City tax hikes -- kiss goodbye to your fancy ped bridges

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Here's a good article about the upcoming pedestrian bridges (Yes, i know it's Fast Forward, but I'm trying to highlight the quotes by a few of the alderman who voted in favor).

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...-too-far-2783/

I think there is misconception about the bridges. It IS a capital project in that the entire design and construction of one bridge will come out of the provincial infrastructure fund, and the construction of the other being funded by land sales in the East Village redevelopment.

As much as I've railed against the bridges in past threads and in this one, I'd like to state that my only objection is really the cost. Right now is probably the worst time to construct these things after a period of high inflation for both human and physical resources. Now that the world is on the onset of a recession it would be safe to assume that these costs (At least the materials costs) would actually go down over a year or so as opoosed to increase. So that combined with other budgetary constraints makes it very reasonable to delay their construction as opposed to raising taxes more than otherwise necessary. Also who cares whether the province picks up a portion of the tab or not. When Calgarians make up 30% of Alberta taxpayers, this combiend with infrastructure projects elsewhere in the province we're paying for it either way. I think a good chunk of that money would be better served in the pockets of this city's citizens who themselves will have tough monetary decisions in the next while.

As for the Brian Pincott comment earlier, I'm sorry for making it, which became the fuel for this thread's ultimate derailment. It's clearly wasted valuable work hours for at least two posters.

[Ozy_Flame]

Cowboy89;

One thing you will see in the upcoming 2009-2011 City budget is that there are mechanisms in place to keep the budget from coming under strain from the overall Canadian economic slowdown. I work close to the peeps in charge, and, paraphrased, planning for a three-year budget will help override the need to scale back on services and projects.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Cowboy89;

One thing you will see in the upcoming 2009-2011 City budget is that there are mechanisms in place to keep the budget from coming under strain from the overall Canadian economic slowdown. I work close to the peeps in charge, and, paraphrased, planning for a three-year budget will help override the need to scale back on services and projects.

That paraphrase is really just paying lip service to the politically senstitive issue of ramping up spending with difficult times ahead. Refusal of Zero-based budgeting shows where the politicians stand on issues of the purse. It would be hard to imagine a world where bureaucrats would support it either as they would be the ones who would constantly have to fight for their own funding levels year after year.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Cowboy89;

One thing you will see in the upcoming 2009-2011 City budget is that there are mechanisms in place to keep the budget from coming under strain from the overall Canadian economic slowdown. I work close to the peeps in charge, and, paraphrased, planning for a three-year budget will help override the need to scale back on services and projects.

I'm a cycnic I know, but how hard can that be for a group that feels no shame asking for more money from every source every year.

Show me that they are actually planning to curb spending, and then I'll be impressed.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I'm a cycnic I know, but how hard can that be for a group that feels no shame asking for more money from every source every year.

Show me that they are actually planning to curb spending, and then I'll be impressed.

Believe me, this is a much scaled-back budget from not just six months prior.

Inflation, the cost of materials and equipment, and the intense competition in the market for labour are just a few of the contributing factors.

Tax revenue generation is much less than the increase in growing service costs.

Another factor is the burgeoning outward push - that being urban sprawl. Much of the time the City has to provide roads, police, fire, garbage pickup, ambulance service, parks and maintenance well before the a community is fully developed - this means that costs are incurred well before the full value of property tax revenue flows from a new area.

To be honest, I was so out of the loop on this stuff before I started my current position, and I was cynical too about tax increases. However, if you actually take the time to understand what the City is trying to do, and why we are constantly rated as one of the best places in the world to live in, you can see why these increases are necessary.

I suggest if you feel like only contributing your share, take a look at municipal user fees being levied in other cities. For example, the City of Victoria has a user-fee system that is working great and helping the environment too.

You have to remember that if you don't want to pay higher taxes, there is an onus on the taxpayer to take action. Some examples include cutting down on garbage use, minimizing electricity use and don't waste water. Walk, bike or take transit to work, clean up your dog's poop in the park, shovel your sidewalk, recycle bottles........And of course the most important thing - GET INVOLVED. Voice your concerns to your alderman, attend Council sessions, write to the papers, participate in your community associations, start petitions, just do it!

Believe me when I say, the City wants to hear EVERYTHING if you're willing to speak up about it.

I know you guys don't like hearing that stuff, but it's true. I suggest you review the 2009-2011 budget at calgary.ca, any public library, or through City Hall. There is also an open house on Nov. 15 in the Municipal Building lobby.

Keep in mind that Council has to approve of the budget first; just because it's released doesn't mean it is final.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by josh white

Silly hall. How clever and original. Now we know you're a Sun reader.

[Thunderball]

God, what a mess!

Essentially, I think we can all agree that in economic downturns, it is a good idea for governments to take advantage of lower labour and material costs for capital projects to avoid competing with private interest in boom times, and driving up everyone's costs.

However, I think most people can agree that pedestrian bridges are not a priority expenditure, especially the "Rolls-Royces" of pedestrian bridges. There are much more pressing capital projects, ie: hospitals, schools, LRT, ring-road, etc.

These should be the first project tossed on the backburner for the next couple years. Raising taxes in sour economic times is typically a rather foolish gesture. Right now, households can spend their money better than governments. Whether they like it or not, right or wrong, people are going to tie these Bridges to the tax increase. Governments should be spending their savings now, and saving when things improve.

[Ozy_Flame]

The bridges, in particular, are a matter of perspective. We have 120k people working in the general downtown area, with that number only expected to increase. 13,000 people cross the river per day, and that number is going to be increasing as well. Building a new bridge promotes a long-term vision with environmental benefits in mind (less drivers, better access), and can offer a unique identity opportunity for the City.

Think about it - where would we be if the City didn't build the Centre Street bridge back in in 1916? It's a landmark and vital artery for both traffic and pedestrian flow. No one can possibly deny the uses, grandeur, and importance that this bridge continues to bring us. Bridges are absolutely essential to the growth of a good city. I can only imagine what a New York without a Brooklyn Bridge or a San Francisco without a Golden Gate would be like today.

Besides, as Druh Farrell said, a $5 million bridge over a river just is not plausible. Water bridges are not cheap to build and maintain, but it is quite necessary.

Whether people like it or not, Calgary is going to have those new bridges - it's not a matter of if, but when.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Whether people like it or not, Calgary is going to have those new bridges - it's not a matter of if, but when.

But that's just it... "when" should not be at a time when there is economic gloominess and a budget crunch, nor should it be at a time when its implementation would require a tax increase.

I don't think anyone is disputing "if" anymore. Pedestrian bridges are a good idea. Elaborate, overpriced ones are another story. Even the best of the best aren't in the same league as vehicle/pedestrian bridges like Brooklyn/Golden Gate/Brooklyn etc.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

But that's just it... "when" should not be at a time when there is economic gloominess and a budget crunch, nor should it be at a time when its implementation would require a tax increase.

I don't think anyone is disputing "if" anymore. Pedestrian bridges are a good idea. Elaborate, overpriced ones are another story.

Thunderball, the cost of a bridge is either going to cost us around $20 million now, or $30 million in the future at the rate in which material costs are rising.

This is the difference between Calgarians on the issue. Some see it as as short-term luxury, others see it as a long-term solution. I see it as the latter.

When it comes down to it, most Calgarians should be able to afford an additional $25 per month for a tax increase. That's five less starbucks on your way to work, or two less packs of cigarettes. Heck, the price you're saving on gas now could probably pay that $25.

No one likes a tax increase, but when it comes down to it, it's $300 a year, which in one of the richest cities on the planet, shouldn't exactly be a problem for most people.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by fotze

I am actually for these bridges but absolutely HATE HATE HATE these arguments. I worked for the government for 8 years and this attitude just sickened me, if anyone believes people who work for the government make budgets without their personal salary or bonus increases in mind, or growing their empire of employees (fte's) is mistaken. It is a non-forgiveable offense to actually cut your own budget. The dividing of a large sum by a coffee is incredibly offensive and shortsighted.

I think these bridges do have an actual positive NPV although it would be difficult to predict right now, but thetax increase argument of the condescending starbucks per day actually negatively increases the chances of them being cancelled. Hopefully no alderman pulls that one out.

Right on. I'm not opposed to the amount of increase itself as I am to the fact government departments budget to spend to the max every year. They have th money, but they just allocate it ineffiecently, spending money on needless stuff. Then they run into a deficit, and to solve that, they just increase taxes. And then they'll use that "cup of coffee" crap to make it sound not so bad. Well, I'd rather spend it on the cup of coffee, thank you very much.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Thunderball, the cost of a bridge is either going to cost us around $20 million now, or $30 million in the future at the rate in which material costs are rising.

This is the difference between Calgarians on the issue. Some see it as as short-term luxury, others see it as a long-term solution. I see it as the latter.

When it comes down to it, most Calgarians should be able to afford an additional $25 per month for a tax increase. That's five less starbucks on your way to work, or two less packs of cigarettes. Heck, the price you're saving on gas now could probably pay that $25.

No one likes a tax increase, but when it comes down to it, it's $300 a year, which in one of the richest cities on the planet, shouldn't exactly be a problem for most people.

Sorry to disagree with you, but the argument about digging deeper on taxes like that is something that I strongly disagree with, especially when people are already feeling the pinch in their savings.

The old saying is a dollar here and a dollar there and soon your talking about real money.

We're also talking about projects that the general populous is already showing a strong dislike for, which are the bridges for x million, and the art work for treatment plants. Isn't it the governments job to listen to what the citizens want. If the Citizens don't want these things because it will directly affect their tax burden, then maybe the city should look at cheaper alternatives or not doing them at all.

Its government arrogance like this where the government doesn't listen or makes assumptions that the citizenship will fall in line that topples governments at election time.

[burn_this_city]

I wonder how people on fixed incomes would feel about $300 a year less in their pockets. Or the single mom who's trying to put her kids in sports with a tight income.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think these bridges do have an actual positive NPV although it would be difficult to predict right now, but thetax increase argument of the condescending starbucks per day actually negatively increases the chances of them being cancelled. Hopefully no alderman pulls that one out.

Well guess what - how else are you going to afford the upcoming tax increase? The "Starbucks" argument is absolutely relevant, because where most Calgarians are going to pay for the tax increase will be from their disposable income, as has been the case for all other tax increases - and we've been there numerous times before.

It's the elephant in the room, and no one wants to talk about it. And anyone who doesn't write to their alderman, doesn't get involved in community associations, doesn't vote cannot complain. Voter turnout was less than 30% for the last municipal election - that means it makes it ironic 70% of the time when people complain about tax increases.

I don't expect people to agree with me because I usually take the side of the minority in this City and province (that is, I'm not right-of-center and not ashamed to admit it.) Unbelievable how some of you think that my opinion represents the entire government just because I'm in the loop with government procedures.

[The Yen Man]

Well, knowing someone that works for the city has completely turned me off on anything City Hall has to say when they're begging for money. This individual, gets quarterly raises every year, plus he makes overtime after 37 hours a week. He makes 2 and a half times ah hour during overtime, which actually amounts to an additional 35 thousand more on top of his salary just from overtime. And he even tells me himself, the work he actually does during overtime is a joke. So you have all these inefficient use of funds, and now they want to raise taxes just to pay more people like that? I really does make me mad thinking about it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Well, knowing someone that works for the city has completely turned me off on anything City Hall has to say when they're begging for money. This individual, gets quarterly raises every year, plus he makes overtime after 37 hours a week. He makes 2 and a half times ah hour during overtime, which actually amounts to an additional 35 thousand more on top of his salary just from overtime. And he even tells me himself, the work he actually does during overtime is a joke. So you have all these inefficient use of funds, and now they want to raise taxes just to pay more people like that? I really does make me mad thinking about it.

That is the ongoing issue with public sector, union-protected employees. I can't deny that.

However, I hope you have similar sentiments for the private sector as well, particularly paying high interest to bankers and high energy prices to oil and gas companies who now more than ever seem to be making out like bandits on individual wealth. While it's a little more complicated with private companies, the general idea is the same.

[Nancy]

I'm not opposed to the pedestrian bridges. What I am opposed to is turning a $5mil pedestrian bridge into a $25mil architectural experiment that I don't believe will make any difference in the character of the city.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Believe me, this is a much scaled-back budget from not just six months prior.

Scaled back from what was suggested 6 months before, or scaled back in absolute terms. My guess is the're buying the cadillac instead of the bentley.

I do appreciate what you are trying to say and the way you're saying it but it doesn't jive with my experience. I've talked to a number of city managers and a few are fantastic. A few more are career bureaucrats with no perspective of life in the real world and no desire to hear it.

Without seeing the 2009-11 plans I'll wager the operating budget has more than doubled in 10 years to between 2 and 2.5 billion. At at most 50% of that growth will be on the items you mentioned - probably much less if you exclude transit. The rest on things that are mostly wants not needs.

If the city were honest and open they'd quit blaming the province, growth, the feds, or anyone handy for increased costs and simply say they want to expand programs and services and don't think anything can/should be done by the private sector. List them off, total them up, and let calgarians decide.

Instead they build in 10, 20 or 30 million of extras into the budget each year and then say they need tax hikes to fund 20 mil for new police and fire. Its dishonest.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Nancy

I'm not opposed to the pedestrian bridges. What I am opposed to is turning a $5mil pedestrian bridge into a $25mil architectural experiment that I don't believe will make any difference in the character of the city.

If you can build a bridge over water for $5 million, I would like to see that. Especially one that isn't going to have to be replaced in 5-10 years.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well guess what - how else are you going to afford the upcoming tax increase? The "Starbucks" argument is absolutely relevant, because where most Calgarians are going to pay for the tax increase will be from their disposable income, as has been the case for all other tax increases - and we've been there numerous times before.

What's the % of city budget for staff...80% or something?

Since it's only a few coffees how about instead of all of us having a few less starbucks maybe the 15000 or so city employees can have the same amount this year as last, so will we and we'll call it all even.

Wait, is the subsidied cafeteria still there in city hall? Starbucks is probably free anyway