Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Municipal Politics (Edmonton) All City of Edmonton political discussions happen here


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > Regional Issues > Municipal Politics (Edmonton)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-09-2010, 11:13 AM   #1
Sonic Death Monkey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Downtown
Default Another mayoral candidate (David Dorward announces his run for mayorship, 630 CHED)

Sounds like a guy who'll split the fiscal watchdog vote with Diotte.
http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1278667
__________________
“You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012
Sonic Death Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 11:17 AM   #2
Gemini
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Default

Did he just wake up the other morning and decide to do this. No opinion on ECCA, no ideas to roll out. I think he should have had his platform all done and dusted before he stepped into the ring. Sounds like he'll be thinking on the fly.
__________________
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.
Ricky Gervais
Gemini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 11:27 AM   #3
RTA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Holyrood
Default

All these mayoral candidates should make an interesting lead-up to the election, but ultimately I think it will simply end up watering down the anyone-but-Mandel votes and make it that much easier for Mandel to get re-elected.
__________________
Strathcona City Separatist
RTA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 11:33 AM   #4
Alex.L
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

I agree with Gemini. How can someone be so unprepared?
Alex.L is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 11:35 AM   #5
JasonR
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NAITSA Advocacy
Default

The easier it gets for Mandel, the happier I am.
JasonR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 11:43 AM   #6
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTA View Post
All these mayoral candidates should make an interesting lead-up to the election, but ultimately I think it will simply end up watering down the anyone-but-Mandel votes and make it that much easier for Mandel to get re-elected.
i suppose the question might be whether what you are seeing is a really strong push to be mayor with any real expectations of winning by any of the candidates (other than mandel) or whether what you are seeing is a really well orchestrated campaign to push the envision edmonton/ecca agenda to the forefront simply by having as many people as possible saying the same things albeit in their own way.

it's the old "fantasy overtaking fact" by having as many people as possible saying the same thing as often as they can - it doesn't have to be true for people to start to wonder if it might be true and it becomes downhill from there for the actual facts.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 11:49 AM   #7
grish
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

he has found the perfect cover for not having any ideas: "tell me what you want, and I'll do it". what's with candidates asking US questions. Kerry Diotte in his thread keeps asking these ridiculous questions that open with "are you telling me bla, bla bla?" Now this guy: "Tell me what to do" campaign.

I guess it is the perception of being the people's candidate, not being a capable or credible candidate is what they are after. Who knows, maybe it will work for one of them. Hope it isn't the mayor's seat though. Still, one of these "i have no clue what I am getting myself into" candidates joining council is one too many.
__________________
My name is Gregory B.
grish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 12:03 PM   #8
Hilman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ozerna, North Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTA View Post
All these mayoral candidates should make an interesting lead-up to the election, but ultimately I think it will simply end up watering down the anyone-but-Mandel votes and make it that much easier for Mandel to get re-elected.
i suppose the question might be whether what you are seeing is a really strong push to be mayor with any real expectations of winning by any of the candidates (other than mandel) or whether what you are seeing is a really well orchestrated campaign to push the envision edmonton/ecca agenda to the forefront simply by having as many people as possible saying the same things albeit in their own way.

it's the old "fantasy overtaking fact" by having as many people as possible saying the same thing as often as they can - it doesn't have to be true for people to start to wonder if it might be true and it becomes downhill from there for the actual facts.
This may be true but this results in vote splitting and the only benefactor for that is Mandel (thankfully).
Hilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 12:16 PM   #9
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTA View Post
All these mayoral candidates should make an interesting lead-up to the election, but ultimately I think it will simply end up watering down the anyone-but-Mandel votes and make it that much easier for Mandel to get re-elected.
i suppose the question might be whether what you are seeing is a really strong push to be mayor with any real expectations of winning by any of the candidates (other than mandel) or whether what you are seeing is a really well orchestrated campaign to push the envision edmonton/ecca agenda to the forefront simply by having as many people as possible saying the same things albeit in their own way.

it's the old "fantasy overtaking fact" by having as many people as possible saying the same thing as often as they can - it doesn't have to be true for people to start to wonder if it might be true and it becomes downhill from there for the actual facts.
This may be true but this results in vote splitting and the only benefactor for that is Mandel (thankfully).
i agree with you on the vote splitting. my only caution would be to ask you how happy you might be to take the mayoral race lightly as a result only to find mandel is still mayor and that envision edmonton won the ecca plebiscite question...

because the lower the turnout if the mayoral race is seen as a non-race for whatever reason including vote-splitting, the better the likelihood of exactly that.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 01:45 PM   #10
Redd Foxx
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary now. Edmonton Born
Default

I am willing to bet that Cal Nichols is funding this person.
__________________
happy to be the grumpy old bugger waking up the booster club!
Redd Foxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 02:22 PM   #11
JamesL
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Westmount
Default

^You don't need to bet...

Quote:
He collected about 200 signatures on Envision Edmonton’s petition calling for a public vote on the issue. His backers include strong City Centre Airport advocate and former Edmonton Oilers chairman Cal Nichols.

This specimen also ran as an unsuccessful PC candidate in Gold Bar in 2008.

Yeah, no thanks.
JamesL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 02:40 PM   #12
armin
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
^You don't need to bet...

Quote:
He collected about 200 signatures on Envision Edmonton’s petition calling for a public vote on the issue. His backers include strong City Centre Airport advocate and former Edmonton Oilers chairman Cal Nichols.
This specimen also ran as an unsuccessful PC candidate in Gold Bar in 2008.

Yeah, no thanks.
Thanks for that. I know he's definately off my list.
armin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 03:20 PM   #13
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

So this guy is a third 'save the airport' mayoral candidate? If so, Mandel gets 65% of the vote, and each airport guy can collect 8% each? That's some great strategy... EnvEdm group has a lot of money... and that's about it.
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 04:19 PM   #14
Chmilz
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Default

Mandel has this in the bag so handily it's actually kind of funny. What's not funny is that if there's 3 or 5 or 10 or 50 candidates that are all pro-ECCA, none of them may have even a hint of a shot at council or the mayor's seat, but they could drag enough pro-ECCA voters into the fold to pass the plebiscite if it goes ahead.

All the more reason to urge administration to shoot down anything other than a 100% certified legal petition.
__________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal
Chmilz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2010, 11:56 PM   #15
ThomasH
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Default

It looks like Envision Edmonton is preparing to put "Plan C" into action.
__________________
Edmonton first, everything else second.
ThomasH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 01:15 AM   #16
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

^ Plan C, eh? As in?

C = Clutching (at straws)
C = Calamity
C = Crap
__________________
Nisi Dominus Frustra
howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-09-2010, 05:41 PM   #17
ThomasH
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Default

"Plan A" could be Daryl Bonar
"Plan B" could be Don Koziak
"Plan C" (EE's back-up plan) could be David Dorward

Now that we know that the petition has been denied he can't stay neutral any longer.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
__________________
Edmonton first, everything else second.
ThomasH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2010, 11:52 AM   #18
ridgeman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

By Paula Simons Fri, Sep 17 2010 COMMENTS(7) The Edmonton Commons
Filed under: Envision Edmonton, Stephen Mandel, Dave Dorward, Don Koziak, Daryl Bonar, Cal Nichols
At his press conference yesterday, fresh-minted mayoral candidate Dave Dorward admitted that before he publicly announced his candidacy, he had private meetings with his rivals Don Koziak and Daryl Bonar, to ask them to drop out of the race.

