Monday’s headlines

13 comments

1. The Star piece on property taxes was frustrating as they have deliberately missed the cost efficiencies of compact urban form. It’s the “truth” that they wish the bulk of their readers to see, and to avoid examining the true costs of automobility.

2. Services like libraries and community centres are a lot better in the 905, but these aren’t really big ticket items. More significantly, the 905 pays for an extra regional level of government which adds cost and reduces accountability.

3. How do you figure libraries are better in 905 than 416? Toronto has more branches, more materials, more open hours and more literacy and community programs. And if you think people vote with their feet, all you need to know is Toronto has the busiest library system in the world.

4. Ha! You’re a comedian, James. Those 905ers wish they had our libraries. I should know, I used to be one.

   You should stick to what you know because saying regional government is conceptually more expensive is just as dumb as your comment about Toronto’s public services. You really think that the two mid-sized cities and one town that make up Peel could possibly be as efficient in delivering regional services? No way. Three police departments, three social service departments, etc just doesn’t make sense.

5. The star gets it right… I’m shocked.

   The reason why Toronto’s residential taxes are so low is because council has viewed the core as a cash cow to be milked with exorbitant commercial rates – they had “nowhere else to go”. Now after decades of pervasive attack, the business sector has been driven out of Toronto to the 905 – look at the business centers in Mississauga and Markham.

   There’s no efficiency in the built form of Toronto that could possibly provide 50% savings. Hardly any of the city of Toronto has anything resembling an urban built form either, and Spacing et al oppose the creation of an actual urban environment in Toronto. Etobicoke is indistinguishable from Mississauga or Oakville, except perhaps that Mississauga has areas of denser development and its dense areas are healthy while Etobicoke’s density is in slums perpetuated by TCHC and the disaster of “progressive” tower in the park architecture perpetrated by Spacing’s intellectual ancestors.

6. I wonder if looking at the amount of tax paid by house is the correct metric. I don’t have the stats in front of me but I would be willing to bet that you could fit three homes in toronto on every suburban lot. If that is the case people in toronto would be paying twice if not three times the rate of the people in the suburbs.

   Perhaps taxes paid by hectar would be a more insightful indicator.

7. Sometimes I question Royson James intelligence. Taxes in Toronto might be lower if you go by house value, for example, a $600 000 house in Toronto pays the same taxes as a house in suburbia worth $300 000 (just a ball figure). But the houses are probably comparable in size (same number of rooms) with the suburban house sitting in a much bigger lot. Maybe if you calculate property taxes in dollars per square feet the values would be comparable or even cheaper for houses outside Toronto. I wish I could find these numbers somewhere… Maybe the suburbanites are paying the costs of low density, in which case it is the correct way to go. People should pay the true costs of their life choices. This being said I agree that there needs to be a higher tax burden on home owners instead of Toronto businesses, so I agree with the current changes where businesses are having lower tax increases. I just wish that property taxes were also based on income levels, not only property values, I don’t know if this would be possible of viable, but that is how I feel. Property taxes should become more progressive, I am assuming this would enable more mixed income neighborhoods and protect those with fix incomes such as the elderly and people with disabilities who are unable to work.

8. Toronto has many social expenses that result from it being a catchment zone. 905 taxes would actually be even higher if they had to support their residents that move to Toronto for services.

9. I don’t have the stats in front of me but I would be willing to bet that you could fit three homes in toronto on every suburban lot. If that is the case people in toronto would be paying twice if not three times the rate of the people in the suburbs.

   Property tax in all of the municipalities concerned is explicitly geared to property value.

   The alternative system you propose is a good one which would encourage more efficient land use. But it is not how they calculate property tax right now. The apples to apples comparison really is property value — as long as you don’t take anything else into account, obviously.

10. Hamish,

    Would you care to take a stab at factoring in the effects of density to program cost? Start by looking at page 3 here : http://www.toronto.ca/budget2007/pdf/op_bckgrd.pdf

    Note, the amounts are expressed as a percentage of property tax, not actual cost. To get an actual cost amount divide the $ amounts by .42 .

    Scott,

    Yes, Toronto may have more social expenses than the the 905 region. They also receive more than $2,500.00 per household from the province to help pay for that. In the end, the city spends more per person than the 905 region yet the residential property class does not pay for it. That class in Toronto pays less than everyone else. Even by median standards of net dollar amount. It is the other property classes and the rest of the province that makes up the difference.

11. Royson James in the Star tackles the same issue.

    “Employing another measure used by each city – the average assessed home – the disparity remains. The average Richmond Hill home at $400,000 pays $3,169; the average Toronto home at $369,300 pays $2,256; and the average Oshawa home at $275,000 pays $4,157, almost twice the Toronto amount.

    So all the arguments about small lot, big lot, number of bathrooms, amenities, urban sprawl, densities, cost to provide service, and others don’t account for the discrepancy. Pick any benchmark house price and Toronto is low. Take the average home, and Toronto is low.”

    http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/407794

12. The one measure I’ve never seen — which I think would reveal the most about whether Toronto homeowners could afford higher taxes — would be a comparison of municipal tax rates to the household income of homeowners.

    If 905ers pay 3.5% of their income in municipal taxes, and 416ers only pay 2.5%, then there’s a very good argument that Toronto should raise taxes faster to fund badly-need service improvements. But if there are some 416ers who’ve lived in the same house for 30-40 years who are already paying 10%-15% of their income in property tax, it gets much more difficult.

13. Matt,

    While one could probably dig up that information, there is one major problem with it. They do not separate renters from home owners. Property taxes as a % of income varies wildly within the 416 area itself. Renters, who live in units within the ‘multi residential’ class, are subject to a much higher tax rate. Even though, on average they have lower family incomes. IIRC, a renter living in a unit assessed at $75,000. pays the same amount as an owner living in a home assessed at $320,000. As Royson pointed out, this is really about those who vote sticking it to those who don’t.