Halifax Retail

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Gas this Spring hovered between 150 to 160 and very briefly went down under 150. Now its 175.2. Yes it added it on by 14 cents. Not great timing, but I do think it's necessary and we do get refunds for it. I do however think the refunds could be a bit more in rural areas.

Not sure where you're getting your 14¢ from, as one article I've seen states "about 18¢" and another states 16.7¢.

The actual price from June 30 to July 7 increased 24.2¢/litre, though not sure how much market increase was part of that. It seems odd that I wasn't able to find a clear amount for carbon tax per litre from a government source, but admittedly I didn't want to waste a bunch of time researching it as the exact amount is kind of beside the point.

IMHO, the point is that the timing was really bad, as we have been battling price increases for everything for a long time now, and adding another 14 - 18¢ per litre of gas (diesel went up 28.5¢/litre during that one week period as well) feels like piling on when we are already hurting. Of course we also have to recognize that there will be price increases due to increased transportation costs on all our goods that we won't be rebated later on.

Anyhow, the point is that everyone pays for this, and you have to wonder how much money is eaten up through administration/bureaucracy costs in the process... not good governance, IMHO.

[Dmajackson]

Agricola Street is taking another step on its alcohol destination journey with Bravado Wine Bar opening soon in the former Jasmine Grocery at West Street.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not sure where you're getting your 14¢ from, as one article I've seen states "about 18¢" and another states 16.7¢.

The actual price from June 30 to July 7 increased 24.2¢/litre, though not sure how much market increase was part of that. It seems odd that I wasn't able to find a clear amount for carbon tax per litre from a government source, but admittedly I didn't want to waste a bunch of time researching it as the exact amount is kind of beside the point.

IMHO, the point is that the timing was really bad, as we have been battling price increases for everything for a long time now, and adding another 14 - 18¢ per litre of gas (diesel went up 28.5¢/litre during that one week period as well) feels like piling on when we are already hurting. Of course we also have to recognize that there will be price increases due to increased transportation costs on all our goods that we won't be rebated later on.

Anyhow, the point is that everyone pays for this, and you have to wonder how much money is eaten up through administration/bureaucracy costs in the process... not good governance, IMHO.

I disagree, I think it is good and responsible governance. Yes, the timing wasn't great with the price of gas going up on the world market on top of the carbon tax, and with inflation in general, but I do think there should be a price for emitting carbon into the atmosphere.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

I disagree, I think it is good and responsible governance. Yes, the timing wasn't great with the price of gas going up on the world market on top of the carbon tax, and with inflation in general, but I do think there should be a price for emitting carbon into the atmosphere.

Then we can agree to disagree, then. That's fair enough, I think.

Surely there must be a better way of curtailing carbon than making life more difficult for those already struggling. People who depend on their vehicles for their job and to function in their lives are finding it difficult to make ends meet. In the end, the extra cost of transporting goods, etc., is just passed on to all of us, even those who don't drive.

For all of the resources being used to facilitate this tax take/rebate, I'd rather see more effort towards making cities provide better services (i.e. transit, etc. - god knows Halifax could use it) for their citizens so that many of them can reasonably be expected to leave their cars at home. For those in rural areas, they don't have a choice, so they are penalized regardless. It just seems like a ham-fisted, no-thought approach to dealing with a real problem, that in the end results in a lower standard of living for most Canadians, but will result in little tangible difference in carbon emission reduction. Looks like they are doing something, but they're not doing much, really. Just my opinion, though, YMMV.

Anyhow... back to "Halifax Retail"...

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Then we can agree to disagree, then. That's fair enough, I think.

Surely there must be a better way of curtailing carbon than making life more difficult for those already struggling. People who depend on their vehicles for their job and to function in their lives are finding it difficult to make ends meet. In the end, the extra cost of transporting goods, etc., is just passed on to all of us, even those who don't drive.

For all of the resources being used to facilitate this tax take/rebate, I'd rather see more effort towards making cities provide better services (i.e. transit, etc. - god knows Halifax could use it) for their citizens so that many of them can reasonably be expected to leave their cars at home. For those in rural areas, they don't have a choice, so they are penalized regardless. It just seems like a ham-fisted, no-thought approach to dealing with a real problem, that in the end results in a lower standard of living for most Canadians, but will result in little tangible difference in carbon emission reduction. Looks like they are doing something, but they're not doing much, really. Just my opinion, though, YMMV.

Anyhow... back to "Halifax Retail"...

You really have no proof that it won't make tangible differences in carbon emissions. It will over time as we transition to a carbon neutral economy entice people who were on the fence about getting heat pumps, switching to an electric car, not buying large gas guzzling trucks for no reason, to make those decisions. I have heard a lot of people say more than ever that their next car will be an electric car or that have bought an electric bike to commute to work, etc.

Now back to Halifax Retail!

[Keith P.]

Govt's solution to any perceived problem, be it carbon, alcohol, nicotine, weed, sugar, or whatever is to tax the living daylights out of it. It is highly debatable if the reasons for doing any of that is related to "good governance" or if it is simply a knee-jerk response to loud squeaky-wheel activists that end up generating a pot of cash for govts to spend wastefully.

[q12]

ADIDAS OUTLET STORE Dartmouth Crossing:

Photos from Google Maps:

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

You really have no proof that it won't make tangible differences in carbon emissions. It will over time as we transition to a carbon neutral economy entice people who were on the fence about getting heat pumps, switching to an electric car, not buying large gas guzzling trucks for no reason, to make those decisions. I have heard a lot of people say more than ever that their next car will be an electric car or that have bought an electric bike to commute to work, etc.

Now back to Halifax Retail!

I don't pretend to have the expertise to know what is the right mechanism (carbon tax etc), but I do know that we also need to stop having these conversations in a vacuum where we pretend there is no cost to the status quo. Yes, carbon taxes or other mechanisms will cost tax payers money. Is it the best way to address this? Maybe, maybe not. But the status quo in which we spin our wheels and do nothing to address climate change also comes at a huge cost to tax payers... the cost to those people whose homes and property is damaged or lost due to increasing frequency of major events, the cost of increasing insurance or even loss of insurability, the cost to the province of mitigating the impacts of climate change (which can only come from taxpayer money somehow), etc.

We need to stop talking about these things as if one of the choices is a status quo where we don't have to pay more. We are going to pay more whether we do or do not do something to address carbon. It's only a matter of how and what we pay for. Carbon tax in its current form may or may not be the best choice, but we can't pretend as if the status quo doesn't cost money too.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by beyeas

We need to stop talking about these things as if one of the choices is a status quo where we don't have to pay more. We are going to pay more whether we do or do not do something to address carbon. It's only a matter of how and what we pay for. Carbon tax in its current form may or may not be the best choice, but we can't pretend as if the status quo doesn't cost money too.

I get your point but I think more can be added to this perspective.

If the goal is to reduce consumption then this can be achieved by rising prices. It doesn't matter if the price increase comes from rising oil prices or a carbon tax, and in fact a carbon rebate will tend to increase consumption more than an oil price rise as it goes back into income (although it also tends to shift consumption away from carbon-intensive products). I think it's fair to ask if the government modeled this, and not reasonable for them to say they didn't and we just need to shut up and deal with it. I'm not sure if or how this has been communicated but I would say it's not coming through very clearly in the media.

Another factor lost is that energy budgets determine how prosperous our society is in a very fundamental way, and people tend to go with whatever their best alternative is. If you were to pick one factor behind how well off humanity has been during different era, it's wood fuel vs. coal vs. oil (and should be nuclear now). This implies the best way forward is to generate new cheaper energy sources and that people will abandon fossil fuels when that happens. I think this is possible and a much better route. It's also the only path that works in a competitive world where not every country will be on board with climate goals. If we move to new energy sources we get a fundamentally more prosperous world. If we scale up energy costs in Canada we locally suppress consumption, other countries' exports become cheaper than ours and we become a poor country, and climate change still happens.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

You really have no proof that it won't make tangible differences in carbon emissions.

Well, for the record, I said: "It just seems like a ham-fisted, no-thought approach to dealing with a real problem, that in the end results in a lower standard of living for most Canadians, but will result in little tangible difference in carbon emission reduction."

My wording wasn't the best, but to be clear, it wasn't intended to be a statement of fact, as I think it would be really difficult to directly correlate this legislation to a carbon reduction result (which is what makes it such a great political tool).

Regardless, I didn't come here to debate the carbon tax, but just to agree with those who have stated that the sudden implementation of it in NS just when we are in the middle of recovering from the covid situation and suffering relatively high inflation has caused increased strain on people who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Nobody is suggesting maintaining the 'status quo' as another poster has suggested. I just want the feds to be more creative in finding solutions that will work rather than just slapping yet another tax on people and then patting themselves on the back for a job well done. I expect more from my government, but unfortunately good politicians are hard to find these days, apparently.

I shouldn't be complaining as I don't drive much, and have a fuel-efficient car. Plus, my home has electric heat. Electricity isn't cheap in NS by any means, but at least it's not all generated through a combustion process (some effort by the feds to bring down electricity prices would be nice). So, on the surface I stand to benefit financially from the carbon tax rebate, but IMHO you still need to look at it critically, and wonder whether what is being sold to me as a solution isn't actually making things worse in other ways (i.e. common sense tells me that I will still be paying higher prices for my food and other goods as a result (ever see the "fuel surcharge" on a price breakdown?).

Originally Posted by Haliguy

It will over time as we transition to a carbon neutral economy entice people who were on the fence about getting heat pumps, switching to an electric car, not buying large gas guzzling trucks for no reason, to make those decisions. I have heard a lot of people say more than ever that their next car will be an electric car or that have bought an electric bike to commute to work, etc.

IMHO, it's erroneous to credit this to the carbon tax. My feeling is that this would happen regardless, as most people genuinely do care about climate change, and are also keen to adopt new technology as it becomes available.

The switch to electric cars will take time, as they are currently very expensive, and not abundant in their availability (Also, IMHO, the level of battery technology is also very poor at the moment). Essentially, they are mostly toys for the well-off at the moment, while the people of less financial means, who still have to depend on a vehicle, have to rely on older ICE vehicles at the moment. These things are never a problem for people who have lots of money.

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Now back to Halifax Retail!

Yes!

I noticed the website for the Sandman hotel in Dartmouth Crossing, they have bookings available starting in January. Looks like its sloth-like construction has almost come to an end.

Also, the Denny's restaurant is stated to be "Coming soon"... for those who have been looking forward to something different in world of restaurant chains that have been everywhere except NS for a long time...

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Well, for the record, I said: "It just seems like a ham-fisted, no-thought approach to dealing with a real problem, that in the end results in a lower standard of living for most Canadians, but will result in little tangible difference in carbon emission reduction."

My wording wasn't the best, but to be clear, it wasn't intended to be a statement of fact, as I think it would be really difficult to directly correlate this legislation to a carbon reduction result (which is what makes it such a great political tool).

Regardless, I didn't come here to debate the carbon tax, but just to agree with those who have stated that the sudden implementation of it in NS just when we are in the middle of recovering from the covid situation and suffering relatively high inflation has caused increased strain on people who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Nobody is suggesting maintaining the 'status quo' as another poster has suggested. I just want the feds to be more creative in finding solutions that will work rather than just slapping yet another tax on people and then patting themselves on the back for a job well done. I expect more from my government, but unfortunately good politicians are hard to find these days, apparently.

I shouldn't be complaining as I don't drive much, and have a fuel-efficient car. Plus, my home has electric heat. Electricity isn't cheap in NS by any means, but at least it's not all generated through a combustion process (some effort by the feds to bring down electricity prices would be nice). So, on the surface I stand to benefit financially from the carbon tax rebate, but IMHO you still need to look at it critically, and wonder whether what is being sold to me as a solution isn't actually making things worse in other ways (i.e. common sense tells me that I will still be paying higher prices for my food and other goods as a result (ever see the "fuel surcharge" on a price breakdown?).




IMHO, it's erroneous to credit this to the carbon tax. My feeling is that this would happen regardless, as most people genuinely do care about climate change, and are also keen to adopt new technology as it becomes available.

The switch to electric cars will take time, as they are currently very expensive, and not abundant in their availability (Also, IMHO, the level of battery technology is also very poor at the moment). Essentially, they are mostly toys for the well-off at the moment, while the people of less financial means, who still have to depend on a vehicle, have to rely on older ICE vehicles at the moment. These things are never a problem for people who have lots of money.



Yes!

I noticed the website for the Sandman hotel in Dartmouth Crossing, they have bookings available starting in January. Looks like its sloth-like construction has almost come to an end.

Also, the Denny's restaurant is stated to be "Coming soon"... for those who have been looking forward to something different in world of restaurant chains that have been everywhere except NS for a long time...

You still really have no proof that it won't make a tangible difference. Also, I feel the carbon tax is somehow all of the sudden being blamed for everything going up in price when inflation has been and was even higher months before. I think heard that the Carbon tax contributes 0.15 of inflation. It really has become the scapegoat or something to blame for all inflation all of the sudden.

I do agree that a lot of Canadians do care about the environment and are thinking of switching to electric cars, etc. but having that financial nudge will make it more enticing. There are however of a lot of Canadians who wouldn't even consider it and may now. In fact I have heard on the news the other night that pickup trucks are not selling very well and are just sitting on the lot and that's a good thing for the environment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

You still really have no proof that it won't make a tangible difference.

I already stated that I wasn't attempting to prove anything, but I am allowed to have an opinion, right?

Originally Posted by Haliguy

In fact I have heard on the news the other night that pickup trucks are not selling very well and are just sitting on the lot and that's a good thing for the environment.

That's good news. I detest the monstrosities that pickup trucks have become, and they cause more than just environmental problems as they are safety hazards to others as well, with their blind spots and wall-like front fascia that will take out a pedestrian or cyclist in short order.

Now, how about that Sandman hotel in Dartmouth Crossing? I can't believe it's almost finished after all this time. Did it beat out the NFB building on Barrington?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Now, how about that Sandman hotel in Dartmouth Crossing? I can't believe it's almost finished after all this time. Did it beat out the NFB building on Barrington?

It is indeed a Nordic saga isn't it?

Meanwhile, the Maritimes first Denny's is already operational outside of Fredericton.

[Dmajackson]

Renovation - Issued - 1438 HAMMONDS PLAINS RD, HAMMONDS PLAINS - $50'000 - Commercial - Restaurant - 1 Floor - Leasehold improvement for a diner restaurant. Restaurant name will be '7:40 European Breakfast & Diner Restaurant'. This will be unit #1.

Part of the same development will also have Atlantic Chiropractor and Better Golf Ltd (golf simulator). This is all part of United Gulf's Voyageur Lakes subdivision.

Crescent Gold and Diamonds will be opening a new location at Sunnyside Mall (Unit CR27)

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

You still really have no proof that it won't make a tangible difference. Also, I feel the carbon tax is somehow all of the sudden being blamed for everything going up in price when inflation has been and was even higher months before. I think heard that the Carbon tax contributes 0.15 of inflation. It really has become the scapegoat or something to blame for all inflation all of the sudden.

I do agree that a lot of Canadians do care about the environment and are thinking of switching to electric cars, etc. but having that financial nudge will make it more enticing. There are however of a lot of Canadians who wouldn't even consider it and may now. In fact I have heard on the news the other night that pickup trucks are not selling very well and are just sitting on the lot and that's a good thing for the environment.

I just checked the numbers for North American truck sales and they are up 15% over the record 2022 third quarter sales. The F 150 has a 36% market share and only two brands have had worse 2023 sales. Sorry to burst the bubble but trucks are not going anywhere. They are heavier and safer than cars and Fleet vehicles are a very big driver. The Municipal group here in N.S. buys about 200 F150 per year. The electric version has sold only 4250 this year vs the over 172,000 total F 150's

[Dmajackson]

Gong Cha Bubble Tea will be opening at 1459 Brenton Street, Halifax.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

I just checked the numbers for North American truck sales and they are up 15% over the record 2022 third quarter sales. The F 150 has a 36% market share and only two brands have had worse 2023 sales. Sorry to burst the bubble but trucks are not going anywhere. They are heavier and safer than cars and Fleet vehicles are a very big driver. The Municipal group here in N.S. buys about 200 F150 per year. The electric version has sold only 4250 this year vs the over 172,000 total F 150's

To cite the usual response: safer for the people in them, more dangerous for people in smaller vehicles, or on foot outside of them.

[Haliguy]

[QUOTE=Dartguard;10050801]I just checked the numbers for North American truck sales and they are up 15% over the record 2022 third quarter sales. The F 150 has a 36% market share and only two brands have had worse 2023 sales. Sorry to burst the bubble but trucks are not going anywhere. They are heavier and safer than cars and Fleet vehicles are a very big driver. The Municipal group here in N.S. buys about 200 F150 per year. The electric version has sold only 4250 this year vs the over 172,000 total F 150's[/QUOT

Well if that is true, its very unfortunate then.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

To cite the usual response: safer for the people in them, more dangerous for people in smaller vehicles, or on foot outside of them.

Yup!

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm not even sure that they're safer for people in them considering the less stable handling and increased risk of rollover. It's certainly possible but very much a "citation needed" moment. Perhaps it depends if someone drives more town speeds or at faster speeds on the highway.