Bronconnier gets a tongue-lashing

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Unless someone call tell me which City of Calgary funded service they are willing to do without then I refuse to kick up a major stink about increasing taxes. I certianly am not overjoyed at the thought of it, but if no one has any alternatives....

I'm not in favor of cutting front line service or core infrastrucutre- but those things are only part of the budget.

I want them to go back and look at the entire budget to identify savings.

Start with the pedestrian bridges. Cut those.

There are plenty of alternatives to cutting the key things the city provides - that's just a handy excuse for them.

Businesses have to go back to the board on budgets all the time and make hard choices. I want the city to start making harder choices.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Unless someone call tell me which City of Calgary funded service they are willing to do without then I refuse to kick up a major stink about increasing taxes. I certianly am not overjoyed at the thought of it, but if no one has any alternatives....

It's not my job to tell Aldermen and City Administrators what to cut. That's their job.

It's not my boss's boss job to tell my boss what to cut... but he gets a budget and is expected to stick to it. That's how it is in Private Business - you want more? Justify it.

In Government, it appears to be "you want more? Ok.. how's this?"

The vocal majority of city tax payers are saying NO. Now it's Council's and the Administrators' job to figure out what gets cut. That's what they get paid for.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Unless someone call tell me which City of Calgary funded service they are willing to do without then I refuse to kick up a major stink about increasing taxes. I certianly am not overjoyed at the thought of it, but if no one has any alternatives....

The pushback to that is really 'unless the city can provide an honest accounting of their services how can anyone choose'. You'd have better luck following enron's accounting.

Part of this is bronco's evil genius too. He funds priorities last, so when people look at tax hikes we think geez, we need police, not geez, we need the 100 mil of discretinary spending.

But I'll take a stab off the top of my head:

General Managers budgets - a few mil per department for discretionary items
311 - 268 City worked just fine
Civic Partnerships - 70 mil that has I think doubled in recent years
Blue Box program

I also think now is the time to be dipping into the billion or so of savings if we absolutely must have more money. We're headed for recession as it is. not the time to be slapping these massive bills on people.

[HalifaxDrunk]

Wow, Am I the only one surprised that a thread started by fotze with a title that includes "gets a tongue-lashing" is 3 pages (50 posts) of thought provoking material?

Not one off topic inappropriate comment...until now.



Mmmm. tongue lashing.....

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Unless someone call tell me which City of Calgary funded service they are willing to do without then I refuse to kick up a major stink about increasing taxes. I certianly am not overjoyed at the thought of it, but if no one has any alternatives....

Just one small anecdote...

I watched in amazement this summer as the city replaced several miles of curb stop in the industrial area adjacent to where I work. Sure, some of it was spalling, but this was an industrial area... who cares? Last year, my sister and some of her neighbours tried to fight when the city told them that the curb stops in their 'hood would be replaced. Nothing really wrong with them as far as everyone on the street was concerned. When I moved into my house a few years ago, they ripped up and replaced the same section of curb stop up to four times for nothing more than hairline cracks. Sure, the last example was probably paid for by the developer, but couldn't the city just charge them a fee or fine for future curbstop damage and wait until they really needed to be replaced... especially in a time of concrete shortages when there are other infrastructure needs that should take priority.

Now, this is just one example and, sure, maybe it's not funded out of the operating budget. But if this is the way the city manages the infrastructure budget, then I'm sure there is stuff in the operating budget that is just as stupid.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Iceman90

I think Ric McIver would do a great job as well.

That would be the day that Edmonton becomes a more desirable place to live than Calgary.

I was thinking earlier, Bronco is a train wreck, but if peoples reaction is to put the lowest common denominator d-bag Ric McIver in as a reaction and remedy, then the 25% increase is the least of our problems.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Good editorial from the herald today on the subject.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...e-97a1a9bb595f

Saying citizens have to accept a 23 per cent tax hike or lose fire, police, transit and other front-line services is a highly cynical, if not dishonest, statement.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Good editorial from the herald today on the subject.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...e-97a1a9bb595f

Saying citizens have to accept a 23 per cent tax hike or lose fire, police, transit and other front-line services is a highly cynical, if not dishonest, statement.

The bridges are getting too much pub. Things that encourage people to live near the core and walk to work should be encouraged. Although forgotten by the journalist, infrastructure costs, and the increase in taxes are completely unrelated. One is capital one is operational. Canada's infrastructure is poor and Calgary is no exception, particularly as it relates to people who decide they want to shape their away from sitting by themselves in a car for 50 minutes on a 25km commute.

[GGG]

Couple of reasons our taxes are lower than other cities are:

1) The provincial portion for education taxes is less then other cities
2) Enmax as mentioned earlier as well as the water sewer utility both give huge dividends to the city of Calgary. 25% of your water sewer bill goes to the city and not to fund the water sewer system. On balance Calgary's city taxes are probably comparable with other cities.

