BC Budget

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by gars

I'm not sure I 100% agreed with the taxpayer supported upgrade with BC place - but I don't think we should cut capital expenses. Half the schools in Vancouver are old and falling apart as it is... they're death traps that need to be torn down and rebuilt.

Same with Hospitals? I think it's sad when all the hospitals need charity to fund upgrades because we can't get enough funding for it.

Oh, I get all of it. I can think that there are 100's of hard luck cases that the gov't could swoop in and solve up pretty nicely with a check.

We can throw money at a great number of problems. The issue is, we are. You have Translink building a new skytrain at the same time they are complaining of budget shortfalls. Is it a nice to have? Sure. Do we absolutely need it? Can make a case either way(I know that one is being discussed in another thread, I just mention it as an example)

BC Place...nice to have. Will it ever pay for itself? Not a chance. I really disagree with tax payers outright paying for a stadium. Want to cut taxes on the land, and cut tax rates for its operation? Go nuts. Just don't hand over a check for a sports venue.

Yeah, I'd be pretty choked if my kid is going to school in a substandard building for 8 hours a day while watching "us" build a new(ish) stadium for soccer(among other things) in vancouver that doesn't stand a chance of taking off.

Got to start saying no. Even just to hold the amount of money we currently spend and not increase it.

[conflagrare]

Originally Posted by gars

I'm not sure I 100% agreed with the taxpayer supported upgrade with BC place - but I don't think we should cut capital expenses. Half the schools in Vancouver are old and falling apart as it is... they're death traps that need to be torn down and rebuilt.

Same with Hospitals? I think it's sad when all the hospitals need charity to fund upgrades because we can't get enough funding for it.

I don't agree with the upgrade of BC place either, but wasn't this decided a long time ago BEFORE the recession?

[conflagrare]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Oh, I get all of it. I can think that there are 100's of hard luck cases that the gov't could swoop in and solve up pretty nicely with a check.

We can throw money at a great number of problems. The issue is, we are. You have Translink building a new skytrain at the same time they are complaining of budget shortfalls. Is it a nice to have? Sure. Do we absolutely need it? Can make a case either way(I know that one is being discussed in another thread, I just mention it as an example)

BC Place...nice to have. Will it ever pay for itself? Not a chance. I really disagree with tax payers outright paying for a stadium. Want to cut taxes on the land, and cut tax rates for its operation? Go nuts. Just don't hand over a check for a sports venue.

Yeah, I'd be pretty choked if my kid is going to school in a substandard building for 8 hours a day while watching "us" build a new(ish) stadium for soccer(among other things) in vancouver that doesn't stand a chance of taking off.

Got to start saying no. Even just to hold the amount of money we currently spend and not increase it.

You guys gotta put time into perspective. BC Place and the skytrain were decided before. We would've had a balanced budget at that point.

The last thing that tipped us over was HST, and we have been frugal ever since then.

HST cost us $1.6 billion per transition = $3.2 billion.
We're in a $2.5 billion deficit, and then 900 million next year. If we had an extra 3.2 billion, we'd be doing OK.

(I'm just estimating here without going through that detail budget link posted, but you get the idea)

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by conflagrare

You guys gotta put time into perspective. BC Place and the skytrain were decided before. We would've had a balanced budget at that point.

The last thing that tipped us over was HST, and we have been frugal ever since then.

HST cost us $1.6 billion per transition = $3.2 billion.
We're in a $2.5 billion deficit, and then 900 million next year. If we had an extra 3.2 billion, we'd be doing OK.

(I'm just estimating here without going through that detail budget link posted, but you get the idea)

Yes, it was decided before, but its a wonderful example of capital expenditures not being quite on target with the needs of the people. Besides, the evergreen line was wanted for years, but decided on recently.

The evergreen line was wanted by the tri-cities area for years for one reason: increased property value. Has nothing to do with alleviating congestion, that is just a side bonus.

Are we going to be stupid again, and not let the existing companies factor in savings from pre-existing expenditures in their bid packages for the new line? Ie. the company that said our bid is cheaper because we already have the repair and maintenance facilities and everything in place to maintain the current network.

Building a roof on BC Place shows just bad judgement whether the economy tanked or not. Not a priority.

I want a more republican approach where focusing on low taxes and regulatory freedom is the way forward for the province. To get there, I need less entitlement programs and gov't owned/operated facilities that we are making an investment in.

[GodZilla]

Well with all the latest news on the LDB and the GM leaving for another government job makes things more interesting. Looks like the rush to put this through really has more to do with keeping promises to those who provided funds to get you into office. Bob Mackin is just printing up the major truth on this deal. Now even Micheal Levy is saying he changes his mind and we should not sell off the warehouse. This is another move that is not thought out by government and the people of bc will pay for it.

[Vansterdam]

Our liquor prices WILL increase if we dont stop this

[Gridlock]

I'm really thinking that they have lost that last piece of sanity.

I am all for doing something if it makes sense for the government to not be in that business.

In this case, it smells just as bad as BC Rail.

They totally need to spend some time in opposition, and we really need some new politicians in BC.

[GodZilla]

The Libs know that, thats why they are rushing this through. The company Exel has tried for over 10 years to get distribution of liquor in bc and they finally found someone they could buy. Now Christy is rushing this so fast. Even the industry is asking for info and the gov is saying we are on a tight time line. Huh? Why so fast? Oh yah election is early next year.

All the opposition is saying is take the time to think this through and the libs are ignoring that.

[GodZilla]

Nice to see this story finally getting some air time.
This gets worse and worse for the Liberal Party.
Is there is a better way to distribute then show us the plan what is the big secret.

[MR_BIGGS]

No politician should ever have the ability to sell off public assets without a referendum of some sort.

[Snugglez]

Originally Posted by GodZilla

You think booze is to much now? Wait until this private deal goes through it will cost way more money. If you think it wont you are sadly mistaken.

Wouldn't privatization increase competition? That would reduce the prices.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by Snugglez

Wouldn't privatization increase competition? That would reduce the prices.

In theory, yes.

Unfortunately, if only one company takes over, the only thing accomplished is a government monopoly on distribution is replaced with a private one.

I find it sad that out of all the (lack of) discussion, no one has made a real compelling argument for this sale.

[Pooface55]

Anybody see the stupid side road/bike lane they installed on argyle st? Its a bike lane thats 2 blocks long

What a waste of money.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Pooface55

Anybody see the stupid side road/bike lane they installed on argyle st? Its a bike lane thats 2 blocks long

What a waste of money.

What does this have to do with provincial politicians?

What you do is tweet Mayor Gregor or Geoff Meggs as these are the guys who are responsible for the bike lanes as opposed to Christi Clark.

This is why in the olden days only land owners were deemed worthy enough to vote in elections.

[goo3]

Originally Posted by MR_BIGGS

No politician should ever have the ability to sell off public assets without a referendum of some sort.

I don't know if this would be much better. People put more thought into buying a pair of shoes...

[Gerbs]

Sorry for the stupid question: So would it better to buy a car before the HST goes down or after or its the same thing?

[MR_BIGGS]

^ Troll

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Gerbs

Sorry for the stupid question: So would it better to buy a car before the HST goes down or after or its the same thing?

no difference if buying from dealership. If buying private cheaper to wait til HST is gone

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by goo3

I don't know if this would be much better. People put more thought into buying a pair of shoes...

Agreed.

While referendums are a good idea in theory, they make governing a chore. And popular opinion can be bought just as easily as the vote of a politician.

Remember when we had a referendum on the HST?

[Snugglez]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

In theory, yes.

Unfortunately, if only one company takes over, the only thing accomplished is a government monopoly on distribution is replaced with a private one.

I find it sad that out of all the (lack of) discussion, no one has made a real compelling argument for this sale.

There are already liquor stores within the lower mainland, that is not B.C. Liquor. I mean with the relaxation of government regulation, maybe it can work.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Snugglez

There are already liquor stores within the lower mainland, that is not B.C. Liquor. I mean with the relaxation of government regulation, maybe it can work.

