HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1961  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2016, 9:43 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
This all sounds really exotic.

It's also... sad, but necessary, I believe. I'm sure you guys gave it lots of thoughts, so I don't doubt you're doing what's best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor3 View Post
It's a tough threshold to reach and even with the 90% vote the Provincial Government maintains the final say on whether to relocate or not. The decision comes down to whether it's more cost-effective to pay the people $270,000 per household to leave or maintain services to the community for 5, 10, or 20 years. In a lot of these communities that means asking whether it's cheaper to maintain the diesel generator station, ferry service, and employ a teacher, or pay out $5 million to residents to leave. If the ferry is serving 4-5 communities, and many of them do, it's hard to make that case because the service still has to be provided anyway and just have fewer people using it.

When government upped the resettlement payouts to $270,000 about 3 years ago, what they did was make resettlement a much more unattainable option and commit themselves to maintaining these places.
It's sad too, when you only reach a vote of 89% that essentially means 89% of the town is being held captive by the other 11%. It's easy to say "well just move regardless of the vote", but step one of moving is usually selling your house to be able to pay for another. It's kind of hard to sell a house in a dead town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1962  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2016, 10:52 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
Haru Urara
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 4,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly View Post
It's sad too, when you only reach a vote of 89% that essentially means 89% of the town is being held captive by the other 11%. It's easy to say "well just move regardless of the vote", but step one of moving is usually selling your house to be able to pay for another. It's kind of hard to sell a house in a dead town.
One would imagine that most of the town (above and beyond whatever number 90% ends up being) would be on the same page wrt votes like these. Like, why have the vote if there isn't an overwhelming belief that the town in question isn't going to survive anyway?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1963  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 1:39 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
One would imagine that most of the town (above and beyond whatever number 90% ends up being) would be on the same page wrt votes like these. Like, why have the vote if there isn't an overwhelming belief that the town in question isn't going to survive anyway?
You'd be surprised how often these votes fail. In a town of 100 people, all you need are 11 retired 80+ year olds who would rather stay where they are than uproot for elsewhere. Knowing very well a town can't survive long-term, it's very selfish to vote to stay. But people who vote no don't really care about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1964  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 4:58 PM
Trevor3's Avatar
Trevor3 Trevor3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
One would imagine that most of the town (above and beyond whatever number 90% ends up being) would be on the same page wrt votes like these. Like, why have the vote if there isn't an overwhelming belief that the town in question isn't going to survive anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly View Post
You'd be surprised how often these votes fail. In a town of 100 people, all you need are 11 retired 80+ year olds who would rather stay where they are than uproot for elsewhere. Knowing very well a town can't survive long-term, it's very selfish to vote to stay. But people who vote no don't really care about that.
It's tricky because you're dealing with people who are middle aged or later that have lived in the one community their entire lives. Many of the few who remain are remaining right now because they've never had to leave for work elsewhere. It's kind of why the CBC goes in there and you always get the same type of people interviewed: owner of the community store, B&B owner, 2 remaining fishermen, 10 retired fishers, the guy who maintains the generator for the province and someone who works on boats that operate out of a larger port nearby.

The people usually most in favour of moving are the seniors who need to be closer to health care services and wouldn't mind moving into Springdale, Pilley's Island, Triton, or Robert's Arm (where I imagine most of the residents would go). The people who are doing alright for themselves or have business interests tied to the community won't leave and they're generally a bit younger (read age 40+), and there's always a few seniors that have never known anything but life in that community and will never leave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1965  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 5:41 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Our Resettlement regulations are being updated, which is a touchy issue here. When Little Bay Islands held its vote a couple of years ago, 89.4% voted to resettle with some voters allegedly not year-round residents so the rules are being clarified:

90% of permanent, year-round residents must vote to resettle and only these qualified residents are allowed to vote.
$270,000 per household will be provided by the Province following a successful vote IF that cost is less than providing services. (For example, a town of a couple dozen on a secondary highway to a larger town where the only services are electricity and a highway that must still be maintained regardless to reach the larger town would not be eligible for resettlement. But an end of the road town, or a small island town, likely would).
No one will be forced to leave following a resettlement vote, but all government services (including electricity and ferries) will be stopped.
The Province will no longer take the titles of all properties in resettled communities.

