Frank de Jong

Meet Frank de Jong

2011-09-18T11:34:00.001-04:00

- 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.

Tax-Increment Financing for Transit

2011-02-23T16:35:00.002-05:00

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.

Split and Shift

2011-02-08T19:32:00.002-05:00

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.

Green Backlash Predictable

2011-01-27T21:44:00.006-05:00

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.

Untax Business, Uptax Nature

2011-01-17T15:31:00.003-05:00

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.

Road Pricing

2011-01-13T13:43:00.000-05:00

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.

------------

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!!

Land Value Taxation comes to Ireland

2010-12-07T15:43:00.007-05:00

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.

Voluntary LVT in Toronto

2010-11-15T13:30:00.040-05:00

In the absence of land value taxation, hundreds of frustrated Toronto landowners and merchants have taken matters into their own hands, voluntarily taxing themselves to finance a redesign of their local street.

Six hundred and fifty-eight businesses in the Bloor and Yonge shopping district agreed to levy themselves $20 million to finance sidewalk widening, adding benches and granite planters, and planting trees along the street. Toronto Star columnist Christopher Hume calls the street remake "an enormous success, a model for the rest of Toronto".

But don't assume that these particular Toronto business owners were simply overflowing with civic pride. These merchants knew what all merchants know; improved street design boosts business. More people will visit the area, stay longer, enjoy their experience more, invite friends, and return repeatedly.

Clearly, these businesses were able to afford the $20 million voluntary levy without fear of bankruptcy. No one forced their hands. The anticipated increased economic activity was no doubt more than adequate to finance the levy, the ROI no doubt healthy. The already attractive locations would become even more desirable. Commercial leases and residential rents would rise, but the increased commercial activity would more than compensate. Landowners would benefit from the rise in land values.

This win-win example is a model for Toronto and, indeed, every other city, town and village. But why should citizens and businesses be driven to self-finance local improvements when municipalities could employ land value taxation to do the job? Businesses want cities to use LVT, they know it works.

Unlike the present municipal tax—which is applied to both land value and building value—LVT is a levy on land value alone, leaving buildings (improvements) untaxed, so as not to punish landowners from renovating or expanding the building stock. By levying land value alone, municipalities would collect a portion of the unearned, "community-generated" income that accrues annually to land (about 5% of land value depending on the stage in the 18-year real estate cycle), sufficient to finance city programs and infrastructure construction and maintenance. Taxing buildings punishes hard work, whereas collecting land value upkick returns to the public what it generated in the first place.

Collecting a percentage of land value, regardless of how land is used, encourages land owners to put land to its best use or sell it to someone who will, reducing suburban sprawl and spurring redevelopment of vacant and derelict properties. Collecting this "unearned" economic rent for public purposes deflates land speculation, the cause of destructive and disruptive real estate bubbles. Indeed, not collecting the economic rent of land damages the economy by rewarding land speculators rather than rewarding productive enterprises.

Furthermore, infrastructure construction, when based on LVT, becomes a self-regulating system, immune to political interference and pork-barrel politics. Warranted infrastructure will pay for itself while non-warranted infrastructure will not, so political whimsy or self-serving schemes to build white elephants are exposed.

Adopting LVT can be smoothly accomplished by gradually shifting municipal fees, over 5 to 10 years, off buildings and onto the land beneath the buildings. The ensuing benefits will include a re-invigorated economy, more jobs, needed infrastructure, improved urban design, a move to low-energy walkable neighbourhoods, improved building stock, sufficient affordable housing, less sprawl and strip development, more land left to nature.

Environmental Questionaire

2010-10-19T07:55:00.002-04:00

My answers to a Toronto Environmental Alliance questionaire on eco issues:

1. Do you support the implementation of strategically placed road tolls in order to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and fund the expansion of, and fare reductions for the TTC?
YES

2. Do you support a gradual increase in the plastic bag fee leading to an outright ban on plastic bags within the next four years?
YES

3. Do you support the implementation of a ranked ballot system to eliminate the plague of strategic voting in Toronto’s democracy?
YES

4. Do you support the elimination of the vehicle registration fee?
NO

5. Do you support continued funding, and increased relief programs for Toronto’s priority neighbourhoods?
YES

6. Do you support a ban on gas lawnmowers, leaf blowers and edge trimmers?
YES

7. Do you support increased funding for education in backyard gardening?
YES

8. Do you support the rezoning of large areas of Toronto’s unused public lands that are currently used to grow grass into community gardens and edible tree orchards?
YES

9. Do you support the changing of property by-laws to allow people to naturalize their lawn, and not cut their grass if they so choose?
YES

10. Do you agree that the City of Toronto should begin to encourage and promote the use of backyard composting over the Green Bin program?
YES

11. Will you do everything within your power as a city councilor to ban the use of known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and birth-defect causing chemicals by Toronto businesses?
YES

12. Do you support the idea of giving right-of-way to streetcars and buses on major TTC routes?
YES

The results will be published on www.breathetoronto.org and shared with allies at TEA, NOW Magazine, and numerous environmental and social NGO’s across the city.

Voting Smart -- 1, 2, 3

2010-10-12T14:18:00.004-04:00

"Why must Torontonians vote for the lesser evil?" asks Frank de Jong, Ward 18, Toronto Council candidate. "Ranked choice voting is long overdue in Ontario."

Many Toronto voters feel forced to vote for a mayor or councillor they don’t want to avoid electing someone even less desirable. But voters in San Francisco, Memphis and London, England rank their candidates 1, 2, 3, and elect the most popular person every time.

Candidate ranking eliminates strategic voting and wasted votes. Under Instant-Runoff Voting a winner must achieve more than 50% of the vote. IRV is used by Canadian federal and provincial political parties at leadership conventions.

Instead of an ‘X’ voters simply place '1' beside their first choice, and '2' and '3' beside their next choices, etc. When voting is complete the candidate with the least first place votes is dropped and their second place votes are reallocated until one candidate surpasses 50% of the vote.

Paying for Transit

2010-09-28T13:56:00.001-04:00

The best way of paying for infrastructure like transit, is through "land value taxation."

There is good evidence that all warranted infrastructure (hospitals, transit, parks,...) could pay for itself if the rise in local land values that the infrastructure generated was collected by government for this purpose.

However, under the current municipal tax structure, most of the increase in land value is capitalized into the land, and therefore doesn't go back to the public purse which created it, but instead into the pockets of local land owners when they rent or sell their land.

