Results 1 to 56 of 56

Thread: Neighbours should pitch in for big-city amenities, Edmonton mayor argues

  1. #1
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,882
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Neighbours should pitch in for big-city amenities, Edmonton mayor argues

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ring-1.4937558

    Feel free to click the link to the CBC article vs me posting it all here. Basically, it is another conversation about the region putting in $$$ to Edmonton's facilities.

    Thoughts?

    PS- I didn't see a thread or a recent post on this. Let me know if there is one and we can combine the threads.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  2. #2
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,057

    Default

    while i appreciate the logic and the sentiment, i’m not sure it’s not misguided and/or a bit of a red herring. i didn’t see any plans for edmonton to contribute to new rec centres in st. albert or spruce grove even though edmonton minor hockey teams will play tournaments there. i didn’t see an offer to fund the ukrainian village even though the majority of their visitors are probably edmontonians or staying in edmonton. i didn’t see an offer to help upgrade the airport at villaneuve to support the edmonton international air show whose visitors and pilots and crews all stay in edmonton as well and whose spin off business would benefit all of edmonton global.

    if you can’t afford things, it’s probably more prudent to not buy them until you can instead of calling on your neighbors to help you to pay for them, particularly when the ongoing cost of operating them can have as much of an impact as buying them.
    Last edited by kcantor; 08-12-2018 at 07:17 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  3. #3

    Default

    I couldn't agree more. We should stop spending when we don't have. As per places you mention Ken, why would they need to use Edmonton's when they have their own. Red herring is correct.
    Last edited by ctzn-Ed; 08-12-2018 at 09:37 PM.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    while i appreciate the logic and the sentiment, i’m not sure it’s not misguided and/or a bit of a red herring. i didn’t see any plans for edmonton to contribute to new rec centres in st. albert or spruce grove even though edmonton minor hockey teams will play tournaments there. i didn’t see an offer to fund the ukrainian village even though the majority of their visitors are probably edmontonians or staying in edmonton. i didn’t see an offer to help upgrade the airport at villaneuve to support the edmonton international air show whose visitors and pilots and crews all stay in edmonton as well and whose spin off business would benefit all of edmonton global.

    if you can’t afford things, it’s probably more prudent to not buy them until you can instead of calling on your neighbors to help you to pay for them, particularly when the ongoing cost of operating them can have as much of an impact as buying them.

    Your argument would be better stated if you included the Edmonton amenities that the neighbouring communities are using presently 'for free'.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. óMarshall McLuhan

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    while i appreciate the logic and the sentiment, i’m not sure it’s not misguided and/or a bit of a red herring. i didn’t see any plans for edmonton to contribute to new rec centres in st. albert or spruce grove even though edmonton minor hockey teams will play tournaments there. i didn’t see an offer to fund the ukrainian village even though the majority of their visitors are probably edmontonians or staying in edmonton. i didn’t see an offer to help upgrade the airport at villaneuve to support the edmonton international air show whose visitors and pilots and crews all stay in edmonton as well and whose spin off business would benefit all of edmonton global.

    if you can’t afford things, it’s probably more prudent to not buy them until you can instead of calling on your neighbors to help you to pay for them, particularly when the ongoing cost of operating them can have as much of an impact as buying them.

    Your argument would be better stated if you included the Edmonton amenities that the neighbouring communities are using presently 'for free'.
    Specifics? Should St. Albert charge Edmontonians a surcharge to attend a show at the Arden? Or Spruce Grove for the Horizon Stage? Since it's not in the city, should Edmonton help fund the Botanical Gardens near Devon? The airport is in Leduc County. Time to charge Edmontonians more for parking and improvements fee.

  6. #6
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    while i appreciate the logic and the sentiment, iím not sure itís not misguided and/or a bit of a red herring. i didnít see any plans for edmonton to contribute to new rec centres in st. albert or spruce grove even though edmonton minor hockey teams will play tournaments there. i didnít see an offer to fund the ukrainian village even though the majority of their visitors are probably edmontonians or staying in edmonton. i didnít see an offer to help upgrade the airport at villaneuve to support the edmonton international air show whose visitors and pilots and crews all stay in edmonton as well and whose spin off business would benefit all of edmonton global.

    if you canít afford things, itís probably more prudent to not buy them until you can instead of calling on your neighbors to help you to pay for them, particularly when the ongoing cost of operating them can have as much of an impact as buying them.

