Why should they want that? Rural councilors in cities are elected to look out for their constiuents’ interests. You don’t get to assimilate townships and tax rural voters at the same rate as urban voters, and then reduce their functional services to bottom-tier levels to fund urban interests “for the greater good” without pushback.
Mostly on board with not assimilating townships, but it’s a little bit the other way around with tax revenue. It’s extremely expensive to provide municipal services to suburban and rural customers. Cities, with their much better tax revenue per acre, tend to subsidize rural customers.
Consider sewer, water, electricity, roads. All that extra pipe and wire to service a whole bunch of spread-out residences is quite expensive, and the revenue obtained from those residences is small. Which is why you have all these little towns going bankrupt, because their finances don’t make sense.
I am on board with towns being able to manage their own affairs, but unsustainable development without the tax base to support it is causing a LOT of trouble. They spend without taxing.
edit: I see other people made this point better than I did.
I’m not trying to suggest these numbers solve the gap (I have no idea what the gap is) but Ottawa in particular does charge different development fees depending on if the development is inside the greenbelt, and if they are serviced or not. Different dwelling types within those areas have different fees too.
Why should they want that? Rural councilors in cities are elected to look out for their constiuents’ interests. You don’t get to assimilate townships and tax rural voters at the same rate as urban voters, and then reduce their functional services to bottom-tier levels to fund urban interests “for the greater good” without pushback.
Mostly on board with not assimilating townships, but it’s a little bit the other way around with tax revenue. It’s extremely expensive to provide municipal services to suburban and rural customers. Cities, with their much better tax revenue per acre, tend to subsidize rural customers.
Consider sewer, water, electricity, roads. All that extra pipe and wire to service a whole bunch of spread-out residences is quite expensive, and the revenue obtained from those residences is small. Which is why you have all these little towns going bankrupt, because their finances don’t make sense.
I am on board with towns being able to manage their own affairs, but unsustainable development without the tax base to support it is causing a LOT of trouble. They spend without taxing.
edit: I see other people made this point better than I did.
I’m not trying to suggest these numbers solve the gap (I have no idea what the gap is) but Ottawa in particular does charge different development fees depending on if the development is inside the greenbelt, and if they are serviced or not. Different dwelling types within those areas have different fees too.
Further to that, the Village of Richmond has extra charges specific to the cost of sanitary sewers and so does a specific development in Greely.
Hydro is not managed at the municipal level.