Comment 29118

By Hopeful (registered) | Posted February 25, 2009 at 18:32:22

Hi Trey I'm not sure that I follow your comment to my post. What I'm saying is the audits as proposed look only at the building and not it's utilization (or neighbourhood). Large houses with few residents, by necessity, consume more resources per capita than more densely populated dwellings (or, by extension, neighbourhoods). This fact will not be quantified or penalized with the system laid out yesterday. Regarding bag limits and fees for extra bags, this will impact very few and, when it does, will be akin to user-fees being assessed, the same as any utility charge. Furthermore, as I understand it, the upcoming bag limit in the City of Hamilton actually allows a number of exemptions based on a variety of factors, including family size. Finally, the tax grab comments regarding the home energy audits really have to stop. I can't find anything in the bill (or full newspaper articles about) which suggests that the audits are designed to produce any revenue for Queens Park. The fees will go the auditors who do the work. I may have a ton of problems with the mandatory audit requirement but it's unfair (and seemingly inaccurate) to label it tax grab. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds