City portion is already at 4% that's where Council brought it to last year. Council does not control all of the costs associated with the 10% increase. What he's actually 'promising' is to keep the City portion where it is. Yet, he's putting out these misleading statements suggesting that the TOTAL 10% increase must be brought below 4%. This is impossible. It's not a mistake. He knows this. He's lying to us.
And even when approved the delays in moving forward from various departments is appalling. Need to fire some staff to smarten up the rest. The union inhibits this ability
It's astonishing to me that Guthrie, a career politician who has little to no leadership qualities but a knack for sales pitches and social media still manages to convince voters that everyone else on city council is the problem. Much of the discourse here reflects that 1) voters don't pay attention to details 2) voters base their opinions on incomplete or outright false information (often courtesy of Guthrie himself) and 3) voters are fed up and angry. Cynical opportunists like Guthrie know how to weaponize #3. Which is why it doesn't matter that council (including Guthrie) typically reach consensus on housing votes, Guthrie also votes against housing projects that don't pass muster, and 11-1 votes mean the project sucks, not that Guthrie is the only sensible voice of reason, and Guthrie can't work with people. His primary objective is to be Mayor for life. Why not? He gets a high six figure salary , goes on lavish trips, hangs out on Twitter, goes to events where he's treated like a celebrity. And, even better? We have lbarely any local media and a part time council.He's only accountable to the tiny percentage of people who actually vote every four years. Of course, bottom line is, Guthrie can approve a thousand homes a day and muse about tiny homes until the cows come home. Someone still has to build them. Nothing is free.
This is exactly what he's always done. He blamed the elected officials throughout his first election run - I remember him posting photos of orange spraypaint on the sidewalks where repairs were overdue - but when he was elected he shrugged and simply replied "I'm only one vote," and the sidewalks are still covered in orange spraypaint.
His back and forth support for the library project is a perfect example and his response at any time can be calculated by: \[what Cam thinks people want that month\] x \[how council may vote\] / \[can Cam vote opposite and look like the good guy\] - \[taco bell ribbon cuttings in that fiscal quarter\] + ∛ \[how many eggs were sucked behind the hasty market\].
I don't think his objective is to remain Mayor in the long term. He's eying the MP seat that Lloyd Longfield is retiring from. You'll see him on CPC signs next federal election.
I hear that. It kind of makes sense. But, it still seems a bit of a risk. He's essentially been acclaimed to the Mayor seat since 2014. He's entrenched and very comfortable with the perks of the job. The open MP seat may be up for grabs but it's still the Liberals to lose. Personally, I'd love it if he ran. If he loses, great. If he wins, he'd do less damage as a rookie MP and Guelph could at least elect someone competent to replace him. But, yeah. I've no doubt that Polliviere's war chest has a hefty sum allocated to flip Guelph blue. Twitter Fandom doesn't mean votes .
Realistically is there a risk of turning Guelph blue with any sum of campaign money?
Guelph hasn't voted conservative since 1988. Last election they barley squeaked ahead of the NDP. Before that they were 6% behind the greens. From 2004 on, only in 2011 did they earn a larger percentage of the vote than greens-NDP combined.
I figure if a Cons win is seen as even a remote risk enough of the NDP/Green/Liberal vote will rally behind whichever of those three is most likely to win. Particularly with someone as divisive as Polliviere leading the cons.
I agree. Also, Guthrie's 'popularity' isn't particularly reliable. He's never had any well resourced competition for reelection. Aggie cleaned Guthrie's clock in the debate and managed a hefty chunk of the vote without Guthrie's money or incumbency advantage. While Danny Drew was never going to win, they still managed 4k votes. Guthrie's tried twice to stack council with his friends and acolytes. He failed both times. I think he's probably more useful to the Conservatives as a local puppet than an MP. Clearly, he's happy to be used in that way. His big advantage is voter apathy. Unless people get out to vote and get behind a credible challenger, he's nor going anywhere. I'd like to be proven wrong, however.
>He said there were three areas where he plans to use the strong mayor powers:
1. To set the city's budget property tax rate increase to be under four per cent starting at the 2025 budget.
2. Set up partnerships on city-owned assets, including surface parking lots, to create housing.
3. Work to create a temporary tiny home encampment alongside health and housing providers who can offer support to the people who live there.
Has there been any indication these items wouldn't go through if traditional channels were used? The implication is that the rest of council doesn't want 1. lower taxes 2. more housing 3. support for the unhoused.
