10% better get me a lot of value as a taxpayer, but it doesn’t look like it.
Rather than have taxpayers flip the bill for things like homlessness support, housing, and an 8% increase in the DRPS budget, increase fines (for all things) by 10x and let rule-breakers cover the costs of these services.
If you want something worse, Ford scrapped his ideas of listening to municipalities before breaking them up and is just going to have his committee decide
That’s going to raise costs massively for everyone effected. Who handles water for Durham if there is no Durham? Does everyone need new infrastructure to accommodate a new source?
You are assuming that people will still break rules at fixed pace after introduce a raise in fines, which is not how people(even corporates) would have responded.
You can’t budget things on income that would change depending on how people behave themselves. It’s like budget with income from pan handling.
You are assuming that people will still break rules at fixed pace after introduce a raise in fines, which is not how people(even corporates) would have responded.
Have you seen how fast automated traffic cams have paid for themselves? Speeding and red light infractions alone, at 10x the current fine, would cover at least funding for the homeless.
You can’t budget things on income that would change depending on how people behave themselves.
I agree, but people will always be breaking rules, and we are under-ticketing the majority of them.
I’m not saying that my model would eliminate taxes, but it would prevent or reverse these increases. 10% causes harm to a huge chunk of Durham Region families, so why not tap into this revenue?
Nobody is going to defend people breaking laws, so let them pay for stuff.
10% better get me a lot of value as a taxpayer, but it doesn’t look like it.
Rather than have taxpayers flip the bill for things like homlessness support, housing, and an 8% increase in the DRPS budget, increase fines (for all things) by 10x and let rule-breakers cover the costs of these services.
It’s to cover the funding that Ford took away
Ideally it would give you the same coverage you have now
I hear you.
The Region reported that we will lose nearly $300 million over five years due to Ford’s Bill 23.
Pickering already reported nearly $2 million lost because of it, and we’re just getting started.
If you want something worse, Ford scrapped his ideas of listening to municipalities before breaking them up and is just going to have his committee decide
That’s going to raise costs massively for everyone effected. Who handles water for Durham if there is no Durham? Does everyone need new infrastructure to accommodate a new source?
You are assuming that people will still break rules at fixed pace after introduce a raise in fines, which is not how people(even corporates) would have responded.
You can’t budget things on income that would change depending on how people behave themselves. It’s like budget with income from pan handling.
Have you seen how fast automated traffic cams have paid for themselves? Speeding and red light infractions alone, at 10x the current fine, would cover at least funding for the homeless.
I agree, but people will always be breaking rules, and we are under-ticketing the majority of them.
I’m not saying that my model would eliminate taxes, but it would prevent or reverse these increases. 10% causes harm to a huge chunk of Durham Region families, so why not tap into this revenue?
Nobody is going to defend people breaking laws, so let them pay for stuff.