What exactly did Dorward say to Koziak?

"I told him I felt that he would be a great councillor," says Dorward. "I told him he wouldn't beat me in the election."

Dorward says he tried to convince Koziak that it would be better if Koziak ran for a seat, so they could work on council together. Dorward insists that he never offered Koziak any promise of assistance or support if Koziak dropped out. A few days later, having somehow lost the support of both businessman Cal Nichols and the pro-Muni lobby group, Envision Edmonton, who are now Dorward's two biggest backers, Koziak indeed took Dorward's "advice", dropped out of the mayor's contest, and announced that he'd be running in Ward 2.

As for Daryl Bonar? Dorward says he met with Bonar last Friday and advised him to drop out of the mayoralty race to make way for him.

"I said to Daryl, 'I'd love to work with you as a councillor,'" Dorward says.

Bonar says it went a bit further than that. He says Dorward's supporters offered him help with fundraising and volunteers for an aldermanic bid, if he dropped out of the mayor's race and cleared the way for their candidate. Bonar says he refused the deal.

Who exactly offered him financial support? Bonar was a little vague. "It's hard to say if they were Envision Edmonton or David Dorward's camp," he told The Journal.

For the record, Dorward denies that he personally offered Bonar any incentive to quit the campaign.

But given that Dorward is basing his campaign on his reputation for personal integrity, the whole thing leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Of course, it's easier to win an electoral competition if you can convince your competitors to drop out. Of course, you reduce vote splitting, if you can convince the other candidates to give you a clear run at the strong encumbent. But Koziak and Bonar were in this race first. Bonar, in particular, has been campaigning for months, his team making good use of social media to get his message out. At this point, it's arguable that Koziak and Bonar each have greater name recognition with the general public than Dorward does. Dorward, after all, is probably best known as a failed provincial PC candidate, who lost badly to Liberal Hugh MacDonald in the last provincial election. It's a bit rich for him to come swanning in at the last minute and expect them to step aside, just because he asks them to.


This article in todays Journal written by Paula Simons really concerns me. This apparent attempt by Mr. Dorward (and/or his supporters) to "buy off" his competition really speaks to this persons character and integrity. Is this how he will operate (buying off his opponents) as our potential mayor?? Or even worse will he be open to being "bought off" by special interests???

Is anyone else as troubled by this latest revelation as I am???
ridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2010, 11:59 AM   #19
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

^ you need to provide a link to that article, and try to separate what is your comments versus paulas...
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2010, 12:10 PM   #20
ridgeman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

http://communities.canada.com/edmont...stionable.aspx

Sorry about that - Here is the link to the article. My comments are:

This article in todays Journal written by Paula Simons really concerns me. This apparent attempt by Mr. Dorward (and/or his supporters) to "buy off" his competition really speaks to this persons character and integrity. Is this how he will operate (buying off his opponents) as our potential mayor?? Or even worse will he be open to being "bought off" by special interests???

Is anyone else as troubled by this latest revelation as I am???
ridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2010, 12:13 PM   #21
noodle
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oliver
Default

I'm not troubled by it. The closest Dorward is gonna get to City Hall is when the new SELRT pulls into Churchill Station.

I applaud him for so decisively showing his true colors and making the selection process even easier.
__________________
www.amokphoto.ca
noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2010, 12:36 AM   #22
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ridgeman View Post
This article in todays Journal written by Paula Simons really concerns me. This apparent attempt by Mr. Dorward (and/or his supporters) to "buy off" his competition really speaks to this persons character and integrity. Is this how he will operate (buying off his opponents) as our potential mayor?? Or even worse will he be open to being "bought off" by special interests???

Is anyone else as troubled by this latest revelation as I am???
I find it incredibly disturbing. I'm pretty sure it's actually illegal to do so, is it not? I'm pretty sure the mayor (or maybe it was the former mayor) of Ottawa was charged for doing something similar to this only a few years ago, but I can't quite recall all the details.
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2010, 12:37 AM   #23
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Ohhh, here it is:

Quote:

Ottawa mayor charged in bribery probe
'I am innocent,' says Larry O'Brien, adding that he is embarrassed over charges
Last Updated: Monday, December 10, 2007 | 3:37 PM ET
CBC News

Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien has been charged with two criminal counts, accused of offering to help a rival land a plum post if the opponent dropped out of the 2006 election campaign.

The charges concern allegations that O'Brien — while running for mayor in the summer of 2006 — offered to help Terry Kilrea get a job on the National Parole Board if Kilrea left the race.

The first charge is that O'Brien pretended to have influence with the Government of Canada or with a minister of the government when he allegedly made the offer to Kilrea, contrary to Sec. 121 of the Criminal Code, frauds on the government.

The second charge is that O'Brien negotiated an appointment contrary to Sec. 125 of the Criminal Code, influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...#ixzz0zxG90B4a
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2010, 10:58 AM   #24
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Anyone voting for Dorward is voting for corruption, bribery, and undemocratic practices.
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2010, 11:58 AM   #25
thatguy
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default

^^^ qft!
thatguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 12:44 PM   #26
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

REAL politics front and center right here in River City
Whoda thunk it ?? !!
Blueline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 01:06 PM   #27
blainehamilton
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

So, no luck that David forgot to set his alarm clock this morning, and didn't show up?
blainehamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2010, 11:06 PM   #28
edmonton daily photo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

You know most of these mayoral candidates don't expect to win this year, but instead they are looking down the road to next term when Mandel will likely retire.
__________________
"Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi
edmonton daily photo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 03:48 PM   #29
Rseven
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

So we have a Dave Dorword and a Dave Dowling running for mayor....with such similiar names this could possibly confuse a few voters...Dowling may pilfer a few votes by accident from Dorword...ha!
Rseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 04:56 PM   #30
Gord Lacey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Strathcona - Mill Creek
Default

At least until Dorward "suggests" that Dowling step aside
Gord Lacey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 05:14 PM   #31
MikeK
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Big E
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rseven View Post
So we have a Dave Dorword and a Dave Dowling running for mayor....with such similiar names this could possibly confuse a few voters...Dowling may pilfer a few votes by accident from Dorword...ha!
Don't forget that there's a third mayoral candidate with "D.D." as his initials - Dan Dromarsky!
__________________
Is there hope for Edmonton? Yes!!!
MikeK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 05:28 PM   #32
Gord Lacey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Strathcona - Mill Creek
Default

Taken from Dorward's Facebook page:

My name is David Dorward, and I’m proud to be running for Mayor of the City of Edmonton. I have a head for business, a heart of people, and a record of getting things done. I'm working hard to earn your vote on October 18th.

Does it bother anyone else that he says he has a "heart of people"? I picture that guys from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" holding a beating heart in his hand.
Gord Lacey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2010, 12:43 AM   #33
YEG4ME
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Edmonton
Default Cal's $500,000.00 for Dorward

I am trying to find a relatively credible reference to Cal Nichol's $500.000.00 promise to Dorward's campaign. I am writing a letter in response to the confabulated information Allard presented at a recent C of C meeting in Ft Mac. Reporter Carol Christian failed to do her research, and has merely spouted off Allard's tainted information.

Looking forward to a link.
Thx
YEG4ME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2010, 01:45 AM   #34
overoceans
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: asia
Default

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but...

link

According to this Edmonton Journal article by Paula Simons, "Nichols has personally pledged to raise a minimum $500,000 for Dorward's campaign."
overoceans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2010, 09:28 AM   #35
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

Cal should quit AEG and go back to oilers organization.
__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2010, 01:19 PM   #36
Montrosian
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montrose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
Cal should quit AEG and go back to oilers organization.
Why? The Oilers are better off without him and his 39 member ownership group
Montrosian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2010, 04:52 PM   #37
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

How about a stint with the Esquimaux's (eskimos)

Last edited by Blueline; 23-09-2010 at 08:12 AM..
Blueline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-09-2010, 05:24 PM   #38
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

Cal left Oilers to join AEG to fight to keep it open 3 yrs ago I think.
__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 07:27 PM   #39
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default David Dorward's Mayoral Platform

‘Numbers guy’ unveils Edmonton mayoral platform
David Dorward promises review of capital expenditures
By Mariam Ibrahim, edmontonjournal.com September 23, 2010

EDMONTON — Edmonton mayoral candidate David Dorward announced Thursday proposals to slow property tax increases and offer seniors in the city a property tax rebate of $600 a year if he’s elected, saying he would delay projects like LRT expansion if necessary.

Dorward’s plan calls for property taxes to increase at a rate consistent with the national inflation rate, which is running about 1.8 per cent annually.

During Stephen Mandel’s six years as mayor, property taxes have increased by 38 per cent, Dorward said.

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...244/story.html
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 09:27 PM   #40
lpasternak1
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Albert, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
‘Numbers guy’ unveils Edmonton mayoral platform
David Dorward promises review of capital expenditures
By Mariam Ibrahim, edmontonjournal.com September 23, 2010

EDMONTON — Edmonton mayoral candidate David Dorward announced Thursday proposals to slow property tax increases and offer seniors in the city a property tax rebate of $600 a year if he’s elected, saying he would delay projects like LRT expansion if necessary.

Dorward’s plan calls for property taxes to increase at a rate consistent with the national inflation rate, which is running about 1.8 per cent annually.

During Stephen Mandel’s six years as mayor, property taxes have increased by 38 per cent, Dorward said.

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...244/story.html
Like a typical accountant. Like a typical politician. Dorward has completely rejected the concept that you need to spend money to make money. Dorward has also given an exclusive population false hope that they will see property rebates in order to secure political points and votes.

Edmonton needs LRT expansion desperately. It would be ridiculous to not think that. Our public transit system isn't even in the same league as other Canadian cities. Edmonton ranks as one of the most expensive cities for public transit and by proxy, has been losing money.

Dorward wants to give seniors (only a portion of the population) $600 annually. For what? In the hopes that it will help drive the economy?

How about instead, we take a business model that has been losing money for years and give it the facelift it needs through LRT expansion. And as a result, not only will you get an improved public transit system (and one that makes money), but you will also get the required infrastructure that allows people in all corners of the city to reach destinations in a quick and efficient manner. By connecting people to places such as downtown and West Edmonton Mall, they will be more inclined to visit these places, spend money, have better access to a wider selection of jobs, and therefore help boost the economy.

LRT will reduce the need for road expansion as well as required infrastructure to help support the city's urban sprawl problem. In essence, LRT expansion can free up money in other places.

LRT is practically a staple service in many places nationally and globally. It is a major driving force behind the European Union (every nation is connected through a complex railway system including the UK via the Chunnel). Maglev trains operate on schedule in China and Japan. The Vancouver skytrain is just one of the city's many features that makes it consistently rank among the best places in the world to live.

If all these places can have a dependable LRT system, why can't Edmonton?
lpasternak1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 09:46 PM   #41
Bill
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Voting for this guy will send Edmonton 20 years back.
__________________
The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
It's heaven and hell!
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 10:16 PM   #42
Paul Turnbull
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

So he wants to tie civic tax increases to the consumer inflation rate. He may be an accountant but his economics seem weak. The consumer inflation rate includes all sorts of goods and services that have nothing to do with a civic budget. What he should be looking are the costs to the city and their increases. The inflation rate for food and flat panel TVs has nothing to do with our budget.
__________________
twitter.com/chigaze
Paul Turnbull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 10:28 PM   #43
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

david's biggest weakness is that he has no experience in politics at all
__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 11:15 PM   #44
highlander
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Highlands/North Edge Commuter
Default

I really, really don't like the idea of favouring seniors. Not only are many seniors just as financially secure as anyone else, they already get almost free bus passes.

If seniors can't afford to stay in their own homes it's their own problem. If they paid it off quickly like the majority off the older generations did, then they have an asset worth about 100X their annual tax bill. Sell it and rent is paid for the rest of your life, or get a mortgage. I also fail to see how keeping 3-bedroom homes in mature neighbourhoods occupied by single seniors is a social good.
highlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 11:19 PM   #45
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
Voting for this guy will send Edmonton 20 years back.
Probably even more than that.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 11:21 PM   #46
jstock
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Meadows
Default

Dorward=Backward
__________________
$2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 Anyone have a dime?
jstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 11:25 PM   #47
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

I think discounting the taxes for seniors would present new problems:

(1) What age would seniors qualify for the subsidy? It would be easy to say 65, but 60 could also be argued.

(2) What about couples where one was over 65 and one was under 65? How does the subsidy work?

(3) This subsidy would not be fair to seniors renting or seniors in homes.

Seniors probably get the same savings in bus passes.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-09-2010, 11:57 PM   #48
GreenSPACE
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Downtown
Default

so he figures only seniors vote, so giving them $600 for showing up is the reward? What ridiculousness
__________________
www.decl.org
GreenSPACE is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 12:19 AM   #49
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

Property taxes are not based on a means test, but assessed property value. If seniors get a benefit, then single moms, low income residents and others could very well qualify, according to Dorward's proposal.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 12:20 AM   #50
Glenco
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Giving seniors a $600 tax cut only transfers the burdon to their children and grand children. So why don't they just ask them for the money? At some point people have to be responsible for their economic situation. If they cannot afford the taxes they should find cheaper accommodations.
Glenco is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 01:08 AM   #51
lpasternak1
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Albert, Alberta
Default

My favorite part about this comment on the Edmonton Sun website is the part about Dorward keeping the books balanced. I guess balancing the books means reducing tax revenues to make way for spending $600 on each senior citizen...

VOTE DAVID DORWARD Report Comment
September 23rd 2010, 9:12pm
VOTE DAVID DORWARD...


HE'S AN ACCOUNTANT...


HE WILL KNOW IF THE BOOKS ARE BALANCED...


MANDEL JUST SPENDS...


MANDEL DON'T CARE...IT'S NOT COMING OUT OF HIS POCKET...


