Rebooting Britain: Tax people back into the cities >> This would fail in the MTL area

[Maisonneuve]

Rebooting Britain: Tax people back into the cities

 

By PD Smith30 November 09

 

For the first time in history, more than half the world's population live in cities: by 2030, three out of five people will be city dwellers. But the British are bucking this trend. The 2001 census revealed an "exodus from the cities". Since 1981, Greater London and the six former metropolitan counties of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire have lost some 2.25 million people in net migration exchanges with the rest of the UK; in recent years this trend has accelerated.

 

This is not sustainable. British people need to be cured of the insidious fantasy of leaving the city and owning a house in the country: their romantic dream will become a nightmare for people elsewhere on the planet.

 

The fact is that rural households have higher carbon dioxide emissions per person than those in the city, thanks to their generally larger, detached or semi-detached houses, multiple cars and long commutes (cars are responsible for 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe - 50 per cent in some parts of the US). The regions with the biggest carbon footprints in the UK are not the metropolises of Glasgow or London, but the largely rural northeast of England, as well as Yorkshire and the Humber. In fact, the per capita emissions of the Big Smoke - London - are the lowest of any part of the UK.

 

To create a low-carbon economy we need to become a nation of city dwellers. We tax cigarettes to reflect the harm they do to our health: we need to tax lifestyles that are damaging the health of the planet - and that means targeting people who choose to live in the countryside. We need a Rural Living Tax. Agricultural workers and others whose jobs require them to live outside cities would be exempt. The revenue raised could be used to build new, well-planned cities and to radically upgrade the infrastructure of existing cities.

 

We have an opportunity to create an urban renaissance, to make cities attractive places to live again - not just for young adults, but for families and retired people, the groups most likely to leave the city. Turning our old cities into "smart cities" won't be easy or cheap, but in a recession this investment in infrastructure will boost the economy. We need to learn to love our cities again, because they will help us to save the planet.

 

P. D. Smith is an honorary research associate in the Science and Technology Studies Department at University College London and author of Doomsday Men: The Real Dr Strangelove and the Dream of the Superweapon (2008). He is writing a cultural history of cities. http://www.peterdsmith.com

 

***********

 

If such a tax ever existed in the Montreal area, people would be so mad. You might even see a repeat of the merger demonstrations.

[monctezuma]

***********

 

If such a tax ever existed in the Montreal area, people would be so mad. You might even see a repeat of the merger demonstrations.

 

Ce qui est ridicule et totalement individuo-centralisto-hypocrite.

 

L'avenir réside dans les constructions en hauteur et en densité et non dans la déforestation, la destruction des terres agricoles et l'assèchement des milieux humides.

[Cyrus]

Ce qui est ridicule et totalement individuo-centralisto-hypocrite.

 

L'avenir réside dans les constructions en hauteur et en densité et non dans la déforestation, la destruction des terres agricoles et l'assèchement des milieux humides.

 

How, and so what? From space the Earth is green and occasionally brown, not grey - there is space en masse. Restricting people's choices for what goal?

 

---

 

The big problem in the UK is property is unaffordably expensive. So tax people more? You get fucked once so the solution is to get fucked again. A better solution would be to cut the red tape necessary for any development particularly in regards to the Town and Country Planning Act and etc. You need to live somewhere and if you can't build... throw in not insignificant crime problems reminiscent of 1967 Detroit and it doesn't help at all. Who would actually choose freely to live in Manchester?

Modifié 15 septembre 2011 par Cyrus

[jesseps]

If something like this would be enacted in Montreal. The great fire of 1852 would be nothing compared to what I would have in store for the city.

[mtlurb]

That's completely stupid, they have congestion charges and astronomical prices for fuel... what else do they want??

[monctezuma]

How, and so what? From space the Earth is green and occasionally brown, not grey - there is space en masse. Restricting people's choices for what goal?

 

Effectivement, il y a de la place "en masse". C'est exactement ce qu'ils se disent au Brésil et en Amazonie et ce qu'ils se sont dit en Europe, autrefois. Fait quelques recherches rapides sur Google, sur la déforestation en Amazonie, tu verras qu'en dix ans, le vert à reculé de manière dramatique. Le problème la n'est pas tant l'étalement urbain comme le développement de l'agriculture, mais c'est comme pour l'électricité finalement. Pourquoi est-ce que je fermerais mes lumière avant d'aller me coucher ? Ça change quoi 5 ampoules dans tout le Québec ? Si tout le monde pense de la même manière...

 

Le vert de Google Earth est extrêmement biaisé, alors ne te fie pas là dessus. Je t'invite à survoler le Danemark (vert vu de très loin). Ce qui était autrefois une immense forêt luxuriante n'est aujourd'hui qu'un immense champ de patates à l'exception de quelques petits bosquets, ça et là, à peine plus gros que le Parc Lafontaine.

 

Ce n'est surement pas pour rien que les Français rêvent des "grands espaces" du Canada. Pour un européen, une forêt, c'est une centaine d'arbres regroupés ensemble.

 

Je ne parle pas non plus de forcer les gens à vivre dans des tours de 100 étages. Je suis juste contre le développement de la banlieue dans son état actuel: un promoteur achète une immense forêt, il rase tout et construit des maisons. Est-ce si difficile de conserver des arbres ???

