MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I suppose. Never saw anybody being threatened or bothered by homeless people on the trains or platforms during commuting hours myself, so the improved safety angle seems a little much.

I don’t even think that is what is causing ridership lows. We have a system that is downtown weekday commuter focused. Ridership is low outside those periods because the service is reduced. 5 or so minutes between trains in the morning or afternoon rush is great. Outside those hours it’s less compelling especially when you have free parking after 6, why would you take transit at $7.20 per person for a roundtrip.

*if* somehow the result of the security presence is more ridership and it leads to better service then I’m all for that.

Not I’m not saying improved safety I’m say the perception of safety increases. When the perception of safety increases more people consider the train viable and ridership increases. I think the affect should be monitored but it’s a simple cost /benefit suggests making people feel safer increases ridership. Kind of like bike lanes make people feel safe riding bikes so bike commuting increases. Surveys show the perception of safety was dropping post pandemic. That needs to be corrected even if actual safety is unchanged.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Public: "The Mayor needs to ride the train and start doing something about the safety issues on Transit!"

Mayor: Does exactly that.

Public: "Shut up and get back to work. Screw you and your photo op!"

==

Hard to imagine why more quality people aren't getting into politics

Do you want her to give you a spoonful of sugar to make swallowing the BS down a little easier?

[chemgear]

EDIT: Posted in wrong thread! Sorry.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by chemgear

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...rash-1.6872285

Canada's visaless entry system crashes, leaving many travellers stranded

The collapse of the website that processes Canada's Electronic Travel Authorizations (eTAs) has caused missed flights, stress and financial pain to many travellers trying to reach Canada.

This week, Canada expanded the number of countries eligible for the eTA system, which replaces a full visa requirement for countries whose citizens are considered at lower risk of overstaying. Travellers from these countries pay a $7 Cdn fee and fill out an online application in a process that would normally take just minutes.

IRCC appears not to have anticipated that adding 13 new countries with a combined population of over a quarter of a billion people would lead to a sudden surge in applications, but that's what happened.

Monerawela says that between their non-refundable Air Transat flights and a prepaid Airbnb, her family will lose thousands of dollars. They will also miss the chance to see family in Canada for the first time since the pandemic began.

One of their daughters is wheelchair bound and has other medical issues that make travel very difficult, she explained. The family had already paid to forward some medical items their daughter needs to Toronto.

Gabriel Contreras already missed his flight from Spain to visit a sister who lives in Canada. He was refused boarding on the first leg of the trip from Madrid to Amsterdam because of the eTA issue.

He said that even if the problem were fixed tomorrow, he and his travel partner would have to buy two new tickets for 970 euros each. The new flights would end up costing him more than $2,700 Cdn.

"The hardship you caused to travellers is immense," wrote another person. "All the pain just to collect $7."

On Friday evening, some passengers attempting to obtain eTAs reported receiving a message in response suggesting repairs might not be coming for days.

Might be better in either the travel thread or Federal politics one?

[Faust]

Report suggests Coun. Dan McLean didn't complete reconciliation work following leaked racist video

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...75ad9dd1a/amp/

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Faust

Report suggests Coun. Dan McLean didn't complete reconciliation work following leaked racist video

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...75ad9dd1a/amp/

I'm sure he did enough to 'tick the box' and say he did, though...

[curves2000]

As was predicted earlier in the thread, this parking fiasco from the city is gaining a lot of traction and bringing concerns from a lot city councilor's, even inner city ones who championed the policy.

I know the idea is that it's going to become a cost recovery model but is that really the case here? Is there not a revenue stream like from enforcement, parking tickets and the general parking/city budget to offset a minor cost? At the end of the day there is only 1 taxpayer and people are being given insane rental increases.

I found it ironic that Ward 8 Councilor Courtney Walcott is now pushing back. Probably heard from a mountain of residents who are visible minorities , work jobs like Skip and Uber and are now calculating how many egg breakfast sandwiches, coffee's, pizza slices and sharwarma's they got to deliver to highrise towers for $2 tips. Probably a lot of work to come up with a couple of grand to pay for these program fee's and someone's stupid idea.

Coun. Courtney Walcott's inner-city ward would have a lot of residents who fall into the Market Permit category.

