The downtown cognoscenti are openly contemptuous of Scarborough’s desire for a subway. In patronizing tones, they lecture us on the concepts of density and cost-benefit analysis. In this morality play, residents living in the poorest and most remote parts of the city are cast in the role of unsophisticated rubes or transit parasites who are angrily demanding more than their fair share.

Now the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) is joining this chorus. They have asked the Ontario Municipal Board to stop the city from levying development fees to fund the expansion of public transit. Mayor John Tory was right when he explained why they should help pay for the extension of the subway. Public transit is critical to the economic vitality of the city. This vitality, in turn, increases the value of urban land. Much of the increase is directly due to public services — police, education, and infrastructure — but the profit goes to the property owners.

Over the past 10 years developers and homeowners have had a huge windfall as real estate prices have skyrocketed. It is only fair to share the costs as well as the benefits of city life. Many people living downtown say that they are not opposed to taxes. Unlike the members of Ford Nation, residents of the core defend public goods; they just want more of these goods for themselves. A downtown relief line.

Which particular transit option is the best solution for Scarborough is debatable, but it is clear that a major investment in public transit in the periphery is a matter of justice. A study done by the Martin Prosperity Institute of the University of Toronto looked at the provision of public transit in high, middle, and low income parts of Toronto, and found that high income areas have 3.2 times better service than low income areas. According to a report on walkability in Toronto’s highrise neighbourhoods, 41 per cent of households in these mostly inner-suburban areas do not have access to a car.

This means that there is a mismatch between transportation and transportees. Low-income people who cannot afford car ownership are priced out of walkable, transit-oriented neighbourhoods and forced to live in less dense, peripheral areas. The poorest Torontonians must spend hours commuting to and from work and school using slow, badly connected bus services. Is this unjust or simply the price of city living, which one pays either through high rents or long commute times?

The political philosopher John Rawls suggested a way of answering this question. He asked us to think about what principles we would choose if we didn’t know our particular circumstances or interests. He called this the “veil of ignorance.” Behind the veil of ignorance, people wouldn’t know their income, and thus their housing options. Would they think it too costly to build a subway to the outer parts of the city, something that a previous generation built for the core? Or would they conclude that it isn’t fair that some people get everything, the wealth, the nice houses, direct proximity to the best part of the urban commonwealth, and better public transportation too?