NAFTA negotiations.

[Machjo]

I'd have no qualms about my taxes providing generous funding for trades or professional education for ex-farmers to help them enter growing industries. At least that way, that money is a social investment. The same applies to universal compulsory public education. This does not apply to just preserving relic industries because of the fuzzy wuzzy feeling it gives us to know that people work with cute sheep.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

OK, fine, let's just open a farm at the local zoo and hire a local farmer to raise his animals there for the tourists to watch as a part of our heritage I guess.

Do you use things like public transit? Doesn't work for me but if you do, I am subsidizing you. The feds spend nearly 30B a year on subsidies of one kind or another. Better make sure you aren't sponging off your fellow taxpayers who don't use any of those products or services. Get the idea?

[Wilber]

7 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I'd have no qualms about my taxes providing generous funding for trades or professional education for ex-farmers to help them enter growing industries. At least that way, that money is a social investment. The same applies to universal compulsory public education. This does not apply to just preserving relic industries because of the fuzzy wuzzy feeling it gives us to know that people work with cute sheep.

Don't be so godamn high and mighty just because you are a friggin vegan. Who are you to decide what industries are valid just because you don't personally use them?

[Machjo]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Do you use things like public transit? Doesn't work for me but if you do, I am subsidizing you. The feds spend nearly 30B a year on subsidies of one kind or another. Better make sure you aren't sponging off your fellow taxpayers who don't use any of those products or services. Get the idea?

I oppose subsidies to public transit. I do support a tax of a minimum of 1/3 of the net profits of a resource-extraction business so as to deter irresponsible consumption of our resources.

Beyond that, I could agree with building pedestrian, cycling, and motorized transportation infrastructure as an investment like public education. Subsidizing cholesterol is not an investment. Even public transit is not a public investment compared to walking and cycling paths and urban deregulation to allow high-density mixed development.

[Machjo]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Don't be so godamn high and mighty just because you are a friggin vegan. Who are you to decide what industries are valid just because you don't personally use them?

Who am I to decide what industries are valid for what? Free markets or subsidies? I don't mind a meat market if it's supported by the free market. I thought we were talking here about subsidies, not the free market.

[Wilber]

3 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Who am I to decide what industries are valid for what? Free markets or subsidies? I don't mind a meat market if it's supported by the free market. I thought we were talking here about subsidies, not the free market.

Since when is competing with an industry that is subsidized and protected by tariffs a free market? I'm in favour of a user pay system but the American dairy products entering this country are not user pay, they are subsidized.

[Wilber]

5 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I oppose subsidies to public transit. I do support a tax of a minimum of 1/3 of the net profits of a resource-extraction business so as to deter irresponsible consumption of our resources.

Beyond that, I could agree with building pedestrian, cycling, and motorized transportation infrastructure as an investment like public education. Subsidizing cholesterol is not an investment. Even public transit is not a public investment compared to walking and cycling paths and urban deregulation to allow high-density mixed development.

S you want energy companies and their employees to subsidize your transit and bike paths.

[Machjo]

Just now, Wilber said:

S you want energy companies and their employees to subsidize your transit and bike paths.

Transit should not be subsidized. In fact, let private businesses set up transit. That said, I would not want to have to stop at each intersection to pay a toll fee. Not efficient that way. build the infrastructure but let the market adapt to that infrastructure.

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Since when is competing with an industry that is subsidized and protected by tariffs a free market? I'm in favour of a user pay system but the American dairy products entering this country are not user pay, they are subsidized.

You may have a point there. I'll be boycotting all US animal products and byproducts. Will you do your part?

[Zeitgeist]

There is a place for government subsidies.  Public transit, including inter-city high-speed rail, is exactly the kind of work government should subsidize, as it makes a society work more productively and efficiently, and it improves quality of life (air quality and commute times).  Agriculture should be preserved more through policy, such as agricultural zoning, than through subsidies.  Basically our prime arable land should be preserved as a bread basket for future generations.  This was the idea behind Ontario's Greenbelt around the GTA, which is really just an area preserved from development through zoning.  Supply management is wiser than subsidies for sure.  Farmers benefit from price and supply stability.  Transportation infrastructure, education, health, and if necessary, the "commanding heights" industries such as steel production should either be in government hands or aided by government, since the profits are not immediate to the owners of the industry, yet the industry is a guarantor of a society's capacity to manufacture.  What's more, making such services for-profit is often an incentive to raise costs to consumers/businesses and lower services. 

