Originally Posted by 4444 (Post 8221095)

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...

Originally Posted by StylinRed (Post 8221120)

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.

Originally Posted by Tapioca (Post 8221126)

Very few stadiums are completely funded by private money; only the most elite sports teams in the world are able to fund stadiums. I'm not saying that sports teams should be subsidized by the taxpayer, but the reality is that they are and it's politically expedient to do so - after all, commoners want their share of bread and circuses.

I think everyone recognizes that we need businesses downtown; in fact there are a number of new office buildings that will be completed over the next 5 years. However, businesses don't come here unless you create the climate. What do you suggest? Lower taxes? (they are already quite low) Subsidies and grants? (politically problematic) Intervention in the housing market so that talent will move here? (Again, politically problematic)

To be fair, I don't know what the answers are either. I think at the end of the day, the government should focus its energies on making sure that smart people don't leave and that we can attract people who actually want to live here and contribute to the economy. How does this translate into tangible policies? That's the million dollar question.

Originally Posted by 4444 (Post 8221194)

i'm not going to talk about what I think we should do to improve the business culture downtown, as it is extremely harsh, and would not be popular with the masses... but would need to be done to right the wrongs of decades of poor planning and foresight by local government

Originally Posted by Tapioca (Post 8221324)

Why not? The majority of people on RS don't even vote anyway, so what does it matter what the peanut gallery thinks?

Originally Posted by 4444 (Post 8221192)

i just can't see it - big ben has hundreds of years of history to it, pyramids are one of the wonders of the world. BC place is a crap concrete monstrosity (it's not even a nice stadium, let alone world class).

i think to suggest that represents BC is disrespectful to all the other things BC has to offer. Innately, BC is all about it's natural beauty, the local mountains, our coastlines, etc. it's not known for anything man made, Canada is too young for anything like that.

I think suggesting BC place is something that BC residents should be proud of or represented by is mind boggling.

Originally Posted by BurnoutBinLaden (Post 8221364)

Cars are an expensive hobby, so it would make sense to me that tech savvy auto enthusiasts would be better off than most-or just plain wealthy. And those who are well off are often fiscally conservative, especially when they grow older and have cut their teeth in the real world for a while.

Originally Posted by dinosaur (Post 8221371)

I think this is age relevant. I am not sure you would find (in the RS community) a lot of people who own expensive, invested-in, overly modded cars....that also have a mortgage, kids, family, etc....

Although there are always exceptions, most who I have met (RS members) that are more in my age bracket, are not those who invest heavily in their vehicles.

Priorities shift when you age :(

Originally Posted by 7seven (Post 8221687)

I lean extremely far to the right, personally, I am a strong believer reducing and/or cutting public spending, social welfare, entitlements, etc.. Reducing the cost of business and taxation on corporations and small businesses, not raising taxes on job creators/high income earners. So I guess I'll be voting for the BC Liberals even though I'm not a fan of Christy Clark. I would vote for the BC Conservatives, but don't think they would have a snowballs chance in hell at making sure the NDP don't win, it will come down to the BC Liberals and NDP again, so I'll have to throw my vote behind the BC Liberals.

Originally Posted by CRS (Post 8221713)

I think you're blurring the lines between provincial and federal elections.

The BC libs for provincial elections are the closest thing to the conservatives whereas for federal elections, the libs are a mid point (closer to left than right) between the NDP and the Conservatives.

Originally Posted by 7seven (Post 8221719)

I know that, thats why I said I would vote for the BC Conservatives but they have no chance, so my vote will have to go the the BC Liberals as they are the only shot in preventing the BC NDP from winning, the most far left party.

Originally Posted by Gridlock (Post 8221104)

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.

Originally Posted by dinosaur (Post 8221733)

I am not a fan of strategic voting. I always say, vote for the party you actually believe in. By voting strategically, it encourages a two-parties system.

Yes, this election has been won my the NDP so there is little point is really getting into the nitty-gritty shit but I do think it is worth it, for future elections, for people to vote for who they believe in.

No, the BC Conservatives have no chance in winning this election...but neither do the Liberals. Having higher numbers voting for the BCC will encourage those who strategically voted this time to actually vote for who they want in the next.

Hell, look at the Federal NDP over the last 10 years...there has been a huge upswing with them and i think it is because people think it is OK to vote for them now that others are.

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp (Post 8221727)

I like to know what happens when BC can't afford to pay the min payment due for thier loans? And what happens if BC goes bankrupt?

Originally Posted by Lomac (Post 8221897)

Wait... so the NDP was slamming the Liberals for contemplating selling government assets in order to help the deficit, but then turn around and state that they're thinking of dumping BC Place and the Convention Centre?

Originally Posted by Gridlock (Post 8222644)

B.C. Green Party pitches 'guaranteed livable income' - British Columbia - CBC News

Greens contribute to their spending plans.



You can do a lot of things in a controlled setting, that you can't in a real world, province wide situation.

If you could stop all immigration, from within Canada and outside...then you can say, "we have 50,000 people to feed." If you could have revenues that never fluctuated, then you can say, "we will feed 50,000 people with 50 million a year" Unfortunately, we have neither.

Anyone that wants to add an expense...any expense, will find a way to make it happen. Spending the money isn't the hard part...you just say yes. But when you hit a recession, or an economic collapse, or what have you, then you are now responsible for excess spending-and your budget problems compound.