BC Election - May 9th, 2017

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Getting the second most number of seats means you were elected to run the province now?

#Trumping

in the British Parliamentary system yes at times

[Enoch Root]

No, it's possible to take power with the second most seats, as we occasionally see. But that does not mean that they were elected to do so. The province did not vote 'for the NDP to run the province'.

[d_phaneuf]

It's semantics

You can argue each and every way

It all boils down too the majority of the province doesn't want any of these parties to run things, so yay?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Vancouver's commitment to cycling infrastructure has really paid off. Population and job increases downtown without a corresponding increase in car traffic is a big deal.

Is there some measure to show there hasn't been an increase in car traffic?
As someone who has to drive as part of their living, I fear doing into downtown for meetings now.
It's a horrible place to have to drive and traffic congestions seems much worse to me than it was 5-6 years ago.

[Galakanokis]

Zero doubt traffic is worse in the past 3 to 5 years. I have driven the same route for 15 years and every year it gets worse.

[afc wimbledon]

I no longer shop downtown at all as parking is all but impossible and when you can find somewhere you look to pay any where up to 4 bucks an hour, now I drive out of Vancouver to the burbs to shop.

[rubecube]

Highlights from the budget update can be found here:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3734843/b-...budget-update/

I still don't agree with eliminating the tolls because they haven't indicated how they're going to replace the lost revenue and I'm disappointed they're missing the speculation tax, but I can get on board with most of this, particularly with regards to the rental market and finally trying to tackle the opioid crisis.

[Lubicon]

Tax increase for 'high income' people and corporations, which I suppose is to be expected from an NDP government. Biggest change from my perspective is the increase to the carbon tax (reasonable actually) AND changing it so that is does not have to be revenue neutral anymore which is pretty significant. That very much changes how the tax can affect people.

[squiggs96]

The budget was pretty much as expected, and included a lot on what the NDP campaigned on. Most of it is why I voted against the NDP. I cannot get on board with the move to the $10 per day daycare or the removal of tolls. Tolls are an important part of curbing traffic, and it is now costing the province $500M per year. This money has to come from somewhere, and implementing a new tier for incomes taxes to pay for the removed tolls, will increase the tax burden for many people who don't take the bridges daily. I don't think the government should be in the business of building condos, and their 114,000 figure is horrifically unrealistic. I have gone on many times about this, but the whole plan on the 114,000 units is short sighted, costly, and doesn't actually solve the problem. If the NDP wants to eliminate MSP premiums I'm all for it, as long as they show how they can pay for it. They still haven't done that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I don't think the government should be in the business of building condos, and their 114,000 figure is horrifically unrealistic. I have gone on many times about this, but the whole plan on the 114,000 units is short sighted, costly, and doesn't actually solve the problem.

They're building rental units and co-op housing, not condos. I agree with you that condos need to be built but that only really addresses one side of the issue, especially when you're dealing with speculation and people using their second properties as short-term rentals. I think expecting the private-sector/the market to sort this out is even more short-sighted. We're already seeing the chickens come home to roost from this approach with both public and private projects being delayed and/or facing major cost overruns in Victoria and Vancouver because there aren't enough vacancies and affordable rentals for workers and tradesmen.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

The budget was pretty much as expected, and included a lot on what the NDP campaigned on. Most of it is why I voted against the NDP. I cannot get on board with the move to the $10 per day daycare or the removal of tolls. Tolls are an important part of curbing traffic, and it is now costing the province $500M per year. This money has to come from somewhere, and implementing a new tier for incomes taxes to pay for the removed tolls, will increase the tax burden for many people who don't take the bridges daily. I don't think the government should be in the business of building condos, and their 114,000 figure is horrifically unrealistic. I have gone on many times about this, but the whole plan on the 114,000 units is short sighted, costly, and doesn't actually solve the problem. If the NDP wants to eliminate MSP premiums I'm all for it, as long as they show how they can pay for it. They still haven't done that.

So pretty much the NDP being the NDP. Got it.

How do people still vote for these clowns? Do they genuinely believe they're going to get something for nothing?

[indes]

Originally Posted by Locke

So pretty much the NDP being the NDP. Got it.

How do people still vote for these clowns? Do they genuinely believe they're going to get something for nothing?

Rich people and Corporations!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Is there some measure to show there hasn't been an increase in car traffic?
As someone who has to drive as part of their living, I fear doing into downtown for meetings now.
It's a horrible place to have to drive and traffic congestions seems much worse to me than it was 5-6 years ago.

The congestion doesn't appear to be as a result of an increase in cars:

Traffic in Vancouver is getting worse even as the number of vehicles on the road stays the same, concludes a report from the city's transportation department as it prepares to measure and tackle congestion.

"As our streets become more active, the same amount of traffic will move more slowly," Lon LaClaire, the city's transportation director, told city council on Tuesday.

And the streets are definitely being used more, he said.

The number of filming permits is up by 2,000 from the 3,000 it was at two years ago. Permits to dig for utility lines have also jumped. There are more pedestrians, more bicycles, more buses, more of many other things besides cars on the road.

City councillors listening to Mr. LaClaire's presentation Tuesday added their own stories of problems: garbage trucks blocking streets, couriers riding their bikes down sidewalks, stories of ride-hailing services in other cities creating even more congestion problems, complaints about large numbers of delivery trucks downtown.

The overall city-traffic slowdown is something city engineers are sure is happening, because of anecdotal information that percolates into city hall.

The problem is they don't know exactly how bad it is. Current engineering traffic counts measure how many vehicles travel on a road, not how much time it is taking to get anywhere.