 

On rase, on assèche, on construit (Ste-Marthe-sur-le-Lac) :

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=fr&ll=45.537627,-73.93702&spn=0.051282,0.132093&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.537627,-73.93702&panoid=-2UAqRlTZ-jv6D1Kp_1pZA&cbp=12,350.76,,0,0.53

 

On rase, on assèche, on construit (Terrebonne) :

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=fr&ll=45.760888,-73.694664&spn=0.051078,0.132093&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.760888,-73.694664&panoid=eOehjPAGAxeYIhOA3kgA1Q&cbp=12,14.33,,0,7.25

 

On rase, on assèche, on construit (St-Lin-Laurentides) :

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=fr&ll=45.81151,-73.744862&spn=0.051031,0.132093&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.81151,-73.744862&panoid=MP6EHHh2X_YIVDenFyjFsQ&cbp=12,257.78,,0,0.64

 

ATTENTION: certains promoteur voient plus loin que le gros signe de piastre et sont un brin plus intelligents que les autres. On a donc droit à des développements exceptionnels de temps en temps. Pourquoi est-ce que ce n'est pas toujours comme ça ?? Est-ce si difficile ?? À Mascouche :

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=fr&ll=45.746084,-73.632774&spn=0.102183,0.264187&t=h&z=13&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.745953,-73.632441&panoid=kiZ-_FR2tqmxbx84lZ7qQw&cbp=12,151.05,,0,-0.29

[Cyrus]

Mais la densite de cette development de Mascouche est de loin inferieure de les 3 autres que tu as mentionne... Pour un certain nombre de logements, lequel "consommera" plus d'arbres? Il y a aussi le question d'abordabilite, je vois des maisons de 250 000$ dans ton premier lien et des maisons de 1 000 000$ dans le dernier. Pour moi qui cherche actuellement a acheter un maison, je dois dire qu'il faut une salaire assez eleve meme de faire passer pour un hypotheque a 250k$... (ainsi: check le garage du maison a cote du panneau-stop, )

 

Moi je fermes mes lumieres avant d'aller coucher parce que c'est dur a dormir autrement

 

Mais quand meme, j'ai du mal a voir l'utilite d'un foret en banlieue. Il y a des immenses forets au Canada / Quebec qui sont tellement eloignes qu'on ne les touchera pas sauf pour l'industrie papetiere, il n'y a pas des especes en danger dedans, etc etc. Un terrain agricole je peux voir mais un foret... j'admets que ma famille tient toujours un terrain de ~100 arpents qui est +/- 95% boise donc je ne vois rien de special dans un arbre... certainment un arbre peut faire un bon decoration pres de son maison (mais pas trop pres, ca va detruire le fondation) ainsi qu'ils empechent l'erosion des sols, mais quand on parle d'un quartier residentiel ce n'est pas un probleme (les maisons et le gazon fait le job...)

Modifié 15 septembre 2011 par Cyrus

[monctezuma]

Bien rendu là, on tombe dans une question de goût et les goûts, ça ne se discute pas.

 

Si tu aimes les quartiers résidentiels vides de tout arbre, c'est ton choix.

 

Cependant, si chaque maison de ces quartiers désertiques possédaient quelques arbres au lieu de la tourbe à perte de vue, point de vue ilots de chaleur, habitat naturel pour oiseaux, biodiversité, je crois qu'on en sortirait tous gagnants.

[Malek]

J'ai un superbe arbre sur mon terrain mais qui bloque complètement le soleil sur ma piscine creusée... donc, elle est complètement inutilisable sans chauffe-eau. (Ça prends une grosse canicule de plusieurs jours pour arriver à 25c! Et c'est ben trop froid!) (J'ai nagé 2 fois cet été!)

 

Je couperais jamais cet arbre là, mais je vois déjà les maudits granos:silly: qui chialent le jour où je vais installer un chauffe-eau hehehe

[Né entre les rapides]

Obviously, the case of the UK is vastly different from that of Quebec, or Canada for that matter. (Most readers know the details, so I will not bother to explain).

 

Yet there are trends which are common to most "advanced" countries. Here are some:

 

1)Technological advances have made it possible to play an active professional life without actually living in the city (or a particular city, for those whose realm is truly international).

 

2) A growing number of people have reached (a youngish) retirement age AND continue to benefit from substantial income and/or accumulated wealth, so that they can afford, if they so desire, to move to more bucolic settings.. Of course, some still prefer the bustling life of city centres, but not all...

 

3) Living in select areas of big cities is a priviledge reserved to a few (very rich). For the others, there is often a combination of (increasingly) noisy or dirty or dangerous environment. Of course, on this account at least, Montreal is not London, Paris or NYC!

 

Preliminary "findings" (more modestly: possible factors): there are both "pull" and "push" reasons to move the the countryside.

 

Secondly, I want to suggest that in Quebec, notably, there is a number of "implicit" policies that tend to support a move to country or at least away from the big city. I call these policies "implicit" because this is not their stated goal, and neither their intent, but yet contribute to the trend. Essentially, such policies can be divided into two groups: these that equalize the cost/price of public goods/services despite the fact that their delivery to distant, underpopulated areas make it unprofitable. Example: electricity rates (within the grid, ie. not including the far-flung cree and inuit communities.) The secong group includes incentives (generally tax credits or the like) that aim to attract people in these areas, or at least to slow down migration the the city, as was the case for over 150 years--on this see my recent post on intra-provincial migration).

 

While some may argue that such "policies" merely reduce the unattractiveness of remote areas, I would advance that this fails, inter alia, to take into account the "counterpart", ie. some of the disadvantages of living in a big city, for examples higher housing cost and traffic congestion.

 

Conclusion: all in all, for Quebec, it would appear that we have currently reached some sort of equilibrium between the "push" and "pull" factors, ie. no mass migration from the countryside to the city (as in the past), nor the opposite mass exodus away from the big city. Again, looking at the European and American experiences might show different trends, but there are may other factors at play, and as we say, "c'est une autre histoire". Finally, I would argue that moves within metropolitain areas (city centre to suburbs or reverse) is not the same issue at all; in my view, it is a matter of urban development strategy, with all that this entails in terms of transport, land consumption, air quality and housing affordability etc.