- By Matthew Lopoes
Representing the Green Party of Ontario, Frank de Jong has built a political platform aimed at tackling many prominent issues in Davenport, including everything from Catholic funding Education to strip clubs in the Bloordale village, traffic flow, and environmental accountability to name a few.
Having lived in Davenport for nearly 15 years, and having run for Ward 18 councillor in last year’s municipal election de Jong said he has watched the community grow into what it is today and currently works as a public school teacher in the neighbouring ward.
“I think one of the biggest issues is Catholic funding education,” said de Jong, “the provincial government continues to fund two education systems when there should be just one.”
De Jong said that with no other religious education funded by the province, Catholic schools should not be funded either, he also added that by stopping catholic funding, students and taxpayers would see the benefits.
“It would be a great advantage to the citizens of Davenport because kids could travel much shorter distances to get to school, plus it would be fewer taxes to pay for the taxpayers,” said de Jong.
De Jong said he is an avid supporter of local businesses by shopping at Dufferin Grove Organic Market fixing his bike at the bike shops around town, and eating at local restaurants, but two businesses he wants to see out of Davenport are Bloor street strip clubs, The house of Lancaster and Club Paradise.
“We don’t want our daughters and our children seeing this kind of thing, why is it in Davenport, and why are none of these strip clubs in the Bloor West Village or in the Annex?” said de Jong, “it’s a huge embarrassment, it objectifies women and it has no place in our community.”
De Jong said the strip clubs are a sleeper issue because people do not realize that their community is being sacrificed.
The owner of The House of Lancaster Gentleman’s club, Spiro Koumoudouros is also Chairman of the Bloordale BIA. De Jong said Koumoudouros would be considered a hero in the community if he turned his business into something community oriented.
“I suspect Lancaster would be a much more profitable space for Spiro if it was welcoming to people from the neighbourhood and if it was a different kind of business that is up and above the board instead of shady. I think the whole community would consider him a hero if he turned it into a community oriented type of building,” said de Jong.
Shutting down strip clubs and relocating funding for education can be a long process if elected but de Jong said one of the first things that needs to be done is add bike lanes on Bloor and slow down the traffic in the riding’s major streets.
“Streets like Bloor, College and Dundas are like freeways with people from outside of our community screaming through twice a day, and that’s wrong, this is our community,” said de Jong, “we should have ‘walkability’ so our kids and seniors can be safe crossing the streets.”
De Jong also takes a strong stand on banning handguns, creating a self-sustaining infrastructure, and having land value taxation in the city of Toronto.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tax-Increment Financing for Transit
Toronto's mayor is on the right track with his suggestion to use "tax-increment financing" to pay for new transit. The best way to finance transit is indeed by collecting the upkick in land values (economic rent) so that the unearned increment generated by the new infrastructure goes to pay for that infrastructure, rather than financing it out of general revenue by taxing distant taxpayers who won't benefit from it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/the-fords-transit-plan-is-no-more-than-a-reckless-gamble/article1913905/
Three problems, however, with Ford's approach:
Municipal taxes amount to roughly 1% of property value, so the amount collected will be insufficient to cover the cost of the subways over their lifetime. The unearned increment to land (economic rent) is 4-5% annually, which if collected would be sufficient to amortize the new asset. (Economic rent is revenue without a corresponding cost of production, it is unearned, so collecting it does not jeopardize business or residential viability.)
Secondly, only warranted infrastructure generates land value upkick equal to its costs, and subways are probably not warranted in these low density areas, which are served cost effectively by LRT.
Thirdly, taxing buildings discourages construction just when and where it is desirable, so the municipal tax should be moved onto land alone which will not punish construcution but will incent efficient land use.
But Toronto should pursue this idea, because if structured properly, new transit can be self-financing without increasing taxes throughout the city.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/the-fords-transit-plan-is-no-more-than-a-reckless-gamble/article1913905/
Three problems, however, with Ford's approach:
Municipal taxes amount to roughly 1% of property value, so the amount collected will be insufficient to cover the cost of the subways over their lifetime. The unearned increment to land (economic rent) is 4-5% annually, which if collected would be sufficient to amortize the new asset. (Economic rent is revenue without a corresponding cost of production, it is unearned, so collecting it does not jeopardize business or residential viability.)
Secondly, only warranted infrastructure generates land value upkick equal to its costs, and subways are probably not warranted in these low density areas, which are served cost effectively by LRT.
Thirdly, taxing buildings discourages construction just when and where it is desirable, so the municipal tax should be moved onto land alone which will not punish construcution but will incent efficient land use.
But Toronto should pursue this idea, because if structured properly, new transit can be self-financing without increasing taxes throughout the city.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Split and Shift
The property tax is actually a combination of two taxes: one on the land and one on the buildings, but there are multiple benefits to urban design when municipal property taxes are split in two and shifted off buildings and onto land value alone. When municipalities collect a percentage of the community-created land value (economic rent), instead of taxing improvements (buildings), walkability and infill occur naturally, reducing municipal taxes and improving the quality of life for all. By employing economic rent capture as a market mechanism, municipalities can generate sufficient revenue plus achieve policy goals without coercive regulations and punitive actions.
A revenue-neutral tax shift off buildings and onto land value:
* Encourages efficient and intensive land use since taxes remain the same whether land is vacant or if it is used productively.
* Reduces the amount of vacant land and parking lots since it becomes more expensive to sit on undeveloped or poorly developed land.
* Reduces land speculation since waiting till the price of land rises will be more expensive.
* Improves housing stock and rental units since improvements, renovations, and additions do not incur increased taxation.
* Increases the amount of affordable housing without subsidies since builders can avoid higher land costs by building efficiently on small lots (row houses, low-rise, semi-detached).
* Reduces suburban sprawl since land-inefficient greenfield developments incur higher land taxes relative to more land-efficient infill.
* Eliminates the costs, inaccuracy and complexity of assessing improvements. Assessing land alone is a simple and inexpensive process.
* Reduces speculative land bubbles since more of the unearned increment that accrues to land is captured to finance city programs instead of flowing to land owners.
Furthermore, collecting community-generated upkick in land value is the best way to finance infrastructure. Any infrastructure that increases land values should be funded through the collection of the increased economic land rent generated by that infrastructure, whether it is a hospital, school, sewer upgrade, park or transit system.
Normally the increased economic rent goes (untaxed) to the person or company that owns affected land, instead of to the taxpayers who paid for it. Taxpayers everywhere are unjustly expected to pay for improvements that only benefit the local land-owning minority.
If infrastructure is warranted and beneficial it will raise the value of local land by more than the cost of that infrastructure. When publicly funded redevelopment makes locations more desirable, more economic rent is attracted, over time, than the cost of the initial redevelopment.
A revenue-neutral tax shift off buildings and onto land value:
* Encourages efficient and intensive land use since taxes remain the same whether land is vacant or if it is used productively.
* Reduces the amount of vacant land and parking lots since it becomes more expensive to sit on undeveloped or poorly developed land.
* Reduces land speculation since waiting till the price of land rises will be more expensive.
* Improves housing stock and rental units since improvements, renovations, and additions do not incur increased taxation.
* Increases the amount of affordable housing without subsidies since builders can avoid higher land costs by building efficiently on small lots (row houses, low-rise, semi-detached).
* Reduces suburban sprawl since land-inefficient greenfield developments incur higher land taxes relative to more land-efficient infill.
* Eliminates the costs, inaccuracy and complexity of assessing improvements. Assessing land alone is a simple and inexpensive process.
* Reduces speculative land bubbles since more of the unearned increment that accrues to land is captured to finance city programs instead of flowing to land owners.
Furthermore, collecting community-generated upkick in land value is the best way to finance infrastructure. Any infrastructure that increases land values should be funded through the collection of the increased economic land rent generated by that infrastructure, whether it is a hospital, school, sewer upgrade, park or transit system.
