Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I saw an article that went over candidates in each Ward as well as the mayoral candidates that did a quick brief. I'll try and find it again.

Here it is:

Meet The Calgarians Running For Mayor And Council

Generally speaking, anyone who is aligned with the "Save Calgary", "Take Back City Hall" crowd and/or aligned with the Manning Centre is likely your go-to candidate. That's my rule of thumb.

After looking through that I don't have much confidence that we are going to have a well run City... So many are like "Increase Police Funding or Parks Funding, at the same time cutting City Taxes" Also I don't like when people say just cut city taxes... that is fine, but they also better tell you what services they are going to reduce at the same time.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I saw an article that went over candidates in each Ward as well as the mayoral candidates that did a quick brief. I'll try and find it again.

Here it is:

Meet The Calgarians Running For Mayor And Council

Generally speaking, anyone who is aligned with the "Save Calgary", "Take Back City Hall" crowd and/or aligned with the Manning Centre is likely your go-to candidate. That's my rule of thumb.

I am hoping the exclusion of Kevin J Johnston wasn't accidental.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Has Gondek endorsed any of the Ward 3 replacement candidates? Because I can't seem to get a handle on any of them outside of generalized platitudes and am curious who she sees as best suited as her successor.

Nate Pike might be the most progressive overall, but his website's information is pretty lacking. I guess I might have to listen to his podcast...

I was thinking Jasmine Mian has been pretty progressive as well. I haven’t received any flyers from Nate Pike yet though.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CPK80

they also better tell you what services they are going to reduce at the same time.

Red-Tape services, obviously.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I was thinking Jasmine Mian has been pretty progressive as well. I haven’t received any flyers from Nate Pike yet though.

Pike is definitely progressive, and has serious compassion for his community and a solid understanding of how politics and what's afflicting Albertans at the moment. If I was in his Ward I would consider voting for him, he seems like he genuinely cares for good governance.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Red-Tape services, obviously.

Silly Hall is full of red tape

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CPK80

After looking through that I don't have much confidence that we are going to have a well run City... So many are like "Increase Police Funding or Parks Funding, at the same time cutting City Taxes" Also I don't like when people say just cut city taxes... that is fine, but they also better tell you what services they are going to reduce at the same time.

I can already tell you what their answer will be:

1. Trim the fat, cut waste, and find efficiencies (i.e. the fantasyland approach where they naively think they can magically reduce taxes without it having any impact to City services)

2. Bike lanes and public art (which collectively make up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total City budget and even if you reduced both programs to $0 funding it wouldn't make a meaningful dent into anyone property tax bill)

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Is there any indication of UCP-backed candidates running in this election?

Yes. Farkas.

I mean, the same institution that hand-picked Kenney for politics is the same one that Farkas worked for directly before becoming a councilor.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Red-Tape services, obviously.

Come on dude. Everyone says they are gonna balance the budget by "Cutting red tape".
I'm so tired of people trotting this out as some silver bullet, and people actually thinking it's gonna work.
Like yeah, this guy is gonna cut my taxes, and cut the red tape that'll balance the budget.

Everyone knows the only way to balance a budget is to "Trim the fat".

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Come on dude. Everyone says they are gonna balance the budget by "Cutting red tape".
I'm so tired of people trotting this out as some silver bullet, and people actually thinking it's gonna work.
Like yeah, this guy is gonna cut my taxes, and cut the red tape that'll balance the budget.

Everyone knows the only way to balance a budget is to "Trim the fat".

I think it would be nice if we actually did stop wasting money though. They repaved a road near my house, which took 3-4 days. Then a city crew spent the next 2 days putting up custom signs bragging about repaving the road. Then they have to come back a year later to take them down. The cost of the signs about the project had to have been at least 5% of the total project budget, maybe more.

The "cut the fat" candidates are so popular because there are obvious examples of wasteful government spending, so it seems reasonable to voters that there is stuff that could be cut that wouldn't affect anyone.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Agree with this except the last part. I would much rather have Davison than Farkas.

Truthfully I'd rather have nether... don't really want Gondek either but if electing her means we can kick both Davison and Farkas to the curb then sign me up.

I have no interest in seeing the slimy snake-oil salesman represent our city or seeing a guy that looks like he was grown in a petri-dish in the basement of the Manning Centre treat the mayorship as just another step on the conservatives Cursus honorum (I mean c'mon does anyone really think that Farkas sees city council as a finish line rather then just a mile marker?).

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think it would be nice if we actually did stop wasting money though. They repaved a road near my house, which took 3-4 days. Then a city crew spent the next 2 days putting up custom signs bragging about repaving the road. Then they have to come back a year later to take them down. The cost of the signs about the project had to have been at least 5% of the total project budget, maybe more.

The "cut the fat" candidates are so popular because there are obvious examples of wasteful government spending, so it seems reasonable to voters that there is stuff that could be cut that wouldn't affect anyone.

I would love it if we could stop wasting money, but let's be honest, putting a sing up and down isn't going to save 5% on a project, even a small one.

The problem is candidates that run on "Cut the fat" invariable have no real plan, no understanding of what services cost, or what the real challenges are when making/managing a budget of that size.

Are there places where money could be save easily? Sure.
Are they they going to make a material impact when we talk about cutting budgets and taxes without sacrificing services? Nope.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Problem is candidates the run on "Cut the fat" invariable have no real plan, no understanding of what services cost, or what the real challenges are when making/managing a budget of that size.

Are there places where money could be save easily? Sure.
Are they they going to make a material impact when we talk about cutting budgets and taxes without sacrificing services? Nope.

Right. But if the current group would save the money in "places where money could be saved easily" then populist "cut the fat" types would get no traction. I think its easy to understand how people think they pay too much in taxes (whatever that absolute level) when they see monwy getting wasted.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I would love it if we could stop wasting money, but let's be honest, putting a sing up and down isn't going to save 5% on a project, even a small one.

This wasn't in your post when I first quoted it, so I'll respond separately. The project had a budget of $1.1 MM (according to the signs!) I think $55k for putting up 2 custom road signs with concrete bollards and then taking them down is very much a reasonable estimate.

They had to buy the signs, the bollards, and the crew to put them up. The crew was two city workers and a foreman, and they had a large (my estimate was 1 ton) picker truck. It took them a full day per sign.

Then on the back end they'll need to have the same crew come take them down and dispose of the signs.

Maybe its only a couple percent of the total job, probably depends how much engineering was done and how much overhead you assign to the project. Maybe it was only 1%.

My point really wasn't that there are huge savings to be had (although even a few percent across the city's projects would be a great deal of money). Moreso that obvious waste makes candidates with low information value platforms comprised of "cut the fat" rhetoric possible.

[Parallex]

There is no way to "cut the fat"... what one group of people see as "fat" another group will see as "essential" and vice-versa. You can't cut fat unless everyone agrees what's fat and what isn't, if you don't then all you'll do is change who thinks that the fat ought to be cut. And everyone agreeing on anything has never happened in the history of forever.

Same with "finding efficiencies"... amazing isn't it that after generations of politicians saying that they'll do this and that by finding efficiencies that there are still magical inefficiencies that can be found to fund the next guys ambitions.

David Mitchell says it pretty well here...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8

[CliffFletcher]

People want to believe there’s loads of waste in government. That way taxes could be cut or budgets balanced without any pain on their end.

This thinking is especially prevalent in Alberta because the billions in energy royalties that gushed into our general revenues annually gave us a distorted sense of how much we need to pay in taxes to afford the level of public health and education services we expect.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Right. But if the current group would save the money in "places where money could be saved easily" then populist "cut the fat" types would get no traction. I think its easy to understand how people think they pay too much in taxes (whatever that absolute level) when they see monwy getting wasted.

But the ‘Cut the fat’ sentiment is rarely rooted in any fact or knowledge of the matter. People expect value for their money, but unfortunately that ‘value’ is somehow always more than they get, and ‘their money’ is always more than they want to give. ‘The Fat’ is almost always whatever the person saying it doesn’t think is necessary.

I mean, if someone honestly thinks that signage is 5% of a roadwork budget, Id like to know where/how they come to that idea?

Again, Calgarians enjoy one of the lowest tax rates in Canada, and for that hey a city that is consistently ranked remarkably high on livability indexes. Is there room to improve? Totally. However, who here doesn’t have first hand experience with the amount of inefficiency and ‘fat’ that could be cut from any large organization, even those with no considerations other than profit.

[tvp2003]

I would welcome more candidates in Ward 4. Right now it's just Chu and Angela McIntyre. And based on her website, McIntyre doesn't give me much hope she'll do any damage against the incumbent.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I would welcome more candidates in Ward 4. Right now it's just Chu and Angela McIntyre. And based on her website, McIntyre doesn't give me much hope she'll do any damage against the incumbent.

Somebody needs to convince Chu to run for mayor.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Somebody needs to convince Chu to run for mayor.

I'd settle for just convincing him to run. And keep running. Forever. Like Forrest Gump. Go away.