City orders condo developers to buy annual metropass for every unit

[Automation Gallery]

Condo TTC Metropass program on chopping block

TORONTO - A plea from city bureaucrats for more time to study a hallmark of former mayor David Miller’s regime is likely to fall on deaf ears next week.

Planning and growth committee chairman Councillor Peter Milczyn said he will move next Wednesday to scrap the mandatory Metropass program imposed on condo builders by city council in 2009.

Starting in 2010, new condo developments were forced to buy TTC Metropasses for every unit in buildings with 20 or more units for one year “at no cost” to the buyer.

Last month, councillors asked staff to produce a review of the program for the next planning meeting.

Staff are asking for more time for the program to be in effect to produce “measurable results” before making a recommendation about the program's future — or lack of it.

But an unhappy Milczyn said he’ll be pushing for the program to hit the end of the line.

“I don’t think it actually achieves what its goal was,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a good policy.”

The measure was designed to give new condo dwellers a taste of the city’s transit system in hopes of getting them hooked on the TTC. Milczyn insisted it’s not practical and hardly free.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/20/condo-ttc-metropass-program-on-chopping-block

 

[Eug]

Condo TTC Metropass program on chopping block

TORONTO - A plea from city bureaucrats for more time to study a hallmark of former mayor David Miller’s regime is likely to fall on deaf ears next week.

Planning and growth committee chairman Councillor Peter Milczyn said he will move next Wednesday to scrap the mandatory Metropass program imposed on condo builders by city council in 2009.

Good. This was one of the most lame-brained policies I've come across in a very long time.

 

[freshcutgrass]

This was one of the most lame-brained policies I've come across in a very long time.

Really??

A policy that encourages new condo buyers to use public transit by providing them with a paid one-year pass is the dumbest idea ever? (and don't tell me they are throwing them away).

You can't think of anything dumber than that?

Are you sure?

I could think of a ton of them.

How about giving away $64 million to car owners?

Yea...let's do everything we can to promote car driving in the city, and do everything we can to discourage transit use. At the same time let's make sure we fiscally screw ourselves in the process.

Yea baby...now we're cook'n with gas!!!

 

[EnviroTO]

The money needs to come from somewhere and it always falls on the taxpayer to make up the short fall. So instead of encouraging transit use, giving people something for that money (of differing value depending on how much it is used), and creating a stream of revenue all at the same time, the better alternative is raise fares which tends to decrease ridership or to raise taxes which also provides no incentive to use transit nor gives the payer back a pass for the payment collected? When people pay for a Metropass they know the money went to the TTC and they get a month of unlimited rides for it... when people pay taxes they have no idea where the money went.

That is the stupidest policy? Wow. That means the other policies are absolutely brilliant.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The money needs to come from somewhere and it always falls on the taxpayer to make up the short fall.

Well, the million dollars in Metropass sales hardly has much influence on a $1.4 billion operation...so it isn't really about the money per say. But the argument against it is just weak. I really don't see why this issue is even such a major point. I think it's just another right-wing attempt at creating a tempest in a teapot to convince us how anything done by Miller must be reversed.

And who says it doesn't actually translate into getting people on the TTC....a developer who doesn't want to pay the fees? Sorry...I'll require slightly more "proof" than that. Oh...and a Sun article about is about as worthless. I have a feeling one year's pre-paid unlimited transportation has to have some incentive effect....how could it not?

But as I said...it really isn't about the money...it's kinda like the 5 cent bag fee....it's about getting you thinking about something.

 

[Eug]

Thanks for the rants. It's precisely this type of bizarro thinking that needs to be purged out of city council.

BTW, the reason people don't complain so much about the 5 cent fee is because it's 5 cents. OTOH, a year-long TTC pass is a thousand bux or more. And anyone who actually believes it doesn't come from the buyer's pocket is just plain idiotic, regardless of how they want to word it. It's a condo tax, nothing more, at a thousand bux a shot.

P.S. I know a lot of people who buy condos downtown SO THAT THEY CAN WALK OR BIKE TO WORK.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Seriously, the argument that this cost just gets passed along to consumers is dumb as hell. Condo developers sell units for the highest price they can get for them. If they don't sell, they cut the price or else cancel the project altogether. There is a ton of flexibility in the margin a developer takes on a unit.

Yes, there is an argument to be made with some types of commerce (particularly commodity sales) that business taxes just got passed on to consumers, but it's not always the case.

That said, I'm against this program because I don't feel the incentive is entirely necessary. I'd rather see a per-unit surcharge on subway-adjacent development. This revenue would go directly to the TTC's capital budget for repairs and new projects.

