Bridge to Nowhere?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Table 5

fine dont...but then you better pay your proper share of taxes. Do you really think residents of those new communities are the ones supporting the payment of all the new construction and infrastructure going into those roads, sewers, intersections, schools etc? Why do you think they have such low taxes compared to the inner city neighborhoods? They are definitely not paying their fair share compared to the inner city residents who are not getting any ofthe benefits.

I don't think they are the only ones paying for it, but there are plenty of things that they do pay for an don't use either. That's how it works.

Or what about the people in communities like Airdrie or Okotokos who come into the city to use Calgary's roads, facilities, infrastructure, and then go back to their bedroom communities and pay nothing for it?

They have to go back to Airdrie and Okotoks which is punishment enough!

btw, can you cut out the name calling already? dont need to do it every post....

Name calling?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

I would support some sort of toll for anyone person living in Airdrie, Cochrane etc. It's not feasible but it annoys me.

There is talk about inter-city railroads being built from these communities into Calgary....something which definitely should be mostly funded by them in my opinion. Right now, these towns get all the positives of living in a city, without having to pay any part of the bill. They are like Grunt's cheap friend.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't think they are the only ones paying for it, but there are plenty of things that they do pay for an don't use either. That's how it works.

Sure they do, but in comparison, it's not even close in terms of dollars. The chances of a Cougar Ridge owner using facilities in downtown are much higher than the downtown resident going out to the Ridge.

[surferguy]

Just think of this. Now we have a nice park (Princes Island Park) downtown. You are a tourist, you see the park for 30 minutes and leave the city to Banff. Now add the new iconic bridge, and the riverwalk and the new river park (created once the weir is removed), which are all in various stages of development. Once all of this is in place, there is more to see, people from out of town will stay longer, spend more money on hotels, resturants, movies etc...

Furthermore it might intice more people who don't normally go downtown to go downtown. With more people in the core that means more eyes on the street and the crooks will start to go away. Helping ease, albeit not elimenating the negitive image downtown has.

Another example, an iconic bridge would serve as a great backdrop to wedding pictures...maybe I am getting off track here.

I ask the naysayers here, how much have you travelled before, how often do you get to play tourist? Nationally or International? What do you go see when you land in a foreign city you have no clue about? The icons of the city of course...the sense of discovery (of a completly new place) you find on the way to the icons is what truley puts a mark on a city.

No bridge and you only have a crappy Eau Claire Market to gander at. Yes it is expansive but well worth it. Kudos to the city for this approval.

[moon]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Furthermore it might intice more people who don't normally go downtown to go downtown. With more people in the core that means more eyes on the street and the crooks will start to go away. Helping ease, albeit not elimenating the negitive image downtown has.

The bridge is going to stop crime now? Come on that seems like a bit of a stretch.

Another example, an iconic bridge would serve as a great backdrop to wedding pictures...maybe I am getting off track here.

Not sure millions of dollars extra is worth it for the cool wedding pictures.

I ask the naysayers here, how much have you travelled before, how often do you get to play tourist? Nationally or International? What do you go see when you land in a foreign city you have no clue about? The icons of the city of course...the sense of discovery (of a completly new place) you find on the way to the icons is what truley puts a mark on a city.

This always comes up with issues like this and I will again say that my guess would be that I traveled more than 90-95% of the board. I lived overseas in Europe and the Middle East as well.

I go and see historical landmarks, interesting museums, cool nature etc. Other than London Bridge I have never once gone to see a bridge and never once gone to look at a modern or "culturally cool" piece of architecture.

[Table 5]

Look Moon, the fact of the matter is you don't like it and chances are you won't ever get any use from it. Fine. You don't even live in Calgary and aren't going to pay for it, so rejoice.

But realise that there are going to be tons of people out there who will find these bridges to be of use, and there are more and more of these people every year in this city. Calgary IS changing, and these types of things are starting to be important to the population.

10 years ago, this entire forum would most likely have agreed with you. Now, there are many more who do realize that having a vibrant and unique downtown has many positives that go beyond simple dollars and cents.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by moon

The bridge is going to stop crime now? Come on that seems like a bit of a stretch.

More people milling around a neighborhood makes a neighborhood feel and be safer. Which is exactly why I feel much more comfortable walking down any Manhattan street at 3am, then I do walking around downtown Calgary.

[BlackArcher101]

This bridge better get me laid and look damn good for the $25mil pricetag.

[surferguy]

The bridge will be able to stop crime. 1 million to build it, 1 million to put a super huge cape on it and 23 million to zap crooks with lasers.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by moon

If I move to Calgary I sure as hell don't want to be forced into to moving into a high density inner city area because some whiney inner city citizens don't like paying taxes that go to pay for needed roads in the suburbs.

I agree with the notion that you have every right to live in the suburbs. Every right.

But...

You better be prepared to pay for all those infrastructure requirements needed out there. All of them. Inner-city residents have little to no need to go out to these areas; but, suburbanites do have a need to come to the inner-city. Hence, any dollar spent inner-city is theoretically a more efficient dollar spent.

The real travesty in all this is that inner-city residents have to pay higher taxes than outer-city residents and essentially are funding areas they never use. The suburbanites are getting the sweet end of the deal here, no question. And this doesn't even begin to cover the long-term environmental costs of the decisions for people to live that far out.

As an example, I've lived inner-city all my life. Our roads have been paid off long ago; yet, they get infinitely more used than roads in the outer areas due to the amount of people commuting from the outer areas to work on a daily basis.

It's really just about proportion of taxes. Outer-city residents should theoretically be paying more in taxes to live where they do for obvious reasons. People can choose to live inner-city; in fact, hundreds of millions of people in this world do it in cities all over the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with living inner-city. In fact, it's going to be the trend of the future.

[First Lady]

Mean while, in other news:

According to financial results from June 30th, the city is projecting a shortfall in tax-supported operations of about $12.6 million. And, the bleeding may not stop there. There are indications it could get worse, heading into budget discussions this fall.

http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1025911

...but hey.... go ahead keep spending (taxpayers) money

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by surferguy

The bridge will be able to stop crime. 1 million to build it, 1 million to put a super huge cape on it and 23 million to zap crooks with lasers.

Edited:

The bridge will be able to stop crime. 1 million to build it, 1 million to put a super huge cape on it and 23 million to zap crooks with tazers.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Mean while, in other news:



...but hey.... go ahead keep spending (taxpayers) money

Impose a carbon tax for people driving a certain distance into the city. Or, tax citizens of other surrounding areas who come in and enjoy our city's resources (ie. infrastructure) for free coming into the city for work on a daily basis.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Muta

I agree with the notion that you have every right to live in the suburbs. Every right.

But...

You better be prepared to pay for all those infrastructure requirements needed out there. All of them. Inner-city residents have little to no need to go out to these areas; but, suburbanites do have a need to come to the inner-city. Hence, any dollar spent inner-city is theoretically a more efficient dollar spent.

The real travesty in all this is that inner-city residents have to pay higher taxes than outer-city residents and essentially are funding areas they never use. The suburbanites are getting the sweet end of the deal here, no question. And this doesn't even begin to cover the long-term environmental costs of the decisions for people to live that far out.

As an example, I've lived inner-city all my life. Our roads have been paid off long ago; yet, they get infinitely more used than roads in the outer areas due to the amount of people commuting from the outer areas to work on a daily basis.

It's really just about proportion of taxes. Outer-city residents should theoretically be paying more in taxes to live where they do for obvious reasons. People can choose to live inner-city; in fact, hundreds of millions of people in this world do it in cities all over the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with living inner-city. In fact, it's going to be the trend of the future.

It was like that when you moved there! There was a choice made to live downtown or inner city and pay higher taxes, live in a property that most likely cost more $$ psf, would also increase more in $$ value than somewhere in the suburbs. Deal with it. If you don't like it and want to live somewhere that pays less taxes move. I don't use public transport yet taxes pay for that. I'm no longer in school yet I have to pick where my tax dollars (which school system) go to, my office might move from downtown to the NW and when that happens I'm not going to whine about my taxes and the roads I don't use, I'm also not going to whine about the bridge because I really don't care.

Interesting, I was about to type that caring seems to be a waste of time, that I'm too busy doing other things to care about this. I think it's true. I don't care.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

Impose a carbon tax for people driving a certain distance into the city. Or, tax citizens of other surrounding areas who come in and enjoy our city's resources (ie. infrastructure) for free coming into the city for work on a daily basis.

The jokes really on single twenty something inner-city renters. When the shift happens from suburbs to inner-city, they'll be priced out of the inner-city and only be able to afford living in the burbs, but also have to pay all the "smug" factor taxes people like themselves tried to strap suburbanites with. The whole "only pay taxes for what you use" concept only seems to appeal to these people when referring to urban design. If the theory is applied to our progressive tax system federally, they'd be pretty pissed when all of a sudden there's no cultural funding, less health care funding (I don't have risk factors for chronic health conditions so why do I have to pay?), and so forth.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by moon

I have no problem with that. It is a dump and getting rid of it would rid the city of the 10,000 pain in the ass university students here.

[Phanuthier]

Chiming in again, same thoughts as before...

I'm pretty Calgarian myself, a very direct point A to point B thinker. Bridge is used for crossing, who cares what it looks like, a bridge is a bridge. A bridge should be built to move people from point A to point B. Pretty simple stuff.

But lets face it, the cash cow that black gold is bringing to Alberta isn't going to last forever. A long term plan simplly has to be put into place for developing industries when oil/gas isn't bringing in the money. To me, the consensus opinion here conforms to short term band-aids (more schools, more roads, etc) but when the markets arn't so favourable to AB, then what? We're left being Detriot, a giant suburban shell with nothing inside. Abandoned schools when the population crashes? Abandoned malls? I can say coming from Edmonton, a huge abandoned building that is a former mall or school is hard on the eyes and sure makes your city look gritty. As far as long term plans go, Calgary needs to add infrustructure and a system to will allow for future growth into future markets - Calgary has to be a place businesses want to be. To me, these pretty bridges are part of that long term goal to make Calgary an attractive and favourable city to run a business. Its not going to be an overnight process to turn Calgary into Waterloo or the high-tech startups in Vancouver, but it will hopefully open the doors to some upcoming market that wil be a successor to the dominant oil/gas sector that has been running Calgary's market.

One pretty bridge isn't going to make the difference between bringing a, say, PMC Sierra or RIM to Calgary. But the big picture - as Muta and many have pointed out, you have to start somewhere - is that this bridge is a part of many future city and private infustructure that will allow companies to move in and use its facilities. While there is a little extra cash now, its time to start developing higher-cost projects that will make Calgary asthetically pleasing and welcoming for other businesses to come in for the future. Its not about a bridge that few people will cross or for the local citizens to see, its an attraction for the future to tell the world - Calgary is open for business.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The jokes really on single twenty something inner-city renters. When the shift happens from suburbs to inner-city, they'll be priced out of the inner-city and only be able to afford living in the burbs, but also have to pay all the "smug" factor taxes people like themselves tried to strap suburbanites with. The whole "only pay taxes for what you use" concept only seems to appeal to these people when referring to urban design. If the theory is applied to our progressive tax system federally, they'd be pretty pissed when all of a sudden there's no cultural funding, less health care funding (I don't have risk factors for chronic health conditions so why do I have to pay?), and so forth.

That's quite the sweeping generalization.

I will always live in the inner-city, whether you think it's going to be impossible for twenty-somethings like me or not. It isn't impossible, and it never has been impossible. The only thing required is to make adjustments to your lifestyle, which isn't eternally hard by any stretch of the imagination. You also forget to factor in rising gas prices, the abundance of new condominiums coming on the market (just wait, you'll soon see) and the overall general shift to becoming more environmentally sustainable for singles and families alike. The 'white picket fence' manifest is quickly not becoming the thing it once was. The 'smug' factor you've decided to mention is something concieved in your own brain; perhaps because I've touched a nerve somewhere.

Hence, why suburbanites should be taxed for the services they use in their areas. It makes perfect sense.

And just so you know, me using either of those new pedestrians bridges will be limited at best. But, I approach these bridges being built with an open mind - not always thinking about penny-pinching which has risen to be an dissapointing trend in such a growing city - and I still whole-heartedly support the project for a number of reasons. It's refreshing to see this city put money towards an both an aesthetic and functional project, as opposed to just functional as they usually do.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Wookie

It was like that when you moved there! There was a choice made to live downtown or inner city and pay higher taxes, live in a property that most likely cost more $$ psf, would also increase more in $$ value than somewhere in the suburbs. Deal with it.

Oh, believe me... I'm dealing with it just fine. I think I'll be okay.

Originally Posted by Wookie

If you don't like it and want to live somewhere that pays less taxes move. I don't use public transport yet taxes pay for that. I'm no longer in school yet I have to pick where my tax dollars (which school system) go to, my office might move from downtown to the NW and when that happens I'm not going to whine about my taxes and the roads I don't use, I'm also not going to whine about the bridge because I really don't care.

You fail to realize that I do recgonize taxes are higher where I live, and that's okay. Is that a perfect situation? Hell no. But that's the way it is. The issue I have is that people like yourself who live in these outer areas get ALOT of services from the City, alot more than inner-city residents do on a dollar-to-dollar basis. You might take them for granted, but you do. Infrastructure, police, fire, environmental costs... there's a disadvantage in this regard to living far out of the core; and sooner or later, the City will be taxing these services more on YOU; and it's not a question of if, but when. Then, when us inner-city residents get a project worth spending money on in our neighbouhoods - a beautiful bridge that doesn't just benefit us, but all residents of the city and non-residents too - everyone else elsewhere gets in a tizzy because it's a waste of money, apparently. Perhaps it's because that money is not going to roads servicing them, I'm not sure.

I would hope at this point, that these people never even think of using this bridge or point it out to their friends and family in a positive light when showing them around town.

I'd also like to ask; how did people feel when the City upgraded the Centre Street bridge and spent money fixing up and repairing all those Lions? That's inner-city beautification, money spent on a beautiful bridge - but, on a non-functional aspect of it. How did people feel about that? No one's brought this up yet.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Muta

Oh, believe me... I'm dealing with it just fine. I think I'll be okay.



You fail to realize that I do recgonize taxes are higher where I live, and that's okay. Is that a perfect situation? Hell no. But that's the way it is. The issue I have is that people like yourself who live in these outer areas get ALOT of services from the City, alot more than inner-city residents do on a dollar-to-dollar basis. You might take them for granted, but you do. Infrastructure, police, fire, environmental costs... there's a disadvantage in this regard to living far out of the core; and sooner or later, the City will be taxing these services more on YOU; and it's not a question of if, but when. Then, when us inner-city residents get a project worth spending money on in our neighbouhoods - a beautiful bridge that doesn't just benefit us, but all residents of the city and non-residents too - everyone else elsewhere gets in a tizzy because it's a waste of money, apparently. Perhaps it's because that money is not going to roads servicing them, I'm not sure.

I would hope at this point, that these people never even think of using this bridge or point it out to their friends and family in a positive light when showing them around town.

I'd also like to ask; how did people feel when the City upgraded the Centre Street bridge and spent money fixing up and repairing all those Lions? That's inner-city beautification, money spent on a beautiful bridge - but, on a non-functional aspect of it. How did people feel about that? No one's brought this up yet.

There is a lot of energy that gets wasted when people start worrying about what other people have/get vs. what they have. Isn't envy one of the 7 sins

I like the Louise bridge or whatever it's called. I think about it every time I run along the river and see it. I was thinking about this conversation and that bridge yesterday. It's a nice bridge! Granted that was a complete mess up, didn't the original contractor go broke and the city got effd?

Might be a lot of remembrance over that still?

Like I said, I'm not really caring, I only got into this conversation to make my joke about homeless people sleeping under it. I like the idea of a nice bridge or two, I can empathize with the people who say it can be nice and not cost $25 million. I can also empathise with the people who want nice things in the city. Both are good opinions.

What gets to me is the us vs. them inner city vs. suburbs mentality. You and I have gotten into this before when I was living in Tuscany and we started talking about C-train, water facilities, etc. What continues these conversations is the smug (not implying you) attitude that people take thinking what they chose is right and you're wrong. It's like religion, vegetarians, prius's vs. SUV's etc. It's a choice, I've made mine. Give your opinion, great, but...

Ugh... I need to get back to work.