The St. Lawrence Seaway (a watercourse of rivers, lakes and canals running through Ontario and Quebec from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic and Erie canal system in the U.S.) illustrates the important role that government plays in supporting the economy.  This shipping infrastructure allows for raw materials to reach steel producers in Hamilton, who then forward high grade steel to auto and other manufacturing plants in the Great Lakes.  These manufacturers then transport their goods by ship or rail to markets.  

Simply, some services don't belong in private hands.  It's a bit easier to have trains, steel, and some similar industries in private hands in a very populous country where the population is evenly distributed, because virtually all routes are profitable, and high demand ensures that there will be plenty of competition among suppliers and therefore lower costs.  The U.S. has this benefit, as Canada has to subsidize unprofitable services in the north.  On the other hand, Canada has the luxury of space and can plan communities that utilize transit and utilities more efficiently and leave a smaller environmental footprint.  It's also easier for us to manage social problems in a smaller society.  Again, this is as much about urban planning and densities (zoning by-laws and regulations) as it is about public expenditures on infrastructure and services.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Wilber]

51 minutes ago, Machjo said:

You may have a point there. I'll be boycotting all US animal products and byproducts. Will you do your part?

Absolutely, I won't buy a dairy or poultry product that isn't labeled Canadian content. We just ordered a new furnace. I'm buying a Napoleon, designed and built by a Canadian company in Canada. Didn't even look at anything else.

[Machjo]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

There is a place for government subsidies.  Public transit, including inter-city high-speed rail, is exactly the kind of work government should subsidize, as it makes a society work more productively and efficiently, and it improves quality of life (air quality and commute times).  Agriculture should be preserved more through policy, such as agricultural zoning, than through subsidies.  Basically our prime arable land should be preserved as a bread basket for future generations.  This was the idea behind Ontario's Greenbelt around the GTA, which is really just an area preserved from development through zoning.  Supply management is wiser than subsidies for sure.  Farmers benefit from price and supply stability.  Transportation infrastructure, education, health, and if necessary, the "commanding heights" industries such as steel production should either be in government hands or aided by government, since the profits are not immediate to the owners of the industry, yet the industry is a guarantor of a society's capacity to manufacture.  What's more, making such services for-profit is often an incentive to raise costs to consumers/businesses and lower services. 

The St. Lawrence Seaway (a watercourse of rivers, lakes and canals running through Ontario and Quebec from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic and Erie canal system in the U.S.) illustrates the important role that government plays in supporting the economy.  This shipping infrastructure allows for raw materials to reach steel producers in Hamilton, who then forward high grade steel to auto and other manufacturing plants in the Great Lakes.  These manufacturers then transport their goods by ship or rail to markets.  

 Simply, some services don't belong in private hands.  It's a bit easier to have trains, steel, and some similar industries in private hands in a very populous country where the population is evenly distributed, because virtually all routes are profitable, and high demand ensures that there will be plenty of competition among suppliers and therefore lower costs.  The U.S. has this benefit, as Canada has to subsidize unprofitable services in the north.  On the other hand, Canada has the luxury of space and can plan communities that utilize transit and utilities more efficiently and leave a smaller environmental footprint.  It's also easier for us to manage social problems in a smaller society.  Again, this is as much about urban planning and densities (zoning by-laws and regulations) as it is about public expenditures on infrastructure and services.

You make a valid point about Canada's small population and low population densities which impose a need for Canada to open its borders to international trade so as to benefit from economies of scale. If a factory is to invest massive sums of money on machinery, etc., it wants to be sure that it will then be able to fully utilize that machinery at full capacity to serve world markets rather than at partial capacity to serve a small Canadian market and so force the factory to then invest in additional machinery to diversity its production line so as to become a jack of all trades and master of none at high cost and low efficiency. And if, as you propose, the state should invest in this machinery through nationalization, then all the more reason to open our borders to exploit economies of scale given how even the poor pay taxes too and would like to know that the state is not adopting policies aimed at making its own investments high-cost and inefficient at taxpayer expense.

I have also mulled the idea of an urban zone. For example, imagine if Canada limited any new urban development to within one kilometre of a river bank but allowed high-density mixed development in that zone and maybe even limited the right to a grave or tomb to a renewable rental period of 15-years after which the bones would be transferred to an ossuary so as to allow the grave or tomb to be recycled and so further improve urban efficiency. Many states around the world, including the UK more recently due to its having run out of urban space in some areas, have times limits on grave and tomb rentals.

Due to the zone being high-density mixed development, it would allow for efficient development of walking and cycling paths. To further encourage people to live close to where they work, we should cut all subsidies to public transit as Hong Kong has done. In fact, compare Hong Kong's Octopus pass to Ontario's Presto pass. In Hong Kong, when you take the metro, you scan your card on entry and on exit and the fare will apply according to the distance you traveled. If you do not scan the card on exit, the system will assume you traveled to the end of the line and charge you accordingly. Furthermore, while the contract between the Hong Kong government and the Hong Kong metro system provides tax-free use of the space, the government provides no direct funding whatsoever beyond allowing free use of the metro space. All of the Hong Kong metro's funding comes from the Octopus pass and paid fares, making it not only user-pay but also a motivation for people to reside closer to work.

Even Hong Kong's bus services are all privately and contracted through the government to link to the urban Octopus system. In other words, other than losing money by making transit tax free, the government does not directly spend any money on public transit and instead lets the free market take care of that. You;ll notice that Hong Kong buses are of different colours and bear different company logos. That's because different companies have entered the business. You'll also notice that they exploit much of the bus' space for billboards as an additional source of revenue. I've visited Hong Kong a few times and in spite of the state investing so little into it, Hong Kong's transit system is far less expensive than Canada's and, to be honest, far better overall. Some of its buses even function like taxis in that they start at one point and do not stop until they reach their destination. They fill with passengers all going to the same destination. Highly efficient.

To excessively subsidize public transit simply encourages the same problems as the never-ending expansion of highway systems by encouraging people to reside farther from work at taxpayer expense. Hong Kong understood that. Canada's Green Party still fails to understand that even a bus uses energy so to subsidize it defeats the purpose of the government's intended goals. It would make far more sense from both an economic and ecological standpoint for the state to not subsidize public transit at all, make it fully user-pay, and maybe even based on distance traveled as in Hong Kong, and build more walking and cycling paths so as to encourage people to reside closer to where they work. If you want to live in the burbs and work in the city, then pay for that luxury yourself because that is a luxury.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Machjo

[Machjo]

15 hours ago, Wilber said:

Absolutely, I won't buy a dairy or poultry product that isn't labeled Canadian content. We just ordered a new furnace. I'm buying a Napoleon, designed and built by a Canadian company in Canada. Didn't even look at anything else.

I hope your oranges are Canadian cultivated too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Funny G&M op-ed piece on how butt-hurt he thinks Canada is over USMCA / Trump...all while admitting to Canada's longstanding disdain for Americans going back to the Revolutionary War !

Quote

There has always been a streak of anti-Americanism running through Canada’s political culture, dating back to the Loyalists, who fled north after the American Revolution. But the revulsion so many Canadians feel toward the Trump administration is something quite different. This President slapped steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada for reasons of “national security.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-will-not-forget-how-it-was-treated-by-trump/

 

So cute !

[Zeitgeist]

54 minutes ago, Machjo said:

You make a valid point about Canada's small population and low population densities which impose a need for Canada to open its borders to international trade so as to benefit from economies of scale. If a factory is to invest massive sums of money on machinery, etc., it wants to be sure that it will then be able to fully utilize that machinery at full capacity to serve world markets rather than at partial capacity to serve a small Canadian market and so force the factory to then invest in additional machinery to diversity its production line so as to become a jack of all trades and master of none at high cost and low efficiency. And if, as you propose, the state should invest in this machinery through nationalization, then all the more reason to open our borders to exploit economies of scale given how even the poor pay taxes too and would like to know that the state is not adopting policies aimed at making its own investments high-cost and inefficient at taxpayer expense.

I have also mulled the idea of an urban zone. For example, imagine if Canada limited any new urban development to within one kilometre of a river bank but allowed high-density mixed development in that zone and maybe even limited the right to a grave or tomb to a renewable rental period of 15-years after which the bones would be transferred to an ossuary so as to allow the grave or tomb to be recycled and so further improve urban efficiency. Many states around the world, including the UK more recently due to its having run out of urban space in some areas, have times limits on grave and tomb rentals.

Due to the zone being high-density mixed development, it would allow for efficient development of walking and cycling paths. To further encourage people to live close to where they work, we should cut all subsidies to public transit as Hong Kong has done. In fact, compare Hong Kong's Octopus pass to Ontario's Presto pass. In Hong Kong, when you take the metro, you scan your card on entry and on exit and the fare will apply according to the distance you traveled. If you do not scan the card on exit, the system will assume you traveled to the end of the line and charge you accordingly. Furthermore, while the contract between the Hong Kong government and the Hong Kong metro system provides tax-free use of the space, the government provides no direct funding whatsoever beyond allowing free use of the metro space. All of the Hong Kong metro's funding comes from the Octopus pass and paid fares, making it not only user-pay but also a motivation for people to reside closer to work.

Even Hong Kong's bus services are all privately and contracted through the government to link to the urban Octopus system. In other words, other than losing money by making transit tax free, the government does not directly spend any money on public transit and instead lets the free market take care of that. You;ll notice that Hong Kong buses are of different colours and bear different company logos. That's because different companies have entered the business. You'll also notice that they exploit much of the bus' space for billboards as an additional source of revenue. I've visited Hong Kong a few times and in spite of the state investing so little into it, Hong Kong's transit system is far less expensive than Canada's and, to be honest, far better overall. Some of its buses even function like taxis in that they start at one point and do not stop until they reach their destination. They fill with passengers all going to the same destination. Highly efficient.

To excessively subsidize public transit simply encourages the same problems as the never-ending expansion of highway systems by encouraging people to reside farther from work at taxpayer expense. Hong Kong understood that. Canada's Green Party still fails to understand that even a bus uses energy so to subsidize it defeats the purpose of the government's intended goals. It would make far more sense from both an economic and ecological standpoint for the state to not subsidize public transit at all, make it fully user-pay, and maybe even based on distance traveled as in Hong Kong, and build more walking and cycling paths so as to encourage people to reside closer to where they work. If you want to live in the burbs and work in the city, then pay for that luxury yourself because that is a luxury.

I agree with some of your points, such as the importance of density to making city/town transit systems viable, but not everyone wants to live in a Hong Kong type of environment.  Part of what makes Canada such a draw is that citizens have the choice of multiple places in which to live and work, from rural to suburban to the ultra-urban.  Not everyone wants to live in Hong Kong or CityPlace.  The trick is to maximize the value of each type of place and create efficient links.  In a big country with cold long winters, we will continue to have trains and private vehicles.  I wouldn't fight that.  I do think we should minimize urban sprawl, making our suburbs more like villages with walkable distances from centre to edge, where the centres are self-sufficient it terms of entertainment, retail, and where possible, commercial/business workplaces.  Such villages offer a variety of housing options, from high density apartments, townhomes, 4-storey walk-ups, and medium density 5-6 storey apartments to single detatched mansions at the periphery.  Such villages offer most of the amenities of a city, have plenty of trails and nature, and provide the necessary density to make transit economically viable from village to village and village to city.  This was the idea behind places like Oakville's Preserve or Markham's Cornell.  Mix uses, intensify development around transit hubs, make amenities accessible and communities walkable.

The challenge of course is that our society is still too car dependent.  So much new development is still full of wide arterial roads.   Countryside outside our cities and suburbs should remain countryside.  We can do a lot of new housing and community development on former industrial lands and abandoned lots in existing urban centres (brownfield development).  There will still be a need for limited new development on greenfields (arable lands), but its environmental footprint must be minimized.  I'd argue that there must always be enough available open space in and around cities to provide the necessary aquifers, carbon sinks, food supply, preservation of ecosystems, and nature retreats for the local population.  We need to plan our cities and suburbs much more carefully, minimize sprawl, protect valuable countryside and sensitive natural features, yet we must also provide the necessary transportation links to make travel efficient and to maximize the range of live/work options for citizens.  Subsidies and funding of transit and rail are essential, perhaps our most important public investment priority right now.    

Edited October 6, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree with some of your points, such as the importance of density to making city/town transit systems viable, but not everyone wants to live in a Hong Kong type of environment.  Part of what makes Canada such a draw is that citizens have the choice of multiple places in which to live and work, from rural to suburban to the ultra-urban.  Not everyone wants to live in Hong Kong or CityPlace.  The trick is to maximize the value of each type of place and create efficient links.  In a big country with cold long winters, we will continue to have trains and private vehicles.  I wouldn't fight that.  I do think we should minimize urban sprawl, making our suburbs more like villages with walkable distances from centre to edge, where the centres are self-sufficient it terms of entertainment, retail, and where possible, commercial/business workplaces.  Such villages offer a variety of housing options, from high density apartments, townhomes, 4-storey walk-ups, and medium density 5-6 storey apartments to single detatched mansions at the periphery.  Such villages offer most of the amenities of a city, have plenty of trails and nature, and provide the necessary density to make transit economically viable from village to village and village to city.  This was the idea behind places like Oakville's Preserve or Markham's Cornell.  Mix uses, intensify development around transit hubs, make amenities accessible and communities walkable.

The challenge of course is that our society is still too car dependent.  So much new development is still full of wide arterial roads.   Countryside outside our cities and suburbs should remain countryside.  We can do a lot of new housing and community development on former industrial lands and abandoned lots in existing urban centres (brownfield development).  There will still be a need for limited new development on greenfields (arable lands), but its environmental footprint must be minimized.  I'd argue that there must always be enough available open space in and around cities to provide the necessary aquifers, food supply, preservation of ecosystems, and nature retreats for the local population.  We need to plan our cities and suburbs much more carefully, minimize sprawl, protect valuable countryside and sensitive natural features, yet we must also provide the necessary transportation links to make travel efficient and to maximize the range of live/work options for citizens.  Subsidies and funding of transit and rail are essential, perhaps our most important public investment priority right now.    

I have no qualms about a person choosing to live in the suburbs. All I'm saying is that we should not be subsidizing suburban development. If we cut all public funding to public transit and public transit charged according to distance, and we replaced the GST/HST/QST and most income taxes with at least a 1/3 carbon tax (Hong Kong has a 100% carbon tax so I'm actually being generous here), then we'd ensure that suburban living truly was user-pay. It's not a right, it's a luxury. If you have the money to live in the burbs, by all means, but the taxpayer should not be encouraging it by subsidizing public transit.

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I have no qualms about a person choosing to live in the suburbs. All I'm saying is that we should not be subsidizing suburban development. If we cut all public funding to public transit and public transit charged according to distance, and we replaced the GST/HST/QST and most income taxes with at least a 1/3 carbon tax (Hong Kong has a 100% carbon tax so I'm actually being generous here), then we'd ensure that suburban living truly was user-pay. It's not a right, it's a luxury. If you have the money to live in the burbs, by all means, but the taxpayer should not be encouraging it by subsidizing public transit.

Even in cities transit is heavily subsidized.  Toronto has one of the lowest subsidies at $1.00 per fare.  If you removed subsidies from transit, fares would rise and more people would drive cars.  Increasing road tolls and having city driving zone charges like London has can really deter people from visiting cities.  Only a small handful of the world's largest, most successful cities can get away with it, but the main reason they can get away with such charges is because they have excellent public transit and inter-city rail.  It makes sense to leave the car at home.  As for your push for a carbon tax, don't worry, they're coming next year from Trudeau.  I would've preferred cap and trade.  Hopefully most of those carbon tax revenues go directly to funding mass transit and high-speed rail, especially since it might provide jobs for our steel workers, who have been screwed over on both sides of the border by Trump (tariffs and counter-tariffs).

