3308 replies to this topic

[Stephen James]

COV should simply put business owners, NGO's etc. on notice : if you are a business using animals, fossil fuels, plastics, landfill, and so on you'd best have a plan in place that demonstrates you are heading towards sustainability because we, the COV will be coming for that plan in the very near future.  Pretty simple folks.   

(Perhaps with the small business assistance re: setting up in Victoria etc., they, the City, could also provide businesses assistance in developing these sustainable plans). 

I think we can narrow this down:  

if you are running a diesel engine in our community and an alternative is available in the market, such as shore power, you may not spew the particulate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Like delivery vehicles, all private citizenships vehicles, etc, you may not be the sole exception, allowed to burn the cheapest, filthiest fuel and spew carcinogens into our community.

[Mike K.]

Great.

So let’s build that infrastructure and require ships to plug into it. Sounds like a great income generating opportunity for the GVHA, and I’m sure the vessels that can plug in will plug in.

[Stephen James]

Great.

So let’s build that infrastructure and require ships to plug into it. Sounds like a great income generating opportunity for the GVHA, and I’m sure the vessels that can plug in will plug in.

Agreed, and like every other business in BC, they should pay for it:  BC Hydro will require a substantial deposit from the cruise industry to cover the cost of the buildout much of which, depending on negotiations, will be returned as credit towards electricity consumption.  No special favours and no handouts.  Why in the world would we give a handout to any industry, let alone this industry?  

 

And... like every other example in business, the community will decide the standard, period.  I'm a capitalist but we do not let capitalism decide our community standards - that's insane.  There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about the community saying, if you come to Victoria you have to plug in.  And there are some things, like not putting cocaine in coca-cola, that are just necessary to legislate ffs.

 

If your proposal is that the local, provincial or federal govs (with my money - there is only ONE taxpayer) should be paying, why?  Because they'll threaten to leave?  Why do we propose to pay for the cruise industry's power hookup, one of the most profitable industries in the world and an acknowledged environmental offender, but we make "Joe's factory" pay a huge deposit towards 100% of the costs?  Why should we pay for the cruise industries' infrastructure but Joe's factory has to pay themselves?  Joe's factory has almost no profit because it's a startup, it's not poisoning our air, it will create jobs.   

 

How is this conservative?  How is it common sense?  Sounds like we're driven by fear alone and good luck to us...

[Mattjvd]

Agreed, and like every other business in BC, they should pay for it: BC Hydro will require a substantial deposit from the cruise industry to cover the cost of the buildout much of which, depending on negotiations, will be returned as credit towards electricity consumption. No special favours and no handouts. Why in the world would we give a handout to any industry, let alone this industry?

And... like every other example in business, the community will decide the standard, period. I'm a capitalist but we do not let capitalism decide our community standards - that's insane. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about the community saying, if you come to Victoria you have to plug in. And there are some things, like not putting cocaine in coca-cola, that are just necessary to legislate ffs.

If your proposal is that the local, provincial or federal govs (with my money - there is only ONE taxpayer) should be paying, why? Because they'll threaten to leave? Why do we propose to pay for the cruise industry's power hookup, one of the most profitable industries in the world and an acknowledged environmental offender, but we make "Joe's factory" pay a huge deposit towards 100% of the costs? Why should we pay for the cruise industries' infrastructure but Joe's factory has to pay themselves? Joe's factory has almost no profit because it's a startup, it's not poisoning our air, it will create jobs.

How is this conservative? How is it common sense? Sounds like we're driven by fear alone and good luck to us...

Business don't get to demand their customers pay years in advance so they can invest in capital assets and eventually deliver a service to them. That's what investors are for. We (tax payer) are investors in BC Hydro (and customers), the ship lines are soley a customer.

Demanding the cruiseship industry pay up front for the infrastruct would be the special favour, not the other way around.

Just like any other business, BC Hydro should cover the cost of its capital assets from operating cash flow or through its investors. Then, charge enough for the electricity they are supplying to the ships to make that investment worth while.

[lanforod]

The benefit is to Victoria far more than to the cruise lines. I don't see why they should have to pay for it.

[Victoria Watcher]

can we agree it should be something in between? we don’t ask foreign visitors by car to pay for our road upkeep prior to or upon arrival but if they fill up with some gas they pay some road tax.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 27 October 2019 - 02:03 PM.

[aastra]

 

Helps has written a letter already indicating she does not support the use of taxpayer funds as a hand-out to the cruise industry.  She's right.

