Comment 57088

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted January 19, 2011 at 15:47:32

transitstudent >> First you criticized travel times,

Where you admitted you were wrong and I was right. Out of courtesy to you, I figured I wouldn't push the point. Sorry for not being an asshole.

>> then question the goal of LRT,

Because it's much better to just spend $130 million and hope something good happens.

>> then switched to taxation

To open your eyes to a real solution for helping Hamilton's economic troubles. Here's a breakdown that might make it clearer for you.

Goal: Increase the amount of private sector activity downtown Hamilton.

My idea: Allow the private sector to keep and spend more of their own money.

RTH's idea: Give more money to the government to spend.

I wonder whose idea will work better to increase private spending activity downtown? Giving the government $130 million to spend on a train service that will raise less in revenue than it costs to operate? ...Or

Giving it to consumers to spend at businesses that will make more in revenue than they cost to operate and therefore don't require taxpayers to bail them out?

Which idea is better for creating a good economy?

>> then to financing

These are all issues that are tied to LRT and it's so called goal of increasing the economy of downtown Hamilton. You and others seem to only see the possible benefits of LRT, without looking at all the negatives, like higher taxation, higher debt, less productivity, more reliance on handouts, etc.

All you see is "shiny, new train cars, makes me happy". That's not enough.

>> then to demonizing downtown,

I pointed out the reality that is downtown Hamilton. Poor economy, vacant buildings, low property values, lack of private investment, high poverty, in spite of having the highest concentration of public
spending and transit in the city.

I am stating the obvious that progressives either are blind to, or won't admit to, HIGH GOVERNMENT SPENDING HAS NOT HELPED THE DOWNTOWN GET PROSPEROUS. That's just a fact Jack.

>> then to praising downtown

I never praised the downtown, YOU did. You provided a link and all I did was work off that assumption. I never claimed the assumption was correct, I was simply asking that if it were true, that the downtown was already prosperous, why would it need more tax money to stimulate it?

I was simply highlighting the weakness in your logic, in the hopes that you would think twice about spending $130 million of other people's money.

As for me being a troll, I think that claim comes out of a frustration and inability of progressives to put forward a sensible and coherent argument for LRT. You even said that Burlington and Oakville's downtown are better not because they have more $130 million more in transit, but because you think their roads are slower moving.

When I suggested that the city try this first to help the downtown and save $130 million, you rebutted with this...

"Why not spend $130 million to take two lanes out of King St and accomplish both reduced traffic and improved transit?"

The problem with that answer is that it is not based on facts. You already admitted that the time savings would be minimal for LRT over B-Line, so what are taxpayers getting for their $130 million investment?

I don't know if you know this, but people in Hamilton do not have $130 million to waste? Do you understand that? And even if the city HAS wasted money on the RHVP, it doesn't mean that taxpayers were happy about that either. LRT should not be seen as revenge for the RHVP. It's not car lovers vs transit lovers, it taxpayers vs waste. Get it.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds