Winnipeg - Of Interest

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Yes and no, remember Pot will be legal soon. The taxation from that will bring in hundreds of millions. I think I saw an estimate around $200 million. Without any cuts, the province could lower its deficit to $300 million in the next budget. We could be just 3-4 years away from surplus. That would be huge for this province.

That's ignoring the pending $1B in additional debt Hydro will bring when they realize no one wants to buy their power for anywhere near what they predicted, and the biggest deal they have lined up involves Hydro paying for another transmission line.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

So people will buy pot instead of alcohol. What you gain in pot taxes you lose in alcohol taxes.

This is definitely not true. You think you can't smoke and drink?

Tons of people already do both. People (likely non-tokers) keep thinking that all of a sudden the whole country is going to become a bunch of stoners. Most people who don't currently smoke aren't going to start just because it's legal now – but many people will switch to the legal stuff not just so they can avoid dealers, but so they have way more selection and a great experience.

Plus, even better, a lot of the wasted resources in policing marijuana (and jail costs) before can be transferred to the rapidly growing meth and opioid epidemic – a real problem.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

That's ignoring the pending $1B in additional debt Hydro will bring when they realize no one wants to buy their power for anywhere near what they predicted, and the biggest deal they have lined up involves Hydro paying for another transmission line.

Provincial Debt and Hydro debt are very different things and very separate from one another for the most part.

$1B in debt also isn't $1B added to the deficit. The cost of servicing that debt would however be added to annual expenses/deficit but that would be tens of millions and not the $1B figure you're mentioning.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by buzzg

This is definitely not true. You think you can't smoke and drink?

Tons of people already do both.

I do not claim or imply otherwise. But people only have so much disposable income for their vices. Including tobacco. Spending more on one will generally mean spending less on another.

Originally Posted by buzzg

Plus, even better, a lot of the wasted resources in policing marijuana

Given the highly regulated nature of this legalization - and government revenue needing to be protected - I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

I do not claim or imply otherwise. But people only have so much disposable income for their vices. Including tobacco. Spending more on one will generally mean spending less on another.

People are already spending hundreds of millions in the pot market. Those who already buy pot illegally will now just buy it legally and it will be taxed. All the government is doing is generating money from a historically tax free market. People won't need to move money from one vice to another as they are already spending that money on the vice in an untaxed way.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

I do not claim or imply otherwise. But people only have so much disposable income for their vices. Including tobacco. Spending more on one will generally mean spending less on another.

But the average pot smoker won't be spending more, it's just going to the gov instead of dealers, not sure what you're not understanding. The province said it knows in order to work the average price can't be higher than dealers, so they're not gouging on taxes or other costs like with gas and cigarettes.

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Given the highly regulated nature of this legalization - and government revenue needing to be protected - I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

The WPS has already said this is what they're doing.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Provincial Debt and Hydro debt are very different things and very separate from one another for the most part.

$1B in debt also isn't $1B added to the deficit. The cost of servicing that debt would however be added to annual expenses/deficit but that would be tens of millions and not the $1B figure you're mentioning.

No they're not. The province just came out a little while ago and said they're one in the same... it's a crown corp, what it loses or gains directly affects the province's standing. Manitoba's ratings being lowered were called out to be directly because of Hydro's gross mismanagement and unmanageable costs.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

No they're not. The province just came out a little while ago and said they're one in the same... it's a crown corp, what it loses or gains directly affects the province's standing. Manitoba's ratings being lowered were called out to be directly because of Hydro's gross mismanagement and unmanageable costs.

I think our opinion of one and the same are different. The province does not pay to service the debt incurred by Hydro. When the province says it holds how ever many billion dollars in debt, that doesn't include Hydro's debt as it is not debt that the province pays for. That is why I say they are not the same.

The only thing that ties them together and part of the reason for the ratings down grade is because the province guarantees the debt incurred by Hydro. The only time the province would be responsible to pay for Hydro's debt would be if Hydro began defaulting on it's debt. The province is essentially the cosigner on Hydro's loans.

If your Dad cosigns a loan for you he doesn't count that as his debt or a payment out of his budget because he doesn't see it as his responsibility. However, if you get a loan you can't afford and stop paying, that's the only time it becomes his responsibility.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm sure I've posted this link before, but ICYMI the U of M has a pretty awesome collection of Henry Kalen photos. It's perfect for nerding out over mid-century Winnipeg design.

https://digitalcollections.lib.umani...t/uofm%3Akalen

This building isn't a mystery...

https://digitalcollections.lib.umani...uofm%3A1898666

Its the Smith house at 904 Kildonan Drive.

http://www.winnipegarchitecture.ca/904-kildonan-drive/

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.93666...7i13312!8i6656

[borkborkbork]

Richly ironic: The Manitoba Club is being considered for listing as a heritage resource at Thursday's historical buildings committee meeting, and (surprise) the club is fighting the designation of their building.

[drew]

^ pretty much any owner would fight the designation.

It adds restrictions and ultimately costs you money in the long run when you want to do improvements or changes to a historically designated building.

[esquire]

^ It's interesting to look at the heritage committee designation proposals to find out who actually owns so many of these gems.

(I miss my student days at the City of Winnipeg when I had access to the GIS tool which allowed you to click on any parcel of land to find out who owned it.)

[esquire]

The Freep published an interesting excerpt from the new book about the architectural legacy of Green Blankstein Russell. I flipped through the book at McNally's and it looked pretty impressive... I think I'll have to pick up a copy next time that I'm there.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ar...482411123.html

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Richly ironic: The Manitoba Club is being considered for listing as a heritage resource at Thursday's historical buildings committee meeting, and (surprise) the club is fighting the designation of their building.

Originally Posted by drew

^ pretty much any owner would fight the designation.

It adds restrictions and ultimately costs you money in the long run when you want to do improvements or changes to a historically designated building.

Just so funny that they (quietly) were the ones fighting to preserve UFG, but want special exclusion from that site.

[Ando]

They're not part of the Upper Fort Garry site so they can't fight for an exclusion from it. The heritage designation is related to the history of the club and the building itself - and it makes sense to be designated.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Ando

They're not part of the Upper Fort Garry site so they can't fight for an exclusion from it. The heritage designation is related to the history of the club and the building itself - and it makes sense to be designated.

They were the ones behind UFG being created – they didn't want an apartment building effecting their precious sunlight.

[bomberjet]

In other news, a Circle K is going into the Mac's on Plessis at the Esso. Are there any other Circle k's around Manitoba?

[esquire]

^ None that I know of. At one time they used to be attached to Shell stations but that ended probably back in the late 90s.

[buzzg]

That seems odd – I thought 7-Eleven was taking over all the Esso convenience stores?

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

In other news, a Circle K is going into the Mac's on Plessis at the Esso. Are there any other Circle k's around Manitoba?

Mac's owner (Couche Tard) is rebranding all Mac's as Circle K

[bomberjet]

^Right. I remember having this convo a while back. Thank you.