The idea is that the increased land value that government financed infrastructure generates over its lifespan, should be captured by government, and this revenue used to pay for that infrastructure.

For example, the Union Station to Pearson rail link should not be financed by federal, provincial or city taxes, but rather could and should be paid for by collecting the rise in land values it generates along the route, especially around station stops (Land Value Taxation).

Complete Streets for Ward 18

2010-09-22T18:40:00.005-04:00

Ward 18, like all Toronto's near-downtown wards, is plagued by morning and evening rush hour gridlock. Our streets -- which should be reserved primarily for local citizens -- are clogged by commuters in cars, usually one person per vehicle, driving as fast as possible on their way between downtown and the suburbs.

These “foreigners” rarely stop to shop or eat, they oppose bike lanes, they have little patience for pedestrians, and they feel trapped behind transit vehicles. To accommodate this twice daily madness the city reduces parking, thus frustrating local merchants and their customers. This is a big issue on Dundas. On Dupont the gridlock is blamed on the new bike lanes which start westbound at Lansdowne, which reduce the number of car lanes from four to two. The solution would be to complete the bike lanes eastward to downtown.

Ward 18 citizens should not be subjected to commuter noise, danger and pollution. Yes, we welcome people visiting our Ward, but they should be on transit or bicycle. Fewer than half of Ward 18 citizens drive cars, so theoretically our community should be quiet and walkable, not overrun by cars.

My vision of Toronto is to rebuild our city into about 200 walkable, pedestrianized, "complete neighbourhoods", and "complete streets" where everyone can walk to basic amenities and take transit or cycle to other areas of the city as desired. City streets should be quiet, hosting slow moving vehicles of all kinds, and serving the needs of local residents first, visitors second, commuters third.

QUESTIONAIRE:

2010-09-08T19:37:00.007-04:00

1. What key issues define your campaign platform?

My campaign is focused on the pressing issues facing Ward 18, specifically, making our neighbourhoods safe, green and prosperous.

1. Community involvement: The extensive re-development happening in Ward 18 is very welcome but only if community groups are directly involved at the planning stages.

2. Local jobs: Ward 18 needs new employment and commercial zones which include lofts, live-work design and flexible office and meeting spaces.

3. Green: Davenport buildings should be retrofitted to be energy efficient using heat pumps, active and passive solar systems.

4. Public places: New housing and street designs should include extensive public spaces and public facilities so citizens of all ages and backgrounds can come together as a community.

5. Local control: Abolish the unelected Ontario Municipal Board to return zoning and development decisions to elected Toronto City Councillors.

6. Safe: Lobby the federal government to ban hand guns in Toronto.

2. Why are you the best candidate for this position?

I would make an excellent Ward 18 Councillor because:
- I have strong skills at bringing people together so that community decisions are inclusive and everyone wins;

- I care deeply for the people in this Ward and in this City. My parents were immigrants so I understand the challenges of learning new languages and customs, getting a job, finding a home;

- My many years as a public school teacher have taught me that every person has unique talents and skills, and everyone can make valuable contributions;

- Being a home owner, I understand the challenge of paying the mortgage, doing repairs, keeping the neighbourhood safe and beautiful;

- On my travels to other countries, I have learned that the best designed communities are walkable, have very few cars, and have many public spaces and facilities so everyone feels they are part of a caring and vibrant community.

3. What specifically do you plan to do for your ward, if elected?

If elected I would specifically work to:

* Adopt "Complete Streets" to make Davenport more pedestrian and bike friendly;
* Ensure that the Pearson rail link is electrified and publicly owned;
* Build more studio, gallery and performance spaces for artists and musicians;
* Expand local, organic food markets, urban agriculture, and community gardens;
* Shift taxes off buildings and onto land to encourage building improvements;
* Change zoning to encourage family businesses instead of strip clubs;
* Provide high quality facilities and services for seniors;
* Promote local, organic food markets, urban agriculture, and community gardens.

4. Please provide details on your personal bio.

Frank de Jong is a 13-year home owner in Ward 18. He is the past leader of the Green Party of Ontario and is a teacher with the Toronto Board of Education. Frank lives with his partner, teacher, writer and artist Kelley Aitken. Frank was born in Ontario in 1955 to Dutch immigrant parents and grew up on a dairy farm north of Guelph. Frank is a year round cyclist, an amateur opera singer, and an organic gardener.

5. Who do you plan to support for mayor?

Undecided.

Community Consultation Deficit

2010-09-01T16:40:00.009-04:00

Incomprehensibly, in 2009, Toronto City Councillors decided to deny public consultation with regard to all "State of Good Repair" (SOGR) projects. This shocking decision shuts down community input into priorities, changes, or modifications of facilities related to Parks, Forestry and Recreation.

This circumvention of democracy, this blocking of public involvement, was deemed necessary to ensure that projects are completed quickly and within a fiscal budget. In my opinion, expediency at the expense of local involvement is the exact opposite of citizen expectations and assumptions.

Efficiencies are not achieved by shutting down community involvement. Any economic gains are negated by reduced popularity of facilities, demoralized citizen's groups, abandonment of community involvement, cynicism.

Community involvement is most needed and most appropriate at the exact point when infrastructure comes due for renewal or redevelopment. At this precise time, city officials, community reps and invited consultants have an optimal opportunity to examine facilities and decide how community needs have changed, demographics have changed, and how to redesign infrastructure for coming decades.

By shutting out community leaders at crucial junctures in the life of facilities, the City is blindsiding itself to its most precious resource - its own citizens! If elected I will work to change this ordinance as fast as possible before more money is wasted and more damage is done to community moral.

Green Energy for Toronto

2010-08-31T14:29:00.007-04:00

A quick trip to SW Ontario is an excellent way to see the many new green electricity installations. Especially on the Lake Erie shore it's clear that more and more farmers are "Cash Cropping the Sun" with sun-tracking photovoltaic systems and "Harvesting the Wind" with wind turbines.

On a cycling trip in the area last week, I was pleased to see many farmers are investing in green energy to supplement their regular incomes from growing mostly corn and soy plus a few fields of asparagus, ginseng, sugar beets, carrots, cabbage, potatoes. Hopefully green energy will supplant income from killer tobacco crops. There, but harder to see, are the biomass projects and geothermal systems being installed.

Around Toronto, too, more and more people are generating green energy, especially because of the premium prices paid by Ontario's microFit program. My household has applied to install a 5Kw system and we are awaiting approval with anticipation. Ideally, Toronto should produce most of its own electricity locally.

