Tagged: vancouver sun

Compare and contrast: Right-wing urban development edition

Yesterday in the Vancouver Sun, Pete McMartin – in what I can only suppose is it’s important to give equal consideration to any crackpot idea as long as the crackpot idea originates from the right-wing - wrote an article on the urban development ideas of Wendell Cox. Mr Cox is described as a U.S. public policy consultant. This is true. What is also true is Mr. Cox is a a U.S. public policy consultant, visiting fellow of the Heritage Foundation and senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. The latter being infamously in the news lately. Anyway, Mr. Cox loves urban sprawl. To whit:

But densification, Cox maintains, rests on a mistaken assumption — that if a city is dense enough, we’ll get out of our cars in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

Instead, Cox wrote, densification does exactly the opposite. Most people continue to use their cars, but in a slower, less efficient flow of traffic.

But later that very same day, over the newswires…Gen Y doesn’t buy cars: study

For young adults coming out of school, many of who have incurred healthy debts, the idea of buying a car and adding to their debt leaves a bad taste in their mouths. Paying off student debts is seen as a priority, while owning a new car is a luxury. Add into the equation low wages and high insurance prices, and you’ve got a potent mix of reasons not to buy a new car.

But is it really that simple? For instance, a new Pew Research study finds that around 30 percent of Millennials move back in with their parents, freeing up more money for a vehicle. If kids aren’t paying rent, then why aren’t they buying cars?

Why indeed. Oops. McMartin ends…

Much of this in a city like Vancouver seems counter-intuitive, and given the ascendancy of the densification philosophy here, worthy of further discussion.

I look forward to a worthy discussion on whether the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Sorry, Pete. This was a dude.

UPDATE: See Gordon Price

Compare and contrast: Vivian Krause, 3rd edition

One would think that Elections BC would look into this attempt by an American foundation to meddle in B.C. politics. Surprisingly, Elections BC has said that there is “nothing for Elections BC to investigate.”

The Election Act does not restrict the activities of foreign groups in B.C. political matters.

-Vivian Krause, Vancouver Sun, February 25, 2011.

vs.

American foundations aren’t sup-posed to mobilize voters in a foreign country

-Vivian Krause, Vancouver Sun, November 15, 2011

Did the B.C. Elections Act change between February 25, 2011 and November 15, 2011?

Why, no…it didn’t.

See also: Elections BC on Krause and City Caucus charges and Foreign influence on Canadian environmental policy: A request for some balance

In the real world, its foreign corporations that exert [exponentially] more influence on Canadian policy-making than foreign NGOs. An honest debater would point that out.

Government spokesman

Ian Reid has a worthwhile comment on Vaughn Palmer’s latest press release for the Public Affairs Bureau Vancouver Sun column:

Here’s how it goes.  Any criticism of privatization is evidence of a secret red agenda.  So if Horgan, Dix and Farnworth take on BC Rail, Hospital services privatization and the BC Ferries experiment that means, to quote the falconized Palmer, “you have to wonder how they would propose to spur job creation and economic growth”.

Huh?

Read the rest. Good comments left by readers too.

“Ethical” op-eds

I’m really beginning to wonder if the Vancouver Sun editorial staff have gone missing or are vacation or something, such is the frequency of guest appearances on our local paper’s editorial page from the Calgary Herald. Today we are graced with Alberta oil is ‘ethical’. Right. The gist: Oil produced from Alberta’s tar sands, by way of Canada’s human rights and overall environmental record, is “ethically” superior to oil produced in the other large oil-producing nations. Oh, and the claims of the Tar Sand opposing activists are false.

Such is laziness of the writers they don’t even bother with constructing strawmen. What are these “false” claims of these perfidious activists? Who knows…they are false. Ipso facto. But ah-hah, the editorialist has found an environmentalist to agree with them!

That environmentalist is Patrick Moore. While noting Moore left the green movement it doesn’t note when: 1986. It also doesn’t mention his subsequent controversial and lucrative career speaking on behalf of corporate causes. But that is neither here nor there.

The human rights angle is a red herring. Are human rights arguments being leveled at the Alberta Tar Sands? No. Are environmental groups required to utilize human rights arguments? No. Environmental groups use environmental arguments. Human rights groups use human right arguments.

But isn’t it better to purchase oil from Canada than, say, Saudi Arabia the way some argue it’s better to purchase Fair Trade coffee (which, btw, lots of conservative think is bunk)? One has to remember that, while Canada benefits from royalities, oil isn’t purchased from “Canada”. It’s purchased from oil companies. And guess what? The oil companies in the Tar Sands are the same oil companies in the Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuela, etc.