    Your argument would be better stated if you included the Edmonton amenities that the neighbouring communities are using presently 'for free'.
    the mayor already did that in the article that was linked... which is why i noted similar amenities outside the city that the city doesnít pay a share of either.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    I'm going to only shop local for awhile. If Iverson thinks people will decide to raise taxes because he has to,well, he's in for a shock. One only read comments of surrounding areas, and this will hurt, not help business in Edmonton. He's already ruined downtown Edmonton, why not finish the rest off
    Merry Christmas Donnie!

  8. #8

    Default

    Notice the implicit bias in calling it a “problem”*

    Free-rider problem - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem





    *because it was only seeeing it as an issue with “economic” systems. (Very intellectually limiting.)





    Also relevant:

    Forced rider - Wikipedia

    A forced rider in economics is a person who is required, by government or other collective, to share in the costs of goods or services without desiring them. Such goods are typically non-excludable.[1][2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_rider
    Last edited by KC; 09-12-2018 at 07:35 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Since Edmonton and surround communities have pretty much become one, what Edmonton and surrounding communities should do, going forward, is plan out together for future requirements. Anything built within our jurisdiction at this stage is our responsibility. No one is benefitting free as no one gets in free. What could be done in the interim is that perhaps, if out of towers chose one of our rec centre, they would pay an addition monthly pass of 5.00 or so? Let say a membership to the Kinsman is 50.00per month, non Edmontonians would pay 55.00. Thoughts?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Since Edmonton and surround communities have pretty much become one, what Edmonton and surrounding communities should do, going forward, is plan out together for future requirements. Anything built within our jurisdiction at this stage is our responsibility. No one is benefitting free as no one gets in free. What could be done in the interim is that perhaps, if out of towers chose one of our rec centre, they would pay an addition monthly pass of 5.00 or so? Let say a membership to the Kinsman is 50.00per month, non Edmontonians would pay 55.00. Thoughts?
    That sounds okay, knowing user fees work both way though...

  11. #11

    Default

    Of course, you'd be hitting up tourists with the same fees. Imagine taking out of town family or friends to Fort Edmonton or the RAM and being told that it'll cost them an extra $5 or $10.

  12. #12

    Default

    A one time visit is different than a community that forked out money to build an entity for its citizen. I think that process is fair. The same would be applied if Edmontonian use the St. Albert or Sherwood Park's received Centre. Stop your insane postualtion! RAM is not an Edmonton tax funded but provincial, so process something this simple before yapping!
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  13. #13

    Default

    Perhaps Iveson phrased it badly but an integrated recreational plan sounds good? It goes beyond the superficial argument of 'you use our services and we use yours', it's also about coordinating to present a more attractive overall package to visitors and tourists.

  14. #14
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,882
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I agree that the words you used should be the intent Foolworm...but that is definitely not how it was worded...and from my experience in dealing with this...it is very much intended to be an invoice for costs with no input.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    A one time visit is different than a community that forked out money to build an entity for its citizen. I think that process is fair. The same would be applied if Edmontonian use the St. Albert or Sherwood Park's received Centre. Stop your insane postualtion! RAM is not an Edmonton tax funded but provincial, so process something this simple before yapping!
    So what are you going to do, base it on their home address? Live in Strathcona County and you pay more but if you live in Lamont County, you pay the same as Edmontonians? Someone from Leduc would pay more but not someone from Wetaskiwin?

    I admit I erred in using the RAM as an example but couldn't we do the same thing provincially? If you're from BC or Manitoba, you pay an extra fee to go to the RAM or go camping in a provincial park?

    Why not go national? Stick it to all those tourists who come here, don't pay taxes and use our facilities?
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 09-12-2018 at 08:33 PM.

  16. #16
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,022

    Default

    Fort Edmonton is getting some federal funding to upgrade its facilities.

    How much extra cost do patrons from outlying regions really add to the use of city facilities? The city should review whether library fees should remain free.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  17. #17

    Default

    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    A one time visit is different than a community that forked out money to build an entity for its citizen. I think that process is fair. The same would be applied if Edmontonian use the St. Albert or Sherwood Park's received Centre. Stop your insane postualtion! RAM is not an Edmonton tax funded but provincial, so process something this simple before yapping!
    So what are you going to do, base it on their home address? Live in Strathcona County and you pay more but if you live in Lamont County, you pay the same as Edmontonians? Someone from Leduc would pay more but not someone from Wetaskiwin?

    I admit I erred is using the RAM as an example but couldn't we do the same thing provincially? If you're from BC or Manitoba, you pay an extra fee to go to the RAM or go camping in a provincial park?