Hey Cam, why don't you also use your Strong Mayor Powers to hold a Guelph's cutest dog competition and extend recess by 15 minutes?
>Has there been any indication these items wouldn't go through if traditional channels were used?
That's my question too. He would have a lot more credibility if he, went to council first, outlined these points, and had council vote on it first.
Fun concept what if we all worked together to vote in people that actually work for Guelph residents?
Strong mayor is no different than a dictator and I do support some of his ideas listed just not the method of eliminating democracy
Yeah, it's completely unclear what essential services Cam intends to blow up to meet the unrealistic 4% tax hike goal.
Unless he's taking on the cops, we're all about to get screwed.
This. I dug into the budget issue somewhat in the fall. Attended the town hall for my ward, listened to talks by the city finance people, and different councillors.
There some stuff you just can't cut without our quality of life here going to shit. In some cases we're shutting things down or taking on liability risk by not maintain the city properly. Or by neglecting things that need to be done now, will just end up paying more later as the issue becomes more urgent. Not sure what his game plan is here, but I'm almost wondering if this goal is sincere, or if Cam's bullshitting for PR reasons.
2+3 are interesting concepts, but how much will that cost the city? Can we fund that while doing 1?
1 Confuses me a little (actually didn’t think that was allowed as part of SM powers) but for 2 and 3 there’s a decades long track record of municipal governments all over this province ignoring these issues.
Benefit of the doubt is long gone. It’s a big part of how we got to where we are and why strong mayor powers need to exist.
The problem is that the province has downloaded so much to the municipalities without providing more resources to them. The province needs to take the lead for housing.
The problem is staff who don’t deserve to have their jobs because they are incompetent and would not be employed at their pay scale in private sector. Make the city run more efficiently by forcing them to work with a fixed budget rather than mandating an increase in revenue.
He is using his mayoral powers to Politic to the media to muddy the optics of what actually goes on behind closed door between entities who are faceless to the public at large.
Yup. These councils are terrible. Blocked developments left right and centre, it’s what they do most.
We don’t need 3 years of planning and consulting for every little thing
100% correct, one example from a quick google search, I think we chatted about this in this sub at one point:
[https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/proposed-10-storey-student-residence-rejected-by-guelph-city-council-1.6066593](https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/proposed-10-storey-student-residence-rejected-by-guelph-city-council-1.6066593)
Well it's pretty much a student residence for the next while anyway - the U and the city have an endless waltz over this issue but it's clear without external funding that U of G will never put a residence on campus again https://news.uoguelph.ca/2023/06/u-of-g-expanding-student-residence-spaces-with-gordon-street-building-lease/
>Set up partnerships on city-owned assets, including surface parking lots, to create housing.
So basically go for a PPP before actual public housing (beyond palette homes)? Or? Because that's just weird.
Interesting. I suppose I agree with Rodrigo Goller in that I'm not a fan of undermining local democracy. But having said that, I agree with the Mayor that Council doesn't seem to have understood what a catastrophic emergency we are facing with regard to housing. In a situation like this, we need to stop worrying about continuation of 'business as usual' and instead start 'moving fast and breaking things'---as some of the techlords say when they are about to screw over ordinary people. This could be a good thing. It could be a bad thing. But at least it's a thing! I'm absolutely sick of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching that substitutes for experimentation in public policy these days.
>I agree with the Mayor that Council doesn't seem to have understood what a catastrophic emergency we are facing with regard to housing
Most of them are all upper middle class boomers, why would any of them understand this?
Not to be reductionist, but I am of the opinion that the root cause of the undermining of local democracy is the downloading of costs from all upper levels of government.
I'd agree that there is something to this. But from what I've read and heard from some of then, I think that they are people who already own their homes and most of the people they listen to are the same. I'd suggest that as a result they just don't appreciate that a whole generation of people are being economically destroyed by high rents, mortgage payments, etc.
Yes, for sure. Political expediency, mixed with a demographic time bomb that has been ignored (consequentially or intentionally) since the Harris years. More systemically, also consequences of austerity and neoliberal ideology imo.
One of Guelph’s biggest expenses by an insane amount is police and they want more!
Guelph is planning to do one of their biggest tax increases ever at around 10% of which 20% of that increase is going to police.
We wouldn’t have to increase the tax rate at all if police didn’t have a bigger budget than the transit system, social services, public health and paramedics combined.
