1722 replies to this topic

[rjag]

I agree.

 

I would say that most progressives tend to fall on the left-hand side of the traditional spectrum... however, there are plenty of erstwhile lefties who are not progressives. Case in point, there are plenty of working-class people who vote NDP but have conservative views on many/most social issues.

 

It also depends on what your definition of "progress" is -- if it's simply advancing society through some means, then right-leaning people can be progressive too. They just might be more hesitant to adopt the label since on the right progressive seems to be a bad word.

 

Yup, its thrown about these days like a badge ....however you forget the Progressive Conservative Party aka the PC's..... 

[Nparker]

 ....however you forget the Progressive Conservative Party..... 

I'll take oxymorons for $1000 Alex.

[Stephen James]

What big group do you imagine doing this? If the Victoria Foundation doesn't meet your criteria, who does? And more crucially, who does that has the resources to run a large survey annually?

Yes, a very difficult question.

To carry on and pretend this "survey" is something other than a tool to advance an agenda is just embarrassing.

Again, a lack of courage holds us back.

[Stephen James]

The Victoria Foundation folks are fine people that work hard to steer the city toward a more progressive future.

 

However, part of the survey process is marginalizing and downplaying the opinions of people that don't fit their idea of a progressive citizen--for example, those that advocate things like increased policing, cracking down on crime and drugs and making driving and parking cheaper and easier.

who gets to define "progressive"?

[Stephen James]

Wondering if Mr J Loveday still participates/communicates here - haven't heard anything from him since his admirable statement about NOT accepting any union donations in advance of this election.

 

I realize engaging seems risky in an election year and strategists will certainly discourage it.  But when politicians choose to go silent and communicate only through their sanitized soundbites, to avoid topics that might make being elected more difficult, they perpetuate the cynicism that keeps us from caring. This I believe, is symptomatic of the problems we're having with engagement, participation and democracy, in general.

 

The question I have for him today is this...

Given that Victoria businesses still pay 3.5 times the residential rate, and given that no business has a vote in the city of Victoria, why did he (along with B Isett and P Madoff) vote against charging residential rate payers a higher increase this year than the businesses.  I'm interested to hear the reasoning from him.

 

 

 

 

[spanky123]

Since 60%+ of people in the CoV rent then you could argue that an increase in the residential tax rate is still an increase to business! With rent controls in place I think that most tenants could care less what the tax rates are.

[Bob Fugger]

I realize engaging seems risky in an election year...

 

Given that Victoria businesses still pay 3.5 times the residential rate, and given that no business has a vote in the city of Victoria, why did he (along with B Isett and P Madoff) vote against charging residential rate payers a higher increase this year than the businesses.

Asked and answered.

[Cassidy]

Social media isn't very friendly to politicians (current or wannabe) who aren't absolutely expert in its use.

 

Social media in general, and V.V. in particular really isn't subservient enough to amateur, inexperienced, or single issue politicians ... at least such that it may be particularly useful to them to post here in the first place. 

 

Politicians like to control the narrative ... something that's difficult on a wide open social media platform.

 

 

[J_Loveday]

I haven’t been checking these forums very often but I had a forum regular who is a supporter write and tell me there was a direct question for me so I’m happy log back in.

 

I strive to be accessible, transparent, and to continue to listen and engage with constituents online and in person so I’ll try to check back more often.

 

I opposed the tax shift for a few reasons, all of which need to be considered in the context of my opposition to the overall 2018 budget. I opposed the overall budget because I think the tax burden is too high for residential ratepayers and because there isn’t enough in the budget to create adequate and affordable housing for our residents. There’s a lot I support in the budget but on balance, I came down on the opposing side.

 

Reasons to oppose the shift specifically:

 

1. I believe that this shift goes against the spirit of our own policy to limit tax increases to 1% over inflation. This 4% increase is well over the 2.9% increase that our own policy would allow and more importantly - the commitment that we made to our residents.
2. A 4% tax increase for residential ratepayers is just too high.

I don’t see the shift as an "election year handout to businesses" as Councillor Isitt does. I do however think our promise of keeping increases to 1% over inflation is an important one that I am not willing to go back on.

[Stephen James]

I haven’t been checking these forums very often but I had a forum regular who is a supporter write and tell me there was a direct question for me so I’m happy log back in.

 

I strive to be accessible, transparent, and to continue to listen and engage with constituents online and in person so I’ll try to check back more often.

 

I opposed the tax shift for a few reasons, all of which need to be considered in the context of my opposition to the overall 2018 budget. I opposed the overall budget because I think the tax burden is too high for residential ratepayers and because there isn’t enough in the budget to create adequate and affordable housing for our residents. There’s a lot I support in the budget but on balance, I came down on the opposing side.

 

Reasons to oppose the shift specifically:

 

1. I believe that this shift goes against the spirit of our own policy to limit tax increases to 1% over inflation. This 4% increase is well over the 2.9% increase that our own policy would allow and more importantly - the commitment that we made to our residents.
2. A 4% tax increase for residential ratepayers is just too high.

I don’t see the shift as an "election year handout to businesses" as Councillor Isitt does. I do however think our promise of keeping increases to 1% over inflation is an important one that I am not willing to go back on.

Thank you Jeremy, on many levels.

First, for having the courage to speak up.

Second, for a fulsome explanation that was also clear and unambiguous.

Third, because I agree with you

 

It's a sad fact of our time-challenged, soundbite, reactionary world that rarely is the full story understood. If what you're saying is what you said in council, the TC article,

"Victoria taxes: Homeowners up 4% vs. 1.1% for businesses"

did you a disservice by not reporting enough detail.

Edited by Taco, 24 May 2018 - 04:33 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

I haven’t been checking these forums very often but I had a forum regular who is a supporter write and tell me there was a direct question for me so I’m happy log back in.

 

I strive to be accessible, transparent, and to continue to listen and engage with constituents online and in person so I’ll try to check back more often.

 

I opposed the tax shift for a few reasons, all of which need to be considered in the context of my opposition to the overall 2018 budget. I opposed the overall budget because I think the tax burden is too high for residential ratepayers and because there isn’t enough in the budget to create adequate and affordable housing for our residents. There’s a lot I support in the budget but on balance, I came down on the opposing side.

 

Reasons to oppose the shift specifically:

 

1. I believe that this shift goes against the spirit of our own policy to limit tax increases to 1% over inflation. This 4% increase is well over the 2.9% increase that our own policy would allow and more importantly - the commitment that we made to our residents.
2. A 4% tax increase for residential ratepayers is just too high.

I don’t see the shift as an "election year handout to businesses" as Councillor Isitt does. I do however think our promise of keeping increases to 1% over inflation is an important one that I am not willing to go back on.

 

Why 1% over inflation?   Why not just keep up with other increases?  What makes the City special that is deserves more increases than general inflation?

[Mike K.]

Colwood just confirmed its tax increase will be 1.38%.

[J_Loveday]

1% over inflation was supposed to be the maximum increase. I would prefer that we keep the increases lower than that.

Why 1% over inflation?   Why not just keep up with other increases?  What makes the City special that is deserves more increases than general inflation?

[rjag]

1% over inflation was supposed to be the maximum increase. I would prefer that we keep the increases lower than that.

How much more taxes are being collected with all the new buildings that have gone up in the last 5 years? I find it interesting that the tax base has increased yet it still requires these higher than CPI increases

[Mike K.]

Can you imagine where we'd be if we hadn't built 20+ sizeable buildings over the last decade? Wowzas...

[sebberry]

I opposed the overall budget because I think the tax burden is too high for residential ratepayers and because there isn’t enough in the budget to create adequate and affordable housing for our residents.

 

Since when is subsidizing housing a municipal issue?  I think the city should be filling in potholes, not subsidizing housing. 

[TallGuy]

I find it insane that they are calling for a 4% increase when you consider the growth of all of the sources of revenue in recent years:

• higher density = more tax per sq. m. collected
• building permit fees
• development cost charges
• rezonings
• variances
• water and sewer connection charges
• parking fines
• Etc. etc.

With the crazy growth going on in the City proper in the last few years the amount of revenue from all of these sources must have grown substantially. The City should be in the black right now and this increase is a glaring evidence of fiscal mismanagement. I think that the City would be wise to put any major projects on the back burner until some financial literacy prevails.

[Rob Randall]

^That's what I can't figure out. It seems expenses always outpace revenue, even during periods of growth. Especially during periods of growth. 

 

I mean, shouldn't New York City, with it's explosive growth, sky-high prices, plummeting crime rates and massive tourist dollars be the richest city--a money making machine?

 

But New York City is running deficits of over four billion dollars a year and growing!

[Jackerbie]

^That's what I can't figure out. It seems expenses always outpace revenue, even during periods of growth. Especially during periods of growth. 

 

I mean, shouldn't New York City, with it's explosive growth, sky-high prices, plummeting crime rates and massive tourist dollars be the richest city--a money making machine?

 

But New York City is running deficits of over four billion dollars a year and growing!

 

New York State projected a $4.4 bil deficit.

 

Development fees and charges make up only 19% of Victoria's income. 59% of income is tax. Operating expenses in 2018 are projected at $233.3mil, and capital projects $43.1mil. Salaries account for $119mil, and also account for the bulk of the tax increase. All of the figures are in the draft 2018 budget, here: http://www.victoria....at a Glance.pdf

[Nparker]

...capital projects $43.1mil...

Presumably, this does not include replacing the Crystal Pool.