Comment 110155

By slodrive (registered) | Posted March 12, 2015 at 14:57:07 in reply to Comment 110140

A great articulation of my own similar perspective. I think until someone can simply and effectively communicate the cost-implications of continued sprawl/suburbanization to the individual, I think non-lower city ridings will continue to view LRT with "Terry Whitehead" mind-boggle goggles.

As a suburbanite, I can steer conversations with my neighbours into rationale support for downtown investment. But, I get the sense that their immediate emotional response views major infrastructure investment as a distant benefit to someone else. Especially since the few of my Ancaster neighbours I chat with work outside amalgamated Hamilton anyway. Which, in it of itself, is both the symptom and the problem.

In a perfect world, we could cater to those with limited foresight and a disregard for sustainability by showing, for example, the property tax implications of these decisions. And, ideally, it would like like this: 'Here's what you should be paying: (1.75x current amount). Here's what you do pay: (not nearly the costs incurred), Here's what should be paying in 10 years with current suburbanization: (troubling amount), Here's what you should pay with urbanization commitment: (more comfortable amount)

That message could be sugared further by explaining how heightened demand, due limiting supply due to less sprawl building, could increase market demand for existing suburban properties.

Everybody leaves the trough happy and healthy.

*Drops mic, heads toward bartender *

Comment edited by slodrive on 2015-03-12 14:57:34

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools