Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

It still costs taxpayers money, as cityhall could decrease expenses and spend more efficiently with or w/o the temp park in place.

When have you seen a government entity voluntarily, without outside pressure, out of their own initiative reduce expenditures?

Originally Posted by jlousa

Lets assume for amusment sakes that the goverment was 100% efficient and they just gave a tax break to a developer, they would then have to raise tax of everyone else to make up that lost income to meet their budget.

There is no such thing as 100% efficiency in the real world, let alone in government.

And it is not "lost income" because that income never belonged to the city in the first place. What you are saying presupposed that the city has a higher claim to your money than you do.

Originally Posted by jlousa

Obviously they aren't 100% efficient but the point stands that they will not meet the shortfall by cutting expenses, otherwise they should already be doing that.

They should, but they don't. City Hall, like all government, has no real incentive to operate efficiently or to cut expenditures. They are not accountable to market forces or competition and therefore have no reason to operate at maximum efficiency.

[jlousa]

You aren't seriously suggesting that the government would lower spending and not increase the mill rate by the difference instead are you?
I'm certainly not one for paying more taxes then I need to but I know how governements work.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

It still costs taxpayers money, as cityhall could decrease expenses and spend more efficiently with or w/o the temp park in place...but the point stands that they will not meet the shortfall by cutting expenses, otherwise they should already be doing that.

You are just making my point. It's City Hall's spending (and its refusal to adjust that spending when it should) that impose costs on taxpayers.

Bills are created by spending money, not by an absence of revenue. Revenue is what we use to pay for the bills created by our spending.

Not receiving your neigbour's money (to which you have no moral entitlement) does not take any money out of your bank account. It's City Hall's spending (and your own) which create liabilities on your pocket book. If your taxes increase when another person's taxes decrease because City Hall refuses to reduce its spending in response to reduced revenue, then it is City Hall's continued spending, not a reduction in anyone's taxes, that has imposed a cost on you.

[hollywoodnorth]

1st crane is up at RESIDENCES ON WEST on 2nd ave .... my pic (sorry it was getting late/dark). also in the pic you can see WCFS Tower #4 along with the Pinnacle THE ONE excavation and the other Pinnacle completed tower behind that.

[dreambrother808]

Thankfully government is an evil bogeyman with no justifiable expenses whatsoever...

These kinds of people only win arguments by exhausting others with their stubborn, simplistic ignorance.

[TwoFace]

Bit off topic, but with the continuous rising property taxes and monthly assessments, I keep raising my tenants rent annually to cover those increases, but my personal net income on the units hasn't changed in 4 years.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

These kinds of people only win arguments by exhausting others with their stubborn, simplistic ignorance.

I see that your kind of people rely on insults in the place of any argument at all, which is a confession of intellectual impotence and/or the weakness of one's position.

If you can make a rational case that the absence of revenue is the creator of costs and bills, not the presence of spending, or that City Hall is helpless to reduce its current budget or spend it more efficiently, then please do. Surely, someone as sophisticated and knowledgeable as yourself can manage that much.

[Sir Conga]

Some infill on Second by Oak





Central from Main Stn



A developing Main Street from the edge of the village.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You aren't seriously suggesting that the government would lower spending and not increase the mill rate by the difference instead are you?
I'm certainly not one for paying more taxes then I need to but I know how governements work.

That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. Government never cuts its own spending voluntarily.

That doesn't change the fact that decreasing taxes on someone does not mean "lost revenue" since the government has no moral claim above yours on your money. The only reason why taxes will go up on you is government's refusal to spend less or spend more efficiently, but a tax cut is not lost revenue.


Anyway, I think we've sufficiently derailed the thread. Sorry.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Thankfully government is an evil bogeyman with no justifiable expenses whatsoever...

These kinds of people only win arguments by exhausting others with their stubborn, simplistic ignorance.

Who said anything about abolishing government or that government isn't necessary?

It just shows your intellectual impotence that you can't give a coherent argument and instead rely on ad hominim attacks instead.

[officedweller]

Nice view of Central from Main St. Station.
That view may be there for a while unless the McDonalds or that City-owned corner site are redeveloped.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If you can make a rational case that the absence of revenue is the creator of costs and bills, not the presence of spending, or that City Hall is helpless to reduce its current budget or spend it more efficiently, then please do. Surely, someone as sophisticated and knowledgeable as yourself can manage that much.

No one was arguing that the city is helpless to reduce its budget or spend more efficiently. A healthy budget entails balancing both revenue and expenditures. Does such an obvious truth even have to be stated? You, on the other hand, were being one-sided and naive in arguing that it all comes down to reducing expenditures.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

No one was arguing that the city is helpless to reduce its budget or spend more efficiently. A healthy budget entails balancing both revenue and expenditures. Does such an obvious truth even have to be stated? You, on the other hand, were being one-sided and naive in arguing that it all comes down to reducing expenditures.

You're failing to follow the discussion. The issue has never been what makes a "healthy" or "unhealthy" budget or anything of the sort. The issue is simply this: Can the reduction in a person's taxes be rationally blamed as "costing" other taxpayers.

To show this, you must do at least one of two things:

1) Show that a city's budget is immutable; that it can neither be reduced nor spent more efficiently; and that a reduction in taxes for one person must therefore necessarily result in an increase in taxes for another person. You have already conceded this is not the case. Thus, if your taxes increase when another person's taxes decrease because City Hall refuses to reduce its spending in response to reduced revenue, then it's City Hall's intransigent spending, not a reduction in anyone's taxes, that is responsible for increasing your costs. It's the city's spending (and nothing else) which is the source of all tax liability on your pocket book.

2) Show that you are morally entitled to your neighbour's money; that you have a higher claim to his money than he does himself (the very person who earned it); and that a reduction in your neighbour's taxes therefore represents a loss of something that rightfully belonged to you.

I invite you to try to show this with a sound argument. But I think it would be more appropriate in a different thread.

[NewWester]

...but what if there was a place to just learn about all the nifty building projects in Vancouver and not argue about politics?

[Jimbo604]

They've reached the bottom and started building at "West"



Excavation continues at "The One"



Excavation continues at "The One"

Photo credit: me

[Sir Conga]

From today.

[SFUVancouver]

Great set. Thanks Sir Conga.

[hollywoodnorth]

crane is up for MECCANIA!

[Sir Conga]

Here's a different view of the construction along Main.

[wrenegade]

The city has decided to lay down sod on the portion of the west 1st median in front of James. It was previously paved and the city had a problem with people parking there all the time but I was still surprised (pleasantly) to see grass. It looks quite nice. I'll grab a photo today or tomorrow.

[djh]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

The city has decided to lay down sod on the portion of the west 1st median in front of James. It was previously paved and the city had a problem with people parking there all the time but I was still surprised (pleasantly) to see grass. It looks quite nice. I'll grab a photo today or tomorrow.

Do you think that means they are gradually and quietly dropping the idea of using the median for a future light rail route? I thought it was mandated for that use