Next provincial Election

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they will risk their own money on every opportunity that presents itself. It amazes me how people can fail to see this elementary concept.

And dumb ole Nova Scotia is right there with their purse open.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Let's face it: Neither people nor companies have a desire to establish themselves in small towns. Cities are the municipality of choice across the entire country, and across most of the world.

I actually think Dexter has done too much for rural Nova Scotia. He shouldn't be subsidising pulp mills, just like he shouldn't be moving provincial jobs out of Halifax to rural Nova Scotia. Neither decision will show a return on investment. As a province, we need to stop giving free money to dying industries, and we need to stop giving free money to dying towns and villages. If we continue, then we are compromising our ability to invest in areas that will have the capacity to grow.

At one point in our car-dependent history, small towns were sustainable. With inflation outpacing wages many times over, and with the trend to use public transit instead of personally owning a car -- this translates into small towns being in low demand.

As somebody who has lived in Halifax, I can say not everybody wants to nor should have to live in Halifax. Thats a pretty arrogant statement. So I won't "face it".

There is absolutely no reason that the rural workforce is inferior to that of the city.

Establishing business in a city is expensive. Rural areas are considerably cheaper and have a loyal workforce with a good work ethic. This difference, particularly in the added costs of being in the city needs to be played up. There are many successful industries based in rural communities. Michelin, LED Roadway, Ocean Nutrition, to name only three. Not everything revolves around Halifax.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Blame that on Rodney. His pissing away of a billion dollars or so during 07/08 left the province broke. ANY govt would have needed to pay that back by raising taxes. You sound like there is a printing press for $100 bills in the basement of Province House to magically rid ourselves of debt. Hint: there isn't.

According to the numbers, the province had a $419 million surplus in 2007/2008 - http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/prov_fiscal.pdf. It is difficult to compare the present economy to that in 2007/2008, however I follow the Statistics Canada data quite closely and Nova Scotia had budget surpluses and much stronger job creation numbers during Premier MacDonald's term than Premier Dexter's current term. It should also be noted that it was Rodney MacDonald who stopped the Commonwealth Games bid when it got out of hand (I think it was disappointing but financially responsible on Premier MacDonald's part). I just don't recall Rodney MacDonald wasting $1 billion dollars?

The federal Conservatives promised to cut the GST from 7% to 5% and they fulfilled that promise. The NDP promised in their election campaign to cut the sales tax on heating oil but then increased the provincial rate of the HST from 8% to 10% on almost every product and service, taking back the federal GST cut. I don't think people will forget that when the NDP starts making election promises for the upcoming election.

I feel quite confident in saying that Irving would have gotten the ship-building contract with Rodney MacDonald in power. The provincial NDP can just be thankful that the federal Conservative Party decided to keep politics out of the decision. So let's give credit to the federal Conservatives for being fair - at one time it would have been a forgone conclusion that Quebec would get the contract.

It should also be noted that it was under the Rodney MacDonald's term that the Play Fairway Analysis project was undertaken in 2008 that has led to the current renewed interest in offshore oil exploration off Nova Scotia - http://www.novascotiaoffshore.com/analysis

One thing that I credit the current provincial NDP for is an emphasis on renewable energy and their commitment to accessing Newfoundland hydro energy.

[ILoveHalifax]

The only thing I am aware that the NDP did was buy all kinds of forest from anybody and everybody who was selling. The purchase from Irving in the southwest of the province was for nothing than to give money to Irving. It looks the same now that we own it as it did when Irving owned it. I did nt see any signs saying 'Keep Out' or guard dogs, anybody could have used it no matter who owns(ed) it.
Oh yes, they closed down the Yarmouth ferry.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by ILoveHalifax

The only thing I am aware that the NDP did was buy all kinds of forest from anybody and everybody who was selling. The purchase from Irving in the southwest of the province was for nothing than to give money to Irving. It looks the same now that we own it as it did when Irving owned it. I did nt see any signs saying 'Keep Out' or guard dogs, anybody could have used it no matter who owns(ed) it.
Oh yes, they closed down the Yarmouth ferry.

Agreed.

You have to love the electioneering hail mary that they threw this year trying to have the ferry back running for this season.

You can only imagine how BAD those two received bids must have been for the government to pass up on awarding the contract. You know they were just aching to have that ferry up and running for the election.

And the flip-flop on school closing!

[Hali87]

I don't think that buying up large tracts of forest was necessarily a waste of money (now the province gets has the final day in how this land is used, and forests aren't just for logging). Also maybe only a few hundred people work at each mill but there are hundreds and probably even thousands of other jobs that depend on the forest industry that would have been lost if this industry had simply been allowed to abruptly die.

Also, I definitely agree that it's pretty naive/arrogant to believe that most people want to live in a city and have "no desire" to live in a rural areal. A LOT of people want to live in the country/small towns. Like MILLIONS of Canadians. Maybe some people are moving to the city because they think small towns are lame and backwards and unhip, but there are probably an equal or greater number who are moving to the city entirely against their choice (and hate every minute of their lives there) or stay in their hometown even though there are no opportunities, because they prefer the lifestyle or are just biased against cities in general.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

I don't think that buying up large tracts of forest was necessarily a waste of money (now the province gets has the final day in how this land is used, and forests aren't just for logging). Also maybe only a few hundred people work at each mill but there are hundreds and probably even thousands of other jobs that depend on the forest industry that would have been lost if this industry had simply been allowed to abruptly die.

Also, I definitely agree that it's pretty naive/arrogant to believe that most people want to live in a city and have "no desire" to live in a rural areal. A LOT of people want to live in the country/small towns. Like MILLIONS of Canadians.

I agree, definitely (eastern Canada has some of the last forests on the edge of the North American continent. It's not all natural resource--let's just leave some of it to nature).

But I don't think anyone thinks the industry should just be allowed to die abruptly--but their should be an exit strategy, or a downsizing strategy to minimize the pain. Infusions of government cash are just prolonging the demise and the pain.

And yeah, a lot of people want to live in small towns, but there's undeniably an urbanization trend going on across the country. We can't ignore it or pretend that we'll be different. That's a recipe for disaster.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

And yeah, a lot of people want to live in small towns, but there's undeniably an urbanization trend going on across the country. We can't ignore it or pretend that we'll be different. That's a recipe for disaster.

It is pretty complicated. One thing I have noticed is that there's a parochial tendency in the Maritimes for view economic development as a zero-sum game where Halifax is an adversary. Maybe this attitude would go away if the government moved to a less ad hoc system based more on stimulating growth through low taxes and training programs rather than direct subsidies to businesses. The economic disparities aren't going away though; there just aren't as many opportunities in some rural areas, and the province can't afford to create them artificially.

I also think that, to some degree, there should be a little more recognition that a job in Halifax isn't just a job lost in Cape Breton or Yarmouth. On the contrary, jobs in Halifax often couldn't have gone anywhere else, and they can offer people from places like CB the opportunity to live a 4 hour drive away from family instead of living on the other side of the country. On top of this, people in Halifax travel around the province and buy regional products. If Halifax were an actual "major" city I think the rest of the province and region would benefit, not suffer. The fact that no city in the Maritimes ever became a Toronto or Vancouver has been a huge economic handicap.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

\
If Halifax were an actual "major" city I think the rest of the province and region would benefit, not suffer. The fact that no city in the Maritimes ever became a Toronto or Vancouver has been a huge economic handicap.

Yep. Maybe Halifax is moving in that direction now.

Another way to think of it: Are there any great cities, with long-term cultural and economic success, that have mediocre downtowns? Not that I can think of. Likewise, there are few successful regions in this day and age which aren't centered around a strong urban hub. So maybe think of HRM as downtown Nova Scotia.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by scooby074

As somebody who has lived in Halifax, I can say not everybody wants to nor should have to live in Halifax. Thats a pretty arrogant statement. So I won't "face it".

There is absolutely no reason that the rural workforce is inferior to that of the city.

