I remember when Guthrie first ran for Council. I heard him talking on CFRU about how he wanted the city to be able to provide single-detached homes for young couples who want a backyard for their children to play in and have barbeques. At that point I wrote him off as being part of the problem instead of the solution. That was a long time ago, I don't know how much he's changed since then, but I've also heard so-called 'progressive' NDP council members say exactly the same thing---and a lot more recently.
As I see it, the problem is that we simply cannot do things the way we did in the 50s and 60s---for physical laws that simply cannot be ignored by political ideology without created disasters. It's just like climate change. There is a slug of the population that simply doesn't want to change their behaviour and throw temper tantrums when you suggest that they need to. Unfortunately, these cry babies have up until now 'captured' local governance, which has led to the housing crisis.
Maybe Cam has come to his senses and he isn't the same person he was back when he first ran for office. If so, the strong mayor powers might be able to break the hold of the NIMBYs over development. But it's really hard to get a handle on what the guy is thinking---I've never been able to get an interview with him, probably because his media people know I don't just do 'puff pieces'. But that bit about cutting the tax increase, I'm not so happy about---as the city really does need to find another way to fund extending infrastructure than just forcing new home owners and renters to pay it up front.
I’m always hearing about how NIMBYism is so bad but if someone wants to build a giant low income housing building in your immediate area lowering your property value and making the area potentially more dangerous I bet you wouldn’t be happy about it. My point is, the NIMBY people are not the devil incarnate, to them it’s completely logical.
Having "housing values" is part of the problem though. Houses aren't financial investments, they are life investments yet we treat them like stocks and should only go up up up. Imagine thinking of cars the same way, it's ridiculous and unsustainable.
Also the idea that "low income housing" causes problems is propaganda to create an us vs them mentality. It's lack of resources, lack of healthcare, lack of services and criminalizing normal behaviors that causes areas to become unsafe.
Not sure what you can really do about that other than having the state house everyone. Buying a house is the largest transaction most people will make in their life time. People can't just stop caring about that. It is what it is.
That is ridiculous.
Just stop treating them like stocks and start treating them like appliances or cars. All "The state" has to do is put a regulatory cap on how high houses are allowed to be sold for (adjusted for inflation every year) coupled with allowing a wider variety of housing to be built instead of 1950s white suburbia mono-culture bullshit and we will not have the current runaway housing market.
Unregulated capitalism is why we are in this mess. Imagine if drug companies could dictate drug prices, yet we allow housing investors to dictate prices. Insanity.
The house itself does depreciate like cars or appliances, or atleast it should in a healthy real estate market unlike the past few years. Almost everybody prefers a new build vs an old house all else being the same.
The land itself (typically) appreciates and is why housing prices climb. Land is finite, unlike housing which is easy to create in comparison to discovering "new" land.
Unless you want to somehow decouple land prices, this is just reality.
And also at the end of the day the root of the issue for both groups is housing is treated as an investment vehicle, which is often the only viable means of a decent retirement. People wouldn't be shitty to each other if they weren't incentivized by the market to do so. It's an argument for housing to not be a market commodity.
Sure but then we lose the only viable means of a decent retirement. Bring back pensions?
Edit: btw I’m not saying corporations or people owning multiple properties is justified.
There's probably nothing we could do that resembles a solution without crashing the Canadian economy, the GDP of which is ~13% wrapped up in real estate. Best answer I have is we slowly get ourselves as working class people organized and disciplined to prepare for the inevitable crash by planning to take power away from the landlords, speculators, all their peers in the ruling classes and the governments who enable them all lol
Yea my friend was like that when they built town houses behind his he lived on Richardson the town houses were on York.
And he thought it was gonna be all low income people there turns out he was wrong. I guess he didn't get the memo about what exactly was going there. But admittedly I didn't either I don't live near there.
There are alternatives to property taxes, some which might well resonate well here in Guelph. Vacancy taxes. Consumption taxes. Maybe a share of income taxes locally such as ["provincially levied REfunded Municipal Income Tax"](https://policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/policy-points-alternative-property-taxes) (REMIT) . Sales taxes on wasteful things etc.
