MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

Well Timun suggested that we’re going to see an actual cut made by the city that we’re all going to be upset with. I see no evidence that this council will even contemplate a cut.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by timun

What do you want cut, Slava? Again: just more kvetching about no cuts, about "not even a cutting back of the increases". So what do you want cut?





I'll make one suggestion: I never wanted them to spend a dime on the new Flames arena. But that ship sailed. I'm never going to forgive any of these council members for their stupidity on that one, and let's not forget: Braid's "Sane Six" also voted for that turkey of a deal. "Sane" when it comes to voting down a property tax increase, but where was that fiscal restraint and "sanity" when it came time to tell the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation to build their own ####ing arena instead suckling on the teat of taxpayers? Hmm?

I will start off by saying that the Flames arena deal is absolutely horrible and I agree with you.


This notion that City Council and administration CAN NOT find not even 1% in savings and cuts on a more than $4 billion is absurd. They can't even come up with one tenth of 1% in actual costs, which is $4 million.

Any department manager, treasury department or CFO/CEO who can't do that is beyond useless and should be fired immediately. You can start with their total compensation package right there.

If we look at the arena deal and how badly that is for the taxpayer, did we really put the hammer onto the Flames ownership group? Did we really have the best and brightest on the deal? Did they really push back on costs and funding? No and it's evident. Best if we just raise taxes and raid the rainy day fund and all is well.

Corporations layoff employees, restructure and reduce expenses all the time, literally daily. If anybody has been laid off as part of restructuring, they would know this is done to reduce costs. Not every single person, department, City asset, office space and more needs still be here.

My brother works for the city, the level of waste in his department is downright shocking, sometimes what goes on and the lack of control is nauseating.

I was having a conversation with a senior member of CPS, high ranking. When discussing ways at improvements and efficiencies he said the mindset at the VERY top is, but why? If your still getting paid to do this mundane but extremely important task, why do you care? Short of finishing the case and moving onto the next scumbag, City of Calgary isn't offering you stock options or compensation based on financial performance.

That is the mindset and that is what happens a lot of times in government AND business. Business a lot of times just has more incentive to actually cut costs and drive it down.

The City of Calgary's policy is pretty much keep the costs at population growth + inflation. So it's ALWAYS an increase, as opposed to a reduction. Anybody who has ventured out to anywhere these days can visually see with their eyes that everybody is CUTTING costs due to deal with inflation.

[Wormius]

If the City wants to save money, it should not support or subsidize any more urban sprawl at all.

[timun]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I will start off by saying that the Flames arena deal is absolutely horrible and I agree with you.

[...]

... and you'll finish off by prattling on as you had before: without answering my god-damned question.

At least Slava is being honest about it:

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah and here’s the thing, it’s not my job. I’m not going through the budget line by line to find the savings.

He has no proposed solutions, 'cause it ain't his ####ing job.

Here's where Slava is still being dishonest though:

But people whose job it is proposed things and they wouldn’t even consider them. Way to make the tough decision!

No, no, considerations were made, council spent a long long time deliberating in November, and they made the tough decisions about what to fund and what not to fund, and the 7.8% increase is the end result. To say there were no considerations made to end up with that result is pure nonsense. You're just not happy with the end result.



With respect to the "Sane Six"'s recent motion, do you know what they suggest to cut?
















Nothing. They don't ####ing know either. When asked what to cut, Cllr. Sharp said: "HR? IT? I dunno, just something that doesn't relate to affordable housing or public safety". McLean suggested getting rid of the secondary suites incentive program, which is only about $4M. Ward 7 Cllr. Wong said the same thing Slava did: it ain't his ####in' job. "Tough decision" indeed...

[Slava]

This is the attitude that gets you a series of unending tax hikes, because there are no areas where any restraint can be shown. The city (currently) is taking action in several areas that are (arguably, hence the difficult decision comment) outside its scope. We’re spending money on mental health services for example, which is pretty clearly provincial.

Then you have new spending on things like climate change initiatives, affordable housing off the top of my head. As new spending, there absolutely have to be areas here that can be trimmed back and no one would know the difference.

And that’s really my point here. Just because the city could save money doesn’t mean slashing existing programming and austerity. But part of the issue here is that if anyone suggested we should reduce in these areas they’d get tarred with the “why do you hate the environment” brush, or “why don’t you want affordable housing for people?”

