Edmonton bound TV series

[jdobbin]

http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/daily/.../lionsgate.html

Lionsgate Entertainment has secured a cool $8.9 million in provincial and municipal government incentives to shoot an unnamed U.S. series in Edmonton -- scoring a whopping 45% of its $20-million budget.

The unique deal was initiated by the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation, which brought Lionsgate and the Alberta Film Commission to the table. The City of Edmonton kicked in $3.5 million in grants, and the province ponied up $5.4 million. Officials are talking up the job opportunities.

Whoa. That's a lot of cash for one TV series.

I know all provinces have tax credits but this is quite the sum of money.

I think if they wanted to invest $9 million for a television, they might have been able to get more bang for the buck.

[stignasty]

My tax dollars at work. At least we didn't waste our money buying MRI machines or hiring some teachers. . .

[M.Dancer]

http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/daily/.../lionsgate.html

Lionsgate Entertainment has secured a cool $8.9 million in provincial and municipal government incentives to shoot an unnamed U.S. series in Edmonton -- scoring a whopping 45% of its $20-million budget.

The unique deal was initiated by the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation, which brought Lionsgate and the Alberta Film Commission to the table. The City of Edmonton kicked in $3.5 million in grants, and the province ponied up $5.4 million. Officials are talking up the job opportunities.

Whoa. That's a lot of cash for one TV series.

I know all provinces have tax credits but this is quite the sum of money.

I think if they wanted to invest $9 million for a television, they might have been able to get more bang for the buck.

If they spend 11 million in Edmonton, then it's a wash for the tax payer....

[jdobbin]

If they spend 11 million in Edmonton, then it's a wash for the tax payer....

I'd be curious to see what the city gets out of a series like this in revenue.

[M.Dancer]

If they spend 11 million in Edmonton, then it's a wash for the tax payer....

I'd be curious to see what the city gets out of a series like this in revenue.

Directly in licenses they stand to make a lot back depending on how much location shooting there is. But I'm sure that their long term goal with this is to attract other productions. Hollywood is a "Show me state"....you have to prove you have the technical talent as well as the scenery.

.....there filming a movie around the corner from me....The Gathering....set in NYC of course. They're not filming close enough for me to capitalize on it.....The usual MO is to mow you lawn during a shot....they will ask you to stop and I would say sorry this is the only time I can do it, otherwise I will have to call a landscapping company.......

....A fellow I know installed glass for a Vin Deisel movie... put glass in the same picture window 5 times....14 hours work......$1500 dollars richer.....

[jdobbin]

Directly in licenses they stand to make a lot back depending on how much location shooting there is. But I'm sure that their long term goal with this is to attract other productions. Hollywood is a "Show me state"....you have to prove you have the technical talent as well as the scenery.

.....there filming a movie around the corner from me....The Gathering....set in NYC of course. They're not filming close enough for me to capitalize on it.....The usual MO is to mow you lawn during a shot....they will ask you to stop and I would say sorry this is the only time I can do it, otherwise I will have to call a landscapping company.......

....A fellow I know installed glass for a Vin Deisel movie... put glass in the same picture window 5 times....14 hours work......$1500 dollars richer.....

I figure Edmonton has the technical talent. Most larger cities in the west have enough to stage one, maybe two full feature productions (Vancouver being the exception that they can do dozens of either).

Perhaps Edmonton is hoping to get a producer credit in the series. The amount of money they are putting in to one series sounds like a longer term investment rather than a shorter term one. It would be hard to make those millions back in one series.

Winnipeg has been hosting two features simultaneously for several years now. It is due to the provincial tax credit system which is about the same as most provinces but can grow for repeat customers. Winnipeg doesn't put that type of cash in. They just have a cooperative attitude to production and do what they can to facilitate filming.

It seems chancey what Edmonton is doing. It is one thing to help production, quite another to be an investor in production.

