ah yes nothing more predictable than a conservative politician promising to "trim the fat"

lmao we're just making taxis again

For all the flack the Liberals got for this, is this a political win? $100 million in yearly payments seems pretty good

oops. I can't seem to change it. I'll delete/repost.

We need to rein in our budget, but discussing the largest item on our budget is OFF LIMITS FOR UH REASONS.

I’m not speaking to road capacity, I’m speaking to public controversy. A bike lane in a city park should be even less controversial and politicized than other roads.

Nobody should be shocked to learn since the removal of the bike lane, the park has seen no extra parking revenue, fewer people cycling, and a 40% increase in drivers exceeding 50 km/h in the 30 km/h zone. Not only have they made the park less accessible, but also more dangerous. Let's all remember this isn't a bike lane on a four lane arterial, it's a city park !!

Just unbelievably incompetent work from ABC.

This organization desperately needs an overhaul. for such critical infrastructure we've seen barely any capacity improvements in decades and it's become totally unreliable, even for popular routes like Van-Vic.

​​​​​​​​The Order of British Columbia was established on April 21, 1989, to honour people “who have served with the greatest distinction and excelled in any field of endeavour benefiting the people of the province of B.C.”

Source

wow thank godness for their restraint, god forbid we have too much housing in this city and it becomes too cheap to live here. BULLET DODGED!

their answers mostly hovered around it being “divisive.” if you’re wondering what the fuck that means in the context of more housing for people, I’m right there with you.

they also said the provincial regulations will take care of this. That’s literally not true because of Shaugnessy’s exclusive zoning status.

in short, they don’t have a coherent argument against Boyle’s motion outside of pettiness.

lol I'd encourage you to read the article before commenting. The authors are arguing for more taxation, but via land taxes instead of building.

isn't this a good outcome? You and the authors are arguing for the same thing, a land value tax. I don't understand where the disagreement is

Shouldn’t tax new builds, but tax vacant, capital gains and land banking.

Did you read the article? They're proposing a land value tax which would discourage exactly these things.

Seriously. I think this is ultimately good policy but it needs to be paired with increasing our hotel supply. My poor wedding guests got hosed last year visiting from ontario, hotels are easily $600/night in the summer now. This is going to make it much worse.

advocated for getting rid of the seawall

Lmao that is absolutely not his conclusion.

My mistake thanks for the clarification.

I'd be curious to hear why restrictive zoning limiting access to a majority of our largest cities is not considered weaponizing. Do you really think this isn't a problem anymore?