Truly awful.

This office is part of a complex that includes a Coastal Health urgent care clinic and other provincial government services.

This office is street facing but seems to back against the urgent health care centre.

My point is that the principle of existing homeowners funding infrastructure for new homes is only tenable when

• developers are not creating huge externalities by creating ever larger suburbs with infrastructure funded by the core (take Ottawa as an example for that dynamic)
• when the base of established homeowners is large enough to support the rate of growth.

In the first case, development fees based on lot size for new sprawling burbs are a reasonable way to push the market towards density.

In the second case, with a high rate of growth in a specific market, other means of redistribution such as government subsidies may be a better way to redistribute.

But you’re not in agreement with charging the full economic cost of the sprawl to the homeowners who choose to live there?

We’re in Ottawa, so that may be an exception, but generally here it’s been extraordinarily expensive to develop the suburbs beyond the greenbelt, and until the development fees were increased in the late 90s, studies showed that new homeowners only bore about 1/5th of the cost.

Much of the development classification from farmland was effectively unplanned and forced through by suburban municipal councils before the amalgamation in the 1990s.

The costs of extending utilities across the National Capital Commission lands was extraordinary and no one inside the greenbelt benefited. A major bridge had to be built because the traffic impact was not considered etc.

There have been more recent improvements such as the retroactive construction of separate wastewater and storm water systems in the core that benefit everyone by keeping sewage out of the rivers.

The O-train construction unfortunately has been a burden on all without the benefits that should come with a modern rapid transit system.

We live in a society - yes.

But that’s the reason many of the development fees were put in back in the 1970s and 80s - there were significant equity issues where the exponentially growing new shiny suburbs were built on the property taxes of a much smaller base of urban homeowners who were left with old, inferior and unmaintained city infrastructure.

So, let’s seriously consider whether what the equity issues are now and whether those fees are reasonable cost recovery for infrastructure vs a tax cash grab - or if there’s enough of a base of established homeowners that they could carry the development costs for new homes through reasonable tax increases.

Actually, they did not get subsidized by prior generations of owners - unless you’re talking about people in their 90s.

That’s what the development fees and taxes were put in place for - especially in places where extending services out across greenbelts into suburbs was incredibly costly.

Having crumbling roads and community infrastructure in the core and polished, higher quality infrastructure in the burbs was an equity issue that was taken on in the 1970s, long before my generation was anywhere near buying homes.

I do think it’s fair to have lower development fees where there’s densification - that bringing more people to use and support existing infrastructure.

But subsidizing sprawl remains as problematic as it was in the 1960s.

Last thought, Intergenerational Inequity wa ma first recognized and discussed in the 1990s regarding GenX.

GenX remains the most ignored generation but the fact is that the generation suffered two very deep recessions in 1983 and 1987-1991 plus faced incredibly high (18%) interest rates and inflation in the 1980s. This meant that none of them were buying homes before their 40s without the help of parents. While Canadian GenX ducked the US mortgage-backed securities disaster in 2008, it’s really a false narrative to suggest they are or have been in the ‘I’m all right Jack, devil take the hindmost’ frame of mind. If anything, they know the social safety nets and equity provisions were the only thing that made things possible for them.

Explain to me please why existing owners should subsidize the building of city infrastructure in new developments.

I don’t live in Toronto but building new sewers, water systems, roads, community centres etc. shouldn’t be funded by existing taxpayers who still have above ground utility cables and no sidewalks.

There are exceptions. Someone who was up until recently a teacher may fall into the category of being in a position of trust or authority towards the minor. Without knowing the legal precedents, it’s hard to know how much of an edge case this is.

From the JusticeThe following factors may be taken into account when determining whether a relationship is exploitative of the young person:

From the* Justice Canada webpage on Age of Consent*

Sexual exploitation A 16 or 17 year old cannot consent to sexual activity if:

• their sexual partner is in position of trust or authority towards them, for example their teacher or coach
• the young person is dependent on their sexual partner, for example for care or support the relationship between the young person and their sexual partner is exploitative

The following factors may be taken into account when determining whether a relationship is exploitative of the young person:

• the young person's age
• the age difference between the young person and their partner
• how the relationship developed (for example, quickly, secretly, or over the internet)
• whether the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person

There’s still very low understanding of how devastating and threatening the convoy protests were for the residents and businesses in the core of Ottawa.

Residents, businesses and people who work downtown in Ottawa roll with protests day-in and out. Large ones usually are usually respectful of the legal limits, and local people know how to plan their days to avoid them if they need to.

This protest damaged hearing with unremitting high decibel air horns, polluted the air with weeks of nonstop truck emissions, actively harassed, intimidated and threatened local residents trying to get to work and essential services, filled the streets with garbage and feces.

They also created significant fire hazards and risked major explosions, including by creating a large stash of gasoline in tanks in Confederation Park - directly across the street from city hall, an armoury, and close to a high school as well as right across the narrow Rideau canal from National Defence headquarters.

But it was the utter lack of consideration for the most vulnerable that truly showed the incredible selfishness and lack of compassion of the protesters.

There are many lower income, disabled and senior residents in coop apartments downtown. Many rely on visiting services from care workers who could not get through the protests on most days. A small proportion had family and friends who were able to host them outside the area of the protests, most were trapped, isolated and terrorized.

There just doesn’t seem to be a limit to the amount of hype I’m willing to soak up in anticipation of this crossover.

Nothing close to too much as yet.

Well, I have to give the OP credit for outrageous audacity.

Coming to the main community on the dedicated Star Trek instance to argue that users should subscribe elsewhere is inherently a criticism. It says a lot about the tolerance of the mods and admins here that it’s been left to stand.

I myself appreciate a well moderated community because I believe it enables more discussion not less.

What stood out to me in the article was the disingenuous quote from the Oil & Gas industry saying that tax breaks aren’t subsidies because they are part of the tax system.

Those familiar with the tax system and public finance will be aware that Finance Canada has published a list of Federal Tax Expenditures and their value for a long time. There’s even a distinct section for fossil fuels.

Tax subsidies are subsidies.