IT'S COMING OUT OF YOURS...


MANDEL AND MERRY BAND OF COUNCILORS...


JUST GIVE THEMSELVES A RAISE TO COVER HIGHER TAXES...


BUT YOU HAVE TO GET IT FROM SOMEWHERE...WHERE...


WILL YOUR BOSS GIVE YOU A RAISE TO COVER HIGHER TAXES...


NOT LIKELY...


LOOKS LIKE YOUR HIT OUT OF LUCK IF MANDEL GETS IN...


VOTE FOR DAVID DORWARD AND KEEP THE BOOKS BALANCED...
__________________
Against everything that supports status quo.
http://twitter.com/LeePasternak
lpasternak1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 02:38 AM   #52
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

I wouldn't vote for this guy.

But I do see his general point regarding seniors. It's not necessarily just a cheap vote grab. They aren't really comparable to low income earners, single moms, etc. Many are living on a fixed (low) income that doesn't allow for tax increases in excess of the rate of inflation, and have no potential to increase their income. They have no options, and some (many) are barely scraping by.

We're not talking only about a few people who made poor decisions. There are a lot of seniors in that position. Some are very desperate.

And they most likely will not benefit from any big project spending, though we are asking them to pay for something we want, but they'll never enjoy.

We should have a little respect for those who may have gotten us to this point. Have a little compassion. "Too bad for them" doesn't cut it when we're talking about squeezing people out of the homes they've built because they can't afford to pay for our dreams, something they'll never get to enjoy. It's a little rich to say it's their problem if it's us who can't control spending, or can't live within a budget. That's our problem, and we're forcing them to pay for it.

No them, no us.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 08:08 AM   #53
noodle
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oliver
Default

So you'd be OK with shelving the bike infrastructure improvements? That $28M has to come out of the bottom line somewhere...

There's providing our elderly with a dignified existence and then there's subsidizing people's lack of preparation and forethought.

Dorward loves to cite the rate that property taxes have increased, but fails to mention we still pay an extremely conservative amount vs. other major metropolitan areas.
__________________
www.amokphoto.ca
noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 08:18 AM   #54
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

^ but that doesnt fit Dorwards agenda that Mandel is the devil and all he wants to build is CONDOS!!! CONDOS!!! CONDOS!!!!!! Greedy Developers!!!!
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 08:21 AM   #55
JasonR
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NAITSA Advocacy
Default

Dorward's platform reminds me of Danielle Smith. It's out of touch with reality. Does he think that a city that has the kinds of infrastructure deficits that Edmonton does will have service and infrastructure costs that are in line with the cost of living?

Besides, we all know what his campaign is about. It's about keeping ECCA open so that Cal and his friends can continue to have a private runway and everyone else be damned.
JasonR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 08:52 AM   #56
IanO
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Default

I like some of his message but his stance on LRT is simply WRONG.

no vote from me for that reason
__________________
inspiration or mediocrity

'Don't just slap a picture in & call it content. That's like slapping a big wing on a Honda and calling it a race car.' - noodle

www.decl.org

Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton
IanO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 09:27 AM   #57
Dusty Bear
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
Giving seniors a $600 tax cut only transfers the burdon to their children and grand children. So why don't they just ask them for the money? At some point people have to be responsible for their economic situation. If they cannot afford the taxes they should find cheaper accommodations.
BINGO. Dorward's proposal would shift the tax burden. Is it fair to do that to a young family trying to buy their first house to favour an elderly couple who paid off their mortgage and no longer have to support their children financially? That's the kind of scenario it creates.

If (and that's a big if) the city were to introduce a property tax rebate system, it should at least be income tested, rather than determined solely by age.
Dusty Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 09:51 AM   #58
Doug
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: edmonton, alberta
Default

I hope to god that the majority of Edmontonians have the brains to vote for Mandel and not this guy. If elected he will set this city back many many years.
Doug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 09:51 AM   #59
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle View Post
So you'd be OK with shelving the bike infrastructure improvements? That $28M has to come out of the bottom line somewhere...

There's providing our elderly with a dignified existence and then there's subsidizing people's lack of preparation and forethought.

Dorward loves to cite the rate that property taxes have increased, but fails to mention we still pay an extremely conservative amount vs. other major metropolitan areas.
All I said was that I see his point, and I object to the callousness of those who disregard the plight of seniors as "too bad for them". They got us here, literally.

And if we're asking (actually forcing) them to give up their home to pay for something we want (as opposed to need), that they don't want, they'll never use, and might not live to see, that's close to the very definition of selfishness. We need to at least consider their position, and that of others we're going to be taking money from. It's not a bottomless pit.

If it came down to a stark choice where having the bike infrastructure meant also having to put a bunch of seniors out of their homes, then yes, I'd forego the bike infrastructure. The current system works fine, for me. We're foregoing much of it now. But, personally, I'd look for the savings, or generate more income somewhere else. Or find a way to increase benefits to seniors. I believe the bike infrastructure could help save money, if done right. There are other plenty of other places we could generate the savings. That's far from the only option.

If we aren't able to live within our means, meaning keeping tax increases to around the rate of inflation or some other reasonable benchmark, then that's our problem.

It's not just the seniors who didn't have forethought or didn't prepare that are feeling the squeeze. Many could never have imagined the way their expenses have ballooned, or prepared for the way things are, now, given the environment they grew up in. And many were faced with challenges they never would have planned for, like the downturn that wiped out their savings. They don't have the options the rest of us have to cut our expenses or ask for a raise.

Ultimately, Dorward's idea isn't workable, in my view, as far as I understand it. There are indeed many seniors who are either relatively well-off, or whose families are perfectly capable of caring for them. I don't know how you apply any kind of means test.

Hopefully, we'll all get to be seniors someday.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

Last edited by Jimbo; 24-09-2010 at 10:02 AM..
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 09:58 AM   #60
McBoo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Default

More Envision Edmonton chutpah (read lies):

Delay LRT if necessary? How does Mr. Dorwood think the 23rd avenue interchange went from $75-$250 million? Answer - council dithering and delays.

Taxes up? They'd be up a lot less if previous councils had done their due dligence and kept pace with needed infrastructure spending at the prices available at that time.

Total false economy. In other words, it's Dorwood and Envision Edmonton's philosophy that required tax increases in the first place. Pfffft. Not that you'd get that question at a Mayorlty forum from an EE rent-a-mob.

But when you want money to build a new terminal building at ECCA for, um, charter (ya, that's it, charter) flights - well, gotta cut services to the serfs somewhere.
__________________
... gobsmacked
McBoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 09:58 AM   #61
DEESGOODWORD
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Default

I won't be voting for him either. He thinks he could have done a better job during these economic times? If he was so concerned about the state of our city he should have been running in the last election. I have no confidence in someone that flits back and forth trying to make up his mind should he run for city or province or ??? Looks to me like he doesn't have the confidence/backbone in himself to make a stand one way or the other.

