Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
This is not about having a one seat ride. It is about not wanting to have city taxpayers subsidise the transit of those who don't live in the city. Something you seem to be two faced about.
|
Hardly. I don't want to subsidize them. Nor do I want their buses downtown making our traffic situation worse. And a big part of that consideration is the slippery slope. If you're getting a one-seat ride from Arnprior and more square footage, why would you buy in Stittsville? I don't want to see these places grow to 100k and the whole region ending up choking on traffic. Because that is exactly what will happen given our inability to build anything by car-dependent sprawl (especially the case in all these exurbs, which is often their selling feature).
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
Last I checked, a condo is a home and I seem to remember (correct me if I am wrong) you saying that you bought it about 10 years ago, before housing prices went crazy in Ottawa.
That is a great video series. I have been watching it for a while and saw that video a while back. If you listen carefully, he is just a critical of condos as he is of sprawl (high rises residences kill a community as much, as urban sprawl). What he is talking about the "missing middle." It is that medium density housing that makes cities more livable.
I totally agree that we need fewer luxury condos and less sprawling suburbia and more medium density housing.
Do you even read my posts? I said there is a strong relationship between affordability of housing and where people want to live. You are the one who seems to be taking the Marie Antoinette view of housing prices (your attitude screams, "I bought a condo when they were affordable, screw everyone else who wants to buy a home.").
|
Let's be clear. People aren't moving to Renfrew, Embrun, Navan, Smiths Falls, etc because they want cheap housing. They aren't buying condos out there. They are buying houses out there. So effectively, what's being asked here is that we facilitate transit improvements for them, so that they can get more square footage for their $. They can easily spend the same amount in the coverage area of OC Transpo. They might not get the same square footage and acreage though. And this is before we get into the fact that you seem to have this strange idea that affordable housing is equal to lower cost home ownership. Apparently the idea that we should direct policy toward renters in the city over exurban home owners is beyond you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
It isn't about subsidizing lifestyle. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to say.
|
But it is. Specifically, offloading the externality caused by their bus traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
I agree with you there and the best way to do that is to have more people use transit instead of cars, not banning buses from downtown.
|
Let's be clear. I didn't say anything about banning all buses from the core. Just those ex-urban commuter buses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
Not sure what type of ultra capitalistic society would result from no subsidies at all. What it is actually sounding like is you don't want any subsidies that you won't personally gain anything from.
|
Where did I say no subsidies for transit at all? I just said no subsidies for transit services to those who don't live in the city and pay taxes here. If the Government of Ontario provides it? Fine. If we have to spend a few thousand putting in bus bays and a bus shelter or two at each of the terminii, sure. But that should be where it ends.
Threaded Mode