Toronto named best place to live.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

But is every other large city a shithole too? 

No. Prague is nice. You need a lot of money but...

Why is this a thing for you. Toronto sucks. That's just a fact. It's way to expensive and none of the city services work well. Hell even the subway had issues this morning. Just another failure.

[Legato]

In Toronto a 2 month construction project takes at least a year.

All the dust and noise, revenue cameras everywhere, people who have forgotten how to laugh. It's just a miserable place. 

[impartialobserver]

15 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No. Prague is nice. You need a lot of money but...

Why is this a thing for you. Toronto sucks. That's just a fact. It's way to expensive and none of the city services work well. Hell even the subway had issues this morning. Just another failure.

Just curious if you are like every other Conservative that I know who views ALL Cities universally as $hitholes. I would say that you fit that description. 

[TreeBeard]

34 minutes ago, Legato said:

In Toronto a 2 month construction project takes at least a year.

Can you give a specific example? 

Edited January 17 by TreeBeard

[impartialobserver]

43 minutes ago, Legato said:

In Toronto a 2 month construction project takes at least a year.

All the dust and noise, revenue cameras everywhere, people who have forgotten how to laugh. It's just a miserable place. 

This is what happens in any large city.. Toronto is no different. 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Can you give a specific example? 

https://ontarioconstructionreport.com/toronto-blames-external-challenges-as-22-major-infrastructure-projects-falling-more-than-six-months-behind-schedule/

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

This is what happens in any large city.. Toronto is no different. 

So shitholes LoL

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

https://ontarioconstructionreport.com/toronto-blames-external-challenges-as-22-major-infrastructure-projects-falling-more-than-six-months-behind-schedule/

So shitholes LoL

there is this concept called constraints, limits, human nature. Put enough people in a relatively small space and things slow to a crawl. 

[Legato]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

there is this concept called constraints, limits, human nature. Put enough people in a relatively small space and things slow to a crawl. 

Which is why we moved out of Toronto years ago, never looked back.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

Which is why we moved out of Toronto years ago, never looked back.

good for you. When I went to NYC in august 2022, I could see the same thing in action. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

there is this concept called constraints, limits, human nature. Put enough people in a relatively small space and things slow to a crawl. 

Yeah... but aren't you arguing that once a city reaches a certain size it inherently takes on certain 'shithole' attributes by the very nature of things?

Soooooo....  aren't you kind of arguing the case for the conservatives you know who think that?    lol

Seriously it would depend how you define 'shithole' but there's no doubt that larger cities by their nature have some inherent negatives. You get more homelessness, more drug addicts generally more theft and such, construction projects take longer and there's more of them, density tends to cause traffic issues to begin with, taxes tend to be high, there's more protests and such which cause problems for people (when was the last time BLM rioted in spuzzum or stavely? )

So if you find those things negative or consider them to be 'shithole-esque'  then it's probably a true statement that larger cities tend to be shitholes by and large.

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah... but aren't you arguing that once a city reaches a certain size it inherently takes on certain 'shithole' attributes by the very nature of things?

Soooooo....  aren't you kind of arguing the case for the conservatives you know who think that?    lol

Seriously it would depend how you define 'shithole' but there's no doubt that larger cities by their nature have some inherent negatives. You get more homelessness, more drug addicts generally more theft and such, construction projects take longer and there's more of them, density tends to cause traffic issues to begin with, taxes tend to be high, there's more protests and such which cause problems for people (when was the last time BLM rioted in spuzzum or stavely? )

So if you find those things negative or consider them to be 'shithole-esque'  then it's probably a true statement that larger cities tend to be shitholes by and large.

Sort of. Any large city will have certain attributes such as high taxes, terrible traffic, run down neighborhoods just a few blocks from the downtown, more drugs and therefore drug addicts and all that comes with that, more homelessness, and lack of grocery store options in the downtown due to no parking. When I think of the term, shithole, I think of places that have a higher than normal degree of this. Even my hometown, Boise, has pockets of this. Does that mean it is a shithole? I would say not when 95% of the town is very pleasant. 

I would only give two places the title of shithole; Bakersfield CA and Yakima WA. I know that I only mentioned the first one before but was remembering a trip through Yakima this summer. What makes them unique? First, Bakersfield. Every store that i encountered looked dilapidated and beat up. The signage was dusty and malfunctioning. The sidewalks and roads were in utter disrepair. Potholes.. more like pot-oceans. the one gas station that we went to was simply filthy. There was more product/trash on the floor than on the shelves. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

When I think of the term, shithole, I think of places that have a higher than normal degree of this. Even my hometown, Boise, has pockets of this. Does that mean it is a shithole? I would say not when 95% of the town is very pleasant

well - i guess it comes down to definitons and tolerances then.  If you think ANY homelessness makes a place a shithole - and that's valid if it's your opinion i guess - then sure.  It's fair to say all major metros are shitholes for the most part.

If you set that bar a little differently and say those factors have to be 'beyond the avergae for a city of that size', which is also quite reasonable if that's your preference - then it would be wrong.

Sounds more like just a definition issue than actual difference in the reality on the ground. It's important to remember that language is a crappy way to communicate  

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well - i guess it comes down to definitons and tolerances then.  If you think ANY homelessness makes a place a shithole - and that's valid if it's your opinion i guess - then sure.  It's fair to say all major metros are shitholes for the most part.

Most Conservatives view any homelessness as a sign that a place is a shithole. The reason that you find homelessness in Salt lake city and not Bottineau, ND is not all that complex. It is not due to moral superiority. It is due to perceived options (cities have more employment options) and cost of living. Cities are more expensive except for tourist towns like Aspen, CO or South Lake Tahoe, CA. Also, if you are a career panhandler (they do exist sadly enough), you will have better luck in a city than Bottineau, ND where the populace is on somewhat equal economic footing. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

Most Conservatives view any homelessness as a sign that a place is a shithole. The reason that you find homelessness in Salt lake city and not Bottineau, ND is not all that complex. It is not due to moral superiority. It is due to perceived options (cities have more employment options) and cost of living. Cities are more expensive except for tourist towns like Aspen, CO or South Lake Tahoe, CA. Also, if you are a career panhandler (they do exist sadly enough), you will have better luck in a city than Bottineau, ND where the populace is on somewhat equal economic footing. 

Sure. And if you're going to be homeless being in a place with more warm corners to hide in and more free services is obviosuly a boon.  Vancouver is also one of the more warm places in winter so we get the homeless and the retirees  

I think at the end of the day we can probably agree that homelessness, drug use, traffic congestion, etc etc and the crankyness that sometimes accompanies those things are all shitty things - it's just a question of how much of those shitty things you personally think is unacceptable and conservatives probably have a lower tolerance on average.

I think that conservatives and liberals probably look at the same thing and one considers it a failure of those people adn the other considers it a failure of the state.  "the people are homeless because they're not doing what they need to in order to have a stable life" vs "Society is not doing what it needs to in order to prevent them from falling to this state so it's our fault not theirs". 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. And if you're going to be homeless being in a place with more warm corners to hide in and more free services is obviosuly a boon.  Vancouver is also one of the more warm places in winter so we get the homeless and the retirees  

I think at the end of the day we can probably agree that homelessness, drug use, traffic congestion, etc etc and the crankyness that sometimes accompanies those things are all shitty things - it's just a question of how much of those shitty things you personally think is unacceptable and conservatives probably have a lower tolerance on average.

I think that conservatives and liberals probably look at the same thing and one considers it a failure of those people adn the other considers it a failure of the state.  "the people are homeless because they're not doing what they need to in order to have a stable life" vs "Society is not doing what it needs to in order to prevent them from falling to this state so it's our fault not theirs". 

Having been homeless once in my early 20's.. I just do not know how a city could legally do away with homelessness. Yes, you could put all of them in jail but you would run into some very expensive legal hurdles when they could not prove that the person committed a crime. Traffic.. if you allow cars in your densely packed areas then you will have traffic. To expect a city government to be able to do away with these issues altogether is simply unrealistic. As for drugs.. I saw drug use in very Conservative, rural, and very white Salmon, Idaho. So if it occurs in such a remote, rural place such as Salmon, Idaho then it is going to occur in larger cities. The only thing that really differentiates cities on that front is how aggressive they prosecute drug offenses and the income levels. Higher incomes tend to lead more affluence and therefore less use of heroin, meth, and fentanyl.