Naheed Nenshi vs Michelle Rempel

[SebC]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

McIver was the long time politician Hillary Clinton-esque guy that was supposed to win easily by basically continuing the status quo. Kind of a shocker he lost to a relative outsider I guess.

McIver was the anti-Bronconnier, they guy who wanted to stop all progress except in his ward. Nenshi was Bronconnier Plus - also a builder, but a better one.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That screen capture is in the article itself. I don't see how one could possibly miss it.

Sometimes ad blockers block tweets in articles.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by SebC

Sometimes ad blockers block tweets in articles.

Not in this case; it was a .jpg of a screenshot of the tweets rather than the tweets themselves.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Delgar

My impression, not greatly informed, is that Nenshi has backed up the civil service and refused to cut despite everything going on in the city. He says they'll maintain services and that's what the public wants.

I'm not so sure about that, I think people are looking to at least hear they are looking to find efficiencies or make cuts somewhere.

I don't think "Spendshi" is an accurate term for him, but there is a reason his opponents have attacked him with that.

EDIT: And hasn't he presided over the largest municipal tax hikes in Calgary history?

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How much is spending up under his entire tenure, not one specific year? Wouldn't that be more applicable?

I believe property taxes have increased almost 50% since Nenshi took over as mayor.

Here's the key graph re: spending historically and projected (projected is now outdated since the downturn hit - but spending is flat from 2016 to 2017 - both inflation and spending for 2018, will be much more flat than projected here).



The red represents costs as they relate to inflation + population growth. Grey is the actual growth in spending in the operating budget.

You can see the positive trend over time that the gap between inflation + population and actual expenditure is widening. In other words, services are being delivered more efficiently per citizen and considering basic inflation.

A couple other things to consider, in the 3 years between 2012-14 alone, the city grew by over 108,000 people. Red Deer, the province's 3rd largest city took about 110 years to gain that much population, we tacked it on in three years. That puts enormous strain on services, causes all sorts of crazy cost escalations and so forth. Oh, and in the middle of that stretch we had a historically bad flood.

Second, is that a fairly large chunk of the "massive" tax increases in that timeframe related to the "taking" of the provincial tax room. Remember the infamous $52m? There was also a $42 million the year prior and a $11 million the year following. 100% of that went to capital projects - paid for goodies like the four major new rec centres, new central library, City's 1/3 Green Line LRT funding, preventing pool roofs from collapsing, roads optimization projects and so on. Since MSI had been tapped fully, there were virtually no other capital sources. None of these projects would have happened otherwise, full stop. But remember, 40% of your tax bill is provincial, so when they didn't decide to increase their take at all, the City used it for City capital, while your aggregate bill went up the rate it normally would have. Controversial? Yes. Necessary? I'd argue, yes because we were at serious risk of falling behind on infrastructure.

Those extraordinary increases on the Municipal side related to manufacturing some cash for infrastructure, not to feed operations.

Lastly, the Mayor and Council have absolutely driven cuts and aggressive efficiencies. In this last budget alone, about $118 million in efficiencies in the operating budget.

Also they have implemented the Zero Based Review system for every department in the City, that's yielded $10s of millions in savings. That was a Nenshi led project, and true change, not just cutting services, fundamentally improving their delivery. That's his McKinsey background at play.

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Pages/Pl...w-Program.aspx

As you do more of these saving money becomes easier. You can not just maintain, but improve service delivery with less resources. The other approach is the lazy, quicker and more politically expedient, which is to just simply cut staff and cut services, but is ultimately a worse approach.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Here's the key graph re: spending historically and projected (projected is now outdated since the downturn hit - but spending is flat from 2016 to 2017 - both inflation and spending for 2018, will be much more flat than projected here).



The red represents costs as they relate to inflation + population growth. Grey is the actual growth in spending in the operating budget.

You can see the positive trend over time that the gap between inflation + population and actual expenditure is widening. In other words, services are being delivered more efficiently per citizen and considering basic inflation.

A couple other things to consider, in the 3 years between 2012-14 alone, the city grew by over 108,000 people. Red Deer, the province's 3rd largest city took about 110 years to gain that much population, we tacked it on in three years. That puts enormous strain on services, causes all sorts of crazy cost escalations and so forth. Oh, and in the middle of that stretch we had a historically bad flood.