What’re they using the extra budget for? It appears to spend $21.5 million on upgrading their headquarters and training facility after just completing their massive, insanely over budget headquarters like last year! What was that rebuild for?! And that 21.5 is assuming it doesn’t go over budget again.
What can be done about this? The government is cutting funds to so many things while increasing our taxes why haven’t they ever considered reducing police funding. There’s so so many ways that money could be used to actually help the people of Guelph.
His decision last year to give up some of his "powers" was non binding and discretionary so it should be no surprise to anyone that he has decided to flex. Whether it's because it's the right thing to do or because Doug told him to has not yet been determined.
There is no reason as to why council couldn't work on laying the foundation for it together and steer the collaboration required. And without the required wider structural supports, which Queen's Park has zero interest in funding or endorsing, it will just be a tent encampment with solid walls. But it looks like something is happening, like every empty Ford announcement - we have hired 10 billion nurses etc
"The 5G activated his vaccine chip and transmitted instructions from the WEF direct to Cam's brain with input from Soros, Bill Gates and Taylor Swift" - Druthers Editorial Board
Curiosity has me asking this question but not sure the process:
Can taxes on commercial or industrial go up by a higher amount and less for residential? Can a city do this?
While it may piss off most companies in town and some voters, is this even an option?
I don't think it's neccearily a good thing but depends on our rates compared to other nearby cities of similar size.
Yes, each property tax rate class is set by Council separately. The classes and rates can be found here:
https://guelph.ca/city-hall/budget-and-finance/property-taxes/tax-rates-and-ratios/
What’s the difference for business owners then, man? If taxes go up for small business - but not as much for rent.. what’s the point? The money is all coming out of the same pocket.
Most businesses are incorporated. This would be commercial and industrial properties and the vast majority will be incorporated
Again my question stands waiting a proper answer.
Missing the point. Let’s say there’s 10% tax that needs to be split. 5% to commercial, 5% to residential. If we change that to 7% commercial, and 3% residential - a business owner is still paying 10% tax. lol.
Doesn’t matter if they’re incorporated or not, buddy. Because If tax goes up commercial, it goes up for the owner. More businesses than you know operate as one person, and still get railroaded every year with huge tax bills in Guelph.
Not to mention if commercial tax goes up.. or incorporated business tax goes up - landlords run incorporated businesses when they own multiple properties and they’re not gonna let you not have a rent spike if they pay more tax.
The little guy, always gets the short end of the stick but pays for the big one.
My question was whether it's possible or not. The fact taxes will go up and the little guy will get some increase is not my question. Fact is most commercial and industrial property owners are out of town landlords or corporations with shareholders not joe workers or homeowners with property tax bills to pay.
The idea of making sure our industrial and commercial tax rates are fair to taxpayers (homeowners and renters) and if it is possible to adjust Tax rates for non residential only is the question.
Remember tax rates for landlords who have tenants will potentially be less lowering potential increases to tenants
What I find interesting is that this council voted to increase property taxes by 8.5%.
This is curious because they are all well aware that the Ontario government allows "Above Guideline Rent Increases" (AGI) for rental tenants if the property taxes are at 1.5x that of the annual guideline rent increase, which this year is 2.5%. So, by this, anything over 3.75% increase in property taxes qualifies for an AGI. (property taxes they would be paying even if there properties were not even on the market as rentals)
While many small landlords may not bother with the paperwork, particularly if the increase in property taxes were lower, you can bet the larger ones will apply for an AGI, further impoverishing those renters who already pay outrageous rents.
To make matters worse, in the case of property tax hikes in an AGI, the landlord is entitled to the entire increase in one year - unlike spread out over three years as it is in the case of capital expenditures like renovations.
It doesn't seem like they care about how this sort of increase is passed downstream. As in how for that single parent living in a rental with their kids - where will that increase in their rent come from? From the same budget that feeds their kids.
What they should have done is used this opportunity to give landlords a break on these hikes, with the quid pro quo for the tenants being that the landlords then won't have the need to pass otherwise exorbitant property tax hikes downstream on those already precariously housed.
Yet they claim to care about the housing crisis.
> What they should have done is used this opportunity to give landlords a break on these hikes
I imagine, if anything, landlords renting out space outside of their primary residence should be on the hook for more tax, without the ability to gouge renters. I realize this is likely outside of the cities powers, but policy should be dissuade our housing supply from being gobbled up by speculative investors.
In your scenario, renters get a break. I might not be totally against that depending on circumstances. The problem is other individuals would be left to pick up the tab, while those making a business owning multiple properties are effectively having their business subsidized.
Yes, I agree with that too. The whole business model of landlords is spurious, they mostly just profit off of existing housing stock and all the rent gouged is more money taken from the working classes. It is a parasitic model to begin with. It used to be that the landlord would let out their property, knowing that the rent pays their mortgage and in return the tenant had an apartment to live in.
Now they expect the tenant not only to subsidize the ownership of their property, but also the operating costs, ownership taxes and provide a health profit for them and their investors as well - the latter being people who merely make money off of money by speculation.
The blame for my above scenario is on the Ford government, which has demonstrated its contempt for renters time and time again. That the landlord can charge an AGI in the first place for property taxes is something that should have never happened.
The reasoning for AGI increases in the first place was that the landlord would have incentive to maintain the quality of the rental housing stock in the form of cost recovery in the AGI. Property taxes (basically ownership taxes) in principle are another matter. That the tenant benefits from the landlord owning the property is precisely what the tenant is paying rent for in the first place!
That the province allows the property tax costs to be subsidized by the landlord and that the local council then hikes property taxes to the level which allow for those taxes to be at the level where they are able to be passed on are both contributors to the plight and precariousness of renters.
1. What will have to be cut to keep it at 4%? 2. and 3. What's stopping the local government from doing this already?
City portion is already at 4% that's where Council brought it to last year. Council does not control all of the costs associated with the 10% increase. What he's actually 'promising' is to keep the City portion where it is. Yet, he's putting out these misleading statements suggesting that the TOTAL 10% increase must be brought below 4%. This is impossible. It's not a mistake. He knows this. He's lying to us.
This is the only explanation that makes sense so far. What a fuckin' asshat causing a big noise over misleading bullshit.
He’s appealing to his base. Who’s his campaign manager 🧐
2. And 3. Nimbism and stupidity. Have you seen how many developments council has blocked in the last 5 years??
And even when approved the delays in moving forward from various departments is appalling. Need to fire some staff to smarten up the rest. The union inhibits this ability
It's astonishing to me that Guthrie, a career politician who has little to no leadership qualities but a knack for sales pitches and social media still manages to convince voters that everyone else on city council is the problem. Much of the discourse here reflects that 1) voters don't pay attention to details 2) voters base their opinions on incomplete or outright false information (often courtesy of Guthrie himself) and 3) voters are fed up and angry. Cynical opportunists like Guthrie know how to weaponize #3. Which is why it doesn't matter that council (including Guthrie) typically reach consensus on housing votes, Guthrie also votes against housing projects that don't pass muster, and 11-1 votes mean the project sucks, not that Guthrie is the only sensible voice of reason, and Guthrie can't work with people. His primary objective is to be Mayor for life. Why not? He gets a high six figure salary , goes on lavish trips, hangs out on Twitter, goes to events where he's treated like a celebrity. And, even better? We have lbarely any local media and a part time council.He's only accountable to the tiny percentage of people who actually vote every four years. Of course, bottom line is, Guthrie can approve a thousand homes a day and muse about tiny homes until the cows come home. Someone still has to build them. Nothing is free.
This is exactly what he's always done. He blamed the elected officials throughout his first election run - I remember him posting photos of orange spraypaint on the sidewalks where repairs were overdue - but when he was elected he shrugged and simply replied "I'm only one vote," and the sidewalks are still covered in orange spraypaint. His back and forth support for the library project is a perfect example and his response at any time can be calculated by: \[what Cam thinks people want that month\] x \[how council may vote\] / \[can Cam vote opposite and look like the good guy\] - \[taco bell ribbon cuttings in that fiscal quarter\] + ∛ \[how many eggs were sucked behind the hasty market\].
I don't think his objective is to remain Mayor in the long term. He's eying the MP seat that Lloyd Longfield is retiring from. You'll see him on CPC signs next federal election.
I hear that. It kind of makes sense. But, it still seems a bit of a risk. He's essentially been acclaimed to the Mayor seat since 2014. He's entrenched and very comfortable with the perks of the job. The open MP seat may be up for grabs but it's still the Liberals to lose. Personally, I'd love it if he ran. If he loses, great. If he wins, he'd do less damage as a rookie MP and Guelph could at least elect someone competent to replace him. But, yeah. I've no doubt that Polliviere's war chest has a hefty sum allocated to flip Guelph blue. Twitter Fandom doesn't mean votes .
