Advocacy group says residents who live near a rail station should pay more rates   :(

Date
    December 24, 2015
    Sydney Morning Herald

Residents who live within 800 metres of a new light rail or train station would pay extra council rates, under a model proposed to fund public transport in the future.   :(

In a report released on Wednesday, advocacy group the Committee for Sydney called for residents who lived within a 10-minute walk from new stations to pay a levy to fund the construction and ongoing maintenance of transport routes.
The Committee for Sydney says a 'residential area levy' could be used to fund a light rail route through Green Square.

The Committee for Sydney says a 'residential area levy' could be used to fund a light rail route through Green Square. 

Committee chief executive Tim Williams said the annual "residential area levy" would allow the surge in land value which property owners experience when public transport is built nearby to be captured and reinvested into the project.

"It's like a boiling a frog slowly so they don't actually feel the pain," Dr Williams said.

"So it's the idea of a long-term but small annual contribution to the infrastructure. You need a long-term kind of slow release approach so the people don't object. This is a way of getting community buy-in because the levy would actually be the equivalent of buying a couple of crates of beer a year."


'This is a way of getting community buy-in,' says Committee for Sydney chairman Tim Williams.

Public transport is a perpetual drain on the state government's wallet. Ticket sales only cover 33 per cent of Sydney Train's operating costs, according to analysis by SGS Economics and Planning. Fare box revenue covers 90 per cent of operating costs for the London Underground.

As a result, the report said, governments were more tempted to fund motorways than railways because they could regain their costs through tolls.   :(

But well-planned public transport can increase land value by up to 50 per cent and the proposed levy is a form of "value capture" – a broad term for a finance mechanism that aims to seize this windfall gain.

Under the committee's model, property owners within a five-minute walk, or 400 metres, would pay higher council rates, while those within a 10-minute walk, or 800 metres, would have a smaller rate rise.   :(

The report proposed using the levy to fund the construction of a light rail through Green Square, which will become the densest precinct in the country when a flood of development is completed in the next 15 years.

If residents who lived within walking distance of the light rail paid a "special rate" of $400 a year, more than $12 million in revenue could be raised each year to go towards the project.

Even if the land value increased by as little as 10 per cent when the rail line was built, based on the average dwelling price in the area, property owners would receive a windfall gain of about $80,000.

"This is a long-term funding model … for the community that benefits from infrastructure to pay more for it," Dr Williams said.

Value capture has become an increasingly hot topic, with both the state and federal government investigating how it could be used to fund public transport, including the construction of a rail link to the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek.

Sydney Metro Northwest, the high-speed rail line that will run between Rouse Hill and Chatswood, is considered by many as a missed opportunity for "value capture", with land owners along the route experiencing significant untapped gains in land value.

In the past month, the state government has announced that a new light rail from Parramatta to Strathfield via Sydney Olympic Park and the development of a new train station and land in Waterloo would be funded by "value capture" through a Special Infrastructure Contribution.

Dr Williams said the flaw with this model was the levy applied only to developers, rather than the wider community who would benefit from the new transport, and that it was a one-off payment rather than an ongoing revenue stream.

The Committee for Sydney was previously chaired by Lucy Turnbull, the wife of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who resigned earlier this month to head up the Greater Sydney Commission.

As a result, the report said, governments were more tempted to fund motorways than railways because they could regain their costs through tolls.  We don't want your miserable road tolls, or higher rates.   :( 

ITS CALLED TAXES

they actually employ people to find ways and means of taxing us... without actually causing an uprising.....

the GST one of the fairest ways to TAX... if there is such a thing...

is a whopping big NO NO with lefties....they will block and block and block......

but every sensible person knows... they will still raise the money come hell or high water.....

this way.. only those who who own the property will pay..... its like the FIRE LEVY... on the home insurance... only the mugs that buy their oen home pays for it....

yet everyone gets the benefit...


it makes sense to some. ::) ::) ::)

Quote:

Public transport is a perpetual drain on the state government's wallet. Ticket sales only cover 33 per cent of Sydney Train's operating costs

Which only goes to highlight the abject stupidity of privatising the highly-profitable
freight network, which USED to subsidise passenger rail to a considerable extent.

Yet another expensive and shambolic Lib failure.

Quote:

Residents who live within 800 metres of a new light rail or train station would pay extra council rates, under a model proposed to fund public transport in the future.

Why only tax residents? Why not tax all properties? Businesses in the area would also benefit, would they also be included in this tax plan?

Bam wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 9:39am:

Quote: Residents who live within 800 metres of a new light rail or train station would pay extra council rates, under a model proposed to fund public transport in the future. Why only tax residents? Why not tax all properties? Businesses in the area would also benefit, would they also be included in this tax plan?

No they run at a loss every year so will have to carry forward losses  :(

wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 6:13am:

As a result, the report said, governments were more tempted to fund motorways than railways because they could regain their costs through tolls.  We don't want your miserable road tolls, or higher rates.   :(

What about the train fare Crook?  It's just a toll?  Or do you want free public transport? (wouldn't surprise me)

Bam wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 9:39am:

Quote: Residents who live within 800 metres of a new light rail or train station would pay extra council rates, under a model proposed to fund public transport in the future. Why only tax residents? Why not tax all properties? Businesses in the area would also benefit, would they also be included in this tax plan?

They already are........and they can't vote.

What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :(

wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :(

If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway....

Swagman wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:27am: What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :( If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway....

Bloody user pay F!FS  increase the ticket PRICE TO COVER THE COST  USER PAYS >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Swagman wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:27am: What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :( If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway....

.. and if you buy there you pay more anyway in mortgage etc....

Honestly these people in government would dig up a dead man if he had gold in his teeth...

aussie100percent wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 10:49am:

Swagman wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:39am: wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:27am: What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :( If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway.... Bloody user pay F!FS  increase the ticket PRICE TO COVER THE COST  USER PAYS >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

NO!

Obviously you have no concept of the idea of providing a PUBLIC SERVICE.

Take your 'user pays' idea and move to the USA...

Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but not even he could make
passenger services pay for themselves - user-pays or not.

Freight should subsidise passenger services - it's simple math.

Kat wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 12:16pm:

aussie100percent wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:49am: Swagman wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:39am: wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:27am: What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :( If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway.... Bloody user pay F!FS  increase the ticket PRICE TO COVER THE COST  USER PAYS >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( NO! Obviously you have no concept of the idea of providing a PUBLIC SERVICE. Take your 'user pays' idea and move to the USA...

When I lived in Boston I would catch the T (tram) for $1 it would take me everywhere in that city and even to Logan airport for $1.

Is that an example of user pays in the USA  :)

You can catch light rail for $1 in Boston in 2015, why is government run public transport so expensive in Australia?

Kat wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 12:16pm:

aussie100percent wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:49am: Swagman wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:39am: wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:27am: What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :( If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway.... Bloody user pay F!FS  increase the ticket PRICE TO COVER THE COST  USER PAYS >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( NO! Obviously you have no concept of the idea of providing a PUBLIC SERVICE. Take your 'user pays' idea and move to the USA... Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but not even he could make passenger services pay for themselves - user-pays or not. Freight should subsidise passenger services - it's simple math.

You crunts want every thing for nothing..Who pays for your petrol ..you do    If you want a figging train pay for it    >:( >:( >:( >:(

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 12:30pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 12:16pm: aussie100percent wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:49am: Swagman wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:39am: wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:27am: What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :( If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway.... Bloody user pay F!FS  increase the ticket PRICE TO COVER THE COST  USER PAYS >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( NO! Obviously you have no concept of the idea of providing a PUBLIC SERVICE. Take your 'user pays' idea and move to the USA... When I lived in Boston I would catch the T (tram) for $1 it would take me everywhere in that city and even to Logan airport for $1. Is that an example of user pays in the USA  :) You can catch light rail for $1 in Boston in 2015, why is government run public transport so expensive in Australia?

The population density in our major cities is low.

aussie100percent wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 12:43pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 12:16pm: aussie100percent wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:49am: Swagman wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:39am: wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 10:27am: What about the ones that live near the train station?.  So now they want the train fair for these people, and an increase in rates, for those that live near the station.   :( If the property value increases then the rates increase anyway.... Bloody user pay F!FS  increase the ticket PRICE TO COVER THE COST  USER PAYS >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( NO! Obviously you have no concept of the idea of providing a PUBLIC SERVICE. Take your 'user pays' idea and move to the USA... Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but not even he could make passenger services pay for themselves - user-pays or not. Freight should subsidise passenger services - it's simple math. You crunts want every thing for nothing..Who pays for your petrol ..you do    If you want a figging train pay for it    >:( >:( >:( >:(

That's why they sell tickets to travel on the train.  ;)

Live Near A Train Station, Then Pay More Rates

is that to cover the damage to the property due to constant vibrations caused by the trains running?

We seem to have that many stupid ideas these days that it isn't even a surprise.

This suggestion is stupid stupid stupid but it would not even rate in the top ten stupid list for this month and that is just sad.

Live Near A Train Station, Then Pay More Rates




You live in an area your whole life they build a station that you don't want and will never use and they think you should pay additional rates for the inconvenience, unbelievable.

I remember when noisy blocks of land near to train lines were as cheap as you could get and nobody wanted them anyway.

do only people who live near trains... use them???....

what about a bus stop???.......I mean whats nicer than having a bus pull up with airbrakes. huffing and puffing..every hour on the hour.....better close the blinds the driver can see right in...

blimey and I am paying more for this... ;D ;D

its time everyone got used to the idea... every govt is DESPERATE for YOUR MONEY...


and they will find everyway and whichway to put a tax on everything you use or in this case dont use...

the fact that it is there and you can use it... is what matters....

they want cyclists to use their bikes more... leave the car at home... then they work out they are missing out on parking fees....and probably fines.....oops

lets register bikes... :) :) as well as fine them when they are naughty....good one.... ;) ;)

it had to happen...

wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 6:10am:

Advocacy group says residents who live near a rail station should pay more rates   :( Date     December 24, 2015     Sydney Morning Herald Residents who live within 800 metres of a new light rail or train station would pay extra council rates, under a model proposed to fund public transport in the future.   :( In a report released on Wednesday, advocacy group the Committee for Sydney called for residents who lived within a 10-minute walk from new stations to pay a levy to fund the construction and ongoing maintenance of transport routes. The Committee for Sydney says a 'residential area levy' could be used to fund a light rail route through Green Square. The Committee for Sydney says a 'residential area levy' could be used to fund a light rail route through Green Square.  Committee chief executive Tim Williams said the annual "residential area levy" would allow the surge in land value which property owners experience when public transport is built nearby to be captured and reinvested into the project. "It's like a boiling a frog slowly so they don't actually feel the pain," Dr Williams said. "So it's the idea of a long-term but small annual contribution to the infrastructure. You need a long-term kind of slow release approach so the people don't object. This is a way of getting community buy-in because the levy would actually be the equivalent of buying a couple of crates of beer a year." 'This is a way of getting community buy-in,' says Committee for Sydney chairman Tim Williams. Public transport is a perpetual drain on the state government's wallet. Ticket sales only cover 33 per cent of Sydney Train's operating costs, according to analysis by SGS Economics and Planning. Fare box revenue covers 90 per cent of operating costs for the London Underground. As a result, the report said, governments were more tempted to fund motorways than railways because they could regain their costs through tolls.   :( But well-planned public transport can increase land value by up to 50 per cent and the proposed levy is a form of "value capture" – a broad term for a finance mechanism that aims to seize this windfall gain. Under the committee's model, property owners within a five-minute walk, or 400 metres, would pay higher council rates, while those within a 10-minute walk, or 800 metres, would have a smaller rate rise.   :( The report proposed using the levy to fund the construction of a light rail through Green Square, which will become the densest precinct in the country when a flood of development is completed in the next 15 years. If residents who lived within walking distance of the light rail paid a "special rate" of $400 a year, more than $12 million in revenue could be raised each year to go towards the project. Even if the land value increased by as little as 10 per cent when the rail line was built, based on the average dwelling price in the area, property owners would receive a windfall gain of about $80,000. "This is a long-term funding model … for the community that benefits from infrastructure to pay more for it," Dr Williams said. Value capture has become an increasingly hot topic, with both the state and federal government investigating how it could be used to fund public transport, including the construction of a rail link to the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek. Sydney Metro Northwest, the high-speed rail line that will run between Rouse Hill and Chatswood, is considered by many as a missed opportunity for "value capture", with land owners along the route experiencing significant untapped gains in land value. In the past month, the state government has announced that a new light rail from Parramatta to Strathfield via Sydney Olympic Park and the development of a new train station and land in Waterloo would be funded by "value capture" through a Special Infrastructure Contribution. Dr Williams said the flaw with this model was the levy applied only to developers, rather than the wider community who would benefit from the new transport, and that it was a one-off payment rather than an ongoing revenue stream. The Committee for Sydney was previously chaired by Lucy Turnbull, the wife of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who resigned earlier this month to head up the Greater Sydney Commission.

Does this idiotic group actually think that having a train line next to your house increases its value?  Instead of charging captive taxpayers, how about making commuters pay for the service they consume. Wow... there's an idea!

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

I remember when noisy blocks of land near to train lines were as cheap as you could get and nobody wanted them anyway.

Well, I would.

But I admit that, as both an ex-railwayman (Guard) and a rail-enthusiast, I'm
basically used to them.

I used to live opposite the old goods-yard and station at Mittagong - the trains
never bothered me, but drove the missus and the tackers absolutely batsh1t.

Kat wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 4:57pm: I remember when noisy blocks of land near to train lines were as cheap as you could get and nobody wanted them anyway. Well, I would. But I admit that, as both an ex-railwayman (Guard) and a rail-enthusiast, I'm basically used to them. I used to live opposite the old goods-yard and station at Mittagong - the trains never bothered me, but drove the missus and the tackers absolutely batsh1t.

My grandmother lived near a train line - my favourites were the last passenger train - the 2am one and especially the first goods train around 4:30 am we called it the house shaker. A number of people in the street admitted to almost sleeping through it, funny thing was that you didn't really sleep right through it because if you were not awake it was probably going to shake you out of the bed. It was great fun.

They are a lot quieter now.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 6:18pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 4:57pm: I remember when noisy blocks of land near to train lines were as cheap as you could get and nobody wanted them anyway. Well, I would. But I admit that, as both an ex-railwayman (Guard) and a rail-enthusiast, I'm basically used to them. I used to live opposite the old goods-yard and station at Mittagong - the trains never bothered me, but drove the missus and the tackers absolutely batsh1t. My grandmother lived near a train line - my favourites were the last passenger train - the 2am one and especially the first goods train around 4:30 am we called it the house shaker. A number of people in the street admitted to almost sleeping through it, funny thing was that you didn't really sleep right through it because if you were not awake it was probably going to shake you out of the bed. It was great fun. They are a lot quieter now.

Wouldn't you love to be taxed specifically for the 'convenience' of living next to a rail line?

User pays - you get all that free noise and disturbance.... you get extra police attention because of cars at parking stations being broken in to etc..... you pay for it....

Why not a surcharge on any bus or taxi that goes near a rail line ?

It is about as stupid an idea.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

Why not a surcharge on any bus or taxi that goes near a rail line ? It is about as stupid an idea.

Or a surcharge for living near a freeway.

surely you should get a rate reduction due to having to negotiate so many level crossings

Bam wrote on Dec 29^th, 2015 at 8:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2015 at 10:36am: Why not a surcharge on any bus or taxi that goes near a rail line ? It is about as stupid an idea. Or a surcharge for living near a freeway.

Now ven, bruvvas.. the Airport and Shipping Port (Port Noise Complaint) Tax means that you pay double rates for residing near an airport or port ....... the convenience of being able to jump on a plane or a ship at a moment's notice outweighs any disadvantages....