should be above all street level stores.

Some parts of Harbourfront work - a few horrid blots could be removed.

Consistent look requires a lot of trampling of perceived "right to choose".

A lot of that can be done through zoning. Zoning is busy trying to amalgamate and harmonize existing zoning though.

Certain neighbourhoods have those restriction on the appearance of the buildings. Rosedale does, Cabbagetown does... Historical societies/heritage building associations are very strong in those areas. Consequently, they remain beautiful areas.

Zoning is double edged tho - it can detract from areas like Queen Street or little Italy.
I'd prefer to see zoning limited to looks more rigidly and use less so to encourage the intermingling of commerce and life.

Many of the buildings being replaced were built with incredible attention to detail and structures that nobody could afford to duplicate. Most of these condos are headed for major structural and surface problems 20 years hence, part of the beauty of handing the building over to the "condo corporation"--and often the dissolution of the builder's company--after the building is completed.

Toronto's "intensification" strategy strikes me not as an urban plan for a livable city, but a plan to increase tax revenues exponentially while increasing services geometrically. I don't think it goes beyond that. Building towers near TTC stations looks more like a way of creating future TTC customers, than any plan to encourage transit use.

Your first paragraph illustrates why I'll never buy into the condo lifestyle. It's a trap lying in wait... or a bomb; take your pick.

And yes, it's unfortunate that so much detail must fall to the wrecking ball, especially when hideously pedestrian blocks rise in their stead. Bleh.

But building towers near TTC stations does encourage transit use - perhaps not nearly as effectively as it could be, but the attraction is most definitely there. I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. The thing is, more and more people are moving into the city - either on the peripheries in burbtopia or filling in the centre core. The latter group puts a premium on most services being available within that core and, in the future at least, will be less likely to own more than a single car per household; indeed, many will do Auto-share type rentals for those comparatively rare times that they actually need wheels. The rest of the time they are either walking, scooting, biking or, yes, taking the TTC.

I was at a local development / consultation meeting last summer where the neighbourhood was talking to a group of city reps and a developer about a mixed-use mid-rise development slated to go in at the bottom of my street sometime over the next few months. A few of my neighbours were aghast, some of whom will fall into that building's shadow zone (so will we, I think). One woman expressed her revulsion at the thought that people next door will be able to look down into her nice backyard and (at least partially) into her house. She and a couple others wanted to stop the development cold. Clearly she was alarmed that a modern five story building would exist alongside quaint old century brick houses. She probably hasn't yet arrived at the idea of putting blinds in her windows, but she will. People can and do adjust to all sorts of things. I asked my neighbour to compare a 5 story building to a 20 story condo tower and think about which new neighbour she would prefer to have. That helps put things in perspective. Elsewhere downtown they are building condo towers... cliff dwelling never did much for me and if you're used to low-scale housing on leafy streets, chances are you too will prefer mid-rise development in your own neighbourhood over the obtrusive, domineering alternative.

The woman representing the city started to speak to her concerns but I spoke instead and told my neighbour that doubtless similar discussions are being held all over the city these days and that this was, to a certain degree anyway, a rising tide we cannot stop. The city woman smiled in gratitude, and replied for everyone' benefit. The city recognizes that (she said), whether anyone already here knows it or not, likes it or not, it will be home to several hundreds of thousands of additional residents over the next several years. It's not a question of Toronto having courteously invited them, she said bluntly - they're coming, period. Even the most conservative projections seem to be bearing this out. Canada's largest city is hardly about to enter a zero growth phase, let alone suddenly contract in population.

Having framed the situation thusly, it becomes an issue of how the city responds to that influx - we can deny that it's happening or we can do our best to try and manage that change. I think we should be practical and admit to ourselves that our urban settlement patterns are changing. The implementations of said changes will doubtless be bumpy in many areas and some hackles will be raised. We can either work with it or go nuts trying to pretend that we won't have another million residents in another couple of decades. I would rather this go as smoothly as possible. What the GTA will look like in 20 years is something I'd love to have a crystal ball for. I really don't know how well we'll do. Some people will get out of dodge - especially those who are at retirement age. They will tend to favour small places that are well serviced by medical facilities and all manner of idle distractions. That will be sprawl of another sort. Think Collingwood on steroids.

Max: What I'm objecting to is the imposition of large towers, like the Minto monster at Yonge and Eglinton, which is being built on the excuse that it meets the city's goal of intensification. The design is a D-. The building may have been placed there to feed more customers into the TTC, rather than to provide the applicants with TTC access--there is a distinction. The building has a terribly diruptive effect on nearby homes, many of which will now be in permanent darkness.

OK, gotcha. I agree... development that's out of scale. It's a joke that this kind of thing ever gets green lit. Very discouraging... someone has been paid off in some back room deal and now you have to live with the ugly results.

I asked my neighbour to compare a 5 story building to a 20 story condo tower and think about which new neighbour she would prefer to have.

I have to do this to keep things in perspective in some work-related discussions. Many instinctively default to a future option of status quo. From that option, all sorts of stuff can be opposed quite sensibly. Getting them to realise that SQ is not an option being offered to them changes what they will oppose and accept.

It's tough; SQ is tangible and exists. Seeing that it won't in the future requires a leap of uncertainty. Thankfully, I'm certain and can guide them. Or shove them. beejacon

development that's out of scale. It's a joke that this kind of thing ever gets green lit. Very discouraging... someone has been paid off in some back room deal and now you have to live with the ugly results.

ain't that the UGLY truth.......:(

I once sat on a community board when a builder decided to redevelop a convent and orchard into ugly townhomes and singles. I pushed hard for

* lower density with slightly wider lots and more singles,
* row house stuff facing the busiest street.
* part of parcel set aside for a park at builder's expense
* traffic controls
* ravine protection

These were winnable points. Some of the community was demanding the convent be transformed into an Arts Centre. The point was ridiculous--a complete non-starter. Who would buy it? Pay to run it? Why build an Arts Centre three blocks from an existing community centre?

Stuff like that really hurts the negotiation process. Better start with a position that seems at least plausible.

* lower density with slightly wider lots and more singles,
* row house stuff facing the busiest street.
* part of parcel set aside for a park at builder's expense
* traffic controls
* ravine protection



Sounds like a Hazel negotiation end point.

My biggest beef is these mega acres of light industrial single story units that are deserted at night and every municipality cries the blues over affordable housing land.

Change the damn paradigm.

NO question heavy industry and auto parks etc need their exclusive servicing and zone but hey office and light industrial......??
Residential is 200' across the street - why not 50' straight up.

MF:

Everything about your board's proposal sounded good except for the arts centre. Kind of a naive suggestion, to say the least! Speaking as someone in the field of visual arts, it's a fairly anemic industry here in Canada and it certainly offers no guarantee as a viable business model. Sounds more like pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Very ambiguous, too.

Zoning is double edged tho - it can detract from areas like Queen Street or little Italy.
I'd prefer to see zoning limited to looks more rigidly and use less so to encourage the intermingling of commerce and life.

That too, is a zoning issue. Zoning does not only prevent. It also allows. I have (sadly enough) read through chunks of the zoning bylaws for Toronto.... for each zone, there is a massive chart listing permitted uses and then pages of information with the clauses and conditions.

Though if I look at where I live (Yonge & Eglinton) generally speaking, the major streets are all zoned commercial while all the side streets are zoned residential. Everything you need is within a 10 minute walk. It works.

There is residential above some storefronts, but generally, people don't like living there because of street noise. I think having residential in walking distance of commercial is good, but as you propose it, it can also detract from quality of life.

Oh, here's a weird fact about Toronto. You can buy and sell density.

So if I am in an area that it zoned for up to 10 stories, and I have a 5 story building, I can sell the extra 5 stories worth of density to somebody else so that they can put up a 15 story building. At there are a LOT of buildings that are shorter than the area that they are zoned for.

I have no idea why you can do this, but you can.

Wow, that's pretty odd. Smacks of horse-trading, at least on the face of it.

I agree--it's very odd.

But you know, if I have an existing low-rise building that I'm never going to add stories to, and someone offers me (made up number--I have no idea what density goes for) $100,000 for the unused space, hell yes I would sell it. It's money for nothing.

Yeah, definitely puts the seller in the driver's seat. Sucks if you're buying and the seller is wise to the deal, though. Paying through the nose for air rights. Kind of surreal.

...if I have an existing low-rise building that I'm never going to add stories to, and someone offers me (made up number--I have no idea what density goes for) $100,000 for the unused space, hell yes I would sell it.

If you dressed it up a little, you could make sure that they chose YOUR unused space instead of someone else's. Put an apple and cinnamon in the microwave to make your unused density smell homey.

Curious how one advertises for this.

My bigger building is a low rise near Yonge & Eglinton--I'm surrounded by much taller buildings, plus 6-7 condo developments.

You think Minto would want to pay me for another dozen floors? I'm pretty sure I know someone who knows someone who knows those guys.

My biggest beef is these mega acres of light industrial single story units that are deserted at night and every municipality cries the blues over affordable housing land.

Change the damn paradigm.

NO question heavy industry and auto parks etc need their exclusive servicing and zone but hey office and light industrial......??
Residential is 200' across the street - why not 50' straight up.
Sounds good in theory - but who would want to actually live there? I for one wouldn't want to live in an apartment on top of a factory in an industrial park.

Though if I look at where I live (Yonge & Eglinton) generally speaking, the major streets are all zoned commercial while all the side streets are zoned residential. Everything you need is within a 10 minute walk. It works.

That sounds like a good arrangement.

I live in an older suburb in Calgary, not inner city but not outer suburbia either. Most of the things that are needed regularly (e.g., Groceries, Banks, Schools, etc.) can be found within a 10 minute walk - yet most people tend to drive.

I'm not sure if this is because people perceive driving to be more convenient, or if it is because people are so used to driving everywhere else already that the possibility of walking doesn't even occur to people.

There is a big time urban sprawl / traffic problem in Calgary, but I can't see it going away any time soon. People buy in outer suburbia because they can get the kind of house they want at a price they can afford.

I'm not sure what sort of things could be done to improve matters. There are many areas where driving is the only reasonable way to get around, but expanding the transit system (which is being done) won't completely solve the problem - most people will choose to take their own car over transit if they have any choice in the matter.

It would be nice to see some measures to reduce traffic congestion, both for quality of life and for the environment. Perhaps there should be some incentives for companies to offer telecommuting, stagger their business hours, etc. There should also be measures to encourage car pooling - perhaps free parking for vehicles with four or more occupants. That should be a big hit, as we already have the most expensive parking in Canada, yet it can still be hard to find parking at any price...

I think MD is talking about office and light industrial... not residential and light industrial. Still problematic, as even light industrial uses all sorts of nasty stuff like solvents and glues and other noxious stuff. There'd have to be some real progress in ventilating the bad stuff so that it's not a health hazard for all who work under the same roof.

But you have to start somewhere.

Still problematic, as even light industrial uses all sorts of nasty stuff like solvents and glues and other noxious stuff. There'd have to be some real progress in ventilating the bad stuff so that it's not a health hazard for all who work under the same roof.

Hell, try walking through the perfume department at the Bay. It's much more obnoxious than any light industrial area I've been in lately. ;)

There used to be ( maybe still are - many units like this in Etobicoke- buddy of mine had a gorgeous apartment above a distribition unit.

We're not talking manufacturing but more the tons of strip units that have a variety of businesses from blind suppliers, to car audio installers even daycares.
Varied use. Mississauga has hundreds of units like that.

You don't want paint shops etc - those rightfully are clustered elsewhere.

Low income housing is a serious problem in most municipalities.
Serviced property is expensive and density demands better and 24 hour use of space.
There's lots of this type of mix in Tokyo and many places in England - I'm sure elsewhere in the world as well.
Berkley Street in Toronto has a number of units commercial below with built in apartments above - friend owned one - lived there had his Mac biz down below.

Tokyo there are tiny restaurants in residential areas - only maybe 4 tables - really just a part of the house. Only open a few hours in the evening - serve a few customers from the area then close. Good for all.

Quite frankly I don't know how "magic" neighbourhoods emerge but no easy task to let growth and opportunity thrive with some boundaries for look and use.

You can't produce ambience on demand.

No, but you can set the optimum conditions for an attractive ambience to flourish. But as to what precisely those conditions would be, well... let me get back to you on that one.

I agree - can't be produced on demand - can be too easily snuffed out.

No idea tho I suspect an active LOCAL community group is kinda important.

I guess it's back to - you can't legislate common sense......or community spirit.

