Halifax Active Transportation

[Keith P.]

No, we can’t. This is not just a revenue increase for HRM which they would have gotten regardless given the explosive growth in the value of the assessment roll given the huge growth in the number of both commercial and residential properties subject to taxation. On top of that they increased the tax rate. They had to in order to fund their ridiculous overspending and lack of control over municipal spending. It is sheer mismanagement.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

No, we can’t. This is not just a revenue increase for HRM which they would have gotten regardless given the explosive growth in the value of the assessment roll given the huge growth in the number of both commercial and residential properties subject to taxation. On top of that they increased the tax rate. They had to in order to fund their ridiculous overspending and lack of control over municipal spending. It is sheer mismanagement.

But there is the cap program which causes a shortfall and distortions that get worse the more inflation there is. I'd guess a lot of renters of new apartments are effectively paying more property tax than some South End home owners. In general I don't think HRM gets enough revenue relative to other levels of government given what it's responsible for, while the wealthy (those with a lot of wealth, as opposed to income which is taxed to death) don't pay enough in Canada and sometimes get overly generous benefits.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

But there is the cap program which causes a shortfall and distortions that get worse the more inflation there is. I'd guess a lot of renters of new apartments are effectively paying more property tax than some South End home owners. In general I don't think HRM gets enough revenue relative to other levels of government given what it's responsible for, while the wealthy (those with a lot of wealth, as opposed to income which is taxed to death) don't pay enough in Canada and sometimes get overly generous benefits.

The supposed cap still is increased every year (I think by CPI) so it really isn’t a cap and at least delivers some equity to a metric that in no way is a measure of one’s “ability to pay” which in itself is a questionable measure of wealth or income, since the value of a property is only realized when it is liquidated. HRM is not short of revenue. They have a severe spending problem, however. Until they get control over that and begin to live within their means I will remain a critic.

[someone123]

Indexing to inflation doesn't solve the problem because property market prices have been growing far above the inflation rate and the program's been in place long enough now that there are huge differentials in effective tax rates. HRM can't raise taxes to a moderate level on some properties without creating absurd bills for others.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

...it really isn’t a cap and at least delivers some equity to a metric that in no way is a measure of one’s “ability to pay”...

If there's one thing the cap absolutely does not deliver, it's equity.

[DBaz]

I swore I'd never post here again... wtf is wrong with me.

I'm curious as to how many people have actually read the budget or the budget overview. I'm also curious as to whether people have looked at where (which districts) the money comes from, and where it goes.

I called the mayor's office this morning to express my displeasure. Specifically, his and the premier's penchant for signaling out specific counsellors or MLAs. The reason those specific people keep getting re-elected is because they represent the wishes of the people who live in those districts. By calling those representatives idiots they are calling those residents idiots.

The focus on certain, to some people, wasteful projects, is a useful distraction form a basic problem: we as a society, are living beyond our means. The "American dream" of everyone having an acre and a half of their own within a half hours drive of the services they want is just that, a dream.

As I've stated before, I'm priveleged to actually be living that dream of 1.2 acres 30 minutes from downtown. I understand that I need to pay my equitable share in order to enjoy that privilege.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DBaz

I called the mayor's office this morning to express my displeasure. Specifically, his and the premier's penchant for signaling out specific counsellors or MLAs. The reason those specific people keep getting re-elected is because they represent the wishes of the people who live in those districts. By calling those representatives idiots they are calling those residents idiots.

Well, if the shoe fits...

The focus on certain, to some people, wasteful projects, is a useful distraction form a basic problem: we as a society, are living beyond our means. The "American dream" of everyone having an acre and a half of their own within a half hours drive of the services they want is just that, a dream.

As I've stated before, I'm priveleged to actually be living that dream of 1.2 acres 30 minutes from downtown. I understand that I need to pay my equitable share in order to enjoy that privilege.

I dunno about your "American dream" analogy as being particularly widespread, but I do agree that HRM as a corporate body is living well beyond its means with its reckless spending and taxation. Throw the bums out, as someone once said.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, if the shoe fits...

Well, those idiots, as you just said, have a positive social impact (ie they pay more and get less), and all they want is a livable city. And the people that benefit from them paying more and getting less keep telling them no.

Contrary to popular belief, if the downtown core (ie penisula and immediately adjoining areas, spryfield, and downtown Dartmouth - where all the high density is) went it alone, they could have what they want, and the outer areas would be screwed. (Evidence: all the districts have, give or take, similar electoral counts. The tax revenue generated by Penisula Downtown and South is 4 times higher than Porter's Lake. Yet, city infrastructure costs for Porter's Lake are higher *per resident*, due to distances, even though "they don't have sidewalks." Yet, Porter's Lake pays the lower "rural" rate.) That wasn't the case a generation ago, the suburbs were paying for the cores, but it wasn't sustainable. Now all the suburban and exurban infrastructure has worn out, and money was never set aside to fix it when that happened. We lived the high life for a while but now that is catching up to us.

And the argument about trucks getting them what they need immediately falls down as well, as that is paid for by the provincial government. As is the argument of "well, they don't pay fuel costs." Fuel costs are passed to the consumer by the shipper.

HRM has budgetted over $300 million on road maintenance and improvements, while successfully kicking the bike network down the road (probably appropriately, given the current reality, but it still sucks). Given the number of provincial roads inside the city, plus now the bridges, the provincial govenrment probably matches it. So, I fail to see the "war on cars."

As I said, I'm one of the privelged few. I almost exclusively drive right now, and I have three kids that have to get back and forth to school and activities in the city, so I do a lot of it. I'm looking forward to them moving on so I don't remain part of the problem.

None of this is HRM specific... you could go to any urban area in North America and it would be the same discussion. Hence my last statement: a lot of people were promised something that can never be true for everyone, and now it is becoming obvious that can never be, they are angry because they fell they've been lied to. So they're taking that anger out on people who realized this already.

[DBaz]

And by the way Keith, I don't give a rat's ass what you think, as don't a lot of other people. And there's a lot of people that don't give a rat's ass about what I think.

However, there are more people lurking here and quietly making up there own mind then us loud mouths who are talking. I'm just trying to let them no that your opinion is just that, an opinion, rarely backed with facts. Other opinions are no less valid, especially those backed up with some attempt to provide actual facts, than yours, no matter how much of a bully you try to be.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DBaz

And by the way Keith, I don't give a rat's ass what you think, as don't a lot of other people. And there's a lot of people that don't give a rat's ass about what I think.

However, there are more people lurking here and quietly making up there own mind then us loud mouths who are talking. I'm just trying to let them no that your opinion is just that, an opinion, rarely backed with facts. Other opinions are no less valid, especially those backed up with some attempt to provide actual facts, than yours, no matter how much of a bully you try to be.

Please respect your original vow about not posting here if that kind of response to things I did not say is how you will react.

[someone123]

It's a valid point that in the HRM people tend to view fairness as everybody getting roughly the same tax and service levels, but the dollars paid and price to provide services vary widely as does demand for different kinds of services.

There also tends to be a kind of chauvinism from the outlying areas toward the central areas. You see comments from people about never going downtown and knowing that nobody in Halifax takes the bus. You don't really see it the other way with urbanites opining on rural infrastructure. There's a similar dynamic at the provincial level with rural NS voters and the idea that highways and big box government services are "for all" and driving in the city is scary.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Please respect your original vow about not posting here if that kind of response to things I did not say is how you will react.

Wrapping it in the euphenism of "if the shoe fits" doesn't mean it wasn't said.

I'm disinclined to take any advice from you, especially as you seem to say whatever you want, which seems to be accepted as "it's just Keith..."

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I see this differently: it's not so much bike-lane advocates who dominate these discussions, but bike-lane opponents who continually attempt to quash or rework or otherwise litigate existing plans, forcing this bike-lanes-yay-or-nay discussion to happen over and over and over again. There's no other civic infrastructure I can think of whose proponents have to so constantly and vigilantly defend its merits.

I think this is the most sensible post among the entire exchange.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I see this differently: it's not so much bike-lane advocates who dominate these discussions, but bike-lane opponents who continually attempt to quash or rework or otherwise litigate existing plans, forcing this bike-lanes-yay-or-nay discussion to happen over and over and over again. There's no other civic infrastructure I can think of whose proponents have to so constantly and vigilantly defend its merits.

The reason you have to constantly and vigilantly defend the bike plan is the merits are paltry except to those that feel unsafe using a bike in our Older City. To quote a former PM in Edmonton who quoted to an Afghan vet who left a leg there. You are asking for more that we are prepared to give.

The sense of entitlement is deeply frustrating for myself as the space NOT USED BUT DESIGNATED is waiting for another estimated 90+ Million of investment and then magically "they" will show up to use the newly built bike ways . Yet the majority of the car and Truck travelling public have to wait the extra 8. 10, 15 minutes in traffic while the no shows in in unused Bike lane carry on with never using the entitled space.

Will the bike community in the future be willing to give up their lanes to BRT or a Tram. Not friggin likely.

I was walking by the Public Gardens a couple of Saturdays ago and asked a passing Commissionaire when the City was starting to charge for parking on Saturdays . He explained that it had to pass council and he expected April sometime but then expressed - unprompted- that the City should rip up the unused Bike lanes as he never saw them used in his rounds checking for parking violations in the core. He mentioned that the addition of them on South Park street had forced parked cars to dangerously narrow the street in both directions. Lots of clipped bumpers in his experience.

I am intrigued why my councilor Trish Purdy see's through the bike BS yet the clever bike coalition members posing as councilors spend huge capital on the bike hill. And dither on real transportation solutions.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

lYet the majority of the car and Truck travelling public have to wait the extra 8. 10, 15 minutes in traffic while the no shows in in unused Bike lane carry on with never using the entitled space.

You could tear out every bike lane in the city and you wouldn’t gain a single extra car lane. In almost every instance they occupy former street parking spaces or are built entirely off street. They do not impede or slow traffic, regardless of how much some people FEEL they do. There’s just nothing else to say about this.

[DBaz]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I am intrigued why my councilor Trish Purdy see's through the bike BS yet the clever bike coalition members posing as councilors spend huge capital on the bike hill. And dither on real transportation solutions.

Because Trish Purdy was elected by the people that feel that way, and those other councilors by others who feel differently. Largely driven by the realities of where they live and the lifestyle they wish to lead. In and of itself that doesn't make either "side" wrong.

The "dithering on real transportation solutions" is because the "real" solutions cost "real" money, which we don't have (because our existing infrastructure is rotting away). Bike infrastructure, being relatively cheap, is seen (by some) as "low hanging fruit" to solve a particular problem (which should only be applied to high density areas, in my opinion).

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

The sense of entitlement is deeply frustrating for myself as the space NOT USED BUT DESIGNATED is waiting for another estimated 90+ Million of investment and then magically "they" will show up to use the newly built bike ways . Yet the majority of the car and Truck travelling public have to wait the extra 8. 10, 15 minutes in traffic while the no shows in in unused Bike lane carry on with never using the entitled space.

I think there's a real blindness to how much they're used. Bike lanes ARE used. Quite regularly. However, bikes a) are much smaller than cars and less visbily noticeable, and b) are not stuck in traffic so zoom by and are only in your field of view for a few short seconds.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I think there's a real blindness to how much they're used. Bike lanes ARE used. Quite regularly. However, bikes a) are much smaller than cars and less visbily noticeable, and b) are not stuck in traffic so zoom by and are only in your field of view for a few short seconds.

However, as a cyclist, you can see how many cars in traffic have only the driver,…one person. The bike lane BS is actually the politicians choosing to rely on bike infrastructure as a distraction from the difficult choices that will have to be made.

The funny thing is that those difficult choices don’t really involve bike infrastructure.

[JET]

Resistance is futile
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/a...ed-cars-for-bikes-and-remade-its-streets

[Dartguard]

[QUOTE=DBaz;10579014]Because Trish Purdy was elected by the people that feel that way, and those other councilors by others who feel differently. Largely driven by the realities of where they live and the lifestyle they wish to lead. In and of itself that doesn't make either "side" wrong.

I got curious about that statement and looked up the last Municipal election results. Very interesting and fragile results in Halifax South.Purdy at least achieved over 40% of the votes cast. Laura White, not so much.

https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/elections/2024-election-results