Municipal, Snafu

AESC Economic Impact Report

Leave a comment

Not really surprising that with an election only a few months away the mayor and council felt the need for an economic impact study on the AESC.

After all, with the AESC’s appetite for consuming taxpayer dollars, its multi-million dollar subsidy to a professional hockey team, its multi-million dollars subsidy for well connected local citizens to buy themselves said professional hockey team and the consequences of council’s decisions driving property taxes, facility admission costs, field rentals and other city fees and charges into the stratosphere – mayor and council were desperate for something – anything – that would allow them to claim the AESC was in some way good for the community.

In exchange for pouring tens of thousands more taxpayer dollars into the AESC’s black hole, mayor and council got a report with numbers they could point to and claim the AESC was positive for the community.

Of course……given that the methodology used to calculate the economic impact made it impossible not to get numbers that could be claimed to be positive, while ensuring no negative impacts would be recognized……means the report is meaningless in terms of assessing the impact of the AESC on Abbotsford.

Not much of a surprise that paying big bucks for an impact report resulted in the use of methodology that served mayor and council’s need for numbers that obscure and/or ignore actual impacts.

Methodology that resulted in an increase in economic impact in this second impact report on the AESC, over the first report prepared before the AESC opened.

Despite the fact that none of the promises made by council as to the financial performance of the AESC has materialized economic impact increased. Which is what happens when you use ‘multipliers’ to calculate economic impact – the higher the expenditure you apply the multiplier to, the larger the economic impact becomes.

In other words – the bigger a disaster, the more of a money sucking black hole the AESC becomes, the higher the number for economic impact becomes.

As to the report’s claim of the creation of 305 FTE jobs, the report did include the information that FTE jobs meant full time equivalent jobs.

What the report did not include was information on how the number 305 was arrived at. From the information contained in the report the number 305 appears to have been plucked out of thin air.

Even if 305 could be supported, what full time equivalent jobs means if that a lot of different people got a few hours of work here and a few hours of work there. As anyone who is looking for work or trying to survive in Abbotsford can tell you what is needed in Abbotsford is not full time equivalent jobs but full time jobs paying wages sufficient to live on.

Another non-surprise concerning the report is that the City’s news release as well as Mayor Peary’s comments omitted to note or draw the attention of taxpayers to the $15,208,000 Abbotsford portion of total AESC expenditures.

Or that – since if you read the report on economic impact you would discover the methodology used, the lack of any support for the claimed 305 FTE jobs and the $15,208,000 Abbotsford portion of total AESC expenditures – if you wanted to read the report it was not easily available on the City’s web site but required on to request a copy of the report from city hall.

Finally concerning mayor Peary’s statement “The critics of the sports centre either don’t understand, or choose not to understand, that there are some benefits.”

The question is not whether there are some benefits to the centre, obviously the ownership group and their businesses derive substantial benefits from the centre and from the pocketbooks of Abbotsford’s beleaguered taxpayers.

The question is about a) the benefits that the taxpayers should receive for their $15,208,000 portion of total AESC expenditures and b) how anyone with common sense, an understanding of fiscal reality and who behaves in a fiscally responsible manner could or would be expected to place any value on the expensive drivel contained in this new report on the economic impact of the AESC.

Municipal, Poverty, Snafu

‘Public’ facilities not very public accessible

Leave a comment

I ran into an acquaintance I had not seen in a while who, knowing how I feel about City council’s priorities and behaviours, felt I would provide a sympathetic ear to his need to vent.

Both he and his wife work and even though they are frugal it is difficult to make ends meet these days – a struggle an ever increasing number of Canadians and Abbotsford citizens share.

The fees the City of Abbotsford charges for the use of its athletic fields has pushed the cost of playing soccer (and other sports) to the level that, while they might be able scrimp enough to pay for one child, paying for two kids is not possible. Leaving, in fairness, none of the kids playing soccer.

I pointed out that council needed as many dollars as possible to pay the multi-million dollar subsidies for council’s ego/vanity projects – the ASEC and Abbotsford’s professional hockey team – and their subsidizing the purchase of a professional hockey team for a group of well connected citizens.

