BC Election 2013

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

You put one social housing unit in an otherwise functional place and actually manage to integrate them into part of the community and they'll actually have some social support/pressure to get earning. Telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps isn't always enough. If what we're doing now isn't working (providing them practically nothing and saying 'deal with it') then we need to figure out some way to motivate them intrinsically.

Obviously this kind of pressure doesn't work. So let's find one that does.

The issue is though I am being honest here who would want to live beside them? As Gridlock have pointed out 90% of these people trash their place, not a very nice neighbour to live with (most likely thier units will smell, theyw ill make tons of noise, leave needles around......) it turns away nomral people want to buy a place or even regualr working people looking for a place to rent. Just saying if I am buying an aparment or a house I am sure hell will not want my neighbour or even have them in my apartment. I do not want the common areas to be trash, I don't want my apartment to smell like shit and needles around. Not to mention it might actually drop the value of my apartment/house. Is the reality.

[dinosaur]

Don't forget...regarding social assistance...people who are on it CAN earn up to $800\month (iirc) to supplement their income. The sad thing is, most don't do this.

I have met some great people on SA. I have hired one. She is on disability and cleans apts\buildings\houses to make the extra $800. Not all are crackheads.

[godwin]

I think it is a catch 22.. monitoring and enforcing welfare fraud is a game of diminishing returns.

With the DTES gentrification issue.. I find it easier to gain a better perspective by volunteering at soup kitchens.. not at the back end doing things like making meals and serving, but actually sitting down at the table interacting with the people.. (there are soup kitchens all over downtown and East Van every day of the week, serving a lot of the same people, basically there is no excuse to say there is no time if you are really curious).

A lot of the people in need lack basic life skills like meal planning / plan ahead of issues, or be BFF with Mr Clean etc. There is just no easy way to fix that... short of institutionalize people again.. the most places can do is to have cleaners as part of the rent.. Some of the people on the margins spend really insane amount of money on fast food, just because they don't have to skill to cook or plan meals.

To the gov sweeping things underneath the rug is easiest and most cost effective unfortunately. Especially most of the workers are in unions.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Which is why I wish that the government would spend more on monitoring and enforcement. Enforcement of tax and money spent are some of the best ways that the government can spend money. As a huge supporter of a proper social support network, there is very little that pisses me off more than milkers and leeches.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by godwin

I think it is a catch 22.. monitoring and enforcing welfare fraud is a game of diminishing returns.

Agreed. The number crunchers and efficiency experts aren't idiots.

Originally Posted by godwin

To the gov sweeping things underneath the rug is easiest and most cost effective unfortunately. Especially most of the workers are in unions.

Outlining a vision and a broad strategy have little to do with the fact that much of the public sector is unionized. The bureaucrats are ultimately at the mercy of their political masters and not only that, most of the senior decision-makers are not unionized and/or view their unions as little more than negotiating agents when it's time for a new agreement. Part of the problem is that our politicians lack the courage to actually try to sell a long-term vision for solving the problem in the DTES, but another part of the problem is with us.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

The issue is though I am being honest here who would want to live beside them? As Gridlock have pointed out 90% of these people trash their place, not a very nice neighbour to live with (most likely thier units will smell, theyw ill make tons of noise, leave needles around......) it turns away nomral people want to buy a place or even regualr working people looking for a place to rent. Just saying if I am buying an aparment or a house I am sure hell will not want my neighbour or even have them in my apartment. I do not want the common areas to be trash, I don't want my apartment to smell like shit and needles around. Not to mention it might actually drop the value of my apartment/house. Is the reality.

Have you ever lived in a strata building? There are newer buildings in my neighbourhood with a few social housing suites and they're hardly cesspools of destitution. Bad apples exist in all groups of society. I think drug dealers and pimps are larger hassles than a few single parents or recovering addicts.

This type of thinking is the problem. We're all out for ourselves and our bloody property values. (I speak as a condo owner of more than 6 years.)

[godwin]

No the top level people don't but the people actually do the work are unionized.

The problem is fixing problem like this requires a lot of trial and error and quite a bit of agility. Being unionized doesn't help (case in point the nurse practitioners fiasco), not to mention it is going to cost a lot more.

The fact is DTES services is actually quite efficient financially because everything is so concentrated there.. eg the mental health team is the largest in Canada, and they are very multidisciplinary (psychs, social work, nurse and police work as a team etc) and response rate is actually very good for acute cases(. The team react to changes what they see on the ground, with synthetic drugs they don't commit them because by the time the patient has sit through waiting @ the ER, it is way past its half life. Moving people to outside Vancouver eg Surrey etc I would argue will make things worse for the patients, because the systems there will not be handle those situations.

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Outlining a vision and a broad strategy have little to do with the fact that much of the public sector is unionized. The bureaucrats are ultimately at the mercy of their political masters and not only that, most of the senior decision-makers are not unionized and/or view their unions as little more than negotiating agents when it's time for a new agreement. Part of the problem is that our politicians lack the courage to actually try to sell a long-term vision for solving the problem in the DTES, but another part of the problem is with us.

[BurnoutBinLaden]

Increased funding for health care under an NDP government: $105m in senior/residential care, $35m for youth and mental health

Liberal and NDP leaders focus on health-care commitments - British Columbia - CBC News

[Graeme S]

One of the biggest issues with me in the health care debate (and actually with a lot of public sector workers) is the fact that they say there is often no money for new hires; "We can't afford to bring in any more [doctors/nurses/cops/what-have-you]."

But then you wait until the end of the fiscal year and you look at the ridiculous amount of money that was both budgeted for and the money that was actually spent on overtime.

I'm sorry. If you are planning to have your staff working beyond what is normally expected of them (that's overtime, right?) and that makes up a significant chunk of your overall budget...then why not divert those resources to new hires? If you spend $5m on overtime, that means you're paying time-and-a-half and double-time to these people for doing what another nurse could do for straight time.



One thing occurred to me, though: I wonder if the NDP is possibly planning on recommending a return to the HST (possibly at 10%?) after the election. I mean, they'd get a cash payment from the feds which would definitely help alleviate the deficit. My guess is they'd be a bit smarter about it.

...Though they're politicians. So maybe not.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by godwin

No the top level people don't but the people actually do the work are unionized.

The problem is fixing problem like this requires a lot of trial and error and quite a bit of agility. Being unionized doesn't help (case in point the nurse practitioners fiasco), not to mention it is going to cost a lot more.

The fact is DTES services is actually quite efficient financially because everything is so concentrated there.. eg the mental health team is the largest in Canada, and they are very multidisciplinary (psychs, social work, nurse and police work as a team etc) and response rate is actually very good for acute cases(.

My point wasn't about health services; my point was that we have allowed low income people, the mentally ill, and substance abusers to congregate in the DTES because they have nowhere else to go. We are very good at keeping people alive, but we are not good at getting these people to escape poverty and destitution.

Health care reform is a whole other can of worms. Again, our health care system is catered to keeping people alive, but we have under-invested in prevention and wellness. You know what's going to kill us? Substance abuse and type 2 diabetes.

[godwin]

The easiest and cheapest way to "escape poverty" is just give people in the DTES money directly through a trust fund.

However like a few Indian reservations in the States have found, having 90k payout per member a month.. won't solve the problem with suicide / substance abuse etc.

Education is the most effective method (hopefully reducing young people from else where from ending up in the DTES), but it takes so much time and investment honestly I can't see Canadian Gov or even voters making a change.

Originally Posted by Tapioca

My point wasn't about health services; my point was that we have allowed low income people, the mentally ill, and substance abusers to congregate in the DTES because they have nowhere else to go. We are very good at keeping people alive, but we are not good at getting these people to escape poverty and destitution.

Health care reform is a whole other can of worms. Again, our health care system is catered to keeping people alive, but we have under-invested in prevention and wellness. You know what's going to kill us? Substance abuse and type 2 diabetes.

[Ruzty]

Liberals.

All i have to say is that seems like our society only listens to people who contribute to the least. Control government spending which will benefit our future and kids. Our future economy is important if not we wont have a job in the future.

[Gridlock]

NDP promised another 150M over 3 years. Old people, rural residents and mental health ride today.

Governing sure is easy. Just say yes!
Posted via RS Mobile

[Tapioca]

Lots of Twitter chatter today about an NDP government being receptive to the idea of selling BC Place to a private buyer.