Edited October 6, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Even in cities transit is heavily subsidized.  Toronto has one of the lowest subsidies at $1.00 per fare.  If you removed subsidies from transit, fares would rise and more people would drive cars.  Increasing road tolls and having city driving zone charges like London has can really deter people from visiting cities.  Only a small handful of the world's largest, most successful cities can get away with it, but the main reason they can get away with such charges is because they have excellent public transit and inter-city rail.  It makes sense to leave the car at home.  As for your push for a carbon tax, don't worry, they're coming next year from Trudeau.  I would've preferred cap and trade.  Hopefully most of those carbon tax revenues go directly to funding mass transit and high-speed rail, especially since it might provide jobs for our steel workers, who have been screwed over on both sides of the border by Trump (tariffs and counter-tariffs).

I hope those taxes go first to public debt, second to walking and cycling paths, and then to tax reductions in GST and income taxes. Again, what's the point of a carbon tax if the government will then turn around with the other hand to subsidize carbon?! Lower taxes and let the people decide whether to pay for transit at full fare, telecommute, find work closer to home, or move closer to work. The public should not subsidize public transit as it defeats the purpose of a carbon tax. If we're going to subsidize transit, then we might as well scrap the carbon tax and just stick to GST and income tax. No point the left hand undermining the right. That just makes for pointless bureaucracy. It also penalizes those who choose to live close to work who then have to subsidize the public transit of those who choose to live in the burbs. You want to live in the burbs, then pay for it yourself.

As for highways, I actually could agree to toll booths on highways but not on roads since people still need to get around somehow. Besides, with a high carbon tax, they'd be paying for their road use anyway.

[Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I hope those taxes go first to public debt, second to walking and cycling paths, and then to tax reductions in GST and income taxes. Again, what's the point of a carbon tax if the government will then turn around with the other hand to subsidize carbon?! Lower taxes and let the people decide whether to pay for transit at full fare, telecommute, find work closer to home, or move closer to work. The public should not subsidize public transit as it defeats the purpose of a carbon tax. If we're going to subsidize transit, then we might as well scrap the carbon tax and just stick to GST and income tax. No point the left hand undermining the right. That just makes for pointless bureaucracy. It also penalizes those who choose to live close to work who then have to subsidize the public transit of those who choose to live in the burbs. You want to live in the burbs, then pay for it yourself.

As for highways, I actually could agree to toll booths on highways but not on roads since people still need to get around somehow. Besides, with a high carbon tax, they'd be paying for their road use anyway.

One of the main reasons for boosting mass transit, especially subways and heavy rail is to get more private vehicles off of the road.  There are tremendous side benefits in terms of reducing commute times and boosting productivity.  If I knew I could get on a frequent shuttle bus that would get me from home to an RER train or subway station inside of 10 or 15 minutes, I wouldn't bother driving to work.  Most residents in Canada live in cities.  Moving people and goods is a pressing issue today in a global economy where attracting talent and providing a high quality of life are key drivers in the new economy.  Bicycles and walking paths are only realistic commute options in Canada for about three quarters of the year, and only for those who commute within about a 15 km radius of their homes.  Also, what if I suddenly switch jobs to a company on the other side of the city, say 30 km away?  Am I cycling to work every day, moving house, turning down the job offer?  Really, how many residents would choose to commute this way even with the best of bike paths?  You seem to represent the interests of a particular subgroup: vegan cyclists.  Politicians must win majorities to get elected and implement policy. 

[Machjo]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

One of the main reasons for boosting mass transit, especially subways and heavy rail is to get more private vehicles off of the road.  There are tremendous side benefits in terms of reducing commute times and boosting productivity.  If I knew I could get on a frequent shuttle bus that would get me from home to an RER train or subway station inside of 10 or 15 minutes, I wouldn't bother driving to work.  Most residents in Canada live in cities.  Moving people and goods is a pressing issue today in a global economy where attracting talent and providing a high quality of life are key drivers in the new economy.  Bicycles and walking paths are only realistic commute options in Canada for about three quarters of the year, and only for those who commute within about a 15 km radius of their homes.  Also, what if I suddenly switch jobs to a company on the other side of the city, say 30 km away?  Am I cycling to work every day, moving house, turning down the job offer?  Really, how many residents would choose to commute this way even with the best of bike paths?  You seem to represent the interests of a particular subgroup: vegan cyclists.  Politicians must win majorities to get elected and implement policy. 