"I have residents who are worried about $1,000 a year," he said, referring to a ballpark cost that those in multi-residential units will pay. He noted the fee structure includes a low-income option that this notice of motion hasn't addressed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...king-1.6875736


Other media reporting significant backlash amongst concerns from residents and council members and businesses. I guess when your facing non stop increased costs, rents, property taxes and recovery from a pandemic, and grocery bills, people don't have the resources for this crap.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-city-hall-cpa

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...l-parking-fees

Disclosure: I am not personally affected by this decision but feel for residents and businesses who are. Nothing like having costs go up, rent go up, food go up and now being told you got to pay even more. Laughable how one councilor referred to this as "not a fee" but a cost recovery.

[Flames0910]

I found it ironic that Ward 8 Councilor Courtney Walcott is now pushing back. Probably heard from a mountain of residents who are visible minorities , work jobs like Skip and Uber and are now calculating how many egg breakfast sandwiches, coffee's, pizza slices and sharwarma's they got to deliver to highrise towers for $2 tips. Probably a lot of work to come up with a couple of grand to pay for these program fee's and someone's stupid idea.

Ok.

I'm someone who is personally affected by this decision. I support charging a fee for permanent parking and think we should even expand this program to expand throughout the city -- you do not own the road in front of your home. That said, I think charging $75 for a visitor pass that gets used for like, 4 hours a month, is ridiculous (why is the visitor pass more expensive than a resident pass lol) and essentially asks inner-city residents to help subsidize urban sprawl.

Chabot's motion is embarrassing and it's ridiculous how he's delineating between apartment owners and house owners like multi-family dwellings are lesser people with lesser rights.

[powderjunkie]

IMO it is absurd to manage parking issues through housing policy.

However, parking policy could be used to help foster desired housing outcomes.


A car is a car (though small cars should be charged less, big vehicles charged more), and the context of it's owner's housing shouldn't really matter when it comes to utilization of the public resource of parking space. It is nonsense that a SFH on a 50 foot lot should be any more or less entitled to that space than someone living in a 400 sq ft studio apartment.

Market price should be able to achieve appropriate balance between supply/demand (which may also lead to more private parking options). But, to my first point, there are tons of societal benefits to increased density, so I would actually be okay with finding a way to offset the market price somehow.


Visitor parking is the tough nut to crack...I can envision a bit of a solution through a more comprehensive parking permit setup, where my $100 annual registration entitling to park in front of my suburban home also includes say 50 hours of higher demand parking (where you have to activate it without requiring payment until those hours expire)...part of a bigger idea that would require much longer explanation.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Visitor parking is the tough nut to crack...I can envision a bit of a solution through a more comprehensive parking permit setup, where my $100 annual registration entitling to park in front of my suburban home also includes say 50 hours of higher demand parking (where you have to activate it without requiring payment until those hours expire)...part of a bigger idea that would require much longer explanation.

IDK that it's that hard to crack -- we already have this program for visitor parking. Residents get two visitor permits (they have to prove their address in order to qualify), which can be used to allow guests to park in a limited set of zones only, for a limited amount of time (maximum 14 days).

https://www.calgaryparking.com/parki...visitorpermits

If anything, the 14 days could be reduced but this part of the program already works. IDK why we have to start charging $150/year for it. Again, the problem isn't temporary cars parked on the street, it's permanent storage. Yet somehow the temporary visitor rates are higher than the permanent "i don't use my garage because parking on the street is cheap" rates!

I haven't heard any complaints from residents, or seen the city explain what their issue would be with this part of the program. To me it seems like an overreach by administration to help them reach their cost target and to avoid having to put the full cost on permanent parking (probably in a failed attempt to avoid backlash).

[zamler]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Public: "The Mayor needs to ride the train and start doing something about the safety issues on Transit!"

Mayor: Does exactly that.

Public: "Shut up and get back to work. Screw you and your photo op!"

==

Hard to imagine why more quality people aren't getting into politics

I know right, she rode the train just like the rest of us. Exactly the same.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by zamler

I know right, she rode the train just like the rest of us. Exactly the same.

Be serious. If any politician was making an announcement about transit, how should they go about it? Do you think if Danielle Smith was making an announcement about Green Line funding, she wouldn’t cordon off some area first and have the media present? This is just such a dumb and petty complaint to make.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

IDK that it's that hard to crack -- we already have this program for visitor parking. Residents get two visitor permits (they have to prove their address in order to qualify), which can be used to allow guests to park in a limited set of zones only, for a limited amount of time (maximum 14 days).

https://www.calgaryparking.com/parki...visitorpermits

If anything, the 14 days could be reduced but this part of the program already works. IDK why we have to start charging $150/year for it. Again, the problem isn't temporary cars parked on the street, it's permanent storage. Yet somehow the temporary visitor rates are higher than the permanent "i don't use my garage because parking on the street is cheap" rates!

I haven't heard any complaints from residents, or seen the city explain what their issue would be with this part of the program. To me it seems like an overreach by administration to help them reach their cost target and to avoid having to put the full cost on permanent parking (probably in a failed attempt to avoid backlash).

It works in the protectionist bull#### areas (who should really pay more for their privilege, and there should not be (m)any restrictions on who can buy)...does it work in the highest demand areas currently being targetted?

From the link:

Apartment-style complexes do not qualify for visitor permits

Nonsense detrimental to density.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Be serious. If any politician was making an announcement about transit, how should they go about it? Do you think if Danielle Smith was making an announcement about Green Line funding, she wouldn’t cordon off some area first and have the media present? This is just such a dumb and petty complaint to make.

I didn't complain about her PR stunt. It sure as heck hasn't made the train any safer which is the point, she doesn't care about actual safety only image. You probably wouldn't care either if you had armed security everywhere you went.

Your Danielle Smith whataboutism is irrelevant here.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by zamler

I didn't complain about her PR stunt. It sure as heck hasn't made the train any safer which is the point, she doesn't care about actual safety only image. You probably wouldn't care either if you had armed security everywhere you went.

Your Danielle Smith whataboutism is irrelevant here.

Are you talking the guy with a hatchet? There isn’t a transit system anywhere in the world that could prevent that, unless you forced people to board the trains naked without any backpacks.

The point is that, whatever “safety” concerns people were droning on about, which is basically seeing homeless and drug addicts engaged in more self-harm than anything else, was mostly solved/moved elsewhere by the extra security presence.

[timun]

Originally Posted by curves2000

As was predicted earlier in the thread, this parking fiasco from the city is gaining a lot of traction and bringing concerns from a lot city councilor's, even inner city ones who championed the policy.

I know the idea is that it's going to become a cost recovery model but is that really the case here?

YES!

Is there not a revenue stream like from enforcement, parking tickets...

NO!

...and the general parking/city budget to offset a minor cost?

THAT'S WHAT WE DO NOW!

Probably heard from a mountain of residents who are visible minorities , work jobs like Skip and Uber and are now calculating how many egg breakfast sandwiches, coffee's, pizza slices and sharwarma's they got to deliver to highrise towers for $2 tips. Probably a lot of work to come up with a couple of grand to pay for these program fee's and someone's stupid idea.

Who are these mythical "Skip and Uber driver" residents that you keep talking about? And what "couple grand to pay for these fees" are you taking about? Nobody is being charged a couple grand for a parking permit.

Disclosure: I am not personally affected by this decision but feel for residents and businesses who are. Nothing like having costs go up, rent go up, food go up and now being told you got to pay even more. Laughable how one councilor referred to this as "not a fee" but a cost recovery.

What businesses? What the #### are you even taking about? This affects zero businesses, this is residential permits!

Your commentary in this thread on this issue is replete with blatant falsehoods and total ####ing nonsense, and—once again—that is the reason there is any controversy whatsoever.

[curves2000]

[QUOTE=timun;8742366]YES!

As I have previously explained to you for a $1200 fee, you need to gross approx $2k by the time taxes, EI, CPP, union fee's etc are taking into account. That is a couple of grand. Think of it like $2 earned get's you a dollar net .

As the Ward 8 councilor says, people are concerned with the cost of this and he is looking into. Perhaps you have significant cash flow at the end of every month but a lot don't. Those that don't will usually spend less at businesses in the area and in the city. This isn't magic, this is finance. If the most densely populated area of the city is being affected, that is hundreds of thousands of dollars being taken out of potential spending for business. Inflation is hitting everybody and everything.