A quick and easy way to generate some green energy is to install a solar hot water system. The evacuated tube system Greensaver installed on our house last year works great, giving us "guilt-free" hot water all year, even in winter. How sweet!

A Mayor for Toronto?

2010-08-11T16:16:00.010-04:00

At Monday's Ward 18-Davenport debate the candidates were asked who they supported for mayor. We all said we hadn't yet decided, although Kevin Beauleau said he was leaning toward Joe Pantalone.

But the question made everyone ponder what they wanted in a mayor.

Toronto needs a green mayor, one who supports a low-energy future powered by electricity from local renewable sources like wind, photovoltaics and biomass; a mayor who supports community gardens, green roofs, zero garbage, more trees, bicycle lanes, transit, fewer cars, etc.

Toronto needs a fiscally-conservative mayor who would keep Toronto debt free. Seniors should be allowed to pay their taxes out of their home equity. The mayor should favour moving municipal taxes off buildings and onto land (land value taxation) to stop punishing people for fixing up their houses, and to incent more efficient land use.

The new mayor should continue David Miller's initiative to ban hand guns, allow new permanent residents to vote municipally, and to make schools into community hubs. Toronto's mayor should lead a campaign to zone against strip joints out of respect for the city's girls and women.

Toronto's mayor should lobby for the abolition of the unelected Ontario Municipal Board, to return zoning to elected Councillors. The mayor should support Toronto's re-org into walkable neighbourhoods linked by pedestrian walkways, bike ways and transit so no one needs a car.

And the Toronto mayor should advocate for citizen integration so that young and old, rich and poor, and all nationalities feel they are an integral part of the city's social fabric. The mayor should discourage exclusive neighbourhoods and elitist activities and events, and continue to build Toronto's fabulous library system, transit system and social support services. A just, accessible, safe and green city is a great city.

Now this is the mayoral candidate I would support!

People-centred development

2010-06-08T19:17:00.005-04:00

After decades of stagnation Ward 18 is experiencing something of a boom -- courtesy of GTA-wide gridlock and relatively low cost near-downtown lifestyles.

After decades of neglect, the many brownfields are being cleaned up, old factories torn down, warehouses and even churches redeveloped into condos and apartments. This re-development is very welcome, bringing more people into the area to open and patronize much needed new cafes, galleries, stores and restaurants.

There is, however, serious concern that the new development will not be people-friendly, green, quality-built or architecturally attractive. The Ward has many examples of ugly, gargantuan, low quality construction, which must not be repeated.

Remember: once it's built we're stuck with it for 100 years; we must get it right.

One such concerned citizen's group, Active 18, works closely with the city and developers to make sure projects are designed to suit the needs of the community, that developments match the "look" and "feel" of the neighbourhood, that they will improve the attractiveness of the area and contribute to the economic, social and artistic fabric, and not simply be quick and dirty money-making ventures.

Examples of excellent Toronto redevelopments that Ward 18 should emulate: The Wychwood Barns, Liberty Village, The Brickworks, the Distillery District, the Drake and Gladstone hotels...

Redevelopments in Ward 18 should match and exceed the best Toronto examples, anything less is unacceptable. We must imagine the kind of neighbourhoods we want, and demand that they be built. We owe this to future generations.

An important policy tool to achieve quality redevelopment is for Toronto to shift the municipal tax onto the lot beneath the buildings. Municipal taxes should be applied against the value of the land, regardless of the improvements on it, in order to not punish quality development with increased taxation.

Self-funding Infrastructure

2010-05-06T13:06:00.006-04:00

A painless way for Toronto to fund new infrastructure – without raising taxes – is for the city to collect the rise in local land values generated by that actual infrastructure.

The "Mink Mile" reconstruction (Bloor between Avenue and Church) is being financed this way, and serves as an excellent model for other city improvements. Many cities around the world fund their infrastructure this way.

If infrastructure is beneficial and warranted, it will raise local land value by more than the cost of that infrastructure. When redevelopment or new infrastructure – like parks, transit, rec centres, schools, hospitals – make areas of town more desirable to live in or do business in, the increased land value should be collected to pay for that redevelopment or new infrastructure. This way traditional municipal taxes don't rise anywhere in the city.

Normally the increased economic rent goes (untaxed) to the person or company that owns affected land, even though governments paid for the improvements out of the tax base. Taxpayers everywhere are unjustly expected to pay for improvements that only benefit the local land-owning minority. Self-funding infrastructure remedies this problem.

Developing a Methodology to Capture Land Value Uplift Around Transport Facilities

Self-Funding Infrastructure and the Free Market Case for a Land Tax

Fluoridation: dangerous, unnecessary and costly

2010-05-05T19:06:00.007-04:00

At an annual cost of $36 million, Toronto adds Hexafluorosilicic acid (HSFA), a toxic by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, to its drinking water -- a process called fluoridation.

However, HFSA is not fluoride but a substance that includes inorganic fluoride, along with arsenic and lead, none of which filtration plants are able to remove.

HSFA is added to water, ostensibly to reduce tooth decay, despite the extensive evidence, most notably from the National Research Council 2006 report on fluoride in drinking water, in addition to the absense of consensus from the scientific community on the efficacy and safety of the practice. Jurisdictions that fluoridate (Toronto) have identical incidence of dental cavities as those who do not (Montreal).

HSFA is a toxin that causes disruptions in plant and animal life, including humans. Too much fluoride causes the disease called fluorosis. Furthermore, the chloramine in city drinking water added to the fluorosilicates causes extensive leaching of lead, damaging pipes.

Fluoride is a potential immunotoxin, embryotoxin and neurotoxinn, which can cause brain damage, especially in children. Toronto apparently cares more about children's teeth then their brains.

Alternatively, the fluoride in toothpaste, a simple sodium fluoride salt, alone, is effective in reducing tooth decay.

Toronto could save $500 million over 10 years (operations and capital equipment, lead pipe damage) if it ended joined other cities in Canada and around the world in ending fluoridation. Most of Western Europe doesn't fluoridate its water, with no difference in dental health to our own.

Merge boards to save schools

2010-05-03T16:06:00.004-04:00

The most efficient and fair way to save some of Toronto's underused schools is for Ontario to merge the Catholic and Public boards into one school system.

This long over due reform would reduce catchment areas, allow for the optimal use of the best school buildings, and shorten travel times for students, reducing busing costs.

Merging boards would eliminate the redundancy costs of running parallel systems. Remember, one third of the education budget is on municipal tax bill.