 

[Eug]

Seriously, the argument that this cost just gets passed along to consumers is dumb as hell. Condo developers sell units for the highest price they can get for them. If they don't sell, they cut the price or else cancel the project altogether. There is a ton of flexibility in the margin a developer takes on a unit.

That's a pretty naive view of things. Just because they may have a good margin doesn't mean they won't want to keep that margin. When they do their calculations for pricing the units, the metro pass would simply get calculated in there as well, just like granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. Except the buyers actually want the granite countertops and stainless steel, unlike the metro pass.

An analogy: Apple makes a sheetload of cash, and has some of the highest margins in the industry. However, when component prices go up or the US dollar depreciates, they sometimes raise prices instead of just accepting lower margins. Sure, some of that cost difference might come out of Apple's profits (esp. in the short term), but the bulk of it just gets passed onto the consumer. A good example of this was in the G4 iMac days. They released their G4 LCD iMac to great fanfare... only to raise the price by $100 later, citing higher component costs.

---

P.S. I know a lot of people who buy condos downtown SO THAT THEY CAN WALK OR BIKE TO WORK.

I just found my previous post from 2009 regarding this:

Oh and out of the people I knew at my own condo:

1) I drove. I lived downtown but worked outside of the downtown core. Public transit would have taken me 2-3X as long.

2) My neighbours beside me walked. In fact, they specifically bought the place because they both could walk to work. One lived within 5 minutes walking distance. The other lived within 10 minutes walking distance.

3) My neighbour across from me walked. In fact, they specifically bought the place because the husband could walk to work, 5-10 minutes away. The wife drove, because she worked outside of the downtown core like me.

4) My neighbour below me walked. She owned a store about 10 minutes walking distance away. She also drove, as she needed a vehicle to transport stuff for her business.

Etc.

This idea is completely boneheaded.

 

[freshcutgrass]

That's a pretty naive view of things. Just because they may have a good margin doesn't mean they won't want to keep that margin.

I think it's safe to assume they ALL want to keep their margins as high as possible...it's called GREED!!! he he

Which is why taking away revenue from the city, that also encourages transit use...and giving it to condo developers instead, is in principal, as dumb as taking $64 million in revenue and giving it to car owners.

Talk about naive.

The city needs revenue...correct?

What better place to get that revenue than where all the money is being made...such as the condo developers (not that the metropass thing represented a significant amount of money anyway).

And I still haven't heard any evidence at all that points to this being a bad idea, let alone the worst municipal policy in the history of the universe.

I see a pattern here...anything that undermines public transit and rewards car driving seems to be the order of the day now. What a fantastic urban policy.

P.S. I know a lot of people who buy condos downtown SO THAT THEY CAN WALK OR BIKE TO WORK.

But what you know isn't a fact. What is a fact, is that 30-35% of people who live downtown use transit as their mode of transportation to work or school (Source: Living Downtown Survey, Toronto City Planning, Research and Information, December 2006.)

Are we trying to encourage public transit use...or are we not? We do know that how much the fare is affects ridership. For every dime you raise fares, it translates into roughly 5 million lost rides/year. So don't tell me that a year of pre-paid transportation is not going to be a big incentive for plenty of people.

So while this metropass deal isn't going to make or break anything, as it is just a small thing, it's a small thing in the right direction. If it were never implemented in the first place, it wouldn't matter...but to remove it now that it is in place, is really a step backwards.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yet the Ford brothers want private developers to pay for the Sheppard East HRT subway. Having the developers buy metropasses is small potatoes in comparison.

 

[Eug]

I think it's safe to assume they ALL want to keep their margins as high as possible...it's called GREED!!! he he

Which is why taking away revenue from the city, that also encourages transit use...and giving it to condo developers instead, is in principal, as dumb as taking $64 million in revenue and giving it to car owners.

Why is forcing young new home owners to pay for something they(by your own numbers) usually don't want or need a smart thing? Oh wait, it isn't.

The city needs revenue...correct?

What better place to get that revenue than where all the money is being made...such as the condo developers (not that the metropass thing represented a significant amount of money anyway).

It's ultimately coming from the individual, but since it's not a lot of money, I'll ask you to wire an equivalent amount to me. It shouldn't matter to you since it's not a lot of money. Actually, just $1000 will suffice. I'll promptly donate that to the TTC if you send it to me. And I'll even get the donation receipt notarized for your records.

