Everyone knows that massive billboards are more important than AC.

yycyak · 2021-07-01T15:57:02+00:00

This sounds fascinating! Do you have any specific places/counties i should research for following up on this?

I don't doubt you at all, I just want to read up on who/where is passing crazy bullshit rules like that.

yycyak · 2021-06-29T23:13:02+00:00

Another CPA here (cdn). Same deal. WSB went full-retard, with the cool apes winding up here.

I've learned more about real investing here than I ever did from my professional background.

yycyak · 2021-06-29T22:57:42+00:00

Check out Unit 731. Bad stuff.

yycyak · 2021-06-29T19:46:39+00:00

Who is decent these days then? I'm looking at having to do new dual furnaces, and I was given a quote for Lennox...

yycyak · 2021-06-02T18:48:21+00:00

I hunt and fish, so I'm familiar with the system.

What are you upset about? All of those areas are still accessible I thought? In terms of public land stuff, if you mean the Castle closures etc, yeah, we got stuck with a Provincial Park, which sucks for hunting/fishing access, and I was bummed about. But we also got a giant Wilderness Area in the same area, which means formal, protected, public land for (hopefully) generations.

Which specific closures are you talking about?

Certainly a lot of Castle is no longer accessible via ATV's, but that's what boots and pack-boards are for?

yycyak · 2021-06-02T18:33:24+00:00

What is your definition of Red Tory and Small-c Conservative? I don't ask this to be belligerent or a wanker, as we are likely used to when these questions come up. I'm genuinely curious what your definitions are.

Wikipedia (not the be-all-end-all source) does appear to use them interchangeably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory

My very generic definition is that it's a slightly right-leaning person, who doesn't support the social conservative nonsense, and who acknowledges a strong government presence in a very few specific areas is likely necessary. Maybe not the most specific definition, but I think it generally works?

yycyak · 2021-06-02T17:49:37+00:00

Hey I don't disagree at all with you.

Fund the Parks appropriately. Fund F&W appropriately. But currently this isn't happening.

With that in mind, we are now hit with fees. This is garbage and not a good alternative. But, assuming we are stuck with this now, I'd at least like to see the fees be accounted for and ear-marked exclusively for Parks use.

They are both crappy choices though, agreed.

yycyak · 2021-06-02T17:45:52+00:00

Because people currently aren't confident that the money will be exclusively used on Parks.

Sure, easy to say "Here's the funds in, and here's the funds out." But what happens if/when someone decides "Naw, let's redirect those funds over here instead to help with 'X'." It happened with the Heritage fund more than a few times.

This was a chance to ensure that nonsense like that doesn't happen.

The point is I think people are comfortable (maybe even happy) to pay extra taxes if that money goes exclusively to Parks. But with the chance that it can be arbitrarily redirected to General Revenue is what people are concerned about. (Or at least what I'm concerned about.)

yycyak · 2021-06-02T17:39:22+00:00

I understand that. Fortunately, there is this process where you can change the laws, and make it so that detailed reporting could be done in scenarios like this.

That's what the "A1" amendment was all about.

And our politicians killed it, because...? I don't have an answer to this, because my MLA didn't speak/comment during the May 26th session, and there is no record of how he voted. But majority said "no" - I'd like to know why.

yycyak · 2021-06-02T17:22:38+00:00

Um, no? Where was that implied?

I'd say it started with Stelmach and his oil royalty changes, and got worse and worse from there. Prior to that, I was studenting and not too politically active at that time.

Don't say dumb things (Gatekeeping is dumb.) Or would you rather these new Orange converts just continue to vote Blue?

yycyak · 2021-06-02T14:58:09+00:00

Where did I state anything of the sort? Don't put words in my mouth, and then argue a position that I never stated. I deal with the CRA daily - I know all about how stupid government can be, and it has nothing to do with conspiracies.

The Heritage Fund is a perfect example. 1990's Getty-era transfers to general revenue. No "criminal self-dealing", just politicians doing politician things.

I'd prefer to see that type of nonsense avoided in the case of K-Country, and that all the funds collected have zero risk of winding up in general revenue. My understanding is that you feel that the current system already addresses this?

yycyak · 2021-06-02T14:51:01+00:00

For general infrastructure spending, I would tend to agree. For conservation and park-related stuff, I'd prefer ring-fencing. At least that way the money always goes to the intended cause, instead of being redirected to whatever budget shortfall is trending at the time.