For example: Royal Dutch Shell. Shell has a presence in the Alberta Tar Sands. Shell also has a presence in amongst many other places, Nigeria.

The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell’s vice-like grip on the country’s oil wealth. “Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin,” said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. “Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government.”

And while we are told the aforementioned House of Saud is too heinous to purchase oil from, they are apparently not heinous enough to sell them weapons. In fact, they’re Canada’s 3rd largest customer for arms.

Ah, ethics.

Today in reckless and deceptive fearmongering

Today’s Vancouver Sun has an article titled “Al-Qaida on brink of using nuclear bomb”. It is a most misleading headline. It’s actually a reprint from the Daily Telegraph which, while not my favourite British newspaper by a long shot, at least gives it’s version of the article the title “WikiLeaks: al-Qaeda ‘is planning a dirty bomb’”. A radiological “dirty” bomb and a nuclear weapon are not the same thing. One is nasty and can kill people. The other is nasty and can kill a whole lot of people. ie. a step up from a typical IED v. a true weapon of mass destruction. You learn this, sort of, in the body of the Sun article, but most people will scan the headline and freak out.

Actually reading the cable that directly relates to al Qaeda further dilutes the sensationalism. Here it is in full:

21. (C/NF) Terrorist acquisition of WMD was the next topic of major concern. Although there was a limited assessed capability for al-Qaeda and other groups to acquire WMD, the intent was clearly present, and there were ongoing credible reports of attempts to recruit the needed expertise. A “dirty” radiological IED program was assessed to be under active consideration by al-Qaeda.

Get that? al-Qaeda wants a dirty bomb [surprise!] but lacks capability. Things they would also like: Sharks with lasers in their eyes and a secret volcano headquarters. Furthermore, the Sun warns:

A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a “nuclear 9/11″.

In the Telegraph, we learn this regulator is Tomihiro Taniguchi, the deputy director-general of the IAEA. The Telegraph links to a cable seemingly in support of this (given the link is attached to the words “nuclear 9/11″) – but there is no mention of “nuclear 9/11″, Tomihiro Taniguchi or any mention of nuclear terrorism. What gives? Linked to the wrong cable? In fact, none of the links to cables seem to support the claims in the main article. Example two – “Acute safety and security concerns” is placed in quotes as if it’s, you know, a direct quotation. But the linked cable has no such quote. Ditto “small time hustler” in Lisbon. In this last example, the cable describes a substance seized by Burundian Intelligence that had been offered for sale by a local businessman. Of note: “There was no radiation alarm, and no other technical inspection of the material has taken place.” My quotes are in fact a direct quote. There is no mention of Lisbon, Portugal.

Most of the article relates to the lack of security around uranium mines and other such sites. What is missing in these later cases is any link to or even mention of al-Qaeda involvement.

What gives? This is either really sloppy or really deceptive. And this being the Torygraph and Vancouver Sun, I know which side I’m on: Both!

Stories about “dirty bombs” are nothing new. They come out every few years. Remember Jose Padilla? The question about the latest one is why now? And in pondering that the ongoing Egyptian revolution – and possibility of client state charting it’s own path – looms large. Scare stories are needed to undermine public support for the protesters.

“Overly strict”, or “Libertarians in the mist”

The Sun’s Don Cayo weighs in on the local headline du jour “Vancouver ranks third among least affordable cities in the world”. Which is, yeah, tell me something I don’t know.  But something caught my notice. The study’s authors – from the Frontier Centre of Public Policy cite this as the reason for the Lower Mainland’s lack of affordability:

David Seymour, a senior policy analyst for the Frontier Centre, and his collaborator on the study, consulting demographer Wendell Cox of St. Louis, finger “politically inflated land costs.”

“These land prices include the cost increasing influence of land supply restrictions (such as urban growth boundaries), excessive infrastructure fees and other overly strict land use regulations,” they write.

“Overly strict land use regulations”. Hmm…I wonder what they mean. That strikes me as a very, very subjective observation. I mean it’s not the demand brought on by the region’s world famous livability? It’s mild climate? Canada’s political and economic stability? The region’s unique and restrictive geography? No…apparently it’s land use regulations. Which, yes, probably do have an effect. The ALR does sit on some prime real estate. But it’s there for a reason too. It’s not just some 100-mile Diet ideal – food supply and food security are important strategic considerations – and will be even more so in the future.

So, being the curious sort, I wondered just who exactly the Frontier Centre of Public Policy were. On their “About” page they describe themselves as – surprise – “non-partisan and non-ideological” as almost everyone does. A careful parsing of that page will give you clues, with such statements like “Canada’s prairie region live up to its vast but unrealized economic potential” and pondering “the proper role of government”.

And the Environment page is a climate-change denialist extravaganza. IPCC Climate Science Is Fundamentally Wrong: Carbon Footprint is All Wet and Water New Target as Climate Change Hysteria Falters to Time To Hold Climate Doomsayers To Account. Well, that narrows it down a bit, as do things like Five Quick Thoughts in Favour of the Flat Tax.

But what really gives the game away? Here’s how they are listed in Google:

Now Google didn’t write that. A FCPP staffer did when filling out their SEO . Whoopsie.

And maybe all those events featuring Ezra Levant were also a clue…

Now, this isn’t an attempt to poison the well. Just because you’re conservative and/or libertarian doesn’t mean you can’t put out solid research. But it certainly does help explain that values-based statement above.

Always do the math yourself

Vancouver Sun reporters Tracy Sherlock and James Kwantes take dictation from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on their claim that Canadians’ after tax income has shrunk. British Columbians’ are, it is said, affected in particular:

According to the CTF, a B.C. family of four with a single-income earner who makes $35,000 a year — receiving a 1.8-per-cent raise to account for inflation — will pay $384 more for health, CPP and EI premiums in 2011, the biggest increase for this demographic.

As is often the case, the math doesn’t quite add up. Norm Farrell does the number-crunching:

In fact, if that family received a 1.8% wage increase, the amount would be $630 for the year. That would lead to higher contributions to CPP and EI of $42.40 on the increase plus $17.50 for an overall EI rate increase. Those payments would give rise to higher benefit eligibility but, ignoring that and adding the $7 monthly increase for medical services results in the family paying $144 more for health, COO and EI premiums in 2011, a far cry from the $384 claimed by the CTF.

I really think it was the professional responsibility of Ms Sherlock and Mr. Kwantes to double-check the number themselves. Alas. To be fair, the Globe also provided stenography services to the CTF.

Update: So just how does BC compare? You see another misleading thing the CTF does is that it didn’t provide the actual amount for after-tax income, just alludes to the increase. Misleading because if you have a large % increase on a large amount then you could still be better off than a smaller % on a smaller amount.

Now I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this link, and it doesn’t say what is being included in the calculations, but it’s billed as the “Canadian Income Tax Calculator 2011″. And if you plug in $35,000, you’ll see BC is #2 in After-tax income, after Nunavut. Strangely, according this, you are taking home more in 2011 than in 2010.

Compare and contrast…

From the conservative The Economist:

One of the keenest slashers was British Columbia, which despite being one of the richest provinces has one of the highest rates of child poverty (10.4%) after taxes on family income. Critics of such policies say that children who grow up in poverty forfeit the chance to prosper as adults, or to become productive workers.

And from the conservative Vancouver Sun’s Fraser Institute penned infomercial media-release article of today:

Alberta has the friendliest investment climate among Canadian provinces, while Ontario continues to struggle, according to a report released Thursday from the Fraser Institute.

The report lauded Alberta for its low taxes on companies and people, careful spending at the provincial-government level and lack of red tape.

BC is, sadly, third. Clearly we need to take care of the truly needy and slash corporate taxes.

The blinding Sun in your eyes, Pt. 1

Usually I ignore the gliberatarian, Fraser Institute-dominated editorial board of the Vancouver Sun, who don’t seem to read the contradicting articles published in their own newspaper. I could get upset – every day, even – at the obfuscation that graces that page. But after Gordo’s big speech last night where he gives with one hand and pickpockets back more with the other…I’m in a mood. Let us begin…

Take note that we don’t mean slowing down the rate of growth of spending, but making real reductions in spending. This has to be spelled out because politicians don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference.

Here is the “thesis”. The City of Vancouver’s spending is out of control. We know this because there have been two large budget shortfalls in 2009 and 2010. Fine, first you need to demonstrate what portion of the spending increase that make up the shortfall is, and this is of course subjective, “unjustified” (and we will deal with this part later). And two…there is a very important factor, one might even say the primary factor, being left out.

And that’s the loss of revenue from the economic slowdown created by the Great Recession.

The CoV relies heavily on the revenues collected from building permits and other fees associated with the housing and construction industries, which are themselves reliant on access to capital from hedge funds and so on. And building starts took a whopping hit and are only now returning to pre-September 2008 levels. With this in mind the patronizing politicians don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference seems, well, jarring and dishonest.

