HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Politics


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #481  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2018, 7:40 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor View Post
On Immigrants, the numbers should be halved, either that or we should make it mandatory new migrants settle outside of Vancouver and Toronto. The population decline is mostly a myth anyway, population will increase if it becomes fiscally feasible to raise children in ur society, currently it isn't as the costs are prohibitive. This is why the NDP wants a universal childcare system which i strongly support. Better to have our own in Canada born and raised here to import citizens of convenience to subsidize the programs Canadians demand from our government.

If canada let in say 150k immigrants a year we wouldn't have the crisis we have now to nearly the same degree, the immigrants would integrate easier and not form urban ethnic enclaves as easily, and Canada's population would NOT decline.
there are 11 million baby booomers in this country. they makes up about 30% of our entire population. The older ones are now in there early 70s. In about 10 years, they will start dropping like flies.

France works very hard at achieving a high birth rate and they are sitting around 2 birth per woman which is nowhere near high enough.

A million immigrants a year and perhaps the population will be stable which is frankly impossible.

I don't want to sound to paranoid, but hold crap this is not good. I would love to see a universal child care program, however, we won't be able to afford it once the boomers require medical attention.
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #482  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2018, 8:13 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmk View Post
there are 11 million baby booomers in this country. they makes up about 30% of our entire population. The older ones are now in there early 70s. In about 10 years, they will start dropping like flies.

France works very hard at achieving a high birth rate and they are sitting around 2 birth per woman which is nowhere near high enough.

A million immigrants a year and perhaps the population will be stable which is frankly impossible.

I don't want to sound to paranoid, but hold crap this is not good. I would love to see a universal child care program, however, we won't be able to afford it once the boomers require medical attention.
Yeah we're relying on young immigrants for our population and our social security system is stretched thin as it is as we take care of druggies, mentally ill, homeless, and seniors. We're also deliberately killing some of our economy in an effort to improve affordability which means tax dollars likely won't be increasing. We've also locked up government labour with unions meaning it would be difficult to ever reduce government or cancel projects. At what point do we say the government has to stop footing the bill. In the end I strongly believe in cleaning up your own mess, if I choose to have a kid I should pay for it.

I think birth rate increases are a cultural problem. This is going to sound weird/wrong and I'm not saying I support anything here only giving a logical viewpoint (so keep an open mind until the end please) but we've promoted abstinence too much. We're also anti polygamy (which produces the most kids), anti young marriage (which also produces more kids), and pro college/university (which distracts people from the best ages to have the most kids). We've also banned paid surrogacy which would more easily allow people to have kids while working or busy. We've also pushed women out of the house and into the workforce which has reduced a woman's desire to have kids or get married. We're also pro LGBT which sounds great but generally does not produce kids. Morally/ethnically these moves may have been great, but realistically they have hit some of the biggest sources of kids. We've also concentrated our population in urban centers which reduces kids as rural families tend to have more. In the end, its the immigrant families that have the most kids as they retain their home culture while Canadians are not having enough kids.

Rather than say we need more social support for people having kids so people can afford them. I would say its simply that people are less into having kids than before because they don't want them and our culture is now anti-children. If you look at countries where feminism is weaker, that are less open to LGBT, where polygamy is legal, where the age of marriage/consent is less, etc. they tend to have a lot more children per a person. And of course we're importing people from these nations.


We have one short-term solution which is to import people. And one long-term solution which which is to have a cultural revolution and change our culture to one that is more supportive of having children.

Last edited by misher; Oct 1, 2018 at 9:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #483  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 7:02 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 9,899
Going back to the World Cup discussion - if Calgary's Olympic bid is anything to go by, Horgan just dodged us a bullet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #484  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2018, 4:48 AM
bluefox's Avatar
bluefox bluefox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Going back to the World Cup discussion - if Calgary's Olympic bid is anything to go by, Horgan just dodged us a bullet.
Agreed -- the costing on this bid makes zero sense, honestly.

Over $5 billion to run after revising how each level of government was going to split the spending pie, with almost identical direct taxpayer contribution to Vancouver 2010. That is versus somewhere north of $4 billion in estimated (largely unmeasurable and intangible) economic benefits, and they have almost the same level/sophistication of existing venues and infrastructure as the LA summer bid had.

So why is it costing them almost as much as Vancouver did in total costs when we basically had to start from scratch? And the CoV ended up eating almost a billion-dollar loss from the Olympic Village project?

Sorry but something stinks here. For all the blathering about how the IOC has seen the light – the games have been too expensive, the organization is too corrupt and needs reform, blah blah blah – it sure seems like business as usual at Greasy Palms World Headquarters. Hopefully Calgarians vote no in this plebiscite and send a strong message they don't want to throw money into a black hole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #485  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 3:10 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,538
'Winning takes work': B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson addresses party in Vancouver

Quote:
B.C. Liberal party leader Andrew Wilkinson has urged party members to be bold on keeping taxes low in the province, defeat the proportional representation vote and come up with new solutions around vehicle insurance.

Wilkinson, who was elected party leader in February, made the keynote address at the B.C. Liberal party convention — his first as leader — on Saturday in Vancouver at the Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre.

The theme of the convention was "Winning takes Work."

The party, which Wilkinson says has 60,000 members, also unveiled its new brand identity, called "Opportunities for all of B.C." The slogan was based on feedback from focus groups.

...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #486  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 4:48 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluefox View Post
Agreed -- the costing on this bid makes zero sense, honestly.

Over $5 billion to run after revising how each level of government was going to split the spending pie, with almost identical direct taxpayer contribution to Vancouver 2010. That is versus somewhere north of $4 billion in estimated (largely unmeasurable and intangible) economic benefits, and they have almost the same level/sophistication of existing venues and infrastructure as the LA summer bid had.

So why is it costing them almost as much as Vancouver did in total costs when we basically had to start from scratch? And the CoV ended up eating almost a billion-dollar loss from the Olympic Village project?
Don't forget the Calgary bid also assumed using Whistler BC for several events with no costing and they didn't even ask the BC Provincial government.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #487  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 5:26 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluefox View Post
Agreed -- the costing on this bid makes zero sense, honestly.

Over $5 billion to run after revising how each level of government was going to split the spending pie, with almost identical direct taxpayer contribution to Vancouver 2010. That is versus somewhere north of $4 billion in estimated (largely unmeasurable and intangible) economic benefits, and they have almost the same level/sophistication of existing venues and infrastructure as the LA summer bid had.

So why is it costing them almost as much as Vancouver did in total costs when we basically had to start from scratch? And the CoV ended up eating almost a billion-dollar loss from the Olympic Village project?

Sorry but something stinks here. For all the blathering about how the IOC has seen the light – the games have been too expensive, the organization is too corrupt and needs reform, blah blah blah – it sure seems like business as usual at Greasy Palms World Headquarters. Hopefully Calgarians vote no in this plebiscite and send a strong message they don't want to throw money into a black hole.
In Olympic village’s defense the COV has these insane and stupid beliefs that Olympic Village could become Yaletown. This is why the government shouldn’t be involved in for profit housing projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #488  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 6:10 PM
WestCoastEcho WestCoastEcho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
In Olympic village’s defense the COV has these insane and stupid beliefs that Olympic Village could become Yaletown. This is why the government shouldn’t be involved in for profit housing projects.
And don't forget the city did some asinine things that made life difficult and dramatically increased risk for the developer, such as withholding the land title for the developer (meaning they could not secure a regular loan and had to go to a subprime lender), and making the developer pay for the costs of environmental clean up.

Obviously, when the economic crash happened, that risk blew up in the developer's face.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #489  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 6:18 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 7,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
In Olympic village’s defense the COV has these insane and stupid beliefs that Olympic Village could become Yaletown. This is why the government shouldn’t be involved in for profit housing projects.
Got a link to support that? I don't recall the City ever suggesting that comparison - although a few desperate realtors may have tried. In fact, as I recall, the entire point was to create the same density as Yaletown, but in lower buildings with less space between them. It was meant to emulate a 'European' model and was intentionally not a new Yaletown tower and podium neighbourhood. (That's obviously the tower part of Yaletown, not the actual early 1900s Yaletown with old warehouses - there the density is quite a bit less than OV or South East False Creek).

For the record, the City didn't end up eating "almost a billion-dollar loss from the Olympic Village project". They took over the entire portfolio of Millennium, the developers, including the debts on the Olympic Village, which potentially could have added up to a billion dollars. They then successfully disposed of all those assets, including the unsold properties in the Village, and ended up paying off all the debt. So they assumed a billion dollar liability, but got all the money back. The part they never collected was the promised payments on the land - so there was a 'loss' in that sense, but it could have been way worse!
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #490  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 6:24 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Got a link to support that? I don't recall the City ever suggesting that comparison - although a few desperate realtors may have tried. In fact, as I recall, the entire point was to create the same density as Yaletown, but in lower buildings with less space between them. It was meant to emulate a 'European' model and was intentionally not a new Yaletown tower and podium neighbourhood. (That's obviously the tower part of Yaletown, not the actual early 1900s Yaletown with old warehouses - there the density is quite a bit less than OV or South East False Creek).

For the record, the City didn't end up eating "almost a billion-dollar loss from the Olympic Village project". They took over the entire portfolio of Millennium, the developers, including the debts on the Olympic Village, which potentially could have added up to a billion dollars. They then successfully disposed of all those assets, including the unsold properties in the Village, and ended up paying off all the debt. So they assumed a billion dollar liability, but got all the money back. The part they never collected was the promised payments on the land - so there was a 'loss' in that sense, but it could have been way worse!
Sorry I didn’t meant they said it’ll be like Yaletown. I meant they were trying to build a young trendy neighborhood with high $/sqft costs similar to Yaletown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #491  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 7:42 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 7,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
Sorry I didn’t meant they said it’ll be like Yaletown. I meant they were trying to build a young trendy neighborhood with high $/sqft costs similar to Yaletown.
Gotcha. Well, they pretty much succeeded then - Yaletown condos attempt to sell at about $1,202 per sq ft, and False Creek condos are $1,143 - but that includes the older (and cheaper) Fairview too.

By the way, Whalley was going to be the new Yaletown. Or maybe Gastown. Or Chinatown.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #492  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 8:00 PM
bluefox's Avatar
bluefox bluefox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 393
I heard from quite a few people who attended, both Liberal faithful, and non-member observers, that it's very clear the party thinks the re-brand will solve all their problems. And yet also that there are some quiet rumblings within the party that people are already realizing electing Wilkinson as the leader was not the right choice given the optics.

Of course they can take those risks knowing that if electoral reform succeeds (I personally don't think it will) the NDP wouldn't ever be likely to win a majority on their own.

By the way, the new logo is horrendous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #493  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 8:21 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Gotcha. Well, they pretty much succeeded then - Yaletown condos attempt to sell at about $1,202 per sq ft, and False Creek condos are $1,143 - but that includes the older (and cheaper) Fairview too.

By the way, Whalley was going to be the new Yaletown. Or maybe Gastown. Or Chinatown.
I thought Brentwood was the new Yaletown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #494  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2018, 8:27 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 7,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
I thought Brentwood was the new Yaletown?
Nearly - it's the second Yaletown. Although only Concord Brentwood, not the other projects.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #495  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2018, 3:28 AM
logicbomb logicbomb is offline
Joshua B.
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,172
The NDP did a horrible job with their PR campaign- essentially ensuring the FPTP system remains. The few progressives I know have either abstained from voting or voted to keep the FPTP system citing fears of a marginalized group gaining power.

Essentially, those supporting PR are Green supporters and fringe party supporters. NDP supporters will largely abstain and the Liberal/Conservative supporters have come out en mass to vote against PR.

It is a shame though as I feel we need more diversity in the BC Legislature. There are no checks and balances to keep the NDP and Liberals in line and both of these parties will just alternate back-and-forth with no repercussions or desire to bring forth true change to the political landscape.

BC Politics is stale and we are essentially in a two-party system. What's been the most interesting development the past few years is how homeowners are being pitted against renters. This to me has favored "the right" and is only strengthening that base. The "left" are being significantly weakened by their desire to focus on identity politics and outspokenness against home ownership.

My guess is that the referendum goes 70/30 against PR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #496  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2018, 4:35 AM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb View Post
The NDP did a horrible job with their PR campaign- essentially ensuring the FPTP system remains. The few progressives I know have either abstained from voting or voted to keep the FPTP system citing fears of a marginalized group gaining power.

Essentially, those supporting PR are Green supporters and fringe party supporters. NDP supporters will largely abstain and the Liberal/Conservative supporters have come out en mass to vote against PR.

It is a shame though as I feel we need more diversity in the BC Legislature. There are no checks and balances to keep the NDP and Liberals in line and both of these parties will just alternate back-and-forth with no repercussions or desire to bring forth true change to the political landscape.

BC Politics is stale and we are essentially in a two-party system. What's been the most interesting development the past few years is how homeowners are being pitted against renters. This to me has favored "the right" and is only strengthening that base. The "left" are being significantly weakened by their desire to focus on identity politics and outspokenness against home ownership.

My guess is that the referendum goes 70/30 against PR.
The NDP kept the Greens on a leash by promising PR but they don’t actually want PR because right now the province is split between them and the Liberals. They have no incentive to switch and every incentive to keep it the way it’s been. And at the end they can blame everything on the Liberals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #497  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2018, 3:56 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb View Post
The NDP did a horrible job with their PR campaign- essentially ensuring the FPTP system remains.
Saw a very embarrassing news clip where the NDP education minister was out on the street campaigning for proportional representation. She admitted to a reporter that, even with her political science degree, she could not explain how prop rep would work.

Ouch.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #498  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2018, 4:08 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,345
Agree the PR vote will fail, and it was just a lame attempt to fulfill a campaign promise (and Green coalition promise).

We should have had STV, a better system, and a much cleaner process leading up to the vote. The then-BC Liberal government set the threshold at 60%, which is ridiculous considering what % makes a "majority" government under FPTP.

Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC-STV

It got 57.7% of people voting for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #499  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2018, 5:17 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
The NDP kept the Greens on a leash by promising PR but they don’t actually want PR because right now the province is split between them and the Liberals. They have no incentive to switch and every incentive to keep it the way it’s been. And at the end they can blame everything on the Liberals.
The NDP put PR in their election platform before there was even a whiff of having to form a government with the Greens. Saying that the Greens are driving this bus is completely inaccurate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #500  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2018, 5:45 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Agree the PR vote will fail, and it was just a lame attempt to fulfill a campaign promise (and Green coalition promise).

We should have had STV, a better system, and a much cleaner process leading up to the vote. The then-BC Liberal government set the threshold at 60%, which is ridiculous considering what % makes a "majority" government under FPTP.

Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC-STV

It got 57.7% of people voting for it.
Inertia is a powerful thing to overcome. It wouldn't have mattered if the NDP/Greens ran the best PR campaign ever. STV got voted down last time, I expect this will but I'll still send in my ballot anyway. People complain about it, but FPTP is simple and easy to understand, which is why it wins.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Politics
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:31 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.