Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
If the argument is really down to "tough luck" or "poor form", there isn't much to talk about. I thought the issue was whether the city should (further) compensate. I don't think poor form comes close to that.
|
To me it does come down to what's fair. What I think " CP's intellectual A team" is missing is the difference between the city of Calgary and any other landlord. The city does in fact have a duty to treat people fairly. If you look at the contracts counsilors are required to sign it says exactly that.
The city can at its whim, decide to increase taxes, charge people for any number of things, deny services for any reason and otherwise accomplish havoc in people's lives. The results will be a net benefit to the city. They generally don't. But this time they are and for no other reason than it will put 3-5 million dollars in the pot.
By proxy that means they don't have to increase taxes to cover that 3-5 million. Do that enough times while only offending a few people along the way and pretty soon you can lower taxes and the majority of the people will love you and vote for you and you will have a very secure, relatively well paying job for life.
So it's pretty obvious to me that when two hundred people with zero political influence get screwed it should matter to everyone else if not simply for the precedent it sets.