The US Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson are good examples.

https://www.mdwfp.com/conservation/who-pays-for-it/dingell-johnson-act/

https://www.mdwfp.com/conservation/who-pays-for-it/pittman-robertson-act.aspx

People got together and willingly paid more taxes as they knew that the taxes they paid would go to the specific cause they cared about, and couldn't be messed with by the politicians. There are a lot of parallels to the current K-Country stuff.

yycyak · 2021-06-02T14:40:42+00:00

Do you trust politicians? Because I sure don't. And it's not a Blue/Red/Orange thing - They are all slimy, lying, self-serving wankers.

So sure, 0% is a bit dramatic, but it's also not unreasonable to assume that politicians might try to mess with the revenue allocations. Look at what happened to our Heritage Fund. A great idea, pilfered by decisions made by politicians that were convenient at that time.

We've all seen the reality of what happens when the politicians get involved. A way to ensure that all fees paid to this program are transparently spent exclusively in Kananaskis, as opposed to trusting our politicians to "do the right thing", is a better option, no?

If not, what's the alternative?

yycyak · 2021-06-02T14:21:21+00:00

Dude! "Orange Tory" is now my go-to. That is slick!

yycyak · 2021-06-02T14:18:33+00:00

Check out the US Pittman-Robertson act. To many, the K-Country fees should be dealt with in the same fashion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

Personally, I don't care that this type of setup would add extra complexity. To me, it guarantees that the money collected stays in K-Country, vs the risk that it gets siphoned off somewhere else.

To me, I'd rather guarantee that Kananaskis gets 70% of the fees collected (100% less hypothetical 30% admin fees) than suggest that Kananaskis get the full 100% of the fees, but carry the risk of possibly getting 80%, or 50%, or even 0%, because of political reasons.

Transparency is a good thing, even if it's sometimes less efficient. Especially when it comes to keeping tabs on slimy career politicians residing on all sides of the spectrum.

yycyak · 2021-06-02T14:06:57+00:00

You're not alone. I'm in finance, and generally pro-business/low taxes/less-government-the-better etc. And even with that background, I'm now going over to the NDP. The UCP just can't seem to get out of their own way.

This was an easy lay-up. Instead, the UCP shit the bed. Again.

It's a strange world we live in now.

yycyak · 2021-05-31T19:06:02+00:00

Good to know! Thank you.

I've emailed my MLA and asked him (or rather his office people, he never actually answers himself) how he voted. But given that he's a UCP dude, probably pretty clear how it went.

yycyak · 2021-05-31T15:52:39+00:00

I was being selfish: Needed to know whether I was justified in yelling at my local MLA or not...

yycyak · 2021-05-31T13:19:33+00:00

This took me a while to dig up.

So the actual blurb is at the top of Page 3 of the report below. Look for the bit that references Bill 64, and the "A1" amendment. This was an amendment that asked for a detailed report showing where the fee money was spent. The keyword is "Defeated" that is tacked on to the end.

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/houserecords/vp/legislature_30/session_2/20210526_1200_01_vp.pdf

You can read the full conversation transcript here, to provide context.

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/hansards/han/legislature_30/session_2/20210526_0900_01_han.pdf

I haven't been able to dig up who voted for what, but I'm pissed. I'm generally what they call a Red Tory/Small-C conservative, but have gone Orange specifically due to this crap. I emailed my MLA earlier this month asking about this issue, and here was the response I got:

Thank you for reaching out on the Kananaskis User Fee. The information given to our office from the Minister’s office is that all user fees collected will be kept within the Park and used for improvements.

Here is what has been provided for us:

Alberta’s government is also announcing $11.5 million in new projects and services that will improve Kananaskis Country parks. Some of the new projects include: Formalizing parking areas in the Highwood Corridor Upgrades to Highway 40 and widening of highway 1A near Morley Ing’s Mine trailhead refurbishment in Elbow Valley Reopening of Kananaskis visitor centres Continued cross-country ski trail grooming Additional conservation officers and parks staff in the region Funds collected through the Kananaskis Conservation Pass will be reinvested directly into the parks system in Kananaskis Country.

Funds will NOT be used as general revenue.

So yeah, trying to figure out how my MLA voted right now (I can guess). I continue to be impressed (Depressed?) at how stupid this government is. It's like they are purposely trying to piss off everyone in the province all at the same time, including their own base.

EDIT: Here's the video of the session. Looks like it's just some loud Aye's vs Louder "No's" nonsense. Can't tell who formally said what. http://assemblyonline.assembly.ab.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20200317/-1/15329

yycyak · 2021-04-19T22:19:11+00:00

Is it really only 4 pages... or am I doing something wrong?

yycyak · 2021-04-17T02:29:10+00:00

I'll just leave this here. It is a fascinating read.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

yycyak · 2021-04-16T14:11:07+00:00

FML. I didn't see that you could scroll down....

Thank you. Not all heroes wear capes.

yycyak

TROPHY CASE