So Dorward wants to give the seniors a $600 property tax break. Where will this money come from? Why are seniors only going to get this benefit? There are many others who are also finding it hard to pay their taxes in this economy and some of them are on fixed incomes as well. This is just a means to get the seniors' vote--they are easily duped/gullible when it comes to their pocket books and so many don't even understand how city hall works. Does he think he will just march into city hall and tell the other 12 that this is what he's going to do?
DEESGOODWORD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 10:03 AM   #62
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Bear View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
Giving seniors a $600 tax cut only transfers the burdon to their children and grand children. So why don't they just ask them for the money? At some point people have to be responsible for their economic situation. If they cannot afford the taxes they should find cheaper accommodations.
BINGO. Dorward's proposal would shift the tax burden. Is it fair to do that to a young family trying to buy their first house to favour an elderly couple who paid off their mortgage and no longer have to support their children financially? That's the kind of scenario it creates.

If (and that's a big if) the city were to introduce a property tax rebate system, it should at least be income tested, rather than determined solely by age.
That's indeed where Dorward's plan falls down, for me.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 10:09 AM   #63
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEESGOODWORD View Post
I won't be voting for him either. He thinks he could have done a better job during these economic times? If he was so concerned about the state of our city he should have been running in the last election. I have no confidence in someone that flits back and forth trying to make up his mind should he run for city or province or ??? Looks to me like he doesn't have the confidence/backbone in himself to make a stand one way or the other.

So Dorward wants to give the seniors a $600 property tax break. Where will this money come from? Why are seniors only going to get this benefit? There are many others who are also finding it hard to pay their taxes in this economy and some of them are on fixed incomes as well.
I believe we need to consider the impact of tax increases on anyone on a fixed income, or the working poor, but especially seniors, because they are left with very limited options (or no options) as far as generating any income.

I have zero problem giving seniors a $600 tax rebate, even without a means test.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 10:09 AM   #64
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

I think Dorward should realize that the City Centre Airport is the greatest waste of taxpayer money. A new terminal would run at least $100 million, with little benefit to the city.
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 10:21 AM   #65
Old Dawg
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander View Post
I really, really don't like the idea of favouring seniors. Not only are many seniors just as financially secure as anyone else, they already get almost free bus passes.

If seniors can't afford to stay in their own homes it's their own problem. If they paid it off quickly like the majority off the older generations did, then they have an asset worth about 100X their annual tax bill. Sell it and rent is paid for the rest of your life, or get a mortgage. I also fail to see how keeping 3-bedroom homes in mature neighbourhoods occupied by single seniors is a social good.

Do you perhaps feel that your attitude is a "wee" bit communistic?
What about when it's you turn?
__________________
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.
Old Dawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 11:03 AM   #66
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEESGOODWORD View Post
I won't be voting for him either. He thinks he could have done a better job during these economic times? If he was so concerned about the state of our city he should have been running in the last election. I have no confidence in someone that flits back and forth trying to make up his mind should he run for city or province or ??? Looks to me like he doesn't have the confidence/backbone in himself to make a stand one way or the other.

So Dorward wants to give the seniors a $600 property tax break. Where will this money come from? Why are seniors only going to get this benefit? There are many others who are also finding it hard to pay their taxes in this economy and some of them are on fixed incomes as well.
I believe we need to consider the impact of tax increases on anyone on a fixed income, or the working poor, but especially seniors, because they are left with very limited options (or no options) as far as generating any income.

I have zero problem giving seniors a $600 tax rebate, even without a means test.
sorry jimbo, but we part company on this one. seniors are not deserving of a tax rebate solely because they're seniors. there is no way 240gt's taxes should go up simply because i'm of a certain age. and there is no way your rent should up - or the rent paid by those seniors who do not own their own home should go up - to cover the increased taxes that your landlord(s) will have to pay instead of my paying my fair share as long as i can afford it.

i'm all in favour of supporting those that need support and i have no doubt many seniors warrant that support but $600 just because you had a particular birthday and are lucky enough to be a home owner doesn't cut it with me. that's not supporting seniors that need it, it's taking away from those seniors that need it. and yes, i know that some seniors that own their homes need support as well but this takes away from what could be provided to them in one form or another, it doesn't add to it.

besides, as a campaign platform, it's just that. it's not something a mayor can do or even contemplate doing without the support of at least 6 councillors - even if it were to be legal - so it's a pretty "no risk promise". and i have no interest in setting the stage three years from now to hear that "i tried" (even though it was stupid in the first place) "but couldn't get enough support from the rest of council"...
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 11:44 AM   #67
Gord Lacey
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Strathcona - Mill Creek
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
I wouldn't vote for this guy.

But I do see his general point regarding seniors. It's not necessarily just a cheap vote grab. They aren't really comparable to low income earners, single moms, etc. Many are living on a fixed (low) income that doesn't allow for tax increases in excess of the rate of inflation, and have no potential to increase their income. They have no options, and some (many) are barely scraping by.

We're not talking only about a few people who made poor decisions. There are a lot of seniors in that position. Some are very desperate.

And they most likely will not benefit from any big project spending, though we are asking them to pay for something we want, but they'll never enjoy.

We should have a little respect for those who may have gotten us to this point. Have a little compassion. "Too bad for them" doesn't cut it when we're talking about squeezing people out of the homes they've built because they can't afford to pay for our dreams, something they'll never get to enjoy. It's a little rich to say it's their problem if it's us who can't control spending, or can't live within a budget. That's our problem, and we're forcing them to pay for it.

No them, no us.
And that's exactly why the Alberta Government has "Alberta Senior's Benefits." It's an entire program setup to fund low-income Albertans, both with monthly money, as well as "Special Needs" - a program setup for one-time expenses such as a new furnace, or other necessities.

I support initiatives setup to help certain groups (taking care of the homeless problem, for one), but offering a $600 rebate because someone is old isn't good. Do some of these people need the $600? Would Cal Nichols get a $600 rebate check when/if he's 65? Absolutely ridiculous.

Gord
Gord Lacey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 04:19 PM   #68
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

What's ridiculous is taking money from people who can't afford it, and driving them out of the family home they worked a lifetime to build, so that we can pay for our dreams. Sorry we have to part ways on this. But it's an entirely fake issue anyway, because Dorward won't be elected (hopefully), wouldn't be able to implement this anyway, and applying a means test is far too involved. So it's an entirely philosophical discussion anyway.

Maybe something along the lines of sparing seniors, perhaps those over 75, from any tax increase in excess of inflation. Otherwise, we are truly leaving them with less so we can pay for what we want. Generally. There has to be some way we can make it fair for those who can't afford yet another hit to their limited fixed income. Whether it's the City, the Province, or the Feds.

It's funny though that some who feel tens of millions spent on other less important things (in my opinion) isn't really a lot of money in the big picture, but $28M looking out for the people who got us here is way too much. Dorward's not talking about giving them the money, but instead not taking it from people on a fixed income (for the rest of their lives) who may not be able to afford it.

I wonder about our priorities.

I understand both sides of the debate. As I mentioned, my problem is with the "too bad for them" attitude displayed here by a few which displays a complete lack of consideration for other people's money and a callous disregard for the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our city.