If it were to sell BC Place, I don't think the government would ever recover the money it cost to renovate the building. It would probably sell for $200 million max. Not only that, but a private company would likely force the government to stipulate that it could develop the land as it sees fit which may bring back the proposal for a casino or more towers to the chagrin of the residents in False Creek.

[StylinRed]

I'm not fond of the idea of selling BC Place at all

not sure if its been noted in here but Dix is also promising $24mn in funding for the local Agriculture industry cutting "mark ups" on locally produced liquor

NDP's Adrian Dix promises to put money where our mouths are with $24M boost to local agriculture industry

[BurnoutBinLaden]

Switching gears here for a moment...

Explain like I'm 5: Why does everyone hate Bill Vander Zalm?

[StylinRed]

he had his good points but he abused his power to make business deals and get his friends into nice positions

[Gridlock]

So I saw on the news that there was a survey done that agreed with the NDP that prioritizing spending on programs, and not focusing on debt reduction is more agreeable(I'm paraphrasing) to the population.

So, we're doomed. Although, also on Global, it was noted that both the liberals and NDP in their respective 10 year terms were equally bad on the provincial debt load.

I say again...time to sweep out both.

We CANNOT continue to live beyond our means...if the Americans and Europeans have taught us anything, its that.

[Graeme S]

Actually, if the Americans and Europeans have taught us anything it's to make sure not to cut back on regulation so that we can ensure market stability. Because that is, more than anything else, the key point we're trying to get to.

As much as I agree we need to be careful how we spend and to manage our debtload, both of those areas quickly and swiftly cut back on investment regulations which resulted in a collapse. Regulations were introduced to cut back on the boom/bust eras of bygone days and to get rid of the great depression.

The Great Depression happens, and they regulate the fuck out of the stock market.

The Great Recession happens and they say "IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE REGULATORS!".

Sigh. Failing to learn from even our own lessons.

[gars]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Actually, if the Americans and Europeans have taught us anything it's to make sure not to cut back on regulation so that we can ensure market stability. Because that is, more than anything else, the key point we're trying to get to.

What regulations are you talking about though? Banking? AFAIK, that's done by the Fed Gov't.

[Graeme S]

I'm aware, and that's kind of what I mean. We can't really "learn from the lessons of Europe and America" in terms of economic policies at a provincial level.

[4444]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

I'm not fond of the idea of selling BC Place at all

not sure if its been noted in here but Dix is also promising $24mn in funding for the local Agriculture industry cutting "mark ups" on locally produced liquor

NDP's Adrian Dix promises to put money where our mouths are with $24M boost to local agriculture industry

Why do we need a government funded stadium? I just don't think it should be in their mandate. Yes they'll never recover the roof cost, but then again bc ferries will never get back the fast ferries money - both sunk costs...

Doesn't bc place lose money every year? Ideally it shouldn't, but that roof has become expensive to upkeep... We should cut our losses - if developers want to develop on it, so be it, the rest of downtown is becoming all residential, it wouldn't be out of place

On day politicians will realize we need businesses downtown, not hipsters living in apartments, but I'm no politician...

[Gridlock]

Dude. Forgive me...but what the hell are you talking about?

Lessons from US and Europe. Here provincially. In a post I made about debt. Adding it together, I think its safe to say that I was talking about not racking up huge amounts of debt to pay for shit!

That most certainly is a lesson that we can learn from anyone in the world, or any point in history.

Let's actually talk debt and deficit here and how numbers add up where. I'm going to equate this to household spending.

If your government is running a deficit, its effectively buying groceries on the credit card(in this case, bonds). You eat them, and they are gone. Annually, that deficit gets added to the debt load, but you can still operate in a balanced, or surplus position and add to the debt, through one time purchases, mostly for capital improvements. So, its like taking on a car loan.

So, I'm not always against taking on debt in times of low interest rates because you can buy things that hopefully in turn produce income(roads, ports, bridges), and even occasionally a little nice thing for the people...the big screen tv(BC Place Roof). You finance that off through bond repayment.