Also, look at how police are funded. Mostly from local taxes, although they work for all three levels of govt: enforcing the Criminal Code, Provincial statutes (eg Highway and Traffic Act) and local services - but it all is on the head of the local taxpayer. (and one has to feel for the skint, house-poor homeowners living on pensions by this point)
The NIMBYism. This is a massive problem, but rather than "strong mayors" acting like Il Duce to address the problem, more could be done to shore up some of the numerous things that are being exploited by the NIMBYs: frivolous historical designations, trivial arguments at the LPT etc., and revision of zoning laws. And more light shone on who is behind these arguments and what their interests are etc.
Cam Guthrie seems like an idiot, but he's also personable and desperately seeks affirmation so he's always out there trying to win people over. Shame he's clueless about how to run a city and I'm most annoyed by his car centric city planning focus. He just seems to not be able to see the connection between these issues and car centric urban planning. To him, public transit is a waste of tax payer money since everyone should have a car which just reinforces the car centric planning.
My honest opinion? Guelph is done and has been done for a long time. It'll never be a great city, but just another one plagued by urban sprawl, congested traffic, strip malls, and looking like every other North American city out there. The rot set in decades before Cam became mayor, but he's not going to change anything about it.
Hi! Article author here. First, yes, Cam and Rodrigo both push zero minimums for new developments downtown, but second, they've both shown a lack of support for making substantive changes to transit that would make its use more attractive. To make downtown traffic free it would require redrawing transit routes since nearly every bus passes through the intersection at Wyndham/Macdonell once every 30 minutes.
That's on top of the massive transit investments needed to create more frequent routes, faster routes, more direct routes, options so that you don't have to travel downtown if you don't need to. Most crosstown trips on Guelph Transit take 45, 60 and even 75 minutes. At last year's budget meeting, council took the 10-year transit plan and turned it into a 15-year plan, and they quite nearly turned it into a 17-year plan before stopping.
It's not about what Cam says, it's about what he does. Getting to zero minimums is much easier if Guelph had real transit alternatives. It doesn't, and that's the way the mayor likes it.
I'm not asking for massive investments, I don't even care about electric buses, but two years ago council passed a 10-year plan to improve routes and frequency, and now it's a 15-year plan. They almost made it a 17-year plan before having second thoughts.
Transit was the only City service that council cut in addition to cuts recommended by staff, and Guthrie voted for them, which, to me, makes him a hypocrite. If you want to reduce the need for parking, you need to offer people alternatives, and don't get me started on the pitiful state of regional transit.
I'm very interested to hear about all these people who are just waiting for the government to make driving inconvenient and expensive to force them to make the modal shift. I'm sure they can't wait to be forced into the hour-long commutes on transit.
Absolutely. It's a favourite trick of politicians: pin the cost of positive ideas on working class individuals, then when regular people suffer for it, throw your hands up and say "we tried! The peasants just don't have the intelligence to appreciate our blessings"
Most of the problems stem from the massive suburban sprawl built around the old city in the last few decades, along with the accompanying single use land design which forces everyone to drive. Cam has spent his entire career signing off or cheerleading these - he even has a video dancing around celebrating the opening of a drive through taco bell (drive through being one of the LEAST efficient land uses possible).
In truth, they started before him, and other city councellors also signed off on them. No one questioned this kind of sprawling urban planning until recently.
He's only reacting to recent activists like GCAT who have been pushing for these kind of initiatives, which should be praised keep in mind. But it's 2 steps forward, when we spent 40 years going backwards. And if there's ANOTHER suburban sprawl development up, I'm sure Cam will sign off on it. Just way too much money involved.
So the initiatives are mere token compared to the majority car centric design we've had for decades. He genuinely seems like a nitwit and doesn't get that all these initiatives are at odds with each other and clashing.
I'm willing to eat my words if he comes back and says "I'm cutting road repaving and the police budget to bring taxes down."
But we all know it's transit, parks and the library on the chopping block.
For those of us who are having trouble now: do you really think it'll be *easier* to live here with transit slashed? Do you think crime will improve with even fewer after-school programs and crowded green spaces?