Wouldn't a high carbon tax automatically make driving to work less attractive which in turn would automatically result in more people switching to public transit whether it's subsidized or not? We have a massive debt to pay off right now. We can't afford subsidies anymore. Also, if we deregulate and allow private businesses to get into the public-transit business, we'd probably end up with much better public transit too. Hong Kong's non-subsidized mostly private public-transit venture suppresses Canada's mostly city-owned and highly-subsidized systems. Clearly Hong Kong has done something right on this that Canadian cities could learn from.

[Zeitgeist]

13 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Wouldn't a high carbon tax automatically make driving to work less attractive which in turn would automatically result in more people switching to public transit whether it's subsidized or not? We have a massive debt to pay off right now. We can't afford subsidies anymore. Also, if we deregulate and allow private businesses to get into the public-transit business, we'd probably end up with much better public transit too. Hong Kong's non-subsidized mostly private public-transit venture suppresses Canada's mostly city-owned and highly-subsidized systems. Clearly Hong Kong has done something right on this that Canadian cities could learn from.

It's all about ridership.  In Hong Kong there is so much ridership on virtually all routes that mass transit is actually profitable.  It comes down to the high density of that city.  However, high density can bring other problems, such as being too much of a drain on air and water quality, crowded sidewalks, and the overall feeling of being hemmed in or trapped.  All transit systems in North America are unprofitable and require subsidies to exist, even New York City's.  A high carbon tax on our gasoline and tolls on our highways might boost transit ridership, but it would also kill businesses outside of our big cities and require that everyone move to the biggest city centres, which are already very expensive places to live in Canada.  There is a "Manhattanization" of Toronto taking place right now, wherein soon only the rich will be able to afford to own or rent there.  We need our existing population and our new immigrants to move to smaller cities and towns.  Seven out of ten new immigrants move to Toronto.  That's unsustainable.  I'd rather see many cities and towns attract residents and jobs, not just these major centres and their suburbs.  There are successes outside our major centres, but we need far more of them, especially up north.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It's all about ridership.  In Hong Kong there is so much ridership on virtually all routes that mass transit is actually profitable.  It comes down to the high density of that city.  However, high density can bring other problems, such as being too much of a drain on air and water quality, crowded sidewalks, and the overall feeling of being hemmed in or trapped.  All transit systems in North America are unprofitable and require subsidies to exist, even New York City's.  A high carbon tax on our gasoline and tolls on our highways might boost transit ridership, but it would also kill businesses outside of our big cities and require that everyone move to the biggest city centres, which are already very expensive places to live in Canada.  There is a "Manhattanization" of Toronto taking place right now, wherein soon only the rich will be able to afford to own or rent there.  We need our existing population and our new immigrants to move to smaller cities and towns.  Seven out of ten new immigrants move to Toronto.  That's unsustainable.  I'd rather see many cities and towns attract residents and jobs, not just these major centres and their suburbs.  There are successes outside our major centres, but we need far more of them, especially up north.

What? Why should we promote urban development that depends on subsidies? That's insane! We should promote efficiency instead. The idea that the taxpayer should spend so much money because some people don't want to "feel hemmed in" is truly a first-world problem. If you feel hemmed in, then don't move to the city, but accept that your choice imposes a cost that society should not bear. To not "feel hemmed in" is not some fundamental human right. It's a privilege. No wonder our country is nearing bankruptcy as it subsidizes our right to not "feel hemmed in."

 

Geographically, Ottawa is more than twice the size of Hong Kong. as for air quality, I can guarantee that the average Ottawan pollutes far more than the average Hong Konger. So even on air quality, we can learn from Hong Kong. Sure it might have more pollution, but it also has a much larger population and gets much of its pollution from the mainland. But if we look at it on a per capita basis, Hong Kong is far cleaner than Ottawa by a long run.

 

And why do we want to encourage more northern development? Are we going to grow orchards there?

Edited October 6, 2018 by Machjo

[Zeitgeist]

It's all about quality of life.  That's what government is for.  I don't want to live my entire existence in high density St. Jamestown, walking from building to building, even on weekends and in summer.  I want to be able to enjoy the urban experience of a dynamic city, but I also want to be able to visit a pristine lake up north or walk in a quaint village in Western Ontario or Niagara.  It's all about options and access.  Private wealth means you have maximum lifestyle choice.  Public wealth means the citizens enjoy maximum lifestyle choices.  Hong Kong is one kind of experience, and it's probably not the experience most Canadians would choose to live every day, not that there aren't great things about Hong Kong.  Having said all of that, on top of maximizing our live/work options, we need to do it sustainably, so that we don't suddenly have to lower or adjust our standard of living and lifestyles.