 

I have to ask, are Victoria's valiant politicians going after the various levels of government for using taxpayers' money to install shore power at Canada Place and the Deltaport? Are Victoria's politicians going after the various levels of government for using taxpayers' money to install shore power in Halifax? Or is Victoria the only place where federal/provincial money is no good for this purpose and thus the only place where such heroic stands should be made?

 

Victorians are oh so committed to cleaning up and protecting the natural environment... but with political terms and conditions? Political theater is just that much more important than the environment? Give me a break.

[Victoria Watcher]

with all that shore power available when it comes we should build a big electric windmill/fan to blow the other ships’ emissions away from james bay.

[Stephen James]

Business don't get to demand their customers pay years in advance so they can invest in capital assets and eventually deliver a service to them. That's what investors are for. We (tax payer) are investors in BC Hydro (and customers), the ship lines are soley a customer.

Demanding the cruiseship industry pay up front for the infrastruct would be the special favour, not the other way around.

Just like any other business, BC Hydro should cover the cost of its capital assets from operating cash flow or through its investors. Then, charge enough for the electricity they are supplying to the ships to make that investment worth while.

Not sure you understand accounting, or capital markets...

Yes they do, in fact and that's completely backwards.  Businesses make customers pay for their capital assets every day through the net profit.  Capital assets value are reduced through amortization which is the accounting mechanism that ensures money is saved and accounted for to pay for them.  They also use debt, matched in term to the expected life of the assets.  

Finally, if what you were saying were relevant, it's the business' job to attract investors from the private sector, not the governments', on their own merits.  If the investment community (not the public sector) thinks it's a prudent investment then they will offer the money.  

 

Otherwise it's a corporate welfare handout to one of the most profitable businesses in existence.  Nuts and, again, not capitalism: handouts.

(We can ignore the shameful environment track record.)

[Stephen James]

can we agree it should be something in between? we don’t ask foreign visitors by car to pay for our road upkeep prior to or upon arrival but if they fill up with some gas they pay some road tax.

Only if you think corporate handouts to incredibly profitable industries makes sense.  I don't.  I'm a capitalist.  This site seems to have a lot of left leaning ideas about government getting into business.

[Mike K.]

What happened with Loblaw getting millions in taxpayer funded fridges was a handout.

Asking ships to plug into shore power, and building shore power infrastructure for them to plug into and pay for that privilege is the exact opposite of a handout. Furthermore, cruise ships are not the sole users of Ogden Point. It’s a public terminal with many commercial vessels docking there each year.

In fact, at this moment there are two non-cruise ship vessels docked at Ogden Point and zero cruise ships.

[Stephen James]

"Just like any other business, BC Hydro should cover the cost of its capital assets from operating cash flow or through its investors. Then, charge enough for the electricity they are supplying to the ships to make that investment worth while."

 

​This is my point exactly:  

If you decide to build a factory on vancouver island, let's say, to manufacture a perpetual power machine to save the world with boundless energy...

Guess what?  YOU have to pay BC Hydro a huge deposit to bring power to your site and build the infrastructure.  And YOU will not be allowed to spew carcinogens into the air or you will be shut down.  Doesn't matter if you're creating jobs or saving the environment.

 

​Why would the cruise industry deserve more special treatment?  Because we're afraid of them?  What some people on this site seem to be suggesting is that we are hostages to the cruise ship industry and therefore must give them corporate welfare and pay for THEIR infrastructure.  This is one of the most profitable industries and one of the worst environmental offenders.  This is nuts.

 

​Under no circumstances should my money, local, provincial or federal be used to buy the cruise industry a new shore power system so they don't poison us.  Give me a break.

[Stephen James]

What happened with Loblaw getting millions in taxpayer funded fridges was a handout.

Asking ships to plug into shore power, and building shore power infrastructure for them to plug into and pay for that privilege is the exact opposite of a handout. Furthermore, cruise ships are not the sole users of Ogden Point. It’s a public terminal with many commercial vessels docking there each year.

In fact, at this moment there are two non-cruise ship vessels docked at Ogden Point and zero cruise ships.

Are you suggesting one dumb decision deserves another?  

 

Even if so, Loblaws is:

1) a Canadian company (not an offshore tax haven) and,

2) food (not dirty diesel fuel and garbage spewed into the environment.)

[Mike K.]

That factory is yours, though. It’s not a public facility where other factory operators can operate their own factory from within your factory.

You’re asking a business quite content paying for diesel fuel to power its vessels to build a shore power system at a public port or it’s usage of the public terminal will be curtailed. That’s called extortion.

[Stephen James]

Are you suggesting one dumb decision deserves another?  

 

Even if so, Loblaws is:

1) a Canadian company (not an offshore tax haven) and,

2) food (not dirty diesel fuel and garbage spewed into the environment.)

happy to clarify...

 

All commercial and non-commercial ships (like commercial and non-commercial vehicles in every city in N America) are prohibited from idling next to a major urban centre, to avoid spewing carcinogens into our breathing space.

 

Did you put up this much of a fight against seat belts? lol.

[Mike K.]

Are you suggesting one dumb decision deserves another?

Even if so, Loblaws is:
1) a Canadian company (not an offshore tax haven) and,
2) food (not dirty diesel fuel and garbage spewed into the environment.)

No, I’m saying you might not be familiar with the difference between a handout to a corporation and a public infrastructure investment that corporations can pay to use.

We’re not giving cruise ships free shore power. We would charge them to hook up, and recover fees for the shore power system. That’s how it works in business in a country ruled by a system of just laws and policies. Under the eyes of the law, we are all equal, and the law will not favour your theory that because a corporation makes more in profit than others that it must be forced to pay for the demands of a public port facility it chooses to dock at, and which the facility operators encourage it to dock at.

[Stephen James]

That factory is yours, though. It’s not a public facility where other factory operators can operate their own factory from within your factory.

You’re asking a business quite content paying for diesel fuel to power its vessels to build a shore power system at a public port or it’s usage of the public terminal will be curtailed. That’s called extortion.

No, it's called legislation.  

Other examples:

• seat belts
• not putting cocaine into coca-cola
• speed limits
• smoking and drinking ages
• recycling
• noise abatement
• road restrictions

Every one of these has more than one example of a new cost to doing business.  

Every example was resisted with the words "extortion"because the only goal, in business, is not to spend the money.

[Stephen James]

No, I’m saying you might not be familiar with the difference between a handout to a corporation and a public infrastructure investment that corporations can pay to use.

We’re not giving cruise ships free shore power. We would charge them to hook up, and recover fees for the shore power system. That’s how it works in business in a country ruled by a system of just laws and policies. Under the eyes of the law, we are all equal, and the law will not favour your theory that because a corporation makes more in profit than others that it must be forced to pay for the demands of a public port facility it chooses to dock at, and which the facility operators encourage it to dock at.

 

No, I’m saying you might not be familiar with the difference between a handout to a corporation and a public infrastructure investment that corporations can pay to use.

We’re not giving cruise ships free shore power. We would charge them to hook up, and recover fees for the shore power system. That’s how it works in business in a country ruled by a system of just laws and policies. Under the eyes of the law, we are all equal, and the law will not favour your theory that because a corporation makes more in profit than others that it must be forced to pay for the demands of a public port facility it chooses to dock at, and which the facility operators encourage it to dock at.

 

One of us is unfamiliar, for sure.  Nothing public about this (I draw your attention to the fences):

- Public infrastructure (to me): roads, sidewalks (the clue is I'm using them)

- Private infrastructure:  a shore power system being used by the private interests: the cruise and shipping industry

 

 

[Stephen James]

No, I’m saying you might not be familiar with the difference between a handout to a corporation and a public infrastructure investment that corporations can pay to use.

We’re not giving cruise ships free shore power. We would charge them to hook up, and recover fees for the shore power system. That’s how it works in business in a country ruled by a system of just laws and policies. Under the eyes of the law, we are all equal, and the law will not favour your theory that because a corporation makes more in profit than others that it must be forced to pay for the demands of a public port facility it chooses to dock at, and which the facility operators encourage it to dock at.

No that's not how it works, just ask a few of my friends:

The cruise industry, just like everyone else, has to pay for the power to be brought to the site.  Some of those costs may be recovered through the rate by the customer.

Your use of the word "public" is mystifying... because it's not.  The GVHA is a society and there's nothing public about that, and of course they are encouraging... it's their mandate!  The location is not a public marine facility, it's for private commercial interests.  

[Mike K.]

You’re asking Ford to build a seatbelt factory, though. That’s where your argument falls apart. That being said, Ford has happily included seatbelts in its cars for nearly a hundred years purchased from a seatbelt manufacturer. Just like every other auto company, they buy components created for the industry. They don’t build their own factories for every component, like you’re asking the cruise ship industry to do (build shore power at public ports all over the world). It makes zero sense.