Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
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.
|
Fair to say I don't see it that way at all. The city needs to act as well as all other landlords, and I think they have provided much more than that. If you think the city should not be in the landlord game, I might agree with that, but probably for the opposite reasons you are giving.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|