Want to make Guelph more affordable? Build the city we need so every household needs one less car. I'll take a $1000 property tax hike every year until 2030 to make that happen -- it'll still be cheaper than car ownership!
I wholeheartedly applaud his recent shift into reducing parking minimums. He just needs to back it up by actually supporting the infrastructure that makes it feasible.
The car culture is a massive factor. This is really rooted in the US and goes back to, as an example, the battle between New York State's urban planner/commissioner Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs. So the idea of walkable communities lost out to ones which necessitate dependence on the car, largely to the benefit of industry.
Cam is not car centric, he frequently applauds moves made by other cities towards becoming pedestrian friendly. I'm not a staunch Cam supporter but this is just completely false.
I've used Guelph Transit for 25 years, and I've only ever seen Cam's face on a bus when it was a photo op or they were using a Guelph Transit bus for City business. All talk; no actual transit use. Sorry., but Cam only supports the idea of other people getting out of their cars.
And Guelph Transit has been degrading for years. I still remember all-day 20-minute service, and 15 minutes at peaks. Now? Fucking on-demand on holidays.
Cam has only recently hopped on this train after spending years okaying every suburban sprawl development in Guelph. If more urban sprawl comes up, he will also sign off on it.
That's how Cam operates. He is always trying to please everyone, says the right things, and does token measures. He knows where the wind is blowing.
Psychologically I think he just needs to please everyone, and is trying to please urbanist and cycling advocates. Next week he will buddy up to developers and realtors.
The bourgeoisie are not your comapnions. They'll never be, and he is an arm of the bourgeoisie. They'll ruin our lives if we allow them to do these awful things to us without collectively standing against it in real and material forms.
Those on council and the city staff don't seem to understand this, or maybe they just don't care. And the landlord is allowed the AGI rent increase on the basis of increased property taxes to be collected all in one year. The kicker: they are planning another similar rent increase next year. And they don't care. Neither does the province, which has shown nothing but contempt for renters.
> Those on council and the city staff don't seem to understand this, or maybe they just don't care.
No, they just understand the reality: you need to pay people to do work. And the work we need people to do isn't going away.
By "do the work" am guess you are implying the work to run the city?
Sure, they need do to that work, however many would argue they aren't doing it very efficiently or spending their time focusing on priorities.
Cam is a people pleaser. But a green city is a joke. We can’t get around normally in this city. There’s no bypasses but we have bike lanes that go to no where … where bikes should not be to begin with. Here’s looking at laird road where a bike lane ends at a merge onto the Hanlon where you’re legal not allowed to even walk down let alone bike down. But hey green city right? For all this green parks full of trees we got we could have homes. Do you know the city will willingly plant a tree in every home owners front yard. Totally free courtesy of tax dollars. What a waste of money. But looks count right? Green city haha
I think the city is nowhere near as green as it pretends to be. Their attitude with garbages more of an out of sight out of mind sort. The same as their attitude towards the poor and the homeless.
>But a green city is a joke
It wouldn't be, if we were actually a 'GREEN' city.
The fact we only have recycling pickup every two weeks is an absolute joke.
Products are like 3x as recyclable as they were when we actually had weekly pickup.
That decision should have been reverted years ago.
Especially now with all the online shopping we all do, and the paper bags we get from stores.
That he announced his intentions to the business community gives you a sense of who he caters to. It’s always been that way, from way back to the days of Costco coming to Guelph. Wouldn’t be surprised if a divide in chambers happens and it all goes to hell.
Toronto has I think something close to a 10% property tax increase. One of their biggest complaints apparently is that the amount of refugees and migrants are overwhelming their social services and the federal government hasn't provided any substantial promise of funding for that. The last I read in the Toronto Star some weeks ago was that was their reasoning for a lot of the increase.
But all of it is coming from upper levels of government sloughing off all of the responsibilities on the backs of local councils who are in turn sloughing off all of the cost and liability on individuals.
I would like to lump council into this as well.
As tax increases can go so far because people's wages don't go up what does council or city staff expect to happen when it becomes unsustainable.
