The Official Moncton, NB Project Thread

[MonctonRad]

The ghost of Verdiroc will haunt this city for 50 years.......



The only bright spot is there is still a lot of other undeveloped land south of Main Street to keep city coucil busy with for the next several decades.......

A potential tax revenue loss of $42M is still huge though, even if amortized over 50 years. If an alternate use for this land could be found, perhaps it would simply be cheaper for the city to encourage Rogers to move their call centre up to the Emmerson Park region.

If for example a $100M development were proposed for this land, it might be in the city's best interest to chip in relocation costs for Rogers, just to get them out of the downtown. The building that they currently use is eminently disposable and easily replaced.

That would be the easiest way for the city to escape this fiasco - just get Rogers to move..........

That building doesn't belong downtown anyway.

[macas539]

Originally Posted by riverviewer

I hate to inflame the community but this needs to be shared

As reported on CBC.CA - ROGERS EYESORE PARKING for 50 YEARS



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...rking-653.html

Who signed a contract without reading it?

Why does something as ludicrous as this not surprise me? Moncton should advertise to all developers: here, come to Moncton, we'll sell the city's soul to let a developer have free reign and do whatever they want no matter what it is! Rompsen being another example of this with MHS and "royal hoax".

[mctnguy]

My question is this: Doesn't the city have lawyers that read these contracts before they are signed? WTF?

[riverviewer]

Perhaps in 50 years -
when the Rogers center is crumbling -
There will be rejoicing that prime development land is finally freeing up in the then thriving downtown.

Sadly I probably won't be alive to see it.

[mylesmalley]

Originally Posted by macas539

Why does something as ludicrous as this not surprise me? Moncton should advertise to all developers: here, come to Moncton, we'll sell the city's soul to let a developer have free reign and do whatever they want no matter what it is! Rompsen being another example of this with MHS and "royal hoax".

That one is all on the province.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by macas539

Why does something as ludicrous as this not surprise me? Moncton should advertise to all developers: here, come to Moncton, we'll sell the city's soul to let a developer have free reign and do whatever they want no matter what it is! Rompsen being another example of this with MHS and "royal hoax".

Speaking of "Royal Hoax", the newspaper that shall not be named continues to actively and quite vigourously promote this development. There is both a front section article and an editorial on this subject in the paper today lobbying for city council cooperation on this issue.

I'm not sure exactly what the motive of the paper is in this affair, but they certainly are not unbiased. I'm guessing the T&T has been warned that the provincial government (who have already decided where the high school will be built) would punish a recalcitrant city council for non co-operation.

If city council actions displeased the province, this could put the kibosh to the Transportation Discovery Centre and would likely imperil the downtown events centre. Everthing is interconnected.

As much as I hate the idea of relocating MHS to Royal Oaks, the decision has already been made by the province, a legally binding contract has been signed with the developer, and the city has nothing to gain by failing to co-operate.

In essence, if you know that you are going to be screwed, you only have two choices. You can choose to fight and face the violent consequences or you can bend over peacefully and be rewarded with a small tube of lubricant to make the situation a tad less traumatic.

The city should choose the latter course in this regard.

[mylesmalley]

I bet they won't even call afterward.

[MonctonRad]

Absolute Population Change by CMA (2006-2011)

1- Toronto (469,915)
2- Vancouver (196,747)
3- Montreal (188,665)
4- Calgary (135,526
5- Edmonton (124,924)
6- Ottawa (102,691)
7- Quebec City (46,553)
8- Winnipeg (35,350)
9- Hamilton (28,142)
10- Saskatoon (26,677)
---------------------------------------------------
11- Kitchener (25,925)
12- Oshawa (25,583)
13- Kelowna (17,563)
14- Halifax (17,470)
15- London (17,066)
16- St. John's (15,853)
17- Regina (15,585)
18- Victoria (14,574)
19- Moncton (12,220)
20- Abbotsford (11,171)
-----------------------------------------------------
21- Brantford (10,874)
22- Sherbrooke (10,480)
23- Barrie (9,952)
24- Guelph (7,399)
25- Kingston (7,203)
26- Trois Rivieres (7,060)
27- Saint John (5,372)
28- Sudbury (2,512)
29- Peterborough (2,405)
30- St. Catherines (1,867)
31- Saguenay (1,485)
32- Thunder Bay (-1,311)
33- Windsor (-4,019)

I also posted this in the Canada section. Moncton may still only be the 29th largest CMA in the country, but we rank #19 in terms of absolute growth, giving us the 5th highest relative growth rate in the country.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Speaking of "Royal Hoax", the newspaper that shall not be named continues to actively and quite vigourously promote this development. There is both a front section article and an editorial on this subject in the paper today lobbying for city council cooperation on this issue.