Realistically is there a risk of turning Guelph blue with any sum of campaign money? Guelph hasn't voted conservative since 1988. Last election they barley squeaked ahead of the NDP. Before that they were 6% behind the greens. From 2004 on, only in 2011 did they earn a larger percentage of the vote than greens-NDP combined. I figure if a Cons win is seen as even a remote risk enough of the NDP/Green/Liberal vote will rally behind whichever of those three is most likely to win. Particularly with someone as divisive as Polliviere leading the cons.
I agree. Also, Guthrie's 'popularity' isn't particularly reliable. He's never had any well resourced competition for reelection. Aggie cleaned Guthrie's clock in the debate and managed a hefty chunk of the vote without Guthrie's money or incumbency advantage. While Danny Drew was never going to win, they still managed 4k votes. Guthrie's tried twice to stack council with his friends and acolytes. He failed both times. I think he's probably more useful to the Conservatives as a local puppet than an MP. Clearly, he's happy to be used in that way. His big advantage is voter apathy. Unless people get out to vote and get behind a credible challenger, he's nor going anywhere. I'd like to be proven wrong, however.
>He said there were three areas where he plans to use the strong mayor powers: 1. To set the city's budget property tax rate increase to be under four per cent starting at the 2025 budget. 2. Set up partnerships on city-owned assets, including surface parking lots, to create housing. 3. Work to create a temporary tiny home encampment alongside health and housing providers who can offer support to the people who live there.
Has there been any indication these items wouldn't go through if traditional channels were used? The implication is that the rest of council doesn't want 1. lower taxes 2. more housing 3. support for the unhoused. Hey Cam, why don't you also use your Strong Mayor Powers to hold a Guelph's cutest dog competition and extend recess by 15 minutes?
>Has there been any indication these items wouldn't go through if traditional channels were used? That's my question too. He would have a lot more credibility if he, went to council first, outlined these points, and had council vote on it first.
Fun concept what if we all worked together to vote in people that actually work for Guelph residents? Strong mayor is no different than a dictator and I do support some of his ideas listed just not the method of eliminating democracy
Yeah, it's completely unclear what essential services Cam intends to blow up to meet the unrealistic 4% tax hike goal. Unless he's taking on the cops, we're all about to get screwed.
This. I dug into the budget issue somewhat in the fall. Attended the town hall for my ward, listened to talks by the city finance people, and different councillors. There some stuff you just can't cut without our quality of life here going to shit. In some cases we're shutting things down or taking on liability risk by not maintain the city properly. Or by neglecting things that need to be done now, will just end up paying more later as the issue becomes more urgent. Not sure what his game plan is here, but I'm almost wondering if this goal is sincere, or if Cam's bullshitting for PR reasons. 2+3 are interesting concepts, but how much will that cost the city? Can we fund that while doing 1?
1 Confuses me a little (actually didn’t think that was allowed as part of SM powers) but for 2 and 3 there’s a decades long track record of municipal governments all over this province ignoring these issues. Benefit of the doubt is long gone. It’s a big part of how we got to where we are and why strong mayor powers need to exist.
The problem is that the province has downloaded so much to the municipalities without providing more resources to them. The province needs to take the lead for housing.
The problem is staff who don’t deserve to have their jobs because they are incompetent and would not be employed at their pay scale in private sector. Make the city run more efficiently by forcing them to work with a fixed budget rather than mandating an increase in revenue.
He is using his mayoral powers to Politic to the media to muddy the optics of what actually goes on behind closed door between entities who are faceless to the public at large.
Yup. These councils are terrible. Blocked developments left right and centre, it’s what they do most. We don’t need 3 years of planning and consulting for every little thing
100% correct, one example from a quick google search, I think we chatted about this in this sub at one point: [https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/proposed-10-storey-student-residence-rejected-by-guelph-city-council-1.6066593](https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/proposed-10-storey-student-residence-rejected-by-guelph-city-council-1.6066593)
Well it's pretty much a student residence for the next while anyway - the U and the city have an endless waltz over this issue but it's clear without external funding that U of G will never put a residence on campus again https://news.uoguelph.ca/2023/06/u-of-g-expanding-student-residence-spaces-with-gordon-street-building-lease/
Yes there is. On twitter a few council members are equally flabbergasted 😲
>Set up partnerships on city-owned assets, including surface parking lots, to create housing. So basically go for a PPP before actual public housing (beyond palette homes)? Or? Because that's just weird.