Normally the increased economic rent goes (untaxed) to the person or company that owns affected land, instead of to the taxpayers who paid for it. Taxpayers everywhere are unjustly expected to pay for improvements that only benefit the local land-owning minority.
If infrastructure is warranted and beneficial it will raise the value of local land by more than the cost of that infrastructure. When publicly funded redevelopment makes locations more desirable, more economic rent is attracted, over time, than the cost of the initial redevelopment.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Green Backlash Predictable
No doubt the Ontario Liberals had the best intentions putting in the Green Energy Act, the eco fees and the Greenbelt, but the poorly thought through financial implications of each initiative has made the present backlash predictable.
The Green Energy Act is flawed in that it subsidizes clean power instead of charging closer to the true cost of dirty electricity through a carbon tax. Rather than costing taxpayers money, a carbon tax would generate revenue which would replace income or sales taxes by an equal amount, costing taxpayers nothing.
Likewise with the eco-fees. Most people would accept fees to ensure the safe recycling and disposal of electronics and other dangerous products if they knew the charges would replace other taxes by the same amount.
The Greenbelt is a fine enough idea, but due the large amount of unprotected land between to developed areas and the Greenbelt, and because of development leapfrogging the protected zone, sprawl will continue apace, as if there was no Greenbelt at all, just in different parts of the province. This could have been avoided had the Greenbelt Act been accompanied by a province-wide, revenue-neutral land value tax (LVT), as recommeded by the Scottish Green Party, which would encourage infill and walkable communities plus generate provincial government revenue which would reduce other provincial level taxes.
People want to go green, but not if it means additional taxes. Revenue associated with any new government initiative, green or otherwise, should not be new taxation, but always used to reduce other taxes by equal amounts.
The Green Energy Act is flawed in that it subsidizes clean power instead of charging closer to the true cost of dirty electricity through a carbon tax. Rather than costing taxpayers money, a carbon tax would generate revenue which would replace income or sales taxes by an equal amount, costing taxpayers nothing.
Likewise with the eco-fees. Most people would accept fees to ensure the safe recycling and disposal of electronics and other dangerous products if they knew the charges would replace other taxes by the same amount.
The Greenbelt is a fine enough idea, but due the large amount of unprotected land between to developed areas and the Greenbelt, and because of development leapfrogging the protected zone, sprawl will continue apace, as if there was no Greenbelt at all, just in different parts of the province. This could have been avoided had the Greenbelt Act been accompanied by a province-wide, revenue-neutral land value tax (LVT), as recommeded by the Scottish Green Party, which would encourage infill and walkable communities plus generate provincial government revenue which would reduce other provincial level taxes.
People want to go green, but not if it means additional taxes. Revenue associated with any new government initiative, green or otherwise, should not be new taxation, but always used to reduce other taxes by equal amounts.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Untax Business, Uptax Nature
Well, the federal political parties are saber rattling again, threatening an election over the corporate tax cuts which will be in the upcoming budget.
Budget looms as election trigger
The Conservatives are sticking with their plan to roll back corporate taxes from 22% in 2007 to 15%, that corporate tax cuts are good for the economy..., while the Liberals say this is a bad idea in the face of a $56 billion deficit. The NDP are of course lined up behind the Libs.
Both sides are half right and half wrong, giving the Green Party an excellent opportunity to promote our economic program.
Harper is correct, corporate taxes are bad for the economy. Taxes on productive activities are "dead weight" taxes which make some marginal productive activities uneconomical that otherwise would be viable, creating jobs.
But the Libs and NDP are also right, that the gov should not run a deficit, should not mortgage our future, nor should it cut programs that hurt people, especially the vulnerable, and lower the quality of life.
Green economic theory agrees that governments should untax businesses to encourage economic activity, jobs, providing goods and services. There should be no taxes at all on businesses. We want businesses to be successful so why would we punish them with taxes??
But green economics is socially progressive and fiscally responsible, so clearly governments should not run deficits and governments need revenue to provide the programs we need and want.
What to do?