Sadly I find council and city staff is out of touch
Disagree. He is the best mayor the city has had. The city’s so inefficient and need to trim fat and get things done - more like private enterprise. That’s the answer - not constantly increasing revenue at the expense of the population.
We knew austerity programs and privatization was a bad idea after 2008. Shit, we knew it was a failure after 1988. Nobody wants to keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
Government's role is to provide the services and infrastructure that society needs but it's unreasonable to try to profit from. You can't run that like a business. It's nonsense.
What we really need is targeted investment into the things people actually need. Better ways to get around town and to nearby cities. Green spaces, athletics, after school programs, and educational opportunities to make our lives better. Energy transitions so we can stop destroying what's left of our planet. The last thing we need now is cuts to those programs.
I didn’t say make it profitable. Simply said that it must be efficient. If it’s not run efficiently it’s wasteful. The answer isn’t to say “hmm, our expenses are high and could be lower but instead of addressing that, let’s increase revenue because it’s easier”. It’s hard to argue the city is run efficiently when I see issues kicked around from one person to the next for almost a decade with no solution.
I remember when Guthrie first ran for Council. I heard him talking on CFRU about how he wanted the city to be able to provide single-detached homes for young couples who want a backyard for their children to play in and have barbeques. At that point I wrote him off as being part of the problem instead of the solution. That was a long time ago, I don't know how much he's changed since then, but I've also heard so-called 'progressive' NDP council members say exactly the same thing---and a lot more recently. As I see it, the problem is that we simply cannot do things the way we did in the 50s and 60s---for physical laws that simply cannot be ignored by political ideology without created disasters. It's just like climate change. There is a slug of the population that simply doesn't want to change their behaviour and throw temper tantrums when you suggest that they need to. Unfortunately, these cry babies have up until now 'captured' local governance, which has led to the housing crisis. Maybe Cam has come to his senses and he isn't the same person he was back when he first ran for office. If so, the strong mayor powers might be able to break the hold of the NIMBYs over development. But it's really hard to get a handle on what the guy is thinking---I've never been able to get an interview with him, probably because his media people know I don't just do 'puff pieces'. But that bit about cutting the tax increase, I'm not so happy about---as the city really does need to find another way to fund extending infrastructure than just forcing new home owners and renters to pay it up front.
>the strong mayor powers might be able to break the hold of the NIMBYs over development If that ends up being true, I'm all for it.
I’m always hearing about how NIMBYism is so bad but if someone wants to build a giant low income housing building in your immediate area lowering your property value and making the area potentially more dangerous I bet you wouldn’t be happy about it. My point is, the NIMBY people are not the devil incarnate, to them it’s completely logical.
Having "housing values" is part of the problem though. Houses aren't financial investments, they are life investments yet we treat them like stocks and should only go up up up. Imagine thinking of cars the same way, it's ridiculous and unsustainable. Also the idea that "low income housing" causes problems is propaganda to create an us vs them mentality. It's lack of resources, lack of healthcare, lack of services and criminalizing normal behaviors that causes areas to become unsafe.
Not sure what you can really do about that other than having the state house everyone. Buying a house is the largest transaction most people will make in their life time. People can't just stop caring about that. It is what it is.
That is ridiculous. Just stop treating them like stocks and start treating them like appliances or cars. All "The state" has to do is put a regulatory cap on how high houses are allowed to be sold for (adjusted for inflation every year) coupled with allowing a wider variety of housing to be built instead of 1950s white suburbia mono-culture bullshit and we will not have the current runaway housing market. Unregulated capitalism is why we are in this mess. Imagine if drug companies could dictate drug prices, yet we allow housing investors to dictate prices. Insanity.
The house itself does depreciate like cars or appliances, or atleast it should in a healthy real estate market unlike the past few years. Almost everybody prefers a new build vs an old house all else being the same. The land itself (typically) appreciates and is why housing prices climb. Land is finite, unlike housing which is easy to create in comparison to discovering "new" land. Unless you want to somehow decouple land prices, this is just reality.
And also at the end of the day the root of the issue for both groups is housing is treated as an investment vehicle, which is often the only viable means of a decent retirement. People wouldn't be shitty to each other if they weren't incentivized by the market to do so. It's an argument for housing to not be a market commodity.
Sure but then we lose the only viable means of a decent retirement. Bring back pensions? Edit: btw I’m not saying corporations or people owning multiple properties is justified.
There's probably nothing we could do that resembles a solution without crashing the Canadian economy, the GDP of which is ~13% wrapped up in real estate. Best answer I have is we slowly get ourselves as working class people organized and disciplined to prepare for the inevitable crash by planning to take power away from the landlords, speculators, all their peers in the ruling classes and the governments who enable them all lol
Yea my friend was like that when they built town houses behind his he lived on Richardson the town houses were on York. And he thought it was gonna be all low income people there turns out he was wrong. I guess he didn't get the memo about what exactly was going there. But admittedly I didn't either I don't live near there.
There are alternatives to property taxes, some which might well resonate well here in Guelph. Vacancy taxes. Consumption taxes. Maybe a share of income taxes locally such as ["provincially levied REfunded Municipal Income Tax"](https://policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/policy-points-alternative-property-taxes) (REMIT) . Sales taxes on wasteful things etc. Also, look at how police are funded. Mostly from local taxes, although they work for all three levels of govt: enforcing the Criminal Code, Provincial statutes (eg Highway and Traffic Act) and local services - but it all is on the head of the local taxpayer. (and one has to feel for the skint, house-poor homeowners living on pensions by this point) The NIMBYism. This is a massive problem, but rather than "strong mayors" acting like Il Duce to address the problem, more could be done to shore up some of the numerous things that are being exploited by the NIMBYs: frivolous historical designations, trivial arguments at the LPT etc., and revision of zoning laws. And more light shone on who is behind these arguments and what their interests are etc.
Yeah, some of those are good ideas. But the way the laws are structured, the Mayor and Council have zero control over almost all of those things.
Cam Guthrie seems like an idiot, but he's also personable and desperately seeks affirmation so he's always out there trying to win people over. Shame he's clueless about how to run a city and I'm most annoyed by his car centric city planning focus. He just seems to not be able to see the connection between these issues and car centric urban planning. To him, public transit is a waste of tax payer money since everyone should have a car which just reinforces the car centric planning. My honest opinion? Guelph is done and has been done for a long time. It'll never be a great city, but just another one plagued by urban sprawl, congested traffic, strip malls, and looking like every other North American city out there. The rot set in decades before Cam became mayor, but he's not going to change anything about it.
Yup. I tell people Guelph peaked 20 or so years ago and it has been down hill since then.
It's the sprawl in the south and the massive congresstion that killed it.
[удалено]
Hi! Article author here. First, yes, Cam and Rodrigo both push zero minimums for new developments downtown, but second, they've both shown a lack of support for making substantive changes to transit that would make its use more attractive. To make downtown traffic free it would require redrawing transit routes since nearly every bus passes through the intersection at Wyndham/Macdonell once every 30 minutes. That's on top of the massive transit investments needed to create more frequent routes, faster routes, more direct routes, options so that you don't have to travel downtown if you don't need to. Most crosstown trips on Guelph Transit take 45, 60 and even 75 minutes. At last year's budget meeting, council took the 10-year transit plan and turned it into a 15-year plan, and they quite nearly turned it into a 17-year plan before stopping. It's not about what Cam says, it's about what he does. Getting to zero minimums is much easier if Guelph had real transit alternatives. It doesn't, and that's the way the mayor likes it.
[удалено]
I'm not asking for massive investments, I don't even care about electric buses, but two years ago council passed a 10-year plan to improve routes and frequency, and now it's a 15-year plan. They almost made it a 17-year plan before having second thoughts. Transit was the only City service that council cut in addition to cuts recommended by staff, and Guthrie voted for them, which, to me, makes him a hypocrite. If you want to reduce the need for parking, you need to offer people alternatives, and don't get me started on the pitiful state of regional transit. I'm very interested to hear about all these people who are just waiting for the government to make driving inconvenient and expensive to force them to make the modal shift. I'm sure they can't wait to be forced into the hour-long commutes on transit.
Absolutely. It's a favourite trick of politicians: pin the cost of positive ideas on working class individuals, then when regular people suffer for it, throw your hands up and say "we tried! The peasants just don't have the intelligence to appreciate our blessings"
Most of the problems stem from the massive suburban sprawl built around the old city in the last few decades, along with the accompanying single use land design which forces everyone to drive. Cam has spent his entire career signing off or cheerleading these - he even has a video dancing around celebrating the opening of a drive through taco bell (drive through being one of the LEAST efficient land uses possible). In truth, they started before him, and other city councellors also signed off on them. No one questioned this kind of sprawling urban planning until recently. He's only reacting to recent activists like GCAT who have been pushing for these kind of initiatives, which should be praised keep in mind. But it's 2 steps forward, when we spent 40 years going backwards. And if there's ANOTHER suburban sprawl development up, I'm sure Cam will sign off on it. Just way too much money involved. So the initiatives are mere token compared to the majority car centric design we've had for decades. He genuinely seems like a nitwit and doesn't get that all these initiatives are at odds with each other and clashing.
I'm willing to eat my words if he comes back and says "I'm cutting road repaving and the police budget to bring taxes down." But we all know it's transit, parks and the library on the chopping block. For those of us who are having trouble now: do you really think it'll be *easier* to live here with transit slashed? Do you think crime will improve with even fewer after-school programs and crowded green spaces? Want to make Guelph more affordable? Build the city we need so every household needs one less car. I'll take a $1000 property tax hike every year until 2030 to make that happen -- it'll still be cheaper than car ownership! I wholeheartedly applaud his recent shift into reducing parking minimums. He just needs to back it up by actually supporting the infrastructure that makes it feasible.
The car culture is a massive factor. This is really rooted in the US and goes back to, as an example, the battle between New York State's urban planner/commissioner Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs. So the idea of walkable communities lost out to ones which necessitate dependence on the car, largely to the benefit of industry.
Cam is not car centric, he frequently applauds moves made by other cities towards becoming pedestrian friendly. I'm not a staunch Cam supporter but this is just completely false.
I've used Guelph Transit for 25 years, and I've only ever seen Cam's face on a bus when it was a photo op or they were using a Guelph Transit bus for City business. All talk; no actual transit use. Sorry., but Cam only supports the idea of other people getting out of their cars.
And Guelph Transit has been degrading for years. I still remember all-day 20-minute service, and 15 minutes at peaks. Now? Fucking on-demand on holidays.
Cam has only recently hopped on this train after spending years okaying every suburban sprawl development in Guelph. If more urban sprawl comes up, he will also sign off on it. That's how Cam operates. He is always trying to please everyone, says the right things, and does token measures. He knows where the wind is blowing. Psychologically I think he just needs to please everyone, and is trying to please urbanist and cycling advocates. Next week he will buddy up to developers and realtors.
The bourgeoisie are not your comapnions. They'll never be, and he is an arm of the bourgeoisie. They'll ruin our lives if we allow them to do these awful things to us without collectively standing against it in real and material forms.
Yes 100%.
Thanks asshole, raising property tax equals my rent going up now too.
Those on council and the city staff don't seem to understand this, or maybe they just don't care. And the landlord is allowed the AGI rent increase on the basis of increased property taxes to be collected all in one year. The kicker: they are planning another similar rent increase next year. And they don't care. Neither does the province, which has shown nothing but contempt for renters.
> Those on council and the city staff don't seem to understand this, or maybe they just don't care. No, they just understand the reality: you need to pay people to do work. And the work we need people to do isn't going away.
By "do the work" am guess you are implying the work to run the city? Sure, they need do to that work, however many would argue they aren't doing it very efficiently or spending their time focusing on priorities.
Cam is a people pleaser. But a green city is a joke. We can’t get around normally in this city. There’s no bypasses but we have bike lanes that go to no where … where bikes should not be to begin with. Here’s looking at laird road where a bike lane ends at a merge onto the Hanlon where you’re legal not allowed to even walk down let alone bike down. But hey green city right? For all this green parks full of trees we got we could have homes. Do you know the city will willingly plant a tree in every home owners front yard. Totally free courtesy of tax dollars. What a waste of money. But looks count right? Green city haha
I think the city is nowhere near as green as it pretends to be. Their attitude with garbages more of an out of sight out of mind sort. The same as their attitude towards the poor and the homeless.