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/207624_4.JPG :D

more like Hazel please


Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion is taking a $32,000 pay cut – putting pressure on politicians in her city and the GTA to do the same and return thousands of dollars they get for sitting on municipally owned hydro boards.

"It's permanent, it's irrevocable as long as I sit on the board," McCallion said after she told the Star she is giving back what she receives for sitting on the board of Enersource

Just confirming the "we want it all" real estate segment -- anyone interested should have a look at Redfin and the trials they've been put through by vengeful agents.

Redfin combines MLS listing information (homes for sale) with historical sales data (homes already sold) into a single map. If you find a home you like and want to place an offer, Redfin will represent you in the buying process (they have a call center with licensed real estate professioinals to guide you). Here’s the good part: They reimburse you 2/3 of the buy-side real estate fee directly on closing. The average amount reimbursed to the buyer is $11,402 (and that is based on relatively low Seattle home prices).

Redfin is also testing a seller-representation model, called “Direct for Sellers”, that will handle all aspects of a sale for a flat fee (currently $1,350). On a $500,000 home sale, this saves the seller $13,650.

Everything isn’t rosy for Redfin, though. They’ve been operating in Seattle for a number of years and have numerous war stories to tell about threats, stalkings and other disturbing behavior towards their employees and some customers from, apparently, angry real estate professionals. Hopefully things won’t get out of hand as they continue to disrupt this stubbornly inefficient market.
Redfin To Change the Rules of Real Estate Sales (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/05/31/redfin-can-rewrite-real-estate-rules/)

Redfin was trying to turn the industry upside down by refunding people two-thirds of the commission that real estate agents normally charge. Customers loved the idea - why the heck did you need to hand over 6 percent of the price of your house, anyway? But agents hated it for destroying their fat margins, so they began blacklisting Redfin, refusing to sell houses to anyone who used the service. Kelman was struggling to close deals for his clients.

His first reaction was to keep the situation quiet and pretend everything was OK. "We were really ashamed that our customers were getting pushed around, so we tried to keep it this dirty little secret," he says. But when months went by without any improvement, he decided to take a different tack.

Kelman set up a Redfin blog and began posting witty screeds about the nasty underbelly of the real estate business. He denounced traditional brokers, accusing them of screwing customers with clubby, closed-door practices. ("If we don't reform ourselves, and take out all the sales baloney, too, people will come to hate real estate agents the way they hate tobacco companies or Big Oil," he wrote.) He publicized Redfin's internal debates, even arguments about the design of its Web site. He mocked himself: One post described how he had sat at a college job fair for hours, waiting in vain for a single student to approach him. ("This was particularly sobering because it meant we had outlosered our neighbor to the right, Ford Motor Company," he wrote.) Meanwhile, in the blog's comments, old-school agents were unleashing hissing attacks on Redfin. Kelman left the critiques in and lashed right back, in full view of his customers.

Wired 15.04: The See-Through CEO (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/wired40_ceo.html)

Interesting Wired article for a number of reason.

Gotta love this :clap: Winnipeg be proud of your Mayor

Some budget advice for Flaherty next time around

Like U.S. cities, our main centres need greater share of taxes paid to governments, says Glen Murray
Apr 01, 2007 04:30 AM


In his budget, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty pronounced the fiscal imbalance resolved as he directed $38 billion more federal tax dollars to the provinces.

Part of the reason this was possible is that federal revenues have risen by $25 billion since the last election.

Now $25 billion is more than the total annual operating and capital budgets of Canada's 10 largest cities. That is the total taxes Canadians in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Mississauga, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City pay to their municipal governments each year.

To the cities, the minister directed no new money but offered up a little advice:

"I would hope that cities would reflect on their own budget exercises and try being prudent in their budgeting and budget within their means."

Good advice. In six years as Winnipeg's mayor, I led a government that reduced city staffing levels from a high of 11,500 to just over 8,000, more than halved the cumulative municipal debt of $1 billion, and cut property taxes by 8.4 per cent.

The modest inflation of the late '90s was sufficient to reduce the buying power of our flat property tax revenues. So tax cuts were real reductions in city property tax revenues.

Unlike municipal tax reductions, federal tax cuts are not reductions in federal revenues but rather a modest reduction in the rapid rate at which the federal government revenues increase annually. This is the difference between growth revenues like the GST and static revenues like property tax.

