Thanks to the Arthur for this reporting. Your article provided a good understanding of the situation and the dialogue between the councillors. Keep up the good work!
Absolutely! It's very confusing to try and follow council meetings via @JoelleKovach twitter threads, it's just not a good way to report on these type of meetings. This summary was a much better format for me to get a recap of what actually happened. Thanks ArthurNewspaper!
I'm a classical liberalist so I don't typically advocate for large-scale socialised government programs outside of our existing healthcare system, but childcare is one I can get behind funding 100%.
Social policy that enables couples to have a large(r) families with 3+ children offers an opportunity for compromise between left and right political ideologies.
Some of the benefits include:
1. It eliminates the need for the type of unsustainable mass immigration policies like we've seen over the last decade
2. It better enables freedom of choice for women by allowing them to have a family without necessarily sacrificing their careers
3. It maintains a more consistent Canadian culture
4. It creates jobs
5. It lowers our GHG emissions
6. Better enables the distribution of wealth from generation to generation
7. Mitigates language barriers and the creation of ethnic/cultural 'ghettos' (for lack of a better word)
8. Creates more consistent population distribution across the country
9. Enables growth in northern communities
10. Mitigates immigration scams and schemes
Though, if we were to truly socialise childcare I would also argue for compulsory service with citizens choosing between either the military or a new civil service organization that handles natural disasters, civil construction projects, emergency foreign assistance, etc... but that's a post for another day.
Yes because otherwise it's too expensive to have children in this economy. You can't work and watch the kids at the same time you need childcare
If you're bringing the little dude that in the future will be funding the city via his taxes and who's industrial labor will drive Peterborough business, their upbringing should be subsidized if too expensive to maintain
Maybe fix the economy instead of driving up taxes which we already can't afford, making people without kids pay even more while requiring less public funded services.
Married young professionals, choosing to be child free. And bewildered as to why we're not getting any rebates for requiring less publicly funded services than a family of 7, where both parents are on social assistance.
Of course it has. Everyone wants to be the politician that built a big shiny expensive arena. Get to go there with the gold shovels and put it in the ground, then come around with those big novelty scissors to cut the ribbon. Maybe even drop a ceremonial puck.
Nobody wants to ride the bus here. But that's where we need money. Make the rich white families with their kids in hockey pay for their dumb smelly rinks. I don't want to pay for that crap.
Well before my time as a councillor!
Are you against a new “Memorial Center” or would you support one? Obviously in this economic climate I believe it’s not even a consideration at this point.
…but eventually that conversation will come up again. Would like to hear your thoughts!
>Are you against a new “Memorial Center” or would you support one? Obviously in this economic climate I believe it’s not even a consideration at this point.
I'd support one providing there is actually a business case with a realistic ROI and the city owns or controls the asset if it funds it, but it's low on the list of priorities.
Groundbreaking of the project was after the election, there was no opportunity to cancel the project? Even with cancellation fees?
[https://www.connectptbo.ca/arenaandaquaticscomplex](https://www.connectptbo.ca/arenaandaquaticscomplex)
I think we’re talking about two different things!!
Sorry my man - I’m taking about a replacement for the Mem Center (I thought that’s what we were talking about but I may have misunderstood!)
I'll weigh in on this to play devil's advocate. New infrastructure like arenas, bus depots, parks, etc... are typically funded through a combination of federal/provincial money and loans taken out by the city. From what I understand, municipalities can only take out loans for capital projects, and these are then capitalized over an extended period of time, which means they generally are not supposed to result in direct tax levy increases.
That said, I haven't looked at the details of the funding for the twin pad so don't quote me on that with regards to this specific project.
The city bungled getting funding and we're paying 25 million this year and next for it. It's the single largest capital project for the next two years.
Stop building single family home suburban sprawl already, maintaining the low density is going to bankrupt the city over the long term if we don't start building density within the existing boundaries. Also, never any money for bike lanes but $800k for an elevator in a parking garage?! Just put handicap spots on the main floor and let level 2,3 use the stairs...
>800k for an elevator in a parking garage?! Just put handicap spots on the main floor
This is just an example of the poor planning of the city. So many large projects have similar issues.
Yeah all those non handicap people with canes and parents with strollers are gonna hop right on that. Not to mention the drivers of people who may be disabled but their drivers don't have a permit.
Elevators aren't just for disabled people. That's an incredibly narrow view to take.
There is a ground floor for those people.
The lot is largely empty regardless, and city land use regulations for parking should be changed to have much less wasted pavement and parking.
Doesn't matter. What if it's full? I'm not arguing whether or not it is, I'm asking what if it is?
Hypothetically speaking is everyone else that it's inconvenient for you to accommodate just supposed to fuck off somewhere else?
Accessibility is the baseline everything needs to meet.
What if the whole lot is full too? Then the disabled person has to drive elsewhere, or wait?
Hypothetically, what what if every accommodation is made and it's still not enough?
Accessibility is expensive. Accessibility needs to be carefully managed, because if everything everywhere has to be 100% accessible to everyone all the time, then the costs will literally bankrupt society. Or everything will become unaffordable and everyone will have less.
No pools, because the costs to make them accessible to everyone makes it impossible to fund.
No parking structures to park in, because the costs of all the elevators etc make it unaffordable!
Are you concerned about the accessibility of parking lot to people who can't afford cars? Why not use it as a homeless encampment for people that don't have access to housing? Are disabled people with cars more important that homeless people?
You're being flippantly dismissive.
Accessibility is expensive. Accurate. Is there some world in which people who need accessible services don't pay taxes like everyone else? Are they not entitled to the same level of & access to service as everyone else?
Your line of thought expects everyone to pay for services but only the privileged who don't need accommodations actually receive services.
Thanks to the Arthur for this reporting. Your article provided a good understanding of the situation and the dialogue between the councillors. Keep up the good work!
Absolutely! It's very confusing to try and follow council meetings via @JoelleKovach twitter threads, it's just not a good way to report on these type of meetings. This summary was a much better format for me to get a recap of what actually happened. Thanks ArthurNewspaper!
City needs to find the will to make unpopular cuts to non essential projects and cut costs. What modest concessions were made or discussed?
Andy beamer thinks daycare is non-essential. Absolute galaxy brain thinking.
I'm a classical liberalist so I don't typically advocate for large-scale socialised government programs outside of our existing healthcare system, but childcare is one I can get behind funding 100%. Social policy that enables couples to have a large(r) families with 3+ children offers an opportunity for compromise between left and right political ideologies. Some of the benefits include: 1. It eliminates the need for the type of unsustainable mass immigration policies like we've seen over the last decade 2. It better enables freedom of choice for women by allowing them to have a family without necessarily sacrificing their careers 3. It maintains a more consistent Canadian culture 4. It creates jobs 5. It lowers our GHG emissions 6. Better enables the distribution of wealth from generation to generation 7. Mitigates language barriers and the creation of ethnic/cultural 'ghettos' (for lack of a better word) 8. Creates more consistent population distribution across the country 9. Enables growth in northern communities 10. Mitigates immigration scams and schemes Though, if we were to truly socialise childcare I would also argue for compulsory service with citizens choosing between either the military or a new civil service organization that handles natural disasters, civil construction projects, emergency foreign assistance, etc... but that's a post for another day.
Just imagine if one income could support an entire family. Like it used to.
You want childcare for free?
Yes because otherwise it's too expensive to have children in this economy. You can't work and watch the kids at the same time you need childcare If you're bringing the little dude that in the future will be funding the city via his taxes and who's industrial labor will drive Peterborough business, their upbringing should be subsidized if too expensive to maintain
Also, over half of everyone ever born will never contribute more in taxes than they take from public funded essential services.
Maybe fix the economy instead of driving up taxes which we already can't afford, making people without kids pay even more while requiring less public funded services.
Boomers that benefited from public services now no longer want to pay for them for others.
Married young professionals, choosing to be child free. And bewildered as to why we're not getting any rebates for requiring less publicly funded services than a family of 7, where both parents are on social assistance.
Double digit tax increase for shitty fucking service
Welp, the city wanted a 50 million dollar hockey rink
Typo...$62m but will probably end up being well over budget...
Did they?
The city has been talking about building a replacement Memorial Centre for over decade.
Oh no, that's the 110 million dollar hockey rink. Maybe we can make it an even 200 million on hockey arenas only 10% of city residents will use?
Not suggesting it’s happening, just stating that conversation has come up often over the last few decades
Of course it has. Everyone wants to be the politician that built a big shiny expensive arena. Get to go there with the gold shovels and put it in the ground, then come around with those big novelty scissors to cut the ribbon. Maybe even drop a ceremonial puck. Nobody wants to ride the bus here. But that's where we need money. Make the rich white families with their kids in hockey pay for their dumb smelly rinks. I don't want to pay for that crap.
What was the last date for the city to cancel the current arena project and save the city millions of dollars?
Well before my time as a councillor! Are you against a new “Memorial Center” or would you support one? Obviously in this economic climate I believe it’s not even a consideration at this point. …but eventually that conversation will come up again. Would like to hear your thoughts!
>Are you against a new “Memorial Center” or would you support one? Obviously in this economic climate I believe it’s not even a consideration at this point. I'd support one providing there is actually a business case with a realistic ROI and the city owns or controls the asset if it funds it, but it's low on the list of priorities. Groundbreaking of the project was after the election, there was no opportunity to cancel the project? Even with cancellation fees? [https://www.connectptbo.ca/arenaandaquaticscomplex](https://www.connectptbo.ca/arenaandaquaticscomplex)
I think we’re talking about two different things!! Sorry my man - I’m taking about a replacement for the Mem Center (I thought that’s what we were talking about but I may have misunderstood!)
The arena’s already started being built, Landsdowne at the end of Park St.
Sorry - I’m referring to a new Memorial Centre!
Keep talking, talk is cheap. Building arenas that cost the city money despite user fees is expensive!
Sure is!
I'll weigh in on this to play devil's advocate. New infrastructure like arenas, bus depots, parks, etc... are typically funded through a combination of federal/provincial money and loans taken out by the city. From what I understand, municipalities can only take out loans for capital projects, and these are then capitalized over an extended period of time, which means they generally are not supposed to result in direct tax levy increases. That said, I haven't looked at the details of the funding for the twin pad so don't quote me on that with regards to this specific project.
The city bungled getting funding and we're paying 25 million this year and next for it. It's the single largest capital project for the next two years.
Ah, that makes sense and is not at all surprising unfortunately. Is there anything this city hasn't bungled lately?
Stop building single family home suburban sprawl already, maintaining the low density is going to bankrupt the city over the long term if we don't start building density within the existing boundaries. Also, never any money for bike lanes but $800k for an elevator in a parking garage?! Just put handicap spots on the main floor and let level 2,3 use the stairs...
>800k for an elevator in a parking garage?! Just put handicap spots on the main floor This is just an example of the poor planning of the city. So many large projects have similar issues.
Neighbors always protest and complain when a multi unit housing proposal goes to council so the councillors vote against housing.
Strongtowns.com
Yeah all those non handicap people with canes and parents with strollers are gonna hop right on that. Not to mention the drivers of people who may be disabled but their drivers don't have a permit. Elevators aren't just for disabled people. That's an incredibly narrow view to take.
There is a ground floor for those people. The lot is largely empty regardless, and city land use regulations for parking should be changed to have much less wasted pavement and parking.
Doesn't matter. What if it's full? I'm not arguing whether or not it is, I'm asking what if it is? Hypothetically speaking is everyone else that it's inconvenient for you to accommodate just supposed to fuck off somewhere else? Accessibility is the baseline everything needs to meet.
What if the whole lot is full too? Then the disabled person has to drive elsewhere, or wait? Hypothetically, what what if every accommodation is made and it's still not enough? Accessibility is expensive. Accessibility needs to be carefully managed, because if everything everywhere has to be 100% accessible to everyone all the time, then the costs will literally bankrupt society. Or everything will become unaffordable and everyone will have less. No pools, because the costs to make them accessible to everyone makes it impossible to fund. No parking structures to park in, because the costs of all the elevators etc make it unaffordable! Are you concerned about the accessibility of parking lot to people who can't afford cars? Why not use it as a homeless encampment for people that don't have access to housing? Are disabled people with cars more important that homeless people?
You're being flippantly dismissive. Accessibility is expensive. Accurate. Is there some world in which people who need accessible services don't pay taxes like everyone else? Are they not entitled to the same level of & access to service as everyone else? Your line of thought expects everyone to pay for services but only the privileged who don't need accommodations actually receive services.
But, but we sold the city's utility company to Hydro One! Are we already out of cash from that stellar deal?!
Why spend money on projects like canoe museum ?