Adam (he/him) 🇨🇦
@adaminhfx.bsky.social
Warning: May contain trace amounts of sarcasm.
Canadian in Kjipuktuk (Halifax)
Canadian in Kjipuktuk (Halifax)
Personally I think a big part of the problem is that the Suburban/rural area's benefiting from this financial transfer have the majority of the voting power, while the dense urban area's paying for the decisions have very little voting power.
December 3, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Personally I think a big part of the problem is that the Suburban/rural area's benefiting from this financial transfer have the majority of the voting power, while the dense urban area's paying for the decisions have very little voting power.
read my next comment in the thread....
December 3, 2025 at 2:07 PM
read my next comment in the thread....
But on a response time/distance basis rural area's need more stations.
This same example plays out with parks, skating rinks, police stations, etc. The per person vs per distance debate. Both need to be taken into account and it's not a simple answer.
This same example plays out with parks, skating rinks, police stations, etc. The per person vs per distance debate. Both need to be taken into account and it's not a simple answer.
December 3, 2025 at 2:04 PM
But on a response time/distance basis rural area's need more stations.
This same example plays out with parks, skating rinks, police stations, etc. The per person vs per distance debate. Both need to be taken into account and it's not a simple answer.
This same example plays out with parks, skating rinks, police stations, etc. The per person vs per distance debate. Both need to be taken into account and it's not a simple answer.
There is a divide in how we look at things too. Population vs distance.
Don't quote me but I believe urban HRM has 1 fire station per 100,000 people. rural area's have 1 fire station per 20,000 people. (ignoring staffing vs volunteer). On a per person basis urban area's should get 4 more stations
Don't quote me but I believe urban HRM has 1 fire station per 100,000 people. rural area's have 1 fire station per 20,000 people. (ignoring staffing vs volunteer). On a per person basis urban area's should get 4 more stations
December 3, 2025 at 2:02 PM
There is a divide in how we look at things too. Population vs distance.
Don't quote me but I believe urban HRM has 1 fire station per 100,000 people. rural area's have 1 fire station per 20,000 people. (ignoring staffing vs volunteer). On a per person basis urban area's should get 4 more stations
Don't quote me but I believe urban HRM has 1 fire station per 100,000 people. rural area's have 1 fire station per 20,000 people. (ignoring staffing vs volunteer). On a per person basis urban area's should get 4 more stations
yes, the urban core will and should always subsides lower density area's. But we need to get back to a more equitable / balanced position.
However we keep moving towards a more and more unbalanced system as it panders to votes while causing financial hardship to the city as a whole.
However we keep moving towards a more and more unbalanced system as it panders to votes while causing financial hardship to the city as a whole.
December 3, 2025 at 1:57 PM
yes, the urban core will and should always subsides lower density area's. But we need to get back to a more equitable / balanced position.
However we keep moving towards a more and more unbalanced system as it panders to votes while causing financial hardship to the city as a whole.
However we keep moving towards a more and more unbalanced system as it panders to votes while causing financial hardship to the city as a whole.
What we have is 200 people getting $0.50, 400 people getting $1, and 400 people getting $1.25
But the people getting the most are doing all the complaining about how unfair it is and that they deserve more. (not directed at you)
The people benefiting from this have 80% of the voting power
But the people getting the most are doing all the complaining about how unfair it is and that they deserve more. (not directed at you)
The people benefiting from this have 80% of the voting power
December 3, 2025 at 1:55 PM
What we have is 200 people getting $0.50, 400 people getting $1, and 400 people getting $1.25
But the people getting the most are doing all the complaining about how unfair it is and that they deserve more. (not directed at you)
The people benefiting from this have 80% of the voting power
But the people getting the most are doing all the complaining about how unfair it is and that they deserve more. (not directed at you)
The people benefiting from this have 80% of the voting power
If there is $1,000 to hand out to 1,000 people it makes sense that everyone gets $1. That isn't always equitable though as it doesn't take need into account. A split with half getting $1.20 and the other half getting $.80 might be more equitable.
December 3, 2025 at 1:51 PM
If there is $1,000 to hand out to 1,000 people it makes sense that everyone gets $1. That isn't always equitable though as it doesn't take need into account. A split with half getting $1.20 and the other half getting $.80 might be more equitable.
most captains I had treated me more like the OOW than the POOW. You should see the look on an officers face when the captain turned the bridge watch over to me instead of the Mars officer. lol
December 3, 2025 at 1:11 PM
most captains I had treated me more like the OOW than the POOW. You should see the look on an officers face when the captain turned the bridge watch over to me instead of the Mars officer. lol
The city doesn't provide health care, internet, banks, etc.
Most of the services people do receive regardless of location
Most of the services people do receive regardless of location
December 3, 2025 at 1:10 PM
The city doesn't provide health care, internet, banks, etc.
Most of the services people do receive regardless of location
Most of the services people do receive regardless of location
Likewise removing the cap will not result in huge increases the first year. The total assessment value will jump up massively. The tax *rate* will drop massively.
9 capped homes paying $3,000/year and one paying $5,000 becomes 10 homes paying $3,200. Not a jump to $5,000 for everyone.
9 capped homes paying $3,000/year and one paying $5,000 becomes 10 homes paying $3,200. Not a jump to $5,000 for everyone.
December 3, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Likewise removing the cap will not result in huge increases the first year. The total assessment value will jump up massively. The tax *rate* will drop massively.
9 capped homes paying $3,000/year and one paying $5,000 becomes 10 homes paying $3,200. Not a jump to $5,000 for everyone.
9 capped homes paying $3,000/year and one paying $5,000 becomes 10 homes paying $3,200. Not a jump to $5,000 for everyone.
The tax $ paid by homeowners increases with the city budget, not assessments. Most years the tax *rate* has actually gone down to offset assessment growth. Removing the cap wouldn't change that and wouldn't result in higher taxes unless the city budget was out of control.
December 3, 2025 at 12:51 PM
The tax $ paid by homeowners increases with the city budget, not assessments. Most years the tax *rate* has actually gone down to offset assessment growth. Removing the cap wouldn't change that and wouldn't result in higher taxes unless the city budget was out of control.
I've had to back out, going 5 feet at a time and walking back to see where I was going😅
December 3, 2025 at 12:44 PM
I've had to back out, going 5 feet at a time and walking back to see where I was going😅
Maybe? I guess it depends on how it's defined and I don't know that. I'm just thinking that the areas of tax positive revenue have generally not expanded geographically or increased in density proportional to our growth.
December 3, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Maybe? I guess it depends on how it's defined and I don't know that. I'm just thinking that the areas of tax positive revenue have generally not expanded geographically or increased in density proportional to our growth.
*2011 not 2014 (ducks shoe thrown at me 😅)
*only correcting to avoid confusion with results shown here
*only correcting to avoid confusion with results shown here
December 3, 2025 at 12:40 PM
*2011 not 2014 (ducks shoe thrown at me 😅)
*only correcting to avoid confusion with results shown here
*only correcting to avoid confusion with results shown here
The "core" didn't sprawl and that's the problem. The suburbs and low density housing sprawled everywhere. The core and housing dense area's were held at a standstill for 40 years (literally) and we've only started seeing density growth in the last 5 years.
December 3, 2025 at 12:38 PM
The "core" didn't sprawl and that's the problem. The suburbs and low density housing sprawled everywhere. The core and housing dense area's were held at a standstill for 40 years (literally) and we've only started seeing density growth in the last 5 years.
I think every ship I was on used the pipe for those, although sometimes followed by words.
We pissed everyone off one day. Two people piping wakey wakey alternating for breath. It lasted long enough people were coming up to the bridge to yell at us 😅
We pissed everyone off one day. Two people piping wakey wakey alternating for breath. It lasted long enough people were coming up to the bridge to yell at us 😅
December 3, 2025 at 12:36 PM
I think every ship I was on used the pipe for those, although sometimes followed by words.
We pissed everyone off one day. Two people piping wakey wakey alternating for breath. It lasted long enough people were coming up to the bridge to yell at us 😅
We pissed everyone off one day. Two people piping wakey wakey alternating for breath. It lasted long enough people were coming up to the bridge to yell at us 😅
Go look at Kevin's research, it's not fictional money, it's actually being spent.
A KM of road costs what it costs to maintain. If 2 people live in that KM or 1,000 people it costs about the same. That cost divided between 2 people is a lot more than when it's divided between 1,000 people
A KM of road costs what it costs to maintain. If 2 people live in that KM or 1,000 people it costs about the same. That cost divided between 2 people is a lot more than when it's divided between 1,000 people
December 3, 2025 at 12:31 PM
Go look at Kevin's research, it's not fictional money, it's actually being spent.
A KM of road costs what it costs to maintain. If 2 people live in that KM or 1,000 people it costs about the same. That cost divided between 2 people is a lot more than when it's divided between 1,000 people
A KM of road costs what it costs to maintain. If 2 people live in that KM or 1,000 people it costs about the same. That cost divided between 2 people is a lot more than when it's divided between 1,000 people
Most of the people benefiting by the largest amounts are financially comfortable.
My suggestion is tax deferral, pay whatever you want, but when you sell and pocket all the profit you pay your deferred taxes. That way 2 people side by side in identical homes/services pay the same over time.
My suggestion is tax deferral, pay whatever you want, but when you sell and pocket all the profit you pay your deferred taxes. That way 2 people side by side in identical homes/services pay the same over time.
December 3, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Most of the people benefiting by the largest amounts are financially comfortable.
My suggestion is tax deferral, pay whatever you want, but when you sell and pocket all the profit you pay your deferred taxes. That way 2 people side by side in identical homes/services pay the same over time.
My suggestion is tax deferral, pay whatever you want, but when you sell and pocket all the profit you pay your deferred taxes. That way 2 people side by side in identical homes/services pay the same over time.
I have a colorado and it's a great size to take down ATV trails if you're willing to push branches
December 3, 2025 at 12:19 PM
I have a colorado and it's a great size to take down ATV trails if you're willing to push branches
Buffer required to the Bridge became things like "would the head zookeeper come up to the place with lots of windows"
December 3, 2025 at 12:17 PM
Buffer required to the Bridge became things like "would the head zookeeper come up to the place with lots of windows"
Our new problem parallels Chicago and led them to near bankruptcy. Because we are so effective at blocking density and blocking growth regions outside HRM have become feeder communities.
HRM people, working in HRM, using HRM services, now live outside HRM and pay $0 taxes to HRM
HRM people, working in HRM, using HRM services, now live outside HRM and pay $0 taxes to HRM
December 3, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Our new problem parallels Chicago and led them to near bankruptcy. Because we are so effective at blocking density and blocking growth regions outside HRM have become feeder communities.
HRM people, working in HRM, using HRM services, now live outside HRM and pay $0 taxes to HRM
HRM people, working in HRM, using HRM services, now live outside HRM and pay $0 taxes to HRM
I sailed on one ship where social pipes (lunch, canteen, etc) were allowed in any language EXCEPT English or French. I think someone did Klingon one day. 😅
And pirate days, or "no navy terminology" days
And pirate days, or "no navy terminology" days
December 3, 2025 at 12:12 PM
I sailed on one ship where social pipes (lunch, canteen, etc) were allowed in any language EXCEPT English or French. I think someone did Klingon one day. 😅
And pirate days, or "no navy terminology" days
And pirate days, or "no navy terminology" days
We have only allowed growth to occur outside the urban cores though, upsetting that balance. So as we grow our revenue shrinks. We're not spending more, we're collecting less.
(proportionally, of course raw expenses and revenue have gone up)
(proportionally, of course raw expenses and revenue have gone up)
December 3, 2025 at 12:10 PM
We have only allowed growth to occur outside the urban cores though, upsetting that balance. So as we grow our revenue shrinks. We're not spending more, we're collecting less.
(proportionally, of course raw expenses and revenue have gone up)
(proportionally, of course raw expenses and revenue have gone up)
It's not a spending problem, it's a growth and revenue problem. Every house outside the urban core is a net tax loss for the city, around $1,500 to $2,000 per house.
Every urban core house is a net gain $1,500 to $2,000.
As long as they are balanced we are good.
Every urban core house is a net gain $1,500 to $2,000.
As long as they are balanced we are good.
December 3, 2025 at 12:08 PM
It's not a spending problem, it's a growth and revenue problem. Every house outside the urban core is a net tax loss for the city, around $1,500 to $2,000 per house.
Every urban core house is a net gain $1,500 to $2,000.
As long as they are balanced we are good.
Every urban core house is a net gain $1,500 to $2,000.
As long as they are balanced we are good.