HawthorneVillager.com

Thanks for clearing it up D, now we all understand that you completely 'assumed' incorrectly.

Milton is a a rapidly growing city...possibly the fastest growing city in canada, according to some. With that title comes big growing pains...traffic problems, parking problems, lineup problems, can't-get-a-seat-at-the-park-bench problems, and the list goes on. I don't have to make any sort of judgement on the 'types' of people to conclude that adding hundreds more people to this out of control population growth is a bad idea. I wouldn't live in an appartment building in Beverly Hills! This is why they have zoning. The city can tell how many single families the town can support, and issue permits based on that number. Are you suggesting that the city hates "us" kind of people because they only release a certain number of permits?

If you really want to get technical, let's also point out that renters do not pay taxes, so any addition to the population problem that is fixed through tax dollars (widening roads, recreation expansion) which is budgeted through expected tax revenues, is completely thrown off. This is why you are not allowed to vote in local elections, either.

Do you think that Milton would be better with the current infrastructure, but with 120,000 people, only half of which paying taxes?

It has nothing to do with the 'types' of people (whatever that means), it is all numbers. Get over it. You don't have an arguement, so stop trying to create one.

I think a few different issues are being mixed up here.

Renting an apartment/basement apartment does not necessarily mean you don't have money. There are many people renting because they feel a housing crash is coming, they want to remain mobile because they don't think they will be living in that location forever, they're there for only part of the year (students, consultants). In fact, with 0% down mortgages, it has become a choice for a lot more people than it was thirty years ago, where you left home and rented until you could save up a down payment. That's not to say there aren't people renting because house prices have gotten insane and they wouldn't be able to afford the monthly payments, but my point is that noone can make a blanket statement that renters are low income earners.

Crowds/traffic/etc... is not indicitive of the number of houses or the number of rented apartments. When I bought my first house, I rented a room out for a while. That meant that in the household there were two people and two cars. Next door lived a family with two parents and two grown kids, which had 4 people and 4 cars (and a three car driveway, which meant there was always one, if not two, cars on the road, impeding traffic). There are rules about the number of parking spots for basement apartments, but no rules about them for a family, and as has been discussed in many threads on this board, that leads to the problem of families buying a house without enough parking because it's all they can afford, and then the streets fill up. If this is the concern, rather than saying that basement apartments should not be allowed, it would make more sense to make a law that "a household can only own as many cars as they have driveway spots for, and no more".

Voting and taxes. JClayton, you posted



First of all, renters are allowed to vote in local elections, renting does count as residency. However, because renters do tend to move around more, they often are not listed on the local ballot lists, and must take extra steps to show Elections Ontario that they are qualified voters. In addition, having a basement apartment increases the value of your home as far as property assessments, which means an increase in taxes collected. I think the larger problem you are referring to (tax revenues not matching expenses) is a result of using property taxes to fund those types of services. For example, if I live alone in a big house, and I live next door to an identical house that has a family of 8 people, we will pay the same amount of local taxes, and yet they will put more of a strain on the roads and recreational facilities than I will, and that's without any renters in the equation. This is why municipalities are pushing for alternate forms of taxation (a share of the GST/gas tax) and moving more towards user fees.

In short... while I share people's frustration about crowds, for example (which is why I didn't move downtown Toronto when most people my age did... just too many people everywhere), the problems that are being experienced have nothing to do with renters, but population growth that is outpacing infrastructure growth. Having another 500 people move in while Thompson is still one lane and James Snow Parkway is still closed is just as hard for everyone whether they are 400 owners and 100 renters or 500 owners.

Listen I was a long time renter....obviously not all renters are problem people....a few rentals here and there no big deal....but lets face it, more renters = more lower income population = more crime/problems in the schools/dirty streets...lower home values....
Fewer the renters - nicer the area. And for all you that r gonna freak out I'm not type casting every lower income person as I'm sure we've all be one ourselves at one point. But there is absolutely no denying the correlation between income level in an area and the above mentioned problems.

Where do you think there are more basement apartments Brampton or Oakville? Where woud you rather live?

This is a common misconception. The owners of rental buildings? In Toronto, as one example, actually pay far MORE in property taxes than owners of single-family homes, and those property taxes are paid by the tenant's rent. So renters don't directly pay property taxes, but the owners of the buildings pay a huge amount of property tax. So renters are paying property tax, just indirectly.

And renters are most certainly allowed to vote in local elections. I voted when I was a renter.

Here's an interesting article that is about Toronto - note this quote: "Apartment buildings with seven units or more pay on average 4.6 per cent of market value each year in property taxes, while single family homes pay just 1.25 per cent."

To say that tenants don't pay property tax just really bugs me, as someone who rented for a long time - the implication is that renters are freeloaders, making use of municiple services we didn't pay for. No, I never made out a check to the town of Milton until after I bought a house - but property taxes were definitely part of the cost of my rent.

Another article, from 2003. Quote: "Most Ontario homeowners are probably not aware that their property taxes are heavily subsidized by tenants in multi-unit buildings. For decades, most Ontario municipalities have taxed multi-residential tenants at rates higher than those of homeowners, condo owners and tenants in smaller buildings."

Yes, but when most basement appartments are not declared as an income, it is impossible to compare basement appartments to commercial appartment buildings in Toronto.

Yes, but you were tarring all renters with the same brush. There's plenty of people renting in Milton who are living in buildings that I can assure you are paying their property taxes. Ever noticed all the apartment buildings on Ontario street?

I am NOT painting all renters with the same brush. I make a very clear distinction between appartment buildings and single family nieghbourhoods. I just wish everyone else would make as clear a distinction as I do, so that my street doesn't turn into an appartment complex.

okay, D.