The Green Party solution is to untax people and businesses and instead generate needed revenue by collecting fees and levies on the use and abuse of nature. This approach will right-price nature, preserving it, and at the same time encourage businesses to be more resource efficient (conservation) and labour intensive (more jobs).
If the next federal election is fought over corporate tax cuts, we will have an excellent angle, a very strong platform.
Our slogans can be: Pay for what you burn, not for what you earn. Pay for what you take, not for what you make. The government should collect unearned income, not earned income. Government shouldn't punish someone for having a job or punish a business for being successful!
By untaxing jobs and business and instead collecting "economic rent" (revenue without a corresponding cost of production), government would be putting renewables on a level playing field with fossil fuels, would make walkable communities attractive compared to sprawl, and bias organic, local agriculture over industrial/factory farming.
Budget looms as election trigger
The Conservatives are sticking with their plan to roll back corporate taxes from 22% in 2007 to 15%, that corporate tax cuts are good for the economy..., while the Liberals say this is a bad idea in the face of a $56 billion deficit. The NDP are of course lined up behind the Libs.
Both sides are half right and half wrong, giving the Green Party an excellent opportunity to promote our economic program.
Harper is correct, corporate taxes are bad for the economy. Taxes on productive activities are "dead weight" taxes which make some marginal productive activities uneconomical that otherwise would be viable, creating jobs.
But the Libs and NDP are also right, that the gov should not run a deficit, should not mortgage our future, nor should it cut programs that hurt people, especially the vulnerable, and lower the quality of life.
Green economic theory agrees that governments should untax businesses to encourage economic activity, jobs, providing goods and services. There should be no taxes at all on businesses. We want businesses to be successful so why would we punish them with taxes??
But green economics is socially progressive and fiscally responsible, so clearly governments should not run deficits and governments need revenue to provide the programs we need and want.
What to do?
The Green Party solution is to untax people and businesses and instead generate needed revenue by collecting fees and levies on the use and abuse of nature. This approach will right-price nature, preserving it, and at the same time encourage businesses to be more resource efficient (conservation) and labour intensive (more jobs).
If the next federal election is fought over corporate tax cuts, we will have an excellent angle, a very strong platform.
Our slogans can be: Pay for what you burn, not for what you earn. Pay for what you take, not for what you make. The government should collect unearned income, not earned income. Government shouldn't punish someone for having a job or punish a business for being successful!
By untaxing jobs and business and instead collecting "economic rent" (revenue without a corresponding cost of production), government would be putting renewables on a level playing field with fossil fuels, would make walkable communities attractive compared to sprawl, and bias organic, local agriculture over industrial/factory farming.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Road Pricing
Jenny Jones of the UK Green Party is running for mayor in the 2012 London election. She set out plans for a road pricing scheme that would cover the whole of London with a sliding price structure, charging £5 to travel around Zone 6 but up to 10 times that to travel into the city centre.
Road pricing levies people for the noise, danger and pollution they cause, and for the public road space they monopolize, and helps finance government in lieu of other taxes. Clean air, quiet, safety and public streets are parts of "the commons" and anyone who uses or abuses the commons should compensate the greater community.
Take a look at her road pricing policies here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23911543-id-raise-congestion-charge-to-pound-50-says-green-who-would-be-mayor.do .
Also, below is info on a Toronto conference on this issue. Half the people in the old city of Toronto don't have cars, yet we have to suffer the endless noise, danger, pollution of other people's cars. Right-pricing road use will encourage complete streets where urban areas become walkable neighbourhoods linked by transit, bike and pedestrian paths and cars aren't needed.
------------
Road pricing levies people for the noise, danger and pollution they cause, and for the public road space they monopolize, and helps finance government in lieu of other taxes. Clean air, quiet, safety and public streets are parts of "the commons" and anyone who uses or abuses the commons should compensate the greater community.
Take a look at her road pricing policies here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23911543-id-raise-congestion-charge-to-pound-50-says-green-who-would-be-mayor.do .