And lastly, this is only going to be worse when we have political parties in civic politics. That’s a bit of a tangent, but suddenly that becomes a scenario where there are two answers and no more to these issues, which just creates more polarization.

[timun]

The problem with your attitude is that it's based on false premises. Restraint WAS shown; that's how the budget ended up where it ended up, and not higher.

You complain about mental health services funding being something the province should do. Sure, fine, but they very obviously don't do enough, and at the local level the City set aside some money for it. If you want to cut it, fine: it's a couple million dollars' worth of grants that get doled out mostly in little $80,000-$140,000 chunks to a couple dozen not-for-profit organizations offering mental health and addictions counselling services. It'll save you maybe 30¢ on your TIPP payments.

Now, here's ultimately why I disregard complaints like yours for the empty bluster they are: you think "there absolutely have to be areas here that can be trimmed back and no one would know the difference".

Wrong. There aren't. You cut something from the budget, you're going to notice. You're going to notice unresolved issues continuing to go unresolved, or you're going to notice previously resolved issues now going unresolved. It might not be noticed immediately, or even in the following year or two, but eventually the knock-on effects are going to show. And then what?



And then you'll be part of the chorus of whiners and complainers who decry the government for failing to "do something about it". How do I know? You already are. Witness this post in "Growing Retail Theft" thread:

Originally Posted by btimbit

Do you know what defunding the police actually means? If anything it would help, as then the police could actually focus on crime instead of also being forced to act as social workers and public health experts

Don't confuse it with the silly 'abolish the police' movement

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, I agree with that over the long-term. In the short term though, you still have these social ills that are causing problems and chaos, and policing is the way to deal with them. It's distasteful, and I see that side, but you can't stop these things by standing there and saying "hey, I'm on your side and advocating for housing, rehabilitation and treatment programs, so can you just stop this rampage?!"

You acknowledge that theft (and other petty crime) is a growing problem to be dealt with. How? "Policing". Guess what Slava? That costs ####ing MONEY!

How 'bout this post in the "getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads" thread:

Originally Posted by Slava

Gimme a break. I grew up ridiculously poor and I've had exposure to poor people. The fact that I don't want to live next door to a camp were people live by a completely different set of rules and have entirely different lives as a result has nothing to do with my fear or dislike of poor people. It's the crime, virtual lawlessness, drug use and other factors that I don't want to be around.

And frankly, it's not being sheltered. I don't need exposure to that and neither does my family.

You want the "crime, virtual lawlessness, drug use and other factors" associated with drug-addled people living on the streets addressed. And yet in your post above there are three things you quickly thought of off the top of your head that could or ought to be cut:

1. mental health services
2. climate change initiatives
3. affordable housing

Guess what items 1) and 3) are for...?

















For getting rid of the drug-addled homeless people! Like, #### man, do you not see your own blatant hypocrisy here? You bitch and complain about these issues, the City steps up with funding to help deal with it... and then you complain about your ####ing taxes!


As such, frankly I don't respect your opinion on this, and other people's similar opinions, one bit. Not even one meagre iota. I kept pestering you to present cuts for consideration because people like you, and like the "Sane Six" councillors, are bereft of any actual plans. You counter, like Terry Wong, that it's not your job to find the savings: you just want savings to be found. And you don't want it to be from something you think people will notice. The "Sane Six" are just morally bankrupt shysters making empty platitudes about "finding savings" to gullible rubes because they think it'll buy 'em votes: they don't give a single, solitary #### about whether it'll do any good or not.


The truth is that the people whose job it is to come up with the budget, to go through things line item by line item, did. The people we elected whose jobs it is to approve the budget vigorously deliberated it two months ago. They weighed the pros and cons, and they settled on the 7.8% increase to strike as best a balance they could between 1) not funding things enough to meaningfully solve the problems that people like you are already bitching about, and 2) keeping the increase low enough that people like you won't bitch too hard about it. Those are "the tough decisions". They contemplated cuts, they contemplated allocation and re-allocation of all sorts of funding, and this is where it all shook out. Just because it didn't result in a lower increase than that, or a cut, does not mean that "tough decisions" were not made about it.


And, lest we all forget, you are among the worst on this forum for completely forgetting about tax cuts when they do happen. From page 6 of this very thread:

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Thinking you can run this city on 0% tax increases every year is just asinine.

I'm glad we got some progressive candidates who are committed to the things they ran on and funding the things they feel will make Calgary a better place to live.

Originally Posted by Slava

Oh I knew that would be the response, but it’s still my opinion. It’s a few percent from the city, a few from the province and the feds and I guess we can’t be unhappy with any of them. Of course, it was a few percent last year and the years before that, and as you all know it’s all coming out of the same wallet.

Originally Posted by timun

Property taxes went down last year, Slava...

Originally Posted by Slava

Well we should make up for that right away.

Jesus-####ing-Christ man: even when the taxes DO go down you act like a jackass about it!

[Slava]

^ I didn’t read most of that and don’t really care. But it’s nice to see you took the time to run through a bunch of my posts from around the forum! I would find a new hobby personally, but whatever you prefer!

[timun]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I didn’t read most of that and don’t really care.

The truth encapsulated.

Never forget this is why people talk down to you about this sort of thing: because your opinions are trite. Superficial at best. You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't care: you are the very definition of the word ignoramus.

[PepsiFree]

Slava is why people make fun of people who say they’re “socially liberal, fiscally conservative.”

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Slava is why people make fun of people who say they’re “socially liberal, fiscally conservative.”

You might have to explain that one to me. I am definitely socially liberal, and more fiscally conservative.

Who knows, maybe it’s a pipe dream to ask for any pragmatic approach by our city council. But the funny thing is, this council has an extremely low approval rating, so I’m pretty sure that the majority of citizens are in a similar mindset to me.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by timun

The truth encapsulated.

Never forget this is why people talk down to you about this sort of thing: because your opinions are trite. Superficial at best. You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't care: you are the very definition of the word ignoramus.

What I can't understand is this level of excitement, complete understanding and downright giddy for EVER increasing property tax and service fee's increases from the city. This isn't a one time thing. This is an annual event and has been for years. It doesn't stop.

The same is true for other levels of government and different political parties as well. Does your love affair with tax and service fee increases also apply to other government levels? Are you an equal opportunity lover of increased costs to your wallet?

You pretend like some minor restraint on the fiscal side would result in massive, noticeable events. Do you notice this gigantic swings in quality and services across every product and service you use? How many complaint forms have you filled out voicing your frustration to a supermarket or supplier on a redesigned package for improved shipping and reduced costs?

Do you ever eat out? Any idea how much change has happened in that industry for cost reductions? There are so many, it may make peoples heads explode from all the corn starch being added to meat products to alter texture and the canola oil in the fryer that hasn't been changed since the Flames won the Cup in 89, all to reduce costs. The business notion is reduced costs, not jack up prices to the moon so Timun and company can just open their wallets. Usually when prices get jacked up, people get upset.

You asked me what I would reduce or cut if I had final say, the answer is a straight across the board cut of 3% of non salaried expenses and operating budgets. If you want something more substantial and perhaps more along the lines of YOUR thinking. The subsidy that is being offered for downtown office conversations. How much taxpayer money needs to be funneled into some of the largest and wealthiest companies in Canada in order for THEM to benefit financially? If they want to fill more unleased office space in Calgary, have them lower rents on lower quality properties to attract tenants.

If you, me, everyday normal people and hundreds of thousands of businesses are able to reduce costs and expenses in a small way, then I am sure the brightest minds at City Hall can make minor cuts or improved process and efficiency. It's really not that hard.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Do you ever eat out? Any idea how much change has happened in that industry for cost reductions? There are so many, it may make peoples heads explode from all the corn starch being added to meat products to alter texture and the canola oil in the fryer that hasn't been changed since the Flames won the Cup in 89, all to reduce costs. The business notion is reduced costs, not jack up prices to the moon so Timun and company can just open their wallets. Usually when prices get jacked up, people get upset.

But even with the cost cutting prices have still been jacked up. Taking the food industry lead, the city's solution would be to reduce service, increase taxes, but also include a TIP option on all user fees and property tax forms.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

You might have to explain that one to me. I am definitely socially liberal, and more fiscally conservative.

Who knows, maybe it’s a pipe dream to ask for any pragmatic approach by our city council. But the funny thing is, this council has an extremely low approval rating, so I’m pretty sure that the majority of citizens are in a similar mindset to me.

Because it’s the most “pragmatic” position but a lot of the time, when pressed, it’s just “I want a high standard of living for everyone but I don’t want to pay for it.”