[Machjo]

Given our growing public debt, it's clearly not sustainable at present. I'm not saying the rich have no moral obligation towards the poor. I am saying that we need to more clearly define the rights of the poor. At present, we define those rights so broadly as to include what properly ought to constitute luxuries and not rights. Living a great distance from the city while working in the city is a privilege in my estimation.

Also, coming back to Ottawa as an example, we could argue that suburbanites infringe on the right of city-dwellers to live close to nature. Because of suburbs, nature lies far from the city centre. This raises the cost of food in the city due to greater transportation costs from farther afield too. As an example, if Ottawa had the same population density as Hong Kong, you'd be able to walk across it in two hours tops and walk by a couple of farms on its outer perimeter to boot. On bicycle in the same two hour period, you could go from one campsite on one end of the city to a campsite on the other and cross plenty of farmland and a truly urban city on the way there.

Due to the supposed rights of suburbanites to have their suburban lifestyle subsidized, you have to get into your car and drive two hours on a highway to get to the nearest provincial park. With a carbon tax, that will get expensive. With heavy public transit subsidies, suburbs will expand even farther out from the city centre and when people petition the government to keep the green belt, others will cry human rights because they perceive suburban living as a fundamental human right. Human rights will win out in the end since everyone has a right to a suburban home. Freedom! they'll cry. But of course they'll expect city dwellers and farmers to subsidize that freedom through taxes and ever expanding suburbs and ever retreating farm land on the city's outer edges. Meanwhile suburbanites petition against urban intensification because of the pollution it brings while ignoring that their daily commutes are the very source of that pollution.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Machjo

[Zeitgeist]

Actually the development patterns of the future, I believe, will look a lot like the utopian Victorian village, for example Soltaire in England, where there will be workplaces, retail, commercial uses, housing, and usable greenspace (instead of no-man's lands) in close proximity.  This is the idea behind New Urbanism.  We're trying to create it now in both cities and suburbs because it creates population densities that make transit and services viable, yet it also provides a range of housing options for different incomes and family sizes.  It also creates vibrant, walkable centres.  Cities are actually collections of villages and inner suburbs that developed the spaces between the early settlements over time.  Suburbs are fine as long as they are well planned and given clear boundaries that prevent sprawl.  The only difference between a country hamlet, a suburb, and a city centre is scale and density.  Parks, nature, and farmland should be accessible to every community, but they may take very different forms in a city, such as green roofs, ravines, waterfront trails, and large-scale Central Park or Mount Royal-type parks that have garden allotments and create the illusion of countryside, though they are carefully programmed.

Thankfully in major Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver sprawl has been carefully limited (this happens more naturally in Montreal because it's on an island).  We're finding the right balance between nature and development, and the ingredients of vibrant communities, such as mixed uses, aesthetically pleasing design, and medium density (4-6 storey apartment blocks like in Paris seem to be close to the ideal density mark).  People want different kinds of places to live depending on their interests, incomes, family-size, and so many other factors.  Successful cities offer a variety of choices.  Cities like Barcelona and Vancouver are just about the ideal for me, but larger cities are great too for different reasons.  On the other hand, I like some of the older towns near cities that have vibrant communities without the scale and anonymity of the city.  Be careful about trying to ding everyone who chooses to live outside of the city core with expensive road tolls and other charges.  In Canada we pay high gas taxes and subsidize transit.  I think the best way to build more transit infrastructure is to add density in the right locations and dedicate more of our existing tax base towards it.  I know there's lots of different thinking around this.

With regard to our public debt, the important thing is that it is shrinking as a percentage of our GDP over time, so that eventually it isn't so significant.  We didn't feel the effects of large debt when interest rates were low, but that is changing.  I don't think we should increase public spending.  Existing tax revenue should be redirected to works that actually improve quality of life and that private business won't provide.  Transportation infrastructure, especially mass transit (subways, light rail, and heavy rail), is one of those public goods.