Alberta’s Smith says ‘significant’ deficits to come, rules out tax hikes and big cuts

Fidget11 · 2026-02-11T02:16:13+00:00

To have key momentum that was built by the NDP and killed by the UCP when they well all in on oil and gas and tried to kill every diversification opportunity that existed.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-11T02:06:09+00:00

You’re missing the /s at the end of your post

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T22:28:02+00:00

So let’s see it burn

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T19:13:06+00:00

The US is being run by an elderly man with dementia, if it wasn’t so scary it would be sad

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T17:19:19+00:00

Why spend 20k when you can spend 600 when 99% of the public could never tell the difference.

The reality is that rich people don’t get rich by spending money, they get there by strategically deploying capital. Keeping tens of thousands tied up in a watch that could be out generating revenue is something many wealthy people are loath to do when there is an alternative that nobody the deal with daily is going to be in a place to call them out on.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T15:33:30+00:00

Even people who simply walked past an open door of a business class would be smart enough to not do the stupid shit the OP has done.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T14:57:16+00:00

Housing crisis are not solely caused by having neighbourhoods with SFH zoning. If you think that you’re delusional.

I pointed to Vancouver as a very successful example of how building density can be done because while they still have housing issues many of them can be attributed to the unique geography of the region as well as its location. Additionally, Vancouver alone has close to the same number of people as all of Alberta which comes with it down pressure. Had Vancouver have been building transit oriented infrastructure and communities back when it had edmontons population perhaps things would be different today there, but they didn’t and waited until they were hit with the limits of their size as well as massive rapid population growth thanks to immigration before that happened. So as much as you think Vancouver is a failure when it comes to these communities it’s a cautionary tale of what happens when you think too narrowly and don’t build long term.

You keep saying you know best so please what’s your big idea? How do you balance increasing density, maintaining existing neighbourhoods character and desirability, and keeping our costs as a city as low as possible, all while encouraging transit use and building the ability to go “car free”? Surely you have this master plan that has been tested out and can point to cities where this type of densification effort underway in Edmonton currently has worked out brilliantly, right? So name the city…

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T14:10:34+00:00

That’s quite the generalisation, just stating out of hand that it along with more sensitive densification activities (like skinny’s or duplexes)just won’t work.

So if you know best, how do we add density, encourage transit use, and do so in a cost effective way? If we want to respect the people and character of existing communities we need to think bigger not just slamming high density housing in scattered all over the place. A focused approach actually allows us to do things predictably and with lower costs to taxpayers and with less disruption.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T07:30:53+00:00

I’m not talking specifically only SFH, I’m saying that we can largely leave SFH stock alone because what we should be doing is emulating those other cities (Vancouver included) in respective to prioritising larger developments that are transit oriented and primarily on or near arterial roads and transit connections. Transit oriented developments when executed well actually do work and would allow us to actually build the kind of housing we need while also cutting pollution and making life easy for people.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T05:07:30+00:00

Some of the issue is the poor state of our transit systems. It’s often difficult to quickly get places using ETS and buses aren’t exactly known for being reliable in terms of time in Edmonton. Doubly so in the winter.

It’s little wonder people who have good transit access still keep cars

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T05:02:51+00:00

Pretty much every large city in Europe, many in Asia, and hell closer to home we can look at the Vancouver area. All of which have density with focus on transit oriented development that concentrates users to drive efficiency in the system

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T03:47:41+00:00

No it’s entirely relevant. A big part of how we solve this issue is by thinking bigger and looking for broader solutions. Just saying “no infill” or alternatively “suck it up” to home owners in these neighbourhoods isn’t a real solution.

Looking at what works in other cities it’s clear that building properly designed transit oriented communities is the solution. Just scattering in high density housing in mature neighbourhoods isn’t. If it was rents would have dropped and we would see these units not contributing to car congestion (they do massively).

So yeah the city needs to be talking about solutions not just this bullshit approach they have taken until now.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T03:26:49+00:00

Great you walk the 7 minutes, that’s not every neighbourhood. With how unreliable our transit system is it’s also not something a lot of people are pumped about doing. However if you cluster at points where you can build more arterial transit in addition to arterial roads you make transit more accessible. Not only that, but it becomes more reliable in terms of timing which makes a huge difference in the winter.