Establishing business in a city is expensive. Rural areas are considerably cheaper and have a loyal workforce with a good work ethic. This difference, particularly in the added costs of being in the city needs to be played up. There are many successful industries based in rural communities. Michelin, LED Roadway, Ocean Nutrition, to name only three. Not everything revolves around Halifax.

A majority of Canadians are not choosing rural communities. Businesses are established in rural areas (when that happens) more cheaply because of the lower density and because rural areas are subsidised by cities.

I want those subsidies to stop.

And rural working Canadians do not work harder than Canadians in cities. I don't want to embrace a romanticism about the work ethic of country folk. Most Canadians in all municipalities, regardless of size, are hard workers.

Not everything revolves around Halifax, of course. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to public services and infrastructure, you'd think the government revolves around rural communities.

When our province (and our country) discusses this issue of taxation, picking on rich people in Canada is a somewhat popular trend nowadays, and to an extent I agree. The upper income brackets (and large, successful corporations) don't pay enough taxes. I believe, however, one of the best decisions we could make that would promote economic growth would be to make rural Canadians and suburbanites pay their fair share in taxes as well.

Subsidising rural communities and the suburbs is a form of government waste. Let's cut that spending so we may be able to sustainably invest in communities that actually generate the tax revenues to begin with.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I agree, definitely (eastern Canada has some of the last forests on the edge of the North American continent. It's not all natural resource--let's just leave some of it to nature).

But I don't think anyone thinks the industry should just be allowed to die abruptly--but their should be an exit strategy, or a downsizing strategy to minimize the pain. Infusions of government cash are just prolonging the demise and the pain.

And yeah, a lot of people want to live in small towns, but there's undeniably an urbanization trend going on across the country. We can't ignore it or pretend that we'll be different. That's a recipe for disaster.

We would be smart to help our smaller communities urbanise. This doesn't mean that villages would have to commit to 20-storey towers. A focus on infill, with modest buildings of at least a few floors, would be a start.

It's bad enough that Halifax has so much sprawl....but have you seen our towns and villages? That is our recipe for disaster.

People can live wherever they desire -- as long as they pay for it. The way we go about maintaining our municipalities is a very, very horrible form of socialism, and it's absolutely not sustainable. And we all know this.

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

A majority of Canadians are not choosing rural communities. Businesses are established in rural areas (when that happens) more cheaply because of the lower density and because rural areas are subsidised by cities.

I want those subsidies to stop.

And rural working Canadians do not work harder than Canadians in cities. I don't want to embrace a romanticism about the work ethic of country folk. Most Canadians in all municipalities, regardless of size, are hard workers.

Not everything revolves around Halifax, of course. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to public services and infrastructure, you'd think the government revolves around rural communities.

When our province (and our country) discusses this issue of taxation, picking on rich people in Canada is a somewhat popular trend nowadays, and to an extent I agree. The upper income brackets (and large, successful corporations) don't pay enough taxes. I believe, however, one of the best decisions we could make that would promote economic growth would be to make rural Canadians and suburbanites pay their fair share in taxes as well.

Subsidising rural communities and the suburbs is a form of government waste. Let's cut that spending so we may be able to sustainably invest in communities that actually generate the tax revenues to begin with.

The government is elected by and governs the whole province, as such they have a duty to stimulate the economies of all areas. And it's not just you who is supporting rural communities with your taxes, I am too. It's part of being a CITIZEN in this province, something you seem to forget. I don't get to pick and choose which towns or cities I want to give my money too.. Personally, I think Halifax gets to much, do I have the right to not have my money go there?

Does that mean I think they should pack up all the various government agencies and transport them to rural communities? No, that was a stupid, political move.

As to rural communities having a strong, loyal work ethic, its more than a romantic notion, Ive witnessed it. Most rural workers appreciate their jobs because there just arent that many, compared to somewhere like Halifax, where if you don't like your job, there are lots of others to pick from. This breeds loyalty and the want to do a good job. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but in my experience they are few and far between.