[fellowtraveller]

I'm sure Edmponton and Alberta have a lot to learn from Winnipeg and Manitoba on fiscal management.

Property taxes in Edmonton are roughly half what they are in Winnipeg.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure Edmponton and Alberta have a lot to learn from Winnipeg and Manitoba on fiscal management.

Property taxes in Edmonton are roughly half what they are in Winnipeg.

Since Winnipeg has had nine consecutive years of tax freezes and is in the process of removing its business tax, perhaps Edmonton could learn a lesson. How big was the tax increase in Edmonton last year? 5%? 8%?

[fellowtraveller]

I'm sure Edmponton and Alberta have a lot to learn from Winnipeg and Manitoba on fiscal management.

Property taxes in Edmonton are roughly half what they are in Winnipeg.

Since Winnipeg has had nine consecutive years of tax freezes and is in the process of removing its business tax, perhaps Edmonton could learn a lesson. How big was the tax increase in Edmonton last year? 5%? 8%?

Nine years of freezes after decades of overpayment and you're bragging about that?

Winniopeg : The City That Never Grows

It doesn't change the reality that property taxes are still huge in Winnipeg.

Are the civic services any better? No.

Do citizens enjoy a better quality of life? No.

Is there any practical reason for the difference other than your abiding and deep love of Big Guvmint?

What will you replace the recent big increase in Winnepeg bsuness tax with? One thing for sure, business knows it isn't welcome in Manitoba, or they would have invested already there.

It seems odd, all that transfer money pouring into Manitoba and thus to Winnipeg, and atxes still massive.

No wonder all the smart ones have left.

[jdobbin]

Nine years of freezes after decades of overpayment and you're bragging about that?

Winniopeg : The City That Never Grows

It doesn't change the reality that property taxes are still huge in Winnipeg.

Are the civic services any better? No.

Do citizens enjoy a better quality of life? No.

Is there any practical reason for the difference other than your abiding and deep love of Big Guvmint?

What will you replace the recent big increase in Winnepeg bsuness tax with? One thing for sure, business knows it isn't welcome in Manitoba, or they would have invested already there.

It seems odd, all that transfer money pouring into Manitoba and thus to Winnipeg, and atxes still massive.

No wonder all the smart ones have left.

Ho, ho, ho. Very funny. Winnipeg and Manitoba have both grown according to GDP and population.

Our municipal taxes have been frozen and if our education tax was taken off property, we'd have automatically jump up in rankings like many of the Maritimes provinces have. The province is already considering by how much they will remove the burden from property. The city capped the business tax in 2006 and in 2007, they are looking at removing it altogether.

Meanwhile, Edmonton continues to raise taxes. Welcome to big government!

[fellowtraveller]

Yes, I can see how you'd be proud of this : "Winnipeg 2006 business tax increases capped at 15%"

That must be a significant economic advance in Manitoba, kind of like wrestling the price of a loaf of bread down from $90 to $80.

And are you seriously suggesting that splitting education tax from municipal property tax would somehow be progressive?

oh, I see, getting two bills for the same huge total is much better than a single huge bill.

It's straight from the Little Red Book Revisited, by Gary Doer.

Jebus help us.

I

[jdobbin]

Yes, I can see how you'd be proud of this : "Winnipeg 2006 business tax increases capped at 15%"

That must be a significant economic advance in Manitoba, kind of like wrestling the price of a loaf of bread down from $90 to $80.

And are you seriously suggesting that splitting education tax from municipal property tax would somehow be progressive?

oh, I see, getting two bills for the same huge total is much better than a single huge bill.

It's straight from the Little Red Book Revisited, by Gary Doer.

Jebus help us.

I

You certainly won't see me defend overall management of city council in Winnipeg. The only thing that has kept some of them being elected is the tax freeze. However, they''ve screwed up on zoning, on a police commission, on policing in general on how fire and paramedic service was combined (my personal opinion is that ambulances are a provincial responsibility), on maintaining a $2 million a year zoo, etc, etc.

