MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't get this line of thought. Of course there are actuaries. But, there were actuaries in cities like Detroit where they had enormous issues surrounding their pensions. It's not just super simple to make sure that these things are properly funded, but that isn't even the main concern. It's that you calculate what is required for proper funding and it's a pile of money...as evidenced in your next sentences!

Sure, but Detroit was a city that was extremely poorly run and which had had its population decline by almost 70% over the decades. If there are cities in Canada in similarly precarious positions with massive unfunded liabilities, then fair enough. But their problem went far beyond pensions; half the property owners in the city weren't paying their property taxes and the city couldn't even pay their bonds.

Quick question on that teachers pension though. That 25% that is contributed...are the employees themselves putting in 25% or is that made up of their contributions and the match from their employers?

I'm only familiar with BC's, but it's a combination of employee contribution, employer contribution, and then CPP, which forms part of the pension benefit. So it's something like ~11.5% from the employer for the pension plan, ~11.5% from the employee, and then for a teacher's salary, probably about 6-8% more in CPP, with half contributed by each party. So that's the equivalent of ~30% of their gross salary going into pension funding (15% deducted from their pay and 15% contributed by the employer).

Now you could exclude CPP from the calculations to do a better comparison to non-pension workers, but then you have to exclude the benefit. Because when you hear about teachers making say $50K a year off their teachers' pension, the first $10K or so is from CPP (at least that's the case in BC). My mom is a retired BC teacher and she only gets about $25-30K from her teachers pension after a 35 year career. Along with her CPP and OAS it's a fairly comfortable retirement, but the teacher portion isn't some unachievable sum if you're putting away 11-12% of your gross salary every year and have even modest employer RRSP matching. And that's by design; the level of pension contributions is such that on average, they'll fully fund a teacher's retirement benefits.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I disagree with Cliff ...

Fair enough. I wouldn't take much issue with someone saying their annoyance came from her proposal of using municipal taxes to fight a federal lawsuit. That post was only in response to the assertion that it wasn't about the money.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Just because other municipalities are misappropriating their citizens' funds however they like doesn't mean Calgary should follow suit, even if it aligns with our ideology.

Does it though? We're Texas of the North. The city of racist rednecks and professional greed. Or at least I'm sure that's something we've all heard and had to rebuke at one point. The City will be granting Tourism Calgary 9M this year (at least pre-covid budget), 3M or so of which will be spent on marketing, promoting and public relations.

Calgary's mayor hoping to fund an anti-discrimination lawsuit was a nice change of pace from headlines like "Calgary firefighter speaks out against prevalent racism" or "Calgary racist graffiti being investigated" or "Calgary mayor identifies anti-mandate protests as thinly veiled white nationalist rally" or "Calgary racialized municipal candidates targeted with hate-filled messages and vandalism" or "Calgary police of chief not sure systemic racism exists" or "Calgary's Black population paid less than non-Black counterparts" or "Calgary's planned BLM mural scrapped after numerous threats" or "Indigenous man racially profiled as another "drunk native" by Calgary healthcare workers" or "Students suspended after recording Calgary teacher using racial slur" or "Video shows woman spat and called racial slur in unprovoked attack in Calgary park" or "Video shows racist tirade during road rage incident in Calgary" we have seen too often make national and the occasional international news in these last couple years.

Having organizations like the World Sikh Organization of Canada express gratitude to Calgary for passing the resolutions is probably worth the return we will get from $100,000 spent on a couple marketing initiatives that we will be doing this year without anyone ever blinking an eye. And we didn't even have to spend that $100,000 afterall. Gondek playing 4-d chess there lol.

Then there's all the time, money and resources that went into the formation of the Anti-Racism Action Committee and grandstanding of how Calgary's going to look at systemic racism and overall commit to be better these last couple years...and then we have outrage that we might spend some money on something that actually has a potential tangible benefit.

