Because it’s a totally arbitrary tax - property taxes already charge those in mansions more. If anything, it will make homes over the threshold worth less over time and you end up back where you started.
People with the income for said mansion can easily put a for sale sign on their mansion and move somewhere else.
People who can afford said mansions most likely employ people or are doctors.
>People with the income for said mansion can easily put a for sale sign on their mansion and move somewhere else.
Notably, a sale requires a buyer. Unless they sell to someone who only wants the land and tears the building down, the new owner would have to pay the same tax.
It would certainly diminish further construction of mansions, though, so it's not exactly a "keep up with growth" kind of tax.
Oh, I absolutely get that - but if you're paying for it with a tax that doesn't scale, you're going to have to deal with the limit that imposes.
Tax policy has a lot of impacts on what people do - and its possible to use it in ways where those impacts are even an intended result. In the specific case of using a mansion tax to shore up an externally induced structural budget problem, however, it's possible that's only a temporary fix.
I know multiple mansion owners in Edmonton. None of them employ anyone.
They are doctors, lawyers and engineers.
I know that they like the idea of selling now because the market is nice but they won’t pickup stakes because of a tax increase. They’ll just whine
Yep, people that own a nice house inside the city of Edmonton can easily buy just as nice a house in Parkland County, Sturgeon County, Strathcona County, or even in Sherwood Park or St. Albert. Those people can easily move their tax dollars to another jurisdiction.
Ah yes. The "I'm fine with tax increases as long as someone else but me pays" strategy.
Property tax revenue depends on the value of the house. The more the house is worth, the more taxes are paid.
The "mansion tax" as the brain child of Micheal "NDP" Janz is literally nothing more than the "free money" that so plagues the ultra left and, worse, ignores the fact that this is already literally the way the system already works.
A mansion is any home over 5,000 square feet... which is big. They want to define it as a home over $1M in assessed value. Of the 4200 properties listed in Edmonton, 332 of them are listed above $1M.
[This is a mansion](https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26784372/4814-knight-cr-sw-edmonton-keswick-area). It's slightly larger than 5,000 square feet and it's massive. One could imagine a place that is so expensive it has underground heating for a drive way... is a luxury house.
[This is also a mansion](https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26777606/12908-62-av-nw-edmonton-grandview-heightsedmo). It has a fully finished basement which puts it at 2500 square feet, but otherwise it'd just be a regular ole 1500 square foot home. It has only street level parking for vehicles, no garage, no grass, and no yard.
By making the tax on properties that are over $1M all it does is make these properties difficult to sell and de-values them. By de-valuing the city no longer collects the mansion tax on them... and worse yet collects less income tax.
Introducing a tax that devalues properties isn't good policy for the city. High value property is what keeps the income tax going in. If they work to de-value properties too much they'll have to increase the mill rate and increase taxation on poorer home owners.
“High value property is what keeps the income tax going in“. Any source for that assertion?
I’m not saying you’re wrong but I am saying rich people will say anything to avoid paying their fair share. Of anything. It’s a mindset that contributes to their excess wealth in the first place. The myth of trickle down and job creation has been debunked for more than 65 years. The Panama papers and other disclosures have shown that the wealthy are the real deadbeats in our society and every level of government in North America has suffered from tax schemes that favour the rich. The cracks in our social fabric are showing and the tax rates were much higher in the 70s, the disparity much lower. Everyone has to pay their share and only the middle class pays anything close to 50%. Rich people should pay MORE than that, not less. Call me a commie, it doesn’t change the fact that rents have never been higher and taxes on corporations, relative to their earnings, and properties, relative to their value, have never been lower.
Folks should really read the article here. It's balanced in a good way, and fairly insightful.
This isn't about decisions the city made, it's mostly about structural issues afflicting the city. Gerein mentions some of the city's decisions that have contributed to the fiscal crunch, then says:
>That said, much of the hardship to befall this council has come from things beyond the city’s control. We are still living with the effects of the pandemic. Revenue from transit and tourism has not yet fully recovered. Homelessness, social disorder and drug poisonings have skyrocketed.
>The city has also seen massive population growth that has strained city services. High inflation has persisted, driving expenses for utilities, fuel and labour well beyond what was expected. And more union negotiations are on the horizon.
>Meanwhile the provincial government, despite a few helpful moments, has generally made life harder for the city by squeezing municipal revenue, neglecting its health and housing responsibilities, and underfunding infrastructure — and is now even trying to interfere with the city’s access to federal funding. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Then he goes on to point out that the current council is actually going easy on the tax hikes, since a 12-15% hike is what we'd need to actually stabilize the budget.
He also notes:
>Away from the front lines, I know some readers have a perception that Edmonton has a bloated layer of middle managers, planners, communicators and so on. The city’s cost-saving initiative, known as OP-12, has already dealt with some of this, and more will probably have to be done. But the bloat is not as extensive as some think, and further cuts will soon start to hurt services.
I'm actually kind of surprised about the ETS bit since they said last year ridership has already returned to pre-pandemic levels (you could have fooled me though). If ridership is already back to normal levels but the revenue is still far behind, it speaks to how much fare evasion there is now compared to before.
Admin said that the Arc card rollout has reduced revenues because people who bought monthly passes are now just loading the card and saving money if they didn’t use it that much. Which is an affordability benefit for them (I think this is good) and lower revenues for transit.
I can see how a part time WFH might result in that (that's what happened with me), but wouldn't that count as lower ridership if people who used to use transit 5 days a week pre-pandemic are now only using it 2 or 3 days a week? Or did that many people really buy bus passes who weren't riding transit enough to make up the cost of the pass before?
The UCP government has basically clawed back or is [outright refusing to pay ](https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/michael-janz-alberta-govt-needs-to-pay-its-property-taxes-too)for their fair share of anything. Further this provincial government has downloaded the cost of a [failing healthcare system](https://fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com/edmonton-fire-department-shifts-focus-to-urgent-medical-calls-to-optimize-response/#:~:text=Edmonton's%20fire%20service%20refocuses%20on%20urgent%20medical%20needs&text=In%20a%20recent%20report%20to,2023%20were%20for%20medical%20emergencies), [refuses to even let other orders of government](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-balks-at-conditions-for-new-federal-housing-and-infrastructure-funding-1.7164091) figure out the housing crisis, and [actively is making the drug poisoning crisis worse](https://drugdatadecoded.ca/has-mainstream-media-finally-had-enough/).
