Tax Rebate for Lakefront property occupiers??

[Terris]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#199018



But seriously; the ultimate flaunt?

Do the rest of us taxpayers owe them a break??

[vegas1500]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-199018-10-.htm#199018



But seriously; the ultimate flaunt?

Do the rest of us taxpayers owe them a break??

IMO no, they shouldn't get a tax break. That's what insurance is for and if they don't have insurance, I guess they need to dig in their own pockets. There will already be enough tax money spent on cleanup, roadway repairs, infrastructure repairs and upgrades, future flood protection, etc. and I'm sure the rest of us will be paying by means of an insurance premium increase.

[Hassel99]

I dont see anything in that link asking for tax breaks, they do request the Feds consider helping remove debris from the lake.

Can you quote the part that asks for a tax rebate?

[GordonH]

Anyone buying home/property on a floodplain, should spend the extra cost for surface water flood insurance. Before signing anything make damn sure you are & will be fully protected.

I can only imagine what that insurance costs

Added: I'm not sure if any insurance company would insure on the floodplain.

[WalterWhite]

I dont see anything in that link asking for tax breaks, they do request the Feds consider helping remove debris from the lake.

Can you quote the part that asks for a tax rebate?

It's the last sentence in the letter:

We now need another success: keeping the lake safe for recreational use, and offer lakefront property owners a rebate on their 2017 taxes.

[WalterWhite]

Anyone buying home/property on a floodplain, should spend the extra cost for surface water flood insurance. Before signing anything make damn sure you are & will be fully protected.

I can only imagine what that insurance costs

Added: I'm not sure if any insurance company would insure on the floodplain.

The majority of Kelowna is built on a flood plain.

[GordonH]

^^^ Then it's up to the homeowners to get proper insurance to cover any type flood event possible.
That's not the responsibility of the taxpayers

[Graphite]

Absolutely no tax breaks. These properties on a flood area should have proper insurance and if they don't the community should not be forced to support them. What a nutty idea. If it's not possible to be insured for such an event my sympathies still don't lean to this idea since it was a choice to live there. Maybe those city neighborhood grants could be used to help instead of funding tree painting?

[Catri]

Oh hell no. The taxes paid by those high value properties are needed to help offset some of the costs to the city associated with this unusually high water year. Giving out tax breaks is counter-intuitive, lowering their contribution to the funding of our city's services when more city resources are being used for their own benefit does not make sense.

[WalterWhite]

Lol - nothing like mentioning tax breaks for supposedly uber-rich lakefront property owners to rile the masses.
I'm wondering if what was possibly being suggested (though the story contains little information - and just enough to cause the aforementioned riling of the masses) is that because homeowners along the lakefront have been hit with such losses, maybe the suggestion would be to suspend the so-called dock tax/private moorage fees until the docks are replaced. That could potentially take more than one year, and some may choose not to rebuild, or be denied a permit - and I don't think anyone would feel that a tax imposed on something that doesn't exist is fair.

[Graham Adder]

To use a line from the article,

Lakefront properties are not visible from the road, and so the public is unaware of the misery residents are enduring.

Let's change this to suit the city of Kelowna more accurately, mkay?

Lakefront properties are not visible from the road, and so the public is unaware of the misery millionaires and multi-millionaires are enduring.

There.Now that's more accurate.

Absolutely no way in Hades cold picnic in their basement should we EVER consider giving these "fine outstanding citizens" a tax break in ANY form.


I'd also like to add that insurance should NOT be permitted to those who OBVIOUSLY are going to drive our rates up to pay for their 1st world misery.

If insurance companies allow them to insure in a flood prone zone, who do you think pays for that when the inevitable happens?

That's right. YOU and I.

Now, get back to work. We have elitists to support!
Just keep working
Just keep working

[vegas1500]

To use a line from the article,

Lakefront properties are not visible from the road, and so the public is unaware of the misery residents are enduring.

Let's change this to suit the city of Kelowna more accurately, mkay?

Lakefront properties are not visible from the road, and so the public is unaware of the misery millionaires and multi-millionaires are enduring.

There.ow that's more accurate.

Absolutely no way in Hades cold picnic in their basement should we EVER consider giving these "fine outstanding citizens" a tax break in ANY form.


I'd also like to add that insurance should NOT be permitted to those who OBVIOUSLY are going to drive our rates up to pay for their 1st world misery.

If insurance companies allow them to insure in a flood prone zone, who do you think pays for that when the inevitable happens?

That's right. YOU and I.

Now, get back to work. We have elitists to support!
Just keep working
Just keep working

If they have "over land water" coverage then they will be covered and the insurance will pay. Although not sure if it's even possible for lake front homes.

[Graham Adder]

If they have "over land water" coverage then they will be covered and the insurance will pay. Although not sure if it's even possible for lake front homes.

When you say "the insurance will pay", where do you think that money comes from?
It's all of us that pay.
Same as all of us are paying (again) for fort MacMuddy's Family BBQ Gone Wild.

It's because of the lack of logic that I wish the insurance companies wouldn't cover people building where they shouldn't.
Those that support the psychosis behind repeating the same mistakes, expecting a different outcome will cry, whine and even offer to meet you away from the keyboard in their tireless defense of the mistakes they are driven to repeat.

I agree with what Washington is apparently doing. Using common sense.
Apparently not allowing imbeciles to build on 100 year flood planes and offering no insurance for those imbeciles that have or do or...

[vegas1500]

If they have "over land water" coverage then they will be covered and the insurance will pay. Although not sure if it's even possible for lake front homes.

When you say "the insurance will pay", where do you think that money comes from?
It's all of us that pay.
Same as all of us are paying (again) for fort MacMuddy's Family BBQ Gone Wild.

It's because of the lack of logic that I wish the insurance companies wouldn't cover people building where they shouldn't.
Those that support the psychosis behind repeating the same mistakes, expecting a different outcome will cry, whine and even offer to meet you away from the keyboard in their tireless defense of the mistakes they are driven to repeat.

I agree with what Washington is apparently doing. Using common sense.
Apparently not allowing imbeciles to build on 100 year flood planes and offering no insurance for those imbeciles that have or do or...

Oh I know where it comes from. My insurance almost doubled after the Calgary floods and then went up again after the fort Mac fires. AlI I meant was that if they do have that policy, they are entitled to receive the coverage.

[phasyluck]

Remember the bone head who's house burned down in WK a few years back? He owned a notable underground business so to speak but didn't like the premiums he was being charged.....no insurance! Then he had the balls to plea on Global for provincial government bail outs, its gonna happen in this situation too.