It’s not a pipe dream to ask for a pragmatic approach, but it’s probably a difficult target to hit when the goals are so vague and there’s no actual definition of what success looks like.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by curves2000

You asked me what I would reduce or cut if I had final say, the answer is a straight across the board cut of 3% of non salaried expenses and operating budgets.

Can you please provide both the benefits and consequences of your proposed cut so that we can accurately asses how valid it is?

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Can you please provide both the benefits and consequences of your proposed cut so that we can accurately asses how valid it is?

No real need to, sometimes in life you just need to reduce costs, expenses and make do with less. It's the way it works in business and in life and sometimes in politics too. The federal government is taking drastic steps to reduce expenses and costs according to the Treasury board, although I await final results. $15 billion in spending and some smarter initiatives is being planned within the next few years in savings apparently.

After "investing in the middle class" all these years, and the middle class not really feeling the love and the support, the old belt tightening has started in order to improve financial performance while trying to expand quality of life in Canada. Finance Canada and private sector economists have been warning for years that the level of spending was problematic for the general economy and the Trudeau Liberals have taken notice. Changes need to happen according to them and costs reduced . Can't keep spending at these levels they say. What goes up, MUST come down.

[Wormius]

Is there an example of a city that does every right and has the right level of taxation?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Is there an example of a city that does every right and has the right level of taxation?

Everyone seems to love Victoria and they have the lowest tax rate in Canada I think.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because it’s the most “pragmatic” position but a lot of the time, when pressed, it’s just “I want a high standard of living for everyone but I don’t want to pay for it.”

It’s not a pipe dream to ask for a pragmatic approach, but it’s probably a difficult target to hit when the goals are so vague and there’s no actual definition of what success looks like.

Well of course things are somewhat ambiguous though, because there’s no agreed definition for most of these outcomes. That’s not peculiar to my view by any stretch of the imagination.

And as far as the thought that I want all this and don’t want to pay for it, it’s just wrong. I pay a lot of taxes and don’t have a huge issue with that because I consider it like rent for living in the place we do. What I do have an issue with is often how that money is spent though. Again, that’s hardly an outlier for a viewpoint. At this point, when all the spending is characterized as essential and I’m a moron for saying we should cut, what happens when we face a downturn?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well of course things are somewhat ambiguous though, because there’s no agreed definition for most of these outcomes. That’s not peculiar to my view by any stretch of the imagination.

And as far as the thought that I want all this and don’t want to pay for it, it’s just wrong. I pay a lot of taxes and don’t have a huge issue with that because I consider it like rent for living in the place we do. What I do have an issue with is often how that money is spent though. Again, that’s hardly an outlier for a viewpoint. At this point, when all the spending is characterized as essential and I’m a moron for saying we should cut, what happens when we face a downturn?

It’s not peculiar, but you can also just end up with an asinine take like “just cut spending, doesn’t matter what the benefits or consequences are” like curves. At that point, it’s just meaningless objection for the sake of objection.

Any conversation around spending has to be based on something more than the general perception that it’s “too high.”

It’s like me saying I should be rich. If someone says “Well, what are you doing to get rich? What do your finances look like?” and I say “doesn’t matter, I should just be rich” it’s my right to say that, but I would look like a moron.

[Roughneck]

Depends what outcomes you're talking about, but there's a lot of definitions and guidelines and policies around service goals. If anything the city is plagued by definitions of outcomes to a fault because meeting them while sprawling, and re-evaluating them requires a lot of admin.

For example, snow clearing:

https://www.calgary.ca/roads/conditi...tml#priorities

The city can choose to budget for those policies, or they can change them. Change which roads are priorities, switch to a 24-48 hour window to make up for having more roads to plow but a budget decrease. A new neighborhood is built? Well those are a lot of new roads that now need to be accommodated for in the city's snow-clearing priorities without affecting the others.

Similarly the Calgary Transportation Policy (this is a pdf) https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...P-2020-P12.pdf has guidelines and definitions that have been voted on and admin is tasked to follow. Budget can be changed by adjusting what priority hours are and what they require. Fewer priority hours and making it 15 minute times instead of 10? That's something council can direct Admin to do and deal with it. Until they do, more neighborhoods and busier roads will mean needing more to meet the definitions that have been chosen.

Garbage and recycling have agreed upon outcomes as well. Saving (or spending more) money is as simple as changing the schedule. Every 3 weeks instead of 2? Potential for big savings.