Furthermore, giving all students access to all schools would end the divisive practice of dividing kids along religious lines. Funding education for only one religion is unfair to people of other religions, an Ontario historical anomaly twice criticized by the UN.

The Public - Public Divide

2010-04-26T17:36:00.007-04:00

The private-public debate (garbage, TTC, Toronto Hydro, Pearson link) is hot so far in the Toronto municipal election.

To me, public services and infrastructure should be publicly financed, built, owned and operated. I have always strongly opposed P3s for a number of reasons:

- governments can access financing at lower rates than private businesses,
- overall costs are lower when public works and services remain public as there is no need to include a profit in budgets,
- there is more accountability and transparency when services and infrastructure are public,
- publicly managed services can be tailored to achieve policy goals, like energy conservation or ethical concerns, something which is more difficult when privately owned,
- the profits generated by public services (like the LLBO) and infrastructure (like Toronto Hydro, the TTC) should remain public and used to reduce other taxes,
- the public pride associated with public services (education and health) is often lost when services are privatized.

Examples: When garbage services are public governments can facilitate recycling and waste reduction. When electricity is public, like Toronto Hydro, government can mandate conservation and green energy. When schools and hospitals are publicly financed, built and run, there is no incentive to cut corners or risk public health to maximize profit.

The present private-public balance has been achieved over many years of trial and error. Often services -- like prisons, garbage, education, health-care, roads like the 407 -- are rashly privatized only to be made public later at great expense and bitterness toward governments.

The recent public anger against the TTC and the garbage strike was a healthy part of the negotiation process, clearly demonstrating that the public will not put up with arrogance and contemptuous behaviour of unions. But these services should not be privatized.

Many activities are best done privately, like manufacturing, media, while others are more efficient when public. We need the wisdom to tell the difference. Jane Jacobs says "guardian" jobs (like courts, police, governments) should be public while commercial activities should be private.

Scrap OMB, Return Decisions to City Councils

2010-04-14T13:01:00.004-04:00

There are many appointed boards in Canada, municipally, provincially and federally, but all boards, except the OMB, are below the respective level of government, not above. No other board but the OMB can over ride the decisions of an elected body.

Boards are set up to do the detailed work that elected councils don't need to do, or they perform a pre-selection and advisory role to an elected body. But democracy is flouted when elected politicians can be overruled by an appointed body.

The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) is an arms-length judiciary that handles land use disputes between municipalities and people and businesses. Its decisions are often controversial since it has the power to, and often does, over rule decisions made by elected municipal councils. Of course any organization, elected or unelected, can make bad decisions, but democracy is not served when elected politicians can be overruled by an appointed body.

It is costly to take a case before the OMB. Typically developers have the money for this but citizens do not — making the process unfair from the outset.

The OMB should be abolished and decision-making should be returned to elected politicians. Land use decisions should be made by elected politicians who are accountable to voters.

The existence of the OMB demeans and neuters elected councils. Council decisions can be ignored since developers can override them at the OMB.

Similarly, since the public has the option of challenging municipal decisions through the OMB there is little incentive to lobby or become involved in councils and municipal politics. Why bother becoming involved in local politics if your time and money is better spent in the courtroom of the unelected OMB?

Removing the option to appeal to the OMB will revitalize local democracy as local council decisions will become final, or at least till the next election when they can be removed. Small wonder very few people bother voting in municipal elections.

Local and provincial politicians will make wiser decisions regarding climate change, peak oil, gridlock, greenfield loss... if demanded to do so by the public.

Sprawl and big box store mentality must give way to walkable communities linked by transit. These are political decisions that must be made by elected and accountable politicians, not appointed boards.

Toronto To Collect Billboard Rent

2010-04-08T16:39:00.020-04:00

The City of Toronto plan to levy billboard space is a creative way to help finance city services without negatively impacting the city's economy.

The fees, which will range from $850 to $24,000 a year depending on the size and type of billboard, will return to the city the unearned income that accrues to billboards (and other desirable finite assets), known to economists as "economic rent".

Economic rent is the windfall profit -- above a healthy business profit -- that results from monopoly control of assets like billboards, locations (especially land near water, parks, transit stops, hospitals, schools), parking spaces, taxi licenses, oil, the EM spectrum, some generic internet domain names...

By this astute action, Toronto City Council will return $10.4 million a year of the publicly-generated wealth that flows to billboards, back to its citizens to whom it rightfully belongs, instead of allowing it to be pocketed by billboard owners.

Repeating this example, cities and towns everywhere could untax businesses and buildings, reduce transit and recreation fees, and instead finance transit, culture, recreation, police and fire by collecting the unearned economic rent that accrues to land, public infrastructure, billboards, taxi medallions, attractive locations, access to roads, parking...

Unlike job-killing taxes on productive businesses and user fees on quality of life activities, economic rent is an ideal source of city revenue. Since rent is unearned income, those asked to pay it cannot pass it on to other citizens. Additionally, rent recovery is a politically attractive, free market mechanism that improves land use and housing stock, creates jobs, and provides an incentive to new business start-ups.

- Australia has been collecting billboard rent for many years, with some prominent locations producing $100,000 pa per year.

- 17 million people yearly pass the billboards at Dundas and Yonge.

- Alternatively, many feel billboards should be banned as in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine.

Stop the subsidies!

2010-04-07T16:15:00.009-04:00

Effective March 31, 2010, Natural Resources Canada (again) canceled subsidies for eco-energy retrofits. Unfortunate because many people (including my family) took advantage of it to replace an inefficient furnace, insulate and install a solar hot water system.

However, having said that, it is generally bad economics to subsidize anything, to distort the free market, to artificially pick winners and losers. Generally, every subsidy is a failed market mechanism.

In energy, Canadian governments we have a dumb habit of pitting subsidies against subsidies.

We subsidize dirty energy (health care costs, climate change costs...), plus we subsidize green energy (like the feds were doing, the Ont Green Energy Act), and we even subsidize conservation, completing the farce.

But since subsidies to dirty energy are hidden -- externalizing true costs -- and green energy subsidies are internalized budget dollars, green energy gets an unjustified bad rap for being on welfare.

Green economics doesn't subsidize. Instead it accurately prices resources and energy. Governments should charge the true cost of dirty energy (for coal, oil and gas: a carbon tax; for nukes: include the true costs of limited liability, decommissioning, stranded debt, and the massive opportunity cost), which would make conservation and renewables economically viable without subsidies. Wind comes in at $0.13 kWh while conservation comes in at 3 cents/kWh, so by including the hidden costs of coal and nukes, wind and conservation wouldn't need help.

