Canadian Federal Election

[casper]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Carney was just asked about subsidizing BC Ferries. On that topic....

Has a phased approach to a island fixed-link ever been proposed?

The geographic and cost issues of a tunnel/bridge etc seem to lie mostly in the Salish Sea. But getting a road to the edge of Galiano Island is much easier. It would shorten the Ferry to 40min from 1h40min. This would also double the ferry frequency. Doubling its capacity as a result. With a high speed ferry, the ferry-time could be shorter than 20mins. Quadrupling the frequency and capacity. Very reasonable.

Has this ever been proposed?

No shortage of studies.

Your missing one important cultural issue. The people that chose to live on Galiano Island want to live on an island. The very last thing they would ever support is a bridge to their island.

You might find it easier to get support for a hazardous waste dump over a bridge.

I live on Vancouver Island, while I think us southern Vancouver Islanders are more accommodating to urbanism, there would also be strong opposition to a bridge.

There were three fast ferries build and attempts to operate them on the Nanaimo (Departure Bay) to West Vancouver run. That experiment was a disaster. The cafeteria on the ship were forbidden to offer fries. Something about grease spills if it did an emergency stop. Fuel costs were also significantly higher.

While the bean counters at BC Ferries were concerned about the losses, the general public was concerned about the menu offering.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by casper

You might find it easier to get support for a hazardous waste dump over a bridge.

I live on Vancouver Island, while I think us southern Vancouver Islanders are more accommodating to urbanism, there would also be strong opposition to a bridge.

Ya I got the impression there was lots of local opposition to a fixed link in general. Seems to be a love/hate topic. Or maybe like/hate.

[casper]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Ya I got the impression there was lots of local opposition to a fixed link in general. Seems to be a love/hate topic. Or maybe like/hate.

Biggest problem with BC Ferries is HR.

I don't remember the correct term, I think it is "Master Seaman", there is an international licensing process that officers on large classes of commercial ships have to have.

BCIT only graduates so many and they need to work through a progressive system over a number of years. When sailing are cancelled many times it is staffing. We probably need to increase immigration of seafarers.

BC Ferries has a reputations for having more modest salaries than some of the other commercial operators on the coast.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by casper

One has to have a positive outlook on life. They need 172 + speaker = 173. Liberal majority is obviously the best outcome.

Having 175 is to close. If they are in the low 70s perhaps a deal can be made with the greens to get an extra two seats.

We have had in the past the Liberals make way to many compromises to the NDP on social programs. If they need to compromise this time lets hope it by being more aggressive on climate change.

I've wondered whether, if it were very close, the Liberals might not offer the Speaker position to the lone Green MP, to give him something useful to do? I'm not sure He's originally from Montreal, but I don't know if he's bilingual.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

No shortage of studies.

Your missing one important cultural issue. The people that chose to live on Galiano Island want to live on an island. The very last thing they would ever support is a bridge to their island.

You might find it easier to get support for a hazardous waste dump over a bridge.

I live on Vancouver Island, while I think us southern Vancouver Islanders are more accommodating to urbanism, there would also be strong opposition to a bridge.

There were three fast ferries build and attempts to operate them on the Nanaimo (Departure Bay) to West Vancouver run. That experiment was a disaster. The cafeteria on the ship were forbidden to offer fries. Something about grease spills if it did an emergency stop. Fuel costs were also significantly higher.

While the bean counters at BC Ferries were concerned about the losses, the general public was concerned about the menu offering.

Don't you mean the old wealthy Boomers that live on Galiano want to preserve it in some 1960's era state? If SSPers like to moan and wail about that atitude in our cities they shouldn't endorse it for this.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Carney was just asked about subsidizing BC Ferries. On that topic....

Has a phased approach to an island fixed-link ever been proposed?

The geographic and cost issues of a tunnel/bridge etc seem to lie mostly in the Salish Sea. But getting a road to the edge of Galiano Island is much easier. It would shorten the Ferry to 40min from 1h40min. This would also double the ferry frequency. Doubling its capacity as a result. With a high speed ferry, the ferry-time could be shorter than 20mins. Quadrupling the frequency and capacity. Very reasonable.

Has this ever been proposed?

Not sure how that could ever be completed as a fixed link - you'd need to go around U.S. territory.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Don't you mean the old wealthy Boomers that live on Galiano want to preserve it in some 1960's era state? If SSPers like to moan and wail about that atitude in our cities they shouldn't endorse it for this.

Not suggesting it is appropriate position. Offering it as a fact of live.

People who live on islands can be difficult and set in their ways.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Don't you mean the old wealthy Boomers that live on Galiano want to preserve it in some 1960's era state? If SSPers like to moan and wail about that atitude in our cities they shouldn't endorse it for this.

Part of it is that it's inherently unreasonable to expect to live in a city with all the related conveniences but not accept any of the drawbacks needed to allow others to live there and move around it. Or to benefit from one's urban property increasing value which is closely connected to the city being a growing and sought-after place without accepting the things needed for the city to grow. There's a natural contradiction there. Cities need certain things to function efficiently. Things like mass transportation and multi-unit housing since there is limited land. But someone choosing to live in a quiet rural area is doing the right thing. They're not settling down in a city and expecting it to be like a small town or rural area. They're not benefiting from the increased real estate prices that comes with owning property in a growing and sought-after area while expecting it not to grow.

So in many ways, the urbanist critique of urban NIMBYism is inherently specific to an urban setting and can't just be copy/pasted to other places that just happen to also oppose things.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Carney was just asked about subsidizing BC Ferries. On that topic....

Has a phased approach to an island fixed-link ever been proposed?

The geographic and cost issues of a tunnel/bridge etc seem to lie mostly in the Salish Sea. But getting a road to the edge of Galiano Island is much easier. It would shorten the Ferry to 40min from 1h40min. This would also double the ferry frequency. Doubling its capacity as a result. With a high speed ferry, the ferry-time could be shorter than 20mins. Quadrupling the frequency and capacity. Very reasonable.

Has this ever been proposed?

You'll want to read this BC Government page about it, which lists all of the challenges and the different options, and you can probably come to your own conclusion as to why it's a complete non-starter.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by casper

Not suggesting it is appropriate position. Offering it as a fact of life.

People who live on islands can be difficult and set in their ways.

Can you expand on their specific objection?

Is it the traffic (noise etc)?
Is it the potential for increased inhabitation?
Is it more potential tourism?
Or is it just they hate fixed link and that's the end of it?

If inhabitation is the issue, it could be overcome by barring land subdivisions and sales. If traffic/tourism is the issue, the bridge could be throughfare only, with giant fees for anyone exiting the bridge except locals. Clearly they want some connection, since ferry routes go there. Just trying to understand.

Originally Posted by CanSpice

You'll want to read this BC Government page about it.

Have seen that. Makes no mention of a Semi-Fixed link for Victoria like I posted. That's why I ask. Doesn't seem to have been proposed anywhere I can find.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Have seen that. Makes no mention of a Semi-Fixed link for Victoria like I posted. That's why I ask. Doesn't seem to have been proposed anywhere I can find.

Probably because it would cost a ton of money and not really solve much.

[Truenorth00]

Bless @scotiabank Economics for actually putting in the effort to look at platforms.

Essentially, over 4 years, a $15B/yr difference in deficits (< 0.5% of GDP) between Conservative and Liberal.

The big difference between parties is philosophical, not fiscal.

https://x.com/EricDLombardi/status/1915132050773889365?t=vmBoa2EraT7VTF6X29gvtg&s=19

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, they won't. You just don't understand how government finance works.

Debt to GDP is a much better metric. If your economy is growing faster than your debt, you're in good shape.

For a personal analogy, one's debt versus one's assets. My debt is still in the seven figures (although barely so, nowadays) but I'm much wealthier now than back when I was a debt-free young adult.

bodaggin's advice would be to sell a building or two to bring all my remaining mortgages to zero, and then continue from that point on with no leverage at all, ever.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Have seen that. Makes no mention of a Semi-Fixed link for Victoria like I posted. That's why I ask. Doesn't seem to have been proposed anywhere I can find.

Probably because you'd need a ferry terminal the size of Swartz Bay / Tsawwassen on Galiano and that's a complete non-starter.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

For a personal analogy, one's debt versus one's assets. My debt is still in the seven figures (although barely so, nowadays) but I'm much wealthier now than back when I was a debt-free young adult.

Personal and business comparisons aren't valid when dealing with governments but yes most wealthy people and companies hold plenty of debt and are very successful.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And people are voting for the Libs why, exactly?

In a nutshell, because PP is so unlikable than EVEN WITH the relative "taint" of the JT-era LPC team around him, Carney is still a preferable option.

You could say that's why Trump got elected too -- normally he wouldn't, but if you run someone as toxic and with as much baggage as Hillary, or a vessel as completely empty as a Kamala, you might let the normally unelectable get elected.

PP would never have come close to getting elected PM in Canada, he's too abrasive; it took JT's catastrophic damage to give PP a good shot at the PM's chair. And now that window has closed.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Personal and business comparisons aren't valid when dealing with governments but yes most wealthy people and companies hold plenty of debt and are very successful.

It's kind of comparable, though. If I take on more debt but that's only in order to acquire more buildings that perform well, it's somewhat like a government taking debt for infrastructure projects that'll grow the economy.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think my analogy works well: I'd like to know why bodaggin wouldn't recommend me shrinking my portfolio slightly, just to achieve being debt-free (which to me is meaningless).

I've paid probably way over a million dollars, in interest only, to the banks since I began in real estate (at first sight; probably more than that now that I think about it). With his argument, this is cash flowing out and it's disastrous, I should have done anything to avoid it... while in reality, I used the banks' money and gained more than what it cost me to use it. Same logic with governments and debt.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's kind of comparable, though. If I take on more debt but that's only in order to acquire more buildings that perform well, it's somewhat like a government taking debt for infrastructure projects that'll grow the economy.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think my analogy works well: I'd like to know why bodaggin wouldn't recommend me shrinking my portfolio slightly, just to achieve being debt-free (which to me is meaningless).

I've paid probably way over a million dollars, in interest only, to the banks since I began in real estate (at first sight; probably more than that now that I think about it). With his argument, this is cash flowing out and it's disastrous, I should have done anything to avoid it... while in reality, I used the banks' money and gained more than what it cost me to use it. Same logic with governments and debt.

Well sure, and it's the same for companies that exist in perpetuity, which is more like your personal situation as you're talking about your real estate holdings. If I can earn an 8% return on my business, why wouldn't I borrow as much as I can at 3%. Big win for myself and/or my shareholders.

He's trying to liken in to a personal finance situation. I make $50k a year and spend $55k with no assets. I have a $5k annual deficit. If nothing changes eventually I will go bankrupt... that's true.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

I used the banks' money and gained more than what it cost me to use it. Same logic with governments and debt.

In the public finance world of course this amounts to borrowing to grow the economy vs. borrowing to spend in ways that don't grow the economy. For the most part this is infrastructure development versus entitlements. There's also the public service which at this point federally is likely a net negative almost all the time (it might not be; imagine hiring an anti-money-laundering worker for $100k a year who brings in $10M a year you wouldn't otherwise have recovered from criminals).

Canada hasn't been spending enough on infrastructure and spends too much on entitlements. At this point I believe there are lots of potential construction projects that would be a huge net gain, while a lot of money is going down the drain in entitlements without much to show for it (with "pay people not to work" entitlements being some of the worst).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

He's trying to liken in to a personal finance situation. I make $50k a year and spend $55k with no assets. I have a $5k annual deficit. If nothing changes eventually I will go bankrupt... that's true.

Even in personal finance you can constantly have growing debt and increase your income/assets without going bankrupt, and in fact this is pretty common.

You borrow money for school, then you buy a car to get to work, then you buy a house. Maybe you increase your debt against your house, but by a fraction of its increase in value. You're a Boomer who buys at $80,000 and then in 2040 you kick the bucket owing $90,000 on a house that's worth $1.5M.

The big difference with the feds is they can create their own money and inflate away their debt.