Daylighting Sawmill River

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In one line, that is completely symptomatic of Halifax's problem. Our old garbage is perceived as treasures by a fringe who never want anything new.

No, our problem is that not enough people understand the importance of history and thus feel it is totally acceptable to destroy it forever.

See, I can do it to!

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

No, our problem is that not enough people understand the importance of history and thus feel it is totally acceptable to destroy it forever.

See, I can do it to!

Good post. Tourists love history and we have such close ties to Europe, Africa, New England and we have a great set of stories to tell. We need to remind ourselves how we arrived at where we are at and what happened along the way and what mistakes to avoid.

[JET]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/NS/ID/2669553016/

[JET]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-sawmill-river

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...-sawmill-river

Interesting, a large open concrete culvert. Sounds like early 20th century retro industrial...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Interesting, a large open concrete culvert. Sounds like early 20th century retro industrial...

Sort of like the Los Angeles River, without the charm.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sort of like the Los Angeles River, without the charm.

Goes well with the ce-ment pond, Jethro

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sort of like the Los Angeles River, without the charm.

Yeah, my first thought was of the California Aqueduct...

[JET]

James Campbell, sounds like a bit of a twit, sounds like he's making stuff up: might need a grate on the top, not enough easement room. Hopefully the city councillors will keep moving this along. Since Halifax Water has no problem paying $2,000,000 for security for the strike, they should be able to cough up some $ to have a daylighting expert come to help create a design for the open water course.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

James Campbell, sounds like a bit of a twit, sounds like he's making stuff up

He always sounds like that. Bizarre choice to be a spokesperson.

[JET]

http://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/coastwatc...orth-carolina/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

James Campbell, sounds like a bit of a twit, sounds like he's making stuff up: might need a grate on the top, not enough easement room. Hopefully the city councillors will keep moving this along. Since Halifax Water has no problem paying $2,000,000 for security for the strike, they should be able to cough up some $ to have a daylighting expert come to help create a design for the open water course.

An interesting point. While I'm sure security during the strike was necessary, and I don't have enough expertise to say whether the level of security that costs $2M is reasonable (it doesn't seem reasonable to a layman such as myself), it points out a case where significant money that did not contribute to the city's infrastructure was spent without debate. If that same $2M was proposed for some project (i.e. daylighting, etc.), it would be debated ad nauseam by council and have hundreds of thousands of dollars and months (years) spent on studies, etc., to determine whether this is a good use of budget.

An interesting point of the study is that there is an agreement that an open system, which in this case appears to be crudely reinstating the old river with increased capacity over the previous situation, is the desired end result.

I'm wondering if that could be workable, if it were made more useable and attractive to the public. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, but perhaps a larger river with natural appearing, gently sloping banks (rather than exposed concrete), that has the capacity to handle the runoff from extreme weather events might be the ticket, forgoing the expense of a buried reservoir.

Not sure what the best solution is, but I do think this is a case where the cheapest option is not necessarily the best option. For something that will have such a dramatic and long lasting effect on the area, I think it would be justified for the city to stop frigging around and spend a little cash on it.

[Colin May]

The $2,000,000 for security was a good investment and the union lost the argument over the pension plan. HRM pension plan is more expensive than the pension plans for federal, provincial and municipal employees across Canada and the contribution rate was about to increase once again. Must be nice to work for 35 years retire at 60 and then at 65 have an income that replaces 94% of earnings.
http://www.hrmpensionplan.ca/files/J...nuary_2016.pdf

Water customers put in $2 for every $1 dollar the water workers put in.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The $2,000,000 for security was a good investment and the union lost the argument over the pension plan. HRM pension plan is more expensive than the pension plans for federal, provincial and municipal employees across Canada and the contribution rate was about to increase once again. Must be nice to work for 35 years retire at 60 and then at 65 have an income that replaces 94% of earnings.
http://www.hrmpensionplan.ca/files/J...nuary_2016.pdf

Water customers put in $2 for every $1 dollar the water workers put in.

Actually, I don't think the issue discussed in this thread was whether it was worth dragging out the strike to reduce Halifax Water's pension plan because it was better than everybody else's (which is actually a whole other topic as corporations do this all the time, siting "state of the industry" as justification for reducing employee benefits, while at the same time reporting record profits).