As to where to cut. To start with the garbage system should have been automated years ago. It is ridiculus that people manully put garbage from bags on the street into a truck. Saskatoon switched over 20 years ago. Everyone gets a fixed size bin and no garbage is collected if it is not in the bin. Secondly in winter cut garbage to collection to every second week. (again Saskatoon does this). This encourages recycling and composting as the amount of garbage you can produce is fixed.

City Services Centers like 311 should reduce their staff and make people wait longer on phones. I would rather wait an extra 5 minutes on hold.

Increase the amount of money Police are required to produce in revenues do to tickets by installing more Red light and photo radar speed traps. These are great cash cows and not only improve safety also work as a stupid tax.

Raise monthly downtown parking rates. Currently there are waiting lists for all city downtown parking lots. The price should be raised until the waiting lists are gone.

The city should get out of the shelter buisness and only provide shelter space on winter nights where people could die. Bussing them to the Stampede Grandstand seemed to work well a few years ago. This is a provincial responsibility so the city shouldn't be funding it.

General cut in the parks maitenance budgets to double the time between cutting the grass on medians and in parks.

These are ideas off the top of my head but I am sure you can go into every department and tell the managers to cut 5% from their budgets and report on the effect that will have on front line services. What I hate about Bronco is the blackmail. Everytime someone wants to cut his budget he says it will mean cutting Fire and Police and Transit. What we need to do is to cut everything but Fire Police and transit.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The bridges are getting too much pub. Things that encourage people to live near the core and walk to work should be encouraged. Although forgotten by the journalist, infrastructure costs, and the increase in taxes are completely unrelated. One is capital one is operational. Canada's infrastructure is poor and Calgary is no exception, particularly as it relates to people who decide they want to shape their away from sitting by themselves in a car for 50 minutes on a 25km commute.

Capital projects effect are tax rate. Per City Bylaws they must be depreciated over their anticipated lifetime and the amount depreciated must be put in a captical account to pay for there eventual replacement.

As well Capital projects are paid for city with some provincial money therefore at some point our taxes pay for them. So when the city overpays by 20 million for pedestrian bridges every citizen takes a per capita hit of $20. And next year when the next Capital pet project of an alderman needs funding it costs us another 20 million not to mention the matienacne/depreciation of half a million per year over the 40 year lifetime of the bridges.

[MoneyGuy]

I'm an alderman in a city that is not named Calgary and I have one question: Why do you folks keep electing candidates who apparently are doing such a poor job? Just wondering.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by fotze

and now that they are backing off on it, there was room to be sliced.

They do that every time they hike taxes. They reduce their proposed tax hike by a tiny bit so they can look like they are doing us a favour.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm an alderman in a city that is not named Calgary and I have one question: Why do you folks keep electing candidates who apparently are doing such a poor job? Just wondering.

Laziness.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm an alderman in a city that is not named Calgary and I have one question: Why do you folks keep electing candidates who apparently are doing such a poor job? Just wondering.

Calgary's been a lazy town this way for as long as I've been voting.

Bronco is the new wrinkle though. Council has always been a yearbook club all grown up, but at least there was some give and take. Bronco crushes opposition. Remember too, that the entire management strucure at city hall was overhauled to make it more business-like just before Bronco took office. He turfed the CEO and others and went back to a subservient, micormanaging model. Maybe some of those folks were not suitable, I really don't know, but the model should never have gone back, and you can bet everyone new is friendly to mayor dave.

People are just starting to see it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Calgary's been a lazy town this way for as long as I've been voting.

Bronco is the new wrinkle though. Council has always been a yearbook club all grown up, but at least there was some give and take. Bronco crushes opposition. Remember too, that the entire management strucure at city hall was overhauled to make it more business-like just before Bronco took office. He turfed the CEO and others and went back to a subservient, micormanaging model. Maybe some of those folks were not suitable, I really don't know, but the model should never have gone back, and you can bet everyone new is friendly to mayor dave.

People are just starting to see it.

Yeah, I know for a fact that all of his inner circle types are handpicked Old Boys Club buddies.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm an alderman in a city that is not named Calgary and I have one question: Why do you folks keep electing candidates who apparently are doing such a poor job? Just wondering.

My thought is that this is because being an alderman doesn't make much. So you can't get good people incented to run.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

My thought is that this is because being an alderman doesn't may much. So you can't get good people incented to run.

My father was asked to run for alderman and he promptly said no. He gets paid way more and takes less crap in the private industry. Too bad, he'd probably be a good alderman, but whatever. Those guys have tough jobs when it comes down to it.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by GGG

Capital projects effect are tax rate. Per City Bylaws they must be depreciated over their anticipated lifetime and the amount depreciated must be put in a captical account to pay for there eventual replacement.

As well Capital projects are paid for city with some provincial money therefore at some point our taxes pay for them. So when the city overpays by 20 million for pedestrian bridges every citizen takes a per capita hit of $20. And next year when the next Capital pet project of an alderman needs funding it costs us another 20 million not to mention the matienacne/depreciation of half a million per year over the 40 year lifetime of the bridges.

Maybe I'm wrong but we get a capital allowance from the province? In fact some projects are built by the province. In those cases there is nothing to depreciate right?