Sound Off: How much are you willing to see property taxes increase.......

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And? What if they are making these purchases even if they might be on living wage?

I don't understand the hangup here; why are people assuming that just because someone makes close to minimum wage, they are fiscally responsible?

Yeesh!

You are being a little hypocritical.

On one hand you say people working multiple jobs are mismanaging their money and shouldn't complain about tax hikes.

And on the other hand you are saying those same people should be entitled to a living wage.

Have you ever thought that perhaps if we weren't being taxed to death, their would be no need for a living wage policy?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You are being a little hypocritical.

On one hand you say people working multiple jobs are mismanaging their money and shouldn't complain about tax hikes.

And on the other hand you are saying those same people should be entitled to a living wage.

Have you ever thought that perhaps if we weren't being taxed to death, their would be no need for a living wage policy?

Actually my original point was that the article didn't state the person's spending habits, which would be interesting to see, but obviously wasn't reported.

And yes, I do believe living wage policies are important in this City. They help raise the standard of living. How people choose to manage it is another source of contention.

I'm not saying the original five-job workhorse was wrong; I'm simply questioning all the facts behind his complaints.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm not the politician here, so I really couldn't give a damn if I'm making a beer and popcorn reference - I'm stating we don't know all the facts, so why jump to conclusions? I'm not the one being hasty here.

I see... so only politicians need to watch what they say. Nice double standard.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Your expectations are bizarre. You keep keep saying the City doesn't listen, but then you still haven't stated whether you've voted, whether you've tried to voice your opinion...Nothing.

I find it hard to believe that my personal circumstance matters when I am not the only one with my point of view. Yes, I am speaking more than some, but it doesn't mean that I'm not the only one that thinks the way I do.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well here's one for you, although not a traditional cut - the EMS transition. The City's biggest expenditure by business unit is in CS&PS, and transitioning administration of this department over will help alleviate some of those costs. Now of course that has already been worked into the budget (given three-year planning), but cuts are a part of the new budget.

Impressive... Thanks to a change made by the Provincial Government, our taxes are going to go up by ONLY 22% and it could have been worse if EMS was not being transitioned to the province?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I see... so only politicians need to watch what they say. Nice double standard.

What's to watch? I'm saying lets look at the facts. What's the mystery behind it? I don't understand why you're not getting this. IMO, the beer and popcorn argument is just as relevant as the "low income earners are financially responsible" that people seem to be advocating around here.

A low-income earner can be responsible with their money. or not. Sunrise, sunset. Let's find out all the facts.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

A) Show these "other documents."

B) The article clearly states that they were approved, but rejected last minute. Something must have changed that disqualified them.

C) Can private companies pick up sponsorship last minute as easily?

http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm0...ction=download

Page 53. For those who do not want to download the document.

AND WHEREAS, the Lunchbox Theatre project does not meet either the CPRIIP list or MSI criteria,

I stand corrected. It was in fact two programs they did not qualify for....

Seems to me that Council picked up the slack where provincial MSI funding didn't - something the CAD was banking on. It was in line with the Calgary Arts Policy, and was voted in favor of 12-2.

I assume you're one of the two.

LMAO.... I think everyone here has a pretty good idea who I am.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Impressive... Thanks to a change made by the Provincial Government, our taxes are going to go up by ONLY 22% and it could have been worse if EMS was not being transitioned to the province?

Yup. Bang on.

And for the record, it's a proposed 22% over three-years, with mechanisms for adjustment.

9% the first year. That is high, and I'm not happy about it either.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If I'm not mistaken, there is a zero-based budgeting policy for each department. Directors are required to go before Council and state their reasons (and outline) their department budgets before approval.

"Living wage" raises the quality of living for lower-income earners, and is in line with imagineCALGARY and the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. It was also heavily researched by Community & Neighbourhood Services, and justified to have a clear and positive impact on the community. Wage hikes are not just for City employees, they're also for private sector earners with a low income. Providing this helps move people off the street and able to afford day-to-day living expenses.

All that paying people more than they would get in a competitive labor market would do is drive up the prices for said people's needs and drive up labor costs for local firms making things more expensive for non-homeless people too. It undermines our competitiveness at a time when labor costs are already a major detractor for small businesses. The big problem with homeless policy is that if you treat them much better than other places they can freely move here from, more and more will do just that and our budget will constantly be strained as a result. We don't live in a vacuum where the only homeless we have to deal with are our own. Why else does a city like Calgary with -30 C temps in the winter have more homeless in raw numbers than Vancouver? Clearly there's something we're offering them here that makes up for Vancouver's milder winters.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm0...ction=download

Page 53. For those who do not want to download the document.

I stand corrected. It was in fact two programs they did not qualify for....

Great, you've pointed out that it didn't meet MSI funding. We knew that. Lunchbox Theatre knows that. And obviously the City of Calgary and citizens know it.

However, the real fact to be concerned about is - the sheer majority of Council voted in favour of the project. 12-2.

I'd say the bigger thing to discuss here is the fact that the people who represent the citizens of this city value arts, especially the when a Calgary arts institution and the world's longest running lunchtime theatre was in jeopardy.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Clearly there's something we're offering them here that makes up for Vancouver's milder winters.

Easy. You can make a higher wage in Calgary than you can in Vancouver.

And for the record, half of the city's homeless population is employed.

Obviously that is not an indication of people coming here to be lazy; they're coming here for a chance to escape a life of poverty, or to improve their quality-of-life in general.

You see the glass as half empty, I see it as half full.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Haven't we just been told, with the whole bridge thing, that construction costs come out of a Capital Budget that is not affected by this tax increase?

I'll mention that I'm a municipal politician in one of the smaller cities in Alberta, therefore I don't live in Calgary so don't see the news reports that you folks do. I don't know what makes up this budget increase. Construction costs can cause a budgetary increase, but may not in this case. Besides, I was mentioning that construction costs are down a lot from a year ago so I wasn't citing that as a reason for the increase anyway.

Originally Posted by fotze

That's what I'd like to hear at least once. Cut services or programs. Why is that such a re herring to at least suggest. I bet there are a bunch of things that most people would rather not have as a service compared to a $450 increase in taxes, or at least shrink that increase a bit.

I can't seem to find a budget document with any more detail than a pie chart showing a percentage of what is spent where. Would be nice to see a big ledger showing all the city departments and what was spent in 2007?

It's easy to say cut services, but what? Every person has his/her own priorities. What you would cut, someone else would whine about if it was cut. YOur city operation is probably already pretty lean, if they've been doing their job. You keep electing these folks, so if there were so poor why do you do that? I'm not saying you specifically because you may not have voted for these people.

Creating a city budget is a huge job. There will always be someone who is unhappy. It's all about doing the most for the smallest dollar. I know a couple of your councillors and don't know them well, but I'd bet that they have these discussions and have gone through that budget (or will if they haven't already done so) pretty thoroughly and are doing their best to meet the objectives of over a million people. It's very difficult. It's easy to complain. Talk to one of your aldermen and let him or her know your point of view. Go to a council meeting and ask to make a presentation. Do something other than just state your opinion on some forum. Go to city hall and ask for the budget detail you want, then you can make a stronger case for your point of view. I'm not trying to diminish your point of view, only to say that if they cut services and programs, someone else will be affected and that there are ways to let them know of your views.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Creating a city budget is a huge job. There will always be someone who is unhappy. It's all about doing the most for the smallest dollar. I know a couple of your councillors and don't know them well, but I'd bet that they have these discussions and have gone through that budget (or will if they haven't already done so) pretty thoroughly and are doing their best to meet the objectives of over a million people. It's very difficult. It's easy to complain. Talk to one of your aldermen and let him or her know your point of view. Go to a council meeting and ask to make a presentation. Do something other than just state your opinion on some forum. Go to city hall and ask for the budget detail you want, then you can make a stronger case for your point of view. I'm not trying to diminish your point of view, only to say that if they cut services and programs, someone else will be affected and that there are ways to let them know of your views.

Well put, and a reasonable voice.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Easy. You can make a higher wage in Calgary than you can in Vancouver.

And for the record, half of the city's homeless population is employed.

Obviously that is not an indication of people coming here to be lazy; they're coming here for a chance to escape a life of poverty, or to improve their quality-of-life in general.

You see the glass as half empty, I see it as half full.

Never contended that half the homeless population was employed. However the point still stands that if all the homeless were simply paid more money then the result would be that the cheaper rental properties would just cost more per month to reflect the higher purchasing power of those previously priced out of the market. The only way to make rents more 'affordable' is to increase the renting stock significantly. This is already starting to happen as a result of market forces on the heels of our overbought housing market.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Creating a city budget is a huge job. There will always be someone who is unhappy. It's all about doing the most for the smallest dollar. I know a couple of your councillors and don't know them well, but I'd bet that they have these discussions and have gone through that budget (or will if they haven't already done so) pretty thoroughly and are doing their best to meet the objectives of over a million people. It's very difficult. It's easy to complain. Talk to one of your aldermen and let him or her know your point of view. Go to a council meeting and ask to make a presentation. Do something other than just state your opinion on some forum. Go to city hall and ask for the budget detail you want, then you can make a stronger case for your point of view. I'm not trying to diminish your point of view, only to say that if they cut services and programs, someone else will be affected and that there are ways to let them know of your views.

When it comes to municipal politics its easy to cite platitudes originating from taxpayer-funded gabfests and studies taken part by like-minded civic types to justify expenditures towards the priorities of said like-minded civic-types. Very true, it is a very difficult job and everybody cannot be appeased. However so to is the everyday job of some of the very people complaining in this thread who have to comprise annual budgets that have to pay real economic rent in order to sequester funds as opposed to simply decreeing whatever tax increase is necessary to keep the machine running in the manor to which it has been accustomed to.

Ultimately I can only get so annoyed because the people of Calgary actually elected these aldermen and the mayor into office. If I want change I will have to play a more active role the next electoral cycle and hope that people from the city that elected Conservative MPs nationally with a whopping majority of votes in each case do not re-elect Brian Pincott (former NDP candidate) types civically.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If I want change I will have to play a more active role the next electoral cycle and hope that people from the city that elected Conservative MPs nationally with a whopping majority of votes in each case do not re-elect Brian Pincott (former NDP candidate) types civically.

Not that I'd miss Brian Pincott, but a Council of 14 Conservatives scares the crap out of me. While I don't agree with everything he says, I'm glad there's a liberal-minded representative to push for more than mere functionality of this city.

The last eight years have seen wild growth, an influx of large numbers of people, and a strain on City services every year. I don't think it's hard to recognize that Calgary is an exception to the rule for most rates of growth. That's not an excuse by any means, but budgeting for a city like this is much...MUCH more difficult than most people here would ever know.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Not that I'd miss Brian Pincott, but a Council of 14 Conservatives scares the crap out of me. While I don't agree with everything he says, I'm glad there's a liberal-minded representative to push for more than mere functionality of this city.

The last eight years have seen wild growth, an influx of large numbers of people, and a strain on City services every year. I don't think it's hard to recognize that Calgary is an exception to the rule for most rates of growth. That's not an excuse by any means, but budgeting for a city like this is much...MUCH more difficult than most people here would ever know.

That might very well be true. My only point is that budgeting for an enterprise where you do not have the ability to pass on your shortfall to powerless taxpayers (At least in the interm period between elections) can be challanging too and as such those who must work within said constraints know a little thing or two about capital efficiency and must not be passed off as merely grovelling misinformed idiots.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

No he doesn't. The mayor has no legal authority to act outside of a council meeting and in council he has no more authority than any other council member. On occasion, council members who overstep their bounds have been removed from office.

To those who don't want any tax increases, that's unreasonable. The city's inflation rate is probably in the range of...um, well it's above the homeowner's inflation rate. Until just recently construction costs were rising at about 1% per month. As long as they're not having to play catch up, I'd say an increase of around 4% is reasonable. Much less and you're having to cut services and programs, unless there is fat in the city's organization. Most municipalities are leaner than you believe.

By letter of the law you're right about the mayor. I was referring only to practice under this mayor.

There is fat in the city. Full on cottage cheese legs fat. I haven't seen the current budget but past examples would be 500k on a departmental website upgrade. A more significant example is $7 million on 'Imagine Calgary'. Sample Recommendations from that beauty little exercise :
By 2016, 90 per cent of Calgarians report that they have opportunities to express their unique gifts and talents.
By 2036, 90 per cent of citizens agree that “Calgary is a city with soul,”
By 2036, 95 per cent of children aged two to five years exhibit high levels of emotional well-being

And lots of spending on non-essential stuff that will always be important to someone, but shouldn't have been our first priority in times of ballooning costs. An example would be 311. I think (I may be wrong) we're up to 11 mil for that now. All to replace 268-City and a phone book. Is it handy? Sure. Is it worth a 5 or 6% tax hike in these times? No way.