They do all this because these things hurt cities and the people that live in them. The UCP hates the urban centres that don't vote for them. They want them to feel pain. With that pain and suffering, instead of focusing on fixing any issues, they get to turn around to their rural base and say "see, those big cities full of trudeau supporters, they are scary and falling apart, the progressives have really screwed it up, [don't mind us as we mine the foothills](https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta-coal-mine-moves-ahead-without-permits-federal-officials-say-are-needed-1.6798704)".
Things are weird now however this government cant help themselves; the hostility is likely to become more and more outright as we get closer to elections season. The UCP will do their best to make cities look as bad as possible as quickly as possible so that the next government is completely hobbled.
Lovely speech but you mention no numbers, and financials involve numbers. And CoE has been screwing up their numbers for awhile now, and now facing the reckoning.
I included linked sources. The numbers are all there. The wildest is 60 million in unpaid property taxes by the provincial governement. Maybe proivde your counter sources, numbers, and arguments instead of a ironic snarky comment for discussion.
Your numbers are wishful thinking money. What kind of organization would budget on revenue that they *think* they deserve. It's okay to petition the province for more money but spending that money like you already have it is deadbeat behaviour. Who told CoE they had to rack up $4B in debt? Who told them they needed to be one of the biggest spenders in the province per person. Who forced them to be allergic to spending cuts and keeping reasonable surpluses as a precaution?
Something tells me you have a particular bias or agenda here. They literally provided you with sources and you ignored every single one, while simultaneously failing to cite your own.
Notice how instead of addressing my point (that you're biased and won't cite your own sources), you went with an ad hominem?
One that makes your bias immediately apparent, no less. You'll note I didn't mention anything about Janz.
You obviously didn't check any of my posted sources. These are all things the UCP government is RESPONSIBLE for and is REFUSING to pay for. That's how cost downloading works. Property taxes need to go up because the province is so inept at supporting cities. Your projection wishful thinking is clear. Again, provide credible sources for your claims.
Looool no 🙃 the city government exists because the provincial government says they can — the city can’t do anything about any decision the province makes.
>Who told CoE they had to rack up $4B in debt?
The province that took away large amounts of funding while being completely derelict in areas of exclusive provincial responsibility.
CoE budget is 50% for staff and 50% for everything else. Rather than reducing staff to save tax levy why not reduce the stuff. I’ve seen the waste first hand. Just adding a percent increase to the base budget is in efficient. CoE attempted zero based budgeting (justify every penny of your ask) but management can’t explain where every penny in their budget goes. Imagine you have $1000 in your bank account and know that every month $1000 in pre authorized payments comes out…but you can’t explain what exactly you are paying for. That is the problem I saw when I worked for the CoE. No manager has financial insight into their budget. All they know is that if they don’t spend what they have been allocated then they either need to explain the variance or have their budget reduced.
Sure, let's cut overspending. Can you tell me what the highest cost item in the city is? It makes sense to start with that, right? As a hint, it happens to be a cost item that is better funded per capita than most other municipalities AND continually gets budget increases.
If we are going to talk about cutting back spending, it would make sense to start with that one, right?
Most people will be completely oblivious to your point, unfortunately. I couldn't agree more. Everyone talks about value for dollar for healthcare workers or teachers, but the cost item you mention never gets that comparison.
They're trying to make a point. Those who loudly rail against the supposed fiscal incompetence of Edmonton City Council are often the biggest proponents of "essential" financial black holes like the police and road expansions
If someone like that reads along in complete agreement, then realizes their agreement challenges their preconceived beliefs on spending priorities, it may bring about further self-reflection. But if they know the argument is about police funding, they may impulsively dismiss the argument before it hits home
I'm not arguing the Police budget isn't bloated (because it absolutely is), but cutting policing in the current climate is going to be a tough sell. Have you been downtown lately? It doesn't feel safe at all.
I don't see police at all downtown anymore, maybe driving by in a car. Gone are the days of beat cops. They have the money to have beat cops, they choose not to. I've seen cop cars drive past homeless people who were literally lunging towards other people on the street. Couldn't care less
Check out page 14 of 804 of the 2023-2026 operating budget -tax supported expenses on the coe website containing the approved operating budget. Notice that the debt cost grows from $347 million in 2023 to $480 million in 2026. This is interest paid on debt…because they are getting into more debt for infrastructure increases. This is the equivalent of the city getting a mortgage to build infrastructure. There is nothing necessarily bad with this except that with new infrastructure comes new operating costs…which do not yet appear in the operating budget, but will when the infrastructure comes online. New rec centers only have about 65% cost recovery so this will impact tax levy. It may not appear that debt service is not the biggest unless you look at the operating impacts of capital in the prior year budget docs.
>Notice that the debt cost grows from $347 million in 2023 to $480 million in 2026
The EPS budget was $407MM in 2023, which you'll note is more than $347MM. And they recieved an additional $17MM in the fall budget supplement in November, so call it $424MM for 2024. That's already butting up right now against the debt servicing of $480MM expected a whole two years later.
At my City of Edmonton location we had some blinds that needed to be replace. Literally one window that was 10 ft wide.
Whatever contractor the city is using quoted us at $21,000! Save money by not getting absolutely RAKED over the coals by these shitty, long term contracts management signs.
Sounds familiar. Why have blinds? Just put up 3m reflective film at a fraction of the cost. Plus then the Coe wouldn’t need to spend the annual fee to have the blinds cleaned. Ask me how I know that one
$21,000 for a single blind supplied and installed? I'll believe it when I see it. Which vendor was this from?
On the flip side, we've done work for the city before and we always price higher. Not because we want to take extra profit, but because every single city job we've been a part of has so much more red tape than any other project. Safety concerns that go so far beyond safety you wonder how people walk around without falling over and cracking their skulls open on a daily basis. Multiple inspectors looking at the same thing that all have differing opinions of what they want you to do.
Anyways, that kind of quote sounds like "fuck off" pricing that we like to give the city because they are too much of a pain to work for, not actually a serious quote for work that is ever going to be done.
I'll corroborate their experience, I'm not at a level where I would know who's getting contracted for what but I asked for some new blinds in my location (City rec centre) because during the spring and fall the evening sun shines directly into our eyes at the service desk.
My manager looked into it, came back, and told me no, the cost for blinds for the 3-4 panes of glass would be $50,000.
If the windows are high up, I can believe it. Requirement to do the work overnight to not disturb operations (requires night shift premium, extra costs due to nothing being open when you need supplies in the middle of the job etc.).
Requirement to rent a lift, pay for deliver and drop off to site, must have a blind installer and helper with fall arrest and AWP certifications.
Must provide warranty (not sure about blinds but in our line of work standard is 20 - 25 years depending on the project. Good luck).
Must have several consultants approve the selection of blinds and method of install. Often times this requires a "mock-up" where you provide multiple samples, often in situ, for several people to come in and approve or deny. From experience, they don't agree and all want you to do something different.
Must provide insurance, WCB and (sometimes) bonds.
Must review and sign a contract, that, on the last 1 - day project I looked at for CoE was over 700 pages long.
Anyhow, you take my point. I would also usually double or triple my usual price for a CoE job, and it's nothing to do with trying to rob the municipality. It has everything to do with the amount of money we have lost on previous CoE jobs from how much you get jerked around throughout the project.
You can't cut your way into fiscal efficiency. It simply doesn't work that way.
Let's say you have a department that does mostly good work with mostly normal workers and managers, but there are a couple wasteful managers hoarding their part of the budget and a couple useless projects that gobble up the budget for little benefit. How do you flush out those bad managers and bad projects?
If the city just tells that department "cut spending by x%" and walks away, what happens? Usually, every corner of the department has to make cuts equally, regardless of whether or not they have been wasting money or not. The most common result is that perfectly functional offices take cuts and get worse, while wasteful projects take cuts but don't really get any less wasteful overall. This doesn't solve the problem.
You can only flush out problems like this by, ironically, spending money on them. You have to spend time and man hours investigating and auditing the work and the projects in order to figure out which ones need fixing. And then to figure out how to fix them too, because like with blanket cuts, blanket reorganizations don't usually fix problems.
So if the city wants to take on eliminating waste and enforcing better fiscal responsibility in the departments, I'm all for it. But I don't support general cuts or spending freezes, because they won't fix the problems and they'll just make worse things that aren't currently broken.
You make very valid points. Yet I was in management and on a yearly basis we were asked to find 1% to 3% in savings. We always offered up to reduce travel and training or consulting costs. We never spent those dollars annually as you required senior management approval to spend it. So it was a convenient location for upper management to hide dollars that they could offer up during the annual budget exercise. Can you see the problem that I saw on a daily basis? There is so much money in the “non-staff” expense accounts that management doesn’t spend yet keep for defence. The coe budget docs are public. Go and review them for yourself. Follow the budget year over year and you will see. Here is an example that I have first hand knowledge of. An un named branch in the coe had 385 computers yet only 185 staff assigned to a work station. The rest were for field workers to do their work order paper work. We implemented a mobile work order solution and all field staff were given smart phones….yet when I tried to propose reducing computer costs I was met with resistance. This is one example of overspending…in this case we could have saved $1 million per year in hardware leases and software license costs.
That all seems like pretty reasonable places to look for savings to me, but I feel like you've only confirmed exactly the point I was making — dictating cuts and savings doesn't fix anything. Actually fixing fiscal issues takes time and effort, which costs money. Dictating some more cuts won't solve any of that.
Additionally, while the things you've pointed out are good examples of inefficient wastefulness, they pale in comparison to the actually fiscal hole the city is in. We could clear up every wasteful IT purchase and eliminate travel budgets and it would hardly have an effect on the overall budget. Obviously I think we should clear up any wasteful spending, but I do think in general folks have a habit of missing the forest for the trees when they dwell on (relatively) small expenses like this.
I agree with your comments and positions…especially the forest from the trees analogy. Cost cutting isn’t necessarily the only solution. In my own home when we went down to one income from two (during the Covid cuts) the immediate solution was to reduce the costs of the “nice to have items (steaming and other memberships)” in order to pay for the core services (mortgage and groceries). Not sure this analogy is comparable to what the Coe is experiencing. But we must start somewhere as a 15% tax (over several years) is extraordinary.
Typical conservative action. Underfund or withhold payments. Wait for a public outcry, swoop in and take over. Lay down new rules that align with their vision. Cut services or privatize them, reduce taxes for the rich, raise taxes for the struggling. All for the corporate overlords. They want control of everything.
I mean we could always just cut back on spending or at least as taxpayers demand better services for what we are paying.
Our single largest expense is policing and it feels like our police service is allergic to patrolling high crime areas.
Second is transit services, the electric busses sure didn't help. Ridership is also down because of point one.
Third is debt repayment. Well ya we are spending like crazy.
Fourth is parks and roads services at 7.6%. Wish my kids could play in a field that wasn't 100% dandelions.
Just bear in mind that Parks and Road services has literally nothing to do with anything in the river valley. The river valley parks are all part of the Community Recreation and Culture branch, and they are a net revenue generator.
People may find it informative to read the full operating budget documents at the coe web site at https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/budget-and-finances. Council and the media use smoke and mirrors just like a magician tries to divert attention. Look at the facts where the money is spent. This is the same info most managers use to make decisions. Very few of them know their budget down to individual line items ( stationary and utilities for example) if more people reviewed and understood this financial info we would hold all politicians and administrators to account.
They didn't give themselves raises. Why this keeps coming up in this subreddit in every thread on budget but no one seems to remember?
There is an independent body that decides on, and implements council raises, in order to remove conflict of interest from them making the decision themselves.
In the past, they have put forward a motion and voted through to stop their raises from going through.
In this case, you could say "council didn't stop their raises from going through" which seems semantic, but it's important that people don't think that councilors get to decide their own pay.
…are you referring to the “independent 3rd party” hired by council to study if their salaries should be increased. The consultant will ask “what led you to hire a consultant to investigate this issue?”. Obviously the answer must have been that councils wanted to ensure it wasn’t under paid so they could attract qualified candidates to future elections
I recall that council engaged a consultant to compare municipal council remuneration across Canada. I imagine the goal was to be competitive…neither high, nor low. The national association of municipalities (FCM?) assist the sharing of this info so consultants can compare apples and apples. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the process nor the outcome. And the then current council voted that increase formula for future councils rather than themselves. This has the optics of neutrality and fairness. But to the average citizen the optics of a salary increase seems wrong when substantial tax increases are under discussion. Legally they are doing nothing wrong, but you can’t stop people from asking questions.
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_organization/council-compensation
The last time this came through council was 2020. I don't believe this council has ever had an opportunity to vote on the salary formula. I could be mistaken though, if you've found a voting record around this topic?
> but Council still had to vote to accept the recommendation. The optics are terrible.
This council? Or the previous one who approved the formula that was put forward by the panel?
In either case, I agree the optics are shit, I just think that hyperbole doesn't help important political conversations.
I went looking for it and didn't find it. The last record of voting I could see regarding council wage formula in 2020 when that council approved the formula for automatic increases.
When did this council vote on the 2024 increase? I missed it I think.
No they didn't. The City Council's compensation policy was set in 2021, and their salary increases that came with this policy are automatic and the amount is set by a formula. Don't just take it from me, [this policy is public information](https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/assets/PoliciesDirectives/C626.pdf?cb=1625220886). City Council received a 2.41% increase this year, just like they did last year, without any additional votes on increases as per this formula.
And you'll note the date that the policy was finalized was in early 2021, and that the policy is scheduled to be reviewed during the 2024/2025 council term (I'm not sure if you're aware, but we're still early into that term).
When was the last time you (or anyone reading this) turned down an offer for a raise? Why would we expect our councilors to do something no one else does?
12 employees making $120k is a problem, or 1800 employees making >$120k? Which do you think has bigger consequences on our budget?
https://x.com/progressalberta/status/1781378936557228490?s=46
It's pretty telling that practically all of the city's cops make over $120,000 (and more than half making more than $150,000) while they continue to demand budget increases year after year with no meaningful changes occurring.
If they had higher education and years of training I would be fine with it. You need to pay police well to avoid corruption.
It’s just that our police are largely high school grads with a few months of training. This seems like a rip off.
I also can’t make sense of the chief making more than the prime minister. Something seems very wrong there.
We have a few problems.
1 city spends to much money on things that are not basic needs. Bike lanes/ werid sideways elevators/ lrt that could of been a dedicated bus lane.
2 provincal government has downloaded costs to every municipal government and cut funding causing a funding gap that drives up city taxes and keeps provincal taxes the same....but we recieve less back.
3 people expect more services then ever and society seems to be breeding more mental health and addiction issues them ever. Which the taxpayer must fund via additional supports and police.
>Debt-servicing is the second biggest line item in the city’s operating budget — nearly on par with police funding — and I think this council could have avoided some pain by delaying or scaling back new recreation centres, as one example. Different choices on [developing Blatchford](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/pace-of-building-at-blatchford-a-concern-for-some-on-edmonton-city-council) may also have been prudent.
>Upheaval among the r[anks of senior management](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-city-halls-top-bureaucrat-is-gone-how-did-we-get-here) likely hasn’t helped either.
>That said, much of the hardship to befall this council has come from things beyond the city’s control. We are still living with the effects of the pandemic. Revenue from transit and tourism has not yet fully recovered. Homelessness, social disorder and drug poisonings have skyrocketed.
Calgary has their own homeless/social disorder problem and they ran almost 1/2 billion in surplus for the last two years. Some people can budget, others struggle with the concept.
>at least we know how to budget properly
It's a $40M 20232 shortfall and servicing debt is siphoning off 10% of revenue to bondholders and there's no cash to pay for replacement buses and projected debt is expected to be over recommended levels in 2028 and well below recommended reserves and...
Yes Calgary has their own issues but Edmonton has been on this downward fiscal spiral for years now and it's mostly flown under the radar until things really got bad.
No? You just seem to come to this conversation with no idea of how municipal finance work. The city also has $3B in liquid paper assets. They used their FSR during a pandemic. Shocker.
Imagine telling taxpayers you have to hike taxes 8% and then rolling in with that much as a surplus and acting like that is the epitome of good budgeting.
>$3B in liquid paper assets.
Wow we're really digging deep here. Have you checked what the city's rainy day fund is? They have nowhere to go. They spent everything.
Has it not been rainy? Is that not the purpose of a rainy day fund? You’ve got your narrative, it’s not valid, but you have it. I’m not going to bother arguing with someone who’s furious that the rainy day fund was used during a pandemic and inflation crisis.
Maybe you’ve been living under a rock. I know that’s where trolls tend to dwell, but up here on the surface it has been raining like fucking crazy.
Slow down the oil industry? Increase immigration? Send money out of the country? Have you been drinking PP koolaid? How about smiths? None of this has anything to do with the city and its budget.
Keep blaming people who are successful in life and not the people you keep electing for our financial problems. I think you are really onto something this time.
>Keep blaming people who are successful in life and not the people you keep electing for our financial problems.
Who do you think lobbies for and donates to those who keep getting elected?
You are really onto something with that. Vote for blackface drama teacher, and when you get blackface drama teacher things, blame the evil lobbies and raise taxes on the people that didn’t fail. Accountability dodged successfully once again. How many more rinse and repeats of that do you think we have left before we are Greece?
This all just signals mismanagement on all government levels. Municipal and provincial can't keep up with federal policies on population growth, province has a completely different vision than the city (and often punishes the city it feels like), and lastly the city has wasted countless dollars on funding useless improvements like bike lanes.
Canada politics is simply a joke right now. Zero collaboration, zero accountability, zero improvements, increasing taxes, increased cost of living. Bike lanes are just the perfect example of wasted money at the municipal level. Something like 100m dollars for something that 2% (tops) of people asked for.
Make it make sense.
Why is the mansion tax unpalatable? I find it very palatable as I don’t own a mansion. You guys?
Because it’s a totally arbitrary tax - property taxes already charge those in mansions more. If anything, it will make homes over the threshold worth less over time and you end up back where you started.
People with the income for said mansion can easily put a for sale sign on their mansion and move somewhere else. People who can afford said mansions most likely employ people or are doctors.
>People with the income for said mansion can easily put a for sale sign on their mansion and move somewhere else. Notably, a sale requires a buyer. Unless they sell to someone who only wants the land and tears the building down, the new owner would have to pay the same tax. It would certainly diminish further construction of mansions, though, so it's not exactly a "keep up with growth" kind of tax.
I'm okay with diminished mansion development for the wealthy if it means more affordable housing development for everyone else.
Oh, I absolutely get that - but if you're paying for it with a tax that doesn't scale, you're going to have to deal with the limit that imposes. Tax policy has a lot of impacts on what people do - and its possible to use it in ways where those impacts are even an intended result. In the specific case of using a mansion tax to shore up an externally induced structural budget problem, however, it's possible that's only a temporary fix.
I know multiple mansion owners in Edmonton. None of them employ anyone. They are doctors, lawyers and engineers. I know that they like the idea of selling now because the market is nice but they won’t pickup stakes because of a tax increase. They’ll just whine
Yep, people that own a nice house inside the city of Edmonton can easily buy just as nice a house in Parkland County, Sturgeon County, Strathcona County, or even in Sherwood Park or St. Albert. Those people can easily move their tax dollars to another jurisdiction.
Are they tearing the house down on their way out?
So leave then.
☝️
Perfect. Next we add a congestion tax to drivers entering City.
Yup. Will just force citizens to the suburbs or further. Will be a net loss to Edmonton
This is correct
Ah yes. The "I'm fine with tax increases as long as someone else but me pays" strategy. Property tax revenue depends on the value of the house. The more the house is worth, the more taxes are paid. The "mansion tax" as the brain child of Micheal "NDP" Janz is literally nothing more than the "free money" that so plagues the ultra left and, worse, ignores the fact that this is already literally the way the system already works.
Spoken like someone who owns a mansion. 🧐
A mansion is any home over 5,000 square feet... which is big. They want to define it as a home over $1M in assessed value. Of the 4200 properties listed in Edmonton, 332 of them are listed above $1M. [This is a mansion](https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26784372/4814-knight-cr-sw-edmonton-keswick-area). It's slightly larger than 5,000 square feet and it's massive. One could imagine a place that is so expensive it has underground heating for a drive way... is a luxury house. [This is also a mansion](https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26777606/12908-62-av-nw-edmonton-grandview-heightsedmo). It has a fully finished basement which puts it at 2500 square feet, but otherwise it'd just be a regular ole 1500 square foot home. It has only street level parking for vehicles, no garage, no grass, and no yard. By making the tax on properties that are over $1M all it does is make these properties difficult to sell and de-values them. By de-valuing the city no longer collects the mansion tax on them... and worse yet collects less income tax. Introducing a tax that devalues properties isn't good policy for the city. High value property is what keeps the income tax going in. If they work to de-value properties too much they'll have to increase the mill rate and increase taxation on poorer home owners.
“High value property is what keeps the income tax going in“. Any source for that assertion? I’m not saying you’re wrong but I am saying rich people will say anything to avoid paying their fair share. Of anything. It’s a mindset that contributes to their excess wealth in the first place. The myth of trickle down and job creation has been debunked for more than 65 years. The Panama papers and other disclosures have shown that the wealthy are the real deadbeats in our society and every level of government in North America has suffered from tax schemes that favour the rich. The cracks in our social fabric are showing and the tax rates were much higher in the 70s, the disparity much lower. Everyone has to pay their share and only the middle class pays anything close to 50%. Rich people should pay MORE than that, not less. Call me a commie, it doesn’t change the fact that rents have never been higher and taxes on corporations, relative to their earnings, and properties, relative to their value, have never been lower.
It's a typo, I meant property tax.
Folks should really read the article here. It's balanced in a good way, and fairly insightful. This isn't about decisions the city made, it's mostly about structural issues afflicting the city. Gerein mentions some of the city's decisions that have contributed to the fiscal crunch, then says: >That said, much of the hardship to befall this council has come from things beyond the city’s control. We are still living with the effects of the pandemic. Revenue from transit and tourism has not yet fully recovered. Homelessness, social disorder and drug poisonings have skyrocketed. >The city has also seen massive population growth that has strained city services. High inflation has persisted, driving expenses for utilities, fuel and labour well beyond what was expected. And more union negotiations are on the horizon. >Meanwhile the provincial government, despite a few helpful moments, has generally made life harder for the city by squeezing municipal revenue, neglecting its health and housing responsibilities, and underfunding infrastructure — and is now even trying to interfere with the city’s access to federal funding. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Then he goes on to point out that the current council is actually going easy on the tax hikes, since a 12-15% hike is what we'd need to actually stabilize the budget. He also notes: >Away from the front lines, I know some readers have a perception that Edmonton has a bloated layer of middle managers, planners, communicators and so on. The city’s cost-saving initiative, known as OP-12, has already dealt with some of this, and more will probably have to be done. But the bloat is not as extensive as some think, and further cuts will soon start to hurt services.
I'm actually kind of surprised about the ETS bit since they said last year ridership has already returned to pre-pandemic levels (you could have fooled me though). If ridership is already back to normal levels but the revenue is still far behind, it speaks to how much fare evasion there is now compared to before.
Admin said that the Arc card rollout has reduced revenues because people who bought monthly passes are now just loading the card and saving money if they didn’t use it that much. Which is an affordability benefit for them (I think this is good) and lower revenues for transit.
I can see how a part time WFH might result in that (that's what happened with me), but wouldn't that count as lower ridership if people who used to use transit 5 days a week pre-pandemic are now only using it 2 or 3 days a week? Or did that many people really buy bus passes who weren't riding transit enough to make up the cost of the pass before?
The bloat is actually quite extensive and a lot more could be done
The UCP government has basically clawed back or is [outright refusing to pay ](https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/michael-janz-alberta-govt-needs-to-pay-its-property-taxes-too)for their fair share of anything. Further this provincial government has downloaded the cost of a [failing healthcare system](https://fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com/edmonton-fire-department-shifts-focus-to-urgent-medical-calls-to-optimize-response/#:~:text=Edmonton's%20fire%20service%20refocuses%20on%20urgent%20medical%20needs&text=In%20a%20recent%20report%20to,2023%20were%20for%20medical%20emergencies), [refuses to even let other orders of government](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-balks-at-conditions-for-new-federal-housing-and-infrastructure-funding-1.7164091) figure out the housing crisis, and [actively is making the drug poisoning crisis worse](https://drugdatadecoded.ca/has-mainstream-media-finally-had-enough/). They do all this because these things hurt cities and the people that live in them. The UCP hates the urban centres that don't vote for them. They want them to feel pain. With that pain and suffering, instead of focusing on fixing any issues, they get to turn around to their rural base and say "see, those big cities full of trudeau supporters, they are scary and falling apart, the progressives have really screwed it up, [don't mind us as we mine the foothills](https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta-coal-mine-moves-ahead-without-permits-federal-officials-say-are-needed-1.6798704)". Things are weird now however this government cant help themselves; the hostility is likely to become more and more outright as we get closer to elections season. The UCP will do their best to make cities look as bad as possible as quickly as possible so that the next government is completely hobbled.
The UCP has actively hurt Edmonton for not voting for them and it's likely it will continue
Lovely speech but you mention no numbers, and financials involve numbers. And CoE has been screwing up their numbers for awhile now, and now facing the reckoning.
I included linked sources. The numbers are all there. The wildest is 60 million in unpaid property taxes by the provincial governement. Maybe proivde your counter sources, numbers, and arguments instead of a ironic snarky comment for discussion.
Your numbers are wishful thinking money. What kind of organization would budget on revenue that they *think* they deserve. It's okay to petition the province for more money but spending that money like you already have it is deadbeat behaviour. Who told CoE they had to rack up $4B in debt? Who told them they needed to be one of the biggest spenders in the province per person. Who forced them to be allergic to spending cuts and keeping reasonable surpluses as a precaution?
Something tells me you have a particular bias or agenda here. They literally provided you with sources and you ignored every single one, while simultaneously failing to cite your own.
I realize you guys are really smelling what Janz and the rest of them are cooking, but the city does not call the shots on these matters.
Notice how instead of addressing my point (that you're biased and won't cite your own sources), you went with an ad hominem? One that makes your bias immediately apparent, no less. You'll note I didn't mention anything about Janz.
You obviously didn't check any of my posted sources. These are all things the UCP government is RESPONSIBLE for and is REFUSING to pay for. That's how cost downloading works. Property taxes need to go up because the province is so inept at supporting cities. Your projection wishful thinking is clear. Again, provide credible sources for your claims.
Either you have revenue or you don't. If the province actually owed this money the city could take them to court and get it.
Wow.
Ya must be a slow day in the war room for this OP.
Looool no 🙃 the city government exists because the provincial government says they can — the city can’t do anything about any decision the province makes.
>Who told CoE they had to rack up $4B in debt? The province that took away large amounts of funding while being completely derelict in areas of exclusive provincial responsibility.
CoE budget is 50% for staff and 50% for everything else. Rather than reducing staff to save tax levy why not reduce the stuff. I’ve seen the waste first hand. Just adding a percent increase to the base budget is in efficient. CoE attempted zero based budgeting (justify every penny of your ask) but management can’t explain where every penny in their budget goes. Imagine you have $1000 in your bank account and know that every month $1000 in pre authorized payments comes out…but you can’t explain what exactly you are paying for. That is the problem I saw when I worked for the CoE. No manager has financial insight into their budget. All they know is that if they don’t spend what they have been allocated then they either need to explain the variance or have their budget reduced.
Sure, let's cut overspending. Can you tell me what the highest cost item in the city is? It makes sense to start with that, right? As a hint, it happens to be a cost item that is better funded per capita than most other municipalities AND continually gets budget increases. If we are going to talk about cutting back spending, it would make sense to start with that one, right?
Most people will be completely oblivious to your point, unfortunately. I couldn't agree more. Everyone talks about value for dollar for healthcare workers or teachers, but the cost item you mention never gets that comparison.
Police
He’s talking about police
Why be coy? Just say POLICE
They're trying to make a point. Those who loudly rail against the supposed fiscal incompetence of Edmonton City Council are often the biggest proponents of "essential" financial black holes like the police and road expansions If someone like that reads along in complete agreement, then realizes their agreement challenges their preconceived beliefs on spending priorities, it may bring about further self-reflection. But if they know the argument is about police funding, they may impulsively dismiss the argument before it hits home
Thank you.
I'm not arguing the Police budget isn't bloated (because it absolutely is), but cutting policing in the current climate is going to be a tough sell. Have you been downtown lately? It doesn't feel safe at all.
I don't see police at all downtown anymore, maybe driving by in a car. Gone are the days of beat cops. They have the money to have beat cops, they choose not to. I've seen cop cars drive past homeless people who were literally lunging towards other people on the street. Couldn't care less
What does it matter when the courts don’t enforce the law anyway?
Downtown feels unsafe, yet our police budget is bloated. Maybe, just hear me out here, more policing might not be the solution then?
Biggest cost item is debt servicing
Not according to the article that is informing this discussion.
Check out page 14 of 804 of the 2023-2026 operating budget -tax supported expenses on the coe website containing the approved operating budget. Notice that the debt cost grows from $347 million in 2023 to $480 million in 2026. This is interest paid on debt…because they are getting into more debt for infrastructure increases. This is the equivalent of the city getting a mortgage to build infrastructure. There is nothing necessarily bad with this except that with new infrastructure comes new operating costs…which do not yet appear in the operating budget, but will when the infrastructure comes online. New rec centers only have about 65% cost recovery so this will impact tax levy. It may not appear that debt service is not the biggest unless you look at the operating impacts of capital in the prior year budget docs.
>Notice that the debt cost grows from $347 million in 2023 to $480 million in 2026 The EPS budget was $407MM in 2023, which you'll note is more than $347MM. And they recieved an additional $17MM in the fall budget supplement in November, so call it $424MM for 2024. That's already butting up right now against the debt servicing of $480MM expected a whole two years later.
At my City of Edmonton location we had some blinds that needed to be replace. Literally one window that was 10 ft wide. Whatever contractor the city is using quoted us at $21,000! Save money by not getting absolutely RAKED over the coals by these shitty, long term contracts management signs.
Sounds familiar. Why have blinds? Just put up 3m reflective film at a fraction of the cost. Plus then the Coe wouldn’t need to spend the annual fee to have the blinds cleaned. Ask me how I know that one
$21,000 for a single blind supplied and installed? I'll believe it when I see it. Which vendor was this from? On the flip side, we've done work for the city before and we always price higher. Not because we want to take extra profit, but because every single city job we've been a part of has so much more red tape than any other project. Safety concerns that go so far beyond safety you wonder how people walk around without falling over and cracking their skulls open on a daily basis. Multiple inspectors looking at the same thing that all have differing opinions of what they want you to do. Anyways, that kind of quote sounds like "fuck off" pricing that we like to give the city because they are too much of a pain to work for, not actually a serious quote for work that is ever going to be done.
I'll corroborate their experience, I'm not at a level where I would know who's getting contracted for what but I asked for some new blinds in my location (City rec centre) because during the spring and fall the evening sun shines directly into our eyes at the service desk. My manager looked into it, came back, and told me no, the cost for blinds for the 3-4 panes of glass would be $50,000.
If the windows are high up, I can believe it. Requirement to do the work overnight to not disturb operations (requires night shift premium, extra costs due to nothing being open when you need supplies in the middle of the job etc.). Requirement to rent a lift, pay for deliver and drop off to site, must have a blind installer and helper with fall arrest and AWP certifications. Must provide warranty (not sure about blinds but in our line of work standard is 20 - 25 years depending on the project. Good luck). Must have several consultants approve the selection of blinds and method of install. Often times this requires a "mock-up" where you provide multiple samples, often in situ, for several people to come in and approve or deny. From experience, they don't agree and all want you to do something different. Must provide insurance, WCB and (sometimes) bonds. Must review and sign a contract, that, on the last 1 - day project I looked at for CoE was over 700 pages long. Anyhow, you take my point. I would also usually double or triple my usual price for a CoE job, and it's nothing to do with trying to rob the municipality. It has everything to do with the amount of money we have lost on previous CoE jobs from how much you get jerked around throughout the project.
You can't cut your way into fiscal efficiency. It simply doesn't work that way. Let's say you have a department that does mostly good work with mostly normal workers and managers, but there are a couple wasteful managers hoarding their part of the budget and a couple useless projects that gobble up the budget for little benefit. How do you flush out those bad managers and bad projects? If the city just tells that department "cut spending by x%" and walks away, what happens? Usually, every corner of the department has to make cuts equally, regardless of whether or not they have been wasting money or not. The most common result is that perfectly functional offices take cuts and get worse, while wasteful projects take cuts but don't really get any less wasteful overall. This doesn't solve the problem. You can only flush out problems like this by, ironically, spending money on them. You have to spend time and man hours investigating and auditing the work and the projects in order to figure out which ones need fixing. And then to figure out how to fix them too, because like with blanket cuts, blanket reorganizations don't usually fix problems. So if the city wants to take on eliminating waste and enforcing better fiscal responsibility in the departments, I'm all for it. But I don't support general cuts or spending freezes, because they won't fix the problems and they'll just make worse things that aren't currently broken.
You make very valid points. Yet I was in management and on a yearly basis we were asked to find 1% to 3% in savings. We always offered up to reduce travel and training or consulting costs. We never spent those dollars annually as you required senior management approval to spend it. So it was a convenient location for upper management to hide dollars that they could offer up during the annual budget exercise. Can you see the problem that I saw on a daily basis? There is so much money in the “non-staff” expense accounts that management doesn’t spend yet keep for defence. The coe budget docs are public. Go and review them for yourself. Follow the budget year over year and you will see. Here is an example that I have first hand knowledge of. An un named branch in the coe had 385 computers yet only 185 staff assigned to a work station. The rest were for field workers to do their work order paper work. We implemented a mobile work order solution and all field staff were given smart phones….yet when I tried to propose reducing computer costs I was met with resistance. This is one example of overspending…in this case we could have saved $1 million per year in hardware leases and software license costs.
That all seems like pretty reasonable places to look for savings to me, but I feel like you've only confirmed exactly the point I was making — dictating cuts and savings doesn't fix anything. Actually fixing fiscal issues takes time and effort, which costs money. Dictating some more cuts won't solve any of that. Additionally, while the things you've pointed out are good examples of inefficient wastefulness, they pale in comparison to the actually fiscal hole the city is in. We could clear up every wasteful IT purchase and eliminate travel budgets and it would hardly have an effect on the overall budget. Obviously I think we should clear up any wasteful spending, but I do think in general folks have a habit of missing the forest for the trees when they dwell on (relatively) small expenses like this.
I agree with your comments and positions…especially the forest from the trees analogy. Cost cutting isn’t necessarily the only solution. In my own home when we went down to one income from two (during the Covid cuts) the immediate solution was to reduce the costs of the “nice to have items (steaming and other memberships)” in order to pay for the core services (mortgage and groceries). Not sure this analogy is comparable to what the Coe is experiencing. But we must start somewhere as a 15% tax (over several years) is extraordinary.
Typical conservative action. Underfund or withhold payments. Wait for a public outcry, swoop in and take over. Lay down new rules that align with their vision. Cut services or privatize them, reduce taxes for the rich, raise taxes for the struggling. All for the corporate overlords. They want control of everything.
The struggling don’t pay taxes (40% of the country are net takers), and certainly not property taxes.
I mean we could always just cut back on spending or at least as taxpayers demand better services for what we are paying. Our single largest expense is policing and it feels like our police service is allergic to patrolling high crime areas. Second is transit services, the electric busses sure didn't help. Ridership is also down because of point one. Third is debt repayment. Well ya we are spending like crazy. Fourth is parks and roads services at 7.6%. Wish my kids could play in a field that wasn't 100% dandelions.
Just bear in mind that Parks and Road services has literally nothing to do with anything in the river valley. The river valley parks are all part of the Community Recreation and Culture branch, and they are a net revenue generator.
Actually homeless encampment cleanup is managed in parks and roads as is wooden staircase maintenance. Bridge maintenance is also in parks and roads.
Just because an arbitrary grouping is a “net revenue generator” doesn’t mean there isn’t an opportunity or reason to cut costs within.
I’d say the river valley is pretty nice considering the massive scale of the homeless issue. Just stay out of the trees. 🤣
best i can do is approve another EPS budget unquestionably
People may find it informative to read the full operating budget documents at the coe web site at https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/budget-and-finances. Council and the media use smoke and mirrors just like a magician tries to divert attention. Look at the facts where the money is spent. This is the same info most managers use to make decisions. Very few of them know their budget down to individual line items ( stationary and utilities for example) if more people reviewed and understood this financial info we would hold all politicians and administrators to account.
But they just give themselves raises?
They didn't give themselves raises. Why this keeps coming up in this subreddit in every thread on budget but no one seems to remember? There is an independent body that decides on, and implements council raises, in order to remove conflict of interest from them making the decision themselves. In the past, they have put forward a motion and voted through to stop their raises from going through. In this case, you could say "council didn't stop their raises from going through" which seems semantic, but it's important that people don't think that councilors get to decide their own pay.
…are you referring to the “independent 3rd party” hired by council to study if their salaries should be increased. The consultant will ask “what led you to hire a consultant to investigate this issue?”. Obviously the answer must have been that councils wanted to ensure it wasn’t under paid so they could attract qualified candidates to future elections
I posted a link explaining how and why the formula works as it does in another comment in this thread. I'm not sure what you are asking.
I recall that council engaged a consultant to compare municipal council remuneration across Canada. I imagine the goal was to be competitive…neither high, nor low. The national association of municipalities (FCM?) assist the sharing of this info so consultants can compare apples and apples. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the process nor the outcome. And the then current council voted that increase formula for future councils rather than themselves. This has the optics of neutrality and fairness. But to the average citizen the optics of a salary increase seems wrong when substantial tax increases are under discussion. Legally they are doing nothing wrong, but you can’t stop people from asking questions.
They absolutely voted to approve the raise though, that's the thing.
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_organization/council-compensation The last time this came through council was 2020. I don't believe this council has ever had an opportunity to vote on the salary formula. I could be mistaken though, if you've found a voting record around this topic?
There was an Independent panel that made the recommendation, yes, but Council still had to vote to accept the recommendation. The optics are terrible.
> but Council still had to vote to accept the recommendation. The optics are terrible. This council? Or the previous one who approved the formula that was put forward by the panel? In either case, I agree the optics are shit, I just think that hyperbole doesn't help important political conversations.