Bottom line, not everyone can pack up and move to Halifax as you seem to think they can. Rural communities need to exist, yet were loosing rural businesses to other countries / provinces, that means some forms of community subsidies have to happen as local tax bases are eroded. It also means we need to do something to reduce business costs, like get NSP under control. Electricity rates are killing business.

Your vision where you "want those subsidies to stop" is extremely narrow and a bit hypocritical; remember this next time your in the taxpayer funded hospital.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

A majority of Canadians are not choosing rural communities. Businesses are established in rural areas (when that happens) more cheaply because of the lower density and because rural areas are subsidised by cities.

I want those subsidies to stop.

And rural working Canadians do not work harder than Canadians in cities. I don't want to embrace a romanticism about the work ethic of country folk. Most Canadians in all municipalities, regardless of size, are hard workers.

Not everything revolves around Halifax, of course. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to public services and infrastructure, you'd think the government revolves around rural communities.

When our province (and our country) discusses this issue of taxation, picking on rich people in Canada is a somewhat popular trend nowadays, and to an extent I agree. The upper income brackets (and large, successful corporations) don't pay enough taxes. I believe, however, one of the best decisions we could make that would promote economic growth would be to make rural Canadians and suburbanites pay their fair share in taxes as well.

Subsidising rural communities and the suburbs is a form of government waste. Let's cut that spending so we may be able to sustainably invest in communities that actually generate the tax revenues to begin with.

Your arguments make sense in an abstract way but think about the effects. You want to raise taxes in all rural areas. So then let's say that within 5 years 50% of the population of these rural areas says "fuck this" and moves to Halifax where we build shiny new skyscrapers to accommodate them and we can brag about how we're now the 11th largest metro in Canada or whatever.

This would cause two other major effects though:

1. The depleted rural communities would still have some people living and working in them, but they would be miserable places to live (most of them currently aren't)

2. Food prices in Halifax and elsewhere in the Maritimes would rise dramatically as food production falls in the province. Almost all of our farmland and fishing ports are inherently rural and thus would be losing workers due to the suddenly higher cost of living.

A lot of people seem to see rural areas and resource based economies as being backwards or even something to be embarrassed about, but rural areas are a necessary part of a sustainable economy. If you were talking strictly about exurban areas like Hammonds Plains I'd agree, but my impression is you meant places more like Yarmouth or King's Counties.

I'm also not sure where you get the idea that "most" Canadians are hardworking... You need to get out more. Some are, some aren't. I wouldn't say most are.

[Drybrain]

IMO, the problem now is that rural communities are being supported by government investment in weakening industries. There will always be manufacturing, and mills, and hopefully a fishery. But they'll be less important in the future, for a host of economic reasons. Regardless whether that's good or bad, if rural communities want to grow (or not shrink) there has to be a revitalization of those economies and a re-imagining of what small towns and rural areas can be. But the're never going to get the media and technology and finance companies, etc., that set up in Halifax. Their workforce isn't there, and for the most part doesn't want to live there. (This is why Silicon Valley is trying hard to urbanize its surrounding communities--all the tech workers want to be in San Fran instead.)

Anyway, what's the answer? It's not to let these towns die, but it's also not to artificially inflate their status-quo economies. Something new needs to happen. I don't know what that is, however. And there's not one single magic-bullet answer, either, i.e., tourism! or whatever.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Your arguments make sense in an abstract way but think about the effects. You want to raise taxes in all rural areas. So then let's say that within 5 years 50% of the population of these rural areas says "fuck this" and moves to Halifax where we build shiny new skyscrapers to accommodate them and we can brag about how we're now the 11th largest metro in Canada or whatever.

Tax increases would not be implemented in a way that would cause a mass migration away from small communities; rather, the aim would be for the migration to occur mostly inward. As taxes gradually get raised on the outskirts of any given municipality, the most affordable region in which to reside and to construct your office projects would be the core (and other pockets of density). And the downtown wouldn't be cheaper by incredible stretches.

I just want to slightly tip the scale in the other direction. The further from the core you choose to develop, the ever-so-more expensive it becomes.