Seems to be a good balance.

I expect we'll see Little Bay Islands vote again in the near future, and possibly a few others.

...
In a way, it's a bit ridiculous. If people want to leave a place, they can just leave, no one has to vote for them to leave. Why should the govt. pay for people to relocate? When I left NL, nobody voted for me to leave (lol), and nobody paid me $270,000 ether.

It seems that in BC, people view their isolation as an attraction, rather than a negative thing. People move to the islands because of the isolation.

Newfoundland has a tradition of this kind of relocation; people did it on their own, no govt. assistance was involved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1966  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 6:11 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 19,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
In a way, it's a bit ridiculous. If people want to leave a place, they can just leave, no one has to vote for them to leave. Why should the govt. pay for people to relocate?
Same reason as companies pay obsolete/extra unionized employees big lump sums to get rid of them - it makes financial sense to do that once and for all rather than to continue to pay what it costs yearly.

The nuance you seem to have missed is that people don't actually want to "leave a place" in these cases. You're right, anyone who wants to leave always can. But we're talking about people who wouldn't want to leave. That's why they have to be "bribed"/bought, if you want them to accept it. Just like useless unionized employees - if they want to voluntarily quit, great, but if not, well, it'll cost something to entice them to do it.

There's a contract, and you can't just ignore that. If you want to break it, you have to compensate the other party. Services in these outports are also a "contract".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1967  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 6:32 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Same reason as companies pay obsolete/extra unionized employees big lump sums to get rid of them - it makes financial sense to do that once and for all rather than to continue to pay what it costs yearly.

The nuance you seem to have missed is that people don't actually want to "leave a place" in these cases. You're right, anyone who wants to leave always can. But we're talking about people who wouldn't want to leave. That's why they have to be "bribed"/bought, if you want them to accept it. Just like useless unionized employees - if they want to voluntarily quit, great, but if not, well, it'll cost something to entice them to do it.

There's a contract, and you can't just ignore that. If you want to break it, you have to compensate the other party. Services in these outports are also a "contract".
The amounts offered in settlement suggest just how expensive it is for Newfoundland to keep the isolated settlements in government services.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1968  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 6:43 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
In a way, it's a bit ridiculous. If people want to leave a place, they can just leave, no one has to vote for them to leave. Why should the govt. pay for people to relocate? When I left NL, nobody voted for me to leave (lol), and nobody paid me $270,000 ether.
I'm sure if you were a homeowner when you moved, you were able to sell your house and get enough money to pay off the mortgage and get a down payment on another, yes? So exactly how are the people of towns like these supposed to do the same? Very few people have the luxury of being able to purchase a second home while carrying a home in the middle of nowhere which will never sell.

If the government determines it can save money by paying people to leave (who want to leave) a middle-of-nowhere outport than to provide essential services, then that's a no-brainer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1969  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 6:44 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 25,584
KW: it's very expensive. Our province and your city have a roughly similar population. We have dozens of clinics/hospitals and hundreds of schools. Those two services alone show what a disadvantage we're at with such a vastly spread out population.

Yeah, Marty - resettlement just speeds up the inevitable for some communities. Otherwise it's such a slow, painful process. We have quite a few schools in this province with fewer than 10 students - including several with literally only one single student. No new kids are coming into those schools, but we have to keep them open until their student(s) graduate. Resettlement could save money just on schools alone.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1970  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 6:45 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 19,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
The amounts offered in settlement suggest just how expensive it is for Newfoundland to keep the isolated settlements in government services.
What's the minimum residency time to be eligible? As an investment, I'm currently considering buying cash three little houses in Little Bay Islands, one for me, one for my gf (we're technically both "single"), one for my dad. We'd all just have to file our taxes in NL for a little while, doesn't seem too much of a hurdle...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1971  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2016, 9:48 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 25,584
It's probably possible to do.

A new article from CBC NL highlights the disapproval from the working crowd Marty mentioned, and an earlier discussion about how entitled people feel.

The owner of a bed and breakfast in Little Bay Islands is not supportive of the changes because she's likely to not be eligible to vote, even though she pays her taxes. People seem to not understand that they won't pay enough taxes in their lifetimes to fund the cost of the services they receive. The ferry to her town probably costs more to operate for a day than she's ever paid in taxes. Certainly in a year that ferry costs more than every resident of that town who has ever lived has paid in taxes.

Quote:
Hinz doesn't think she'll be able to vote, if the issue of relocation comes up again.

"I'm not impressed. [They're] just trying to separate one taxpayer from another, to say one person who pays taxes has more rights than another person who pays taxes." Hinz told the Central Morning Show.

Hinz said the recent change decreases the number of eligible voters from 95 to about 40 or fewer.

...

"My disappointment is not in the people of Little Bay Islands, my disappointment is in the government."

The business owner hopes the provincial government can come up with a compromise that would allow some people to move and some to stay. But Hinz just wants it to be over.

"I've been so frustrated by it, to this point it's like, I don't really care. Whatever happens, happens," said Hinz.

The provincial government stated it will not provide services to people who choose to remain in relocated communities. It is still offering up to $270,000 per household to relocate, but will no longer be taking the titles of properties.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...tion-1.3875612
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1972  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 2:19 AM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
What's the minimum residency time to be eligible? As an investment, I'm currently considering buying cash three little houses in Little Bay Islands, one for me, one for my gf (we're technically both "single"), one for my dad. We'd all just have to file our taxes in NL for a little while, doesn't seem too much of a hurdle...
Under the current rules, you probably could. I do approve of changing the rule so that only PR's get to vote. There are people who work in Alberta on the turnaround, or people who work in Alberta 8 months out of the year who essentially live in the middle of nowhere for a few months during the winter until they go back to work in the spring. They don't have to deal with all the negatives the permanent residents are forced to live with. If you're working on any sort of turnaround schedule, you can just as easily live anywhere else on the island, or in Labrador for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
It's probably possible to do.

A new article from CBC NL highlights the disapproval from the working crowd Marty mentioned, and an earlier discussion about how entitled people feel.

The owner of a bed and breakfast in Little Bay Islands is not supportive of the changes because she's likely to not be eligible to vote, even though she pays her taxes. People seem to not understand that they won't pay enough taxes in their lifetimes to fund the cost of the services they receive. The ferry to her town probably costs more to operate for a day than she's ever paid in taxes. Certainly in a year that ferry costs more than every resident of that town who has ever lived has paid in taxes.
Unfortunately compromise isn't financially smart. You're essentially just giving people a free 270k at that point, while still providing tens of thousands of dollars for the others to survive. A lot of people don't understand the drain a completely isolated place is on tax dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1973  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 4:00 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly View Post
I'm sure if you were a homeowner when you moved, you were able to sell your house and get enough money to pay off the mortgage and get a down payment on another, yes? So exactly how are the people of towns like these supposed to do the same? Very few people have the luxury of being able to purchase a second home while carrying a home in the middle of nowhere which will never sell.

If the government determines it can save money by paying people to leave (who want to leave) a middle-of-nowhere outport than to provide essential services, then that's a no-brainer.
Well, I wasn't being completely serious, but I am aware that many people have left small communities throughout the years to move wherever, and never came back. They may have kept their house empty, moved it themselves, or sold it for a small pittance. It's a way of life.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1974  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 4:08 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 18,520
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1975  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 4:26 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 19,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly View Post
Under the current rules, you probably could.
Really? Seems nuts to me that it could even work... logically, to show you moved there in good faith, you would likely have to have relocated there before these closing programs were announced. I'd maybe have a loss mitigation program for those who moved after, but nothing more. That's what I'd do if I ran this settlement closing scheme.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1976  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 5:26 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 15,402
Moncton area seeks to import 700 skilled American workers
Economic development group 3+ Corporation launches media campaign in the U.S. in bid to fill job vacancies
By David Bartlett, CBC News
Posted: Dec 02, 2016 12:26 PM AT
Last Updated: Dec 02, 2016 12:26 PM AT

The economic development corporation of Dieppe, Moncton and Riverview has launched a campaign to try and bring skilled workers from the United States to New Brunswick.

The 3+ Corporation hopes to attract Americans to fill 700 job vacancies in the Moncton region.

"We want to attract companies to settle here and we need to have enough skilled workers to ensure productivity. It's that simple," president and CEO Eric Mourant told Radio-Canada.

The campaign began on Dec. 1 and will run until March, with advertisements on social and traditional media.

The first ad shows the fictional Uncle Sam with a Canadian flag in the background, with a message that reads: "Greater Moncton, New Brunswick, Wants You!"

It's directed at American citizens, but also expatriates of all nationalities, including Canadians currently working south of the border.

The vacant jobs are in the fields of trucking, information technology, health, business and financial services.

full article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...cans-1.3878129


http://3plus.ca
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1977  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 6:33 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,751
I would go to Moncton if they would pay me what I am worth. But they would not, hence the media campaign. The whole point of these campaigns is to target a larger market with the hopes of finding enough people willing to work for bellow market rates. If they were serious about filling positions they would have a recruiter find them the perfect matches and they could then negotiate a compensation and relocation package for each one. In today's world it is incredibly simple. They can find matches for every position within a week and begin negotiations right away. Every position can be filled before the end of December if they are willing to pay the market rate for their area plus relocation expenses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1978  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 6:41 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 19,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
I would go to Moncton if they would pay me what I am worth. But they would not, hence the media campaign. The whole point of these campaigns is to target a larger market with the hopes of finding enough people willing to work for bellow market rates. If they were serious about filling positions they would have a recruiter find them the perfect matches and they could then negotiate a compensation and relocation package for each one. In today's world it is incredibly simple. They can find matches for every position within a week and begin negotiations right away. Every position can be filled before the end of December if they are willing to pay the market rate for their area plus relocation expenses.
Pretty sure you're entirely correct there.

Reminds me of an excellent satirical post by someone123 lately on exactly this topic not that long ago - he personally has a bunch of unfilled job positions at the moment...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1979  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 7:39 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
I would go to Moncton if they would pay me what I am worth. But they would not, hence the media campaign. The whole point of these campaigns is to target a larger market with the hopes of finding enough people willing to work for bellow market rates. If they were serious about filling positions they would have a recruiter find them the perfect matches and they could then negotiate a compensation and relocation package for each one. In today's world it is incredibly simple. They can find matches for every position within a week and begin negotiations right away. Every position can be filled before the end of December if they are willing to pay the market rate for their area plus relocation expenses.
The cost of living in Moncton is among the lowest in Canada though. If they were smart, they would push the campaign in places like Toronto and Vancouver and tell them they could live in Moncton for a fraction of the cost...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1980  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2016, 7:40 PM
d_jeffrey d_jeffrey is offline
Living between provinces
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Alexandria, ON
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The cost of living in Moncton is among the lowest in Canada though. If they were smart, they would push the campaign in places like Toronto and Vancouver and tell them they could live in Moncton for a fraction of the cost...
And a fraction of the salary... At least, even with high housing costs, it's more or so an "investment". With a lower salary, well you just have a lower salary.
__________________
If only "common sense" people had any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.