I think what was in question is whether the level of security was overdone, and how easily it appears that the municipal government was able to spend $2M on it without some kind of apparent approval process, while a typical infrastructure project would be dragged through the ringer before $2M was allocated to it.

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Actually, I don't think the issue discussed in this thread was whether it was worth dragging out the strike to reduce Halifax Water's pension plan because it was better than everybody else's (which is actually a whole other topic as corporations do this all the time, siting "state of the industry" as justification for reducing employee benefits, while at the same time reporting record profits).

I think what was in question is whether the level of security was overdone, and how easily it appears that the municipal government was able to spend $2M on it without some kind of apparent approval process, while a typical infrastructure project would be dragged through the ringer before $2M was allocated to it.

Yep that is what I was thinking, the cost of security, which seems over the top. Colin does however make a good point, some public sector benefits are also over the top. Now, if Keith was in charge....

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Actually, I don't think the issue discussed in this thread was whether it was worth dragging out the strike to reduce Halifax Water's pension plan because it was better than everybody else's (which is actually a whole other topic as corporations do this all the time, siting "state of the industry" as justification for reducing employee benefits, while at the same time reporting record profits).

I think what was in question is whether the level of security was overdone, and how easily it appears that the municipal government was able to spend $2M on it without some kind of apparent approval process, while a typical infrastructure project would be dragged through the ringer before $2M was allocated to it.

The strike was over the pension plan, CUPE had agreed to the wage increases on offer. CUPE has a rep on the HRM pension committee and in June members were warned that unless all parties in HRM agree to a reduction from best average 3 years to best average 5 years the contribution rate would rise by 0.5% shared by employer and employee.
HRWC makes such a meagre profit that it struggles to pay the annual dividend to HRM.
HRWC board decided the level of security and the water supply is a critical element of our daily life, $2 million was well spent and no doubt the net cost was lower after deducting the wages not paid for 9 weeks. Council has no say over the operation of HRWC,
The changes to the pension plan will apply to all HRM employees.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Yep that is what I was thinking, the cost of security, which seems over the top. Colin does however make a good point, some public sector benefits are also over the top. Now, if Keith was in charge....

"No benefits for you!"

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The strike was over the pension plan, CUPE had agreed to the wage increases on offer. CUPE has a rep on the HRM pension committee and in June members were warned that unless all parties in HRM agree to a reduction from best average 3 years to best average 5 years the contribution rate would rise by 0.5% shared by employer and employee.
HRWC makes such a meagre profit that it struggles to pay the annual dividend to HRM.
HRWC board decided the level of security and the water supply is a critical element of our daily life, $2 million was well spent and no doubt the net cost was lower after deducting the wages not paid for 9 weeks. Council has no say over the operation of HRWC,
The changes to the pension plan will apply to all HRM employees.

Thanks for the explanation, Colin. I do agree that their plans should be brought more in line with the real world, though I can empathize how it would feel to be planning retirement on a set amount only to then have your pension cut before you retire (though maybe that's not the case here).

I'm curious, though, how HRWC is able to pull $2M out of their budget on the spot for an unplanned expense, unless they have some kind of contingency funds set aside for emergencies.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The strike was over the pension plan, CUPE had agreed to the wage increases on offer. CUPE has a rep on the HRM pension committee and in June members were warned that unless all parties in HRM agree to a reduction from best average 3 years to best average 5 years the contribution rate would rise by 0.5% shared by employer and employee.
HRWC makes such a meagre profit that it struggles to pay the annual dividend to HRM.
HRWC board decided the level of security and the water supply is a critical element of our daily life, $2 million was well spent and no doubt the net cost was lower after deducting the wages not paid for 9 weeks. Council has no say over the operation of HRWC,
The changes to the pension plan will apply to all HRM employees.

Colin, do you know how much thr HRWC board is paid? just wondering.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

"No benefits for you!"

I would amend that to state "No EXCESSIVE benefits for you (or anyone)!"

The problem with HW is the same as the problem with the entire public sector. It is the high cost of mediocrity and the inability to get rid of unproductive labor. There are people who have worked for govt for 30+ years who really have never been productive, much less necessary. But they get shuffled around because nobody wants to go through the ungodly process of trying to terminate them, get annual raises, a few reclassifications, and at the end they are making 6 figures and walk away with a $70K pension. The only skill they have really demonstrated is survival.