Originally Posted by Hali87

This would cause two other major effects though:

1. The depleted rural communities would still have some people living and working in them, but they would be miserable places to live (most of them currently aren't)

2. Food prices in Halifax and elsewhere in the Maritimes would rise dramatically as food production falls in the province. Almost all of our farmland and fishing ports are inherently rural and thus would be losing workers due to the suddenly higher cost of living.

My hope is to save as many of the smaller municipalities as possible. I don't think it's smart to try to save every community, though. There are many that haven't many (if any) industries. Essentially, the residents almost exclusively work in neighbouring (or distant) villages or towns.

Originally Posted by Hali87

A lot of people seem to see rural areas and resource based economies as being backwards or even something to be embarrassed about, but rural areas are a necessary part of a sustainable economy. If you were talking strictly about exurban areas like Hammonds Plains I'd agree, but my impression is you meant places more like Yarmouth or King's Counties.

Yes, rural communities and their productions of food are part of a much broader, sustainable economy -- but only if they, too, are sustainable. Do you believe that we can continue subsidising these low-density communities and make the proper investments in our cities (which are also too low-density)?

I'm not trying to pick on 'the country'. I would want to see tax reform in cities as well.

Originally Posted by Hali87

I'm also not sure where you get the idea that "most" Canadians are hardworking... You need to get out more. Some are, some aren't. I wouldn't say most are.

At least 50%, then? In any case, I do not believe that rural Canadians are more hardworking than urban Canadians. If I saw evidence I could always change my mind.

[DigitalNinja]

The NDP do not know how to run a province, let alone a country. Look at what they did to BC when they got elected or even Ontario. I have no issues with the creation of jobs in rural areas, but don't MOVE jobs out of an urban area an to rural area, as far as I know most people affected by that move did not want to move away to rural Nova Scotia.

You can't tell me that there wasn't a better way to spend money than to give it to Irving, which holds most of its money off shore. (Least that's what I heard, don't know how true it is.) Or to pulp and paper mills and get that money back in other ways?

Anyway, I cannot say I'm happy with the way that the NDP have been governing the province.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by scooby074

The government is elected by and governs the whole province, as such they have a duty to stimulate the economies of all areas. And it's not just you who is supporting rural communities with your taxes, I am too. It's part of being a CITIZEN in this province, something you seem to forget. I don't get to pick and choose which towns or cities I want to give my money too.. Personally, I think Halifax gets to much, do I have the right to not have my money go there?

Does that mean I think they should pack up all the various government agencies and transport them to rural communities? No, that was a stupid, political move.

As to rural communities having a strong, loyal work ethic, its more than a romantic notion, Ive witnessed it. Most rural workers appreciate their jobs because there just arent that many, compared to somewhere like Halifax, where if you don't like your job, there are lots of others to pick from. This breeds locality and the want to do a good job. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but in my experience they are few and far between.

Bottom line, not everyone can pack up and move to Halifax as you seem to think they can. Rural communities need to exist, yet were loosing rural businesses to other countries / provinces, that means some forms of community subsidies have to happen as local tax bases are eroded. It also means we need to do something to reduce business costs, like get NSP under control. Electricity rates are killing business.

Your vision where you "want those subsidies to stop" is extremely narrow and a bit hypocritical; remember this next time your in the taxpayer funded hospital.

Actually, I often consider taxpayer funded everything.

I'm critical of the entire province of Nova Scotia for being subsidised by the federal government. This is a have-not province, and yet we continue to feel entitled to live well beyond our means.

All these suburbs and rural areas are as they are today because of 'have provinces' like Alberta and British Columbia who pay for a portion of the infrastructure costs (roads, water systems, sewer, etc.), as well as the costs of our public services (schools, hospitals, police, etc.).

Even Alberta is running deficits because of their own sprawled infrastructure and public services. ......But, they have more of a current capacity to sustain that framework. Nova Scotia does not, and it's painfully obvious.

Have-not provinces have all the more reason to urbanise. Because we're poor.