As far a removing education tax being removed from property tax, you should read up what both right and left think tanks think about it. Education is a provincial responsibility. The taxing authority should be removed from school trustees. The tax should be removed from property.

You seem to think it Edmonton is going great though and education should be on property.

I don't know how Edmonton thinks of their mayor and council overall. Perhaps you should stick to the merits of millions going to a TV production that could be better spent elsewhere.

[Guest coot]

And are you seriously suggesting that splitting education tax from municipal property tax would somehow be progressive?

oh, I see, getting two bills for the same huge total is much better than a single huge bill.

It's straight from the Little Red Book Revisited, by Gary Doer.

It's kind of funny how little you have a clue what you're talking about. Gary Doer has not been a proponent of separating school and property taxes, but yes, it is more progressive. If education was paid for through general revenues, a person's income would determine how much they pay in education taxes, not the value of their property. So it's not just a matter of getting two bills instead of one. It's a matter of people paying their fair share, and not saddling cottage owners and landlords with more of the burden.

[kimmy]

I'm sure Edmponton and Alberta have a lot to learn from Winnipeg and Manitoba on fiscal management.

Property taxes in Edmonton are roughly half what they are in Winnipeg.

Since Winnipeg has had nine consecutive years of tax freezes and is in the process of removing its business tax, perhaps Edmonton could learn a lesson. How big was the tax increase in Edmonton last year? 5%? 8%?

Meanwhile, Edmonton continues to raise taxes. Welcome to big government!

I don't know how Edmonton thinks of their mayor and council overall. Perhaps you should stick to the merits of millions going to a TV production that could be better spent elsewhere.

Not that long ago, or within my lifetime at least, Winnipeg was as large or larger than Edmonton. And now it's just over half the size?

While I doubt very many people in Edmonton are very excited about tax increases, that has to be balanced by the knowledge that at least we finally have a mayor and council that are serious about planning and building rather than just letting the chips fall where they may.

It seems to me that prior to Mandel, Edmonton had about 20 years of ostrich-style leadership. First there was Jan Reimer, who was more focused on environmental concerns than getting people where they want to be. She had commendable notions about increasing mass transit usage, which is more effective in a city like Ottawa or Calgary where many jobs are in central locations (ie, downtown offices) which are easily served by public transit, but rather ineffective in for a city like Edmonton which has one of the highest sprawl-to-population ratios of any major city in North America, and where a much lower proportion of people work downtown and a much higher proportion work in dispersed industrial sites and similar areas that are by nature difficult and ineffective for public transit.

And then there was Bill Smith, whose entire planning and development program seemed to consist of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This was true conservatism in action (or conservative inaction, depending on your outlook) as Smith and his councils were reluctant to take on any major project until the need for it punched them in the face. And it resulted in low taxes. However, as the city expanded by roughly 300,000 people during the time Smith was in office, it also resulted in a city that had begun to lack the infrastructure that it needs to accommodate that kind of growth.

So what's the deal with Mayor Mandel, and what's with the tax increases? The tax increases are the unavoidable result of almost 20 years of not picking up the tab when it came to transportation and infrastructure planning. The cost of 20 years of ducking the issue finally caught up with us. And Mandel? Personally, I am glad to have a mayor that is willing to take on projects that will meet the demands of the city's rapid growth, rather than a guy who is afraid to act because the voters will get mad if he raises taxes.

-k

[jdobbin]

Not that long ago, or within my lifetime at least, Winnipeg was as large or larger than Edmonton. And now it's just over half the size?

While I doubt very many people in Edmonton are very excited about tax increases, that has to be balanced by the knowledge that at least we finally have a mayor and council that are serious about planning and building rather than just letting the chips fall where they may.

