Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Re-prioritized to give a huge amount, hundreds of millions, to a privately owned consortium that's been in business and making money in the city for nearly 40 years?
I'm not trying to insult you or misrepresent your posts, but it's more than mildly incongruent to talk about gold plating wages as a factor for why the city can't throw a bunch of money at the wealthiest ownership group in the NHL.
|
I don't take any of your posts personally or as a personal insult. If I came across as whining in previous posts or as some unwashed pleb trying to take a lazy poke at a claim made by a respected poster who worked at a high level in the mayors office than that's on me to articulate my points better.
I don't see it as in-congruent at all. Paying more than necessary, to provide the level of services required, unquestionably means the city then has less money available for other priorities should that be snow removal, a new hockey arena, 4 car C-trains, airport LRT or any other number of other things. The city doesn't exist as a 'make-work' project to give people employment, it exists to provide services to it's residents.
Also to be clear I didn't say gold plating wages. I said gold plating capital projects. What that means is that the city over the past decade has had a tenancy to spend a large amount of dollars for the highest quality of facilities in style and form. Many people have expressed their high amount of satisfaction for this. The peace bridge, the central library, north west YMCA, etc. are examples of capital projects that are widely loved. To that end though I think that the lost opportunity cost of all the other things we could have done had we say built a more functional central Library for $150 million rather than $250 million, built a less lavish NW rec center, needs to highlighted as well.
Especially with the backdrop of the conversation we're having now where there are projects that citizens are advocating for and there's a revenue gap at the city due to the poorer economic and decline in downtown real estate. When you only buy the nicest things, you can't have as many things. The loss of the things we couldn't build should be considered an opportunity cost. I find that's not talked about enough, or if it is it's being addressed superficially and disingenuously by self-described 'fiscal-hawks' on city council.