You're against the removal of the cap, or the slow removal?

I believe mayor and council need to make a decision as to what they support. If it's the NSFM strategy, then we need an official endorsement. If they have an alternative, they must formula it, and endorse it, and then make sure it's included in their strategic vision, where it is currently awkwardly absent. However, a slow removal actually is not a good strategy whatsoever. It'll be 15 to 20 years before they even put that in place, because political weakness will resist making a move on something that requires the entire province to get behind, while the population is largely in disagreement between those who have a real or perceived advantage and those who are definitely hurt by it. A slow removal works for the HRM because they are a hotter real estate market, which leads to faster new construction in both residential and commercial sectors (including very large scale developments), and the cap is organically broken more frequently with a higher average home value. Since we already languish, that timeline doesn't work for us. The strategy that would allow it to be removed as quickly as 3 years involves securing the $15 Million from Houston annually (or more), and then applying it to reduce residential taxes so as to protect folks (especially seniors) from rapid increases to their tax bill. But the faster we can get the tax system re-balanced the better, and it's much more important in the CBRM than it is the HRM. If you examine the actual state of distortion in our tax base versus Halifax's, the data becomes very clear. We need it off faster. A growth market isn't as hurt by the cap as us because of the turnover, new construction, and advantageous lower tax rates.

We have removed a thread as it has devolved into personal attacks, which is contrary to our Terms of Use. We believe in hosting important community discussions and we know that sometimes the debates can become heated, but we also believe that it is fundamental that commenters address the issues and not engage in name-calling or other behaviour that disrespects members. To read our Terms of Use, look under the HELP menu above.

High taxes are just bad all the way around. The reality is that the municipality is hindering their own progress by not resolving this. They should remember that as they go into negotiations with each of their unions. I'm going to touch on this topic again with a new approach in the future, where instead of talking about fixing the system, I talk about what residents are actually losing in terms of opportunity cost with these excessive tax bills.

I've heard many people discuss the unfairness of taxes based on property value, despite there not being a direct relationship to the level of services provided by the municipality. It's another form of "progressive" taxation. I know one thing for sure: if we eliminated the tax based on property value, we'd be insolvent immediately. I don't think it's an area where we'll ever see any change, but I do believe there is a better argument for progressive taxation in income (as society creates the income opportunity/market), but much less so for property.

You're absolutely right about the modelling. It's a relatively non-complex task of postal mailing every property owner in the CBRM with projected increases in their tax bill (or decreases) over the cap removal period. Once they share the actual impact, let the citizens respond to offer their support, opposition, or recommendations for alternative processes. If the mayor is backing the NSFM plan for a 10-year removal, then she needs to let everyone know. I think it should be taken to the CBRM Council with a motion to endorse it—or to endorse alternative plans. That way, they are all on the record with what direction they are taking us in. The mayor is in clear conflict of interest with her role as the President of the NSFM who has a plan for the entire province that may not ultimately be the best fit for what should be her primary concern: the CBRM.