Province gives Calgary money... council deciding what to do with it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Or to flip that around, take the found money and use it to fund a project that previously we had no idea how we were going to come up with the cash.

Well the thing is I agree with a SE LRT and think we should have this. So maybe I'm just being picky. But about six months ago the line was "we have this cash and need to figure out where to spend it." To the chagrin of council, and rightly or wrongly, Rick Bell championed giving it back. Survey after survey showed that was what citizens favoured. Then the flooding happened and we heard that the money was needed there. Now we are past that I guess, and we are locked in with the city keeping the money all of a sudden.

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I don't follow how 2015 could be a 12-15% increase, isn't the 2014 budget technically an increase of ~5% (I was following from home a little with a sick kid yesterday) that is "washed out" by giving the $52M back? So the increase for 2014 is there regardless, why would it need to increase by such a dramatic amount for 2015?

It was a long day yesterday, please educate me.

Well what I read is that with the increase it was a 5% increase after the rebate, but it would take a few days to tally everything? I'm not sure as I wasn't there and was following along while doing other things.

That 12-15% is Chabots number in the Bell column. I have no idea if its accurate, I'm just saying if it is, there are going to be a lot of upset voters.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Is rick bell for real or is this a character he plays?

I've heard that he's actually a latte sipper who lives near 17th Avenue.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think the part I find frustrating is that this is basically found money, and what we see by council at large is "let's find a way to spend this money burning a hole in our pocket." I also think that if the stance by Chabot is accurate when he says that we could see a 12-15% tax increase in 2015 is going to make a lot of taxpayers angry, particularly if it is as a result of this project.

I think that as soon as Rick Bell writes a column on a topic that a lot of CP automatically disagrees, largely because its Rick Bell.

I don't know why you'd want to run against DCU... you're pretty much turning into her.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by SebC

I've heard that he's actually a latte sipper who lives near 17th Avenue.

He is in the Beltline, but no way he is a latte sipper. He's a sleep cell for the yop-gobblers, no that isn't even fair to them. He's beyond that, he has become a caricature of himself that lives in a delusional world where everyone is angry all the time at their government.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Or to flip that around, take the found money and use it to fund a project that previously we had no idea how we were going to come up with the cash.

Or to flip that around, if they couldn't originally find the money it's because the project was likely more of a want than need. I don't think this money should go towards another "want" like the designer bridge.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Slava

But about six months ago the line was "we have this cash and need to figure out where to spend it."

I could be wrong but I thought Council asked Calgarians, "How should this money be handled?" not, "How should we spend it?".

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Or to flip that around, if they couldn't originally find the money it's because the project was likely more of a want than need. I don't think this money should go towards another "want" like the designer bridge.

Or a massively expensive need.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that as soon as Rick Bell writes a column on a topic that a lot of CP automatically disagrees, largely because its Rick Bell.

Does he have any other topic than "Silly Hall is wasting your money - argle bargle bargle!" The reason most of CP disagrees with him is that he is like the Morrisey of newspaper columnists, continually singing his one note song.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by jammies

Does he have any other topic than "Silly Hall is wasting your money - argle bargle bargle!" The reason most of CP disagrees with him is that he is like the Morrisey of newspaper columnists, continually singing his one note song.

To be fair, sometimes his column is "Abloo bloo bloo Socialists and Liberals!!".

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Or to flip that around, if they couldn't originally find the money it's because the project was likely more of a want than need. I don't think this money should go towards another "want" like the designer bridge.

Just to be clear that designer bridge would be funded twice in one year with the ground work laid for two other signature bridges.

carry on

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Or to flip that around, if they couldn't originally find the money it's because the project was likely more of a want than need. I don't think this money should go towards another "want" like the designer bridge.

Yeah, why the hell did they build that Stoney Trail anyways? And why the hell did they give the Tsuu T'ina all that money and land? All for stupid want projects? My taxes could have been lower, and my drive time commute could be 40 minutes longer. Stupid wants.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I don't follow how 2015 could be a 12-15% increase, isn't the 2014 budget technically an increase of ~5% (I was following from home a little with a sick kid yesterday) that is "washed out" by giving the $52M back? So the increase for 2014 is there regardless, why would it need to increase by such a dramatic amount for 2015?

It was a long day yesterday, please educate me.

I think it depends how you look at it. Taking it from a baseline of 100 being 2013 tax levels. (Rough numbers only)

2014: 106 tax with 5 rebate, advertised by politicians as holding the line on taxes, net tax of 101
2015: 112 tax with no rebate, advertised as a necessary 6% increase over last years 106.

The effective tax increase in 2015 is likely to be extremely high, as the 2014 and 2015 increases will both hit in the same year. And 2014 is a bargaining year with all the city unions...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't know why you'd want to run against DCU... you're pretty much turning into her.

LOL, ya heaven forbid we actually agree on something. The fact is there are a lot of issues that I don't agree with her on though. Frankly she does a pathetic job representing this constituency. I realise what you're trying to do is say that my opinion is somehow less valid here because DCU voted in favour with it, and I really don't care. I'm grown-up enough that I can agree with people on some things, disagree on others and I don't think its the end of the world.

Originally Posted by jammies

Does he have any other topic than "Silly Hall is wasting your money - argle bargle bargle!" The reason most of CP disagrees with him is that he is like the Morrisey of newspaper columnists, continually singing his one note song.

Well a lot of his columns are terrible. But there are times when he makes a good point, and I'm convinced if it was say Jason Markusoff writing the same thing CP would largely agree. Bell was right about the city auditor for example. He is partly right here about the $52M, even if the way he phrases it can be tedious at best.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

Nice post, Dianne!

Haven't I earned enough respect to be called "Big Red" or DCU at least?

[Bill Bumface]

We're witnessing the demise of Slava.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

We're witnessing the demise of Slava.

He must be under some kind of YOP gobbling regiment. So sad.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

We're witnessing the demise of Slava.

I don't think its my demise. I'm just pretty conservative fiscally. I have a hard time saying that the city should spend money that was basically found money for them. At the same time, I would like to see reductions in other areas to keep taxes/spending in check (for example the police budget). The frustration I have there is that as soon as its mentioned that they should trim they immediately tell us how many front line positions are to be cut to meet that....because apparently there is nowhere else left to trim?

While it does surprise me to some extent to agree with anything that DCU advocates, I'm not exactly alone here. I mean yesterday there were at least a couple votes regarding wage freezes that Nenshi and DCU voted the same. To me that's the great thing about civic politics; you're not pigeon-holed into a particular position because of a party label or anything and you might be conservative on some things and liberal on others.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

While it does surprise me to some extent to agree with anything that DCU advocates, I'm not exactly alone here. I mean yesterday there were at least a couple votes regarding wage freezes that Nenshi and DCU voted the same. To me that's the great thing about civic politics; you're not pigeon-holed into a particular position because of a party label or anything and you might be conservative on some things and liberal on others.

Or also believe that such distinctions are artificial and/or arbitrary.

It is true - this Council, thus far, has maintained that healthy dynamic of thinking and voting on an issue-by-issue basis. Voting patterns are fairly all over the map.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think its my demise. I'm just pretty conservative fiscally. I have a hard time saying that the city should spend money that was basically found money for them. At the same time, I would like to see reductions in other areas to keep taxes/spending in check (for example the police budget). The frustration I have there is that as soon as its mentioned that they should trim they immediately tell us how many front line positions are to be cut to meet that....because apparently there is nowhere else left to trim?

While it does surprise me to some extent to agree with anything that DCU advocates, I'm not exactly alone here. I mean yesterday there were at least a couple votes regarding wage freezes that Nenshi and DCU voted the same. To me that's the great thing about civic politics; you're not pigeon-holed into a particular position because of a party label or anything and you might be conservative on some things and liberal on others.

I hear you on that one. Hmmm, what other Canadian city (heck how many NA cities in general) has TWO helicopters?

Even if the choppers themselves are purchased through charity, fuel is a HUGE cost. And that's the most obvious part of the gadget iceberg.

I'll concede I'm not an expert. Maybe the helicopters save the city money in the long run by not having to resort to other things or procedures. Though I seriously doubt it. I also don't know how much they cost to use, though I was told the fuel is very expensive as it's basically the same as airline fuel.

However I agree with you that the CPS is basically using the front line argument to keep their budget as high as they can have it, when there could conceivably be cuts elsewhere (which pretty much any group or department does). Perhaps they need to take a good look at their administration? I don't know. Maybe it's a model of fiscal responsibility, maybe it's not. I just don't like the front line argument.

[Bill Bumface]

I think someone truly fiscally conservative should want the $52MM earmarked for debt repayment, which personally, I'd be fine with it.

I'm finscally conservative as well, but greatly favor spending to improve the city, as I believe it has a return. Stuff like the Peace Bridge, the Library etc are all ok by me. I think we need to leverage this era of our city to create something that lasts regardless of industry changes.

What I hate is borrowing to do everything. If taxes don't go up, I'm skeptical it's for political reasons. Unless the city is running a balanced budget, taxes need to go up so we aren't forever spiralling into debt.

I'm all for finding more efficiencies, but "giving money back" when we have a pretty sizable debt really doesn't sit well with me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Or also believe that such distinctions are artificial and/or arbitrary.

It is true - this Council, thus far, has maintained that healthy dynamic of thinking and voting on an issue-by-issue basis. Voting patterns are fairly all over the map.

Absolutely! I used a lowercase c and l there purposefully. Truthfully I'm not even sure where I fit in on that scale.

Originally Posted by Daradon

I hear you on that one. Hmmm, what other Canadian city (heck how many NA cities in general) has TWO helicopters?

Even if the choppers themselves are purchased through charity, fuel is a HUGE cost. And that's the most obvious part of the gadget iceberg.

I'll concede I'm not an expert. Maybe the helicopters save the city money in the long run by not having to resort to other things or procedures. Though I seriously doubt it. I also don't know how much they cost to use, though I was told the fuel is very expensive as it's basically the same as airline fuel.

However I agree with you that the CPS is basically using the front line argument to keep their budget as high as they can have it, when there could conceivably be cuts elsewhere (which pretty much any group or department does). Perhaps they need to take a good look at their administration? I don't know. Maybe it's a model of fiscal responsibility, maybe it's not. I just don't like the front line argument.

But why are you against safety and crime reduction?