My household is on Bullfrog Power, where we pay extra for green power. How ridiculous! With green economics clean electricity would be cheaper than coal and nukes!

Rail Link Plan Badly Flawed

2010-04-01T14:22:00.003-04:00

The proposed rail link from downtown to Pearson should not be built till the following core changes are made:

1. To reduce noise and air pollution the trains must be electric, not diesel. The suggestion of "clean diesel" is not an acceptable solution. The increased upfront cost will reduce pollution to zero and pay for itself by saving healthcare dollars and lives.

2. The trains should make frequent stops and be fully connected to local public transit routes in Toronto, Malton and Georgetown with no extra fees above the local transit fare.

3. The project should be publicly-owned and operated rather than by private interests through a PPP (public-private partnership). PPPs cost extra because of higher private financing costs and profit taking. PPPs also mean loss of public control.

4. The train link should be financed not by federal, provincial or city taxes, but by collecting the rise in land values that it generates along the route and especially around the stops.

Like thousands of other Torontonians, we here in Davenport riding live near the proposed Union Station-to-Pearson rail link and share the concerns of the Weston Community Coalition. World class cities don't treat their citizens this way.

Abolish the Indian Act

2010-03-26T17:55:00.011-04:00

The Canadian Indian Act should be abolished. First Nations should have personal and/or collective ownership of reserve land. Maintaining First Nations as wards of the state may be better culturally, but it is not economically.

Historically, denying land ownership has served to keep people in subjugation and poverty, examples being slavery, the hacienda system, medieval serfdom, apartheid, share cropping, migrant labour, and the Canadian reserve system.

When people own the land they build up equity, pride, can borrow against it, can start a business, and thereby improve the quality of life for everyone in their community.

When my parents came from the Netherlands in 1950, they weren't put on a reserve and administered to by a "Dutch People's Act". How dehumanizing, how stigmatizing, how disempowering, how ghettoizing this would have been. Within 5 years my parents bought their own farm and from then on, rose financially with the market, and raised us as proud, empowered Canadians, without the stigmatization and self-fulfilling prophesy of people raised in poverty.

First Nations people are in the same disadvantaged position as anyone who doesn't own the land they live on. When you don't own your own land you don't stay "up with the market", which means you don't collect the economic rent that accrues to land at a rate of about 5% of market value per year average.

My partner Kelley and I rented for 20 years and stayed perpetually broke, but since we bought a house 10 years ago, even with the same personal incomes, we increased our net worth by $100,000, which we received but didn’t earn, and it was tax free. I suspect everyone on this list has the same story. On top of this, we’ve now almost paid off the initial purchase price.

If we had remained renters we'd still likely have little in the bank and zero equity. Now we can take out lines of credit at low interest for other purchases, for education, to travel, to start a business, to invest, for renovations, or we could sell and take this money with us to live in another country.

Aboriginal people, Catholic clergy, renters, people in public housing, people living in coops, military people that buy or rent a house on a base but don't own the land under it... are all disadvantaged in this same way. In Europe, Gypsies always stay poor because they don't own land, and are stigmatized by their poverty.

The reserve system is evil and always has been. South Africa modeled apartheid on it. It ghettoizes First Nations, just like social housing projects ghettoize the people who live there. First Nations individually should own their section of the reserve outright and be able to sell it or be able to borrow against it, or collectively own their reserve land and be able to borrow against it collectively, just like any group of people who want to own land collectively.

Green economics addresses this. Everyone, of course, doesn't have to own land or resources. Renting is fine, co-ownership is fine, but all Canadians should receive their share of the unearned income that accrues to the common wealth, it shouldn't all go untaxed to those who happen to hold title. The common wealth of Canada, including land, belongs equally to all by birthright and citizenship.

Frank de Jong 416-559-6941 votefrankdejong

Addressing Climate Change at No Cost

2010-03-12T18:00:00.002-05:00

When the fanfare and posturing of the 15,000 Copenhagen climate change conference delegates finally died down, the parting conference communiqué announced – luckily – nothing much.

Governments sheepishly pronounced that while climate change is a critically important problem the cost of action is prohibitively high, that it would require additional job-killing taxation and massive transfers of wealth to poor countries, none of which their respective taxpayers would accept. The heads of state positioned themselves on the fence between the climate change defenders who pleaded this would be money well spent and the skeptics who insist climate change is a non issue, and announced that inaction was the economically responsible if environmentally riskier choice.

Climate change is no longer a theory; it is a scientific fact, a looming catastrophic planetary disaster of unimaginable consequences. And while, scientifically, inaction is not an option, neither, politically, is increased taxation on the productive economy. The current panoply of climate change players – defenders, skeptics and governments – entrenched in their respective dogmas, are unable to develop a universally supportable economic theory to address this crisis.

But an economic program to address climate change does exist that does not include additional taxation, government expenditures nor wealth transfer to poor countries.

Climate change can and should be addressed at zero cost to taxpayers by using the tax structure as a policy tool, i.e. tax shifting -- untaxing jobs and business and up-taxing resource use, land values and the privilege of polluting. Green tax shifts are revenue-neutral and cost governments nothing. In fact they benefit the economy by rewarding resource-efficient, clean production which is generally wealth-producing, value-added and job-intensive.

A revenue-neutral carbon levy would offset income taxes and still maintain the government income needed to fund services like healthcare and education, plus help reduce pollution-related healthcare costs and address climate change. Taxing carbon will encourage a greener economy by raising the cost of production of polluting industries by charging users a more accurate environmental cost and eliminating the deadweight loss of taxation on local, sustainable, labour-intensive, value-added production. The reduced income and sales taxes will decrease the cost of production in non-polluting industries; the new green-collar jobs replacing jobs lost in dirty sunset industries.

Carbon taxes, like all resource levies and land value taxes, don't damage the economy since they don't raise the overall cost of production. In fact, they are not taxes at all, but fees that collect only the economic rent that accrues to finite, non-replicatable assets -- unearned wealth that is generated by the community in the first place, and should thus return to the community (via the government) to finance services and infrastructure.

When there is more profit in monopoly control of finite resources (like oil, trees, land, water...) than in the production of goods or services, money is "invested" in natural resources rather than in enterprises. It is politically difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emission when it is more profitable investing in oil and coal than in renewables or conservation, so an economic program that collects the economic rent on oil and coal levels the playing field with renewables and conservation (which don't generate economic rent).

