Is anyone else sick of Rick Bell?

[puckluck2]

I read his daily $52 million "give it back!" Campaign and it makes me want to strangle him.

I don't even know why I read them I think just for the comedic value of how much of an idiot he sounds like.

He's clearly on a mission to oust Nenshi and I hope the Sun readers don't buy his crap. The Sun should be ashamed...and yes I'm aware this thread is likely the attention he's seeking but I am getting annoyed at his beef with Nenshi and his childish tactics.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

The Sun should be ashamed

It's Sun Media...what were you expecting?

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by kirant

It's Sun Media...what were you expecting?

Still shameful whether we should come to expect it or not.

[JiriHrdina]

He raises valid points about the money - and the city's willingness to just take it. I think the best choice is to use it for re-building after the flood, but philosophically I disagree with one level of government grabbing money from another level that should go back in the pockets of the public.

[jayswin]

The Sun really is going full ###### over this issue.

[nik-]

I just hate that Rick Bell acts like he's saving the planet every time he complains about something.

[frinkprof]

Rick is overly uppity and certainly has his quirks, but his editorials is mostly him doing schtick. I've never actually met the guy (despite him living across the street from me), but have it on good authority that his true feelings are much more moderate.

If he were to let up or retire, the Sun would simply fill that space with much the same material as written by someone else.

Don't forget that the Sun's editorial board and Rick Bell in particular, advocated for Nenshi as the best candidate for mayor prior to the last election.

I guess what I'm saying is that I dislike the Sun and the institution of Rick Bell and the readership that is sympathetic to them, rather than Rick Bell, the actual person.

[puckluck2]

I'm not sure how anyone can read this and not be persuaded that the money being used for the flood is the best way to spend it.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/s...tml?id=8708676

"But we can’t deplete all of our cash reserves without a plan for filling them up again. We insist that community associations we fund, for example, always have 10 per cent cash on hand, and our policy is to have up to 15 per cent ourselves. So, if we use up our so-called “rainy day fund” for flood repairs, it will have to be replenished, and at this point the only source for that replenishment is — you guessed it — taxes."

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Rick is overly uppity and certainly has his quirks, but his editorials is mostly him doing schtick. I've never actually met the guy (despite him living across the street from me), but have it on good authority that his true feelings are much more moderate.

If he were to let up or retire, the Sun would simply fill that space with much the same material as written by someone else.

Don't forget that the Sun's editorial board and Rick Bell in particular, advocated for Nenshi as the best candidate for mayor prior to the last election.

I guess what I'm saying is that I dislike the Sun and the institution of Rick Bell and the readership that is sympathetic to them, rather than Rick Bell, the actual person.

Interesting insight, but he is still a journalist and we are allowed to judge him by what he published knowing to the public.

Can't stand his articles.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

I'm not sure how anyone can read this and not be persuaded that the money being used for the flood is the best way to spend it.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/s...tml?id=8708676

"But we can’t deplete all of our cash reserves without a plan for filling them up again. We insist that community associations we fund, for example, always have 10 per cent cash on hand, and our policy is to have up to 15 per cent ourselves. So, if we use up our so-called “rainy day fund” for flood repairs, it will have to be replenished, and at this point the only source for that replenishment is — you guessed it — taxes."

Sure and I think the flood is a unique situation that makes this a slam dunk.
But let's remember there was an appetite from City Hall to keep the money prior to the flood.
That's what I object to. It isn't there money to keep.

[Ashartus]

I find it somewhat amusing that when this happened before council just took the money and there wasn't much fuss. This time they actually consulted, with "give it back" as one option, and a bunch of people get all upset.

Even before the flood I thought they should spend it - our infrastructure hasn't kept up with growth and there's a lot of things that need to be done.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sure and I think the flood is a unique situation that makes this a slam dunk.
But let's remember there was an appetite from City Hall to keep the money prior to the flood.
That's what I object to. It isn't there money to keep.

