10-28-2020, 10:05 PM
(10-28-2020, 09:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: If you say "oh look, if you buy a house near affordable housing, the taxes are lower" that seems to reinforce that pre-existing belief in devaluation. Again, this is different because the tax benefit is not arriving as a result of BUILDING the affordable housing, merely being near it.
As for condo fees, I do find it funny that people are so up tight about them, ultimately, the money being spent is to maintain the building you live in, I would rather live in a well maintained building than a building that is poorly maintained but cheap. That being said there are obviously differences in ammenities, as well, my experience shows there is certainly differences in efficiency...some of the nonsense we've shut down in our building is frustrating...
What I proposed was not to lower taxes in an area with affordable housing, but to lower taxes for actual affordable housing units: an inexpensive house or apartment would attract a lower tax rate. This is basically the same concept as progressive income taxation, which is generally accepted.
The very high condo fees (such as 276 King St W and 64 Benton St S) are primarily due to a maintenance backlog, which results in very high reserve fund contributions to catch up. And that drags down the selling prices.