So in return for his advice I would offer some content for Flaherty's next budget speech:

"Mr. Speaker. I am very proud to table our third budget.

"The Government of Canada is going to redress a long neglected challenge in this budget. The $160 billion infrastructure deficit that confronts Canada's towns and cities is a problem Canadians are well aware of, Mr. Speaker.

"From the poor conditions of the main streets and water systems of prairie towns, to worn-out subway stations of our largest cities, we are simply not maintaining communities to the standard Canadians deserve.

"Economists have pointed out that our infrastructure challenge could be resolved over 25 years with a $6 billion annual commitment. This is much less than even one year's growth in federal revenues. The great irony, Mr. Speaker, is that for the federal and provincial governments this is an investment, not a cost. We would see significant uplift in our revenues given the positive impact fixing our transportation and other public infrastructure would have on the economic activities from which we derive our taxes.

"So today I am announcing a $2 billion annual commitment dedicated to municipal infrastructure renewal and repair, and the Government of Canada will ask the provinces and municipalities to match this commitment.

"In the United States, most cities collect both sales taxes and property taxes to fund services. Canada's system of singular reliance on property taxes has left us with among the highest municipal property taxes in North America and burdened us with huge backlogs of street, transit, sewer and facility repairs.

"While Canadian cities collect about 8 per cent of all taxes paid to governments, cities in the U.S. collect, on average, about 18 per cent of taxes their citizens and businesses pay.U.S. cities are developing a competitive advantage over Canadian cities in an economy when the vast majority of the jobs are created in urban centres.

"So, to correct the problem we are committing to reduce the GST by another two points to allow cities and towns to introduce a 2 per cent sales tax. Half will be dedicated to Canada's towns to address the infrastructure backlog. The other half will be used to bring municipal revenues in line with international norms by reducing property taxes on our homes and places of work equivalent to 1 per cent of the sales tax collected in that community.

"We know, Mr. Speaker, this is sufficient to solve our national infrastructure crisis and improve the environment for business investment in our cities and towns. Furthermore, it will alleviate the entire burden for municipal services from residents and businesses in a community and share with visitors and tourists who purchase goods and services on trips to the cities."

"In summary, Mr. Speaker, we are fixing our roads and water systems, and reducing the overall tax burden on Canadians. That is a very conservative idea!"
TheStar.com - opinion - Some budget advice for Flaherty next time around (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/197954)

,,,,gauntlet thrown........ :D

Just to make sure I wasn't in a time-warp: "Glen Murray is a former Winnipeg mayor and urban strategist."

"we are committing to reduce the GST by another two points to allow cities and towns to introduce a 2 per cent sales tax."

They're allowed to now if the provinces let them. Nothing to do with a Fed cut.

It's the same old game. The cities want it to appear as though they're using money that isn't currently being used anywhere else. Or that any "city tax" is neutral.

Those concepts are non-starters. Why not ask the cities to redcue property taxes, then make it up in sales tax. Same thing, but reduced to a single level of government where the effect is observable.

I happen to live in the city with the highest municipal taxes in Canada. Trouble is the greedy bastards want more. Our city is now championing this draconian set of new taxes as reported in The Edmonton Journal, Sunday, March 25, 2007:

"Prepare yourself: If the municipalities get their way, Albertans are going to see an immediate and dramatic increase in taxes.
The shocking recommendations come from a report on the Minister's Council on Municipal Sustainability, comprised of mayors from Edmonton and Calgary as well as representatives from the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties.
In the report, they ask the provincial government to enact legislation to authorize municipalities to charge new taxes in six areas -- amusement, tourism, property transfer, vehicle registration, development and commercial.
Can you see where this is going?
Prepare to pay more when you buy a ticket to the next Oilers game, movie or play.
When you go to Jasper for the weekend, a new local tourism tax will be tacked on the bill to feed local government coffers.
Next time you register your vehicle expect it to cost more, too, if each city is allowed to take its own cut.
Thinking of selling your house or small business? A "property transfer tax" like the one that exists in Vancouver would have the average property owner paying $4,000 tax on the sale of a $300,000 property.
You would think that the cities might be asking for all of these new taxing powers instead of Premier Ed Stelmach's commitment to fund the cities with $1.4 billion in new annual provincial transfers.
Nope. The municipalities expect to get those transfers, too. These taxes are being proposed in addition to the money promised by the Stelmach government; in addition to their GST rebate from the federal government; in addition to the federal and provincial fuel-tax-sharing arrangements, and in addition to franchise fees charged on gas and electricity bills.
The municipalities have received a massive influx of new monies in recent years. However, it's becoming clear that, from the perspective of local politicians, there will never be enough."

Municipal politicians remind me of used car salesmen in plaid jackets, who screw you any way they can.

It's not fair they should have to wear plaid jackets. Can't they get better uniforms by taxing clothing sales in the municipalities?

City proposing added trash fees

Apr 03, 2007 10:40 AM
John Spears
City Hall Bureau
Would you like your garbage bin small, medium or jumbo?

Toronto householders could soon be asked to choose the size of their garbage container – and be billed a monthly garbage pick-up fee according to the size of their bin.

City staff have worked up a proposal to be floated to politicians this week that would set pay-as-you-throw fees for garbage.

According to one version, households would pay $4 a month for a standard size bin. But they would have the choice of ordering a larger bin – and paying a higher fee – or ordering a smaller bin and paying less. The garbage fees would be mailed out with the water bills.

A $4 a month fee would raise about $25 million a year – money that's now raised through property taxes.

Householders would not be charged higher fees if they fill extra blue boxes or green bins. The idea of the fee is to encourage residents to reduce the amount of garbage going to the dump, not to penalize those who recycle or compost.

Politicians are trying to reduce the strain on property taxes, and instead raise at least some of the money for garbage disposal from a user fee. The model would be the water system, which is funded through water bills, not by taxes.

This year's residential property tax increase will be 3.8 per cent if the budget is approved – about twice the rate of inflation.

User pays :clap: - not about getting the property taxes to G8 norm....... :rolleyes:

all of this points out we have a brahmin class at prov and Fed level that needs a solid edging and trimming.

I see McGuinty wants to add 26 new MPPs.....about 26 LESS!!!! :mad:

GTA as province looking much better - get rid of the "herding cats" council system and have a nice compact 3 party city state. Canton Golden Horseshoe - has a nice ring to it :D

How about Barrie or Peterborough as capital of Canton Ontario. ;)

all of this points out we have a brahmin class at prov and Fed level that needs a solid edging and trimming.


Define the term "brahmin class" as it relates to your usage (above example seems typical). You seem to have a very specific concept of how you want to use it.

Did you mean brahmin caste?

I can't find the original context, but the usage here implies a very limited understanding of the caste system.

Yes, please - include me as one who would like to hear a clearer definition of this so-called class / caste / category.

I've been wondering about this one myself. In the context I've seen it used recently, a "Brahmin" seems to be the equivalent of Thurston Howell the Third on Gilligan's Island--a dead weight in the elite class.

I've been wondering about this one myself. In the context I've seen it used recently, a "Brahmin" seems to be the equivalent of Thurston Howell the Third on Gilligan's Island--a dead weight in the elite class.
Possibly, but if I recall, MacDoc is always right, and who are we mortals to question his superior intellect?

Brahmin caste is the religious caste though there are many subcastes within this.

a member of a social and cultural elite especially a descendant of an Old New England family
Brahmin: Definition and Much More from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/brahmin)

I'm being using it quite sarcastically in reference to our pampered and indulged civil servant.

and yes I'm quite aware of the caste system it stems from.

here's a similar use

A shrinking Brahmin class of professional-rank faculty enjoys academic careers and compensation commensurate with their advanced training, while a growing caste of ‘untouchable’ educational service workers are caught in poorly remunerated semester-to-semester jobs that offer no career prospects."
APA Committee on the Status and Future of the Profession: Committee Report 1998 (http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/governance/committees/status/report98.html)

MF - pretty close tho deadweight a bit over the top....more pampered and expecting to be so.....see Ontario Hyrdo workers. ;)

If you check the ranks you'll see a bit of nepotism rising there too. ;)

If yoo check the ranks you'll see a bit of nepotism rising there too. ;)
I guess all you who fervently follow nepotism spell you as "yoo", or do you? Or is that yoo?

Nice job digging up stuff to try and cover, MD. So MD, you picked an extremely narrow perspective (that someone else may have used...that makes it good!) and decided to use it to add some faux-literary oomph to your views instead of just saying what you mean. Sort of like how Star Trek grabs Indian terms that sound neat to create a false impression of creating something they are not.

