Posts
The Town is considering raising development charges by 12 - 39% -- which will raise the cost of residential and non-residential construction in Aurora.
Development charges are used to pay for everything from parks to roads. The theory is that new construction should pay for the services needed by those new home/business owners.
Of course, nothing is that simple. For example, business doesn't use parks and rec facilities, while smaller home subdivisions have more people so they use them more. Plus there is the ongoing cost to replace aging infrastructure which new residents also put pressure on.
Certainly, particularly in today's economy, any increase in development charges will increase prices in Aurora which could slow growth. Many residents would welcome slowed growth.
But if growth is slowed, then development charges that are already in the financial forecasts for future years (together with the tax revenue from that new construction) will be lost, putting an increased burden on existing taxpayers. Few residents are pleased with increased taxes.
And we all know that services in Aurora are already stretched.
So what is Council supposed to do? It is a difficult balancing act. We don't envy them.
There is a public meeting at Town Hall on Wed May 6 at 7 pm where you can get more information or make comments. Or you can share your thoughts here.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The post on development charges is not accurate.
Development charges pay for community parks. They do not pay for roads or neighbourhood parks in new development.
Roads,infrastructure and neighbourhood parks are built by developers to town standards. Twenty-four month performance bonds are provided from the point of municipal takeover.
Twenty-five years is the expectation before work may be needed
On the other hand, replacement of aging infrastructure in older neighbourhoods is continual and financed from the tax levy.
New homeowners contribute to the levy on the same assessment base as all other residents.
Therefore while infrastructure in new neighbourhoods add nothing to the tax burden, taxesderived from new neighbourhoods reduce the burden for replacing aging infrastructure in older neighbourhoods.
The argument, and the town has budgeted for a consultant study to prove it, that new home development increases the tax burden on existing homeowners is specious,spurious and without validity.
Repeated often enough, without challenge, it acquires a ring of familiarity and conventional wisdom.
Thanks to Councillor Buck for the clarification. We referenced an article by the Era Banner for this information.
Development charges help finance everything from new parks to roads.Our apologies for the mis-information.
To Aurora Citizen: Your original post on this thread contained the sentence, "Development charges are used to pay for everything from parks to roads." When I followed your link posted May 5 at 8:11 a.m. and found the Era-Banner article, I discovered the same sentence, word for word.
That is blatant plagiarism. Why was the source not cited? There are serious ethical questions around this issue too.
Since we have always been taught not to believe everything you read in the papers, it would seem prudent to do more research before publishing such a statement.
Well, that will teach you to go with anything reported in The Banner as factual.
This post has gone dead, so can we have a fresh one?
I very much enjoy this blog.
"That is blatant plagiarism. Why was the source not cited? "
My goodness. Who are you going to charge with plagiarism? Anybody can register a site with Blogger.
Anonymous 4:55 wrote: "Who are you going to charge with plagiarism? Anybody can register a site with Blogger."
Precisely the point. Anyone, regardless of motive or integrity, can create a blog and take no responsibility for its contents while trying to persuade readers to believe its dogma.
Along the way, if you copy a falsehood and pass it along as fact, so what?
This blog holds itself up as a righteous watchdog of the evildoers on council, but seems often to hold itself to a different standard.
The Aurora Citizen demands integrity and transparency of council. Why not of itself?
Everyone, even a little kid in elementary school knows it is unethical to plagiarize.
We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard.
At least some of us feel that way... then there is that great divide.
Everyone, even a little kid in elementary school knows it is unethical to plagiarize.
We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard.
At least some of us feel that way... then there is that great divide.
"My goodness. Who are you going to charge with plagiarism? Anybody can register a site with Blogger.
May 5, 2009 4:55 PM"
Your position seems to be that anyone who registers a site with Blogger is entitled to plagiarize.
I may not be the smartest frog on the pond but it seems to me that the very least we can do is give credit where credit is due.
Someone said this thread is dead and wants to move on to another.
Funny, it seems like this one was started in a convenient hurry to escape the previous subject.
That subject, if memory serves, focused on the mysterious deletions of several comments, and how The Aurora Citizen leaped to the conclusion that someone close to the mayor did it.
Untrue, as it turned out. Someone asked Aurora Citizen to explain how it came to that conclusion – where was the evidence?
The answer: silence, followed by an abrupt change in the subject.
Is that about to happen again, or will the folks behind the veil finally provide an answer that takes responsibility for their accusations?
Just wondering. Transparency in all things, you know.
This post was about Development Charges and except for Evelyn the comments have absolutely nothing to do with the Post. Bla bla bla, does anyone care about Development Charges or are you just blogging on this site that you apparently have a problem with, just because it lets you voice your opinion. Which ironically is exactly what the blog is offering you!!!
To presuppose, because Evelyn Buck says so it must be true, is to error.
Regarding
"Development charges help finance everything from new parks to roads" that statement is correct. As can be found on the Town's website...,
"Non-residential development charges have funding components for general government, fire services, public works, and hard services of roads, water and sewer works.
Residential development charges include all of those components, plus additional components for library, recreation and parks services."
Aurora Citizen, your apology should go to the Era Banner and your readers for taking
Evelyn Buck's word for it. The "lady" is wrong, again!
am not
I see that Evelyn Buck continues to distinguish herself with her signature, concise, clever, albeit negative response, that invites uplifting thoughtful dialogue.
The initial post said: "But if growth is slowed, then development charges that are already in the financial forecasts for future years....will be lost, putting an increased burden on existing taxpayers."
Councillor Buck says: "Therefore while infrastructure in new neighbourhoods add nothing to the tax burden, taxes derived from new neighbourhoods reduce the burden for replacing aging infrastructure in older neighbourhoods. "
I don't know who's right but it sounds like Anonymous 10:34pm is arguing something different?
Post a Comment