    Why not go national? Stick it to all those tourists who come here, don't pay taxes and use our facilities?
    This is about rec entres. If one is a REGULAR user then a monthly pass should be slighter higher as that will help offset the burden of Edmontonians.One has to show identification when one buys a pass which will then show which jurisdiction one is in. Edmontonians pay this much, and anyone outside of the city's limit pay an extra amount of this much - for the sake of argument we'll say 5 dollars extra per month. If one is a guest for 1 or two times that is different. Why do you have to make a simple process like it is a UN charter?
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  19. #19

    Default

    The mayor disagrees with you. As does the name of this thread

    Neighbours should pitch in for big-city amenities, Edmonton mayor argues
    a∑men∑i∑ty
    noun
    plural noun: amenities
    a desirable or useful feature or facility of a building or place.

    Are rec centres the only thing you'd call amenities? What about QE or Borden Park pools? What about the single sheet rinks? Is the LRT desirable or useful? Is Churchill Square? What about the free movies that are shown in the square? Time for an ID check to make sure those sneaky St.Ablertans aren't ripping us off?

    Why do you have to make something more complex than it is? Are we going to maintain a database to make sure someone doesn't sneak in a third time without paying? Would your $5 fee be per rec centre or for all?

    Also, the arena is owned by the city as is Commonwealth. They're certainly "big city" amenities.

    You want the outlying areas to pay? Do it at a civic level. Of course, if they're paying then they should get a voice in how it's run, no?
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 09-12-2018 at 09:39 PM.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    If I come in and see a play at the citadel, should I be charged more, or, am I helping the arts IN Edmonton? Iverson needs to rethink what he said..he really does. Rec centres? We have them, but the Enjoy spa and wellness centre in SA, is used by many, from Edmonton, don't they have spas there?

  21. #21

    Default

    The Citadel isn't owned by the city. Neither is the Jubilee.

  22. #22

    Default

    The
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    If I come in and see a play at the citadel, should I be charged more, or, am I helping the arts IN Edmonton? Iverson needs to rethink what he said..he really does. Rec centres? We have them, but the Enjoy spa and wellness centre in SA, is used by many, from Edmonton, don't they have spas there?
    It’s an interesting viewpoint. Much like the city admin wanting to charge the memorial park bench people a few hundred bucks a year in maintenance charges. I’d assumed that people buying those memorial benches were donating $2-3,000 bucks in exchange for a little memorial plaque saying it was dedicated to a loved one. Never thought that park benches were a huge burden on the City. Similarly if the City decides to lower the public access fees on facilities I wouldn’t have expected them to complain that the inevitability of seeing more users (from within and without) would be an unexpected burden.

    If the access/pricing needs to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens then why not simply have it differentiate between between citizens and non-citizens? (It’s a natural outcome of underpricing any service.) as for roads, etc. That’s why areas get annexed. It’s an old old solution.


    Additionally, before the facilities are built it would seem wise to ask thd neighbours to share in the cost? In exchange they could have some say in placement
    Last edited by KC; 10-12-2018 at 07:45 AM.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #24
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    iím pretty sure eia subsidizes the 747 to the airport with hard cash (or at least they did when it started) and thought the county did as well. it might be the only break even route in the system as a result. regardless, itís still primarily edmonton residents paying edmonton taxes who are riding it on roads maintained by others.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  25. #25

    Default

    I can see both sides of this debate. There is no 'right answer' here. For many years, these smaller communities grew up on the amenities and services of the city of Edmonton, until they grew up big enough, and can now pay to build and maintain their own....

    It's like Edmonton helped raise these kids (by providing services and amenities when they didn't have any/too small/too new to have any) , the kids are now moving out and providing for their own, but they are thankless for the years that they spooned off Edmonton as a parent, and never offer to help the parents now that they've moved out. Now that they have their own place, they stick their nose up at Edmonton and its problems. Social services? We don't need those out here, cause the parents have the problem! And anytime they do have big city problems, they usually offload those into Edmonton. How many homeless shelters and soup kitchens and other social programs from the vulnerable are out their for these child-cities? How often do they willing offer to help with these problems? Never?
    Last edited by Medwards; 10-12-2018 at 09:50 AM.

  26. #26
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    Isn't St. Albert and Strathcona County running their own busses better for the city than cost sharing? By running them they are paying costs. the cost to use the commuter bus is $6.10 per trip. Isn't that more than what a fare costs in the city?

  27. #27
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I can see both sides of this debate. There is no 'right answer' here. For many years, these smaller communities grew up on the amenities and services of the city of Edmonton, until they grew up big enough, and can now pay to build and maintain their own....

    It's like Edmonton helped raise these kids (by providing services and amenities when they didn't have any/too small/too new to have any) , the kids are now moving out and providing for their own, but they are thankless for the years that they spooned off Edmonton as a parent, and never offer to help the parents now that they've moved out. Now that they have their own place, they stick their nose up at Edmonton and its problems. Social services? We don't need those out here, cause the parents have the problem! And anytime they do have big city problems, they usually offload those into Edmonton. How many homeless shelters and soup kitchens and other social programs from the vulnerable are out their for these child-cities? How often do they willing offer to help with these problems? Never?

    Shouldn't these social services be the responsibility of the province?

    There is a women's shelter right behind my townhouse in Sherwood Park. It has been there since the mid 80's. So not never?

  28. #28

    Default

    They should... 100%. Social services are the responsibility of the province.... but if you look into it, you'll see who's paying for what.

  29. #29
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    They should... 100%. Social services are the responsibility of the province.... but if you look into it, you'll see who's paying for what.
    and who do you think is paying for what when you factor in municipal infrastructure grants and matching grants and monies from the big city charter and grants in lieu for property taxes etc. that don't go to any of the surrounding municipalities even though they pay the same provincial taxes edmontonians do?

    the problem is too many people - including our mayor - seem to be assuming this is a zero sum game - or a series of zero sum games - when it isn't.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  30. #30

    Default

    All I know is its a big mess, and there is no right or wrong opinion in this matter, and it really depends on a multitude of factors.

    If you want my personal opinion, Edmonton should be allowed to annex the urban areas in the region, and a greenbelt limiting urban growth enforced by the province, similiar to how Ontario has done it for Ottawa or Toronto

  31. #31
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    All I know is its a big mess, and there is no right or wrong opinion in this matter, and it really depends on a multitude of factors.

    If you want my personal opinion, Edmonton should be allowed to annex the urban areas in the region, and a greenbelt limiting urban growth enforced by the province, similiar to how Ontario has done it for Ottawa or Toronto
    except that hasn't actually worked terribly well for either ottawa or toronto has it?

    as for alberta, you only need to look at calgary to see that's probably worked out better for okotoks and chestermere and airdre and cochrane than it has for calgary when it comes to limiting or containing or cost-sharing growth.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    Yes, that is very true. However, if you are visiting Vancouver, you aren't charged even more to ride the SkyTrain. We already have the bare bones of a zone system for transit here. You pay more to ride to Edmonton from St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove, Ft. Saskatchewan, Beaumont, Leduc and the airport. There are plans being worked on to integrate all the various transit systems. However, we still won't be charging people who don't live here more than residents to take a bus or train. We'll charge people riding further out from the city more to take transit due to the increased cost.

  33. #33
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,022

    Default

    I think the disparity could be greater in places like Cold Lake vs the MD of Bonnyville, where industry doesn’t pay taxes for the services the city or town provides.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    All I know is its a big mess, and there is no right or wrong opinion in this matter, and it really depends on a multitude of factors.

    If you want my personal opinion, Edmonton should be allowed to annex the urban areas in the region, and a greenbelt limiting urban growth enforced by the province, similiar to how Ontario has done it for Ottawa or Toronto
    except that hasn't actually worked terribly well for either ottawa or toronto has it?

    as for alberta, you only need to look at calgary to see that's probably worked out better for okotoks and chestermere and airdre and cochrane than it has for calgary when it comes to limiting or containing or cost-sharing growth.

    There's pros and cons to everything and many different ways to accomplish similar goals. None of them perfect.

  35. #35
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,882
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This conversation will go in circles for a bit. I found it a bit hypocritical because I have a business that is about promoting Edmonton, I spend +80% of my budget in Edmonton and on Edmonton-based companies, it is trying to help recover an entire industry from Edmonton dropping some key promises after a key decision, and is now the second largest of its kind in Canada...

    ...yet...

    ...I keep getting told that Edmotnon cannot contribute much (it currently sits at about 1.5% of my budget) because I am not actually IN Edmonton. So, should I drop the Edmonton name, stop hiring Edmonton companies who send me 6 figure invoices every year and only hire regional companies? Should I send all but 1.5% of my hotels, spend, and other ameneties to only the surrounding community?

    If I listen to the mayor, I should. After all, if one area is receiving 80+% of the benefit, yet paying only 1.5% in return...

    It works both ways.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  36. #36

    Default

    The city of Edmonton government should be dissolved, along with all the surrounding municipalities, and a new local authority formed for the entire metropolitian region.

    A fresh start for a this area. Make Edmonton Great Again. MEGA!

  37. #37
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,022

    Default

    Maybe Edmonton could build a giant wall along the TUC next to Henday.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    I heard some back peddling from Don, that looks good on him.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    Isn't St. Albert and Strathcona County running their own busses better for the city than cost sharing? By running them they are paying costs. the cost to use the commuter bus is $6.10 per trip. Isn't that more than what a fare costs in the city?
    How is that better to the COE? That is essentially lost money as its grossly inefficient for ST. Albert and Sherwood Park to be running their own bus systems and commuter busses to Edmonton as that requires each to have their own regional administration, overhead, bus barns, infrastructure etc, and buy busses all on their own.

    By amalgamating multiple admins are replaced by one Transit Authority, which is bigger, has bigger fleets, can order more busses at one time and take advantage of volume pricing, economies of scale, Utilize Edmonton but infrastructure etc. Additionally it eliminates the need for redundant services. For instance the Sh Pk bus/St Albert could service a few stops along the way to DT thereby eliminating the need for some other stops. By combining you can also run the route at greater frequency and increased ridership.

    This in turn would be the impetus to more outlying regions joining in to ETS transit authority. If they see other towns doing it maybe Spruce Grove, Leduc, Beaumont etc also buy in and thereby decreasing unnecessary load volumes on commuter roads from people that specifically commute by driving into and out of Edmonton instead of taking a commuter bus. Not sure what the numbers are now but in the past 80-90% of residents of Beaumont worked in Edmonton resulting in huge traffic jams emanating from a small town. Its a picture of inefficiency and backwards transportation. Many of those residents could be better, and more cheaply served with transit.

    Lets increase ETS to a regional super carrier as we start to become a bigger city, and as most larger urban regions do.


    The last benefit, commerce wise, is increasing regional traffic to all outlying areas which has obvious benefit.

    To not amalgamate into A Central transit authority is just inefficient and speaks to division instead of cooperation.
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-12-2018 at 11:39 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  40. #40
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    Isn't St. Albert and Strathcona County running their own busses better for the city than cost sharing? By running them they are paying costs. the cost to use the commuter bus is $6.10 per trip. Isn't that more than what a fare costs in the city?
    How is that better to the COE? That is essentially lost money as its grossly inefficient for ST. Albert and Sherwood Park to be running their own bus systems and commuter busses to Edmonton as that requires each to have their own regional administration, overhead, bus barns, infrastructure etc, and buy busses all on their own.

    By amalgamating multiple admins are replaced by one Transit Authority, which is bigger, has bigger fleets, can order more busses at one time and take advantage of volume pricing, economies of scale, Utilize Edmonton but infrastructure etc. Additionally it eliminates the need for redundant services. For instance the Sh Pk bus could service a few stops along the way to DT thereby eliminating the need for some other stops. By combining you can also run the route at greater frequency and increased ridership.


    The last benefit, commerce wise, is increasing regional traffic to all outlying areas which has obvious benefit.

    To not amalgamate into A Central transit authority is just inefficient and speaks to division instead of cooperation.
    while transit amalgamation may well be a good regional solution, ceding that amalgamation to edmonton transit based on their track record (albeit council direction and support and/or lack thereof over the years cannot be separated from that track record) might well be a big step backwards for those other jurisdictions and for the region overall than a step forward.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    Yes, that is very true. However, if you are visiting Vancouver, you aren't charged even more to ride the SkyTrain. We already have the bare bones of a zone system for transit here. You pay more to ride to Edmonton from St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove, Ft. Saskatchewan, Beaumont, Leduc and the airport. There are plans being worked on to integrate all the various transit systems. However, we still won't be charging people who don't live here more than residents to take a bus or train. We'll charge people riding further out from the city more to take transit due to the increased cost.
    Skytrain has multiple fare zones as well and as per last time I was there would be demarked into zone 1, zone 2, zone 3. With 2 and 3 being longer journeys costing more. I believe you need 3 tickets to take a zone 3 ride. I usually just get day passes when I'm there for 9bucks a day which works out cheaper.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  42. #42
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,882
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This is why this conversation is so tricky, and the current "we're being taken advantage of" approach can backfire spectacularly.

    Edmonton is, and wants to be, the big player in the region, the province, and the country. As the clichť says, with great power, comes great responsibility.

    If you want the big pro sports teams, they come with big pro sports team issues and invoices.

    If you want the national, and internationally relevant items, they come with the requisite work and invoices...

    etc, etc, etc.

    Now, this does not mean that a regional framework with school boards, transit, police, EMS, etc shouldn't be pursued. It should. But as kcantor says, the big city's version cannot be thought of as the correct or only one...

    ...and you definitely cannot demand people pay for your services, when you definitely do not (and even fight to have to) reciprocate.

    Eat your own dog food...wise words...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    [To not amalgamate into A Central transit authority is just inefficient and speaks to division instead of cooperation.
    while transit amalgamation may well be a good regional solution, ceding that amalgamation to edmonton transit based on their track record (albeit council direction and support and/or lack thereof over the years cannot be separated from that track record) might well be a big step backwards for those other jurisdictions and for the region overall than a step forward.[/QUOTE]

    heh, that's a different kettle of fish Ken. Of course what I stated is accurate. Now if we're considering bloated, inefficient and backwards Edmonton bureaucracy as an impediment well that has to change anyway and we all benefit when/if it does. Maybe the amalgamation isn't so top down and Edmonton may actually get some operational input from the outlying authorities.

    I can speak first person about this as well. I'm old enough to have experienced the Jasper Place amalgamation. I can say definitely bus services improved, Transit Center was closer and more central to residents, stops more frequent. and the whole thing more efficient. Jasper Place users used to have to take an Edmonton bus at small transit station just off ST Pl at approximately 147st. Being that Jasper Place people, and the town were frugal, i.e. cheap, tons of people used to just walk a mile or so to take the ETS busses there. For most JP residents when the ETS busses rolled into JP Terminal and provided service to all regions it was a huge blessing.

    Also of note is that roads were paved post amalgamation (prior were mostly packed dirt/gravel mud) and paved sidewalks were built. Prior to that JP was infamous for muddy walking. HUge mud boots going up to the knees were not optional and as a kid in the spring I remember sinking into quagmire a foot deep in places. Me and my friend got stuck in the mud one spring just trying to go to the "Art Paul" book exchange to trade in our comic books.. We were like caked in mud/stuff like the escaped outlaws in Raising Arizona. Of course we had fallen into the mud pit so were covered with mud almost head to toe. To avoid our parents collectively disowning us upon our return home we had to spray ourselves off with a garden hose with cold spring water. Then learn to do our own laundry at a tender age.

    Ah, life in JP.

    I think property taxes even went down post amalgamation although not certain of the last point. I do know that JP had levies people would pay on property tax as additional amounts for "road improvements" that largely didn't exist. My dad complained about paying years of levies to JP for infrastructure that didn't materialize.
    Last edited by Replacement; 11-12-2018 at 12:05 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    This is why this conversation is so tricky, and the current "we're being taken advantage of" approach can backfire spectacularly.

    Edmonton is, and wants to be, the big player in the region, the province, and the country. As the clichť says, with great power, comes great responsibility.

    If you want the big pro sports teams, they come with big pro sports team issues and invoices.

    If you want the national, and internationally relevant items, they come with the requisite work and invoices...

    etc, etc, etc.

    Now, this does not mean that a regional framework with school boards, transit, police, EMS, etc shouldn't be pursued. It should. But as kcantor says, the big city's version cannot be thought of as the correct or only one...

    ...and you definitely cannot demand people pay for your services, when you definitely do not (and even fight to have to) reciprocate.

    Eat your own dog food...wise words...
    Iveson of course, through his impulsive outburst (common with him) has increased discord and division with his latest comments. he has a certain bent to being mercurial that serves him, or Edmontonians no specific benefit.


    Nothing like salt in old regional wounds to help them fester instead of maybe stirring some honey and sugar onto an olive branch.

    Cooperative dialog seems like a dying thing.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  45. #45
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    while transit amalgamation may well be a good regional solution, ceding that amalgamation to edmonton transit based on their track record (albeit council direction and support and/or lack thereof over the years cannot be separated from that track record) might well be a big step backwards for those other jurisdictions and for the region overall than a step forward.
    heh, that's a different kettle of fish Ken. Of course what I stated is accurate. Now if we're considering bloated, inefficient and backwards Edmonton bureaucracy as an impediment well that has to change anyway and we all benefit when/if it does. Maybe the amalgamation isn't so top down and Edmonton may actually get some operational input from the outlying authorities.

    I can speak first person about this as well. I'm old enough to have experienced the Jasper Place amalgamation. I can say definitely bus services improved, Transit Center was closer and more central to residents, stops more frequent. and the whole thing more efficient. Jasper Place users used to have to take an Edmonton bus at small transit station just off ST Pl at approximately 147st. Being that Jasper Place people, and the town were frugal, i.e. cheap, tons of people used to just walk a mile or so to take the ETS busses there. For most JP residents when the ETS busses rolled into JP Terminal and provided service to all regions it was a huge blessing.