Budget documents reveal that the city’s operating expenditures have soared by 68 per cent since 2000, from $610.9 million to an estimated $1.026 billion in 2011. That’s more than double the rate of inflation (22 per cent) plus population growth (10 per cent) over the past decade.

Good point! But…what’s not being mentioned? I think it might be something big that happened in 2010 that the City spent the better part of that decade preparing for. Do you think that big thingamajig might have been a factor?

It’s also an increase of $60.2 million over last year, of which $34.9 million will fund a four-per-cent increase in salary and benefits for the city’s 6,000 workers.

So now we get down to the heart of the Ayn Rand Fan Club Editorial Board’s objection – salary increases from the 2008 contract for [assumed overpaid] civil servants. Now, watch carefully because there’s a shell game going on.

These wage gains are far in excess of those in the private sector, or the provincial and federal governments, where zero-increase contracts have become the norm.

Okay, did you see what they did there? Far in excess of increases in the private, provincial, and federal sectors (where zero-increase contracts have become the norm!)…in 2010! As mentioned the current contract, signed by the previous civic government, is from 2008. So the Sun is chiding an agreement made in boom times and with the Olympics looming with decisions being made in the economic climate of 2010. Not. Honest. And if only that collective agreement had been the usual 3 years rather than the 5 years the previous management insisted on. We might not be having this conversation!

These so-called “priorities” should be subject to the same cost-saving exercise as every other sector. Besides, as every manager with budget responsibilities knows, you hunt where the ducks are.

Now I can agree with that. It should be the rare occasion where you lock yourself into certain decisions in advance. But it goes both ways – limiting the property tax is also locking yourself in to a decision that the facts on the ground might not dictate. Of course, to the Fazil Mihlar-era editorial board, taxes bad, spending cuts – no matter who they hurt – good! The tax burden of Canadians in general, British Columbians and Vancouverites in particular is not burdensome. We are on the lower side of the scale of industrialized countries (OECD, .xls). Let’s jump ahead to

The business community fears, with reason, that the Vision-dominated council will renege on its commitment to shift one per cent of the tax levy each year  in order to meet its target of a two-per-cent tax increase.

Based on…what? Their past record of shifting 1% from non-residential to residential property? From their public statements indicating they plan on continuing to do so? I’m serious – this “concern” is pulled out of thin air.

Such a move would deepen suspicion that the council is insensitive, or at worst hostile, to the needs of business.

Here’s why I don’t think the editorial board reads it’s own newspaper. Yes, the poor Vancouver businessman labouring under the…..least burdensome cost of doing business outside the Third World? In fact, Fazil Mihlar himself penned this back in July:

The 2010 KPMG study of 95 cities across 10 countries concluded that Canada was the best place to invest, with a five-percent cost advantage over the U.S. Out of the 35 major cities with populations of more than two million, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto ranked in the top 10 in terms of cost of doing business.

I guess he forgot. And to say Vancouver is “in the top 10″ is itself a deflection just how good it is to do business here:

The report ranks 41 major international cities, with Vancouver ranking first

Oops. Speaking of which, is the tax-shift even useful? As this letter writer ponders persuasively…not in reality:

When this issue last came up, I spoke to some small-business owners and was told most did not own their property. They laughed when I mentioned a reduction in taxes and said it was most unlikely that the landlord would ever pass any tax reduction down to the small-business tenants.

The rich get richer. The little guys continue on continuing on. Now to the whipping post du jour, cycling lanes:

The 2.4-kilometre Hornby bike lane will cost $3.2 million; by comparison, Montreal is laying down 51 kilometres of bikeway, including nine kilometres of repaving, for $9.9 million.

Certainly sounds like Montreal is doing a better job, but are we comparing apples to apples here? HAHA…of course not!

Of the 51 kilometres to be added to the existing 502-kilometre network in 2010, about 40 kilometres will involve lanes and cycling symbols painted on roads. The remaining paths will feature concrete medians separating cyclists from cars.

Painting lanes and symbols is a minimal cost. Repaving isn’t all that expensive either. What is expensive are turn signals, which the Hornby lane requires. The 11km Montreal separated system, costing more than 3x as much is comparable to Vancouver’s costs on Hornby. By way of comparison, a parking spot for an automobile “costs $5,000 to $25,000 to construct, resulting in $500 to $1,500 in annualized construction and operating costs.”

Now some say, despite the current government being elected on a platform advocating it and a Capital Plan referendum validating it, that cycling infrastructure is not a priority. The priority for the Sun is cutting spending, cutting taxes. To the bone.

They won’t be happy until there is no government, and a world in which unaccountable corporations run every part of our life.