Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
I don't take any of your posts personally or as a personal insult. If I came across as whining in previous posts or as some unwashed pleb trying to take a lazy poke at a claim made by a respected poster who worked at a high level in the mayors office than that's on me to articulate my points better.
I don't see it as in-congruent at all. Paying more than necessary, to provide the level of services required, unquestionably means the city then has less money available for other priorities should that be snow removal, a new hockey arena, 4 car C-trains, airport LRT or any other number of other things. The city doesn't exist as a 'make-work' project to give people employment, it exists to provide services to it's residents.
Also to be clear I didn't say gold plating wages. I said gold plating capital projects. What that means is that the city over the past decade has had a tenancy to spend a large amount of dollars for the highest quality of facilities in style and form. Many people have expressed their high amount of satisfaction for this. The peace bridge, the central library, north west YMCA, etc. are examples of capital projects that are widely loved. To that end though I think that the lost opportunity cost of all the other things we could have done had we say built a more functional central Library for $150 million rather than $250 million, built a less lavish NW rec center, needs to highlighted as well.
Especially with the backdrop of the conversation we're having now where there are projects that citizens are advocating for and there's a revenue gap at the city due to the poorer economic and decline in downtown real estate. When you only buy the nicest things, you can't have as many things. The loss of the things we couldn't build should be considered an opportunity cost. I find that's not talked about enough, or if it is it's being addressed superficially and disingenuously by self-described 'fiscal-hawks' on city council.
|
Good post. I wish more people were able to discuss an issue like you do.
From the other side of that argument, though...
I was in NYC recently and one of the things that really struck me was that many of the iconic landmarks there were built in a high quality manner. They have stood the test of time over many decades and have been integral to making New York the worlds pre-eminent city.
I'm not in any way trying to compare YYC to NYC. Rather I'm making the case of quality over quantity. I would rather we do our projects very well with the caveat that those projects should not inhibit the funding of necessities in a city. Your argument seems to be quantity over quality. I think historically when you build infrastructure and you don't do it with the long term goal in mind you end up paying more in the long term because you have to replace the half-assed infrastructure sooner rather than later. This is short-term thinking and doesn't serve anyone except in the very short term.
There are plenty of examples of cities that have primarily gone this route. The one that springs to mind is Edmonton and now they are paying big to fix their previous infrastructure 'pragmatism'.
