SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Business, Politics & the Economy (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=287)
-   -   Mayor Bob Bratina (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193563)

Dr Awesomesauce Feb 23, 2014 1:35 AM

^Quite.

So, if you were advising the Eisenbergers and McHatties of this world, how would you suggest they spin their support for LRT? When you've got somebody screaming about taxes, it's pretty hard to counter that.

bigguy1231 Feb 23, 2014 2:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce (Post 6464126)
^Quite.

So, if you were advising the Eisenbergers and McHatties of this world, how would you suggest they spin their support for LRT? When you've got somebody screaming about taxes, it's pretty hard to counter that.

Unfortunately for them there is no good way to spin it. There is going to have to be a fundamental shift in thinking in this city before people would be willing to accept paying more. As of now we don't really have a congestion problem in this city and until we do people won't see a need.

CaptainKirk Feb 23, 2014 4:02 AM

Easy spin.

We, in Hamilton, are paying anyway. The city has absolutely no say in that matter. We've been told we cannot opt out.

Do you want us to lobby for as much of that money as possible for Hamilton, or should we just say no thanks and pay for higher order transit for the rest of 905 and GTA?

CaptainKirk Feb 23, 2014 4:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231 (Post 6464170)
As of now we don't really have a congestion problem in this city and until we do people won't see a need.

Burt business here do. Timely movement of goods throughoutt the GTHA is essential for the Hamilton economy.

AEGD is no good unless you can move your goods efficiently.

It's really very fundamental.

markbarbera Feb 23, 2014 9:24 AM

Of late, this thread has gotten a little off track. The discussion has become about debating LRT and has moved away from its original intention as a forum for attacking Mayor Bratina. Can we please get back on topic?

edit:no tongues were harmed while being planted firmly in one's cheek while typing this post

bigguy1231 Feb 23, 2014 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk (Post 6464242)
Easy spin.

We, in Hamilton, are paying anyway. The city has absolutely no say in that matter. We've been told we cannot opt out.

Do you want us to lobby for as much of that money as possible for Hamilton, or should we just say no thanks and pay for higher order transit for the rest of 905 and GTA?

The Liberals don't currently have the votes to establish new taxes. What do you not get about that.

bigguy1231 Feb 23, 2014 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk (Post 6464244)
Burt business here do. Timely movement of goods throughoutt the GTHA is essential for the Hamilton economy.

AEGD is no good unless you can move your goods efficiently.

It's really very fundamental.

Then raise corporate taxes to pay for it. If the corporate taxes weren't lowered over the past couple of decades we would have had all that we need in place to deal with increased congestion.

Jon Dalton Feb 23, 2014 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231 (Post 6464170)
Unfortunately for them there is no good way to spin it.

Yes there is: Economic development.

Quote:

As of now we don't really have a congestion problem in this city and until we do people won't see a need.
Transit congestion. Anyone who rides the #2 or King / B-line buses knows it.

It's always assumed that transit exists to solve motorists' problems. That it does, but as well as helping cars move a bit easier, it helps a lot of people move who otherwise wouldn't. If the transit itself is congested, that's as much of a problem as general traffic congestion.

But yeah, people on the mountain don't give a f*&k, right? Problem is it affects them anyway. People need to get to schools and hospitals (our top two employers). The new meat and bread plants that are saving our economy need their employees to show up. Many if not most need transit to get there.

Because the economy depends on mobility for all citizens, good transit is necessary for economic development. In a metro our size, this means moving past the limits of a bus-only transit system.

CaptainKirk Feb 23, 2014 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231 (Post 6464570)
The Liberals don't currently have the votes to establish new taxes. What do you not get about that.

What I get, is that your response has absolutely noting to do with my post. I was responding to a question about city politics, you are not.

Provincial politics is another matter.

Do you get that?

CaptainKirk Feb 23, 2014 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigguy1231 (Post 6464574)
Then raise corporate taxes to pay for it. If the corporate taxes weren't lowered over the past couple of decades we would have had all that we need in place to deal with increased congestion.

Yeah, sure. Why not? I'm ok with that.

ScreamingViking Feb 23, 2014 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera (Post 6464413)
Of late, this thread has gotten a little off track. The discussion has become about debating LRT and has moved away from its original intention as a forum for attacking Mayor Bratina. Can we please get back on topic?

I guess his re-election strategy is working already. ;)

oldcoote Feb 24, 2014 2:23 PM

The way to spin it is to use examples in other cities where investment in LRT has boosted investment along the route, resulting in more business, more jobs, more taxes, more residential and more vibrancy.

Improved transit is just the gravy here.

Dr Awesomesauce Feb 25, 2014 12:17 AM

But this is the 20-minute city. And besides, what works in other cities (i.e. 'fancy' European ones), won't work here. Every right-minded Hamiltonian knows that. LRT is the antithesis of hardhats and lunch buckets. It WON'T-WORK-HERE.

HillStreetBlues Feb 25, 2014 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton (Post 6464814)
Yes there is: Economic development.

...Because the economy depends on mobility for all citizens, good transit is necessary for economic development. In a metro our size, this means moving past the limits of a bus-only transit system.

The people who tend to vote for people like Bratina often practically take pride in their opposing anything for welfare bums. It's important not to ever for a second suggest that they might be right that transit is anything akin to a social service. It absolutely isn't. It's a necessary prerequisite to an economy that functions efficiently because all of its participants can participate fully.

You put it very well. People can't get to jobs, they can't earn money, they can't pay taxes, they can't spend money, our economy suffers. Simple.

markbarbera Feb 25, 2014 11:48 PM

The problem is, HSR is currently treated by the city as a type of social service. Ridership is driven primarily from their subsidizing monthly student, senior and welfare passes. Service is geared to serve these demographics first and foremost. Even the advertising acknowledges this demographic preference as practically all transit advertising is used to promote social services. It is the permeation of the welfare industrial complex that holds back the city in so many ways. Until service is adjusted to serve people outside this demographic (as well as within it), then the HSR is doomed to continue to languish.

LRT would be a lot easier sell if it was designed to appeal to the non-traditional demographic and attracted a full-fare ridership demographic to the service. Without the full fare ridership, LRT will not succeed.

drpgq Feb 26, 2014 4:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera (Post 6468203)
The problem is, HSR is currently treated by the city as a type of social service. Ridership is driven primarily from their subsidizing monthly student, senior and welfare passes. Service is geared to serve these demographics first and foremost. Even the advertising acknowledges this demographic preference as practically all transit advertising is used to promote social services. It is the permeation of the welfare industrial complex that holds back the city in so many ways. Until service is adjusted to serve people outside this demographic (as well as within it), then the HSR is doomed to continue to languish.

LRT would be a lot easier sell if it was designed to appeal to the non-traditional demographic and attracted a full-fare ridership demographic to the service. Without the full fare ridership, LRT will not succeed.

If the province actually pays the capital costs, then the operating costs are less than for buses. Then the LRT would succeed automatically.

thistleclub Mar 31, 2014 2:17 AM

Ask MPPs for their view on amalgamation, Bratina tells Flamborough chamber
(Flamborough Review, Kevin Werner, Mar 28 2014)

Never say never to Flamborough de-amalgamating from the city of Hamilton, says Mayor Bob Bratina.

Bratina, who recently announced he won’t seek re-election this fall, says it’s not inconceivable that someday Flamborough may not be part of Hamilton in the future, citing pushes for separation in both Quebec and Scotland.

“To say no way ever again will Flamborough ever be disconnected from the city I’m not prepared to say that,” Bratina told about 30 residents during a Flamborough Chamber of Commerce round table event March 18 at the North Wentworth Arena.

While he isn’t encouraging de-amalgamation, all Bratina wants is the province to review amalgamation to see if it has helped or hurt the six municipalities that merged in 2001.

“I’m prepared to say I’m working hard to see Flamborough and Waterdown gets treated fairly and we will see where we will go from there,” he said.

Bratina pointed out one oddity that Flamborough residents can relate to.

Carlisle’s water supply is not fluoridated. But should Carlisle residents be charged for paying to fluoridate water for the rest of Hamilton?

“I was never in favour of (amalgamation),” he told the gathering in a wide-ranging talk. “I’m proud to be a mayor of a city that is working well. Still there may be some inequities that need to be addressed.”

During his State of the City address in downtown Hamilton in January, Bratina was criticized for bringing up the idea of amalgamation after years of relatively peaceful co-existence between the suburban and urban politicians. He hosted a university professor who has studied the impact of amalgamated municipalities in Ontario the same day after delivering his State of the City address. He felt the severe complaints were unjustified since he believes it’s time the impact of amalgamation on Hamilton should be investigated.


Read it in full here.

ScreamingViking Mar 31, 2014 2:44 AM

No disrespect to the people of Flamborough, but :rolleyes:

How many times is this clown going to bring this up? How many people actually believe what he says on the issue any more?

Maybe the speculation he'll run federally against Christopherson was premature... and he really has his sights set on a Sweet district slightly to the west.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.