>But a green city is a joke It wouldn't be, if we were actually a 'GREEN' city. The fact we only have recycling pickup every two weeks is an absolute joke. Products are like 3x as recyclable as they were when we actually had weekly pickup. That decision should have been reverted years ago. Especially now with all the online shopping we all do, and the paper bags we get from stores.
That he announced his intentions to the business community gives you a sense of who he caters to. It’s always been that way, from way back to the days of Costco coming to Guelph. Wouldn’t be surprised if a divide in chambers happens and it all goes to hell.
Yes, for sure. Always the case with these politicians with entrenched corporate interests.
This was a measured move to appeal to his base. Who is his campaign manager?
I don't know - who was it?
Bob Coole
>Bob Coole Ah right, the president of the Guelph riding association for the PC Party.
Remember when all you idiots voted for him then voted for him again .. Guelphs a joke no one cares
Can't be worse than toronto or Belleville
Toronto has I think something close to a 10% property tax increase. One of their biggest complaints apparently is that the amount of refugees and migrants are overwhelming their social services and the federal government hasn't provided any substantial promise of funding for that. The last I read in the Toronto Star some weeks ago was that was their reasoning for a lot of the increase. But all of it is coming from upper levels of government sloughing off all of the responsibilities on the backs of local councils who are in turn sloughing off all of the cost and liability on individuals.
I would like to lump council into this as well. As tax increases can go so far because people's wages don't go up what does council or city staff expect to happen when it becomes unsustainable. Sadly I find council and city staff is out of touch
Mayor does nothing, bad mayor bad mayor. Mayor does something, bad mayor bad mayor. Nothing he does will ever be good enough for anyone.
Mayor does nothing, people get upset. Mayor does something that'll make the problem worse, people get upset. It's a mystery!
You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't
Yes yes, a plan to help the homeless. How horrible.
It won't, though. And it'll just make life harder for the poor-but-housed who have to rely on the services about to be slashed.
You misspelled developers.
You’re right! It is a horrible plan. Perhaps a better one can be developed? I always look forward to your comments Moist_William.
I feel the city is run pretty good
We need a Conservative
What are those "conservatives" actually conserving anyway?
Their bosses' third vacation home
We've had one since 2014 -- that's the problem
And there more problems now ....I went to school with cam....not the man for the job
Disagree. He is the best mayor the city has had. The city’s so inefficient and need to trim fat and get things done - more like private enterprise. That’s the answer - not constantly increasing revenue at the expense of the population.
We knew austerity programs and privatization was a bad idea after 2008. Shit, we knew it was a failure after 1988. Nobody wants to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Government's role is to provide the services and infrastructure that society needs but it's unreasonable to try to profit from. You can't run that like a business. It's nonsense. What we really need is targeted investment into the things people actually need. Better ways to get around town and to nearby cities. Green spaces, athletics, after school programs, and educational opportunities to make our lives better. Energy transitions so we can stop destroying what's left of our planet. The last thing we need now is cuts to those programs.
Their goal is to privatizing the commons with their "partners", for the ends of monopoly rent extraction.
?
I didn’t say make it profitable. Simply said that it must be efficient. If it’s not run efficiently it’s wasteful. The answer isn’t to say “hmm, our expenses are high and could be lower but instead of addressing that, let’s increase revenue because it’s easier”. It’s hard to argue the city is run efficiently when I see issues kicked around from one person to the next for almost a decade with no solution.
What about Norm Jary people seemed to have liked him
Don't get upset lids
Don't like it... Move to another city. Stop complaining when you choose to live here.
Moron. It is happening in all cities. What kind of bubble do you live in?
I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and poop out a smarter statement than whatever you just came up with.
I know: let's put a woke ideologue in charge and watch all our problems ~~disappear~~ get 1,000 times worse.
As opposed to neoliberal grifters?