It seems to me that prior to Mandel, Edmonton had about 20 years of ostrich-style leadership. First there was Jan Reimer, who was more focused on environmental concerns than getting people where they want to be. She had commendable notions about increasing mass transit usage, which is more effective in a city like Ottawa or Calgary where many jobs are in central locations (ie, downtown offices) which are easily served by public transit, but rather ineffective in for a city like Edmonton which has one of the highest sprawl-to-population ratios of any major city in North America, and where a much lower proportion of people work downtown and a much higher proportion work in dispersed industrial sites and similar areas that are by nature difficult and ineffective for public transit.

And then there was Bill Smith, whose entire planning and development program seemed to consist of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This was true conservatism in action (or conservative inaction, depending on your outlook) as Smith and his councils were reluctant to take on any major project until the need for it punched them in the face. And it resulted in low taxes. However, as the city expanded by roughly 300,000 people during the time Smith was in office, it also resulted in a city that had begun to lack the infrastructure that it needs to accommodate that kind of growth.

So what's the deal with Mayor Mandel, and what's with the tax increases? The tax increases are the unavoidable result of almost 20 years of not picking up the tab when it came to transportation and infrastructure planning. The cost of 20 years of ducking the issue finally caught up with us. And Mandel? Personally, I am glad to have a mayor that is willing to take on projects that will meet the demands of the city's rapid growth, rather than a guy who is afraid to act because the voters will get mad if he raises taxes.

-k

An Ottawa in your lifetime probably was smaller than Edmonton. Is that a reflection of Ottawa's superior local government or the fact that 40% of the federal civil service exists in Ottawa and continues to grow? Likewise, is Edmonton's growth a reflection of superior local government or the fact that the majority of Canada's oil industry exists in Alberta?

It's true that Winnipeg's population hasn't grown as fast as Edmonton and Calgary. Winnipeg has just under 700,000, Edmonton is just over 1,000,000. Winnipeg has never stopped growing even amidst the huge growth in Alberta and B.C.

My post on film funding was not about Edmonton's overall economic prospects nor on their overall government performance. It was about a rather large investment in a TV production when they have, as you say, large infrastructure projects to work on and tax increases to pay for it.

So back to the point, do you think that the TV production money is a good idea? 45% of the cost of moving a TV series is a huge amount of money. I've never heard it done in Canada before simply for the fact that most people wouldn't accept if they were being hit with a tax increase the same year.

[kimmy]

An Ottawa in your lifetime probably was smaller than Edmonton. Is that a reflection of Ottawa's superior local government or the fact that 40% of the federal civil service exists in Ottawa and continues to grow? Likewise, is Edmonton's growth a reflection of superior local government or the fact that the majority of Canada's oil industry exists in Alberta?

It's true that Winnipeg's population hasn't grown as fast as Edmonton and Calgary. Winnipeg has just under 700,000, Edmonton is just over 1,000,000. Winnipeg has never stopped growing even amidst the huge growth in Alberta and B.C.

My post on film funding was not about Edmonton's overall economic prospects nor on their overall government performance. It was about a rather large investment in a TV production when they have, as you say, large infrastructure projects to work on and tax increases to pay for it.

So back to the point, do you think that the TV production money is a good idea? 45% of the cost of moving a TV series is a huge amount of money. I've never heard it done in Canada before simply for the fact that most people wouldn't accept if they were being hit with a tax increase the same year.

Well, you were the one who introduced Winnipeg and it's clever fiscal management to the discussion. And who contrasted Winnipeg's tax freezes with Edmonton's tax increases. I sought to put some perspective on those tax increases: it is the result of explosive population growth combined with the lack of foresight of previous administrations. Edmonton's rapid growth, although due to factors well beyond the control of city council, has placed city council in charge of a situation that Winnipeg simply has not had to deal with. The description "The City That Never Grows" might have been inaccurate, but in comparison to Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, it's not that much of a stretch, either. How hard is it to freeze taxes when you're in a situation that's very stable?

As for contributing money to a production like this...

