Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The
Toronto Star Said":
It would be interesting to know what
percentage of a new home's selling price development charges represent and
whether this percentage has been increasing over the past, let's say, 40
years.
Developers/builders are in the business to make a profit. Is this
profit excessive or in line with those of the past 40 years, expressed as a
percentage of a new home's selling price?
Any business investment is made
on the basis of the anticipated percentage return on capital. If this percentage
is less than warranted by the risk then the investment will not be
made.
Politicians at the municipal level are responsible for providing
and administering services to its residents. These can vary widely; there is no
magical formula.
These services are provided for the lifetime of the
municipality and when things such as roads, sewers and water facilities start to
age and require major repair or replacement, the costs for these must be borne
by the municipality, namely the taxpayers.
We have been fortunate in that
our municipalities have managed to avoid the rot that has occurred in many large
American cities. Most of us have seen photos or film footage of abandoned homes
and factories, falling into disrepair and crumbling, a magnet for crime and
criminals.
What we have to recognize is that traditional housing, single
or semi-detached, is a luxury that we can no longer afford. The only way to
accommodate a projected explosion in population is with relatively high-rise
buildings. This will reduce future required increases in development charges and
will avoid filling our communities from boarder to boarder with asphalt and
concrete. We might be able to manage a park or two.
********************************
Taking the last point first. There appears to be no slowdown in housing sales, no matter how high the price.
Value of a property is what the buyer is willing to pay.
Children are being raised in institutions.
I can't tell you how profits have grown.
I have a sense of how taxes and cost of processing development plans have skyrocketed.
When lot levies started, the figure was $250. The number wasn't based on anything in particular. It was new-found money.
When Regional government was created, regulations started in earnest.
Planning departments were created.Two. One at each level.
New procedures were generated.Constraints established.
Process time grew.
Money invested in land took longer to realise return and cost more. Like ten or fifteen years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Builders stopped buying land and bought development plans instead.
Land speculators had to make their money before a single permit was issued.
Builders are not philanthropists. They need to pay wages and have some for themselves.
Development charges kept growing.
The Federal government introduced a tax on goods and services. Everything needed to produce a house.
The Feds argued the tax had previously been hidden from the consumer because it was paid by manufacturers of bricks and lumber and plumbing and glass etc.etc.
All services associated with building and transferring a property title were newly taxed.
Lawyers, real estate services, planners,engineers,consultants, all that lot.The list is endless and has to be duplicated for O.M.B. hearings.
Application fees have to be paid and accompanied by a myriad of professional studies. All of them taxed.
Departments engaged in the process by the municipality, the Region, Conservation Authorities, and all other agencies had to get their cut application fees. They pay the freight.
Land transfer tax existed all those years ago
The Province of Ontario was first to introduce a sales tax. It produced such a wealth of revenue the government was too embarrassed to tell.
It was after they were embarrassed by the wealth of revenue generated by lotteries.
And of course in addition to the billions generated by the L,C.B.O.
Thousands of people are employed in the housing industry. All paying government taxes. .
Forty years ago, houses got built. They stood the test of time. Neighborhoods came into being and matured nicely.
Front yards were sodded. Not the back. A single sidewalk was built on a major traffic collector.
Ditches provided storm drainage.
Driveways were of chucky stones.
Trees were not planted on front lawns.
There were no boulevards, no urban tree forest.
Hydro was overhead
Three bathrooms were not required , or designer kitchens
or picture windows that had to be replaced in a couple of years
because of rot caused by condensation, tight seal and high efficiency furnaces.
Did I mention; the first lot levies were $250.
They are now close to $36,000.
A house that might have cost $14,000, is now assessed close to half a million.
Taxes hidden in the price, now become " market value"of the property, assessed accordingly and taxes are paid on taxes forever and a day.
Easy come, easy go.
No matter how much ready cash is available, no matter how it grows, politicians and bureaucrats can always find a reason, valid or otherwise, to take more.
Did I tell you Aurora politicians are often advised of our community's affluence and high level of education ?
How many developers do you know that aren't wealthy?
ReplyDeleteAurora is a town that throws money at the Centre & does not fund the Food Pantry. That tells you where the Heart lies.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the Community Centre, Seniors Centre, and the Stronach Aurora Recreation Centre all cost money!
ReplyDeleteThe price of housing is no different than the price of gasoline, milk, bread or cars. They always go up. There are always things that councils throw money at that will piss off the public. This is done hoping that the number it pisses off is less than those that are happy or don't care. In Aurora, the ratio is working.
ReplyDeleteA fiscally responsible Council should not throw money at anything, especially at a board which meets secretly, can't be arsed to keep minutes and won't reduce its dependancy upon town aid. Aurora has the ratio scewed when it delivers mere lip-service to the concept of Habitat for Humanity, gives a seasonal nod of publicity to it's Food Bank & provides free-loading adults with property & an annual increasing subsidy.
ReplyDeleteI am sure Anonymous at 11:31 and 2:22 are the same person.
ReplyDeleteI would be more pissed at a Town Council that gave anything more than lip service or publicity to any social organization. I do not pay municipal taxes for HfH or food banks. These are baliwicks or church groups or independant social agencies.
There is alreay enough hand-outs at higher levels of government, the municipal level does not need to add to it.
And don't get me started on subsidized day-care!!!
2:43 PM So we should assume you disapprove equally of subsidized day-care & evening care for the bored and well-off? Is not the Centre ' a social organization'?
ReplyDeleteA guess would be that you have 2-3 comments out of six. Probably want to cut PBS Funding too.
"Is not the (Cultural) Centre ' a social organization'?"
ReplyDeleteSince you asked, no it's not.
4:02 PM...
ReplyDeleteNo the Centre is not a Social Organization. Don't be a fool. Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, Daily Bread, United Way and so on are social organizations that 11:31 and 2:22 feel our Town should subsidize. I disagree because it is not the mandate of Municipal governments to subsidize these groups. The "Centre" is hardly an equal comparison to H f H, but you have blinders on.
To show out of touch with reality you are, PBS is a US-based network. If any Canadian government provided funding I would be more pissed. The whole of idea is for the public to contribute to these social groups and even PBS, but I would be more inclined to support TVO, at least it keeps the money in Ontario.
For the un-elected Directors of the Centre, I believe it to be a social organization. And no one has ever suggested that Aurora fund lists of charities. Although they do support most of the events for the hospital and cancer. The Food Pantry would be a token gesture and I believe they can afford tokens while spending for the pricier ' non-profits '. Habitat is generally a one-shot deal & would certainly not be an annual drain on the Treasury. Win-Win. Not Pay-Pay.
ReplyDelete"For the un-elected Directors of the (Cultural) Centre, I believe it to be a social organization."
ReplyDeleteWell, I wouldn't presume to speak for those dozen people. None of the thousands of visitors could possibly consider the facility to be one.
To 3:07 PM
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your comments. It is a dangerous slipperly slope when you give to one. How can you give to H f H once and then say no to United Way or Cancer Society next time. You have to be firm and say no.
I once had a huge disagreement at a place I used to work at. They took a deduction out of your pay for "charity donation" every pay cycle. At the end of the year they gave the accumulated funds to a charity of the company owners' choice. All I got was a tax receipt. I disagreed with the the choice of charity because I felt that there were better choices and I would rather spend my donation dollars there. As a tax payer, would you agree to spend your tax dollars on a charity that you did not beleive in? I don't.
To Anonymous at 3:07pm
ReplyDelete"For the un-elected Directors of the Centre..."
What about the unelected Directors of the Food Bank? or Habitat for Humanity? How can we give them money if they are unelected?
Further to your statement... "And no one has ever suggested that Aurora fund lists of charities."
I think that at 11:31 and 2:22 providing funds to two charities was suggested.