I'm not sure exactly what the motive of the paper is in this affair, but they certainly are not unbiased. I'm guessing the T&T has been warned that the provincial government (who have already decided where the high school will be built) would punish a recalcitrant city council for non co-operation.

The Royal Oaks project is money for Irving. The T&T will not suggest anything other than driving all the children to school, which is built and maintained with Irving products -- just like the creation of this new subdivision.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If city council actions displeased the province, this could put the kibosh to the Transportation Discovery Centre and would likely imperil the downtown events centre. Everthing is interconnected.

As much as I hate the idea of relocating MHS to Royal Oaks, the decision has already been made by the province, a legally binding contract has been signed with the developer, and the city has nothing to gain by failing to co-operate.

In essence, if you know that you are going to be screwed, you only have two choices. You can choose to fight and face the violent consequences or you can bend over peacefully and be rewarded with a small tube of lubricant to make the situation a tad less traumatic.

The city should choose the latter course in this regard.

As traumatic as Moncton's rising debt.
I want to be happy with Monctonians with the release of this census; after all, measuring 5th place in the country for economic growth is cause for celebration.

The census, however, is not good for showing us how this economic growth is paid for. Fortunately, Moncton's annual budgets are not a secret (you can read them online); therefore, it should abolsutely not be a surprise to any Monctonian to see the numbers and to understand that the economic 'growth' is not paid for.

Moncton is effectively growing its debt and subsequently deminishing its ability to pay in the future. Moncton's problem of deliberate, unsustainable growth is a problem that is not going away and will only become larger.

Due to the decline of most municipalities in New Brunswick I am extremely concerned for the province when one of its only economic engines can't at least move toward sustainability.

[mylesmalley]

No offence, RyeJay, but where do you come up with this stuff?

That logic is like saying that Irving ought to start making defective condoms so that they can sell more diapers.

We weren't 5th in the country for economic growth, the Moncton CMA was 5th in the country for population growth in percentage terms. That said, our unemployment rate is has been stable or dropping for quite a while, and the amount of development in the CMA has been well balanced between commercial, industrial, institutional and residential. The cost of housing is still among the lowest in the country, meaning there has been enough construction to keep speculation-driven price increases under wraps.

The City of Moncton had a 14.9% debt ratio, which is well below the 20% amount the provincial government red flags.

As for what the city has been doing to 'pay for the growth'... they haven't really done a whole lot beyond infrastructure in the past few years. There have been some smallish projects like the arenas, but nothing on the scale of our counterparts in Fredericton, SJ, and Halifax. The taxpayer-funded construction that's gone one here has been largely funded by the province. The province is in a pretty bad financial situation, but that doesn't affect Moncton's ability to pay it's own debt obligations.

Also, Moncton doesn't have a pension deficit.

I'm not suggesting the city is swimming in cash, but it's hardly in an unsound financial position.

[NBNYer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The ghost of Verdiroc will haunt this city for 50 years.......

That would be the easiest way for the city to escape this fiasco - just get Rogers to move..........

That building doesn't belong downtown anyway.

Is it all this company does to think of ways to screw over downtown development in Moncton? What the hell.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

The Royal Oaks project is money for Irving. The T&T will not suggest anything other than driving all the children to school, which is built and maintained with Irving products -- just like the creation of this new subdivision.

Wow, to suggest that the real reason that the T&T supports the Royal Oaks project is so that Irving can sell more gas to commuters borders on delusional paranoia.

I have no doubt that the paper has an agenda, but I think that it is much more straight forward an agenda; namely they don't want to see the city getting into a damaging fight with the province - a fight that they cannot possibly win.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

As traumatic as Moncton's rising debt.
I want to be happy with Monctonians with the release of this census; after all, measuring 5th place in the country for economic growth is cause for celebration.

The census, however, is not good for showing us how this economic growth is paid for. Fortunately, Moncton's annual budgets are not a secret (you can read them online); therefore, it should abolsutely not be a surprise to any Monctonian to see the numbers and to understand that the economic 'growth' is not paid for.

Moncton is effectively growing its debt and subsequently deminishing its ability to pay in the future. Moncton's problem of deliberate, unsustainable growth is a problem that is not going away and will only become larger.