The government still acts as the distributor.

What is being proposed is that there will be a tender for the distribution which means there will be only one winning bid. This will result in a monopoly on the distribution side which means a private system will be no better than what we have now. But hey, a company can pay warehouse workers $10.50 an hour instead of paying union wages and supposedly, those savings will get passed down to the retailers, bars, and restaurants which will mean cost savings for us, right?

[GodZilla]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

The government still acts as the distributor.

What is being proposed is that there will be a tender for the distribution which means there will be only one winning bid. This will result in a monopoly on the distribution side which means a private system will be no better than what we have now. But hey, a company can pay warehouse workers $10.50 an hour instead of paying union wages and supposedly, those savings will get passed down to the retailers, bars, and restaurants which will mean cost savings for us, right?

Wrong

The company trying to strong arm and win is Exel or Connect Logistics as they are know in Alberta but they are the same company. They have to take the current employees for two years at an average salary of of $19 per hour.

$10.50? way off.

Check the Alberta models website here is a quote from them.

" New team members start at $18.10/hr with the potential to earn an additional $4.25/hr or more in productivity incentives, shift premium and team based gainshare.You could soon be earning $22.35/hr! "

NEW team members start at $18.10 hour that is higher then BCLDB which starts at seasonal workers 13.50 and auxiliary workers for 14.50.

So I ask you the savings get passed down? What savings? There are none all the new company will do is charge for everything they do to the private stores. Placing orders dock fee's late order fee's higher delivery fee's. All that added up will mean the privates restaurants bars pubs will have to raise the prices to maintain there current profit margin.

But hey the government say it wont raise the price of booze.
Of course they wont the new private distributor will charge higher fees and the bars and pubs will raise the price and you will be choked at them.

So $18.50 (Exel) compared to (LDB) $13.50 / $14.50 you tell me which one is cheaper.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by GodZilla

Wrong

The company trying to strong arm and win is Exel or Connect Logistics as they are know in Alberta but they are the same company. They have to take the current employees for two years at an average salary of of $19 per hour.

$10.50? way off.

Check the Alberta models website here is a quote from them.

" New team members start at $18.10/hr with the potential to earn an additional $4.25/hr or more in productivity incentives, shift premium and team based gainshare.You could soon be earning $22.35/hr! "

NEW team members start at $18.10 hour that is higher then BCLDB which starts at seasonal workers 13.50 and auxiliary workers for 14.50.

So I ask you the savings get passed down? What savings? There are none all the new company will do is charge for everything they do to the private stores. Placing orders dock fee's late order fee's higher delivery fee's. All that added up will mean the privates restaurants bars pubs will have to raise the prices to maintain there current profit margin.

But hey the government say it wont raise the price of booze.
Of course they wont the new private distributor will charge higher fees and the bars and pubs will raise the price and you will be choked at them.

So $18.50 (Exel) compared to (LDB) $13.50 / $14.50 you tell me which one is cheaper.

I'm wondering if there is less of a ongoing cost associated with the employees in terms of pensions and such.

Plus I'd imagine that a lot of employees would get strong armed into leaving after the 2 years.

I don't know...I think we are all getting sold a pile of bs, both from the gov't AND the unions.

[GodZilla]

You are right after two years they can either stay and except there company's wages and benefits or they can leave.
I understand why people want it out of the governments hands. I just do not like the process.
No business plan has been produced. Why? Did the people not vote you in do we as the public have a right to know why.

This is being fast tracked and when they are asked by the NDP to slow down and review the liberals say they are on a tight time line and must be completed by March. Right before the election

Is the industry involved? No. They have not consulted with them and wont because they are on a tight time line. It effects them in a big way but the liberals wont talk with them?

This is being fast tracked because Christy Clarke made promises if she got in and now she is paying back her debts.

And to those who say i have no problem if prices go up need to give there head a shake.

Those already expensive drinks will just get higher because people did not want the government in the distribution of booze.

[GodZilla]

Well looks like the BS sale is over. Booze prices will not increase and the Liberals can start packing up to be voted out.