MD, I recommend much more reading on the topic. "Honest Inj**"

Both of those examples use the term very inaccurately--rather culturally insensitive of them. ;)

No Beej you are entirely off base. I read a lot of books based in India ( you can check - I review them and the phrase is quite common and in use for a long time and I've used any number of times.

Favouritism Angers Non-Brahmins

As the new Visalakshi hostel has bigger rooms, tiled bathrooms and continuous water supply unlike Annapoorani, the non-Brahmin students complained that they were being treated as second class citizens.

"The university and the math collects more money as donation from non-Brahmin students. But when it comes to providing facilities, Brahmins always get the best," says Varadharajulu, another student.

According to him, the Math extends various subsidies to Brahmin students. And for this, it collects hefty donations from non-Brahmins. "It's funny. They don't like us. They don't respect us," he alleged.

Most non-Brahmin students complain that the Brahmins are pampered in more ways than one. "From donation amount to hostel room rent, Brahmin students always get things at a cheaper rate. And from getting Internet connections to various scholarships, Brahmins always top the priority list," says another student.

Brahmins are also associated with civil servants historically - and still now.

Brahmins and other high caste Hindus may grumble about suffering from "reverse discrimination" but they still tend to be in charge. They dominate the civil service -- a recent survey showed they occupied 42 percent of top civil service jobs -- the armed forces, the corporate world, culture, the media and even the Indian cricket team.

I've consistently used it as a "favoured class" short form and will continue.
You asked for an explanation - I gave one....and backed up that it's used elsewhere.

No Beej you are entirely off base. I read a lot of books based in India ( you can check - I review them and the phrase is quite common and in use for a long time and I've used any number of times.

I am Indian.

I am Indian. your point being.

A term is used so it's a-ok? Sure how about We***ing on a bet, being Gy***, etc.?

All ok with you like "Honest Inj**". You've decided upon an extremely narrow interpretation for your own uses and don't seem to care. That's your choice and is completely consistent for you. Congrats.

As for associations, well, it's a little (lot) more than you imply but, sure, if you just want to focus on that then that's enough for your perspective. That can be applied to all sorts of colourful language.

Note: You do realise that posting quotes like you have is not supportive in the way you intend, right? In fact, in your weak attempt we've got, "the armed forces, the corporate world, culture, the media and even the Indian cricket team" but your narrow interpretation by convenience is much less.

your point being.
For once MD, you had best put a cork in it.

Sonal has direct experience. You do not.

The only thing that remains is to see if you can shut up and disappear on the issue, as you should.

Know-it-alls serve little purpose here. ;)

The term in both examples is not being accurately used, despite the many books you have read that are based in India.

Oh spare me - the term brahmin class for east coast elite has been in use for years.

We're not talking about formal caste systems.
I'm aware how complex the issue is for the subcontinent - I only pointed out the reading in that I know the difference between the use I'm putting it to and the caste issues in India.
There ARE however numerous instances around the world Brahmin and civil service are unusually synonymous. Which simply adds to the barb.

Where the hell do you think the term came from in the first place for the East Coast US elite? I did not invent term - I'm using in a consistent and mostly humorous manner to point out a privileged segment of Canadian society.

•••

So tell me Sonal - what's the basis for the east coast elite term being used??

••

Beej - Show me one quote that does not show "elite and privileged".

MD: You are using a term that means a lot more than just what you want it to mean (one narrow perspective of limited relevance to the history versus your largely "blue ball" approach to the label). That you latched onto such an appealing usage to try and puff up your missives is understandable: they sound better with a little "other" appeal just as using latin does. Pretty standard stuff in debate.

But the problem has been pointed out. It's a learning experience that picking and choosing for the rhetoric, while completely up to you, can lead to silly decisions.

I did not invent term - I'm using in a consistent and mostly humorous manner to point out a privileged segment of Canadian society.


Wow, then it must be ok? Keep digging. It has even been used for years! Then it must be a-ok. After all, someone else said it.

Oh spare me
I'm aware how complex the issue is for the subcontinent - I only pointed out the reading in that I know the difference between the use I'm putting it to and the caste issues in India.
So you claim. I still think it best you simply abandon your position. No direct knowledge and all. ;)