    Also of note is that roads were paved post amalgamation (prior were mostly packed dirt/gravel mud) and paved sidewalks were built. Prior to that JP was infamous for muddy walking. HUge mud boots going up to the knees were not optional and as a kid in the spring I remember sinking into quagmire a foot deep in places. Me and my friend got stuck in the mud one spring just trying to go to the "Art Paul" book exchange to trade in our comic books.. We were like caked in mud/stuff like the escaped outlaws in Raising Arizona. Of course we had fallen into the mud pit so were covered with mud almost head to toe. To avoid our parents collectively disowning us upon our return home we had to spray ourselves off with a garden hose with cold spring water. Then learn to do our own laundry at a tender age.

    Ah, life in JP.

    I think property taxes even went down post amalgamation although not certain of the last point. I do know that JP had levies people would pay on property tax as additional amounts for "road improvements" that largely didn't exist. My dad complained about paying years of levies to JP for infrastructure that didn't materialize.
    the edmonton of today is much different than the edmonton that annexed jasper place (and Beverly and strathcona).

    we have traded a relatively unified council supported by five commissioners (or vice versa ) for a single city manager struggling with 12 councilors mired in/saddled with ward politics where the larger the city becomes the worse the ward politics get (not only here but almost universally).

    apples and oranges.

    ps. edmonton, like jasper place, used to finance capital improvements with local improvement charges levied against the benefitting parcels whether subdivisions or lots. it was a much more transparent practice than crl's and offered significant financing and tax benefits for the city, for the owner and for tenants.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    This is why this conversation is so tricky, and the current "we're being taken advantage of" approach can backfire spectacularly.

    Edmonton is, and wants to be, the big player in the region, the province, and the country. As the clichť says, with great power, comes great responsibility.

    If you want the big pro sports teams, they come with big pro sports team issues and invoices.

    If you want the national, and internationally relevant items, they come with the requisite work and invoices...

    etc, etc, etc.
    and if you want all this, but don't want to pay for it, move to Sherwood Park or Fort Sask. Get the big city advantage at small town tax rates!

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The city of Edmonton government should be dissolved, along with all the surrounding municipalities, and a new local authority formed for the entire metropolitian region.

    A fresh start for a this area. Make Edmonton Great Again. MEGA!
    Ditch the Edmonton name. It's got too much baggage with the surrounding communities. Call the new megacity Strathcona instead.

  48. #48
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,574

    Default

    Can you show the differences in residential tax rates being cheaper in those 'small towns'? Or is it just assumed?

  49. #49
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,882
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    It's just assumed. I can assure you my taxes in St Albert were definitely NOT cheaper than when I was in Edmonton, both in Laurier Heights and Downtown....
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  50. #50
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Let's post someone at LRT stations and on buses to check proof of residency. That should make things more efficient.
    Ever been to the Lower mainland? The Solution is simple. if you live in outlying regions you userpay more for transit. Different regions, different costs. If you want lines built out to outlying regions regional cost sharing is involved. Yet here we allow Strathcona and ST Albert route busses instead of them cost sharing in regional transit, vs their own specific transit. We even have a ETS bus going out to the Edmonton International airport, and the local shopping Center and hotels out there now. How much kick back is Edmonton getting from the IA, from all the facilities, businesses, that are only viable due to Edmonton? That only exist due to Edmonton.
    Isn't St. Albert and Strathcona County running their own busses better for the city than cost sharing? By running them they are paying costs. the cost to use the commuter bus is $6.10 per trip. Isn't that more than what a fare costs in the city?
    How is that better to the COE? That is essentially lost money as its grossly inefficient for ST. Albert and Sherwood Park to be running their own bus systems and commuter busses to Edmonton as that requires each to have their own regional administration, overhead, bus barns, infrastructure etc, and buy busses all on their own.

    By amalgamating multiple admins are replaced by one Transit Authority, which is bigger, has bigger fleets, can order more busses at one time and take advantage of volume pricing, economies of scale, Utilize Edmonton but infrastructure etc. Additionally it eliminates the need for redundant services. For instance the Sh Pk bus/St Albert could service a few stops along the way to DT thereby eliminating the need for some other stops. By combining you can also run the route at greater frequency and increased ridership.

    This in turn would be the impetus to more outlying regions joining in to ETS transit authority. If they see other towns doing it maybe Spruce Grove, Leduc, Beaumont etc also buy in and thereby decreasing unnecessary load volumes on commuter roads from people that specifically commute by driving into and out of Edmonton instead of taking a commuter bus. Not sure what the numbers are now but in the past 80-90% of residents of Beaumont worked in Edmonton resulting in huge traffic jams emanating from a small town. Its a picture of inefficiency and backwards transportation. Many of those residents could be better, and more cheaply served with transit.

