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

[Bigtime]

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.

Agreed 100 freaking percent. I keep harping on this all the time budget stuff comes up. The police just default to scare tactics to keep their budget safe and secure. Don't we have one of the highest "costs per officer" in the country? To me that means there is a lot of fat and beaurocracy that could be potentially trimmed behind the front line staff.

No doubt the helicopters are bloody expensive, but in a city as spread out as ours it is a necessary evil. Did you also know they have a fixed wing aircraft? Although I am sure it is much less to operate per hour than the choppers.

Perhaps we can get a big break on operating costs if UAV's become a better alternative than the helicopters?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

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.

I think that being fiscally conservative doesn't mean you won't borrow money though. I obviously agree that we have to control our debt levels and prioritize projects, but at the same time borrowing (while interest rates are at historical lows) for capital projects is conservative. Labour costs are lower, materials costs are lower and the financing is lower now than it will be say in 3-4 years at the peak of the business cycle.

[SebC]

Given that this project is probably as close to a consensus need as you're going to find, doesn't not supporting it kind of imply that you pretty much want to go back to the Duerr days of not building anything?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Slava

But why are you against safety and crime reduction?

What makes you think I am?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Ward 12 has a proud history of being anti-tax while demanding Calgary's most expensive and worst bang-for-the-buck public transit project ever.

Originally Posted by SebC

Given that this project is probably as close to a consensus need as you're going to find, doesn't not supporting it kind of imply that you pretty much want to go back to the Duerr days of not building anything?

LOL. You tell me, Al.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Daradon

What makes you think I am?

I figured green text was unnecessary there...

[Daradon]

Ahhh. You thought wrong! Haha.

Actually I had a pause shortly after I posted, hmmm is my sarcasm meter correctly calibrated?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that being fiscally conservative doesn't mean you won't borrow money though. I obviously agree that we have to control our debt levels and prioritize projects, but at the same time borrowing (while interest rates are at historical lows) for capital projects is conservative. Labour costs are lower, materials costs are lower and the financing is lower now than it will be say in 3-4 years at the peak of the business cycle.

Keynesian spending is conservative now?

Fiscal conservatism is the opposite - it's a belief that when the economy is struggling, government should shrink in order to promote growth in the private sector.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that being fiscally conservative doesn't mean you won't borrow money though. I obviously agree that we have to control our debt levels and prioritize projects, but at the same time borrowing (while interest rates are at historical lows) for capital projects is conservative. Labour costs are lower, materials costs are lower and the financing is lower now than it will be say in 3-4 years at the peak of the business cycle.

Yeah, I actually remember hearing a study that basically said that us not borrowing at the right times (such as in the 90's when Ralph had everyone tightening the belts) actually made our infrastructure deficit much bigger, and more expensive, than it needed to be.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

LOL. You tell me, Al.

The arguments in favor of this project aren't ROI/ridership based, but accessibility based. I.e. the SE portion of the green line is needed because service to the SE is currently below a minimum acceptable threshold, not because it's a cost-efficient area to develop. The NC portion of the line is different, as it serves a larger portion of the population and doesn't require major construction. (I'm assuming the NC part will not be built to LRT specs with this funding, only the SE. Bunk, can you confirm?)

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Daradon

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.

Talking about fuel, I fail to see why the CPS needs all of their cruisers to be rapid response. Surely a portion of their cruisers could be smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles. Not all officers would be able to respond as quickly but this doesn't seem to be an issue with the police forces across the World that have split-fleets. Having a split-fleet does increase the cost of maintenance but I don't think this is a factor as the CPS already has a split-fleet (cruisers, SUVs, pick-ups, and vans).

But no, if money has to be saved it's coming from the front-lines.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Keynesian spending is conservative now?

Fiscal conservatism is the opposite - it's a belief that when the economy is struggling, government should shrink in order to promote growth in the private sector.

Well as we've been over before, "fiscal conservative" is just a label. No one thinks that they're anything but fiscally conservative/prudent.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well as we've been over before, "fiscal conservative" is just a label. No one thinks that they're anything but fiscally conservative/prudent.

To (mis)use the term in that way, decoupled from it's technical meaning, reduces it to an empty platitude. Keynesians should use an alternate term (e.g. fiscally responsible, fiscally sound...). Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to point out the drawbacks of the real fiscal conservatives if you have left yourself without the term that describes their beliefs.

I, for one, would not describe myself as a fiscal conservative. Unlike them, I believe that government should regulate the economy through countercyclical spending.

[Tinordi]

Investing in transit is in the long-term fiscal interest of the city. It isn't *wasted* money, it will save the city money X fold over the next 40 years.

[Tinordi]

This is what maddens me about the success of interest groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have done in ratcheting down public awareness and reason into discussions of taxation. That group is NOT representing the interests of tax payers from a holistic point of view. They're cynically representing the interests of rich taxpayers and foregoing the long-term fiscal outlays that will have significant impacts on the taxation of future generations of Canadians.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Investing in transit is in the long-term fiscal interest of the city. It isn't *wasted* money, it will save the city money X fold over the next 40 years.

Not if you take never building anything ever again as the base case.

Same as the airport tunnel. If you assume that the NE will eventually get built up, building the tunnel when we did saved money. If you assume that it won't, then the tunnel was waste.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is what maddens me about the success of interest groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have done in ratcheting down public awareness and reason into discussions of taxation. That group is NOT representing the interests of tax payers from a holistic point of view. They're cynically representing the interests of rich taxpayers and foregoing the long-term fiscal outlays that will have significant impacts on the taxation of future generations of Canadians.

But I might have to pay an EXTRA OH MY GOD $25 IN PROPERTY TAX NEXT YEAR RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Investing in transit is in the long-term fiscal interest of the city. It isn't *wasted* money, it will save the city money X fold over the next 40 years.

We have a pretty good natural experiment in the transit line we just built. How many bus service hours were reduced when the west LRT went in? I haven't been able to find that number, and I think the reason is people would be shocked at how low the operational savings were from putting it in.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

We have a pretty good natural experiment in the transit line we just built. How many bus service hours were reduced when the west LRT went in? I haven't been able to find that number, and I think the reason is people would be shocked at how low the operational savings were from putting it in.

You can't cherry pick stats though, you'd also have to include reductions to congestion on Bow Trail (bus and car) and cost-offsets from pushing out immediate costs to further expand bow trail.

[Senator Clay Davis]

After years of following politics, I've decoded what exactly "Fiscal Conservative" actually means: It means support of low taxes, minimal goverment spending and no social assistance programs. What I think most people are (outside the righties who eat that #### up) or want to be is "Fiscally Responsible". Things cost in life. Take the SE LRT line. The "Fiscal Conservative" doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for it, leaving two options: Don't build it, or increase debt to build it. "The Fiscally Responsible" individual believes that things cost money and nothing is free. It has to be paid for. So its either increase taxes to pay for it, or don't build it.

Assuming both agree building it is important and in the city's best interest, one side believes more debt should be used to pay for it while the other believes in cash up front. But one side views themselves as "conservative" because they didn't raise taxes for it, they just wanna increase debt. They'll come back with they don't want to increase debt, which of course only leaves don't build it. And not building it solves nothing of course, it just delays the problem that will inevitably have to be built, except at a much more costly rate, which is quite fiscally irresponsible.