Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We really elect a party with a platform they want to implement. None of this trashy Libertarian bull#### was in the platform at the last election.

She can write a new platform of crazy, and put it to the electorate. Until that date, she should be in caretaker mode. Nobody has had a say on this.

Everyone who participated in the leader vote had a say in it . So it wasn’t nobody

You can argue that the way a party changes leadership and general elections should change , but to say no one had a say in “this” isn’t true

And the individual MPs that are elected in your riding so not have to vote with her if their riding disagrees and it would get them voted out in the next general election (although in reality they mostly have too or vote out the leader which they just did )

[Fuzz]

OK, a tiny minority of the province who belong to a pay to enter club had a say in this, and it was barely half of them, and took 6 tries. Is that better?

She also won by 53.77%, barely better than the 51.4% that saw Kenney resign. Hardly something that tells you you have a mandate to do whatever bat #### crazy thing enters your demented little conspiracy addled mind.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It was a good decision to restrict access for lower income Albertans?

I don’t see you championing for free bus service to Kananaskis to eliminate the barrier to access so I assume you are with me in stopping the poors from exploring the wilderness.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, a tiny minority of the province who belong to a pay to enter club had a say in this, and it was barely half of them, and took 6 tries. Is that better?

She also won by 53.77%, barely better than the 51.4% that saw Kenney resign. Hardly something that tells you you have a mandate to do whatever bat #### crazy thing enters your demented little conspiracy addled mind.

That’s why the leader doesn’t have totalitarian power in the Canadian system . You are represented by your MP , who did not change

The issue is that MPs are (basically) forced to just vote down partisan lines, and people elect their MP (usually) by party lines instead of candidate that will represent their interests the best

If MPs had a chance to lose their jobs by voting out a bad leader in a general election they would never remove them

[Fuzz]

My MP hasn't responded to my concerns, and he sure as #### ain't gonna fight for my views. Maybe he didn't like my suggestion he should step down so as to not be seen to support a science denying conspiracy theorist. Said it wouldn't reflect well on his character. He's made his choice.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t see you championing for free bus service to Kananaskis to eliminate the barrier to access so I assume you are with me in stopping the poors from exploring the wilderness.

Are you suggesting that this fee may not be a barrier to some Albertans who otherwise could afford to make the drive up with their families?

If this fee was introduced to non-Alberta residents only I could see a benefit, but imposing one on Albertans only serves to keep some of them from enjoying the parks.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

My MP hasn't responded to my concerns, and he sure as #### ain't gonna fight for my views. Maybe he didn't like my suggestion he should step down so as to not be seen to support a science denying conspiracy theorist. Said it wouldn't reflect well on his character. He's made his choice.

We’ll he doesn’t work just for you . And did you even vote for him

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

We’ll he doesn’t work just for you . And did you even vote for him

Our MLAs are supposed to discriminate against people who didn’t vote for them?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you suggesting that this fee may not be a barrier to some Albertans who otherwise could afford to make the drive up with their families?

If this fee was introduced to non-Alberta residents only I could see a benefit, but imposing one on Albertans only serves to keep some of them from enjoying the parks.

Yes I am suggesting that people who a) own or have access to a vehicle b) can afford to pay the .25 cents per km in opex/ maintenance on a 300km round trip from Calgary to Kananskis can afford the additional $15 in user fees. No one who could afford to get to the park could not afford to get in the park.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Our MLAs are supposed to discriminate against people who didn’t vote for them?

No but it makes sense for them to cater to the people who voted , and will continue to vote for them

Where was the discrimination ? I went back and didn’t read any but could have missed something

If the MP (and the people who elected them) don’t agree with Fuzz what do you want him to do . Especially for people who didn’t elect them

Just because Fuzz is worried about Smith doesn’t mean the rest of the riding is

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes I am suggesting that people who a) own or have access to a vehicle b) can afford to pay the .25 cents per km in opex/ maintenance on a 300km round trip from Calgary to Kananskis can afford the additional $15 in user fees. No one who could afford to get to the park could not afford to get in the park.

Lots of assumptions in this post.

Like, all Albertans living 300k from a provincial park.

Some flat out false data to support your argument too, Kananaskis being 150kms away from Calgary.

Even when we disagree you’re usually a little more accurate than that GGG.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

No but it makes sense for them to cater to the people who voted , and will continue to vote for them

Where was the discrimination ? I went back and didn’t read any but could have missed something

If the MP (and the people who elected them) don’t agree with Fuzz what do you want him to do . Especially for people who didn’t elect them

Just because Fuzz is worried about Smith doesn’t mean the rest of the riding is

The discrimination was implied by stating that Fuzz didn’t vote for them.

Part of an MLAs job is supposed to be to find a common sense middle ground where possible, so my expectation would be that they at least half ass try to do that. Doesn’t seem like a very high bar to set.

[Izzle]

That MLA is wholly unfit to be an MLA if he only caters to folks who voted for him in his riding.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Lots of assumptions in this post.

Like, all Albertans living 300k from a provincial park.

Some flat out false data to support your argument too, Kananaskis being 150kms away from Calgary.

Even when we disagree you’re usually a little more accurate than that GGG.

He's not that far off the 300km round trip depending on where you start. Google tells me that it 127km to Kananaskis Village from Seton using the SW ring road or 138km going through Bragg Creek.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Izzle

That MLA is wholly unfit to be an MLA if he only caters to folks who voted for him in his riding.

Hell, I voted for mine and he ignores me.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

He's not that far off the 300km round trip depending on where you start. Google tells me that it 127km to Kananaskis Village from Seton using the SW ring road or 138km going through Bragg Creek.

Oh I’m sorry I didn’t think of the lower income folks living in an affluent neighbourhood like Seton

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Hell, I voted for mine and he ignores me.

That makes him... Unfitterer

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

That was a good decision though given the amount of investment needed to handle the increased visitation. They just forgot the corresponding budget increase.

Failure to include Mclean Creek was always preposterous.

And I don't remember the exact timeline, but aside from moving towards the sale of some parks, they were also going to scrap things like XC grooming so we'd be paying for a worse experience. Donations saved the grooming - I bet if the NDP replaces the passes with a donation program it will net very close to this plan that was never about anything more than 'owning the granola eaters'



#### the UCP.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes I am suggesting that people who a) own or have access to a vehicle b) can afford to pay the .25 cents per km in opex/ maintenance on a 300km round trip from Calgary to Kananskis can afford the additional $15 in user fees. No one who could afford to get to the park could not afford to get in the park.

Elbow Falls is about 50km from the city limits. West Bragg Creek is about 40km.

You know who else could afford an extra user fee? The dumb ####s that tear up Mclean Creek.

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

He's not that far off the 300km round trip depending on where you start. Google tells me that it 127km to Kananaskis Village from Seton using the SW ring road or 138km going through Bragg Creek.

Sandy Mcnabb is about 60km from the SW corner of Calgary.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Lots of assumptions in this post.

Like, all Albertans living 300k from a provincial park.

Some flat out false data to support your argument too, Kananaskis being 150kms away from Calgary.

Even when we disagree you’re usually a little more accurate than that GGG.

Upper Kananaskis lake is 140.3 km from downtown Calgary

But in the interests of clarity I will rephrase my position. Anyone who can afford to live within cycling distance of Kananaskis and can afford a bicycle has not had their park access restricted by a $90 per year fee.

And anyone with a 100km round trip at .25 cents /km did not find the park become unaffordable when the cost rose from $25 to $40.

Unless you have a friend from Venezuala who just happens to make your point for you that you recently talked to in a food court I don’t think the person you are talking about exists. And if such a person exists then the argument should be means tested passes to support this mythical person not scarp the fee program.

Access for low income is not the reason to be arguing against park fees.

Now perhaps you could argue that the fee discourages visitation because people don’t like to pay it and I would agree that is a likely true statement but suggesting poor people can no longer access parks because of the fee and doubling down when challenged is ridiculous.


Edit: I’m with powderjunkie of McLean Creek should have to pay to.