Guest Blogger Says....
I found the opinion piece in Firday's Star Phoenix (Service Review Lacks Equity) an interesting take by those identifying themselves as advocates for the poor in our city. I'm perplexed at how these people take to task the service review and the cuts that will be affecting low income people and the increases in everyday costs should the transit fees be increased. Where were they crying fowl when the Recycling discussions were removed from those review discussions. Is the $7 million a year it will cost tax payers not coming out of their pockets as well. Are we to assume the $4.87 or what ever it may be most likely $15-$20/month to pick up what is currently being done for much less, going to come out of the available money low-income people have.
Costs in this city are going to be going up that is a certainty, the individualized pick-up of recyclables is a waste of money given the demands on civic services we have today from the years of neglect of councils in the past.
Oh and to those couple of councilors that what more money for roads how about just getting your priorities correct I don't see Regina having the problems we do and they receive similar funding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It took you three days to come up with this response?
ReplyDeleteFirday? Fowl? I might have more respect for your opinion without these and other grammatical issues...
ReplyDeleteNo you have it all wrong. There were throngs of people at the recycling consultations begging the city to spend millions on transporting tin cans on deteriorating streets rather than providing the essential service of public transportation. There must have been because the whole curbside recycling program is being brought in so that they have access that they don't have now.
ReplyDeleteStill I'm not sure what 7 million dollars could be used for in an area like Riversdale. There really isn't anything to spend it on, at least nothing that two NDP premiers could ever find. The area was represented by the Premier of the province for 16 years (1991 to 2007) and there was only a steady deterioration of conditions there. At least when Chretien was PM he made sure that his riding benefited from his largesse. The only benefit Riversdale ever got was to be used for political purposes.
A cynic might say that the leftists NEED the poor to be downtrodden and desperate so that they can come in and 'help' them. A place with the problems of Riversdale is needed so that they can always show the rest of society how bad off things are and how vital their socialist policies are.
A dance of sorts develops, advocates for the poor don't rise up against a new 7 million dollar program because it's a pet project of the very councilors they depend on for support.
The left plays this same trick on almost every issue. When Bush was president there were anti-war rallies and Code Pink was on the news everyday. American forces are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama opened up a third front in Libya and the left was silent. Under Bush, Gitmo was a political firestorm, 3 years of Obama and no one on the left mentions it.
Face it, advocates for the poor are largely in the left's pocket politically and there is no way that they were going to rally against a spending program led by Lorje, Hill, Clark and Loewen no matter how much it costs. Curbside won't improve the lives of any poor people in Saskatoon and that should have been the wake up call to advocates to get that message out. Too late, don't bother to call me for your next pressing issue, you missed the bus on this one.
Guest Blogger here
ReplyDeleteOuch!!! Someone is worried if I spell a word or two wrong. I am only a product of our educational system. Remember when it didn't matter how you spelled a word as long as you got he idea down to express yourself. Oh well guess that doesn't work anymore. But I will have to assume anon 7:16 that by more respect you agree with my position and if I can't type I shouldn't voice my position. Then again thanks for visiting next time bring a position to the blog.
Maybe Anon 7:16 would also have more respect for the works of Shakespeare if it weren't for all the spelling errors in the original text.
ReplyDeleteAnd you might want to stay away from the major newspapers as the grammar found in them is just dreadful.
I notice that the first two posts don't attempt to respond to the guest blogger's thesis with a reasoned argument. That would require thought and they are much to busy heading over to see what's new on rabble.ca (nothing) than put together a thoughful response.
Well, I would put forward a response if it looked like the guest blogger actually appeared to put any thought into their message. Instead it just looks like you threw up the usual anti- anything that may cost you personally anymore money and not benefit you rhetoric.I can barely follow what you're saying so I suggest that you attempt to see the benefit of good grammar if you are going to take on a blog.
ReplyDeleteGuest Blogger here,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the time change people but although my English may be poor my technical skills aren't and I just couldn't stand the wrong time stamps....
Way to double down on a bad position Anon 8:45!
ReplyDeleteThe guest bloggers thesis is that advocates for the poor sat on their hands when the city proposed a new 7 million dollar spending program which would not be a benefit to the people that they claim to represent.
All spending is connected. For 50 years the left has pointed out that money spent on the military isn't available for social programs so I'm pretty sure they have the concept down.
The point is that if advocates of the poor believe that the city's resources need to be allocated differently, speaking up about a new expensive program would certainly have been a good start. It would have brought a different view to the recycling debate and would have provided these advocates with a platform in the media to present their case that the city's priorities were mixed up.
There, now that you have the crib notes version, I await your response.
Your suggestion that "the poor" don't pay property tax suggests you don't have a basic grasp on how things work. "the poor" pay property tax through their rents. Unless your suggesting that landlords don't incorporate property taxes into their rents?
ReplyDeleteA curbside program will directly benefit "the poor", who are more likely not to have access to a car and who likely live in neighbourhoods that are under-serviced by our current, inefficient, system of depots.
So where is the proof that the poor recycle any more or less than anyone else in society? If you are poor you most likely don't spend as much on products as say someone with much more disposable income and as such create less waste. I don't see anyone saying the poor don't pay property tax. The problem is I am sure they would rather use the money for food then having someone come pick up a bunch of paper/plastics/tin.
ReplyDeleteA poor person who is renting a property will certainly be paying property tax through the rent but next year that same person who made the decision NOT to buy a private recycling service will be forced to pay $8 per month on for the mandatory service.
ReplyDeleteHaving curbside service is a feature that the poor can take advantage of but it's not a benefit to them in providing a better quality of life. Better transportation, better healthcare, better schools, more security, better child care, these things affect the quality of life of poor people while curbside doesn't do anything for them at all.
It is a definite fact, although one that is not widely broadcast, that the Riversdale area had the fewest individual contracts for curbside pick up. This makes perfect sense as many of those people had better things to do with their money, like buy food.
By extension the poor live in a safer environment when there is military spending as well. We find ways to extend the 'benefit' to the poor for any spending.
ReplyDeleteThe point is why are we spending 7 million to upgrade a system already in place while at the same time cutting the subsidized bus passes for the poor. If we are not going to call out the spending on recycling I sure don't want to hear advocates complain at the next 7 million dollar plan that is put forth.
Riversdale is trying to improve its status in the community. Leftists take up the cause of the poor.If logic was to follow, then they have a vested interest in keeping people poor. If people weren't poor, what would be their platform.Rent control to keep them in substandard housing. Certainly not cleaning up the area, closing dowm drug and gamg houses and having people WORK for a living and having pride in their neighbourhoods. So, let's throw more money at the problem and see where it sticks!Maybe curbside recycling will be the magic bullet that improves Riversdale. Hey, we have a lot of money don't we !!! Pat Lorje, in the fall community newsletter said that the new Police Station was a bargain. It was 30 million less than city council thought it would be. WOW! What a saving! If your daughter went out and bought a Mercedes and told you that it was a bargain because instead of costing 50,000, it was only 30,000, would you be impressed. Add to that the point that somehow you would be expected to come up with the payments. And by the way, Pat ended the newsletter saying that she would be running again in 2012.Can we really afford keeping the current city councilors around for another term.
ReplyDeleteMaxine
King George