    Lets increase ETS to a regional super carrier as we start to become a bigger city, and as most larger urban regions do.


    The last benefit, commerce wise, is increasing regional traffic to all outlying areas which has obvious benefit.

    To not amalgamate into A Central transit authority is just inefficient and speaks to division instead of cooperation.
    St. Albert and Strathcona County running their own transit systems doesn't cause inefficiencies for the COE so how is that not better for the COE? Transit operates at a loss. Are you advocating for the COE to take on losses that St. Albert and Strathcona County are already covering?

    Strathcona Transit does have stops in the city. I doubt you are going to increase frequency of the route by adding more stops in the city.

    If people want to live in Beaumont and have to wait in a huge traffic jam at Ellerslie Road that is their problem. Something they chose to do.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    It's just assumed. I can assure you my taxes in St Albert were definitely NOT cheaper than when I was in Edmonton, both in Laurier Heights and Downtown....
    I specifically didn't mention St Albert. We both know why they have a higher tax rate... most of their base comes from residential.

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post

    St. Albert and Strathcona County running their own transit systems doesn't cause inefficiencies for the COE so how is that not better for the COE? Transit operates at a loss. Are you advocating for the COE to take on losses that St. Albert and Strathcona County are already covering?

    Strathcona Transit does have stops in the city. I doubt you are going to increase frequency of the route by adding more stops in the city.

    If people want to live in Beaumont and have to wait in a huge traffic jam at Ellerslie Road that is their problem. Something they chose to do.
    not just transit, but having multiple different clients competiting for the same limited resouces pools (labour, materials, etc) can cause price escalations, and bidding wars. Going to table to bargain together (through a co-op, or outright annexing) levels the playing field for all.

    and about transit - Sherwood Park and St albert may run their own transit systems, but that's changing with the regional board. And IIRC, St Albert originally contracted ETS to provide bus service long time ago? I know fort sask, leduc, stony/grove and beaumont have all recently done as much.... until they are big enough... to make their own system....

    When a large corporation/industry wants to come to the Edmonton region, they can play each county and municipality against each other. Having a unified voice for the region competing in world markets makes us all stronger.
    Last edited by Medwards; 11-12-2018 at 02:09 PM.

  53. #53
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    436

    Default

    I told Iveson before he was Mayor to close the Valley Zoo.

    Now, what are we really talking about here that is regional in nature?
    Telus World of Science
    Fort Edmonton Park
    Rogers Place
    Northlands
    Transit
    YEG and ZVL - these two are all user pay.
    Roads

    Well, the City of Edmonton does a good job on cost recovery of those roads. They park a mobile toll booth out on the overpasses overlooking the Yellowhead and nail all the commuters coming in from Parkland County with those lower than expected speed limits. I mean, come on, 90 km/h on the Yellowhead from Hwy 216 to 149 Street? I'm sure that thing is engineered for 110 km/h.

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The city of Edmonton government should be dissolved, along with all the surrounding municipalities, and a new local authority formed for the entire metropolitian region.

    A fresh start for a this area. Make Edmonton Great Again. MEGA!
    Ditch the Edmonton name. It's got too much baggage with the surrounding communities. Call the new megacity Strathcona instead.
    I was thinking the same thing! lol. I think Iveson is losing it. This is crazy. Iíd like to see the dollar figure that people outside the city spend in this city. It would be ginormous. Iíd even be willing to say that the 500,000 outside the city limits but still in metro spend as much as the 900,000 inside it do in the CofE. My family being one example. Keep the peace or even more business will be heading out. I think even the Oilers would fare poorly without seasons tickets and patrons from outside the city limits. I know this isnít about shopping but still this is insane conversation.

  55. #55

    Default

    I think the valley zoo is an asset that the entire region benefits from, and should be a good candidate for regional cost sharing. Same with Fort Edmonton, TWOS and the Ukrainian Village.

    Putting up tolls, or charging people more based on where they are from is silly.
    Last edited by Medwards; 12-12-2018 at 11:18 AM.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Well, the City of Edmonton does a good job on cost recovery of those roads. They park a mobile toll booth out on the overpasses overlooking the Yellowhead and nail all the commuters coming in from Parkland County with those lower than expected speed limits. I mean, come on, 90 km/h on the Yellowhead from Hwy 216 to 149 Street? I'm sure that thing is engineered for 110 km/h.
    Not much different from those entering Spruce/Plain on 16A...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •