Jump to content

      













Photo

Victoria "wins" CFIB rating for most over-spending city.


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 48,743 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 08:52 AM

We always keep hearing excuses from politicians. They never own up to the issues, they just throw down one excuse after another after another.

 

The City of Victoria needs to cut spending. Period. We can't keep taxing our citizens like this. If we're serious about affordable housing, quit with the ridiculous zoning restrictions. If we're serious about social problems, quit with the pandering to 12 other municipalities and take them to task. If we're serious about over spending, stop spending!

 

And in a few hours we'll see what the police chief wants for his budget and what his solution is to address mental health problems on our streets.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#22 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 08:55 AM

Agreed.

To me it seems the CFIB is simply out to rile up taxpayers with this one, and it's being rather disingenuous about it. Consider this statement:

"Local governments have inexplicably grown their workforce faster than the private sector."

I should think the author could have at least made an attempt at finding out (or at least speculating) about this. Instead, the author simply says it's inexplicable – leaving many readers to invent their own explanations, and then call for blood.

Right but it's in their interest to not have the answer, especially if it conflicts with their goal of riling taxpayers up enough to get operating expenses down and therefore business taxes.  There's no comparables in here of operating expenses of similar sized municipalities in both Canada and worldwide.  The purpose was predetermined and then the "study" designed to fit that. 


  • Baro, Nparker and Benezet like this

#23 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 08:59 AM

So where does the cost overruns for the new JSBridge fit into this discussion, as well as the salaries and severance packages of all the folks who were hired and are no longer with the project?

 

 



#24 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:03 AM

So where does the cost overruns for the new JSBridge fit into this discussion, as well as the salaries and severance packages of all the folks who were hired and are no longer with the project?

If it's operating expenses they looked at, the cost overruns won't be in there.  The salaries, it depends whose.  CoV salaries and severance should be in; contractors would not be in.


Edited by nagel, 04 November 2015 - 09:03 AM.


#25 Dr.Doinglittle

Dr.Doinglittle
  • Member
  • 87 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:03 AM

I wonder how many of those positions get no OT though.  Some of these people have to work ungodly hours, especially when a neighbourhood wants 12 hours of nighttime council meetings to rail on a tiny development.

 

Sure, OT would figure into the union position salaries, but not for excluded management who are expected to work hours as needed.

 

Still, someone has to approve the OT 1) to be worked in the first place and 2) to be paid out instead of taken in leave.



#26 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,027 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:04 AM

...The purpose was predetermined and then the "study" designed to fit that.


Exactly.

The CFIB has had some success at riling, as indicated by some of the reactions above.

#27 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,414 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:05 AM

Quote from the same article:

"Helps said the CFIB recommendations should take into consideration the number of responsibilities that have been downloaded to municipalities from senior governments."

 

So downloading only impacts Victoria?



#28 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,414 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:05 AM

So where does the cost overruns for the new JSBridge fit into this discussion, as well as the salaries and severance packages of all the folks who were hired and are no longer with the project?

 

Those costs will be in the 'next decade' that Helps promises will be better.



#29 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:11 AM

So downloading only impacts Victoria?

Now it's her turn to put forward her agenda and deflect.  Costs up because homeless issue downloaded by Prov and CRD.



#30 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 48,743 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:15 AM

Exactly.

The CFIB has had some success at riling, as indicated by some of the reactions above.

 

I've got four questions for you.

 

1) are you employed by some level of government?

2) do you live in the City of Victoria?

3) do you work in the City of Victoria?

4) do you have any idea of how much taxes a commercial property, via its tenants, pays the City of Victoria?


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#31 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,889 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

Posted 04 November 2015 - 11:13 AM

I wonder how many of those positions get no OT though. 

 

None of them. OT is for employees on hourly wages. All the positions mentioned would be management and/or professionals on salary.


Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident


#32 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 48,743 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 01:50 PM

Another budget increase is coming down the pipes for the Johnson Street Bridge project that will push the project over the $100 million mark.

 

Tax payers were sold on a $66.3 million bridge by the City of Victoria.

 

What was that again about tax payers getting riled up over the CFIB's findings?


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#33 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:04 PM

That report was on operating expenses not infra though, and everyone and their dog knows the bridge is going to be ~130M.



#34 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,639 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:17 PM

 

...everyone and their dog knows the bridge is going to be ~130M.

 

When did they start knowing it? Lest we forget, for several years it was unwarranted conspiracy theory to suggest it would ever get anywhere near $100 million.



#35 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:22 PM

March 2012:

 

The estimated total cost of the replacement project is $77 million. The federal government’s contribution includes $21 million from the Building Canada Fund and $16.5 million through Canada’s Gas Tax Fund. The City of Victoria will fund the remainder of the costs.

 

 

Ah, distant memories.  Of 3.5 years ago.

 

http://www.victoria....reet Bridge.pdf


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#36 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:27 PM

When did they start knowing it? Lest we forget, for several years it was unwarranted conspiracy theory to suggest it would ever get anywhere near $100 million.

Good question, and there may be a day we wish it was the 130 and not say 165.  But for the recent past it's been obvious they do not have all the details sorted out, and as things keep getting added (fendering, improving the public space on each side, DF connection under the bridge), to me it is pretty clear the amount is going to keep going up.


  • http likes this

#37 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 48,743 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:28 PM

And a perfect example of how mismanaged our tax payer dollars are.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#38 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 02:45 PM

Not exactly "mismanaged".  Terrible estimates and lack of planning I would agree with.  The problem is there's no recourse.  Just keep paying and paying.


  • Nparker likes this

#39 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 03:08 PM

Not exactly "mismanaged".  Terrible estimates and lack of planning I would agree with.  The problem is there's no recourse.  Just keep paying and paying.

That would be mismanagement.


  • rjag and Daveyboy like this

#40 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 04 November 2015 - 04:01 PM

Is it possible to think that the city has been terrible with money and that the CFIB are single-issue ideological hacks at the same time?

Is it also possible to both be very critical of the city's management on major projects and allocation of tax dollars without being against the idea taxation and public services in general?

 

The answer is yes :)


  • http and Mr Cook Street like this
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users