Calgary
Response: Tom Milroy Wants To Deport The UCP & Wexiteers, Ban All Weapons & Restrain the Oilpatch
Green Party candidate Tom Milroy exemplifies how NOT to win friends and influence people to be more green-friendly. Among his plethora of tone-deaf tweets, and condescending facebook rants is this gem of a post:
“ I suspect that with oil going for LESS THAN ZERO we could now buy Alberta for cheap, Deport the UCP & the moronic wexiteers to the USA, start the Canadian ban on weapons of all kinds there, build solar & wind farms, restrain the oilpatch workforce and be done with this BS forever!” -@tommilroyjr
I can forgive the poor grammar, after all it’s just twitter, but his callous disregard for the real and palpable pain which Albertan’s have been enduring during the Trudeau Jr. era requires a response. Mr. Milroy is not alone with his hand wringing at the thought of the Alberta energy sector collapsing. PM Justin Trudeau is certain to be equally eager to witness Alberta’s demise, never realizing that the death of the Alberta advantage, is also the death of the Canadian advantage. Perhaps they should take eight minutes to listen to our plight HERE.
Albertans are fiercely patriotic, yet we have been abused by Ottawa to the point where many have come to the unpleasant conclusion that separation is the only way to survive. Tom Milroy clearly thinks that survival instinct is “moronic”, and that all ideas which are conservative are inherently evil. His views are largely shared by many in the Toronto/Montreal crowd which only fuels western alienation. Why would Albertans want to be hitched to a Country which economically attacks, and openly berates them? It’s only natural to consider other options.
The soapbox upon which Mr. Milroy stands is portrayed as environmental, but in fact is xenophobic. Energy workers aren’t like Tom and his friends, which is why they don’t understand them and they choose to berate them. Tom Milroy, you are an unapologetic anti-Albertan bigot with a twitter account. Your ghastly posts are a stain on the fabric of Canadian values.
His claim of moral superiority however has been thoroughly discredited by a recent documentary by..of all people, Michael Moore. In his new documentary, Planet of the Humans Michael Moore destroys the argument that solar and wind are in any way cleaner than Canadian procured fossil fuels. In fact, when you do the math, it’s clear that both wind and solar create a LARGER ecological footprint than Alberta’s Oil Sands.
Photo-Voltaic cells (solar panels) for instance are not made from “sand” as is often claimed. They are created by melting quartz and coal together in a massive furnace. Both quartz and coal are procured from mining, and mining is an incredibly carbon-intensive activity. Cobalt, and other materials which are required for windmills are mined using horrific child labour. Not only are solar and wind not clean energy, they both have a negative net yield when all factors are considered.
Heaped on top of the negative energy yield, massive mining footprint, and excessive carbon load required for “green energy”, is the human suffering which includes horrific child labour. There is nothing moral about six-year-old children working in an African Cobalt mine. Ignoring this fact is nothing short of evil.
Regardless of your beliefs on environmental issues, reacting to ideas that are contrary to your own with name-calling is not helpful, nor is it productive. It’s easy to disregard the pain of others by spouting bigoted epithets at them. It’s easy, and is a sure sign of a lazy mind. What’s difficult is to put yourself in the shoes of others in order to try to understand where they are coming from. Empathy is hard, and requires significant effort from a clear mind which is unshackled by ego. At the moment, empathy seems to be beyond the reach of Mr. Milroy.
The environmentalist groups need to take an honest look in the mirror. Being a jerk to others is not going to sway opinions. Regardless of political leanings, the vast majority of Canadians also want pristine water, clean air, and to have cleaner energy solutions. The technology exists today to achieve all of the above, but we’re just not bringing it to market. Solar and Wind have both been proven to NOT be the solution. The focus must be on reducing consumption, not on punishing production. Passenger cars can easily achieve 100 mpg, and industrial smokestacks can certainly be engineered to emit less than half of the particulates which they are currently belching. The technology has been around since the ’80s, all we have to do is use it.
Caring about the environment is important, but actually doing something about it is far more admirable than proclaiming your moral and intellectual superiority over Albertans. The common assumption is that our energy sector is dirty and immoral. Do you prefer Saudi oil? Shutting down Alberta does nothing to help the environment, all it does is displace the oil production to nations like Saudi Arabia, who throw gays off buildings, behead accused wrongdoers, and force their women to stay covered head to toe. Every sentiment against Alberta energy is a proclamation of support for the Saudi regime, and their human rights abuses.
Alberta energy workers are the highest skilled, safest, and most regulated on earth. As a result, they enjoy healthy compensation which some people bemoan so as to cloak their jealousy. Oh how fun it is to throw stones at the families of energy workers, and denigrate them for enjoying the fruits of their difficult and dangerous labour. How satisfying it must be to turn your nose up to the gun-toting, hunting, fishing, outdoor-loving Albertans who would rather explore nature in the backcountry than bang bongos at a climate change rally. Alberta energy workers have every right to be proud. They provide us all with our way of life, similar to how Soldiers protect our freedoms. Without oil, the global population of roughly 7.8 Billion would not be sustainable. Until other technologies are allowed to flourish, we’re stuck with what we got. Unfortunately Wind and Solar simply don’t fill the gap, regardless of the blind arguments to the contrary.
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.
-
Energy2 days agoIt should not take a crisis for Canada to develop the resources that make people and communities thrive.
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day agoAI Faces Energy Problem With Only One Solution, Oil and Gas
-
Health1 day agoLack of adequate health care pushing Canadians toward assisted suicide
-
Media16 hours agoBreaking News: the public actually expects journalists to determine the truth of statements they report
-
Artificial Intelligence17 hours agoAI seems fairly impressed by Pierre Poilievre’s ability to communicate
-
Business11 hours agoLiberal’s green spending putting Canada on a road to ruin
-
Alberta17 hours agoATA Collect $72 Million in Dues But Couldn’t Pay Striking Teachers a Dime
-
National17 hours agoWatchdog Demands Answers as MP Chris d’Entremont Crosses Floor