But I am ALWAYS against deficit spending, except in times of severe recession. So I understand that both provincially and federally, we can't keep the programs in place, stay in the black budget wise and do it all on diminished tax income. Get it. In good times, in theory those surpluses can go towards debt repayment.****But my problem is, people are now saying that we don't care about any of that. Gimme gimme gimme...and if you tell me a nice story about how we're going to tax all those nasty rich people to pay for it, we're good! That's like getting a card in the mail that the credit card has a low introductory rate. In our case..it does. It's going to go up. We know that.

I personally would like to stop that process now. I don't want to get to the point where we switch to borrowing to pay for what we borrowed(pay day loans) and get fucked. THAT will hold the province back.

So I'm asking that we stop lying to people and telling them its all ok. It's not. Putting groceries on the credit card is a sign your life is too expensive. Putting social programs on the provincial debt is a sign that you are equally in trouble.

So I ask everyone, using the household terms above, if a friend said any of the above, what would you say? Because I know what I would say, "Yay, its great that you lost your job, and putting groceries on the credit card and your back up plan is to resort to payday loans. Maybe you should be out looking for a new job though. "

****Canada under the fed liberals did a magnificent job of this. Once again, you can sit and always say that they could put more into social programs or whatever, but they ran a surplus budget, and applied a portion back to the federal debt, which was one of the few countries that actually had a decreasing debt. This means when you hit a big ass recession, you can add a bit back to the debt and not be fucking yourself, because you had paid down that debt for the 10 good years previous.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by 4444

Why do we need a government funded stadium? I just don't think it should be in their mandate. Yes they'll never recover the roof cost, but then again bc ferries will never get back the fast ferries money - both sunk costs...

Doesn't bc place lose money every year? Ideally it shouldn't, but that roof has become expensive to upkeep... We should cut our losses - if developers want to develop on it, so be it, the rest of downtown is becoming all residential, it wouldn't be out of place

On day politicians will realize we need businesses downtown, not hipsters living in apartments, but I'm no politician...

Holy shit..can you stand up on something tall and yell that for everyone to hear?

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by 4444

Why do we need a government funded stadium? I just don't think it should be in their mandate. Yes they'll never recover the roof cost, but then again bc ferries will never get back the fast ferries money - both sunk costs...

Doesn't bc place lose money every year? Ideally it shouldn't, but that roof has become expensive to upkeep... We should cut our losses - if developers want to develop on it, so be it, the rest of downtown is becoming all residential, it wouldn't be out of place

On day politicians will realize we need businesses downtown, not hipsters living in apartments, but I'm no politician...

I believe the stadium represents more than just a 'regular old stadium', I believe it represents BC it's apart of our image like Big Ben is for the UK or the Pyramids for Egypt, granted it's not as famous as those or as rich in history but just the same I believe it is as important to BC as the aforementioned to their respective cities/nations. I do not believe that something representing the province and its people should be owned and operated by the Aquilinis et al.
However I can understand how that view isn't or wouldn't be shared.

[godwin]

Hold your horses.. he said he will "look" into it.. I am sure CUPE members won't like it a bit. I am not a fan of BC Place, but mostly because it is so inefficiently run (unions).

Honestly debt is one of the tools, like guns, it really depends on how it is used and context. The key is you have to time debt correctly (look at China).. You can never expect a well running gov with healthcare (Canadian style anyways) to be without debt. Ideally you increase debt when time gets really bad (case in point.. Europe is doing their austerity (try to cut debt) at exactly the wrong time.. based on bad calculations of Reinhart and Rogoff.

Much like idle no more / first nations, DTES problem.. the basic problem is fixing all the fundamental issues we see every day eg substance abuse, first nations etc.. take much longer than 1 more 2 terms, it will take 1 or 2 generations at least.. way too long for the ADHD age or ADHD politicians.

Originally Posted by 4444

Why do we need a government funded stadium? I just don't think it should be in their mandate. Yes they'll never recover the roof cost, but then again bc ferries will never get back the fast ferries money - both sunk costs...

Doesn't bc place lose money every year? Ideally it shouldn't, but that roof has become expensive to upkeep... We should cut our losses - if developers want to develop on it, so be it, the rest of downtown is becoming all residential, it wouldn't be out of place

On day politicians will realize we need businesses downtown, not hipsters living in apartments, but I'm no politician...