Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
Simpicity. Your argument is getting more humourous. The truth finally comes out. You really believe the city will stop growing? You really accept that the current development model is not flawed? You really think that the city growing 30% in population and 80% in area in the last 30 years is sustainable?
Have you not been paying attention? Surely you've noticed taxes and deficits rising and services dropping. If your such a brilliant economist, explain your solution.
It doesn't matter how fast we grow. We will grow. Like it or not. And we need to change the already unsustainable growth patterns. It's not about housing starts today or whatever absorption rate you are on about. Don't you get that? It's a long term plan to change a flawed model. It's a 25 year investment. If GEM turns out to be a house of cards, it doesn't matter. It's not about who or when but how. All your in the moment projections are meaningless. You are frustrated because you are completely missing the point. Do you really think the fact that next year might see a 10% drop in multi-family construction, or the fact that units take 6 months to sell has anything to do with a decision trying to change what Winnipeg is in 2039? Look through the other end of the telescope my friend.
We want the same thing. Lower taxes, better roads etc. Rapid transit is a model for change. Suggesting that we wait a few years just to make sure the water is warm before we go swimming is hilarious. We've waited 60 years.
You are such a total Winnipegger.
|
Is there a factual argument in there somewhere?
1.5% growth in Winnipeg. Let me show you that again:
1.5%.
I know the paper has given you a forum where you're now somehow able to comment on things that couldn't be further from architecture and you've now stepped into the fray as an expert on the public good, but do you have even the faintest clue as to how finance works? Even the slightest? You are writing articles about the financial benefits to a city of a massive infrastructure investment and you couldn't calculate the net present value of one wheel on the bus. You are so far out of your depth only somebody who wouldn't know it would think they're qualified to comment.
I want you to imagine me talking with my hands here: When things - like populations - don't grow at the rates you need them to in order to justify massive public capital investments - like roads, or, say, rapid transit systems - the benefits they throw off in the amount of time they are operational before requiring substantial reinvestment don't hurdle the costs. They become - you guessed it -
liabilities.
Your best argument is somewhere along the lines of "we just gotta try, man...".
That's not good enough. That's good enough for the people who think you're some paragon of progress and sustainability, but it isn't good enough to the people who are actually crunching the numbers. This province and city are exactly where they are because every four years some stupid politician makes promises for things our economy can't support and underwrites it with the tax receivables from ten years from now. And now you have people agreeing that continuing to dig the hole is the best solution to ever getting out of it.
Unbelievable stuff, really.
Prev
Linear Mode
