Memph
Active Member
What makes you think so many of the City of Toronto employees live outside Toronto? I think something like 60-70% of people with jobs in Toronto live in Toronto.
|
|
|
New Transit Funding Sources
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
TOareaFan
Superstar
Not sure I like your idea.....but I am sure that your hyperbole makes it seem worse....really, the majority? 100km away?
Have you looked at where a 100km radius from Toronto takes you? I know it matters where you are starting from and to within communities but the website distance24.org shows that to the north you would be living between Barrie (83km) and Orillia (106km)....to the west you would be between Grimsby (83km) and Brantford (105km) and to the east somewhere between Clarington (63) and Peterborough (112).
Really, the majority of Toronto municipal employees are coming in from that far out?
44 North
Senior Member
K, fixed it. I've worked with people that commuted from Barrie, and one from Peterborough. Both would be the antithesis of reflecting TO's high cost of living.
doady
Senior Member
If a 905er takes the GO Train to work instead of the Gardiner, they'll be taxed the same? The 905er who takes transit will be taxed more than the 416er who drives. Yeah, that makes no sense.
Just toll the Gardiner and DVP and send a real message. Simply taxing all 905ers sends no message other than the 905 is evil. The evil 905 could reciprocate and tax all good 416 workers too.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Maybe better for 905ers to have their own downtowns to siphon enough of them off of the 416 transit routes.
44 North
Senior Member
One of the problems is people seeing a realistic funding source - and rejecting it by making false claims and not actually reading it.
The tax is only on municipal workers (either initially, or outright) - these jobs are necessary and will not result in businesses/private sector jobs leaving. And yes, "905ers" can very well place a tax on their non-resident municipal workers...I don't see why they couldn't or shouldn't. IMO it's a very sensible way to maintain a solid taxbase, reduce congestion, and promote intensification and increase land values. Regardless, municipalities throughout the 905 do not offer exceptionally high wages for no other reason than their city's high cost of living.
Simply putting a toll on the Gardiner and DVP is a one-sided approach that puts the burden on a specific group. The approach I mentioned doesn't care if people take GO, TTC, drive on highways or side streets, rollerblade, walk, skateboard, crawl etc.
The tax is only on municipal workers (either initially, or outright) - these jobs are necessary and will not result in businesses/private sector jobs leaving. And yes, "905ers" can very well place a tax on their non-resident municipal workers...I don't see why they couldn't or shouldn't. IMO it's a very sensible way to maintain a solid taxbase, reduce congestion, and promote intensification and increase land values. Regardless, municipalities throughout the 905 do not offer exceptionally high wages for no other reason than their city's high cost of living.
Simply putting a toll on the Gardiner and DVP is a one-sided approach that puts the burden on a specific group. The approach I mentioned doesn't care if people take GO, TTC, drive on highways or side streets, rollerblade, walk, skateboard, crawl etc.
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
As does only taxing people who happen to work for the city and live outside the city.
All municipalities hire people based on merit, not address. I live in Brampton, there is a guy who writes to our local paper a lot and continually makes the connection between perceived problems at city hall and the fact that (in his opinion) "none of the staff live in Brampton".....we are a region and promoting waring taxes between component muncipalities of this region is not going to solve regional issues.....aside from the fact that your estimation that the majority live outside the city seems based on two guys you knew who lived far away from where they worked?
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
The best way is for the transit agency itself to engage in the development business but to only develop where they're building their new routes so it doesn't give it an unfair advantage over the regular real estate business, and since more transit would be built, the private sector would benefit by building around the new stations so it's kind of like a win win. Metrolinx could also sell off what it builds and if it holds onto the land it can receive perpetual lease payments on them.
Other ways in the past include the American businessman who built a London Underground line and made his own power plant to power the trains and had enough power to sell to others.
Other ways in the past include the American businessman who built a London Underground line and made his own power plant to power the trains and had enough power to sell to others.
44 North
Senior Member
Everyone would still be hired the same. This is not a residency requirement.
And unfortunately I do not have any solid numbers to back up the claim of 80% non-residency. It's an estimate based off the several dozen people I knew in the departments I worked in, overall consensus concluded with others elsewhere, and the amount of non-Torontonian municipal workers I read about in the news (e.g TPS officers charged, fare collectors saving the day, etc etc). If anyone on here has info to back up the guesstimate, that'd help.
I prefer to look at the positive side of this story: at least politicians in the 905 are talking about the need for additional funds for transit expansion, even if they are questioning the plan itself.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...akville_big_questions_about_the_big_move.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...akville_big_questions_about_the_big_move.html
TOareaFan
Superstar
Like I said when I posted it above, the final paragraph is concerning to me as it moved the theme of the piece (IMO) into the same old "what's in it for us" territory.
doady
Senior Member
I think he makes a fair point. If Toronto isn't willing to pay for transit improvements anywhere, whether it be Toronto or Oakville, then why should Oakville be expected to pay for both Toronto and Oakville? Why should Oakville pay extra on behalf of Toronto? If everyone in the GTA contributes, then everyone would have to pay less.
So it's simple: if the 905 are the only ones paying extra taxes and tolls for transit expansion, then transit expansion should only be for the 905. If I have to pay double the taxes because Toronto opts out, then I don't want any of that money going to Toronto.
TOareaFan
Superstar
His "$1,000 per taxpayer" estimate though, was based on everyone paying....and, as I said, he had me interested right up until he said that (to paraphrase) all Oakville needs is the electrification of the Lakeshore West line....and that should not cost $1,000 per person.....so (IMO) he turned an whole piece that had been about a regional issue/plan into a "what's in it for us".
I see where you're coming from. But then again, I can see where he's coming from too. All Oakville really needs at this point is the electrification of the Lakeshore line, the BRT along Dundas St, and the BRT-Lights on Trafalgar and Bronte.
In general, both Halton and Durham are taking pretty cost-effective approaches to their rapid transit plans. Lakeshore will carry the express trips, and the Dundas & Highway 2 BRTs respectively will take more of the local load. The local rapid transit costs barely crack the billion mark in both of these regions. That's a far cry from the billions upon billions that Toronto, Hamilton York Region, and Peel Region are looking for for their transit plans.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
those costs compress as cities expand. Peel has 1.3 million people, while Halton and durham combined only have 1.1 million. (Halton with 500,000 and Durham with 600,000)