Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I heard the guy a few years ago on the radio that wrote that book, and I just strongly disagree with so mcuh of his thinking. We are already running into issues like the Toronto green belt where housing takes over farmland and green space. In Calgary we are going to develop a new community on valuable wetlands. More people everywhere means more stress on every part of the environment, from forestry to farming, increased forest fires, decreased water resources, more power demands, more pollution, more trash, more consumption, just more of everything. We need to leave places wild.
I look back to Calgary int he 90's and it was much more pleasant. Rush hour was completely over by 6, so getting around was easier, particularity on weekends. Bigger cities mean bigger city problems. Going to the mountains was easy. You really want to deal with double, triple the people? No thanks. I'd gladly go back to Calgary of a city of 750k, and not feel like I had lost anything of value. Hell, even bars and nightclubs were better then.
Can Canada hold more people? Sure, dense countries show you can do it, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them.
|
I'm with you, I disagree with plenty of his takes. But I think his main take is about the size of the tax base, and I agree with the point. We can't be the country we want to be with free health care, strong public education, etc. without more government revenue. I don't believe there's any room or appetite for higher taxes so the only way to get there is by increasing the base to draw from. And if that's the case, and keeping on topic, where will all these extra people live?