It’s not an issue of the style of house; it’s an issue of the lot square footage allocated to a single house (i.e. dwelling units per acre).
Think of it like this: if you’ve got a single family house on a square 1-acre lot, that’s a little over 200 feet on each side. Assuming it’s not a corner lot and you’ve got a neighbor across the street, your tax dollars basically need to pay to maintain 100’ of street, water and sewer pipes, etc. plus the cost per mile of city vehicles driving past it. (Plus some amount related to the depth of the yard and its effect on the length of other roads on other sides of the block, but let’s ignore that for simplicity.)
In comparison, if it were 4 1/4-acre lots instead (with 50’ of street frontage each), each family would only be responsible for 25’ worth of infrastructure. Or if it were a 10-unit multifamily building on that lot, each family would only need to pay for 10’.
Unfortunately, because tax is based on property value and not street frontage and value doesn’t scale linearly like that, what ends up happening is that the city loses money on the large-lot single-family, and those people (who are already generally some of the richest since they can afford large lots) end up getting subsidized by the (poorest) people who take up the least amount of space.
It’s both unjust and a perverse incentive to consume more space than you need.
You have described the municipal struggle of Edmonton property tax to a T. And people here hate that old bungalows on huge lots are being torn down and split into 2 homes or multiplex builds. Bunch of moronic nimbys
I don’t know where you live but I have not seen a new bungalow built in 40 years.
I’ve seen plenty knocked down to build a McMansion on though.
It’s not an issue of the style of house; it’s an issue of the lot square footage allocated to a single house (i.e. dwelling units per acre).
Think of it like this: if you’ve got a single family house on a square 1-acre lot, that’s a little over 200 feet on each side. Assuming it’s not a corner lot and you’ve got a neighbor across the street, your tax dollars basically need to pay to maintain 100’ of street, water and sewer pipes, etc. plus the cost per mile of city vehicles driving past it. (Plus some amount related to the depth of the yard and its effect on the length of other roads on other sides of the block, but let’s ignore that for simplicity.)
In comparison, if it were 4 1/4-acre lots instead (with 50’ of street frontage each), each family would only be responsible for 25’ worth of infrastructure. Or if it were a 10-unit multifamily building on that lot, each family would only need to pay for 10’.
Unfortunately, because tax is based on property value and not street frontage and value doesn’t scale linearly like that, what ends up happening is that the city loses money on the large-lot single-family, and those people (who are already generally some of the richest since they can afford large lots) end up getting subsidized by the (poorest) people who take up the least amount of space.
It’s both unjust and a perverse incentive to consume more space than you need.
You have described the municipal struggle of Edmonton property tax to a T. And people here hate that old bungalows on huge lots are being torn down and split into 2 homes or multiplex builds. Bunch of moronic nimbys
I’ve described the problem in essentially the entirety of North America, at least.