Second, is that a fairly large chunk of the "massive" tax increases in that timeframe related to the "taking" of the provincial tax room. Remember the infamous $52m? There was also a $42 million the year prior and a $11 million the year following. 100% of that went to capital projects - paid for goodies like the four major new rec centres, new central library, City's 1/3 Green Line LRT funding, preventing pool roofs from collapsing, roads optimization projects and so on. Since MSI had been tapped fully, there were virtually no other capital sources. None of these projects would have happened otherwise, full stop. But remember, 40% of your tax bill is provincial, so when they didn't decide to increase their take at all, the City used it for City capital, while your aggregate bill went up the rate it normally would have. Controversial? Yes. Necessary? I'd argue, yes because we were at serious risk of falling behind on infrastructure.

Those extraordinary increases on the Municipal side related to manufacturing some cash for infrastructure, not to feed operations.

Lastly, the Mayor and Council have absolutely driven cuts and aggressive efficiencies. In this last budget alone, about $118 million in efficiencies in the operating budget.

Also they have implemented the Zero Based Review system for every department in the City, that's yielded $10s of millions in savings. That was a Nenshi led project, and true change, not just cutting services, fundamentally improving their delivery. That's his McKinsey background at play.

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Pages/Pl...w-Program.aspx

As you do more of these saving money becomes easier. You can not just maintain, but improve service delivery with less resources. The other approach is the lazy, quicker and more politically expedient, which is to just simply cut staff and cut services, but is ultimately a worse approach.

What numbers were used to forecast the population growth and when were the numbers derived? Do you have a break down of Calgary's MPI figures?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

What numbers were used to forecast the population growth and when were the numbers derived? Do you have a break down of Calgary's MPI figures?

These are from the 2015-18 budget, so numbers would have been finalized in say summer 2014. The Geodemographics division creates population estimates for the City. I don't have MPI figures off hand, but I'm sure they're findable.

[crazy_eoj]

Thanks Bunk. So it looks like city spending has increased by about 25% over 6 years?

It's certainly interesting that the city continues to use their own internal and secret approximation for inflation (MPI) which has been much higher than actual inflation as defined by Statistics Canada. Do you have a similar chart using the nationally accepted definition of inflation, CPI, instead?

And, of course, the major reason for the MPI being so high is likely because city salaries and pensions are a huge part of their inflationary pressures, yet the city could control those costs...

A rather advantageous closed circle when demanding further taxation power and increased spending?

118 million in savings should be lauded, but we need much more than that to stop closing businesses doors by increasing their tax burden by double digits during a major downturn.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Thanks Bunk. So it looks like city spending has increased by about 25% over 6 years?

It's certainly interesting that the city continues to use their own internal and secret approximation for inflation (MPI) which has been much higher than actual inflation as defined by Statistics Canada. Do you have a similar chart using the nationally accepted definition of inflation, CPI, instead?

And, of course, the major reason for the MPI being so high is likely because city salaries and pensions are a huge part of their inflationary pressures, yet the city could control those costs...

A rather advantageous closed circle when demanding further taxation power and increased spending?

118 million in savings should be lauded, but we need much more than that to stop closing businesses doors by increasing their tax burden by double digits during a major downturn.

Taxes are almost never the reason a business closes.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Taxes are almost never the reason a business closes.

That's great news. We should increase them exponentially then!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by V

There has to be a bonus or something tied to that, no? 200k is peanuts for that level of responsibility.

It's not necessarily the salary, rather the pension that's lucrative.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's not necessarily the salary, rather the pension that's lucrative.

What will his pension be?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Taxes are almost never the reason a business closes.

You're thinking income tax. Property tax is absolutely a reason for closing your business.

[Tron_fdc]

Our business property taxes are hitting 6 digits this year.

Property tax increases probably won't put us under, but it will force us to move somewhere with a lower tax rate.

[troutman]

Nenshi sees approval ratings rise from November low

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...m-november-low

65 per cent of Calgarians approve of the job the mayor is doing, an improvement of eight points since November

[Looch City]

Haha that goes against what some people are touting here...

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Thanks Bunk. So it looks like city spending has increased by about 25% over 6 years?

It's certainly interesting that the city continues to use their own internal and secret approximation for inflation (MPI) which has been much higher than actual inflation as defined by Statistics Canada. Do you have a similar chart using the nationally accepted definition of inflation, CPI, instead?

And, of course, the major reason for the MPI being so high is likely because city salaries and pensions are a huge part of their inflationary pressures, yet the city could control those costs...

A rather advantageous closed circle when demanding further taxation power and increased spending?

118 million in savings should be lauded, but we need much more than that to stop closing businesses doors by increasing their tax burden by double digits during a major downturn.

I would say that you're seeing what you want to see. I'd guess that the main reason for increases to the red bar in the graphs would be due to population growth rather than any changes in the MPI. Especially in the 2011-2014 range (which is when this report was developed).

