1156 replies to this topic

[dasmo]

It is a global conspiracy. That is observable by simply searching and seeing the clear evidence of NGOs conspiring with local governments to implement 15 minute cities. That they hide this only lends to the conspiracy fuel. What isn’t known is whether it’s for the benefit of the community - because who doesn’t want to be able to walk to work and have things they need close to home. This is why I lived in town for decades. Actually we already have a 15 minute city if you choose it. The question is if it’s yet another step towards overbearing government control of our daily lives and engineering our world to limit our choices, privacy and controlling us under the veil of controlling the climate to save us from predictions of imminent doom that never materialize.
Read the Edmonton Declaration. Mayors across the country literally signed a pledge that they would conspire to use their positions to socially engineer us and spend our money to keep the global temperature from changing within 1.5 degrees. They can’t even clear the snow from the streets. So who is more crazy? Theo or Dell?

[dasmo]

Seriously. Why pretend it’s a home grown thing? It’s ridiculous to present it like it’s something that came from consulting the public etc. Just googling it will show you otherwise. This double speak is what is most alarming. https://www.google.c...bile-gws-wiz-hp

[Victoria Watcher]

Former Victoria councillor joins Destination Greater Victoria executive

 

Jeremy Loveday will become the organization’s director of public affairs.

https://www.timescol...ecutive-6486081

[Nparker]

A greater emphasis on slam poetry has been what's missing from our local tourism strategy. I expect big things now.

[Victoria Watcher]

Grumpy Taxpayers:

 

 

Feb. 6, 2023

PRESS RELEASE

 

 

Has city council even considered affordability?

 

Draft 2023 city budget proposes 9% hike

 

 

Unless city council sharpens their pencils, the poorest amongst us in the region will face the greatest property tax hikes.

 

City council recently tabled the 2023 draft budget that calls for a property tax lift of almost 9 percent.

 

We know of no other local jurisdiction that’s contemplating as high an increase.

 

It’s alarming when you drill down to the core of Greater Victoria, to find the City of Victoria itself recorded $60,000 median after-tax household income in 2020. It’s the lowest household income figure regionally we could find in the 2021 Census.

 

It’s also concerning when you consider that the Victoria Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has a median after-tax household income of only $75,500.

 

By the way, a significant number of homeless live in Victoria who aren’t likely accounted for in the income tabulation. As the de facto regional police force, city taxpayers also pay the lion's share of policing and issues around social disorder.

 

So, if you are a homeowner you will be hit with increased property taxes.

 

If you rent you will probably see increases given that landlords need to pay for maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc., and still make a return on their investment. With rent increases capped by the province at two per cent annually, there’s little incentive for landlords to provide or build housing.

 

If you are unfortunate enough to operate a business, your final commercial tax bill will be 3.64 times as much as a residential property per $1,000 worth of assessment.

 

If you consume goods and services, the businesses will be collecting more money from you, the customer.

 

Just compare the median after-tax median household income in Highlands ($105,000), North Saanich ($104,000), Oak Bay ($93,000), Saanich ($83,000), and Langford ($82,000). Sidney, populated by a high number of seniors, recorded $68,000.

 

Why does Victoria feel free to ignore the reality of these challenging economic times? Voters are flabbergasted that hiking property taxes by 9 per cent in the City of Victoria is even a starting point of discussion.

 

The new council needs a stern reminder of the large income disparity and ability to pay compared to all the neighbouring municipalities.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 February 2023 - 05:05 PM.

[Midnightly]

i'm sure the city could easily find a good chunk of that 9% just going through the last few years and making cut backs.. there was soo many social justice related items added, donations to this that and other non-profit groups.. and staff additions that could easily be scaled back.. don't they have something like 12PR people for city hall? and open up a homelessness related job with a 100k salary that didn't even list what the job entailed because at the time they had no idea?

[Victoria Watcher]

Council seems to have taken the position that since inflation is X percent and their previous stated guideline is inflation plus a certain percent, that’s what they should spend.

As the Grumpy Taxpayers note, nobody else is aiming for such a high increase.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 February 2023 - 02:00 AM.

[spanky123]

^ I think that council has taken the position that the election is 4 years away and they get at least two years of free spending.

[Stephen James]

Council seems to have taken the position that since inflation is X percent and their previous stated guideline is inflation plus a certain percent, that’s what they should spend.

As the Grumpy Taxpayers note, nobody else is aiming for such a high increase.

Yup.  (Regrettably, I read the budget documents and the attachments. Honestly, they make me want to join the 63% and never vote again.)

 

Staff has done exactly that, almost congratulating themselves in the writing for keeping the increase in that utterly arbitrary range. (It's not arbitrary if you believe the slate's agenda is to redistribute Victoria homeowner assets to their favourites.) One of the most cynical lines I saw repeatedly is the phrase, "while considering the taxpayers ability to pay" which, I've confirmed, is nothing except window-dressing. (The phrase should be removed because it's an outright lie. They have no mechanism for this and simply leave it up to council.)

 

From a governance perspective, I've never seen anything so bad. Among the issues, too numerous to mention:

1. Our city has arranged a political incentive for a financial failure: one should try to predict as accurately as possible what will happen, and to be 100% correct is obviously impossible. To have a political incentive to have a surplus (they get to give it to their favourites, and do every time) is an appalling failure of governance that I assume they get away with because so few people will be familiar with this area of management.
2. I lost count of the slush funds, literally. They are collecting cash from homeowners and renters, at an arbitrary rate above inflation, in their slush funds and, again, giving it to their favourites as "one-time" grants and gifts.
3. Every rule or guideline I saw they'd codified, they'd broken: one example being they used one of their slush funds to pay for payroll for extra officers, a fund with guidelines that state they should not use this cash for recurring items. I'm guessing this was another sop to their base, part of the radical defund police BS group.

Anyway, I hope there's a city financial professional reading this and willing to respond. I appreciate the staff is at the mercy of successive winds blowing in unpredictable directions but for me, with so many years in financial services, this was a nearly traumatic experience.

 

We are not in good shape financially, the way things are managed, and we should not trust that our assets are being stewarded in a competent, or respectful way. By respectful, I mean to the owners and renters providing the revenue.

[Stephen James]

I'm guessing, btw, that many people in this forum are already aware of these problems, and I'm the naive one...lol.

[Harry]

Yup.  (Regrettably, I read the budget documents and the attachments. Honestly, they make me want to join the 63% and never vote again.)

 

Staff has done exactly that, almost congratulating themselves in the writing for keeping the increase in that utterly arbitrary range. (It's not arbitrary if you believe the slate's agenda is to redistribute Victoria homeowner assets to their favourites.) One of the most cynical lines I saw repeatedly is the phrase, "while considering the taxpayers ability to pay" which, I've confirmed, is nothing except window-dressing. (The phrase should be removed because it's an outright lie. They have no mechanism for this and simply leave it up to council.)

 

From a governance perspective, I've never seen anything so bad. Among the issues, too numerous to mention:

1. Our city has arranged a political incentive for a financial failure: one should try to predict as accurately as possible what will happen, and to be 100% correct is obviously impossible. To have a political incentive to have a surplus (they get to give it to their favourites, and do every time) is an appalling failure of governance that I assume they get away with because so few people will be familiar with this area of management.
2. I lost count of the slush funds, literally. They are collecting cash from homeowners and renters, at an arbitrary rate above inflation, in their slush funds and, again, giving it to their favourites as "one-time" grants and gifts.
3. Every rule or guideline I saw they'd codified, they'd broken: one example being they used one of their slush funds to pay for payroll for extra officers, a fund with guidelines that state they should not use this cash for recurring items. I'm guessing this was another sop to their base, part of the radical defund police BS group.

Anyway, I hope there's a city financial professional reading this and willing to respond. I appreciate the staff is at the mercy of successive winds blowing in unpredictable directions but for me, with so many years in financial services, this was a nearly traumatic experience.

 

We are not in good shape financially, the way things are managed, and we should not trust that our assets are being stewarded in a competent, or respectful way. By respectful, I mean to the owners and renters providing the revenue.

This is why it was asked about an audit of the last council On Reddit and the thread and poster was subsequently brutally attacked the comments. It was amazing how quick and precise it was. If you were to look at how many projects had other pet projects attached to them its staggering. in example: water line on Humbolt was say just a number  $1000 there would be $500 added on for extensive line painting, traffic calming, bike lanes and speed bumps all were just added but did not exist before the water line replacement. But on the books its "Water line replacement" with a high cost.

[Stephen James]

This is why it was asked about an audit of the last council On Reddit and the thread and poster was subsequently brutally attacked the comments. It was amazing how quick and precise it was. If you were to look at how many projects had other pet projects attached to them its staggering. in example: water line on Humbolt was say just a number  $1000 there would be $500 added on for extensive line painting, traffic calming, bike lanes and speed bumps all were just added but did not exist before the water line replacement. But on the books its "Water line replacement" with a high cost.

I'd predict the response from this anti-democratic slate to be:

"No audit because we won and we get to do whatever we want because democracy says so."

Obviously this is problematic on so many levels, but we've heard words to this effect already from some arrogant, selfish, and uninformed new councillors.

[Harry]

I'd predict the response from this anti-democratic slate to be:

"No audit because we won and we get to do whatever we want because democracy says so."

Obviously this is problematic on so many levels, but we've heard words to this effect already from some arrogant, selfish, and uninformed new councillors.

From my understanding is there are to many peoples jobs, actions and behaviors that would come into question. Having seen and been told about council members using the homeless to achieve personal goals and being told thats just the tip of the iceberg is concerning. Ever notice why no in depth articals or anything were never really done on Victoria city council?

[Victoria Watcher]

Premier David Eby announces $1-billion in grants for municipalities

All of B.C.'s 188 municipalities and regional districts will be eligible to tap into the $1-billion growing communities fund which they can use to build new infrastructure and amenities such as recreation facilities, transit services, parks and water treatment plants.

https://vancouversun...f162f21c10/amp/

[Victoria Watcher]

Municipalities will not apply for the funding, but the money will be distributed by the province based on population size and population growth, Eby said. The will be distributed by the end of March.

[Mike K.]

Another way to say an election is coming, without saying an election is coming.

 

This explains why Victoria council has revived the Crystal Pool debate.

[Nparker]

... the money will be distributed by the province based on population size and population growth...

And by which constituencies are mostly likely to send an NDP member to the legislature in the upcoming election.

[spanky123]

Another way to say an election is coming, without saying an election is coming.

 

This explains why Victoria council has revived the Crystal Pool debate.

 

True although the need to spend the money before March 31st! 

 

30% of people still don't have a family doctor, I am sure that they will instead be satisfied that some council investor supporter will get a whack of dough for some last minute, conjured up project.

Edited by spanky123, 10 February 2023 - 10:38 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

True although the need to spend the money before March 31st! 

 

Or at least have the required 16' sign up stating that this project brought to you by the provincial government.

[Stephen James]

Looks like Victoria homeowners and businesses will get a 6% violation by council this year.

(6% tax increase.)

 

Jeremy C. explained to the JBNA last week how he heroically and nearly single-handedly reduced our unconscionable 9% tax burden to a perfectly reasonable 6% screwing; perfectly reasonable because "normal" has been the cruel, arbitrary policy of inflation plus 1%.

 

He told us that "he" decided that limiting VicPD to inflation was the right thing to do, to be fair.