First off, to put the amount of money in perspective, $3.5 million isn't even enough to clean the roads after a winter storm. If it's a mild winter, the city saves 5 times that much in snow removal, or if it's a harsh winter, the snow removal budget might jump by 5 times that. $3.5 million won't even be enough to paint the lines on the road at the Gateway & 23rd Ave interchange.

Although it's not a large sum of money in the context of the city budget, that in itself isn't a good reason to spend the money.

I would agree that they're hoping that this might stimulate more projects in the future.

Might there be more projects in the future? I am somewhat skeptical. Aside from generic suburbia and downtown locations, I can't think of a lot that Edmonton might have to offer a prospective film-maker. The one exception would be Fort Edmonton Park; there might not be another "frontier" type location of this size available anywhere else, especially one inside city limits and minutes from downtown. I suppose the gawdawful Mall might have some possibilities as well; Jessica Alba was in town a while back to film some scenes with the Mall's cute and cuddly penguins. But overall, I can't see Edmonton offering much that film-makers can't find at more established and more accessible locations.

But, of course, I know absolutely nothing about the film production industry. I suspect that there's sort of a "critical mass" type thing involved (as it is in many other industries), whereby once you reach some level of activity, the technical expertise and equipment and facilities to maintain that level of activity become established in the city and in themselves become a reason for other productions to consider the city. I am skeptical that Edmonton would ever become any kind of mecca for this sort of thing, but perhaps it can at least grow to the point where some of our wonderfully talented people stay in Edmonton rather than jetting off in search of work.

One final point that I would mention is that among Mayor Mandel's priorities is to support and grow the city's arts community. I could see the funding of this project as in keeping with that objective. Trying to build an industry that employs actors and writers and artists, to me, is a more worthy investment in that community than spending the money to bring an art exhibit or a mime festival or buying some weird scrap-metal statues to put in parks.

-k

[jdobbin]

Well, you were the one who introduced Winnipeg and it's clever fiscal management to the discussion. And who contrasted Winnipeg's tax freezes with Edmonton's tax increases. I sought to put some perspective on those tax increases: it is the result of explosive population growth combined with the lack of foresight of previous administrations. Edmonton's rapid growth, although due to factors well beyond the control of city council, has placed city council in charge of a situation that Winnipeg simply has not had to deal with. The description "The City That Never Grows" might have been inaccurate, but in comparison to Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, it's not that much of a stretch, either. How hard is it to freeze taxes when you're in a situation that's very stable?

As for contributing money to a production like this...

First off, to put the amount of money in perspective, $3.5 million isn't even enough to clean the roads after a winter storm. If it's a mild winter, the city saves 5 times that much in snow removal, or if it's a harsh winter, the snow removal budget might jump by 5 times that. $3.5 million won't even be enough to paint the lines on the road at the Gateway & 23rd Ave interchange.

Although it's not a large sum of money in the context of the city budget, that in itself isn't a good reason to spend the money.

I would agree that they're hoping that this might stimulate more projects in the future.

Might there be more projects in the future? I am somewhat skeptical. Aside from generic suburbia and downtown locations, I can't think of a lot that Edmonton might have to offer a prospective film-maker. The one exception would be Fort Edmonton Park; there might not be another "frontier" type location of this size available anywhere else, especially one inside city limits and minutes from downtown. I suppose the gawdawful Mall might have some possibilities as well; Jessica Alba was in town a while back to film some scenes with the Mall's cute and cuddly penguins. But overall, I can't see Edmonton offering much that film-makers can't find at more established and more accessible locations.

But, of course, I know absolutely nothing about the film production industry. I suspect that there's sort of a "critical mass" type thing involved (as it is in many other industries), whereby once you reach some level of activity, the technical expertise and equipment and facilities to maintain that level of activity become established in the city and in themselves become a reason for other productions to consider the city. I am skeptical that Edmonton would ever become any kind of mecca for this sort of thing, but perhaps it can at least grow to the point where some of our wonderfully talented people stay in Edmonton rather than jetting off in search of work.

One final point that I would mention is that among Mayor Mandel's priorities is to support and grow the city's arts community. I could see the funding of this project as in keeping with that objective. Trying to build an industry that employs actors and writers and artists, to me, is a more worthy investment in that community than spending the money to bring an art exhibit or a mime festival or buying some weird scrap-metal statues to put in parks.

Actually, I didn't introduce the overall tax situation. Re-read the thread. I said it was chancy for Edmonton to invest heavily in a TV series expecting their to be a return that would pay for it. Someone else decided that it was easier to slam Winnipeg that respond tom whether it was a good idea to fund TV productions. I responded that Winnipeg hadn't any tax increases in 9 years. Edmonton has had tax increases. If Edmonton is to keep a lower property tax, it can't be drawn into funding flighty TV productions.

Winnipeg has always grown. It has been below the national rate of growth according to the last census but it has not stopped growing to the point where it is regressing.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/20...oba-census.html

Statistics Canada released the first data from last year's census on Tuesday and it showed the population of Winnipeg has increased by 2.2 per cent since the 2001 census.

During the same five-year time period, Canada's national population increased 5.4 per cent, while the population of Manitoba increased by 2.6 per cent to 1,148,401.

Manitoba has recognized the problem of not keeping pace and is now the recipient of 60% of the provincial nominees in immigration. By 2025, all Manitoba's growth will come from that area. In spring of this year, the migration out of Manitoba for the booming economy of Alberta slowed to a fraction of what it was. This in part is because of strong economic growth in Winnipeg and the province.

Manitoba doesn't have a big oil industry. It doesn't have a year round port. It isn't in the industrial heartland. Even with all those deficits, it has still continued to grow because of a diversity in what people do for a living. I expect that in the next ten years, Manitoba will attract 10,000 immigrants a year and growth will more in keeping with the national average.

Better fiscal management in the city is also helping although I certainly think it needs to be even better. Personally, I don't think cities should own zoos for one thing.

http://www.taxpayer.ca/pdf/2007_Winnipeg_pre-budget.pdf

If you look back, what I said was that I was surprised by Edmonton's backing of film production given that they have to raise taxes for infrastructure at the same time. I wasn't commenting on the entire gamut of civic spending being done there. You're probably right. It is needed. But are millions needed for a TV production? It isn't part of the core of city responsibilities.

I pointed out that Edmonton does have an TV industry. They do have the critical mass for production. Attracting film production based on tax credits related to labour involved in production is an investment. Giving millions to a production with no calculation of how it pays off is not.

I believe Edmonton could have attracted a series without the money coming from the city.

Edited July 21, 2007 by jdobbin

[kimmy]

Actually, I didn't introduce the overall tax situation. Re-read the thread. I said it was chancy for Edmonton to invest heavily in a TV series expecting their to be a return that would pay for it. Someone else decided that it was easier to slam Winnipeg that respond tom whether it was a good idea to fund TV productions. I responded that Winnipeg hadn't any tax increases in 9 years. Edmonton has had tax increases. If Edmonton is to keep a lower property tax, it can't be drawn into funding flighty TV productions.

And again you missed the point. Edmonton's taxes aren't going up because they decided to plunk $3.5 million on a project like this. Edmonton's taxes are going up because they are going ahead with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects that should have been started 10 years ago.

Is it "chancy"? Probably. Is it a big risk? In the context of the city's revenue base, this works out to about the same as you or I buying a lottery ticket. Probably better uses for the money, unlikely to pay off... but if I don't have enough money to pay my rent on the first, do I blame myself for buying the lottery ticket? Or do I look at the decision to buy the LCD TV and fancy futon?

And, if I decide that the TV and futon were reasonable expenditures, why single out the lottery ticket when I also bought a video game, ate out about a dozen times, bought pop and candy and a case of beer that serve no practical function except widening my posterior, went on unnecessary driving trips that cost me extra gas money, etc.

What I am trying to express is this: if you want to look at this in terms of the overall tax base and what Edmonton can or can't afford, that's a pointless exercise because in the context of the city's budget, this is an insignificant amount of money.

But if you want to look at whether the city can afford frivolous expenditures, why just this isolated one? Cities pony up money for a wide variety of expenses that can be considered frivolous. I'd want to look at the grand total of discretionary spending before I come to a conclusion on whether the city is spending too much money on unnecessary stuff.

If this expenditure is part of a budget that in other years might have been spent on buying weird metal sculptures to put in front of city buildings, potted plants to put on medians downtown, putting colorful pennants on light standards, and bringing a mime and interpretive dance festival to town, then I'm all for it. If funding a TV production means no mimes in 2007, I think all Edmontonians will be supportive.

Winnipeg has always grown. It has been below the national rate of growth according to the last census but it has not stopped growing to the point where it is regressing. (etc)

I point out Winnipeg's slow growth not to disparage your home or to claim it's been mismanaged in any way.

I point out Winnipeg's slow growth because it is a stark contrast with Edmonton's current situation.

Edmonton's tax increases are the result of years of underplanning and underspending on infrastructure at a time when the city was growing rapidly.

Building infrastructure to try to accommodate this kind of population growth is a challenge that Winnipeg simply does not face.

-k

[jdobbin]

And again you missed the point. Edmonton's taxes aren't going up because they decided to plunk $3.5 million on a project like this. Edmonton's taxes are going up because they are going ahead with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects that should have been started 10 years ago.

Is it "chancy"? Probably. Is it a big risk? In the context of the city's revenue base, this works out to about the same as you or I buying a lottery ticket. Probably better uses for the money, unlikely to pay off... but if I don't have enough money to pay my rent on the first, do I blame myself for buying the lottery ticket? Or do I look at the decision to buy the LCD TV and fancy futon?

And, if I decide that the TV and futon were reasonable expenditures, why single out the lottery ticket when I also bought a video game, ate out about a dozen times, bought pop and candy and a case of beer that serve no practical function except widening my posterior, went on unnecessary driving trips that cost me extra gas money, etc.

What I am trying to express is this: if you want to look at this in terms of the overall tax base and what Edmonton can or can't afford, that's a pointless exercise because in the context of the city's budget, this is an insignificant amount of money.

But if you want to look at whether the city can afford frivolous expenditures, why just this isolated one? Cities pony up money for a wide variety of expenses that can be considered frivolous. I'd want to look at the grand total of discretionary spending before I come to a conclusion on whether the city is spending too much money on unnecessary stuff.

If this expenditure is part of a budget that in other years might have been spent on buying weird metal sculptures to put in front of city buildings, potted plants to put on medians downtown, putting colorful pennants on light standards, and bringing a mime and interpretive dance festival to town, then I'm all for it. If funding a TV production means no mimes in 2007, I think all Edmontonians will be supportive.

I point out Winnipeg's slow growth not to disparage your home or to claim it's been mismanaged in any way.

I point out Winnipeg's slow growth because it is a stark contrast with Edmonton's current situation.

Edmonton's tax increases are the result of years of underplanning and underspending on infrastructure at a time when the city was growing rapidly.

Building infrastructure to try to accommodate this kind of population growth is a challenge that Winnipeg simply does not face.

Initially, I didn't indicate that it had anything to do with Edmonton's tax increases. However, I did think it fell outside Edmonton's core responsibilities and seemed highly risky. Cities just don't have the tax base to buy lottery tickets, as you say.

In the overall scheme of regions chasing Hollywood productions, this one stood out for all of North America. So much so that it was noted in Variety and Hollywood Reporter, the trade newspapers. I don't know that Edmonton got the best value for their money and I honestly think that Edmonton film crews had enough talent all on their own to attract productions.

Underspending on infrastructure has happened on a national scale. It is obviously a large problem for expanding cities but it is a problem for older cities as well.

In other threads, I have said that the regional development programs in the west, Atlantic and elsewhere should have been wound up in favour of a national infrastructure program.

As for regional disparagement, it seems to be a national sport. Edmonton has been known for its good film crews. It has a mix of urban and rural locations for great shooting. Hollywood loves to play off one region against another. They are always looking for the next sucker. To a certain extent, regions have to play the game with tax credits. Wisely, most provinces link it to labour employed.

[fellowtraveller]

I'll find arguments about Winnipegs/Manitobas growth and fine management a lot more convincing when they cease suckling fulltime at the federal teat. Despite having plenty of natural resources, cheap power and an educated workforce they have proven completely unable to wean themselves from dependency on other peoples money. That isn't 'anti-regionalism', that is reality.

Edmonton's tax increases are the result of years of underplanning and underspending on infrastructure at a time when the city was growing rapidly.

Building infrastructure to try to accommodate this kind of population growth is a challenge that Winnipeg simply does not face.

Good analysis overall Kimmy but you overlook a very important element in why Edmontons infrastructure has suffered badly. It is true that mayors like Reimer and Smith did little in the way of planning, and were both basically useless at getting even a fair share from the province. It is also true that Mandel has been the best mayor in decades.

But the guy who really set it all back was Lawrence Decore. He was a very good mayor in many ways, but he intropduced a policy of severely restricting capital borrowing for the city. It was a bylaw for many years that edmonton could not have more than a certain percentage of their annual operating budget(5% I think) allocated to debt repayment. This was well intentioned, and likely appropriate in the 80s when Decore was mayor. But.. it was near disastrous when the expansion of the economy started in the mid to late 90s.

[jdobbin]

I'll find arguments about Winnipegs/Manitobas growth and fine management a lot more convincing when they cease suckling fulltime at the federal teat. Despite having plenty of natural resources, cheap power and an educated workforce they have proven completely unable to wean themselves from dependency on other peoples money. That isn't 'anti-regionalism', that is reality.

You can speak to Harper about it then. He was the one that increased transfer payments.

You'll have no argument from me that Manitoba should be doing more to become a have province but it is a federal program and the last one to increase payments was Harper. So vote against him next time if you feel strongly about it.

I certainly have not voted for the present or the last administrations because of their lack of vision.

[fellowtraveller]

Blame Harper for the chronic non-performance of the Manitoba economy......

How completely predictable.

[jdobbin]

Blame Harper for the chronic non-performance of the Manitoba economy......

How completely predictable.

No, blame Harper for expanding the transfer payments. Who do you think raised the amount? Manitoba? Sorry, it was your guy Harper.

Like I said, I haven't voted for any of the last governments of Manitoba (Conservative or NDP) because of their lack of economic vision. However, it isn't Manitoba that expanded transfer payments. That rests solely with Mr. Harper whom you support wholeheartedly.

Edited July 30, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

It is interesting to see the differences in financing deals between Quebec and Alberta with the same company.

Who do you think got the better deal?

http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/daily/.../lionsgate.html

The investment arm of the Quebec government has signed a $400-million financing deal with Lionsgate Entertainment to boost film and television production in la belle province.

Under the four-year deal, the Societe generale de financement du Quebec -- which invests taxpayers' money in growth capital and development projects to create local jobs -- will finance 35% of the production costs for 16 television and film projects, says Marie-Claude Lemieux the spokesperson for the Societe generale de financement du Quebec.

Lemieux says the deal is meant to boost the Quebec film industry. Many American productions have avoided Quebec in the last few years because of a long running labour dispute, settled this summer, involving the industry's actors' unions.

"We see this as an opportunity to bring business to Montreal so that our technicians are employed here. We have dealt with the labour dispute and now it's a question of attracting new projects," says Lemieux.

It would seem the Quebec deal leverages quite a hefty return in terms of private money and long term investment in its film community.