Due to the decline of most municipalities in New Brunswick I am extremely concerned for the province when one of its only economic engines can't at least move toward sustainability.

Reading your posts on other threads, especially the Halifax forum where your main body of work resides, I know that you are passionately and vehemently opposed to sprawl in any form and that you feel that all forms of non sustainable development are evil. While this viewpoint has some merit, it does not reflect the opinion of all people and you should be a little bit more temperate in your comments.

There is a place for a suburban lifestyle and there is a place for suburban office parks, shopping malls and industrial parks. Not everyone can live in the core, bicycle to work and buy their grocieries in the neighbourhood market. Some industries don't belong downtown. Some people want to raise their children where they can have a backyard. Some people like to garden. As such, while sprawl should be discouraged, it can't be trammelled out of existence.

Moncton is growing. Sprawl is occurring, but not all sprawl is bad. Rural Estates on the western fringe of the city is bad. The lots are so large that municipal services cannot be delivered. Royal Oaks is bad because this development is discontinuous with the existing urban fringe. The Mountain Woods subdivision however is good, because it is a continuation of the existing urban border of the city and it has good density.

The nature of Moncton makes suburban sprawl easy. Moncton is not Halifax. Sprawl should be appropriately managed so that it doesn't get out of control but it shouldn't be outlawed. At some point in the near future, the inherent problems of sprawl (such as commuting times) will begin to make people think twice about living outside the core. When that occurs, core densification in Moncton will accelerate. Market forces should be allowed to play out.

Free enterprise (with appropriate governance) should be allowed to bloom. This is what Moncton excels at. This is why Moncton is growing the way it is. If this doesn't conform to your narrow interpretation of urbanism then so be it.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There is a place for a suburban lifestyle and there is a place for suburban office parks, shopping malls and industrial parks. Not everyone can live in the core, bicycle to work and buy their grocieries in the neighbourhood market. Some industries don't belong downtown. Some people want to raise their children where they can have a backyard. Some people like to garden. As such, while sprawl should be discouraged, it can't be trammelled out of existence.

Moncton is growing. Sprawl is occurring, but not all sprawl is bad. Rural Estates on the western fringe of the city is bad. The lots are so large that municipal services cannot be delivered. Royal Oaks is bad because this development is discontinuous with the existing urban fringe. The Mountain Woods subdivision however is good, because it is a continuation of the existing urban border of the city and it has good density.

There is a place for suburban development, definitely. The fiscal sustainability question that Moncton, and many other cities, should be asking is this: will these developments generate enough tax revenue to pay for the cost of maintaining their infrastructure and providing services over the next five decades? Often times for suburban development the answer is no, although it's impossible to put a general rule in place to say when a development is too 'sprawly' to pay for itself. It's a different answer for every type of development, and for every municipality.

Good is obviously quite subjective in this case. Are the good subdivisions you mention dense enough to support decent transit service, and layed out properly to allow useful routes? Are they layed out in a manner that supports reasonably direct walking routes? Do they have any uses other than residential? Were any wetlands plowed under for these developments? How is stormwater dealt with?

My point is that almost every municipality I've dealt with (many in NB and a handful in NS, including HRM), has exceptionally low standards for development, especially suburban development. These developments often impose costs - real monetary costs or externalities - that the resident's property taxes simply don't pay for. This is where my beef with suburban develompent comes from. People should be able to chose their lifestyle and where they live, but not if it means passing the buck onto others, or relying on future development income (which is a ponzi scheme, really). There are many good examples of better suburban development at almost all densities, and not all of them cost more. Instead of setting reasonable standards to ensure, for example, a bus can access a subdivision because the streets are layed our properly, or that stormwater doesn't degrade streams or cause downstream flooding, most municipalities almost make it necessary to build poorly through their zoning, building codes and engineering standards. Surely it's not unreasonable to think we can build better suburbs?

P.S. Moncton your growth is pretty much astounding. Hopefully short-sighted, car-centric, subsidy happy crap like that Rogers contract doesn't get in the way of luring more growth downtown. Now that contract is an example of horrible subsidies and downtown development that doesn't pay it's way.

P.P.S. The Moncton-Halifax pissing match is ridiculous. Both cities are doing well, and the Maritimes needs all the growth it can get.

[MonctonRad]

Good post Halifax Hillbilly.

The fiscal sustainability of sprawl is a real issue. This is where infill projects like the "vision lands" is important. This large tract of land between the UdeM campus and the TCH would provide for decades of liebensraum for Moncton, negating the need to build north of the Trans-Canada.

Instead we get Royal Oaks which is several km north of the TCH, and requires significant upgrades to Elmwood Drive, and extension of municipal services at significant expense to the city. Instead we get Rural Estates, where the average lot is 1-2 acres, the roads are not curbed and basic municipal sevices are not provided due to cost.

The other subdivision I mentioned is different. Mountain Woods is built around a golf course (like Royal Oaks), but lies at the existing fringe of the built up area of the city (not several km distant). There are condos and town houses as part of the development. Attention is paid to waterways and stormwater retention. There will be a road through the subdivision connecting Gorge Road and Mountain Road. With Crandall University on one side of the subdivision and Magnetic Hill on the other side, I have no doubt that there will be a future Codiac Transpo route through the development.

Many of the new (larger) subdivisions under development in the city are being designed with sustainability in mind. The Johnathon Estates subdivision off Ryan Street has been planned not to interfere with the existing watercourse of Johnathon Creek. The subdivision will also have an exit onto Horsman Road as well as Ryan Street. All of the new subdivsions being built in uptown Dieppe off of Dieppe Blvd will interconnect too.

In some ways, Royal Oaks is a good development. Golf course developments are always popular and the proximity to the Irishtown Nature Park is a plus. The lack of a road connection to McLaughlin however is ludicrous and the cost to service this development is probably unsustainable. Royal Oaks is a good development in the wrong place.

Rural Estates is a horrible development no matter which way you cut it.

-----------------------------------------------

And on a final note, the newspaper that shall not be named reported today that the scaffolding around the Dominion Public Building will finally be coming down this fall.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by mylesmalley

No offence, RyeJay, but where do you come up with this stuff?

That logic is like saying that Irving ought to start making defective condoms so that they can sell more diapers.

We weren't 5th in the country for economic growth, the Moncton CMA was 5th in the country for population growth in percentage terms. That said, our unemployment rate is has been stable or dropping for quite a while, and the amount of development in the CMA has been well balanced between commercial, industrial, institutional and residential. The cost of housing is still among the lowest in the country, meaning there has been enough construction to keep speculation-driven price increases under wraps.

The City of Moncton had a 14.9% debt ratio, which is well below the 20% amount the provincial government red flags.

As for what the city has been doing to 'pay for the growth'... they haven't really done a whole lot beyond infrastructure in the past few years. There have been some smallish projects like the arenas, but nothing on the scale of our counterparts in Fredericton, SJ, and Halifax. The taxpayer-funded construction that's gone one here has been largely funded by the province. The province is in a pretty bad financial situation, but that doesn't affect Moncton's ability to pay it's own debt obligations.

Also, Moncton doesn't have a pension deficit.

I'm not suggesting the city is swimming in cash, but it's hardly in an unsound financial position.

This...stuff?

My argument comes from the budget you’ve apparently read: which must be taken into context with trends we see in Moncton’s past budgets, as well as with the other municipalities in New Brunswick.

Yes, the debt ratio for Moncton is 14.9% -- and just how shall you pay for this debt and the debts of the other municipalities? As you’ve put it, Moncton is not swimming in money -- and neither is anywhere else in the province.

If left to its devices alone, Moncton roughly generates $100 million annually. Expenditures are to exceed $125 million (and continue rising); therefore, Moncton will continue to be reliant upon provincial stabilisation grants. Furthermore, Moncton’s debt-for-growth spending habits must be off-set by increasing property taxes, increasing water and sewer utility rates, increasing funds to fire and police protection; compounded further with the rising costs of fuel, building materials, food, electricity, insurances, and the like is burdensome on the taxpayers. My criticism of Moncton is not that it isn’t sustainable (because that’s obvious); my criticism is that the city is not even beginning to move toward sustainability.

Unless Moncton itself urbanises, the city will become as unaffordable as rural New Brunswick.

I would be interested in learning about any of Moncton’s revenue neutral (or even profitable) developments. As far as I’ve read, the vast majority of economic growth in the Moncton area is development that does not pay enough in taxes to support the required costs of creating and servicing said development. Moncton has little to no density from which magnified revenues can be collected and allocated to controlling debt, or even reinvestment for more revenue options (hello downtown events centre/arena).