It feels to me akin to pushing them off the boat to make it more comfortable for us, after they did all of the rowing, but can't row anymore.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

Last edited by Jimbo; 24-09-2010 at 04:21 PM..
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 04:38 PM   #69
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
What's ridiculous is taking money from people who can't afford it, and driving them out of the family home they worked a lifetime to build. Sorry we have to part ways on this. But it's an entirely fake issue anyway, because Dorward won't be elected (hopefully), wouldn't be able to implement this anyway, and applying a means test is far too involved. So it's an entirely philosophical discussion anyway.

Maybe something along the lines of sparing seniors, perhaps those over 75, from any tax increase in excess of inflation. Otherwise, we are truly leaving them with less so we can pay for what we want. Generally. There has to be some way we can make it fair for those who can't afford yet another hit to their limited fixed income. Whether it's the City, the Province, or the Feds.

It's funny though that some who feel tens of millions spent on other less important things (in my opinion) isn't really a lot of money in the big picture, but $28M looking out for the people who got us here is way too much. Dorward's not talking about giving them the money, but instead not taking it from people on a fixed income (for the rest of their lives) who may not be able to afford it.

I wonder about our priorities.

I understand both sides of the debate. As I mentioned, my problem is with the "too bad for them" attitude displayed here by a few which displays a complete lack of consideration for other people's money and a callous disregard for the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our city.

It feels to me akin to pushing them off the boat to make it more comfortable for us, after they did all of the rowing, but can't row anymore.
to use your analogy jimbo, my main point was that many of us are still capable of rowing - and are happy to do so - at or long past 65. and my comments were even before the loopholes that something like this would open up with extended families being incented to buy their home in their parents name simply because they're older etc. etc.. i know what you mean about some of the attitude here but for me it's a matter of allocating resources to where they are needed instead of just *&^'ing money up a rope by promising to those that you will never be able to deliver it to even if they do deserve it because it's a stupid idea, not because 28 million is or isn't lot of money (which is a different discussion).
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 04:45 PM   #70
Old Dawg
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEESGOODWORD View Post
I won't be voting for him either. He thinks he could have done a better job during these economic times? If he was so concerned about the state of our city he should have been running in the last election. I have no confidence in someone that flits back and forth trying to make up his mind should he run for city or province or ??? Looks to me like he doesn't have the confidence/backbone in himself to make a stand one way or the other.

So Dorward wants to give the seniors a $600 property tax break. Where will this money come from? Why are seniors only going to get this benefit? There are many others who are also finding it hard to pay their taxes in this economy and some of them are on fixed incomes as well.
I believe we need to consider the impact of tax increases on anyone on a fixed income, or the working poor, but especially seniors, because they are left with very limited options (or no options) as far as generating any income.

I have zero problem giving seniors a $600 tax rebate, even without a means test.
sorry jimbo, but we part company on this one. seniors are not deserving of a tax rebate solely because they're seniors. there is no way 240gt's taxes should go up simply because i'm of a certain age. and there is no way your rent should up - or the rent paid by those seniors who do not own their own home should go up - to cover the increased taxes that your landlord(s) will have to pay instead of my paying my fair share as long as i can afford it.

i'm all in favour of supporting those that need support and i have no doubt many seniors warrant that support but $600 just because you had a particular birthday and are lucky enough to be a home owner doesn't cut it with me. that's not supporting seniors that need it, it's taking away from those seniors that need it. and yes, i know that some seniors that own their homes need support as well but this takes away from what could be provided to them in one form or another, it doesn't add to it.

besides, as a campaign platform, it's just that. it's not something a mayor can do or even contemplate doing without the support of at least 6 councillors - even if it were to be legal - so it's a pretty "no risk promise". and i have no interest in setting the stage three years from now to hear that "i tried" (even though it was stupid in the first place) "but couldn't get enough support from the rest of council"...
Seniors aside along with many deserving Edmontonians.

We should not be taxing people out of their homes.
There is a reality gap between wants and needs here and this must be addressed either now or when the bubble bursts.

During the current Mayor's tenure the taxes here have increased 38% according to one poster. Another poster says "it takes money to make money".
I think most Edmontonians would agree with me that there is a cool hush in the air and perhaps this infrastructural spending has come to it's end for now.
Although I am uncomfortable with Dorward's assumptions I must say I am equally uncomfortable with Mayor Mandels visions that seems to constantly pick my pockets without providing any direct benefit to me or my family.
Surely some of these investments should stand on their own without the taxpayers support.

I am not living here to embelish some other persons dream of Edmonton. There must be something in the mix for me too!
__________________
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.
Old Dawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 07:52 PM   #71
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
to use your analogy jimbo, my main point was that many of us are still capable of rowing - and are happy to do so - at or long past 65. and my comments were even before the loopholes that something like this would open up with extended families being incented to buy their home in their parents name simply because they're older etc. etc.. i know what you mean about some of the attitude here but for me it's a matter of allocating resources to where they are needed instead of just *&^'ing money up a rope by promising to those that you will never be able to deliver it to even if they do deserve it because it's a stupid idea, not because 28 million is or isn't lot of money (which is a different discussion).
That's a reasoned point of view I can get with. It's not so much people in their late 60's or 70's I'm concerned with. Many people are living a lot longer, and may be outliving their savings.

And I agree, it's an empty, stupid, disingenuous (at best) promise that's unworkable at any rate, and only serves to make me suspicious of any other promises Mr Dorward may be making. I know who I'll be voting for, for mayor, and it's not him.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 08:11 PM   #72
24karat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton - Blue Quill
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
so he figures only seniors vote,
Actually he's probably right. Just look at a polling station and count the young people vs seniors who show up to vote.
__________________
Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA
24karat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 08:30 PM   #73
Glenco
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

You have to remember that the polls go to the senior's residences to make it easier for them to vote. Therefore they are more likely to vote than someone who has to leave their home to do so. Also I was told if you can get the seniors on side then their children and grandchildren are more likely to vote the same way. I don't know if this is 100% true or just a theory.
Glenco is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 08:56 PM   #74
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
so he figures only seniors vote, so giving them $600 for showing up is the reward? What ridiculousness


sounds like a bribe in exchange for their support to vote dorwood ? I am not so sure about that ??
__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

Last edited by jagators63; 24-09-2010 at 09:00 PM..
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2010, 11:20 PM   #75
Gemini
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Default

David Dorwood...................aka Yesterdays Man.
__________________
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.
Ricky Gervais
Gemini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 09:48 AM   #76
Komrade
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beverly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander View Post
I also fail to see how keeping 3-bedroom homes in mature neighbourhoods occupied by single seniors is a social good.
Thats a side note, but I agree 100%. I feel that is the cause of a lot of problems in mature areas. EG: Beverly
__________________
facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic
youtube.com/GrimEmpire
Komrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 10:02 AM   #77
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander View Post
I also fail to see how keeping 3-bedroom homes in mature neighbourhoods occupied by single seniors is a social good.
Thats a side note, but I agree 100%. I feel that is the cause of a lot of problems in mature areas. EG: Beverly
Obviously you're not a senior. Hopefully one day you will be.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 10:35 AM   #78
Komrade
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beverly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander View Post
I also fail to see how keeping 3-bedroom homes in mature neighbourhoods occupied by single seniors is a social good.
Thats a side note, but I agree 100%. I feel that is the cause of a lot of problems in mature areas. EG: Beverly
Obviously you're not a senior. Hopefully one day you will be.
Of course I will be Jimbo. But at the end of the day highlander is right. It doesnt do much for the growth and development in an area to have widowed seniors in family sized homes. I am seeing it first hand.
__________________
facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic
youtube.com/GrimEmpire
Komrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 10:58 AM   #79
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander View Post
I also fail to see how keeping 3-bedroom homes in mature neighbourhoods occupied by single seniors is a social good.
Thats a side note, but I agree 100%. I feel that is the cause of a lot of problems in mature areas. EG: Beverly
Obviously you're not a senior. Hopefully one day you will be.
Of course I will be Jimbo. But at the end of the day highlander is right. It doesnt do much for the growth and development in an area to have widowed seniors in family sized homes. I am seeing it first hand.
I see crime, alcoholism, and drugs being a much bigger problem in your area, and that's not caused by the seniors.

