MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

This quote from the article is questionable to me. Let's say the city finds a way to spend this $87bn and take the actions they're putting forward here.
How do we even know that those actions taken by Calgary are going to save us from all of the issues they're looking to address here?

“We know that the cost of inaction is actually a lot of upfront costs and a lot of costs to Calgarians through climate change events, through major storms and forest fires. We also have to talk about the impact to the cost of living,” said Penner. “How do we invest to save, and not just to save money but to save lives and livelihoods?”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Wow. That would require property taxes to ~double. Probably this is just to socialize the idea of spending huge amounts of money on this, and they'll end up compromising on only a 40% increase in taxes for this over a 12 year period or something like that.

If property taxes were to double, which is actually only a 50% increase in the total tax we pay would we see a coresponding drop in property value or a lack of property appreciation as the carrying cost of property would increase?

Or would % spent on housing / tax / utilities just go up.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

If property taxes were to double, which is actually only a 50% increase in the total tax we pay would we see a coresponding drop in property value or a lack of property appreciation as the carrying cost of property would increase?

Or would % spent on housing / tax / utilities just go up.

Hard to say, and imo the answer is probably a mix of both.

But as an existing homeowner lower housing prices is pretty cold comfort as an offset to much higher property taxes.

Also, I'm extremely skeptical that the best way to fight climate change is at the municipal level. Realistically international action is required.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Also, I'm extremely skeptical that the best way to fight climate change is at the municipal level. Realistically international action is required.

This

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Realistically international action is required.

You're right, but isn't that just saying "someone else needs to take the first step" and washing our hands of the issue? It's gotta start somewhere.

[puckedoff]

Would get a better bang for our buck of reducing climate disasters in Calgary by spending that $87 billion in China/India. If we can't sell that plan, then we should not be spending the money here.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

You're right, but isn't that just saying "someone else needs to take the first step" and washing our hands of the issue? It's gotta start somewhere.

No, it's saying the municipal level is the wrong place to be doing this. Canada has an escalating price on carbon - as a country we are taking the first step collectively. In the absense of international agreement (which Calgary city council has exactly zero influence on), making the correct decision on individual projects can use that pricing mechanism as an input.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

No, it's saying the municipal level is the wrong place to be doing this. Canada has an escalating price on carbon - as a country we are taking the first step collectively. In the absense of international agreement (which Calgary city council has exactly zero influence on), making the correct decision on individual projects can use that pricing mechanism as an input.

Yeah, or more precisely it's the wrong place to be starting.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Wow. That would require property taxes to ~double. Probably this is just to socialize the idea of spending huge amounts of money on this, and they'll end up compromising on only a 40% increase in taxes for this over a 12 year period or something like that.

Well, if you drive everyone to leave the city it would be net-zero at that point.

[para transit fellow]

for the folks who haven't read the actual Climate plan:

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=209457

[Slava]

I'm quite curious on how they're getting to their net cost of ~$5bn-$27bn. In flipping through that document, they have the cost at the $88bn, but say that the models indicate that we could save some money, depending on the energy costs.

[para transit fellow]

I thinking some stuff we were going to do anyway -- but if we spend a little more upfront, we save more in the longer run.

i looked at the transit section (naturally). one thing i noticed is that there is a goal to have a mass-transit line BRT/LRT within 2000m - this is something we were going to build anyway (sooner or later)

the other thing i noticed is the part about electrification of livery vehicles: Calgary transit has a fleet of 1200 buses. Electric replacements run $900,000 to $1,600,000 but pay for themselves over the life of the vehicle.

electric garbage trucks the real cost saver. A sales rep told me an electric residential truck pays for it self in a few years by taking advantage of regenerative braking instead of many brake replacements

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm quite curious on how they're getting to their net cost of ~$5bn-$27bn. In flipping through that document, they have the cost at the $88bn, but say that the models indicate that we could save some money, depending on the energy costs.

It's not clearly laid out, but it appears that the $88bn is not what the city plans on spending, it's what we will all spend(including upgrading our homes). So the number sounds big, but may not really be costing all that much additionally. It's so tough to say with these things. Are we scrapping working systems and replacing with green, or waiting until they are end of life, then just adding the additional cost of a greener replacement vs standard?

[chemgear]

Gondek in a rush.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/what-mess...tegy-1.5936921

Calgary councillors won't vote on the city's climate plan until next month, despite the mayor's insistence that the delay sends the wrong message.

"What message are we sending to the world, who is in our city, watching us to be leaders in energy transformation? Well, the message that some of my colleagues sent today is 'Meh, this can wait,'" said Mayor Jyoti Gondek.

Part of the reason for the delay in the vote is because some members of council were travelling to Toronto on Tuesday afternoon on city business. Another reason for the delay, say some councillors, is that messaging wasn't clear and more answers are needed before moving forward.

"Some people made the assumption, particularly on social media, that the $87 billion is city taxpayer money – and that is not the case. That didn't come out very clearly in the committee meeting, that's something we need to discuss and debate," said Ward 7 Coun. Terry Wong.

[81MC]

FFS Jyoti, you win the election and like half of council is new. Can you tone it down a bit, trash talking your colleagues like that?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by 81MC

FFS Jyoti, you win the election and like half of council is new. Can you tone it down a bit, trash talking your colleagues like that?

The plan is decades long, a month doesn't matter at all. And the amount of money involved is staggering, whether its tax dollars or money they are going to mandate other people spend. Taking time to consider and debate seems prudent.

[Mr.Coffee]

Why take a month to decide to spend $87 Billion?

Really?

I am moving out of Calgary. Thank Christ. Has Gondek lost her god damn mind? She sounds looney tunes.

[Delgar]

Gondek is an extreme disappointment as Mayor. I didn't vote for her, but she won so was waiting to see how she'd perform. Now I miss the Nenshi days, and I soured on Nenshi over the years, really liking his politics at first.

[TorqueDog]

Nenshi was good at effectively arguing for what he thought was the right move and building a consensus. The one time he didn't was the Olympic bid, which he talked about in a podcast as his biggest strategic misstep; failing to position it the right way for the benefit it was meant to bring about.

Unfortunately, I don't see this kind of leadership or consensus-building in how Gondek behaves thus far (or some of the other councilors). I know, this is still a relatively green council and first-year mayor, but she's been on council previously, so at some point that excuse doesn't really hold any weight. I voted for Gondek, and right now it's a really hard sell for me to vote for her again if we get another 3.5 years of this.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Nenshi was good at effectively arguing for what he thought was the right move and building a consensus. The one time he didn't was the Olympic bid, which he talked about in a podcast as his biggest strategic misstep; failing to position it the right way for the benefit it was meant to bring about.

Unfortunately, I don't see this kind of leadership or consensus-building in how Gondek behaves thus far (or some of the other councilors). I know, this is still a relatively green council and first-year mayor, but she's been on council previously, so at some point that excuse doesn't really hold any weight. I voted for Gondek, and right now it's a really hard sell for me to vote for her again if we get another 3.5 years of this.

At the current pace my "Anyone but Farkas" vote is quickly becoming an "anyone buy Gondek" vote next time around.