And I still haven't heard any evidence at all that points to this being a bad idea, let alone the worst municipal policy in the history of the universe.

I see a pattern here...anything that undermines public transit and rewards car driving seems to be the order of the day now. What a fantastic urban policy.

I see a pattern here. Anything that increases taxes, no matter how it's implemented, must be a good thing. What a fantastic urban policy.

But what you know isn't a fact. What is a fact, is that 30-35% of people who live downtown use transit as their mode of transportation to work or school (Source: Living Downtown Survey, Toronto City Planning, Research and Information, December 2006.)

So, 65% don't? Geez, surprise surprise. So if this number also applies to new condo buyers, you're wanting 2/3rds of them to pay for transit they don't want or need.

BTW, for my own limited group of neighbours when I bought downtown, that seems pretty accurate. As I said before, most of them bought there TO BE ABLE TO WALK OR BIKE TO THEIR WORK. The rest (including myself) drove, because the either needed to drive for work reason, or because they worked outside the downtown core and public transit would have take 2-3X as long.

Are we trying to encourage public transit use...or are we not?

Penalizing new home owners with another 4-digit $ tax hardly encourages love for the TTC.

So while this metropass deal isn't going to make or break anything, as it is just a small thing, it's a small thing in the right direction.

This is always the argument. "In the greater scheme of things, it's a small tax, so it should be OK."

1) Like I said before, city council's mandate isn't only to come of creative ways to increase taxation.
2) It's still a 4-digit $ tax on very specific individuals, to force them to buy something which may be completely useless to them. Talk about an unfair tax.

If it were never implemented in the first place, it wouldn't matter...but to remove it now that it is in place, is really a step backwards.

It should never have been implemented in the first place. Luckily there is a strong chance now that this completely idiotic tax will be stopped.

---

Yet the Ford brothers want private developers to pay for the Sheppard East HRT subway. Having the developers buy metropasses is small potatoes in comparison.

I'd be surprised if anyone here actually thinks they will be able to accomplish this. Even the Ford supporters out there in internet land don't believe this private/public partnership will be able to fund all of that subway. And I certainly don't think the provincial Liberals believe it. For anything like this to work, it will mean heavy support from the provincial and/or federal governments.

And quite frankly, I don't really care all that much either. I'd rather see the money go to Eglinton first.

 

[EnviroTO]

Why is forcing young new home owners to pay for something they(by your own numbers) usually don't want or need a smart thing? Oh wait, it isn't.

Everyone pays taxes but half the things they go to aren't things that the payer needs. The whole social system is set up so that people who have paying jobs and are healthy pay for those that are not. These new residents put new traffic on the streets. In the suburbs developers need to create roads and parks in new neighbourhoods and turn them over to the city for free. Asking developers who are building in the city to pay for transit which would be the urban equivalent of creating a local suburban road in that it provides transportation to the new resident (doesn't matter how much the resident uses it) doesn't seem unreasonable. Can a suburban resident opt out of paying for the road in front of their house because they plan on walking?

It's ultimately coming from the individual, but since it's not a lot of money, I'll ask you to wire an equivalent amount to me. It shouldn't matter to you since it's not a lot of money. Actually, just $1000 will suffice. I'll promptly donate that to the TTC if you send it to me. And I'll even get the donation receipt notarized for your records.

How much to you think development charges and construction of new roads in a new suburban neighbourhood would cost? Those bizarre developers are passing those costs onto the purchaser.

2) It's still a 4-digit $ tax on very specific individuals, to force them to buy something which may be completely useless to them. Talk about an unfair tax.

That is why maybe NIMBYs are correct in complaining about new developments. The developments are obviously going to increase the number of residents in the area but those residents and developers are perhaps unwilling to pay for anything that would support them moving in.

 

[Eug]

If you want to argue for increased property taxes, I'm fine with that if implemented appropriately. At least those are fair. OTOH, targeted metro pass taxes as implemented in this way are just a waste of money, and an unfair and unneeded burden for new home buyers.

Yes, I, as an existing non-condo home owner would rather see my own taxes increased slightly, than to see new home owners get saddled with a completely unreasonable and misguided 4-digit $ taxes for young new home owners.

Like I said before, city council's job is not to just find new ways to unfairly tax the public, and I'm glad to see some common sense appearing in council with the move to kill this bizarre initiative.

 

[dlam]

i think the better way is to tax car parking spots in condos. the whole point of this one-year metro pass is to get ppl from car-to-TTC. so why affect those who walk or bike?

there are different (and better) ways to achieve the same goal

 

[dlam]

dbl post..