You are correct that the provincial government red flags anything above 20%, in which case the provincial government will come in and...talk about the debt? The province isn’t doing much for all the declining municipalities in the province, of which Moncton’s revenues must increasingly support (or perhaps ‘ease their deaths’ is more apt). The province’s demand on Moncton will grow and no amount of industrial parks, strip-malls, and single-family homes are going to improve this reality.

Oh, and it was actually the 2011 Moncton CMA that was 5th (And this is what it feels like to have a responder indulge in a pettiness for meaningless clarification. Please reconsider next time). Still, no offence taken.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Wow, to suggest that the real reason that the T&T supports the Royal Oaks project is so that Irving can sell more gas to commuters borders on delusional paranoia.

And you seem to lack perspective into just how internally-political journalism can be. The T&T is not unique; there are many news providers that are biased due to ownership. And you shouldn't get yourself so worked-up over a suggestion.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I have no doubt that the paper has an agenda, but I think that it is much more straight forward an agenda; namely they don't want to see the city getting into a damaging fight with the province - a fight that they cannot possibly win.

Reading your posts on other threads, especially the Halifax forum where your main body of work resides, I know that you are passionately and vehemently opposed to sprawl in any form and that you feel that all forms of non sustainable development are evil. While this viewpoint has some merit, it does not reflect the opinion of all people and you should be a little bit more temperate in your comments.

There is a place for a suburban lifestyle and there is a place for suburban office parks, shopping malls and industrial parks. Not everyone can live in the core, bicycle to work and buy their grocieries in the neighbourhood market. Some industries don't belong downtown. Some people want to raise their children where they can have a backyard. Some people like to garden. As such, while sprawl should be discouraged, it can't be trammelled out of existence.

No need to trammel. Excessive debt will do the deed.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Moncton is growing. Sprawl is occurring, but not all sprawl is bad.

Growth is to Moncton, as fat is to a person. Economically, sprawl is not bad if its supported via revenue. Environmentally, sprawl is always bad.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The nature of Moncton makes suburban sprawl easy.

Your tax code makes sprawl easy. Your willingness for the status quo makes sprawl easy.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Moncton is not Halifax. Sprawl should be appropriately managed so that it doesn't get out of control but it shouldn't be outlawed. At some point in the near future, the inherent problems of sprawl (such as commuting times) will begin to make people think twice about living outside the core. When that occurs, core densification in Moncton will accelerate. Market forces should be allowed to play out.

Your free market wants cheap land.

Will commuting times finally force people to live amongst the poor? I doubt it. Regardless, the vast majority of the city's layout has been sprawled. Residential is mostly kept distant from areas where jobs exist; therefore, in most cases, walking is completely out of the picture in order to get to work.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Free enterprise (with appropriate governance) should be allowed to bloom. This is what Moncton excels at. This is why Moncton is growing the way it is. If this doesn't conform to your narrow interpretation of urbanism then so be it.

Moncton excels at this? Your opinion is noted. My argument claims otherwise.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Moncton is not Halifax.

Nope. Moncton isn't Frederiction either, nor Toronto, nor any other city.

Can you please stop bringing Halifax up? I'm talking about Moncton, not in comparison to Halifax, but in comparison to every city.

[mylesmalley]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

This...stuff?

My argument comes from the budget you’ve apparently read: which must be taken into context with trends we see in Moncton’s past budgets, as well as with the other municipalities in New Brunswick.

Yes, I have read the budgets. I'm wondering if you have.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Yes, the debt ratio for Moncton is 14.9% -- and just how shall you pay for this debt and the debts of the other municipalities? As you’ve put it, Moncton is not swimming in money -- and neither is anywhere else in the province..

You pay for it the same way you pay for any other debt. In this case, by using debt to increase revenues. The city takes on debt to finance major infrastructure projects like the widening of Mapleton road. There's a huge upfront cost to that type of infrastructure, but the construction that it facilitates effectively pays property tax in perpetuity.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

If left to its devices alone, Moncton roughly generates $100 million annually. Expenditures are to exceed $125 million (and continue rising); therefore, Moncton will continue to be reliant upon provincial stabilisation grants. Furthermore, Moncton’s debt-for-growth spending habits must be off-set by increasing property taxes, increasing water and sewer utility rates, increasing funds to fire and police protection; compounded further with the rising costs of fuel, building materials, food, electricity, insurances, and the like is burdensome on the taxpayers. My criticism of Moncton is not that it isn’t sustainable (because that’s obvious); my criticism is that the city is not even beginning to move toward sustainability.

The city is projecting tax revenues of 108 million this year. Plus 13 million in other revenue like service fees, assessment fees, rentals etc. Then 11 million comes in the form of an unconditional grant from the provincial government. Now you're right that the province isn't necessarily going to be giving as much money, which they aren't. The unconditional grant is down 2% this year. However property tax assessments and other revenues are both up significantly more. The city has been lowering it's tax assessment rate for the past few years now. Even if the province rolled back the whole grant, the city wouldn't be too hard off if they had to up their rate, and even that would be offset by growth and increases in property tax assessments.

Fire and police protection and all the other services the municipal government offers are indeed an issue, which is why i'm so supportive of the Finn report's suggested changes. However since the city is still growing and the tax rate is still dropping.... where exactly is the problem? And with respect to utilities, considering the fiasco with the Sewerage commission, I wouldn't' be surprised if there was some rate relief to be seen there, considering they've managed to save up faaar more money than they're allowed to.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Unless Moncton itself urbanises, the city will become as unaffordable as rural New Brunswick.

You're in a website devoted to urban issues... of course we all want to see more urbanization, but it's unrealistic to assume we'll all live in giant skyscrapers in the middle of forests to literally minimize our footprint. There's just no practical way to stop a city from physically growing altogether, short of banning all commercial and industrial development and shooting old people to keep the population stable. The city is urbanizing though, believe it or not. The amount of higher-density construction in the city has increased substantially over the past 10 years with no signs of stopping.

Of course there are mitigating factors. Moncton is essentially built on a plain with no physical constraint to development. This has kept real estate prices low, which discourages growing upward. Again that's changing, but it won't go away overnight.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

I would be interested in learning about any of Moncton’s revenue neutral (or even profitable) developments. As far as I’ve read, the vast majority of economic growth in the Moncton area is development that does not pay enough in taxes to support the required costs of creating and servicing said development. Moncton has little to no density from which magnified revenues can be collected and allocated to controlling debt, or even reinvestment for more revenue options (hello downtown events centre/arena).

You wouldn't believe any examples I gave you anyway. And as I said before, investments in things like infrastructure have a long pay-back cycle. Don't get me wrong, the city has made some bad deals over the years. The Rogers deal downtown is a prime example, but they've done well with others, like the industrial parks.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

You are correct that the provincial government red flags anything above 20%, in which case the provincial government will come in and...talk about the debt? The province isn’t doing much for all the declining municipalities in the province, of which Moncton’s revenues must increasingly support (or perhaps ‘ease their deaths’ is more apt). The province’s demand on Moncton will grow and no amount of industrial parks, strip-malls, and single-family homes are going to improve this reality.

I'm not sure what teeth the province has to whip over-spending municipalities back into shape. That said, me not knowing doesn't mean there aren't any. They are certainly within their rights to assume control of failing municipal governments. As for what the province does with 'failing' municipalities...that's really their business. The province does make more money off of Moncton every time the city's tax base grows. So do the feds.

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Oh, and it was actually the 2011 Moncton CMA that was 5th (And this is what it feels like to have a responder indulge in a pettiness for meaningless clarification. Please reconsider next time). Still, no offence taken.

I don't even understand what you're getting at with this one. I specifically said it was the Moncton CMA. I'm well aware of the distinction between a municipality and a CMA.

[MonctonRad]

RyeJay, I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in arguing with you. You have your own opinions that are strongly held and no amount of discourse will change them.

But in any event, the sky is not falling. Yes Moncton receives both restricted and unrestricted grants from the province in order to top up municipal revenue. A large portion of these are paid in lieu of municipal tax. The rest are a form of "equalization" payment similar to what the provinces receive from the feds. Virtually every municipality in every province receive similar payments. This is a normal form of municipal income. The fact that Moncton receives grants from the province does not mean that the city is fiscally moribund.

As Myles stated, our debt ratio is quite manageable at 14.9%. The city by law is not allowed to run an annual deficit and this debt is accumulated by borrowing for necessary capital projects and infrastructure. Again, all municipalities have debts related to capital projects. Moncton's fiscal situation is better than most. In addition, as Myles stated, we have a fully funded and secure municipal pension plan.

Don't worry RyeJay, Moncton is doing fairly well from a fiscal point of view, despite the occasional misadventure such as the Rogers parking lot fiasco but thanks for your concern anyway.

[michael_d40]

http://plaza.ca/properties-NB.php?pr...ew%20Brunswick

Any idea what the "Moncton East Lands" is referring to?