It's the money from the developers for their reelection campaigns that's
the only real benefit The economics of residential development, at
least in New England is that the services required by the developments
cost more than the new tax revenue generate so higher taxes for all
eventually result.
On 1/10/2010 9:26 AM, frank theriault wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:33 AM, David J Brooks<[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Frank.
There was another report Thursday in our local rag. Mayor and
councillors quite upset about this. This is all new to them and cannot
figure out why some one would do this. Sad, but kinda funny at the
same time.
What's really sad is that idyllic little places like Stouffville get
swallowed up by big cities. I remember when I first came to southern
Ontario in '68, Richmond Hill was about a 10 or 15 minute drive
through farm fields up Bayview or Yonge from the 401, fer gawd's sake.
Now Stouffville!
I think the puzzlement of mayor and council is ironic more than
anything else. They did vote for all those large developments that
have gone up (and are still going up), right? They're happy to take
the increase in tax base and all the monies developers give them to
put people in their community. Hopefully they put some of that money
aside to deal with the inevitable problems thousands of city-dwellers
bring with them.
Like that's gonna happen...
cheers,
frank
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