(Furthermore, too much money chasing finite assets like land, oil and other resources inflates prices, ties up cash, causes unemployment which forces central banks to reduce interest rates creating cheap money, which in turn fuels speculative bubbles which ultimately must deflate causing recessions.)

Moving the source of government revenue off personal incomes and business profits and onto levies and fees on the use (of oil, coal, gas) and abuse of the global commons (CO2, methane…) should become policy whether climate change is a reality or not. The parallel benefits including more jobs, a more prosperous economy, less sprawl, more walkable neighbourhoods, increased economic viability of local food and clean energy, resource conservation, nature preservation, less poverty, and fewer preventable diseases like asthma, cancer and diabetes. There will be winners and losers, but since the higher resource costs are offset by reduced labour costs, business can avoid taxes by going green.

Poor countries can address climate change with green tax shifting as readily are rich countries; there is no need for the transfer of billions from rich countries. As well as reducing GHGs, economic rent recovery will benefit poor countries by breaking up land and resource monopolies allowing all citizens access to the gifts of nature which will kick start business start ups and value-added employment and provide a road out of poverty.

(British Columbia was the first jurisdiction to roll out a revenue neutral carbon tax with the revenue going back to the public in the form a low-income tax credit, reduced personal income taxes and lower corporate taxes.)

Addressing climate change is more than an environmental necessity, is also an economic opportunity. Carbon levies, when applied early in the production chain, encourage innovation, efficiency and alternatives, and when coupled with regulations, provide a total package for a solution to the climate change crisis. Every economic decision is influenced in part by the tax system so when we get the taxes and regulations right, the market will take care of the rest.

This policy program builds bridges between climate change skeptics and defenders, between business and eco-activists by offering a win-win, fiscally-responsible, politically-attractive market mechanism which addresses climate without additional taxes, unfair subsidies or punitive compliance legislation. This program makes sense for both rich and poor countries regardless of the real or perceived climate change treat and would avoid the need for future international climate change agreements, the intrinsic rewards being sufficient.

Frank de Jong

Green budget for Canada

2010-03-09T13:04:00.010-05:00

I plan to submit the below resolution to the GPC convention in August.

------------------

Finance Resolution

a) Whereas resources such as land, minerals, fossil fuels, clean air and water are free gifts of Nature to people (and other species), and whereas people have an equitable right to this common wealth;

b) Whereas the Green Party of Canada (GPC) seeks to encourage the efficient and sustainable use of common wealth, and encourage local, value-added and sustainable ways of engaging in enterprise;

c) Whereas taxing incomes, businesses and consumption have the effect of reducing employment, burdening businesses and artificially increasing the prices of needed products;

d) Whereas the purchase of, legal title for, and monopoly on natural resources and land should be considered not a right, but a privilege with responsibilities to the community;

e) Whereas individuals, institutions and businesses should not be granted a right to pollute, but a privilege with responsibilities to the community;

f) Whereas individuals, institutions and businesses granted access to community-built and tax-funded amenities and infrastructure (roads, electromagnetic spectrum, internet, billboards…) should not enjoy a right, but a privilege with responsibilities to the community;

g) Whereas, businesses and institutions presently must pay employees approximately 30% above net pay to cover employee payroll deductions, income and consumption taxes, adding significantly to the cost of labour, and furthermore, when in financial difficulty, this requirement could cause unnecessary bankruptcies and job losses.

h) Therefore the GPC advocates fiscal policies that foster ecologically sustainable businesses, green jobs, preserve ecosystems and biodiversity, conserve resources for other species and future generations, and ensure a high quality of life and basic economic equity for all;

i) Therefore the GPC proposes to employ natural resource charges so that those who use, monopolize or despoil our common wealth are obliged to reimburse society for this privilege;

j) Therefore the GPC proposes a revenue-neutral tax shift that distinguishes between earned and unearned income, and moves the tax burden from the former onto the latter. This shift will unburden the productive economy and instead finance government programs by collecting unearned income;

k) Therefore the Green Party of Canada would remove taxes from labour, business and production and instead generate government revenue through fees and levies on the use of the global commons and on access to community assets;

l) Therefore the exclusive use of resources and land by individuals, institutions and businesses will require compensation to those excluded, i.e. those who hold resources or preferred sites, will be required to remit fees equal to the unearned economic rent as public revenue for public benefit (in lieu of income, business and sales taxes);

m) Therefore individuals, institutions and businesses that enjoy access to community-built and tax-supported amenities and infrastructure be required to remit fees in the amount of the economic rent to government as compensation for the privileges granted;

n) Therefore individuals, institutions or businesses granted the privilege of polluting will remit to government Pigouvian taxes as deemed appropriate by legislators;

o) Therefore the GPC further proposes that those who contribute back to the commons be financially compensated by government. Companies and individuals who forgo opportunistic income to conserve, protect or restore ecosystems will be reimbursed for expenses.

End of Resolution

-----------------------------------
Present Canadian Government 2010 revenue stream
Personal income tax: $110 b
Corporate income tax: $26 b
Other income: $5 b
Goods and services tax: $26 b
EI premiums: $17 b
Other revenue: $26 b
Total revenue: $210 billion

Proposed Green revenue stream
Oil economic rent: $43 b
Land value rent: $50 b
Tobin Tax: $20 b
Other resource rent: $26 b
Infrastructure access: $43 b
Pigouvian taxes: $28 b
Total revenue: $210 billion

Alternate Revenue Sources
The Canadian government could eliminate all taxes on incomes, business and consumption by instead collecting:
1. The economic rent that accrues to land and natural resources;
2. The economic rent from privileged access to community assets;
3. Pigouvian taxes on pollution, resource depletion, and currency speculation.
(Economic rent is the difference between a fair profit and a windfall profit. It exists because of the hard work and ingenuity of the community and should therefore accrue back to the community, as represented by the government.)

1. Resource rents
- Conventional oil: $32 billion
- Tar sands oil: $11 billion
- Natural gas: $6 billion
- Land: $50 billion
- Public forests, fish: $10 billion
- Minerals, metals: $10 billion

2. Infrastructure rents
- EM Spectrum: $10 billion
- Internet: $2 billion
- Stock markets: $20 billion
- Patents, quotas, licenses, billboards: $5 billion
- Air rights: $6 billion

3. Pigouvian taxes
- Roads, parking, docks: $10 billion
- Towers, wires: $4 billion
- Noise, light, odours: $1 billion
- Landfills: $2 billion
- Coal: $6 billion
- Water: $5 billion
- Tobin Tax: $20 billion

Fees on Use and Abuse of the Commons

CARBON EMISSIONS: In Canada, natural gas, coal and oil are combusted with minimal compensation to Canadians for the privilege of polluting, resource depletion or to cover the costs of climate change. Charges on CO2 emissions (not a CO2 tax) -- equal to the economic rent generated by each type of fossil fuel – collected by the government of Canada would best encourage efficiency and alternatives.

Canada produces 1.8 million barrels of conventional oil per day (Alberta produces 66%, Saskatchewan 16%, offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland 14%), and 1 million bpd from the tar sands. Two-thirds of Canadian production is exported to the USA. An average barrel of crude oil will produce a minimum of 317kg of carbon when consumed; roughly three barrels of oil produce one tonne of CO2.

To level the playing field with conservation and alternatives, the federal government could collect the economic rent that accrues to each type of oil at point of entry into each province and when exported. Conventional oil production costs about $30 per barrel, generating about $50 per barrel of economic rent or $32 billion of economic rent. Tar sands oil costs about $50 per barrel generating about $30 or economic rent or $11 billion.

Canada consumes 92.9 billion cu m of natural gas per year, releasing 45% less CO2 per BTU then coal. Collecting the economic rent on natural gas CO2 emissions would generate $6 billion.

(Canadian CO2 emissions in 2006 were 544,680,000. A $100 per tonne carbon tax (around $33 per barrel of oil, plus charges on coal and natural gas) would generate $55 billion for the federal government, not a including levies on exports.)

PUBLIC FORESTS: To compensate Canadians for the use of forests and to encourage value-added, resource-efficient, labour-intensive production and incent non-extractive uses of forests, the Canadian government could collect the economic rent on forest land generating $5 billion annually.

FISH: The Canadian government could collect $5 billion of economic rent to compensate Canadians for granting companies and individuals the privilege of the removing publicly owned fish from Canadian waters. (The UN could collect the rent from fishing in international waters.)

LAND: As a disincentive to suburban sprawl, farmland loss and an incentive to build walkable neighbourhoods, a Canada-wide land value levy could be applied to the assessed value of parcels of land (ignoring improvements). The 2009 assessed market value of land in Canada was $1.8 trillion, generating approx $100 billion of economic rent annually. A land value levy collecting 50% of this unearned income would generate about $50 billion per year for the Canadian government.

MINERALS & METALS: To compensate Canadians for granting mining rights of publicly owned non-renewable resources, and to encourage conservation and incent renewable alternatives, the Canadian government could collect the economic rent plus levy a depletion royalty on minerals and metals generating $10 billion.

Fees on Access to Community Assets

AIR RIGHTS: The Government of Canada could apply charges on aircraft over-flights and on airport runway slots to compensate Canadians for noise, visual distraction, pollution, and land loss. At approx. 6000 flights per day in Canada, multiplied by 365 days, times 300 people per flight, at a fee of $10 per person could generate over $6 billion annually.

BILLBOARDS: To compensate Canadians for visual intrusion the federal government could collect the economic rent generated by billboard space. Estimating 20,000 billboards in Canada at average of $5,000 per billboard per year could generate $100 million annually. (Billboards are banned in Vermont.)

EM SPECTRUM: The electromagnetic spectrum in Canada is in high demand for cellular phones, digital television, wireless Internet, and broadcasting. Canada could follow the lead of NZ, the UK and the US and use periodic spectrum auctions, which could net an estimated $10 billion in economic rent for government.

INTERNET: The internet and web have many features of a commons, and could be referred to the “internet commons”, and the economic rent that internet companies now collect from public telecoms, private ISPs, web domain names, belongs to the public and should be collected by the government. Domain name registration grants a monopoly on words and letters, some of which are very valuable and accrue significant rent. The economic rent from the one million domain names registered in Canada, private ISPs and telecoms could generate an estimated $2 billion. http://www.cira.ca/home-en/ A further Pigouvian charge for email by the sender, as small as 0.01¢ per email (that is: 1¢ per 100 emails) would have little impact on legitimate business or users, but would have a significant impact on spam.

STOCK EXCHANGES: Canadian stock exchanges generate wealth for investors because of the industriousness of the Canada population and the exploitation of publicly-owned resources. Some of this wealth could accrue to the federal government on behalf of its citizens. E.g., the TSX, for February 2010: traded 7,124.7 million shares worth $92,991.2 Million. A 1% tax would have yielded $930 Million. Canada’s stock exchanges could be levied $20 billion per year, based on less then a one percentage charge of the volume of exchanges.

QUOTAS, LICENSES, PATENTS: Controlled access to the Canadian population granted to pharmaceutical and other product patents, taxi licenses, milk and meat quotas, are exclusive privileges that could carry charges to governments equivalent to the economic rent generated, rather than one time internal sales and auctions. The federal government share of this rent could be $5 billion.

Pigouvian Taxes

COAL: Canada consumes around 60 million tonnes of coal per year; complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide. A Pigouvian tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would generate $6 billion.

ROADS, PARKING, DOCKS: Canada has 900,000km of roads. A levy per kilometer driven on the 38,000km of federal government maintained roads would help incent alternatives to cars and trucks. A charge of $0.02 per km of road travel for cars and light trucks and $0.10 per km for heavy trucks could generate $10 billion annually. A levy for parking on federal land and use of federal docks could generate additional revenue.

CELL PHONE TOWERS, HYDRO AND TELEPHONE WIRES: The privilege of causing visual distraction and electromagnetic pollution could carry a fee payable to governments, with the federal government share estimated at $4 billion annually.

NOISE, LIGHT, ODOURS: The community could be recompensed by applying charges on excessive lighting, intrusive odours and noise from roads, industry, aircraft, watercraft, leaf-blowers, chainsaws, clubs and restaurants. With revenue shared municipally, provincially and federally, this could generate $1 billion for the federal government.

LANDFILLS: Charges on garbage dumping to compensate Canadians for lack of product stewardship, plus charges on disposable packaging and products to encourage repair, reuse, recycling, could generate $2 billion per annum for the federal government.

WATER: Water is a precious resource granted essentially without fees in Canada. A levy per litre of water-taking from ground and surface water could encourage water conservation. Municipalities bill their customers around .001/litre for water. A federal government levy also of $0.001 per litre would encourage water conservation from ground or surface water and generate $5 billion to the federal government if the 5 trillion litres worth of permits issued in Canada are used.

TOBIN TAX: On March 23, 1999 the Canadian House of Commons in Ottawa passed Motion M-239 "That, in the opinion of the House, the government should enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community." A tax of between .1 and .5 per cent on currency exchange transactions would limit the damage from excessive exchange rate volatility and raise significant revenue. With global foreign exchange revenues over $1.3 trillion per day, estimated global revenue from the Tobin Tax is in the range of $150 to $300 billion per year. Canada’s share: approximately $20 billion.

Additional benefits

a. Resource rental capture dampens boom-bust economic cycles by removing the incentive to speculate on land, resources and monopoly access of community assets.

b. Collection and compliance costs of economic rent recovery are a fraction of those of the present range of taxes. The difficulty of evading rent charges, compared to the ease of evading labour, business and sales taxes, will shrink the underground economy.

c. Reducing dead weight taxes on production and labour maximizes economic efficiency and invigorates the economy. Since speculation and monopoly ownership will become less attractive, capital will instead move to productive enterprises, reducing liquidity shortages and reducing the severity of recessions.

d. Regularly collecting the capital gains component of energy, land and natural resources rather then taxing jobs makes labour more affordable. Untaxing earned income is politically popular.

e. This fiscal policy is immune to political opposition since government would only be collecting the unearned uplift in land and resource values resulting from the provision of additional services and publicly financed infrastructure.

f. Infrastructure projects (transit, sewers, roads, educational facilities, hospitals) become self-financing when the resulting increase in the land values is captured for this purpose.

g. Collecting economic rent domestically makes resources and land unattractive to both foreign and domestic speculators.

h. Funding government by collecting the unearned increment that accrues to land and resources doesn’t raise their cost, but it does creates a revenue stream to government that allows for reduction of other taxes.

i. When the unearned increment that accrues to land and finite resources is captured for the public purse, their use is not discouraged since the tax cannot be passed on. To the contrary, economic rent capture encourages resources to be put to optimal usage since holding these assets out production for speculative purposes becomes uneconomical.

Compensation and Reimbursement

Those who contribute back to the commons should be monetarily compensated or reimbursed.

a. Farmers and landowners who remove land from production to provide ecological services like carbon sequestration, water and soil conservation, or provide habitat for wild plants and creatures could be compensated for their loss of commodity revenue and rewarded for their non-commodity service.

b. Northern communities with economies dependent on crown lands, which reduce or modify extractive activities to provide ecological services like carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, water, soil or biomass conservation could be compensated for their collective loss of commodity revenue.

c. As a direct benefit from the recoup of windfall profits from publicly-owned sources all citizens could receive an equal share of the economic rent generated in Canada in the form of a Citizens Dividend. This would offset the resource costs of basic living expenses and help reduce or eliminate poverty.

Tax shifting out of deficit budgeting

2010-02-09T15:02:00.007-05:00

Most governments around the world, including Canada and Ontario, went heavily into debt last year bailing out banks and industries to try to avert an economic meltdown.

But now the chickens are coming home to roost. How to get back to balanced budgets?

Increasing traditional taxes on incomes, business and consumption is self-defeating since it will damage the struggling economy by punishing business, people who have jobs and consummers. Cutting services is equally self-defeating.

The way out of this mess -- the only way out -- is through green economics, for governments to engage in extensive revenue-neutral tax shifting -- off jobs and on to nature.

Green economics (untaxing labour, and instead collecting the unearned income that accrues to sources, sites and sinks) will actually invigorate the economy and allow Canada to grow out of deficit budgeting without more taxation.

This is because the more economic rent government collects the better the economy performs, and the less income taxes collected the better the economy works. Reducing the cost of labour incents value-added production, and collecting rent disincents investment in resource pig industries.

Collecting the windfall profits that accrue to nature will put green industries on a level playing field with dirty industry. Adding modest Pigouvian taxes will tip the balance to green production.

Resource extracting economies don't generate nearly the wealth of manufacturing economies. Green economics will move Canada away from being a hewer of wood and drawer of water and toward a (sustainable) manufacturing economy.

By invigorating the productive economy and disincenting the speculative economy green economics will create many more jobs, conserve nature, and increase the revenue stream to government, allowing governments to balance the budget and continue to provide services without additional taxes.

Green Electricity

2010-01-27T14:08:00.000-05:00

The Ontario Liberals deserve credit for getting it half right. The Samsung sweetheart deal and the Green Energy Act are good for the planet -- but bad for the economy.

We now subsidizes green electricity (Samsung, GEA) plus we subsidize dirty electricity (health care costs, climate change), but we ignore accurate pricing and conservation, by far the most cost effective and greenest ways of advancing green power.

Subsidy upon subsidy is economic folly. Coal-generated electricity is subsidized by hidden climate change costs and by the health care costs of dirty air, while nuclear is subsidized by the lost opportunity costs of past nuke debt, limited liability, future decommissioning costs, etc.

It’s dumb economics to subsidize both green AND dirty electricity, dumb to tax people and businesses to keep the price of electricity artificially low, encouraging waste and discouraging conservation.

The McGuinty government is using legislation and regulations to do what the market would do far better. Ontario should instead end direct and hidden subsidies to all types of electricity, implement accurate pricing and allow efficiency to reduce demand.

By charging the accurate cost of electricity, wind power would not require feed-in tariffs, and other renewables would be much closer to viability without subsidies. Revenue from from true cost electricity accounting should be used, dollar for dollar, to reduce income taxes.

Ontario should avoid unnecessary, bureaucratic, unfair and counterproductive green energy legislation.

Donations to Frank de Jong 2011 Davenport Campaign

2009-12-08T16:53:00.000-05:00

Though I am no longer GPO leader, I still am planning to run-to-win in my home riding of Davenport in the September 2011 fixed Ontario general election.

In order to run a well-funded campaign in 2011, I am fund-raising over four years. Last year was very successful toward this goal, so, to build on this, I'm asking supporters for a donation of $100 for the 2009 tax year.

Donors will receive a political tax credit entitling you to 75% of your donation off your Ontario tax payable, so it will only cost you $25, after rebate.

You can make the donation by credit card through PayPal on my website or by cheque made out to "Davenport CA Green Party of Ontario", and sent to 210 St. Helen's Avenue, Toronto, M6H 4A3.

Frank de Jong 416-559-6941 votefrankdejong