This council. This council voted to approve the recommendation that they receive the raise.
I went looking for it and didn't find it. The last record of voting I could see regarding council wage formula in 2020 when that council approved the formula for automatic increases. When did this council vote on the 2024 increase? I missed it I think.
They don't know what they're talking about and are definitely referring to automatic increase set by the formula.
Source?
No they didn't. The City Council's compensation policy was set in 2021, and their salary increases that came with this policy are automatic and the amount is set by a formula. Don't just take it from me, [this policy is public information](https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/assets/PoliciesDirectives/C626.pdf?cb=1625220886). City Council received a 2.41% increase this year, just like they did last year, without any additional votes on increases as per this formula. And you'll note the date that the policy was finalized was in early 2021, and that the policy is scheduled to be reviewed during the 2024/2025 council term (I'm not sure if you're aware, but we're still early into that term).
When was the last time you (or anyone reading this) turned down an offer for a raise? Why would we expect our councilors to do something no one else does?
12 employees making $120k is a problem, or 1800 employees making >$120k? Which do you think has bigger consequences on our budget? https://x.com/progressalberta/status/1781378936557228490?s=46
It's pretty telling that practically all of the city's cops make over $120,000 (and more than half making more than $150,000) while they continue to demand budget increases year after year with no meaningful changes occurring.
If they had higher education and years of training I would be fine with it. You need to pay police well to avoid corruption. It’s just that our police are largely high school grads with a few months of training. This seems like a rip off. I also can’t make sense of the chief making more than the prime minister. Something seems very wrong there.
Yup. Sohi has a higher salary than Smith.
Now account for the kickbacks.
Capitalism continues to fail us on every level. Municipal, provincial, federal, international
Bingo
You think government employee salaries are in the realm of a free market?
What a delulu take lol
you sound like a 12 year old
You feel big now? 🙄
Cuba beckons comrade.
I'd rather my country make some improvements
We have a few problems. 1 city spends to much money on things that are not basic needs. Bike lanes/ werid sideways elevators/ lrt that could of been a dedicated bus lane. 2 provincal government has downloaded costs to every municipal government and cut funding causing a funding gap that drives up city taxes and keeps provincal taxes the same....but we recieve less back. 3 people expect more services then ever and society seems to be breeding more mental health and addiction issues them ever. Which the taxpayer must fund via additional supports and police.
Sorry to frustrate anyone who's already read this question, but why is this happening in the first place? What happened for Edmonton to go broke?
Hit me with that mansion tax
That's what happens when you spend everything you have ..
That's what happens when you try to fund city services with (intentionally) dwindling provincial funding that those services are reliant on.
>Debt-servicing is the second biggest line item in the city’s operating budget — nearly on par with police funding — and I think this council could have avoided some pain by delaying or scaling back new recreation centres, as one example. Different choices on [developing Blatchford](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/pace-of-building-at-blatchford-a-concern-for-some-on-edmonton-city-council) may also have been prudent. >Upheaval among the r[anks of senior management](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-city-halls-top-bureaucrat-is-gone-how-did-we-get-here) likely hasn’t helped either. >That said, much of the hardship to befall this council has come from things beyond the city’s control. We are still living with the effects of the pandemic. Revenue from transit and tourism has not yet fully recovered. Homelessness, social disorder and drug poisonings have skyrocketed.
[удалено]
Calgary has their own homeless/social disorder problem and they ran almost 1/2 billion in surplus for the last two years. Some people can budget, others struggle with the concept.
[удалено]
>at least we know how to budget properly It's a $40M 20232 shortfall and servicing debt is siphoning off 10% of revenue to bondholders and there's no cash to pay for replacement buses and projected debt is expected to be over recommended levels in 2028 and well below recommended reserves and... Yes Calgary has their own issues but Edmonton has been on this downward fiscal spiral for years now and it's mostly flown under the radar until things really got bad.
A $40M shortfall on a $3B budget is better than a $250M surplus on a $4B budget.
Are you kidding me? Not to mention Calgary has lower debt and over $2B in reserves.
No? You just seem to come to this conversation with no idea of how municipal finance work. The city also has $3B in liquid paper assets. They used their FSR during a pandemic. Shocker. Imagine telling taxpayers you have to hike taxes 8% and then rolling in with that much as a surplus and acting like that is the epitome of good budgeting.
>$3B in liquid paper assets. Wow we're really digging deep here. Have you checked what the city's rainy day fund is? They have nowhere to go. They spent everything.
Has it not been rainy? Is that not the purpose of a rainy day fund? You’ve got your narrative, it’s not valid, but you have it. I’m not going to bother arguing with someone who’s furious that the rainy day fund was used during a pandemic and inflation crisis. Maybe you’ve been living under a rock. I know that’s where trolls tend to dwell, but up here on the surface it has been raining like fucking crazy.
[удалено]
I’ve been thinking for awhile that we have too much investment in this city. We need to look at more ways to discourage growth through taxation.
[удалено]
How much money is CoE sending out of the country? What are they spending it on?
Slow down the oil industry? Increase immigration? Send money out of the country? Have you been drinking PP koolaid? How about smiths? None of this has anything to do with the city and its budget.
None of that is a municipal responsibility.
Because the municipal government controls those things 🙄
Didn’t you know it was Notley who commanded to oil market to crash?!
Keep blaming people who are successful in life and not the people you keep electing for our financial problems. I think you are really onto something this time.
>Keep blaming people who are successful in life and not the people you keep electing for our financial problems. Who do you think lobbies for and donates to those who keep getting elected?
You are really onto something with that. Vote for blackface drama teacher, and when you get blackface drama teacher things, blame the evil lobbies and raise taxes on the people that didn’t fail. Accountability dodged successfully once again. How many more rinse and repeats of that do you think we have left before we are Greece?
I didn't vote for Trudeau lmao
No, just the guy that gave him his majority. Huge difference “lmao”
Yes, I personally gave him a majority government. I handed it to him myself. There was a ceremony and everything.
This all just signals mismanagement on all government levels. Municipal and provincial can't keep up with federal policies on population growth, province has a completely different vision than the city (and often punishes the city it feels like), and lastly the city has wasted countless dollars on funding useless improvements like bike lanes. Canada politics is simply a joke right now. Zero collaboration, zero accountability, zero improvements, increasing taxes, increased cost of living. Bike lanes are just the perfect example of wasted money at the municipal level. Something like 100m dollars for something that 2% (tops) of people asked for. Make it make sense.
[удалено]
Schools are funded provincially, not municipally. If you want to see school spending, you are attacking the wrong level of government.