Calgary
If I Wanted To Be a Dictator….
																								
												
												
											If I were the Prime Minister of Canada, I’d likely find the democratic process to be restrictive and cumbersome to my ambitions. No matter how beneficial my proposed policies, there would always be some half-wit squawking in opposition to implementing my vision of what Canada could, and should be.
If I were Canada’s PM, I might admire the efficiency of other Governments, and/or systems of Governance which allow their leaders to create the society they believe is best for them. A society of fairness and ecological responsibility is in the best interests of all Global citizens, and if the United Nations were in control of the world, all would benefit.
If my father was a Politician, and I grew up without ever having to worry about money, I might view small business owners as greedy little tyrants who exploit their staff by only offering minimum wage. I might believe that Capitalism is greatly flawed, and that individual freedoms obstruct my vision of what society should be. I might find a way to alter the system so that small businesses are run by the government, but without calling it fascism.
If my father was an admirer of the Communist Regimes, I might be influenced to share in his admiration.
If I wanted to be a dictator, I would have to either create an emergency, or I would have to be lucky enough to have an emergency occur during my reign as Prime Minister. Only with a national sense of emergency would the Canadian public allow me to expand my ministerial power. The greater the sense of fear felt by the public, the more accepting they will be of my expanding powers. Under the Emergency Measures Act, I would be able to achieve my goals.
If I wanted to be a dictator, I would relish the emergency and do everything I could to prolong the crisis for as long as possible. The longer the crisis lasts, the more my power could expand.
If I wanted to be a dictator, I’d have to “sell” the idea to people in such a way that they resist as little as possible. I would loudly condemn any criticism of authoritarian governments that are operating in a fashion that I would prefer to operate.
If I was determined to become a dictator, I would proclaim my moral superiority over my adversaries, so as to condemn any dissent as immoral.
I would place strong restrictions on social media and protests by limiting both free speech and the right of assembly. I would call these freedoms “Dangerous to the public good”.
I would implement new laws to limit liberties which I would call “temporary”, but in reality, they will be no more temporary than income tax was during its “temporary” implementation after World War 2.
At the earliest opportunity, I would seize as many firearms as possible from the public, so as to minimize the possibility of armed resistance. I would find a way to make the seizure of arms appear to be in their best interests.
If I was determined to be a dictator, much of the public would need to be on my side. To that end, I would provide government funding for them which circumstance would force them to accept. After just a few months, they would become dependent on the Government relief funding. The more dependent they become, the more compliant they will be. The more compliant they are, the more my power can expand. Love me, or hate me, they won’t want to risk losing the funding which allows them to survive.
If I were to be a dictator, I would hire a tech firm to mine the internet for data that would identify potential resistors. The list would reveal both those with the most influence, and those who could lead an armed resistance. I would start by monitoring all Army veterans, especially those with combat experience who are the most outspoken.
I would create as much tension and civil unrest as possible, so as to foster a volatile social environment. The more volatile, the more likely it would be for a “trigger event” to happen. Once a trigger event occurs, such as an armed response, or a violent protest, then I would have the excuse I would need to implement martial law. Under martial law, I would have all the tools I required to institute a permanent dictatorship.
To maintain my power, I would have a zero-tolerance policy for any and all dissent. Anyone who would question my authority would be immediately labelled as conspiracy theorists, arrested, and jailed for “subversive activity.” Only with absolute control over the masses, would I be able to re-create our entire society into what I know to be “the right way”.
Our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and other world leaders are currently on the path to absolute power. Now is the time to ask ourselves, …are we OK with this? If not, what are we prepared to do so that we can avoid this dark potential future?
Mark E. Meincke
Buy the Home Seller’s Bible by clicking HERE
Buy “Why not Me?” HERE
For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary
Alberta
Gondek’s exit as mayor marks a turning point for Calgary
														This article supplied by Troy Media.
The mayor’s controversial term is over, but a divided conservative base may struggle to take the city in a new direction
Calgary’s mayoral election went to a recount. Independent candidate Jeromy Farkas won with 91,112 votes (26.1 per cent). Communities First candidate Sonya Sharp was a very close second with 90,496 votes (26 per cent) and controversial incumbent mayor Jyoti Gondek finished third with 71,502 votes (20.5 per cent).
Gondek’s embarrassing tenure as mayor is finally over.
Gondek’s list of political and economic failures in just a single four-year term could easily fill a few book chapters—and most likely will at some point. She declared a climate emergency on her first day as Calgary’s mayor that virtually no one in the city asked for. She supported a four per cent tax increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many individuals and families were struggling to make ends meet. She snubbed the Dec. 2023 menorah lighting during Hanukkah because speakers were going to voice support for Israel a mere two months after the country was attacked by the bloodthirsty terrorist organization Hamas. The
Calgary Party even accused her last month of spending over $112,000 in taxpayers’ money for an “image makeover and brand redevelopment” that could have benefited her re-election campaign.
How did Gondek get elected mayor of Calgary with 176,344 votes in 2021, which is over 45 per cent of the electorate?
“Calgary may be a historically right-of-centre city,” I wrote in a recent National Post column, “but it’s experienced some unusual voting behaviour when it comes to mayoral elections. Its last three mayors, Dave Bronconnier, Naheed Nenshi and Gondek, have all been Liberal or left-leaning. There have also been an assortment of other Liberal mayors in recent decades like Al Duerr and, before he had a political epiphany, Ralph Klein.”
In fairness, many Canadians used to support the concept of balancing their votes in federal, provincial and municipal politics. I knew of some colleagues, friends and family members, including my father, who used to vote for the federal Liberals and Ontario PCs. There were a couple who supported the federal PCs and Ontario Liberals in several instances. In the case of one of my late
grandfathers, he gave a stray vote for Brian Mulroney’s federal PCs, the NDP and even its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.
That’s not the case any longer. The more typical voting pattern in modern Canada is one of ideological consistency. Conservatives vote for Conservative candidates, Liberals vote for Liberal candidates, and so forth. There are some rare exceptions in municipal politics, such as the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford’s populistconservative agenda winning over a very Liberal city in 2010. It doesn’t happen very often these days, however.
I’ve always been a proponent of ideological consistency. It’s a more logical way of voting instead of throwing away one vote (so to speak) for some perceived model of political balance. There will always be people who straddle the political fence and vote for different parties and candidates during an election. That’s their right in a democratic society, but it often creates a type of ideological inconsistency that doesn’t benefit voters, parties or the political process in general.
Calgary goes against the grain in municipal politics. The city’s political dynamics are very different today due to migration, immigration and the like. Support for fiscal and social conservatism may still exist in Alberta, but the urban-rural split has become more profound and meaningful than the historic left-right divide. This makes the task of winning Calgary in elections more difficult for today’s provincial and federal Conservatives, as well as right-leaning mayoral candidates.
That’s what we witnessed during the Oct. 20 municipal election. Some Calgary Conservatives believed that Farkas was a more progressive-oriented conservative or centrist with a less fiscally conservative plan and outlook for the city. They viewed Sharp, the leader of a right-leaning municipal party founded last December, as a small “c” conservative and much closer to their ideology. Conversely, some Calgary Conservatives felt that Farkas, and not Sharp, would be a better Conservative option for mayor because he seemed less ideological in his outlook.
When you put it all together, Conservatives in what used to be one of the most right-leaning cities in a historically right-leaning province couldn’t decide who was the best political option available to replace the left-wing incumbent mayor. Time will tell if they chose wisely.
Fortunately, the razor-thin vote split didn’t save Gondek’s political hide. Maybe ideological consistency will finally win the day in Calgary municipal politics once the recount has ended and the city’s next mayor has been certified.
Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country
Alberta
Calgary’s High Property Taxes Run Counter to the ‘Alberta Advantage’
														By David Hunt and Jeff Park
Of major cities, none compare to Calgary’s nearly 50 percent property tax burden increase between censuses.
Alberta once again leads the country in taking in more new residents than it loses to other provinces and territories. But if Canadians move to Calgary seeking greater affordability, are they in for a nasty surprise?
In light of declining home values and falling household incomes amidst rising property taxes, Calgary’s overall property tax burden has skyrocketed 47 percent between the last two national censuses, according to a new study by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy.
Between 2016 and 2021 (the latest year of available data), Calgary’s property tax burden increased about twice as fast as second-place Saskatoon and three-and-a-half times faster than Vancouver.
The average Calgary homeowner paid $3,496 in property taxes at the last census, compared to $2,736 five years prior (using constant 2020 dollars; i.e., adjusting for inflation). By contrast, the average Edmonton homeowner paid $2,600 in 2021 compared to $2,384 in 2016 (in constant dollars). In other words, Calgary’s annual property tax bill rose three-and-a-half times more than Edmonton’s.
This is because Edmonton’s effective property tax rate remained relatively flat, while Calgary’s rose steeply. The effective rate is property tax as a share of the market value of a home. For Edmontonians, it rose from 0.56 percent to 0.62 percent—after rounding, a steady 0.6 percent across the two most recent censuses. For Calgarians? Falling home prices collided with rising taxes so that property taxes as a share of (market) home value rose from below 0.5 percent to nearly 0.7 percent.
Plug into the equation sliding household incomes, and we see that Calgary’s property tax burden ballooned nearly 50 percent between censuses.
This matters for at least three reasons. First, property tax is an essential source of revenue for municipalities across Canada. City councils set their property tax rate and the payments made by homeowners are the backbone of municipal finances.
Property taxes are also an essential source of revenue for schools. The province has historically required municipalities to directly transfer 33 percent of the total education budget via property taxes, but in the period under consideration that proportion fell (ultimately, to 28 percent).
Second, a home purchase is the largest expense most Canadians will ever make. Local taxes play a major role in how affordable life is from one city to another. When municipalities unexpectedly raise property taxes, it can push homeownership out of reach for many families. Thus, homeoowners (or prospective homeowners) naturally consider property tax rates and other local costs when choosing where to live and what home to buy.
And third, municipalities can fall into a vicious spiral if they’re not careful. When incomes decline and residential property values fall, as Calgary experienced during the period we studied, municipalities must either trim their budgets or increase property taxes. For many governments, it’s easier to raise taxes than cut spending.
But rising property tax burdens could lead to the city becoming a less desirable place to live. This could mean weaker residential property values, weaker population growth, and weaker growth in the number of residential properties. The municipality then again faces the choice of trimming budgets or raising taxes. And on and on it goes.
Cities fall into these downward spirals because they fall victim to a central planner’s bias. While $853 million for a new arena for the Calgary Flames or $11 million for Calgary Economic Development—how City Hall prefers to attract new business to Calgary—invite ribbon-cuttings, it’s the decisions about Calgary’s half a million private dwellings that really drive the city’s finances.
Yet, a virtuous spiral remains in reach. Municipalities tend to see the advantage of “affordable housing” when it’s centrally planned and taxpayer-funded but miss the easiest way to generate more affordable housing: simply charge city residents less—in taxes—for their housing.
When you reduce property taxes, you make housing more affordable to more people and make the city a more desirable place to live. This could mean stronger residential property values, stronger population growth, and stronger growth in the number of residential properties. Then, the municipality again faces a choice of making the city even more attractive by increasing services or further cutting taxes. And on and on it goes.
The economy is not a series of levers in the mayor’s office; it’s all of the million individual decisions that all of us, collectively, make. Calgary city council should reduce property taxes and leave more money for people to make the big decisions in life.
Jeff Park is a visiting fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and father of four who left Calgary for better affordability. David Hunt is the research director at the Calgary-based Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. They are co-authors of the new study, Taxing our way to unaffordable housing: A brief comparison of municipal property taxes.
- 
																	
										
																					Environment1 day agoThe era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
 - 
																	
										
																			Aristotle Foundation20 hours agoB.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land
 - 
																	
										
																			Business1 day agoYou Won’t Believe What Canada’s Embassy in Brazil Has Been Up To
 - 
																	
										
																			Crime21 hours agoPublic Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
 - 
																	
										
																			Bruce Dowbiggin7 hours agoA Story So Good Not Even The Elbows Up Crew Could Ruin It
 - 
																	
										
																			Automotive1 day agoCarney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet
 - 
																	
										
																			Business1 day agoMystery cloaks Doug Ford’s funding of media through Ontario advertising subsidy
 - 
																	
										
																			Addictions6 hours agoThe War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation
 