There is a HUGE minority base that live in the Beltline/downtown/inner city doing exactly the type of work I mentioned. How do I know? Cause I have grown up in the area, have a huge client base of minorities in the area and have friends/family/ clients that own restaurants/bars/businesses in the area. A lot of minorities are doing exactly the type of work I described for wages I described.

I get it, your in favor of the policy as it was initially presented. That's your right as a citizen. Those that live in those areas, gotta ****ing pay. Some people have legit concerns related to inflation, taxes, rental increases and just getting by. Probably why council members are looking at changes.

I'm struggling to understand why your so excited about people just giving more of their hard earned dollars to the Calgary Parking Authority and the city in general? As per the Calgary Herald article I posted earlier, CPA has a surplus of $ 348 million Everybody just needs to send more dollars to the city to do what? Hand over an insane amount of taxpayers money to the wealthiest people in the world and build an arena so that they get even wealthier?

What get's you so excited to see working people be squeezed during tough times? And for what, parking? Clearly your financial status doesn't make you sweat this type of thing and bravo to you on that, mine doesn't either as I am not affected personally, but I sympathize with those that are. I see how hard and how little cash resources a lot of people have. Literally waiting till payday to pay some bills and buy groceries but you want people to hand over what is in some cases a mortgage or rent payment for a permit to park on a street?

[Roughneck]

Why should the government be subsidizing ‘an insane amount of money’ for people to store their private property? Land has value and it is a disservice to the taxpayer to not get proper value from it.

[timun]

Originally Posted by curves2000

As I have previously explained to you for a $1200 fee, you need to gross approx $2k by the time taxes, EI, CPP, union fee's etc are taking into account. That is a couple of grand. Think of it like $2 earned get's you a dollar net .

As the Ward 8 councilor says, people are concerned with the cost of this and he is looking into. Perhaps you have significant cash flow at the end of every month but a lot don't. Those that don't will usually spend less at businesses in the area and in the city. This isn't magic, this is finance. If the most densely populated area of the city is being affected, that is hundreds of thousands of dollars being taken out of potential spending for business. Inflation is hitting everybody and everything.

There is a HUGE minority base that live in the Beltline/downtown/inner city doing exactly the type of work I mentioned. How do I know? Cause I have grown up in the area, have a huge client base of minorities in the area and have friends/family/ clients that own restaurants/bars/businesses in the area. A lot of minorities are doing exactly the type of work I described for wages I described.

I get it, your in favor of the policy as it was initially presented. That's your right as a citizen. Those that live in those areas, gotta ****ing pay. Some people have legit concerns related to inflation, taxes, rental increases and just getting by. Probably why council members are looking at changes.

I'm struggling to understand why your so excited about people just giving more of their hard earned dollars to the Calgary Parking Authority and the city in general? As per the Calgary Herald article I posted earlier, CPA has a surplus of $ 348 million Everybody just needs to send more dollars to the city to do what? Hand over an insane amount of taxpayers money to the wealthiest people in the world and build an arena so that they get even wealthier?

What get's you so excited to see working people be squeezed during tough times? And for what, parking? Clearly your financial status doesn't make you sweat this type of thing and bravo to you on that, mine doesn't either as I am not affected personally, but I sympathize with those that are. I see how hard and how little cash resources a lot of people have. Literally waiting till payday to pay some bills and buy groceries but you want people to hand over what is in some cases a mortgage or rent payment for a permit to park on a street?

I'm not "excited about people giving their hard-earned dollars to the CPA", I'm a realist about the parking situation. Especially in neighbourhoods like the beltline, where those "Skip/Uber/taxi drivers" regularly double-park when making deliveries because there's no street-side parking. There's no street-side parking, because they handed the residential passes out for free. I wrote before: there physically is not enough curb length to accommodate all residents in the area. It physically can't happen.

So, what's the most equitable thing to do? You seem to think it's "hand out parking passes to anyone who asks and let them fight for a spot in a free-for-all". I think it's "let those that use it, pay for it". And again, for the thousandth time: the passes are not "charging people to park in front of their homes", it's for keeping everyone else from parking there.

[Wormius]

Not only that, it’s the people in the walkable areas that only drive on weekends, like the guy in the article. So they get to keep their car on the street all week for free at the expense of allowing anyone else to park there? That doesn’t seem particularly fair.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...king-1.6875736