Monday, June 20, 2011

Quit beating this to death!

Foolish me. I thought Council had decided on a full-service replica bridge to replace the Traffic Bridge at a cost of $30 million and discarded the idea of incorporating heritage elements due to the cost. In Saturday's SP (June 18/11) the article suggests there are heritage elements to be incorporated and the cost could be up to $34 million.

If the elements they speak of are not the physical, but visual, wouldn't the "replica" concept cover that?

Just get on with the project and bring it in on budget.


  1. The very same people that insist on this or that being added to the bridge project will be the ones who howl at the cost over run of doing the bridge or their view not being listened to. It is time to quit public cosultation on this stuff and get the elected people doing their job along with the cities administrative branch. The public in most cases have no idea what is required to complete projects on time and budget and flood the consultation meetings to hijack the agenda to their way of thinking, council should stop doing what they think is popular and do the job they were elected to do. The same goes for the recycle program ironically the socialist are lining up to kill a small curb side business to make a large wealthy business even more wealthy, just wait until they have their monopoly.

  2. I have really enjoyed how the same people calling on Council to end the consultations on recycling and get on with the program are the same ones demanding further consultation on the Traffic Bridge.

    This city is the perfect example of the squeaky wheel gets the grease. A few nut jobs make a lot of noise at City Hall meetings and advance their agenda on the rest of the public. Too bad no one on Council has the balls to stand up to the nut jobs.

    Can't wait to hear the debate on fluoride in water, apparently the nut jobs don't like our renowned drinking water....

  3. It amazes me how the people who are demanding the most expensive and luxurious public facilities are never the ones footing a higher tax bill.

    Of course people who contribute little or no taxes want the extra money spent on capital projects, it absolutely has no impact on them.

    If the Heritage Society wants a heritage bridge given them a deadline to raise the additional $4-million in funds themselves, barring that build the most economical bridge you can. Time to put up or shut for the Heritage Society, their candidate receiving not votes in the past by-election should be a sign to them that nobody but them cares about their cause.

    This bridge has all the writings of a campaign issue that will bring Lenore the Leech back into civic politics.

  4. as of today there is no pool of money identified to pay for the new it matters little what it looks like.

    "It amazes me how the people who are demanding the most expensive and luxurious public facilities are never the ones footing a higher tax bill.

    Of course people who contribute little or no taxes want the extra money spent on capital projects, it absolutely has no impact on them."

    How does this statement make any sense? Last time I checked everyone either owning a home or renting in this city are paying property taxes - i.e. they are footing the bills rung up on their behalf.

  5. Anon 2:25, have you checked the property taxes on a house located in Nutana along the river as compared with Avenue W?

    The point is, the people who pay the lowest amount of taxes seem to be the ones who make the most frivolous demands. You don't see many people paying high taxes already clamoring to spend an additional 4 million so the bridge will kind of look like the one it is replacing. It is the people who don't pay much in taxes that want the extra money spent on these luxuries.

    Look at Station 20 West, the proposal they brought to the NDP has been reduced significantly once tax payers weren't being asked to foot the bill. Once the 'community' bound together and decided to raise the funds out went all the luxuries built into their original pitch and in came a more practical design concept.

    It's not a stretch that the people paying the bills are generally the ones most concerned with getting bang for their buck, while those not responsible for the bill will order whatever they feel like off the menu.

  6. What heritage is the Heritage Society even trying to protect?

    Do we really want a decrepit old looking bridge being built? Why would you want a replica of that rundown piece of steel?

    Here's an idea for the City, set a budge...say $30 million, and not a cent more, and the let the engineers and architects design one that fits the needs and price.

    My property taxes are already slated to go up over 30% in the next 5 years, the last thing I want is to tag on another 5% to give one of the new projects a heritage look.

    This Council has flooded the City in debt and we can't afford to spend the extra money anymore.

  7. The Heritage Society never asked for "heritage elements" in the new bridge, nor wanted them. Their stance was to restore the old bridge or bust.

    This heritage elements "sympathetic to" the original bridge was an amendment put forth by Councillor Penner. The Heritage Society did not want that.

    If you're gonna be huffing and puffing about civic politics, at least attempt to get the basic facts correct. Throwing unsubstantiated blame about does little to advance debate.

  8. Penner being the oldest on the block would know a lot about heritage as I believe he may have even worked on the original.

    Just as the Bridge his ideas are antiquated.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.