Also, below is info on a Toronto conference on this issue. Half the people in the old city of Toronto don't have cars, yet we have to suffer the endless noise, danger, pollution of other people's cars. Right-pricing road use will encourage complete streets where urban areas become walkable neighbourhoods linked by transit, bike and pedestrian paths and cars aren't needed.
------------
Transport Futures - Mobility Pricing Conference
Thursday, February 3, 201, Metropolitan Hotel, Toronto, Ontario
www.transportfutures.ca/mobility
Transporting people and goods presents society with several challenges: congestion, urban sprawl, smog, climate change, safety and health impacts to name a few. International research and experience has demonstrated that transport-based user fees can be set by government in order to modify driver behavior, raise earmarked revenue for sustainable transportation infrastructure and assist in making bureaucracies more efficient, transparent and accountable to the public. However, these worthy objectives are not easy to achieve and lead to several complex questions:
· Is the current tax generation system more equitable than paying for government services when they are consumed (as is considered normal when purchasing private goods and services)?
· Why do citizens view user fees as inequitable or as a double tax – be it for transportation, health, education or other government services?
· How can parking fees, transit fares, gas taxes and road tolls be established to ensure equity and efficiency? How do they compare with other taxes that are not directly linked to transportation (e.g. regional sales taxes, income tax)?
· What role does politics play when setting mobility prices?
We will answer these questions – and many more -- with the assistance of these American and Canadian experts:
· Dr. Lisa Schweitzer, School of Policy, Planning, & Development, University of Southern California
· Dr. Keith Neuman, Environics Research Group Ltd.
· Dr. David King, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Columbia University
· Dr. Richard von Haefen, Center for Environmental & Resource Economic Policy, North Carolina State University
· Mr. Peter Mills, Perrin Thorau & Associates
· Professor Harry Kitchen, Department of Economics, Trent University
· Dr. Jeff Casello, School of Planning & Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo
· Mr. Ralph Bond, BA Group
· Dr. Brendon Hemily, Hemily & Associates
· … and more to be confirmed soon!
Don’t miss this valuable opportunity to learn what role user fees play in North America and how mobility pricing can drive transport efficiency, sustainability and social justice!
Seating is limited. Please register today to take advantage of our incredible Early Bird Rates.
Visit http://www.transportfutures.ca/mobility for full program details!!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Land Value Taxation comes to Ireland
A very good development coming out of the Irish meltdown, the introduction of nation-wide site value taxation, which is supported by Irish Green Party policy.
Site Value Taxation (or Land Value Taxation) is like the property tax except that it levies only the value of the lot underneath the buildings, not the value of the buildings (improvements). It is a tax shift, not a tax grab, since other taxes will be reduced.
One benefit is that it doesn't punish those who renovate, expand or who build affordable housing. In Canada, multi-unit and commercial buildings pay 4 - 10 times the rate of detached houses.
Another is that it "right prices" land which will incent efficient land use, reducing sprawl. A vacant lot will carry the same charge as a lot with a building on it, encouraging people to build or sell, rather than hold land out of production for speculative purposes.
Also, assessments are more accurate and simpler when only the lot is assessed, and not the buildings, a problem which hit the papers in Ontario.
LVT is not just for the municipal level. The Ontario and Canadian governments should generate most of their revenue from land value taxes plus levies on resource use and pollution, in lieu of income, business or consumption taxes. Income and business taxes kill jobs and damage the economy, but taxing nature doesn't.
One benefit is that it doesn't punish those who renovate, expand or who build affordable housing. In Canada, multi-unit and commercial buildings pay 4 - 10 times the rate of detached houses.
Another is that it "right prices" land which will incent efficient land use, reducing sprawl. A vacant lot will carry the same charge as a lot with a building on it, encouraging people to build or sell, rather than hold land out of production for speculative purposes.
Also, assessments are more accurate and simpler when only the lot is assessed, and not the buildings, a problem which hit the papers in Ontario.
LVT is not just for the municipal level. The Ontario and Canadian governments should generate most of their revenue from land value taxes plus levies on resource use and pollution, in lieu of income, business or consumption taxes. Income and business taxes kill jobs and damage the economy, but taxing nature doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