His reply involved several anatomically challenging, if not out and out impossible, suggestions. When he inquired as to how one qualifies for City subsidies to purchase a professional hockey team I had to inform him that since the makeup of the ‘ownership group’ was deemed knowledge to important (to damning?) to let the taxpayers (the people footing the bills for all the multi-million dollar subsidies) know, there was no way to know the relationship between councillors and the Heat ownership.

Sadly he is not the only person I know who has children that cannot participate in sports because of the cost Abbotsford charges to use its fields. Growing numbers of young people are being denied participation in sports activities because their families cannot afford the fees.

Ironic is it not? The airwaves are full of government advertisements about the fact children need 60 minutes of physical activity a day to be healthy and the City of Abbotsford is making it impossible for growing numbers of children to participate in physical exercise.

Personally, I think that a City’s priority should be the participation of young people in sports and activities. If we are going to give multi-million dollars subsidies to sports facilities it should be facilities for the young and other citizens – not for professional athletes and certainly not to subsidize the purchase of a professional hockey team by well connected citizens.

But then I also think that the purpose of public recreation facilities is to provide an affordable place for citizens to exercise. Unlike the current council which uses public facilities as another source of funds to subsidize (to the tune of several millions of dollars per year) a facility for professional athletes to use and to provide multi-million dollars yearly subsidies for the purchase of the professional hockey team.

Council talks about the need for amenities to attract new citizens to Abbotsford and to encourage young people to remain in Abbotsford rather than moving elsewhere. Yet the fee’s council charges for the use of amenities are prohibitive.

There is no difference between having no amenities and having amenities nobody can afford to use or can afford to use only infrequently.

That is why in Abbotsford, in the good old days before this spendthrift council, a monthly or yearly membership for the use of city facilities was the lowest (or among the lowest) in the city.

These days, under this spendthrift council, the prices at city facilities are the highest (or among the highest) and fewer and fewer families and citizens can afford to use city facilities.

I have been, until now, a pass holder and regular user of city pools to swim. I have watched as those I had shared the city facilities with over the years became members of private facilities (as I would have if one of them had an appropriately sized pool) – because membership at a private facilities is many $$$$$ less.

I have lost count of how often I have been told by other citizens and families how extremely limited their ability to use ‘public’ amenities have become because of admission costs.

In other cities, the city facilities ensure the general public access to regular exercise and the private facilities are the haunts of the better off who can afford higher fees.

In Abbotsford it is the private facilities that best ensure the general public’s access to exercise, while the city facilities are the haunts of those who can afford the fees at city facilities.

But then in other cities, city facilities are to serve the needs of citizens and not the need of council to pay for its ego/vanity projects.

Caveat emptor, Federal

Terrorist – The eyes of the beholder?

Leave a comment

Prior to the atomic bomb era the deadly atomic weapon in Science Fiction was ‘nuclear dust’. Widespread death was caused by disbursing radioactive dust throughout the atmosphere bringing about death from radiation poisoning.

It wasn’t until nuclear science was driven by WWII to create the atomic bomb that the nuclear weapon of mass death and destruction became the atomic bomb  

Interestingly we’ve come somewhat full circle so that among the terrorist scenarios popular for movies (and undoubtedly among the nightmares of those charged with anti-terrorism) is terrorists using dirty bombs; bombs that are designed to vaporize radioactive material into dust form and disburse it into the air of a building, buildings or city.

As in the pre-1945 Science Fiction the radioactive particles are breathed in by the population causing radiation poisoning and death.

Depending on the concentration and radioactivity death can take hours, days, weeks, months or even years – as was the case with the soldiers used in the A bomb tests of the 40s and 50s who developed and died from cancers decades later.

Of course microscopic airborne particles do not have to be radioactive to cause illness, cancer and death.

Asbestos is banned in Canada and other developed nations because it’s microscopic fibres stay in the air/environment and cause asbestosis, cancer and death.

Indeed the deadly nature of asbestos is such that if you were to ship Quebec asbestos to the USA and disburse the micro fibres throughout buildings or cities it would be considered an act of terrorism.

Yet Mr Harper and his Conservatives are exporting asbestos abroad, killing people around the world.

Mr Harper has stated he sees nothing wrong with spreading asbestos’s deadly micro fibres and death to less developed nations around the world. Nor does it appear Mr Harper or his Conservatives will pay any penalty for this trading in death.   

Mr Harper has stated he sees nothing wrong with spreading asbestos’s deadly micro fibres and death to less developed nations around the world. Nor does it appear Mr Harper or his Conservatives will pay any penalty for this trading in death.

Yet you can be sure that if you or I were to take Quebec asbestos and disburse it’s micro fibres throughout the offices or homes of Mr Harper and his Conservatives, they would be screaming for you or I to be arrested and charged for assaulting (or attempting to kill them) with a deadly weapon – asbestos.

Reflecting the sad reality that in Canada, in the world as a whole, some are far more equal than others. Unfortunately those who are far more equal also are oft far more ethically challenged as well. With negative, even deadly, consequences for those who are not numbered among the political class, the wealthy, the connected or the privileged

Find yourself asking what’s wrong with today’s young people or complaining about the state of society these days?

What do you expect when we have made human life the cheapest commodity of the planet?

Provincial

Iniquitous

Leave a comment

One can only hope that it is pettiness and meanness of spirit that has Health Minister Mike de Jong and the government acting in such a contemptible way towards British Columbians coping with the challenges of living with life altering, life threatening health challenges.

Mr de Jong’s decision to persecute those ailing from the most debilitating illnesses is unconscionable.

The sickest of the sick? Yes, the sickest of the sick. Consider: we are talking Air Miles which means that, in order to get enough points for a $20 gas card or earn free food, you have to be purchasing thousands of dollars of medication each month. The need for thousands of dollars of medication per month indicates the illness that person is dealing with is, debilitating, life altering and life threatening in major ways.

If you know someone living with Crohn’s Disease and /or Ulcerative Colitis you know the intrusive and wide ranging effect it has on someone’s life. You also know how the support given to people suffering from such chronic conditions is unrealistic and inadequate to what is needed to survive with any quality of life.

Thus the additional resources that the Air Miles rewards program bestows is not some fancy perk but necessary for survival. A way for the victim of the illness to cover a small portion of the gap between what they need for survival and the inadequate ‘support’ from government. A ‘support’ that, as a fixed income, grows more inadequate every month as the costs of living rise and their income remains fixed.

A way that costs the government nothing.

Which is why I said one hopes it is pettiness and a spiritual meanness that has Health Minister de Jong and the government persecuting the most health challenged British Columbians.

Because if, as the evidence frighteningly suggests, Mr de Jong, the government and the NDP cannot see the fallacy, the incorrectness, in the assertion that this is somehow costing taxpayers money…….We are financially doomed.

Although it does explain the financial, budget and service delivery (i.e. healthcare) mess we are in and why, finding ourselves in a deep financial/budget/service delivery hole, we keep digging ourselves deeper – rather than acting to get out of the hole.

Mr de Jong stated that although he did not know how, and thus could not tell voters how, taxpayers must be paying for this somehow because there is no free lunch.

Why is it that Mr de Jong and the government don’t apply this ‘there is no free lunch’ idea where it should be applied (their salaries, perks and pension plan for example) but apply it when it will hurt British Columbia’s most vulnerable – and where it has no application.

That is correct, these ‘survival bonuses’ that were being earned from Air Miles were NOT costing the taxpayers of BC anything.

Should Mr. de Jong have been correct and taxpayers were paying for these programs what should have happened when the government stopped Pharmacare’s participation? The promotions should have ended. They didn’t. Leading to the (rather obvious) conclusion that this promotion was not aimed at or based on Pharmacare’s participation.

Hardly surprising since Pharmacare’s payment policies to pharmacies are based on minimizing the costs – and seemingly maximizing the hassles. I rather suspect there are numerous pharmacies that would just as soon not deal with Pharmacare period – if that was permitted.

So why Air Miles? Keep in mind that it is not just the Pharmacy at Safeway that offers Air Miles; Air Miles apply on all purchases made at Safeway.

Air Miles is a loyalty program whose purpose is just that – loyalty – attracting customers and keeping those customers coming back to make future purchases.

Air Miles are a promotion, an enticement to shop and be a loyal customer of Safeway. The cost of the Air Miles promotion is, like advertising, part of the cost of doing business for Safeway.

The promotion is not about Pharmacare and will continue without the participation of the poor who are dependent on Pharmacare for the medication they need to remain among the living. Because of the nature of the Air Miles program, the rewards earned by those on Pharmacare are effectively earned at NO COST to the government.

The only results from Health Minister de Jong’s new policy is to reduce the resources available, to threaten even further the health and survival of the desperately ill.

Why Mr de Jong and the government are punishing people for being financially responsible and creative in maximizing the resources they have every month – at no cost to the taxpayer – is a mystery.

No matter, it is time stop being petty and mean, apologize to these British Columbians the government is suppose to be helping and right the wrong done in introducing this punitive new policy by ending it.

Caveat emptor, Federal, Finances, Provincial

Choice isn’t about HST or PST

Leave a comment

The author of a recent column on the HST stated “I’m sick of the lies…”, a sentiment I am sure many voters in BC and across Canada would echo. Although I am not sure why.

After all, for decades voters have been rewarding the politicians who have lied to them and told voters what they wanted to hear by electing them and punishing those who wanted to focus on important issues, who told the truth or told voters what they did not want to hear.

To put it in terms of animal husbandry – we have been selecting for and breeding politicians who lie.

So why is anyone surprised that politicians lie?

When you consider the list of issues and challenges voters don’t want or refuse to hear about, or think about and the list of issues and challenges voters ‘know all about’ – even though the evidence shows what they know is erroneous; the choices or priorities voters do not want to have to choose among or set; the things voters just plain don’t want to hear……..it is tough to talk about anything without either lying or eliciting the same response from voters that you get taking a stick to a hive of Africanized bees.

Voters want governments to provide all the services voters feel they are entitled to and/or want, they want them provided NOW – and they don’t want these services to cost them one penny more than they are paying now.

The provincial Liberal government should have said NO to funding anything but provincial infrastructure (i.e. the sea to sky highway upgrades) for the 2010 Winter Olympics. But then Vancouver would have not hosted the Olympics and then everyone (including the voters) would be blaming the Liberals and saying they should have funded the Olympics. And you can bet that if the Liberals had said NO, the NDP would have flipped and been demanding the Liberals fund the Olympics and raising the Liberals ‘losing’ the Olympics as an election issue.

And when the BC Liberals were unable to say no to the federal government’s HST compensation offer because they needed the $1.6 billion so badly to cover Olympic expenses and Olympic cost over runs. No one who supported the 2010 Winter Olympics should be complaining about the HST because the HST is part of the price of hosting the Winter Olympics.

And to layer financial irresponsibility on top of financial irresponsibility they was all the money wasted on throwing a one year anniversary celebration of the Olympics. Where were the taxpayers then? Oh ya, they were out partying.

About politicians the author also said “…. start performing on our behalf instead of using all their brain power on ways to get all our money.”

Politicians are not using all their brain power to get all our money. They are using all their brain power to keep getting re-elected and to form the government. In order to do this they must try to satisfy voters who want more, more, more. Voters who, if they do not get their way, throw a temper tantrum that would put any two year old to shame (as Mr Vander Zalm and the anti-HST forces are doing) and throw out the politicians who dared to suggest that there is such a thing as enough and replace them with politicians who promise voters whatever voters want and tell voters whatever it is they want to hear. You know, the politicians who lie to them.

So it is not that politicians are focused on getting as much money from voters pocketbooks as possible for the sake of getting the money. Rather politicians are focused on giving voters what they want , when they want it – as best they can – in order to get re-elected and remain the government.

It is simply that this course of action requires governments to maximize the amount of milk (cash) the government can get out of people to add to the funds they can borrow so they can give people what they want and are demanding and get re-elected.