Statistics the department provided previously showed there was no change in morning traffic volumes on Burrard Street, Granville Street and the Lions Gate Bridge between 2011 and 2014. Traffic on Cambie Street had gone up by 4,000, to 30,000 vehicles during morning rush hour, between 2012 and 2014.

"But we're absolutely certain it has slowed down," said Dale Bracewell, a transportation-planning manager.

One of the first tasks of the congestion-management initiative will be to figure out how much time it takes a motorist to travel from A to B on major arterial roads.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by rubecube

They're building rental units and co-op housing, not condos.

I'm aware of what they want to build. The problem is they haven't given any semblance of a plan on how to cost is, run it, maintain it, etc. Of the 11,400 homes they want to build each year, 7,000 of these are rental. The other 4,400 are market housing. There are currently 15,000 people on BC's wait list. Does building 44,000 units of market housing make sense when there are 15,000 people waiting? Where does the land come from for all these units? Where does the money come from to build these units? Let's assume the average unit is 600 SF, and the building costs are $200 PSF. The cost to build in the first year is $1,368,000,000. That's almost $1.4 Billion, and only includes the costs to build. That doesn't include the cost of land, nor does it include the operating costs once they are built.

There is already enough rhetoric about the construction and development industry, including they are building everywhere. If this is true, who is going to build the new units with the industry already at capacity? It's not creating new jobs if they have to bring people in from other provinces. It's already difficult to find trades, so if trades become more in demand, then the prices continue to rise. If the provincial government is going to act as the GC or the developer, they can say they are keeping costs down by paying reasonable wages. Very few of the trades will go there, if they know they'll get paid more elsewhere.

There are parts of the budget that are fine. This is not one of them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

Zero doubt traffic is worse in the past 3 to 5 years. I have driven the same route for 15 years and every year it gets worse.

I have zero doubt traffic from the Vancouver metro area is significantly worse as populations in those areas have increased density in response to the cost of housing. Isn't Surrey the fastest growing city in Canada now? If it's not at the top, it's close.

Part of that is being attended to with increased service and ridership from Transit, but I think it's taken a toll on mainland commutes from anywhere to anywhere.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I'm aware of what they want to build. The problem is they haven't given any semblance of a plan on how to cost is, run it, maintain it, etc. Of the 11,400 homes they want to build each year, 7,000 of these are rental. The other 4,400 are market housing. There are currently 15,000 people on BC's wait list. Does building 44,000 units of market housing make sense when there are 15,000 people waiting? Where does the land come from for all these units? Where does the money come from to build these units? Let's assume the average unit is 600 SF, and the building costs are $200 PSF. The cost to build in the first year is $1,368,000,000. That's almost $1.4 Billion, and only includes the costs to build. That doesn't include the cost of land, nor does it include the operating costs once they are built.

It makes sense if you're planning for growth and hoping to drive the costs down for renters by reducing scarcity.

There is already enough rhetoric about the construction and development industry, including they are building everywhere. If this is true, who is going to build the new units with the industry already at capacity? It's not creating new jobs if they have to bring people in from other provinces. It's already difficult to find trades, so if trades become more in demand, then the prices continue to rise. If the provincial government is going to act as the GC or the developer, they can say they are keeping costs down by paying reasonable wages. Very few of the trades will go there, if they know they'll get paid more elsewhere.

This is absolutely fair criticism and I can't say I have an obvious answer to it. It may be one of those things where the public has to eat higher costs up front for greater benefits down the line. It's something that should have been anticipated years ago and invested in back when the costs would have been lower. I get that hindsight is 20/20, but how many times does in need to be demonstrated that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Continuing to punt on the housing issue isn't going to improve matters.

Stuff like this is unacceptable in my eyes:

https://www.cheknews.ca/family-livin...rental-364398/

At first glance, it may look like Tammy Stephens and her family are enjoying a summer camping trip at a View Royal campground but it is no vacation.

The tent they've set up is their home.

"It's been starting to cool down at nights so feels a bit chilly," said Stephens.

Stephens nine-year-old daughter Ocean should be heading back to school with her classmates, but living in a campground makes getting there difficult.

"She's an amazing girl to be so positive but she would like to have home back," said Stephens, who also has an 18-year-old daughter.

And the family did have an affordable four-bedroom home just a few months ago, but it was sold and they were forced out.

"It's quite the dramatic change but trying to stay positive and make the best of it I guess," said Stephens' husband Tyler Lumley.

They did find another place but came home a month ago to find a Do Not Occupy notice taped to the front door by the Town of View Royal.

They had to be out immediately.

"It was completely anxiety ridden, total fear all over again," said Stephens.

With no family to lean on, and no affordable housing available, they had nowhere left to turn.

[rubecube]

So it looks like the NDP and Greens were justified in calling for a review of the Site C dam. The NDP haven't committed to scrapping it yet however.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...beandmail.com&

[Ducay]

Are the BC NDP and Greens totally hell bent on any economic development in their province? These guys are so detached from reality it is insane.

Imagine had they been more hospitable to the various LNG projects & pipes, Transmountain Exp, Northern Gateway, Site C.....they'd have the hottest jobs market this side of Dubai.

[indes]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So it looks like the NDP and Greens were justified in calling for a review of the Site C dam. The NDP haven't committed to scrapping it yet however.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...beandmail.com&

Now that LNG is on life support yes. The main appeal for site C was that LNG plants would use the hydro power, instead of burning gas to power the plants. Super easy to cut down on power, just stop industry and business!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Site C.....they'd have the hottest jobs market this side of Dubai.

So the government should blow $10B just to create jobs for one project that doesn't seem to provide any discernible benefit to the province?