Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  • #2
    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, 05:17 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

    Comment


    • #3
      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, 07:37 PM.
      " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

      Comment


      • #4
        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. —Marshall McLuhan

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dialog View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dialog View Post
            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'.
            the mayor already did that in the article that was linked... which is why i noted similar amenities outside the city that the city doesn’t pay a share of either.
            "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

            Comment


            • #7
              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!
              Animals are my passion.

              Comment


              • #8
                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, 05:35 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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...
                    Animals are my passion.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.
                            President and CEO - Airshow.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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, 06:33 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X