>> "but perhaps the biggest one in Toronto is the fact that commercial uses are taxed at about three times the rate of residential and the assessments are out of date..."are mainly because local governments want to minimize taxation on homeowners as they are most likely to vote in local elections."
>> "but perhaps the biggest one in Toronto is the fact that commercial uses are taxed at about three times the rate of residential and the assessments are out of date..."are mainly because local governments want to minimize taxation on homeowners as they are most likely to vote in local elections."
Silly idea in thinking that Govt, which caused this problem in the first place via its policies, is going to have the wherewithal, the brains, and the political will to actually fix the problem correctly.
It's clear that not many here truly understand how politics work - or the length of time it will take due to the entrenched bureaucracy that depends on status quo. They also don't understand that the highly touted Socialist idea of having "unbiased" technocrats make decisions for the betterment of all. After all, the only difference between them and us is that their paycheck is signed by a govt agent.
The other thing to consider is that this whole walkable neighborhood idea depends on a certain threshold of housing density. Across the vast majority of the US that’s simply not the case, especially in the suburbs where most residents live (as opposed to the inner core.) And, modern society likes conformity and corporate blandness. The UK and Europe as a whole is far less monopolized by corporate redundancy than is the United States, which makes it more difficult for small businesses to compete and remain profitable.
While 40 Cities in the US are gravitating to this "from the past" idea, it is turning out to be the "15 minute Surveillance neighborhoods" where govt's are trapping their citizens even to the point of taxing their travel, on the roads their taxes pay for, in the cars that they have bought, if they cross some random border too many times in some period of time.
Look at the pushback in London where the surveillance cameras are being taken out by citizens believing that "enough is enough".
And we're also seeing the "Rack'em and Stack'em" policies starting to happen to migrate people back into the cities that they fled by any number of means or policies (generally misnamed for the masses thinking "this must be good". Look what Biden is now doing here in the US with "30 in 30" policy if you think I'm just a conspiracy nutter. What are the ramifications just with that?
Lloyd, it's already starting to happen in my state. This started about 10 years ago, went silent two years later, and it now starting to stick its head up again with the "flatlanders" trying to escape the high tax and regulation environs...
Yes, that is true. But having to ignore the majority of the people on this thread is not why I come here. Once in a while there is some really good ideas that come up in these threads from these articles.
I think you missed the point. In my view, you would then be the "provocateur". By this crowd stating in multiple stories and comments, that they know what is best for us and they need the government to do their bidding, is not being "provocateurs"?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but it's coming across like your stance is " man writes sub stack focused on problems and solutions in our world with a pretty clear focus on less cars, less mansions, less consumption, many many commenters discuss but are mostly in agreement ( which is why they are here in the first place!), a couple of regular commenters always piss all over the original presentation and your stance is that the original presenter and most of the commenters are provocateurs and you are more on side with googly boo and igneous rock guy. Am I getting that right? Because if I am I'll just stop right here.
Let me try to explain in a better way. If in my view that the commenters here are trying to get the government to force me to live a certain way against my will, would that not be provocative?
After that is said, calling commenters names really doesn't hold your argument in the best light.
>> "but perhaps the biggest one in Toronto is the fact that commercial uses are taxed at about three times the rate of residential and the assessments are out of date..."are mainly because local governments want to minimize taxation on homeowners as they are most likely to vote in local elections."
Silly idea in thinking that Govt, which caused this problem in the first place via its policies, is going to have the wherewithal, the brains, and the political will to actually fix the problem correctly.
It's clear that not many here truly understand how politics work - or the length of time it will take due to the entrenched bureaucracy that depends on status quo. They also don't understand that the highly touted Socialist idea of having "unbiased" technocrats make decisions for the betterment of all. After all, the only difference between them and us is that their paycheck is signed by a govt agent.
The other thing to consider is that this whole walkable neighborhood idea depends on a certain threshold of housing density. Across the vast majority of the US that’s simply not the case, especially in the suburbs where most residents live (as opposed to the inner core.) And, modern society likes conformity and corporate blandness. The UK and Europe as a whole is far less monopolized by corporate redundancy than is the United States, which makes it more difficult for small businesses to compete and remain profitable.
While 40 Cities in the US are gravitating to this "from the past" idea, it is turning out to be the "15 minute Surveillance neighborhoods" where govt's are trapping their citizens even to the point of taxing their travel, on the roads their taxes pay for, in the cars that they have bought, if they cross some random border too many times in some period of time.
Look at the pushback in London where the surveillance cameras are being taken out by citizens believing that "enough is enough".
And we're also seeing the "Rack'em and Stack'em" policies starting to happen to migrate people back into the cities that they fled by any number of means or policies (generally misnamed for the masses thinking "this must be good". Look what Biden is now doing here in the US with "30 in 30" policy if you think I'm just a conspiracy nutter. What are the ramifications just with that?
Oh g-d please not 15 minute city conspiracies. Everyone is just going to flee from comments.
Lloyd, it's already starting to happen in my state. This started about 10 years ago, went silent two years later, and it now starting to stick its head up again with the "flatlanders" trying to escape the high tax and regulation environs...
...only to keep voting the same way.
It's ok, Lloyd. It's not hard to figure out who to ignore in these comment sections..
Yes, that is true. But having to ignore the majority of the people on this thread is not why I come here. Once in a while there is some really good ideas that come up in these threads from these articles.
I don't ignore the majority! Lots of interesting, constructive commenters here. I just ignore the predictable provocateurs.
I think you missed the point. In my view, you would then be the "provocateur". By this crowd stating in multiple stories and comments, that they know what is best for us and they need the government to do their bidding, is not being "provocateurs"?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but it's coming across like your stance is " man writes sub stack focused on problems and solutions in our world with a pretty clear focus on less cars, less mansions, less consumption, many many commenters discuss but are mostly in agreement ( which is why they are here in the first place!), a couple of regular commenters always piss all over the original presentation and your stance is that the original presenter and most of the commenters are provocateurs and you are more on side with googly boo and igneous rock guy. Am I getting that right? Because if I am I'll just stop right here.
Let me try to explain in a better way. If in my view that the commenters here are trying to get the government to force me to live a certain way against my will, would that not be provocative?
After that is said, calling commenters names really doesn't hold your argument in the best light.
Okay. Now I understand. You're a libertarian. Did you know that libertarianism was a political system invented by 12 year old boys?