I see what you're saying, and don't mean to imply that you're saying the seniors have got to go or are a problem themselves, but when you talk about a widowed senior living alone in a three bedroom house in a mature neighbourhood, you're talking about my mom.

After raising 7 kids and working hard to build the family home, and spending much of her savings fixing up the house and yard, she deserves to be able to live out her life in comfort and with dignity. She's not the problem.

Of course her kids would like to help out, but she's too proud to accept any, so we have to be creative. Like my brother showing up with a new washer and dryer out of the blue. I'm still trying to figure out a good way to pay for her internet connection (an extra $16 on her monthly bill, which she says she can't afford), because I gave her my old repaired computer so she can store recipes and visit the Martha Stewart site, etc.

A problem I have is every time she does something to improve the house she owns or fixes up the yard, the value of the house goes up, and so do the taxes. If she didn't do things like fix the weeping tiles (whatever they are), install a new roof on the house and garage, put up a new fence to replace the one my dad built years ago, etc, not only would she save a lot of money, but her taxes would likely go down as the house and yard fell into disrepair.

Kind of a disincentive to doing what she can to create a nice place and improve the neighbourhood, don't you think?

It's ironic that I hear the word "respect" used so much these days, but see so little of it from the same people who use it all of the time (not referring to you, Komrade ).
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 11:12 AM   #80
JOA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Default

^So how would living in a smaller residence impact your mother's comfort and dignity?
__________________
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." - Frank Lloyd Wright
JOA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 11:17 AM   #81
noodle
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oliver
Default

Mama Jimbo has continually improved her house & yard, increasing her taxes by using her savings that were ostensibly put in place to pay for things like taxes. Now, nobody here is trying to take away her right to spend her money and maintain her property, but if she goes a little overboard and puts a zen garden in the backyard and drains her account am I to understand I should help her out continually because her heart was in the right place?

I think a change is coming, much like where you can't expect to retire in the job you start at 18, that you can't expect to come out in a box from the house you raised a family in. Life has become too fluid and transitory.

A senior citizen in an empty 3 bedroom house is no less wasteful of finite resources than a Hummer with a single passenger driving down the freeway. Sentimentality and a sense of entitlement just mask it well.
__________________
www.amokphoto.ca
noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 11:46 AM   #82
Graham66
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highlander View Post
I really, really don't like the idea of favouring seniors. Not only are many seniors just as financially secure as anyone else, they already get almost free bus passes.

If seniors can't afford to stay in their own homes it's their own problem. If they paid it off quickly like the majority off the older generations did, then they have an asset worth about 100X their annual tax bill. Sell it and rent is paid for the rest of your life, or get a mortgage. I also fail to see how keeping 3-bedroom homes in mature neighbourhoods occupied by single seniors is a social good.
My thoughts exactly, Highlander. Mature neighbourhood homes are being underutilized by seniors who raised a family, and now occupy more space than they really need. Seniors deserve the full support of their broader community, but incentivizing them to stay in their homes is just irrational. If we are going to get serious about the future of our city, we need more accesible, affordable communities where seniors can age in place. They can then surrender their large (and high maintenance) houses in mature neighbourhoods to famlies that need them, instead of forcing them to the suburbs, and building new schools.

In my view, this is how we help seniors. $42,000,000 per year (70,000 seniors x $600) would be much better spent building sustainability, instead of delaying the inevitable. You will have to sell your house one day, grandma, why not do it now while you're young enough to travel with all that money you'll make when you downsize?

And this guy is an accountant? He seems penny-wise, but pound foolish to me.
Graham66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 11:47 AM   #83
Graham66
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle View Post
A senior citizen in an empty 3 bedroom house is no less wasteful of finite resources than a Hummer with a single passenger driving down the freeway. Sentimentality and a sense of entitlement just mask it well.
So you wouldn't be in favour of $600 per hummer, then?

Last edited by Graham66; 25-09-2010 at 11:57 AM..
Graham66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 01:04 PM   #84
Komrade
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beverly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle View Post
A senior citizen in an empty 3 bedroom house is no less wasteful of finite resources than a Hummer with a single passenger driving down the freeway. Sentimentality and a sense of entitlement just mask it well.
Bingo. And in no way am I trying to push Mama Jimbo out the door. It will take a shift in societys thinking before we can see these changes.
__________________
facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic
youtube.com/GrimEmpire
Komrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 02:54 PM   #85
kmusky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Edmonton (Downtown)
Default

I think that this is a moot point. I think that the main reason young couples can't get into a house has more to do with Edmonton's ridiculously overinflated housing market, rather than little old ladies getting tax breaks.

Not that I approve of this Dorward's platform, by any means. If they can afford the same houses as everyone else, they should have to pay the same taxes as everyone else. Seniors also are major users of city services. What are we going to do when grandma slips and breaks her hip crossing a icy street, because the city can't afford to clear that street anymore?

Last edited by kmusky; 25-09-2010 at 03:02 PM..
kmusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 03:01 PM   #86
Montrosian
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montrose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
Voting for this guy will send Edmonton 20 years back.
I agree. I wasn't to thrilled about reading that he would be in favor of slowing down LRT expansion to cut taxes. Like hello, isn't this what taxes are meant to pay for? The city may have to put itself in debt to pay for it, but the long term benefits from it's expansion such as potential spinoff tax revenue (TOD developments) and increase ridership of the transit system as a whole, should be good enough reason's alone to invest in the system. More people need to see this as an investment.
Montrosian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 03:13 PM   #87
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle View Post
A senior citizen in an empty 3 bedroom house is no less wasteful of finite resources than a Hummer with a single passenger driving down the freeway. Sentimentality and a sense of entitlement just mask it well.
Bingo. And in no way am I trying to push Mama Jimbo out the door. It will take a shift in societys thinking before we can see these changes.
It's their house, and their resources. Keep your hands off. How is someone who worked their entire life to build a home for themselves not entitled to live in it, because you're greedy and you want their money to spend on what you want.

Shameful. Someone works hard, pays taxes for more than 60 years, never did anything to hurt anyone, raised a big family, were good community citizens, and helped build this city, and now that they're too old to do that anymore, the thanks they get from you is a shove out the door to make room for you. Think it over, fellas.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

Last edited by Jimbo; 25-09-2010 at 03:24 PM..
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 03:30 PM   #88
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle View Post
A senior citizen in an empty 3 bedroom house is no less wasteful of finite resources than a Hummer with a single passenger driving down the freeway. Sentimentality and a sense of entitlement just mask it well.
Bingo. And in no way am I trying to push Mama Jimbo out the door. It will take a shift in societys thinking before we can see these changes.
It's their house, and their resources. Keep your hands off. How is someone who worked their entire life to build a home for themselves not entitled to live in it, because you're greedy and you want their money to spend on what you want.

Shameful. Someone works hard, pays taxes for more than 60 years, never did anything to hurt anyone, raised a big family, were good community citizens, and helped build this city, and now that they're too old to do that anymore, the thanks they get from you is a shove out the door to make room for you. Think it over, fellas.
hopefully it's nothing more than the inexperience and callousness of youth Jimbo. they will likely get over it by the time they turn 64 if they have worked as hard as your mom and managed to own their own home...
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 03:37 PM   #89
Jimbo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Westmount, Edmonton
Default

Yes, that's probably it. This would be a good time to bring up pensions for musicians to Komrade. Or the lack of same.
__________________
aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright
Jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 03:44 PM   #90
Komrade
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beverly
Default

Jimbo I have a job. Music is not my money maker.... Why is it whenever I disagree on this forum its chalked up to me being a youth or not knowing the ways of the world?

When I start to age, and my children move out of the home, I will indeed downgrade to something reasonable and managable.

Or maybe I need to wait until I get old and bitter and my world view will change and I will be happy living in a a huge house in which I only use two rooms and welcome the extra maintaining it requires. I dont know.
__________________
facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic
youtube.com/GrimEmpire
Komrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 03:55 PM   #91
Gemini
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Default

This $600 dollars to help seniors stay in their homes is a gimmick. Really, it sounds good but likely it will not happen, even, if by some miracle Dorward does get in. Hopefully seniors will see through this fluff for what it is. A vote grabbing gimmick.
Anyway, as for seniors living in homes they have lived in most of their married life. You know, there is a lot to be said for memories of kids bustling around the house, Christmases, gardening, parties, visits from friends, good neighbors etc: that all go into making a house a home. That's why a lot of seniors like to stay in their own homes. That my friends, is priceless.
__________________
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.
Ricky Gervais
Gemini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 03:56 PM   #92
noodle
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oliver
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
It's their house, and their resources. Keep your hands off. How is someone who worked their entire life to build a home for themselves not entitled to live in it, because you're greedy and you want their money to spend on what you want.

Shameful. Someone works hard, pays taxes for more than 60 years, never did anything to hurt anyone, raised a big family, were good community citizens, and helped build this city, and now that they're too old to do that anymore, the thanks they get from you is a shove out the door to make room for you. Think it over, fellas.
Nobody here is shoving your mom out the door Jimbo. We're just not advocating further insulating one portion of society from market forces at the expense of others.

And since you're advocating a tax-break specifically for seniors you want my money for what you want.
__________________
www.amokphoto.ca
noodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 04:01 PM   #93
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
... I dont know.
i think we have already agreed on that...
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 04:11 PM   #94
JOA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Shameful. Someone works hard, pays taxes for more than 60 years, never did anything to hurt anyone, raised a big family, were good community citizens, and helped build this city, and now that they're too old to do that anymore, the thanks they get from you is a shove out the door to make room for you. Think it over, fellas.
If they are too old to raise a family, does it make sense for them to be living in a dwelling designed for raising a family? I know my 66-year old father would love to move someplace smaller than the house I grew up in (what my mother wants is a different matter). My mother in law did the same thing a few years ago. You seem to be approaching the issue with a lot of emotion.
__________________
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." - Frank Lloyd Wright
JOA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 04:11 PM   #95
Komrade
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beverly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
... I dont know.
i think we have already agreed on that...
Nyuk Nyuk

Too funny Ken
__________________
facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic
youtube.com/GrimEmpire
Komrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 04:42 PM   #96
The_Cat
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, AB
Default

When I see the $600 rebate for the seniors, I liken it to the $400 rebate that the province offered to everybody a few years ago. It might have had a short-term impact which was mostly directed at consumption. Could you have imagined what $1.4 billion for the province, or $320 million for the City of Edmonton could have bought?

The $600 rebate for seniors would have a limited impact, rather than (Graham66's calculation of) $42 million directed at amenities for seniors (e.g., DATS, seniors' housing, community transit, etc.).
__________________
"Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.
The_Cat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 05:01 PM   #97
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

Do you think Dorwood is using $ 600 property tax rebate to convince seniors to vote for him because of that ??
__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 05:10 PM   #98
kmusky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Edmonton (Downtown)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
Do you think Dorwood is using $ 600 property tax rebate to convince seniors to vote for him because of that ??
Yes.
kmusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 05:20 PM   #99
kmusky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Edmonton (Downtown)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOA View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
Shameful. Someone works hard, pays taxes for more than 60 years, never did anything to hurt anyone, raised a big family, were good community citizens, and helped build this city, and now that they're too old to do that anymore, the thanks they get from you is a shove out the door to make room for you. Think it over, fellas.
If they are too old to raise a family, does it make sense for them to be living in a dwelling designed for raising a family? I know my 66-year old father would love to move someplace smaller than the house I grew up in (what my mother wants is a different matter). My mother in law did the same thing a few years ago. You seem to be approaching the issue with a lot of emotion.
It depends on whether your house is a house, or if your house is your home. Some people are able to move on without any difficulty. For others, it's not that simple. My grandma on my mother's side had no difficulty moving on after grandpa died.
When my grandmother on my father's side passed, Grandfather was determined to stay, even though he couldn't take care of the place, or himself, anymore. We eventually convinced him to move on, but it was heartbreaking for him. I'd rather avoid putting someone else through that pain, if I could avoid it.

We are wandering away from the topic, which was Dorward's senior discount. Yay or Nay?

Last edited by kmusky; 25-09-2010 at 05:45 PM..
kmusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-09-2010, 05:26 PM   #100
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle View Post
Nobody here is shoving your mom out the door Jimbo. We're just not advocating further insulating one portion of society from market forces at the expense of others.

And since you're advocating a tax-break specifically for seniors you want my money for what you want.
carefull noodle. we - in the collective - actually advocate insulating various portions of society from market forces at the expense of others all the time.

off the top of my head, some of the things that would fall into that category would be lrt, bus service, health care, libraries, art galleries, museums, schools (from kindergarten to university), pensions, old age security, employment insurance, social assistance, aish, student loans, legal aid, emergency services

virtually every service provided by every level of government from monitoring water quality to food inspection could also be said to be subsidizing the provision of that particular service to those who don't pay the median level of taxes or more at the expense of those that do.

please note that i am not objecting to any of those things. just pointing out that your protesting something based solely on the fact it might be "insulating a particular portion of society on that principle alone" is pretty blinkered as to how much of that we really do and, i would guess, how much of that you have probably benefitted from.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.