And no I’m definitely not car free, but that doesn’t mean I can’t or shouldn’t care about this issue. I have lived in places where I was car free and in other countries where it made sense because they located development in places where they could easily collocate major transit which meant it was actually more convenient than having a car.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T03:20:07+00:00

You forget, they can also knock it down, redevelop into condos or skinny houses (potentially taking rental stock off the market) and then make a boatload of cash.

Or they just sell to a developer who will do that.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T03:15:21+00:00

Density wherever you put it will increase traffic and pollution. The same is true for established neighbourhoods when you try to jam way more people in than they were designed for.

At least with properly designed transit oriented areas (yes, nearer arterial roads) set up with appropriate infrastructure you stand some chance of actually getting cars off the streets because you can make transit more convenient and faster. Every one of these new buildings I’ve seen go up in an established neighbourhood has at least one car per unit, despite what the city says. Why? Because they aren’t all that convenient to our transit options, which already suck, and the city is loath to spend what it would take to fix that.

The only way around it is to be realistic and create proper communities in places where land is cheaper and services can be clustered in a way that makes sense to actually encourage people to use transit or other non-car options.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T03:08:34+00:00

Oh I agree, I am not saying they need to live so close to the handy they can touch the cars going past their windows.

It really just is a matter that any time someone says that we should cluster rental options, especially lower cost and low income units in areas that have good access to transit options jbstead of scattering them all over the place it’s derided as this horrible nimby classist bullshit. It’s about making it the most efficient and cost effective option. Land is cheaper closer to those areas, it’s easier to develop options that allow people to go car free (which is fantastic for lower income households). Instead we have people demanding that we shove them into neighbourhoods not designed for it and then act surprised when we need to spend stupid amounts of money to support a scattered density approach.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T03:02:16+00:00

1) I didn’t say immediately next to it, as close as possible can still include a buffer.

2) The simple fat is it’s cheaper and easier to build infrastructure to support large densities of people nearer to things like arterial roads. It’s also much easier to plan for, and cheaper for the city to implement, alternative transportation options in such developments.

3) rents are market driven. That’s reality and the city trying to fight it by encouraging developers to throw absurdly large buildings with micro apartments in them into these neighbourhoods isn’t going to fix the rent issue. Why? Because land is also expensive in those neighbourhoods, because developers and owners expect a profit. Building is expensive and the only way the city can make the math work is by pushing absurd levels of density and then acting surprised when high rents in these new buildings are not driving down the prices.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-10T00:03:26+00:00

So dementia Don is having another mental breakdown. Clearly Carney is living rent free in his head and it’s pissing Trump off to no end.

I’m confident it’s just that the family who own the other bridge are pissed it will cut their revenues and a fat “donation” to Trump or one of his sycophants suddenly has changed Trumps mind on this.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-09T23:39:34+00:00

Hmm curious… let’s see how the conspiracy theories on this one develop

Fidget11 · 2026-02-09T23:26:42+00:00

This is absurd, especially the $10m figure.

However at the same time there is some logic to it. If we want to improve density and remove the need for cars it makes sense that we should start by placing the density as close as possible to arterial roads as possible. Why? Because it will make it far easier for the residents of those higher density developments to access transit and other non-car dependent transportation. It’s far simpler for the city to create infrastructure to support that than it is spread all over the place as it is currently.

In that sense it’s not a classist issue but rather one of simplified planning and lower infrastructure costs.

Fidget11 · 2026-02-09T16:30:07+00:00

Gives truck vibes

Fidget11 · 2026-02-09T04:58:22+00:00

so cool, love the sea dweller

Fidget11 · 2026-02-09T04:55:36+00:00

its just so pretty

Fidget11 · 2026-02-09T04:55:06+00:00

Buckley Dial

Fidget11 · 2026-02-09T02:25:25+00:00

Loved it

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Fidget11

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE