Economy of scale?

I noted in today's SP (Nov. 9/11) that the city has increased rates for use of civic leisure facilities. The goal is to recapture 65% of the cost, starting Jan. 1/12 with daily rate of $8.30 and increasing annually by $.50 to 2015 at which time the daily rate will be $10.30.

The Leisure Services Manager states this cost is still at the lower end of the market rates. Not so if you add on the 35% the city taxpayer is contributing. Drop-in rates a private fitness centres seem to range between $7 to $15 and with that fee structure these private centres make a profit.

I know both the public and private sectors have monthly/yearly rates that are cheaper, but the city report is only dealing with the daily rate.

This poses two questions: 1) why wouldn't the city charge full recovery rates and 2) how can the private sector make a profit when their rates would be the same as the city's rates if the city charged full recovery?

I suspect the answer is the swimming pool component to the city facilities and I'm not aware any private centres that have this element. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

As for the taxpayer subsidizing the facilities, taxpayers have already done that through the capital contribution. Perhaps the operating costs of these facilities should be borne by the users through the rate structure.

I need a new shirt!

I lost my shirt last night - albeit a cheap T-shirt.

In fact the only bet I won is that Red Square would stay red, although for a wee bit I thought I would lose that one too.

My bet was 43-15 in seat count. I didn't anticipate that Mr. Roto-Rooter would be that busy in Regina, and I thought that Link's promise to First Nations on resource revenue sharing would make the last election's close seats of Meadow Lake, Battleford and Prince Albert possible wins for him. I also bet that the NDP would have 37% of the popular vote, being their traditional 30% core and extra vote from students and seniors on the rent control issue.

As for Link, although Mandryk flagged in his column last Friday that he could possibly lose it, I just couldn't imagine that a solid NDP seat would defeat its leader.

I'm chalking it all up to the fact that Brad Wall is an unusually popular leader and Lingfelter was an unusually unpopular leader.

Yesterday someone commented on my election night mix. In truth I have long-term friends from various political backgrounds. Good friendships are not one-dimensional - they are built on mutual respect for the opinions of others. Constructive criticism/analysis and friendly jibes are fine, but mean-spirited monologues are not acceptable in my circles. We all know that the benefit of dialogue with people with differing political views is that you can actually learn something if you are willing to listen.

Will the people speak?

I have officially "exercised my franchise" in spite of Mother Nature's untimely snow dump. And I am hoping Saskatchewan residents will buck the national trend of low voter turnout.

For those attending gatherings tonight - enjoy. I will be watching the outcome from the comfort of my home with a mix of politicos and either collecting or dispensing loonies - I'm talking dollars of course, not visitors!

My final election comment: Brad Wall has got to get rid of those short-sleeved, buttoned to the neck, nerdy shirts.

Leading the flock from the promised land

I'm feeling a little empathy for the die-hard NDP supporters - its hard to watch everything you believe in get routed in an election. But Saskatchewan has always been "next year country" and they will live to fight another battle.

I was surprised to read in Mandryk's column (SP Nov. 4//) that Lingfelter might be in trouble in his own seat. His loss might be the best thing that could happen to the NDP as its appears, from polling, that his leadership is an impediment to his party in this election. Given the limited number of seats they may salvage come Nov. 7, having an elected candidate step aside to run a by-election for an unpopular leader would be folly. They would have to get a new leader for 2016.

I have $12 riding on the election result and my betting does not reflect the most recent poll. There are to many close seats and variables that can affect the outcome, particularly voter turnout. But I've set that cash aside an will pay my debts when the devils' call.

Just what Saskatchewan needs . . .

. . . another political party (SP Nov. 3/11.) With the merge of the majority of Liberals and Conservatives to form the Sask Party we finally evolved into a two party system where the majority vote would form government. And yes I know there are candidates running under Conservative, Liberal and Green banners but they claim a insignificant portion of the vote and the race is essentially between the NDP and Sask Party.

If I thought for a moment that setting aside a portion of resource revenue would improve the quality of life for both on and off reserve First Nations people I might support it. The FSIN control the majority of Casinos in this province and I believe the intent was to use that revenue to the benefit of First Nations people. I don't believe that has happened. Only a handful of Chiefs and their minions live well.

Nor do I believe that they would be content to have the government administer any resource allocation to ensure that the money would be spent as intended - housing, reserve infrastructure, job creation, etc.

If the Chiefs want to tie themselves to the NDP, perhaps they should form a party and then merge with the NDP, along with the Greens, and form one viable party to become either official opposition or government.

Anyone got a snappy acronym for this?

Quid Pro Quo

I was surprised to read in today's SP (Nov. 2/11) the comments of both Saskatoon and Regina's Mayors regarding the provincial election, although Fiacco was a little more subtle than Atchison.

The PCS royalty issue is the heart of Lingfelter's campaign. Without the increase in royalties his promises are for not. Nixing the idea of a review is akin campaigning against the NDP platform.

The past rule of thumb was that civic politicians stayed mum on provincial issues, and party politics did not enter into the fray of civic elections. But over the last several civic elections, party politics quietly infiltrated the civic arena.

I don't have a problem with this as long as it is done in the open. Should we look at having party nominations for wards and voting for civic candidates based on party affiliation? Those in tune with local politics know which candidates support which parties, but the average citizen may not.

I would like this crossover to be complete and consistency brought to the civic election level.

Many councillors, past and present, have already indirectly waved their party flags by running for a party nominations or as a candidate for a party. By example, Hill and Paulsen have run for the Liberals, former councillors Wyant and Alm were Sask Party candidates; Clark, Iwanchuk and Loewen have deep ties to the NDP. And you can still have candidates on the ballot that declare themselves as independents.

Your thoughts on this idea?

Stretching a nickel

I read PCS CEO Bill Doyle's epistle last week on potash royalties/taxes and then United Steelworkers union economist Erin Weir's response today (SP Nov. 1/11.) I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

My understanding of the royalty structure is that a previous NDP government negotiated the existing agreement with the potash companies so that they would expand operations and create new jobs - and that the agreement for this activity has a fixed time. It is apparently working when you hear of the money currently being invested in this sector.

My further understanding is that potash is a commodity that has fluctuating prices and thus, depending on the global market, the royalties are up and down from year-to-year.

But anyway you cut it, even if the royalties doubled, Lingfelter could not stretch that extra nickel to cover off the election promises being made. The result would have to be increased taxes or broken promises.

Perhaps we should change our election laws to state that any politician that makes promises and doesn't keep them in the time frame specified, must resign from office and is barred from running from public office.

Right now the biggest growth in this province is voter cynicism.