You talk about not wanting your tax dollars going to Halifax? Virtually everyone I know in Alberta questions why they tolerate their tax dollars going to places like Nova Scotia.

I'm not implying that we need to change the equalisation programme. I am trying to convey that what has been built in the past (which is, communities with little density) is only going to cause further debts unless we make a big change. And soon.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

The NDP do not know how to run a province, let alone a country. Look at what they did to BC when they got elected or even Ontario. I have no issues with the creation of jobs in rural areas, but don't MOVE jobs out of an urban area an to rural area, as far as I know most people affected by that move did not want to move away to rural Nova Scotia.

You can't tell me that there wasn't a better way to spend money than to give it to Irving, which holds most of its money off shore. (Least that's what I heard, don't know how true it is.) Or to pulp and paper mills and get that money back in other ways?

Anyway, I cannot say I'm happy with the way that the NDP have been governing the province.

And if one of the two conservative parties were in power -- the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives -- I suspect that Irving would have gotten just as much, if not more.

And as far as British Columbia goes, they are about to elect the NDP. The election is next month. It could very well be a majority win. Goodbye Liberals.

In terms of the Nova Scotia NDP moving provincial jobs out of the capital and to other communities in the province, I have also criticised them.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

IMO, the problem now is that rural communities are being supported by government investment in weakening industries. There will always be manufacturing, and mills, and hopefully a fishery. But they'll be less important in the future, for a host of economic reasons. Regardless whether that's good or bad, if rural communities want to grow (or not shrink) there has to be a revitalization of those economies and a re-imagining of what small towns and rural areas can be. But the're never going to get the media and technology and finance companies, etc., that set up in Halifax. Their workforce isn't there, and for the most part doesn't want to live there. (This is why Silicon Valley is trying hard to urbanize its surrounding communities--all the tech workers want to be in San Fran instead.)

Anyway, what's the answer? It's not to let these towns die, but it's also not to artificially inflate their status-quo economies. Something new needs to happen. I don't know what that is, however. And there's not one single magic-bullet answer, either, i.e., tourism! or whatever.

Gradual tax reform, with public investments directed toward the core of every viable community. The answer is to stop pussyfooting around sustainable development and planning, and actually fucking take it seriously. Everywhere.

The results will be time-delayed, but they will be results.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by RyeJay

Yes, rural communities and their productions of food are part of a much broader, sustainable economy -- but only if they, too, are sustainable. Do you believe that we can continue subsidising these low-density communities and make the proper investments in our cities (which are also too low-density)?

You are looking at this from a purely economic point of view. In talking about rural areas, specifically the ones that produce food, I don't think it's very smart to base your judgement purely on economics. If you do, then you are saying it's reasonable to think that our local farmers and other food producers should have to compete globally based on price.

The problem with that? Then you are basically saying that we should be willing to let our rural areas die because we can get cheaper food from elsewhere, and therefore we all should be sourcing our food from the cheaper "food factories" in western Canada or from other countries, such as China. Then, all our farmers and fishermen should have to live in small apartments in downtown skyscrapers and become accountants or marketing people.

I won't go into details as to why this is a bad thing, as you can research this on your own, but the only way to guarantee a quality, stable food supply is from supporting the local producers. If you're concerned at all for the environment, then just consider the carbon footprint associated with shipping frozen fish all the way from China (yes, I've seen this product in Sobeys), when we have a ready supply of fresh fish caught daily from our good friends in, yes, rural areas (these same hard-working people that risk life and limb to get it for us).

They do have a disadvantage when competing against cheaper food sourced from other countries, so they may need to have some support from our own community and our own government. To look at it from purely a self-centered point of view that your tax dollars should not support rural areas is very short sighted.

Helping our local food producers benefits them, but it also benefits ourselves on so many levels.

At least 50%, then? In any case, I do not believe that rural Canadians are more hardworking than urban Canadians. If I saw evidence I could always change my mind.

Why even make a statement like that? How could you quantify it? Why would you want to?

Good, hardworking people live in all areas of Canada. Period.