If the city says it's their money, it's their money. We elected them to make that decision. The province can say that it was intended to go to taxpayers but the bottom line is they relinquished control of the money. As such, they no longer have a say in what happens to it. And frankly, if the city doesn't keep the money it discredits any future requests the they might make to the province for funds, which would be a really silly thing to do when we need billions in transit infrastructure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the city says it's their money, it's their money. We elected them to make that decision. The province can say that it was intended to go to taxpayers but the bottom line is they relinquished control of the money. As such, they no longer have a say in what happens to it. And frankly, if the city doesn't keep the money it discredits any future requests the they might make to the province for funds, which would be a really silly thing to do when we need billions in transit infrastructure.

But the city has a process for dealing with what money they need. It is the 3 year capital spending budget. If the priorities this money is going to are required it should have been brought in through the budget process and funded through a rate increase. Its not like we are at some goldilocks tax rate where marginally more tax would make us overtaxed so they couldnt have collected 52 mil more to fund projects.

I agree with more money into transit but that should have to compete at budget time and an actual tax increase to residents. So I perfered give it back and tax me later.

My problem with Rick Bell is how base his arguements are. Straight Lowest Common denominator, boogyman politics. I agree with his positions regularly but his argument is so terrible and illogical it just frusterates me.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

But the city has a process for dealing with what money they need. It is the 3 year capital spending budget. If the priorities this money is going to are required it should have been brought in through the budget process and funded through a rate increase. Its not like we are at some goldilocks tax rate where marginally more tax would make us overtaxed so they couldnt have collected 52 mil more to fund projects.

I agree with more money into transit but that should have to compete at budget time and an actual tax increase to residents. So I perfered give it back and tax me later.

Actually, one might argue that is exactly what happened. Were it not for the fact that it would have caused an "overly large" tax increase, the budget likely would've included more things on the wish list.

I get the argument that we should stay within the spirit of the budget that we arrived at through a rigorous process. But part of that process was determining what an acceptable tax increase was, and I also believe that the $51 million MSI (provincial funding for municipal infrastructure) cut was after the budget was set. So really, if the choice is between keeping the 5% tax increase and replacing our lost MSI, or a 1% tax increase and losing the MSI, then I think it's actually the former that more closely respects the original budget.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Actually, one might argue that is exactly what happened. Were it not for the fact that it would have caused an "overly large" tax increase, the budget likely would've included more things on the wish list.

I get the argument that we should stay within the spirit of the budget that we arrived at through a rigorous process. But part of that process was determining what an acceptable tax increase was, and I also believe that the $51 million MSI (provincial funding for municipal infrastructure) cut was after the budget was set. So really, if the choice is between keeping the 5% tax increase and replacing our lost MSI, or a 1% tax increase and losing the MSI, then I think it's actually the former that more closely respects the original budget.

My issue is that the rate of the tax increase shouldnt be a consideration. That is a purely political discussion. Either we need the services or we dont and we should be taxed at the rate required. So really we should have had a 9% tax increase because we needed these expenditures and had it reduced to 5% after the provincial transfer. I know this is just paper work but I think its important paperwork.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

My issue is that the rate of the tax increase shouldnt be a consideration. That is a purely political discussion. Either we need the services or we dont and we should be taxed at the rate required.

Disagree. Wealth has diminishing returns... i.e. something that might be worth spending a taxpayer's last dollar earned but not be worth spending his first dollar earned on. So it's not just a matter of "need or don't need" with nothing in between. But even if weighing services against a tax increase were purely a political decision... that's the world that we and council live in, so I can't fault them for acknowleging that reality and behaving accordingly.

[killer_carlson]

I have no problem with media pressuring politicians to be fiscally responsible. With our tax base in Alberta, government should be balancing the books annually.

The flood will require intervention from all levels of government, and I understand that, so aside from the money to repair the devastation from the flood, any and all pressure to balance the books is A ok by me.

[Fire]

If you don't like reading Rick Bell columns, I have a simple solution, don't read his columns. Luckily we live in a free country where we are not forced to read every article in the Calgary Sun.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Fire

If you don't like reading Rick Bell columns, I have a simple solution, don't read his columns. Luckily we live in a free country where we are not forced to read every article in the Calgary Sun.

No kidding. Why not take the simplest, most obvious solution?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

I don't get the whole "give it back" line of thinking. Is there something out there for $50 that he really really wants but can't afford?