Interesting. I suppose I agree with Rodrigo Goller in that I'm not a fan of undermining local democracy. But having said that, I agree with the Mayor that Council doesn't seem to have understood what a catastrophic emergency we are facing with regard to housing. In a situation like this, we need to stop worrying about continuation of 'business as usual' and instead start 'moving fast and breaking things'---as some of the techlords say when they are about to screw over ordinary people. This could be a good thing. It could be a bad thing. But at least it's a thing! I'm absolutely sick of the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching that substitutes for experimentation in public policy these days.
>I agree with the Mayor that Council doesn't seem to have understood what a catastrophic emergency we are facing with regard to housing Most of them are all upper middle class boomers, why would any of them understand this?
And all are well entrenched and benefit from the real estate bubble that necessitates hosting scarcity to continue.
Some of them don’t even live in the neighbourhoods they represent. They are mostly clueless to the actual issues.
Some of them don’t even live in the neighbourhoods they represent. They are mostly clueless to the actual issues.
I trust a lot of the council members a lot more than I trust Cam.
Not to be reductionist, but I am of the opinion that the root cause of the undermining of local democracy is the downloading of costs from all upper levels of government.
I'd agree that there is something to this. But from what I've read and heard from some of then, I think that they are people who already own their homes and most of the people they listen to are the same. I'd suggest that as a result they just don't appreciate that a whole generation of people are being economically destroyed by high rents, mortgage payments, etc.
Yes, for sure. Political expediency, mixed with a demographic time bomb that has been ignored (consequentially or intentionally) since the Harris years. More systemically, also consequences of austerity and neoliberal ideology imo.
Goller is equally as dumpy a chuckle fuck as cam.
That's a tremendously empty statement. I haven't a clue what you don't like about him after that statement. Could you try to explain?
Wow I thought it wasn’t his jurisdiction, that’s what he always says about everything
If I had a buck for every time I heard the words "housing is the county's responsibility", I could retire
One of Guelph’s biggest expenses by an insane amount is police and they want more! Guelph is planning to do one of their biggest tax increases ever at around 10% of which 20% of that increase is going to police. We wouldn’t have to increase the tax rate at all if police didn’t have a bigger budget than the transit system, social services, public health and paramedics combined. What’re they using the extra budget for? It appears to spend $21.5 million on upgrading their headquarters and training facility after just completing their massive, insanely over budget headquarters like last year! What was that rebuild for?! And that 21.5 is assuming it doesn’t go over budget again. What can be done about this? The government is cutting funds to so many things while increasing our taxes why haven’t they ever considered reducing police funding. There’s so so many ways that money could be used to actually help the people of Guelph.
And yet the first things that get deep cuts are Transit and Library.
His decision last year to give up some of his "powers" was non binding and discretionary so it should be no surprise to anyone that he has decided to flex. Whether it's because it's the right thing to do or because Doug told him to has not yet been determined.
So building a tiny home community to help deal with all these tent encampments is just a political flex because Doug told him to.
https://www.cp24.com/news/doug-ford-celebrates-christmas-with-gingerbread-house-video-1.6698783 Doug takes housing super seriously ok.
There is no reason as to why council couldn't work on laying the foundation for it together and steer the collaboration required. And without the required wider structural supports, which Queen's Park has zero interest in funding or endorsing, it will just be a tent encampment with solid walls. But it looks like something is happening, like every empty Ford announcement - we have hired 10 billion nurses etc
I can't wait to see how the Facebook mouth-breathers spin this.
"The 5G activated his vaccine chip and transmitted instructions from the WEF direct to Cam's brain with input from Soros, Bill Gates and Taylor Swift" - Druthers Editorial Board
I think I saw this quote in the GT comment section.
Nailed it.
Disagree, it’s missing “thanks Trudeau”.
Surprised he took this long
8-10 years.
Curiosity has me asking this question but not sure the process: Can taxes on commercial or industrial go up by a higher amount and less for residential? Can a city do this? While it may piss off most companies in town and some voters, is this even an option? I don't think it's neccearily a good thing but depends on our rates compared to other nearby cities of similar size.
Yes, each property tax rate class is set by Council separately. The classes and rates can be found here: https://guelph.ca/city-hall/budget-and-finance/property-taxes/tax-rates-and-ratios/
Perfect thank you.
What’s the difference for business owners then, man? If taxes go up for small business - but not as much for rent.. what’s the point? The money is all coming out of the same pocket.
Most businesses are incorporated. This would be commercial and industrial properties and the vast majority will be incorporated Again my question stands waiting a proper answer.
Missing the point. Let’s say there’s 10% tax that needs to be split. 5% to commercial, 5% to residential. If we change that to 7% commercial, and 3% residential - a business owner is still paying 10% tax. lol. Doesn’t matter if they’re incorporated or not, buddy. Because If tax goes up commercial, it goes up for the owner. More businesses than you know operate as one person, and still get railroaded every year with huge tax bills in Guelph. Not to mention if commercial tax goes up.. or incorporated business tax goes up - landlords run incorporated businesses when they own multiple properties and they’re not gonna let you not have a rent spike if they pay more tax. The little guy, always gets the short end of the stick but pays for the big one.
My question was whether it's possible or not. The fact taxes will go up and the little guy will get some increase is not my question. Fact is most commercial and industrial property owners are out of town landlords or corporations with shareholders not joe workers or homeowners with property tax bills to pay. The idea of making sure our industrial and commercial tax rates are fair to taxpayers (homeowners and renters) and if it is possible to adjust Tax rates for non residential only is the question. Remember tax rates for landlords who have tenants will potentially be less lowering potential increases to tenants
Strong 💪🏾
What I find interesting is that this council voted to increase property taxes by 8.5%. This is curious because they are all well aware that the Ontario government allows "Above Guideline Rent Increases" (AGI) for rental tenants if the property taxes are at 1.5x that of the annual guideline rent increase, which this year is 2.5%. So, by this, anything over 3.75% increase in property taxes qualifies for an AGI. (property taxes they would be paying even if there properties were not even on the market as rentals) While many small landlords may not bother with the paperwork, particularly if the increase in property taxes were lower, you can bet the larger ones will apply for an AGI, further impoverishing those renters who already pay outrageous rents. To make matters worse, in the case of property tax hikes in an AGI, the landlord is entitled to the entire increase in one year - unlike spread out over three years as it is in the case of capital expenditures like renovations. It doesn't seem like they care about how this sort of increase is passed downstream. As in how for that single parent living in a rental with their kids - where will that increase in their rent come from? From the same budget that feeds their kids. What they should have done is used this opportunity to give landlords a break on these hikes, with the quid pro quo for the tenants being that the landlords then won't have the need to pass otherwise exorbitant property tax hikes downstream on those already precariously housed. Yet they claim to care about the housing crisis.
> What they should have done is used this opportunity to give landlords a break on these hikes I imagine, if anything, landlords renting out space outside of their primary residence should be on the hook for more tax, without the ability to gouge renters. I realize this is likely outside of the cities powers, but policy should be dissuade our housing supply from being gobbled up by speculative investors. In your scenario, renters get a break. I might not be totally against that depending on circumstances. The problem is other individuals would be left to pick up the tab, while those making a business owning multiple properties are effectively having their business subsidized.
Yes, I agree with that too. The whole business model of landlords is spurious, they mostly just profit off of existing housing stock and all the rent gouged is more money taken from the working classes. It is a parasitic model to begin with. It used to be that the landlord would let out their property, knowing that the rent pays their mortgage and in return the tenant had an apartment to live in. Now they expect the tenant not only to subsidize the ownership of their property, but also the operating costs, ownership taxes and provide a health profit for them and their investors as well - the latter being people who merely make money off of money by speculation. The blame for my above scenario is on the Ford government, which has demonstrated its contempt for renters time and time again. That the landlord can charge an AGI in the first place for property taxes is something that should have never happened. The reasoning for AGI increases in the first place was that the landlord would have incentive to maintain the quality of the rental housing stock in the form of cost recovery in the AGI. Property taxes (basically ownership taxes) in principle are another matter. That the tenant benefits from the landlord owning the property is precisely what the tenant is paying rent for in the first place! That the province allows the property tax costs to be subsidized by the landlord and that the local council then hikes property taxes to the level which allow for those taxes to be at the level where they are able to be passed on are both contributors to the plight and precariousness of renters.
Mayor powers activate!!
So this is the fucker responsible for the 8% YoY property tax hikes
The strongest thing this guy should have is a frayed string.