And it's not just showing support for people in Quebec but those in Calgary who fear similar laws being passed in Alberta and have expressed mental impacts as a result of the bill. Calgary's hate crime jumped 50 per cent last year, Caylan Ford was a UCP star candidate and would have been a Calgary MLA had she not had to drop out when her white nationalist views went public. There's very rational reasons for minorities and marginalized people in Calgary to feel fear or undervalued. Helping to fund the lawsuit could be a way of communicating to them that we do recognize their concerns, that we do have their back, that we will try to stop what's happening in Quebec to ensure you don't have to worry about it happening here.

Toronto council within a day after Brampton's mayor made the plea had already unanimously voted in favour of funding $100,000. (Though a lawsuit was filed which could be an interesting case). So it shouldn't come as a surprise why Calgary has a stark difference in reputation, warranted or not, because we haven't been exactly going out of our way to try and change it.

Despite the above, I wouldn't have been super fussed one way or the other, I get both sides, I could probably be convinced that using public money to fund a private lawsuit against a different province is not the right course of action. I just think the "it's not in Calgary so it doesn't matter to Calgary" is a bit narrow of a view.

[OptimalTates]

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/there-wil...ders-1.5843360

Thoughts? I would love to just fire anyone with it on. If you can't follow policy, how can we expect you to enforce the law?

Take the savings from the fired officers to fund DB pensions and we solve everything.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/there-wil...ders-1.5843360

Thoughts? I would love to just fire anyone with it on. If you can't follow policy, how can we expect you to enforce the law?

Take the savings from the fired officers to fund DB pensions and we solve everything.

The police association aren’t going to win this fight in the end. But your suggestion of automatically firing them isn’t going to work either, the argument that being opposed to a policy means they can’t be expected to do their job would be picked apart in short order by even the worst lawyer.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

be picked apart in short order by even the worst lawyer.

Let's not get carried away. While I agree with your point in general, there are some pretty terrible lawyers out there.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Does it though? We're Texas of the North. The city of racist rednecks and professional greed. Or at least I'm sure that's something we've all heard and had to rebuke at one point. The City will be granting Tourism Calgary 9M this year (at least pre-covid budget), 3M or so of which will be spent on marketing, promoting and public relations.

"... even if it aligns with our ideology" was to cover the broad range of endeavours that one could theoretically commit municipal funds to. Just because something is good for 'my team' doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye to support the misuse of tax dollars in service of it; that's something too many people are willing to do, IMO.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Calgary's mayor hoping to fund an anti-discrimination lawsuit was a nice change of pace from headlines like "Calgary firefighter speaks out against prevalent racism" or "Calgary racist graffiti being investigated" or "Calgary mayor identifies anti-mandate protests as thinly veiled white nationalist rally" or "Calgary racialized municipal candidates targeted with hate-filled messages and vandalism" or "Calgary police of chief not sure systemic racism exists" or "Calgary's Black population paid less than non-Black counterparts" or "Calgary's planned BLM mural scrapped after numerous threats" or "Indigenous man racially profiled as another "drunk native" by Calgary healthcare workers" or "Students suspended after recording Calgary teacher using racial slur" or "Video shows woman spat and called racial slur in unprovoked attack in Calgary park" or "Video shows racist tirade during road rage incident in Calgary" we have seen too often make national and the occasional international news in these last couple years.

I guess that depends on your perspective, I'd like to think we didn't hear about those things because the incidences of such terrible occurrences have gone down -- though I'm ready to have that dream crushed by the small number of idiots who perpetuate them. But more likely it's because misappropriating municipal funds to fight a battle against legislation in a province that does not have any force or impact here is a big deal and especially so for a new mayor so early into their term.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Having organizations like the World Sikh Organization of Canada express gratitude to Calgary for passing the resolutions is probably worth the return we will get from $100,000 spent on a couple marketing initiatives that we will be doing this year without anyone ever blinking an eye. And we didn't even have to spend that $100,000 afterall. Gondek playing 4-d chess there lol.

Then there's all the time, money and resources that went into the formation of the Anti-Racism Action Committee and grandstanding of how Calgary's going to look at systemic racism and overall commit to be better these last couple years...and then we have outrage that we might spend some money on something that actually has a potential tangible benefit.

Pass all the resolutions you want, form the Anti-Racism Action Committee, those things will actually contribute to success here. The second "and we're going to put city tax funds toward fighting a law in Quebec" comes up, that's a problem and you will lose support. Gondek's '4D chess' is giving her an unusually low approval rating amongst the people who matter -- the voters -- so I don't put much stock in her game, and it's because of things like this. She has a reputation giving too much attention where it is undeserved, and not enough attention to the things that matter to citizens. Don't get me wrong, I'd still rather have a taxidermy rodent in the mayor's chair than Jeromy Farkas for at least it would be less of a rat than him, but Gondek has herself to blame for early disappointment in her performance so far.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

And it's not just showing support for people in Quebec but those in Calgary who fear similar laws being passed in Alberta and have expressed mental impacts as a result of the bill. Calgary's hate crime jumped 50 per cent last year, Caylan Ford was a UCP star candidate and would have been a Calgary MLA had she not had to drop out when her white nationalist views went public. There's very rational reasons for minorities and marginalized people in Calgary to feel fear or undervalued. Helping to fund the lawsuit could be a way of communicating to them that we do recognize their concerns, that we do have their back, that we will try to stop what's happening in Quebec to ensure you don't have to worry about it happening here.

Toronto council within a day after Brampton's mayor made the plea had already unanimously voted in favour of funding $100,000. (Though a lawsuit was filed which could be an interesting case). So it shouldn't come as a surprise why Calgary has a stark difference in reputation, warranted or not, because we haven't been exactly going out of our way to try and change it.

None of this justifies the funding a legal challenge in Quebec. Again, no issue with the resolution to ideologically oppose Bill 21, which is IMO going out of our way to change our reputation. If you don't want to shoot those efforts in the foot, then don't go giving people a reason to oppose them. 'We want to denounce xenophobia,' totally onboard, '... and we're going to use tax money to fight against legislation somewhere that we have no jurisdiction over,' and no way.
You can be both anti-racist and still have a problem with this.

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Despite the above, I wouldn't have been super fussed one way or the other, I get both sides, I could probably be convinced that using public money to fund a private lawsuit against a different province is not the right course of action. I just think the "it's not in Calgary so it doesn't matter to Calgary" is a bit narrow of a view.

It not being in Calgary is why the use of city tax monies is unacceptable.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Totally OT, but this show is on Netflix.

I highly recommend

A humanitarian crime that a fourth season did not get made.

[WhiteTiger]

Oops...

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/councillo...sion-1.5857785

The Calgary Police Service (CPS) confirms it is aware of an incident between Ward 9 councillor Gian-Carlo Carra and a member of the public and an investigation was passed along to law enforcement in Edmonton.

Carra has stepped down from the Calgary Police Commission (CPC) while the investigation proceeds.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CTV News Calgary

An anonymous tip to CTV News alleges the incident involved road rage and damage to property.

Carra was rocking quite the tan when he kicked the mirrors off that Tesla.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Oops...

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/councillo...sion-1.5857785

Looks like info leaked out about this incident so GC released this on twitter not long ago:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1513943500538015746

While it would be prudent to wait for the results of the investigation, any of us that walk/wheel around this city regularly know just how bad things are getting with people behind the wheel. Heck didn't we just start a thread about road rage on here last week?

[GGG]

I like the statement “I was able to tap the bumper with my foot” when he likely means booted the bumper of the car which is why the other vehicle stopped to yell at him.

[Lubicon]

GCC probably should not have released that statement IMHO. Let the investigation run it's course. CPS is rightly not discussing any of the details or even commenting while it is under investigation (by EPS). As a elected public official he probably should not do so either.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

GCC probably should not have released that statement IMHO. Let the investigation run it's course. CPS is rightly not discussing any of the details or even commenting while it is under investigation (by EPS). As a elected public official he probably should not do so either.

I'm not sure about CPS not leaking details, as the "road rage" detail came out this morning and not from GC's camp.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by GGG

I like the statement “I was able to tap the bumper with my foot” when he likely means booted the bumper of the car which is why the other vehicle stopped to yell at him.

If I recall correctly he spent his formative years in NYC in the summer, so I'd chalk that up to a "Hey I'm walking here!" natural reaction.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

GCC probably should not have released that statement IMHO. Let the investigation run it's course. CPS is rightly not discussing any of the details or even commenting while it is under investigation (by EPS). As a elected public official he probably should not do so either.

What a nonsense post. He was acting as a private citizen and not in any official capacity. He temporarily removed himself from the Commission to avoid any perception of conflict and the CPS requested EPS investigate for the same reason. The i's were dotted and the t's crossed. Now he can speak as though any other citizen should be able to, especially as a public figure that had it reported he was involved in an incident that is being investigated with no other official information released except an anonymous source making a claim. Otherwise, if his story is accurate, are we going to tell a victim of a crime that they can not speak out about it? Or even indicate that they are the victim? Absurd.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

GCC probably should not have released that statement IMHO. Let the investigation run it's course. CPS is rightly not discussing any of the details or even commenting while it is under investigation (by EPS). As a elected public official he probably should not do so either.

At the very least he shouldn't have gone into the level of detail he did. Should have said something along the lines of "On April 2 I was involved in a pedestrian-vehicle traffic incident in which I was the pedestrian. CPS responded to the incident to take statements from me, the driver of the vehicle and a passenger. I have since learned through the media that the investigation has been transferred to EPS, for the sake of impartiality. For the time being, until the investigation is completed and the matter is settled I am stepping down from the CPC. I am sure the investigation will show no wrongdoing on my part, and I won't be making any further comments."

[timun]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

What a nonsense post. He was acting as a private citizen and not in any official capacity. He temporarily removed himself from the Commission to avoid any perception of conflict and the CPS requested EPS investigate for the same reason. The i's were dotted and the t's crossed. Now he can speak as though any other citizen should be able to, especially as a public figure that had it reported he was involved in an incident that is being investigated with no other information released. Otherwise, if his story is accurate, are we going to tell a victim of a crime that they can not speak out about it? Or even indicate that they are the victim? Absurd.

"If his story is accurate" being the operative words here. As a private citizen he shouldn't make any detailed public statements about it, because if his statement can be shown to be inaccurate it'll be used against him.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by timun

At the very least he shouldn't have gone into the level of detail he did. Should have said something along the lines of "On April 2 I was involved in a pedestrian-vehicle traffic incident in which I was the pedestrian. CPS responded to the incident to take statements from me, the driver of the vehicle and a passenger. I have since learned through the media that the investigation has been transferred to EPS, for the sake of impartiality. For the time being, until the investigation is completed and the matter is settled I am stepping down from the CPC. I am sure the investigation will show no wrongdoing on my part, and I won't be making any further comments."

Exactly. This is how it should have been played.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm not sure about CPS not leaking details, as the "road rage" detail came out this morning and not from GC's camp.

Chief of Police flat out refused to discuss the incident this morning on CTV other than to say it was in the hands of EPS. Who knows where the initial leak came from but CPS is certainly not discussing it now.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by timun

"If his story is accurate" being the operative words here. As a private citizen he shouldn't make any detailed public statements about it, because if his statement can be shown to be inaccurate it'll be used against him.

If his story is inaccurate the defending party would love it, agreed, but it's his prerogative to discuss the incident like anyone else would be. Especially as the same people who were protesting outside his house were apparently weaponizing the incident with their own unsubstantiated claims.