— Feature, Musings —03.23.2024 06:50 PM
My latest: taxing in the rain
A rain tax.
Seriously, they want to tax the rain.
Before we get started on the latest insanity to, um, seep out of Toronto’s municipal government, let’s give credit where credit is due, shall we? For sheer gall, for its bottomless brazen brassiness, you can’t beat this one: a tax on rain. You almost have to admire the Bolsheviks who presently run Canada’s largest city, for their inventiveness and their total indifference to the taxpayer.
Almost.
And, let’s make one thing clear: we are not making this up, Virginia. Toronto-stan’s commissars have even issued a call for people to participate in what they call, benignly, a “Stormwater Charge & Water Service Charge Consultation.”
Here’s a few gems from their call for “consultation.” Get your smelling salts ready.
“The City of Toronto is consulting with water users and interested parties on the possible implementation of a stormwater charge,” they write, neglecting to mention that “water users” are all sentient beings living within the confines of Gulag Tee Dot.
They want to have “a stormwater charge for all property classes” – meaning, everyone will ultimately pay for the invasive wet stuff. Why? Well, just because.
Also, those pesky raindrops don’t just soak into the grass and plant life – which, last night we checked, is a good thing – they sometimes runs off into the sewers. Which, you know, were built to accommodate water that occasionally falls from the sky. But never mind.
Here in the Six, the Union of Soviet Toronto Republics, all that is now considered a bad thing. Writes the politburo:
“Stormwater is rain and melted snow. When not absorbed into the ground, stormwater runs off hard surfaces, onto streets, down storm drains and through a network of pipes that carry it into local waterways…Too much stormwater can overwhelm the City’s sewer system, which can lead to flooded basements and impacts to surface water quality in Toronto’s rivers, streams and Lake Ontario’s waterfront.”
And here, all this time, we thought rain was desirable. Apparently not. Apparently rain harms (checks notes) Lake Ontario. Gotcha.
So, the city wants to tax you for it. To calculate how much Rain Tax you will pay, the municipal apparatchiks will see how much “hard surface area” you have. They define that as frivolous and unnecessary things like “roofs, asphalt driveways, parking areas and concrete landscaping.”
The Rain Tax will appear as a separate line on your utility bill, but they won’t call it that. It’ll be called something to diminish the number of fainting spells and heart attacks it will inevitably cause. It’ll probably be located adjacent to their next proposal, “The Air Tax.”
How will the city calculate how much “hard surface” you’ve got? Good question. Knowing this crew, we’d wager they considered sending out a million New Democrat consultants with neon-orange measuring tapes, but they’re not doing that. Instead, they say they will “use aerial photography” to guesstimate how big your roof is. Sounds quite scientific, no?
“Marge, get my twelve gauge! The city’s sending spy drones over the back yard again!”
Now, before you have a stroke, the City’s overlords wish it known that other municipalities are just as insane. Kitchener, Mississauga and Orillia all have a Rain Tax, too. And, where goes Orillia, so goes the nation.
Because, make no mistake, Toronto-stan’s rulers really, really want to do this. They’ve tried it before, too. Back in 2017, city bureaucrats pleaded with council to go along with a Rain Tax, and John Tory – who, full disclosure, this writer worked for, and not just because he opposed taxing rain, but because he was an adult and a sane person – shut them down.
Figuring out who would pay a Rain Tax, and how and when, would be like “unscrambling an egg,” Tory said at the time, which was a bit of an odd metaphor, but which also makes us miss him all the more.
Undaunted, the ‘crats are trying again, doubtlessly, er, egged on by the Team Trotsky now running things.
A Rain Tax. Seriously.
Now, before you head down to City Hall with pitchforks and torches, the Rain Taxers would like it known that they are merely “consulting” with you, to “provide feedback.” They’re even going to have some public meetings on the Rain Tax.
When? Well, in April, of course. Because, perhaps, April showers bring May flowers.
And, soon enough, a bigger bite out of your wallet.
Splish splash.
A very long time ago I suggested , twice, that the City take advantage of peoples insatiable appetite for Lotteries and conduct a regular City of Toronto Lottery. Proceeds from which to be used for infrastructure repair and development. Council responded with …‘ no because poor people play Lotteries’ , ‘ poor people will spend all of their government funds on the Lottery’ and ‘the Province won’t allow us to have our own Lottery because it competes with theirs’.
My response was, if poor people are playing Lotteries then by playing the City of Toronto Lottery at least their money is reinvested back to their own City.
Anyway they don’t need to tax the Rain,they need to be more entrepreneurial and consider other revenue generating ideas rather than tax tax and tax.
I would like to note that one City of Toronto Councillor, who was a member of the NDP loved my idea and took credit for it.
And yes I heard all the speechifying about gambling addiction etc. Meanwhile people keep playing…so accept they money!
There are dozens of Lotteries and now Sports Betting, the City should consider this and get off their asses .
Hi Warren
Long time reader, first time commenter.
As someone who used to work for a local muni here in BC, I do sort of sympathize with local govs trying to find a way to balance their books. While this “tax” may not be the way to go, hard to generate income when the feds and province are constantly pushing costs down on the muni’. Toronto has a lot to figure out.
But for your readers, just an FYI. Perhaps back John Tory’s day, the ability of folks to sort out “hard surfaces” on a lot from aerial photography was nascent. These days, it’s super easy and a city like Toronto, with their robust access to spatial analysis companies and high res aerial photography (3 cm!), figuring this out, now with AI capabilities… it’s easy to figure out.
Spring melt off is definitely a thing for freshwater systems. In the absence of provincial initiative perhaps a taxation “discount” might be in better to encourage folks to transition paved surfaces to materials that allow for in-site seepage instead.
Perhaps saner minds at City Hall will suss this out. Maybe not. We’ll see, right?
Toronto has a long way to go to catch up to Ottawa. Ottawa already has a stormwater tax. They even charge it on rural residents, you know, the ones that don’t have any storm sewers.
How do you reply to such a stupid thing like rain tax. Someone missed the memo on our taxes are to high already. Someone needs to spend a little more time on something that makes sense and is fair.
Warren,
Totally ridiculous…
This isn’t rocket science: raise the “subsidized” property taxes. End of story.
Old news here in the former blue blooded frontier. I don’t know about leading or following Orillia but we’ve had both a rainwater AND a wastewater charge for years. You can pay to water your lawn but it’s assumed that is going in your wastewater system simply by a double up of the incoming meter.
We used to be a test market (first McDonald’s and Holiday Inn in Canada) but our claim to fame has been reserved lately for extreme progressive councillors who over spend my money.
I need to type quieter liberals hear they can talk water I’ll pay three times as much but get a small rebate each quarter.
Hold my hat, UFO abduction tax.
I’m a criminal. Come at me at 192.88.134.34
I do sympathize with the city trying to play catch-up after years of below-inflation tax increases, but I don’t understand why, as Ronald notes above, they don’t just increase the property taxes even more and just be done with it. Like it or not, climate change means all cities are going to be paying and playing “infrastructure catch-up” to handle more frequent flooding.
Have you looked at Victoria? I understand they offer a discount on property taxes for those who have more permeable development on their property. Having the city (whichever city it is) handle water because every square centimetre of a property is paved, is a matter of failing to assign cost to the originator of the cost. In short, such a policy subsidizes paving to no public benefit.
Just charge a climate stabilization tax. When the climate stops changing, we can stop the rain tax. Maybe we can also add a corruption tax for the politicians only.