The projections would probably be assuming a similar level of population growth, which as we know, isn't the case anymore due to the oil crash.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I would say that you're seeing what you want to see. I'd guess that the main reason for increases to the red bar in the graphs would be due to population growth rather than any changes in the MPI. Especially in the 2011-2014 range (which is when this report was developed).

The projections would probably be assuming a similar level of population growth, which as we know, isn't the case anymore due to the oil crash.

I'm not sure how you can 'guess' that the main reason for spending increases is population growth. If that's the case then why not separate them out, or only show population growth? Why include MPI, the city's secret inflation number, instead of CPI at all ? The City is doing a great job of conflating data and numbers to obfuscate people, the same way that Nenshi refers to comparatively low provincial taxes as a justification for high city taxes on business.

[takinghits]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Why include MPI, the city's secret inflation number, instead of CPI at all ? The City is doing a great job of conflating data and numbers to obfuscate people, the same way that Nenshi refers to comparatively low provincial taxes as a justification for high city taxes on business.

I had to google what is this secret inflation number MPI. Seems pretty reasonable to me

"Consumer inflation is typically measured through the Consumer Price Index (CPI) produced by Statistics Canada. The CPI represents the purchasing patterns of an average consumer and is a generally accepted measure of inflation. The CPI, however, is not the best tool to assess inflationary pressures the City of Edmonton faces because it does not adequately represent the municipal purchasing patterns.

The Municipal Price Index (MPI) serves to measure inflation for the City of Edmonton and reflects the mix of goods and services purchased by the City of Edmonton. Development of an MPI was undertaken as a means to measure inflation the City of Edmonton's operating budget faces."

Im sure Calgary has a similair report to this somewhere out there https://www.edmonton.ca/business_eco...MPI%202016.pdf

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by takinghits

I had to google what is this secret inflation number MPI. Seems pretty reasonable to me

"Consumer inflation is typically measured through the Consumer Price Index (CPI) produced by Statistics Canada. The CPI represents the purchasing patterns of an average consumer and is a generally accepted measure of inflation. The CPI, however, is not the best tool to assess inflationary pressures the City of Edmonton faces because it does not adequately represent the municipal purchasing patterns.

The Municipal Price Index (MPI) serves to measure inflation for the City of Edmonton and reflects the mix of goods and services purchased by the City of Edmonton. Development of an MPI was undertaken as a means to measure inflation the City of Edmonton's operating budget faces."

It might sound reasonable on its face, but there's a big problem when the city uses its own spending power to purposely increase inflation. The Edmonton report acknowledges that well over 50% of their budget, and thus their mpi calculations is spent on salaries and wages and benefits. Who sets the cities salaries and wages? Well they do of course.

So they justify increased spending because of the increased mpi, mainly due to salaries. They have to increase taxes to afford this. Then they increase salaries. Then they need to increase spending because of the increased mpi. See a problem here?

Meanwhile the taxpayer, whose inflation is consistently LOWER than what the city claims, is supposed to continue to pay the increased inflation presumably forever?

Even the city of Edmonton acknowledges this problem in their report.

Im sure Calgary has a similair report to this somewhere out there https://www.edmonton.ca/business_eco...MPI%202016.pdf

Sadly Calgary does not have any report on their methodology for calculation of mpi and resists any transparency or accountability on this matter.

From your chamber of commerce : The Municipal Price Index (MPI) is used by The City of Calgary to calculate inflation in its budget process and informs the recommended property tax increases to fund City operations. The City of Calgary’s MPI relies on a number of internal forecasts, which creates potential biases in its inflation estimates. This is subsequently reflected in the budgeting process, when inflation is included in proposed property tax increases. A more transparent process, which adheres to clear, independently developed values would improve fiscal management to the benefit of The City and all Calgarians.

[crazy_eoj]

I think council should get some credit for the small business tax cap that was passed yesterday, it was a good decision that will help lots of struggling businesses this year.

But I also agree that it is a bandaid solution that could be easily argued is motivated largely by it being an election year.

What we need is a concerted effort to lower city spending and reduction of taxes in 2018 to help businesses in Calgary prosper long term.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...-tax-increases

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

Nenshi sees approval ratings rise from November low

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...m-november-low

65 per cent of Calgarians approve of the job the mayor is doing, an improvement of eight points since November

Not arguing one way or another on the mayors popularity, because he's going to win this election and basically run unopposed by anyone good.

But are we still actually putting any validity into polls anymore, the biggest political story last year outside of Trump would be the failure in polls in most elections.