Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Edmonton parking fines to go up since photo radar income is down.

  1. #1

    Thumbs down Edmonton parking fines to go up since photo radar income is down.

    Like the title says, the city is announcing that parking fines are going up. Anywhere from $25-$50 depending on what kind of ticket, beginning January 1st.

    “We wanted to make sure that fine matched the severity of the offence” says Ryan Pleckaitis... But really, how "severe" is a parking infraction? There are much worse driving infractions... And someone parking where they're not supposed to isn't costing the city any more money, especially not millions per year.

    The real reason in my opinion? It will being millions per year to the city, which will happen to make up for the millions lost in the past year from the drop in photo radar tickets "revenue". Yes, that's right, REVENUE. They've always claimed that it's not revenue, until it dropped by other $3 MILLION the past year and then they complained about not being able to afford this and that, and how they needed to do some cuts and find a way to make up for the lost REVENUE. Well, apparently this is it : Raise parking ticket fines.

    What a joke. The city is so hard up to get this cash from drivers one way or another, and they got caught up in their own BS lie by setting their budgets according to how much money they were getting from the photo radars...

    I'm not ranting because I get tickets. I've never had a single parking ticket, ever, and I've only had 2 photo radars, and those were before 2009... I think it's just sad to see this.

  2. #2

    Default

    The city has had to start turning millions in parking revenue annually over to the OEG as part of the Arena deal, but I guess that doesn't fit with your "traffic enforcement is evil profiteering" narrative.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  3. #3

    Default

    Parking is a problem, and does cost extra money. When people don't remove their vehicles from the road for snow removal, it takes the snow removal crew time and extra effort to safely maneuver around parked cars. It then cause the road to be narrower, and makes it difficult for buses to operate... that's just the tip of the ice berg.

    But spin it how you want it.

    The city is out to get you.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    The city has had to start turning millions in parking revenue annually over to the OEG as part of the Arena deal, but I guess that doesn't fit with your "traffic enforcement is evil profiteering" narrative.
    Then maybe they should have ensured they had secured funding BEFORE starting the deal instead of now scrambling to find ways to get more money from Edmontonians. It's short-sighted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Parking is a problem, and does cost extra money. When people don't remove their vehicles from the road for snow removal, it takes the snow removal crew time and extra effort to safely maneuver around parked cars. It then cause the road to be narrower, and makes it difficult for buses to operate... that's just the tip of the ice berg.

    But spin it how you want it.

    The city is out to get you.
    Nobody is enforcing it, that's the problem. Everyone on my street parks on the road year-round, even though they have seasonal no parking signs on every post. If they actually ticketed people, it wouldn't be an issue. Most of these people just don't want to park in the rear alley driveways or garages that every house has. Many of the driveways are empty because they park on the street in front of their house. The ONLY time people actually park elsewhere is those 1 or 2 times per winter where crews actually come and put the orange sandwich board no parking signs along the side of the road the day before the plow comes. This is a waste of time for those guys because there's ALREADY no parking signs on every post! Why hundreds of 2nd NO PARKING signs there? Just ticket them, get your money and be done with it. This raise is just the cash cow wearing a different mask. This will not stop people in residential areas from parking on the street because they're not getting tickets anyways.

  5. #5

    Default

    You're allowed to park on the residential roads for up to 72 hours without moving your vehicle. The seasonal parking ban due to snow removal occurs maybe 4-6 times each winter season and each time it lasts anywhere from 3 days to up to a week.

    If you see any infractions with regards to the above, then call 311 for a bylaw officer to come out. I've find that they do come out and investigate and depending on the officer, while they're out in the suburbs, they'll do a cursory check on other things (including cars with tires on sidewalks).

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    You're allowed to park on the residential roads for up to 72 hours without moving your vehicle. The seasonal parking ban due to snow removal occurs maybe 4-6 times each winter season and each time it lasts anywhere from 3 days to up to a week.

    If you see any infractions with regards to the above, then call 311 for a bylaw officer to come out. I've find that they do come out and investigate and depending on the officer, while they're out in the suburbs, they'll do a cursory check on other things (including cars with tires on sidewalks).
    I called 311 5 times over a 3 month period about an old car parked in front of my house with 8-month expired plates, wasn't even the right year. That's illegal to park on the road with expired plates. There was an orange sticker on the car window at one point so he moved it across the street, plates still expired, and I kept calling 311. Eventually I saw the guy there with someone else because he sold it. The other guy put new plates on it and drove it away. 311 is useless.

  7. #7
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Parking is a problem, and does cost extra money. When people don't remove their vehicles from the road for snow removal, it takes the snow removal crew time and extra effort to safely maneuver around parked cars. It then cause the road to be narrower, and makes it difficult for buses to operate... that's just the tip of the ice berg.

    But spin it how you want it.

    The city is out to get you.

    Parking can cause big issues. Somebody parking on a street during rush hour will cause large delays. Cars not moved when plowing causes the plows to go around , costing time and leaves a snow bank on the street for everybody else. Parking too close to a hydrant, corner, or cross walk is a real hazard to a kid who walks out on the street.

    Biggest problems are
    1) Enforcement. Bylaw officers should be more attentive. eg, as someone said above, if dealing with a complaint, take a look around and see if anything else is not correct.
    2) Attitudes. I'd say a large number of people know what they are doing is wrong, and they frankly don't care, or don't give a dam about their neighbours or society in general. The only way to get people to follow the rules is to hurt them where they care about, ie, their wallet.

    When we get the next large snowfall and the streets have to be plowed, we will have the city spending all sorts of cash with a media message 'asking' people to move their cars from the street. They should not be 'asking', they should be 'telling' people to move or you will be towed. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand.

  8. #8
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    381

    Default

    In addition, each dollar paid due to a fine to the city is one less dollar on the property tax bill.

  9. #9

    Default

    I've had success reporting abandoned vehicles using the 311 app. 311 app works great - and no need to talk to someone who sounds like they are not interested in taking my call, or any call, or really exist on this planet.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rupikhalon001 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Parking is a problem, and does cost extra money. When people don't remove their vehicles from the road for snow removal, it takes the snow removal crew time and extra effort to safely maneuver around parked cars. It then cause the road to be narrower, and makes it difficult for buses to operate... that's just the tip of the ice berg.

    But spin it how you want it.

    The city is out to get you.

    Parking can cause big issues. Somebody parking on a street during rush hour will cause large delays. Cars not moved when plowing causes the plows to go around , costing time and leaves a snow bank on the street for everybody else. Parking too close to a hydrant, corner, or cross walk is a real hazard to a kid who walks out on the street.

    Biggest problems are
    1) Enforcement. Bylaw officers should be more attentive. eg, as someone said above, if dealing with a complaint, take a look around and see if anything else is not correct.
    2) Attitudes. I'd say a large number of people know what they are doing is wrong, and they frankly don't care, or don't give a dam about their neighbours or society in general. The only way to get people to follow the rules is to hurt them where they care about, ie, their wallet.

    When we get the next large snowfall and the streets have to be plowed, we will have the city spending all sorts of cash with a media message 'asking' people to move their cars from the street. They should not be 'asking', they should be 'telling' people to move or you will be towed. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand.
    Exactly. To me, enforcement, or lack thereof, is a huge problem. Instead of upping enforcement, which is the right way to do, but costs more man-hours and money, they just upped the fines. That's the wrong way to go about it. You're not catching more people, you're just raising fines for the few that got caught, which doesn't solve the root problem.

  11. #11

    Default

    Bylaw certainly will never have the man-power to cover all the city roads, or even just the bus routes, and find out who's parked for longer than 72 hours. If you see someone, report them. Don't wait for a snow fall either, as the city has found theres a high demand for tow trucks to be doing other things that towing vehicles after a snow-event.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Like the title says, the city is announcing that parking fines are going up. Anywhere from $25-$50 depending on what kind of ticket, beginning January 1st.

    “We wanted to make sure that fine matched the severity of the offence” says Ryan Pleckaitis... But really, how "severe" is a parking infraction? There are much worse driving infractions... And someone parking where they're not supposed to isn't costing the city any more money, especially not millions per year.

    The real reason in my opinion? It will being millions per year to the city, which will happen to make up for the millions lost in the past year from the drop in photo radar tickets "revenue". Yes, that's right, REVENUE. They've always claimed that it's not revenue, until it dropped by other $3 MILLION the past year and then they complained about not being able to afford this and that, and how they needed to do some cuts and find a way to make up for the lost REVENUE. Well, apparently this is it : Raise parking ticket fines.

    What a joke. The city is so hard up to get this cash from drivers one way or another, and they got caught up in their own BS lie by setting their budgets according to how much money they were getting from the photo radars...

    I'm not ranting because I get tickets. I've never had a single parking ticket, ever, and I've only had 2 photo radars, and those were before 2009... I think it's just sad to see this.
    Yes, the old cash cow was beaten to death, so now they have to find a new one. Edmonton is becoming a FINE city to live in.

    I think governments that make excessive fines and onerous rules gradually start to lose the respect of their citizens and sadly I see exactly that happening here. Some people can afford it, but not everyone is as well paid as a city councilor or mayor. It will become an us vs. them mentality.

    Sadly, the only thing this city government seems competent at is collecting taxes and levying fines. In the short term the city will probably get a few extra dollars, but in the long term they will get more antipathy and lose respect from their citizens if they treat them as money bags to squeeze for more cash.

  13. #13

    Default

    Just follow the rules, Dave.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Like the title says, the city is announcing that parking fines are going up. Anywhere from $25-$50 depending on what kind of ticket, beginning January 1st.

    “We wanted to make sure that fine matched the severity of the offence” says Ryan Pleckaitis... But really, how "severe" is a parking infraction? There are much worse driving infractions... And someone parking where they're not supposed to isn't costing the city any more money, especially not millions per year.

    The real reason in my opinion? It will being millions per year to the city, which will happen to make up for the millions lost in the past year from the drop in photo radar tickets "revenue". Yes, that's right, REVENUE. They've always claimed that it's not revenue, until it dropped by other $3 MILLION the past year and then they complained about not being able to afford this and that, and how they needed to do some cuts and find a way to make up for the lost REVENUE. Well, apparently this is it : Raise parking ticket fines.

    What a joke. The city is so hard up to get this cash from drivers one way or another, and they got caught up in their own BS lie by setting their budgets according to how much money they were getting from the photo radars...

    I'm not ranting because I get tickets. I've never had a single parking ticket, ever, and I've only had 2 photo radars, and those were before 2009... I think it's just sad to see this.
    Yes, the old cash cow was beaten to death, so now they have to find a new one. Edmonton is becoming a FINE city to live in.

    I think governments that make excessive fines and onerous rules gradually start to lose the respect of their citizens and sadly I see exactly that happening here. Some people can afford it, but not everyone is as well paid as a city councilor or mayor. It will become an us vs. them mentality.

    Sadly, the only thing this city government seems competent at is collecting taxes and levying fines. In the short term the city will probably get a few extra dollars, but in the long term they will get more antipathy and lose respect from their citizens if they treat them as money bags to squeeze for more cash.
    (highlighted and underlined by me)

    What an excellent and true slogan you came up with there. The City of Edmonton A FINE city to live in.
    Should be on every councillors letterhead and Lawman Iveson's. The tall foreheads cannot think of other ways to meet the budget so they constantly put taxes up. If they feel the public cannot stomach another big tax increase they invent some more by-laws to hand out fines or they increase the existing ones. Unfortunately for us there was not enough credible candidates running for office this election cycle so we are stuck with a FINE bunch for the next 4 years. I have had one parking ticket in all the years I have driven and the ticket was legit so I'm not complaining because I get lots of tickets. It's just true about how the C of E operates.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Like the title says, the city is announcing that parking fines are going up. Anywhere from $25-$50 depending on what kind of ticket, beginning January 1st.

    “We wanted to make sure that fine matched the severity of the offence” says Ryan Pleckaitis... But really, how "severe" is a parking infraction? There are much worse driving infractions... And someone parking where they're not supposed to isn't costing the city any more money, especially not millions per year.

    The real reason in my opinion? It will being millions per year to the city, which will happen to make up for the millions lost in the past year from the drop in photo radar tickets "revenue". Yes, that's right, REVENUE. They've always claimed that it's not revenue, until it dropped by other $3 MILLION the past year and then they complained about not being able to afford this and that, and how they needed to do some cuts and find a way to make up for the lost REVENUE. Well, apparently this is it : Raise parking ticket fines.

    What a joke. The city is so hard up to get this cash from drivers one way or another, and they got caught up in their own BS lie by setting their budgets according to how much money they were getting from the photo radars...

    I'm not ranting because I get tickets. I've never had a single parking ticket, ever, and I've only had 2 photo radars, and those were before 2009... I think it's just sad to see this.
    Yes, the old cash cow was beaten to death, so now they have to find a new one. Edmonton is becoming a FINE city to live in.

    I think governments that make excessive fines and onerous rules gradually start to lose the respect of their citizens and sadly I see exactly that happening here. Some people can afford it, but not everyone is as well paid as a city councilor or mayor. It will become an us vs. them mentality.

    Sadly, the only thing this city government seems competent at is collecting taxes and levying fines. In the short term the city will probably get a few extra dollars, but in the long term they will get more antipathy and lose respect from their citizens if they treat them as money bags to squeeze for more cash.
    Truth be written here. This is all about revenue streams and increasing those monies. As if the present COE gives a rats *** about moving cars to ease traffic congestion. Any other time the topic of congestion comes up is too friggen bad, ride a bus (as if non brt busses aren't effected by traffic...)

    Iveson is has punitive puritanical leanings it just seems. Punishment seems big in his narrative. He spouts a "people just trying to get away with crap and I'm sick and tired of it" attitude and with this actually stated, not verbatim, but the gist of it.

    As for having to report every instance of cars parked all winter on bus lanes (we're on one) lets have a little pause to think a moment here. We're a winter City. When you see cars mostly buried in snow its evident they've been there for quite awhile. Just over the course of 6 blocks on this bus route where we live any bylaw enforcement that ever came by could make a killing. They'd find 50 vehicles, easy illegally parked and buried under months of snow. Basically parked for the winter by those that don't winter drive. Basically every neighborhood in town has this and again these are choked bus routes with the winter abandoned vehicles just occupying space on main routes all winter. That are not even removed during the advisories when snow plows are out. They plow right around them. Even multiple times. All winter.

    So guess what. When you call 311 to report this they don't say "oh, well send a crew down there to ticket all those cars." they will state instead which vehicle at which specific address are you reporting and are you positive it has been there for more than 72hrs and how do you know..
    Busses on this route basically often have to pull over and stop as two way traffic can't get by for long stretches due to myriad winter abandoned cars.

    Want some bloody ticket revenue, maybe the city could look into actually monitoring bus routes. These would be extra positions that would pay for themselves easily. Most neighborhoods would be happy to ease the parked vehicle congestion. This also makes life even easier for pedestrian and kids to cross roads. Makes it easier for drivers, emergency vehicles etc.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-11-2017 at 05:51 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Just follow the rules, Dave.
    Well I suppose that is the sort of logic that could justify a $100,000 parking fine for someone who is 5 minutes late from a meeting or appointment.

    You do realize at some point that argument becomes only self serving for the city and just ridiculous. I did not say people should be able to park without fines or drive at an unsafe speed. However, what is a reasonable fine and a safe speed are open to debate in a free society.

    If we feel the city is not being reasonable we should be able to say so without being shot down by a glib, condescending and patronizing statement like "just follow the rules".

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I've had success reporting abandoned vehicles using the 311 app. 311 app works great - and no need to talk to someone who sounds like they are not interested in taking my call, or any call, or really exist on this planet.
    Yeah, the 311 app is awesome. You can also check it to get the status of your complaint, which is super handy. I used it a few weeks ago because there was a car parked on the street for a few days with the window half-rolled down, the sunroof open, unlocked, with expired plates. the city came and towed it away. That was super-sketchy.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  18. #18

    Default

    The new fines are completely reasonable. $100 is not excessive for parking in a no parking zone. These are fines for acts that can't be done by accident unless a sign is obscured, and have real impacts. Park where you block a travel lane, or a crosswalk, or obstruct a hydrant or bus stop and you deserve a significant fine.

    I don't see any indication in the article that fines for parking too long in a timed parking spot or metered spot will be increasing. Parking meter cost and time limits are parking management rules, and it's not impossible to accidentally break the rules- those are the parking rules that should have low fines to cover the cost of enforcement.

    One other factor is when the previous fines were set. I wouldn't doubt if the old fines hadn't changed in 25 years. If that's the case then most of this increase is just catching up with inflation.
    There can only be one.

  19. #19

    Default

    When I worked downtown there were places where people parked at certain parking meters that had to be vacated by 3.30 pm or 4.00 pm. The court house had (has) a fair amount of spots like that. About 5 minutes before these spots had to be vacated the towing trucks would circle the block like buzzards just waiting to tow these vehicles away. Of course the C of E did not care if people were held up in court or maybe in the least 'green' building in Edmonton (City Hall). Why should councillors or the mayor care about that as they have immunity from crap like that. Sometimes people have real genuine reasons for overstaying in a parking spot. C of E does not care as long as they can squeeze as much cash as possible of the public and come back for more time and again.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Spots that have to be vacated by a certain time are due to increased traffic needing that lane. Why should hundreds or thousands of drivers be held up because someone couldn't move their car in time?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  21. #21
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    When I worked downtown there were places where people parked at certain parking meters that had to be vacated by 3.30 pm or 4.00 pm. The court house had (has) a fair amount of spots like that. About 5 minutes before these spots had to be vacated the towing trucks would circle the block like buzzards just waiting to tow these vehicles away. Of course the C of E did not care if people were held up in court or maybe in the least 'green' building in Edmonton (City Hall). Why should councillors or the mayor care about that as they have immunity from crap like that. Sometimes people have real genuine reasons for overstaying in a parking spot. C of E does not care as long as they can squeeze as much cash as possible of the public and come back for more time and again.
    Do the mayor and councillors have the ability to park where ever they want ? I assumed they can park legally at city meters for free. Either way, that 'perk' should be abolished. Only exceptions should be emergency vehicles.

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Correct, they have a pass that allows them to park at city meters for free. I don't see a reason to get rid of that perk, as they'd just be expensing the costs anyway, and do we really need them wasting their time filling out paperwork to get a few bucks back each time they park somewhere?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  23. #23

    Default

    I agree, if it's only for actual legal parking spaces then I see no reason to eliminate it. They should not be allowed to parking in no-parking zones. That's something that should be restricted to emergency vehicles on an active call.
    There can only be one.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Truth be written here. This is all about revenue streams and increasing those monies. As if the present COE gives a rats *** about moving cars to ease traffic congestion. Any other time the topic of congestion comes up is too friggen bad, ride a bus (as if non brt busses aren't effected by traffic...)

    Iveson is has punitive puritanical leanings it just seems. Punishment seems big in his narrative. He spouts a "people just trying to get away with crap and I'm sick and tired of it" attitude and with this actually stated, not verbatim, but the gist of it.

    As for having to report every instance of cars parked all winter on bus lanes (we're on one) lets have a little pause to think a moment here. We're a winter City. When you see cars mostly buried in snow its evident they've been there for quite awhile. Just over the course of 6 blocks on this bus route where we live any bylaw enforcement that ever came by could make a killing. They'd find 50 vehicles, easy illegally parked and buried under months of snow. Basically parked for the winter by those that don't winter drive. Basically every neighborhood in town has this and again these are choked bus routes with the winter abandoned vehicles just occupying space on main routes all winter. That are not even removed during the advisories when snow plows are out. They plow right around them. Even multiple times. All winter.

    So guess what. When you call 311 to report this they don't say "oh, well send a crew down there to ticket all those cars." they will state instead which vehicle at which specific address are you reporting and are you positive it has been there for more than 72hrs and how do you know..
    Busses on this route basically often have to pull over and stop as two way traffic can't get by for long stretches due to myriad winter abandoned cars.

    Want some bloody ticket revenue, maybe the city could look into actually monitoring bus routes. These would be extra positions that would pay for themselves easily. Most neighborhoods would be happy to ease the parked vehicle congestion. This also makes life even easier for pedestrian and kids to cross roads. Makes it easier for drivers, emergency vehicles etc.
    Parking enforcement seems lined up with the same strategy as photo radar : Enforcement where there is the highest concentration of infractions in order to bring in the highest revenue. SHOCKER.
    They could care less about residential areas when all the big easy money is downtown. And I completely agree about them finding 50 vehicles. On my street, they could just walk down and ticket car after car after car after car... All lined up together, parked in the seasonal no parking streets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Just follow the rules, Dave.
    Well I suppose that is the sort of logic that could justify a $100,000 parking fine for someone who is 5 minutes late from a meeting or appointment.

    You do realize at some point that argument becomes only self serving for the city and just ridiculous. I did not say people should be able to park without fines or drive at an unsafe speed. However, what is a reasonable fine and a safe speed are open to debate in a free society.

    If we feel the city is not being reasonable we should be able to say so without being shot down by a glib, condescending and patronizing statement like "just follow the rules".
    Exactly. I stated when I started the thread that I haven't had a single parking ticket, ever. But that doesn't mean I can't complain about what they're doing here. I DO follow the rules, but this is just low.

    Quote Originally Posted by rupikhalon001 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    When I worked downtown there were places where people parked at certain parking meters that had to be vacated by 3.30 pm or 4.00 pm. The court house had (has) a fair amount of spots like that. About 5 minutes before these spots had to be vacated the towing trucks would circle the block like buzzards just waiting to tow these vehicles away. Of course the C of E did not care if people were held up in court or maybe in the least 'green' building in Edmonton (City Hall). Why should councillors or the mayor care about that as they have immunity from crap like that. Sometimes people have real genuine reasons for overstaying in a parking spot. C of E does not care as long as they can squeeze as much cash as possible of the public and come back for more time and again.
    Do the mayor and councillors have the ability to park where ever they want ? I assumed they can park legally at city meters for free. Either way, that 'perk' should be abolished. Only exceptions should be emergency vehicles.
    I think since the mayor and councillors play a big part in what it costs to pay for parking and parking infractions, that THEY above ANYONE else in this city, should have to pay for their own parking like everyone else, out of their OWN pocket, without the ability to expense it. The mayor chose to be mayor, he knew that meant working and travelling around downtown, so he should have to pay like anyone else. If I apply for a job somewhere, knowing where it is and where I'd have to park, I'm not going to complain about it AFTER I get the job and expect reimbursements. Besides, I'm sure their salaries are more than good enough to be able to afford paying for parking, especially mayor Iveson's $200K+ along with all the other perks he gets.

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,479

    Default

    Put 'em all on bikes. You know, set an example.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  26. #26
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Put 'em all on bikes. You know, set an example.


    If the mayor can park for free, I'm assuming that it must be legal - not near cross walks, between certain hours etc ?

  27. #27

    Default

    Lawman Iveson and the Council Posse get a $500 (or $600) vehicle allowance per month. Don't ask me why. Surely their bloated pay cheques should cover things like that. I guess if they used public transit they would pocket the perk. Gravy trains are hard to get off.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  28. #28

    Default

    the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise seems to be paid reasonably, and a vehicle allowance is quite needed for the travel they do around the city.

    I know your post is most in jest, but my god.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise seems to be paid reasonably, and a vehicle allowance is quite needed for the travel they do around the city.

    I know your post is most in jest, but my god.
    He and the rest of the council knew when applying for the job that is meant working and being downtown (obviously). Their parking should be paid out of their large pockets. If I apply for a job downtown, I'm obviously going to factor in the fact that I will need to PARK downtown... Again, obvious...

  30. #30

    Default

    The mayor and council have free parking downtown at city hall. You probably already know this, as your posts give me the impression that you are a 'know it all'

    The vehicle allowance is for their transportation around the city for the many and various events and meetings they need to be part of. Vehicle allowances are common practice in large organizations.

  31. #31

    Default

    Obviously, the mayor and council should work for free, or minimum wage at most and should not have any perks, or benefits. I mean, these guys couldn't work anywhere else, that's why they run for these positions, because they couldn't be gainfully employed anywhere else. It's just a big gravy train that we need to siphon these fat pigs off of! And I should be able to park for free anywhere I want as long as I want. Also, speeding. I should be able to speed because damnit, I'm a better driver than everyone else!

    I mean, obviously the pay is way too much, that's why we attracted such wonderful talented competition for the mayors chair in the last election. (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell... )

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise seems to be paid reasonably, and a vehicle allowance is quite needed for the travel they do around the city.

    I know your post is most in jest, but my god.
    He and the rest of the council knew when applying for the job that is meant working and being downtown (obviously). Their parking should be paid out of their large pockets. If I apply for a job downtown, I'm obviously going to factor in the fact that I will need to PARK downtown... Again, obvious...
    When I'm travelling around for company events I don't cover my own parking and mileage.
    When the Mayor decided to run for Mayor, he likely did the same thing anyone else does when deciding to take a job or not, look at the total compensation.
    As for large pockets, compared to similar size private or publically traded corporation, councilors and the Mayor make a fraction of the total compensation.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise seems to be paid reasonably, and a vehicle allowance is quite needed for the travel they do around the city.

    I know your post is most in jest, but my god.
    He and the rest of the council knew when applying for the job that is meant working and being downtown (obviously). Their parking should be paid out of their large pockets. If I apply for a job downtown, I'm obviously going to factor in the fact that I will need to PARK downtown... Again, obvious...
    When I'm travelling around for company events I don't cover my own parking and mileage.
    When the Mayor decided to run for Mayor, he likely did the same thing anyone else does when deciding to take a job or not, look at the total compensation.
    As for large pockets, compared to similar size private or publically traded corporation, councilors and the Mayor make a fraction of the total compensation.
    The parking fine is the financial equivalent of a mosquito bite for the well paid, but could end up sending a single mother taking her sick child to a specialist medical appointment downtown to the food bank for the month.

    Unfortunately, the level of fines are set by those that are well paid and I don't think they always consider their impact on people that are not, despite their claiming to be "progressive".

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Obviously, the mayor and council should work for free, or minimum wage at most and should not have any perks, or benefits. I mean, these guys couldn't work anywhere else, that's why they run for these positions, because they couldn't be gainfully employed anywhere else. It's just a big gravy train that we need to siphon these fat pigs off of! And I should be able to park for free anywhere I want as long as I want. Also, speeding. I should be able to speed because damnit, I'm a better driver than everyone else!

    I mean, obviously the pay is way too much, that's why we attracted such wonderful talented competition for the mayors chair in the last election. (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell... )
    Cripes I'm beginning to think you're on council and using Medwards as an alias.
    If city council get a $500-600 transportation allowance per month why shouldn't they pay for their own parking. What's the transportation allowance for?.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  35. #35

    Default

    The answer to questions of poverty and income disparity is never to subsidise everyone. All the stupid things that we do because maybe a poor person would be hurt occasionally...

    How about we deal with poverty issues directly rather than mess around with policies that only touch poverty at the third degree?

    Single mothers are capable of reading signs and making informed decisions like whether to drive & park, park & ride or take transit or a cab, just like the rest of us; and there's no reason that the public should pay more for the one who chooses to drive.

    On the other hand, there are good reasons why an employer should pay for employees work-related travel expenses, and may want to pay for commute expenses as part of the employee's compensation.
    There can only be one.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The answer to questions of poverty and income disparity is never to subsidise everyone. All the stupid things that we do because maybe a poor person would be hurt occasionally...

    How about we deal with poverty issues directly rather than mess around with policies that only touch poverty at the third degree?

    Single mothers are capable of reading signs and making informed decisions like whether to drive & park, park & ride or take transit or a cab, just like the rest of us; and there's no reason that the public should pay more for the one who chooses to drive.

    On the other hand, there are good reasons why an employer should pay for employees work-related travel expenses, and may want to pay for commute expenses as part of the employee's compensation.
    You mean all those thousands of parking tickets only go to rich people? Really? Obviously, the solution is to make the fine based on income. A $100 parking ticket is no deterrent to someone making 100,000 a year, but it could cause real financial hardship to someone on a low income.

    Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think our Mayor or Council intends to cause financial hardship to people by this or perhaps they really don't care, they just pretend to.

    Yes, everyone can read signs (hopefully), but things happen, people get distracted by other things and do not remember to put more $ in. A parking ticket should be a disincentive, not cause financial hardship. I don't think any truly progressive thinking person would have a problem with that.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Obviously, the mayor and council should work for free, or minimum wage at most and should not have any perks, or benefits. I mean, these guys couldn't work anywhere else, that's why they run for these positions, because they couldn't be gainfully employed anywhere else. It's just a big gravy train that we need to siphon these fat pigs off of! And I should be able to park for free anywhere I want as long as I want. Also, speeding. I should be able to speed because damnit, I'm a better driver than everyone else!

    I mean, obviously the pay is way too much, that's why we attracted such wonderful talented competition for the mayors chair in the last election. (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell... )
    Cripes I'm beginning to think you're on council and using Medwards as an alias.
    If city council get a $500-600 transportation allowance per month why shouldn't they pay for their own parking. What's the transportation allowance for?.
    Why should they pay for parking in a city-run and owned parking lot in city hall? The transportation allowance is for car payments, commercial vehicle insurance, gas, maintenance, other parking fees, etc.

    No, I'm not on council.... these things don't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

    And again - similar things happen with any large multi-billion dollar corporation.

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    I would have to pay for parking at a lot owned by my employer if I decided to drive to work. Why should city hall employees be any different?

  39. #39

    Default

    Just because your company treats its employees like chattel doesn't mean the companies/organizations that don't are inherently wrong. I don't normally have to pay for parking, but if my job asks me to report to a place where my only options are paid parking they'll happily reimburse me after I file an expense claim.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The answer to questions of poverty and income disparity is never to subsidise everyone. All the stupid things that we do because maybe a poor person would be hurt occasionally...

    How about we deal with poverty issues directly rather than mess around with policies that only touch poverty at the third degree?

    Single mothers are capable of reading signs and making informed decisions like whether to drive & park, park & ride or take transit or a cab, just like the rest of us; and there's no reason that the public should pay more for the one who chooses to drive.

    On the other hand, there are good reasons why an employer should pay for employees work-related travel expenses, and may want to pay for commute expenses as part of the employee's compensation.
    You mean all those thousands of parking tickets only go to rich people? Really? Obviously, the solution is to make the fine based on income. A $100 parking ticket is no deterrent to someone making 100,000 a year, but it could cause real financial hardship to someone on a low income.

    Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think our Mayor or Council intends to cause financial hardship to people by this or perhaps they really don't care, they just pretend to.

    Yes, everyone can read signs (hopefully), but things happen, people get distracted by other things and do not remember to put more $ in. A parking ticket should be a disincentive, not cause financial hardship. I don't think any truly progressive thinking person would have a problem with that.
    Well, most actual poor people don't drive, so there's that. Those that do shouldn't get a free pass when their driving has negative impacts on society. Any intelligent progressive person would agree, and support policies that attempt to ensure that people aren't $100 away from the disaster in the first place. You don't deal with income disparity by making it easier for people to drive.
    There can only be one.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I would have to pay for parking at a lot owned by my employer if I decided to drive to work. Why should city hall employees be any different?
    Not all city hall employees get the same benefits, but I agree that in general if there's a commuting benefit it should be available to all employees regardless of mode. And it should be taxable.

    But travel between sites on behalf of your employer is a completely different thing, and one that the employer should be paying for. Most do it by reimbursing mileage, but there's nothing with an allowance or a company car and gas card instead.
    There can only be one.

  42. #42
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Hospital doctors have to pay for parking.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Obviously, the mayor and council should work for free, or minimum wage at most and should not have any perks, or benefits. I mean, these guys couldn't work anywhere else, that's why they run for these positions, because they couldn't be gainfully employed anywhere else. It's just a big gravy train that we need to siphon these fat pigs off of! And I should be able to park for free anywhere I want as long as I want. Also, speeding. I should be able to speed because damnit, I'm a better driver than everyone else!

    I mean, obviously the pay is way too much, that's why we attracted such wonderful talented competition for the mayors chair in the last election. (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell... )
    Cripes I'm beginning to think you're on council and using Medwards as an alias.
    If city council get a $500-600 transportation allowance per month why shouldn't they pay for their own parking. What's the transportation allowance for?.
    Why should they pay for parking in a city-run and owned parking lot in city hall? The transportation allowance is for car payments, commercial vehicle insurance, gas, maintenance, other parking fees, etc.

    No, I'm not on council.... these things don't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

    And again - similar things happen with any large multi-billion dollar corporation.
    City-run and owned parking lot that was bought and paid for by the City of Edmonton taxpayers. Now, when I go to City Hall or any other C of E building that I have contributed to building/maintain do I get a free pass. This $500-600 dollar transportation allowance for car payments. So the taxpayers are paying for their private vehicles. Wow, usually that kind of expenditure comes out of a pay cheque. Why should the taxpayers be buying councillors and the mayors private vehicles?. No it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Just your average taxpayer can do that on their own.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Obviously, the mayor and council should work for free, or minimum wage at most and should not have any perks, or benefits. I mean, these guys couldn't work anywhere else, that's why they run for these positions, because they couldn't be gainfully employed anywhere else. It's just a big gravy train that we need to siphon these fat pigs off of! And I should be able to park for free anywhere I want as long as I want. Also, speeding. I should be able to speed because damnit, I'm a better driver than everyone else!

    I mean, obviously the pay is way too much, that's why we attracted such wonderful talented competition for the mayors chair in the last election. (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell... )
    Cripes I'm beginning to think you're on council and using Medwards as an alias.
    If city council get a $500-600 transportation allowance per month why shouldn't they pay for their own parking. What's the transportation allowance for?.
    Why should they pay for parking in a city-run and owned parking lot in city hall? The transportation allowance is for car payments, commercial vehicle insurance, gas, maintenance, other parking fees, etc.

    No, I'm not on council.... these things don't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

    And again - similar things happen with any large multi-billion dollar corporation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Obviously, the mayor and council should work for free, or minimum wage at most and should not have any perks, or benefits. I mean, these guys couldn't work anywhere else, that's why they run for these positions, because they couldn't be gainfully employed anywhere else. It's just a big gravy train that we need to siphon these fat pigs off of! And I should be able to park for free anywhere I want as long as I want. Also, speeding. I should be able to speed because damnit, I'm a better driver than everyone else!

    I mean, obviously the pay is way too much, that's why we attracted such wonderful talented competition for the mayors chair in the last election. (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell... )
    Cripes I'm beginning to think you're on council and using Medwards as an alias.
    If city council get a $500-600 transportation allowance per month why shouldn't they pay for their own parking. What's the transportation allowance for?.
    Why should they pay for parking in a city-run and owned parking lot in city hall? The transportation allowance is for car payments, commercial vehicle insurance, gas, maintenance, other parking fees, etc.

    No, I'm not on council.... these things don't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

    And again - similar things happen with any large multi-billion dollar corporation.
    City-run and owned parking lot that was bought and paid for by the City of Edmonton taxpayers. Now, when I go to City Hall or any other C of E building that I have contributed to building/maintain do I get a free pass. This $500-600 dollar transportation allowance for car payments. So the taxpayers are paying for their private vehicles. Wow, usually that kind of expenditure comes out of a pay cheque. Why should the taxpayers be buying councillors and the mayors private vehicles?. No it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Just your average taxpayer can do that on their own.
    Thank you Gemini! I was just about to point it out to council member Medwards that a "multi-billion dollar corporation" is not paid for by taxpayers. THAT is the difference, and THAT doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out either... The difference comes when MY tax dollars are paying for these little things that they should be paying for themselves. If they want all those benefits and breaks then they can GO to one of those private billion dollar corporations. I'd rather see my tax dollars go towards improving the city and helping those in need, and not compensating a well-paid city worker a few hundred bucks a month, which by the way, isn't going to be sending them to the poor house.

  45. #45

    Default

    You both have absolutely no clue. Apparently we should just offer minimum wage and no benefits to those on council and the mayor. That will attract really good candidates to run the multi-billion dollar corporation known as the City of Edmonton.

    I would guess you two probably think that this isn't standard across just about every major municipality in Canada and likely the rest of the first world.
    Last edited by Medwards; 22-11-2017 at 11:06 AM.

  46. #46

    Default

    Evidently some people put a little too much emphasis on the "servant" part of being a "public servant" when discussing compensation.

    Shocker.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Evidently some people put a little too much emphasis on the "servant" part of being a "public servant" when discussing compensation.

    Shocker.
    I'd like to see what they say when they find out how much some of the top people in the city administration make and the benefits and perks they receive. Whhhat? They get paid more than those that serve me my coffee at tim hortons! If they wanted to make money, they should've dropped out of school in Grade 9 like I did, and started driving my dad's welding rig!

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You both have absolutely no clue. Apparently we should just offer minimum wage and no benefits to those on council and the mayor. That will attract really good candidates to run the multi-billion dollar corporation known as the City of Edmonton.

    I would guess you two probably think that this isn't standard across just about every major municipality in Canada and likely the rest of the first world.
    I don't think minimum wage and no benefits, but I think it would do well for those on council to have to drive around the block and try find a spot, remember to top up for their parking, or take the bus once in a while. They might appreciate the concerns of average citizens a bit more. I think some of the nice perks cause them to lose touch.

    By the way, what multi billion dollar corporations did we "attract" the current mayor and the councillors away from? It seems a lot of them are basically career politicians doing what they want to and getting paid quite nicely for it. I'm not knocking career politicians, but I don't think most ever really worked at an executive level for a multi billion dollar corporation before.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You both have absolutely no clue. Apparently we should just offer minimum wage and no benefits to those on council and the mayor. That will attract really good candidates to run the multi-billion dollar corporation known as the City of Edmonton.

    I would guess you two probably think that this isn't standard across just about every major municipality in Canada and likely the rest of the first world.
    I don't think minimum wage and no benefits, but I think it would do well for those on council to have to drive around the block and try find a spot, remember to top up for their parking, or take the bus once in a while. They might appreciate the concerns of average citizens a bit more. I think some of the nice perks cause them to lose touch.

    By the way, what multi billion dollar corporations did we "attract" the current mayor and the councillors away from? It seems a lot of them are basically career politicians doing what they want to and getting paid quite nicely for it. I'm not knocking career politicians, but I don't think most ever really worked at an executive level for a multi billion dollar corporation before.
    Losing touch with having a parking ticket and having to pay it? Isn't raising parking fines an effort to condition people to obey the law?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You both have absolutely no clue. Apparently we should just offer minimum wage and no benefits to those on council and the mayor. That will attract really good candidates to run the multi-billion dollar corporation known as the City of Edmonton.

    I would guess you two probably think that this isn't standard across just about every major municipality in Canada and likely the rest of the first world.
    I don't think minimum wage and no benefits, but I think it would do well for those on council to have to drive around the block and try find a spot, remember to top up for their parking, or take the bus once in a while. They might appreciate the concerns of average citizens a bit more. I think some of the nice perks cause them to lose touch.

    By the way, what multi billion dollar corporations did we "attract" the current mayor and the councillors away from? It seems a lot of them are basically career politicians doing what they want to and getting paid quite nicely for it. I'm not knocking career politicians, but I don't think most ever really worked at an executive level for a multi billion dollar corporation before.
    Losing touch with having a parking ticket and having to pay it? Isn't raising parking fines an effort to condition people to obey the law?
    Has there been a sudden outbreak of increased lawlessness in Edmonton, nobody has heard about?

    No, it is probably just a way for the city to raise more revenue. They just pretend it is not.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I don't think minimum wage and no benefits, but I think it would do well for those on council to have to drive around the block and try find a spot, remember to top up for their parking, or take the bus once in a while. They might appreciate the concerns of average citizens a bit more. I think some of the nice perks cause them to lose touch.
    Completely agree with that. They should be forced to take transit solely for a week every year for all their daily living needs. However, they should still get the parking and vehicle allowance, regardless of what their salary is. I'm sure their vehicle allowances is cheaper than expensing their mileage, and etc would be, at normal government rates.

  52. #52

    Default

    Mayor of New York made $225,000.00 gross salary in 2016. He refused an increase that was offered. Now I know de Blasio is a wealthy guy in his own right but the salary would have been $225,000.00 for who ever was mayor.
    New York population north of 8 and a half million.

    https://www.newsday.com/news/new-yor...ome-1.13489105


    Aug 24, 2017 - As such, the committee recommended Edmonton's mayor earn a fully taxable salary of $200,747. Accounting for the federal ruling to eliminate tax breaks, the mayor's current fully taxable income is equivalent to $218,200. City councilors should earn $113,416 annually, the committee determined, instead of $116,729.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ayor-1.4261658

    As is Edmonton's mayor earns slightly less than that of the mayor of New York, Then again if the transportation allowance is factored in the mayor of Edmonton is making the same as the mayor of the Big Apple with a 700+% higher population.
    Now I'm not saying Edmonton's mayor should be paid peanuts but I don't think perks should be part of the salary either. And the premise of running a city as opposed to a corporation is a very poor one. There's a big difference of a CEO fighting for each customers dollar than a mayor just getting it handed to him from the taxpayer.
    Last edited by Gemini; 22-11-2017 at 10:37 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    You don't think the mayor of New York has some kind of transportation allowance? Keep in mind it's $65/HOUR to park in downtown Manhattan.

    BTW - I've seen Don Iveson ride his BIKE to various events when he could have taken other transportation.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You both have absolutely no clue. Apparently we should just offer minimum wage and no benefits to those on council and the mayor. That will attract really good candidates to run the multi-billion dollar corporation known as the City of Edmonton.

    I would guess you two probably think that this isn't standard across just about every major municipality in Canada and likely the rest of the first world.
    I don't think minimum wage and no benefits, but I think it would do well for those on council to have to drive around the block and try find a spot, remember to top up for their parking, or take the bus once in a while. They might appreciate the concerns of average citizens a bit more. I think some of the nice perks cause them to lose touch.

    By the way, what multi billion dollar corporations did we "attract" the current mayor and the councillors away from? It seems a lot of them are basically career politicians doing what they want to and getting paid quite nicely for it. I'm not knocking career politicians, but I don't think most ever really worked at an executive level for a multi billion dollar corporation before.
    Who in their right mind would leave an executive level job for public service? That's the point you just reinforced, this salary isn't high enough to attract that type of experience.
    Quit your job that pays more, that attracts no public criticism, park your career for years. How appealing is that? Maybe someone or some company cares about your council/mayoral experience after?
    The councillor and mayor salary needs to be sufficient to attract people away from private sector, hopefully high enough some are worthy competent candidates. For a long time it was and to a point it still is possible to make an equivalent councillor salary including benefits as a mid/senior level professional, not even management, without having to be a public face that is guaranteed to be hated no matter what you do by 50% of the population.
    I don't know why anyone would choose municipal politics. It's such a small group, that touches so many of the immediate of the daily services citizens use, you can't hide. Provincial or federal back bencher that's where the gravy is at.
    I really am lost that we'll worry abut a $600 allowance a month for 12 people and $1200 a month for one person. A total of a whopping $104,000 a year (2/3rds taxable from what i read). That might pay for one additional mid level employee at the city (burdened salary)...maybe.
    Hey take away their free parking spots at City Hall, another $50,000?
    We could cut all the salaries in half too and be able to hire 6-7 low level employees additional. Big win?
    Oh but the principle! More like, I missed the forest staring at this tree...stump.
    Last edited by DanC; 22-11-2017 at 10:56 PM.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    You don't think the mayor of New York has some kind of transportation allowance? Keep in mind it's $65/HOUR to park in downtown Manhattan.

    BTW - I've seen Don Iveson ride his BIKE to various events when he could have taken other transportation.
    The mayor of New York gets a chauffeured SUV plus a security detail. Essentially a motorcade. He also gets an official residence.
    There can only be one.

  56. #56

    Default

    ^Yeah, I imagine the mayor of New York having a much harder job to do than any Canadian mayor. Big Apple, big population, huge tourist attraction, big crime problems etc. We could assist an Edmonton mayor by giving him a couple of bicycle riders to ride on either side of his car. Maybe allot him a couple of boy scouts as security detail. Set aside an extra room in the Spady Centre if he works late and is to tired to go home. Maybe a couple of vouchers for the soup kitchen as his office is near by. I guess those are some of the perks we could get behind him on. The soup kitchen would be a good one because he may not be able to manage a good meal on his salary.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  57. #57

    Default

    NYC Mayor has a huge job, as the city funds education and affordable housing among other things, not the state. Thanks to city bankruptcy in the 70's he's not in charge of the subway system, but people thing he is so he still gets blamed.
    There can only be one.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You both have absolutely no clue. Apparently we should just offer minimum wage and no benefits to those on council and the mayor. That will attract really good candidates to run the multi-billion dollar corporation known as the City of Edmonton.

    I would guess you two probably think that this isn't standard across just about every major municipality in Canada and likely the rest of the first world.
    I don't think minimum wage and no benefits, but I think it would do well for those on council to have to drive around the block and try find a spot, remember to top up for their parking, or take the bus once in a while. They might appreciate the concerns of average citizens a bit more. I think some of the nice perks cause them to lose touch.

    By the way, what multi billion dollar corporations did we "attract" the current mayor and the councillors away from? It seems a lot of them are basically career politicians doing what they want to and getting paid quite nicely for it. I'm not knocking career politicians, but I don't think most ever really worked at an executive level for a multi billion dollar corporation before.
    Who in their right mind would leave an executive level job for public service? That's the point you just reinforced, this salary isn't high enough to attract that type of experience.
    Quit your job that pays more, that attracts no public criticism, park your career for years. How appealing is that? Maybe someone or some company cares about your council/mayoral experience after?
    The councillor and mayor salary needs to be sufficient to attract people away from private sector, hopefully high enough some are worthy competent candidates. For a long time it was and to a point it still is possible to make an equivalent councillor salary including benefits as a mid/senior level professional, not even management, without having to be a public face that is guaranteed to be hated no matter what you do by 50% of the population.
    I don't know why anyone would choose municipal politics. It's such a small group, that touches so many of the immediate of the daily services citizens use, you can't hide. Provincial or federal back bencher that's where the gravy is at.
    I really am lost that we'll worry abut a $600 allowance a month for 12 people and $1200 a month for one person. A total of a whopping $104,000 a year (2/3rds taxable from what i read). That might pay for one additional mid level employee at the city (burdened salary)...maybe.
    Hey take away their free parking spots at City Hall, another $50,000?
    We could cut all the salaries in half too and be able to hire 6-7 low level employees additional. Big win?
    Oh but the principle! More like, I missed the forest staring at this tree...stump.
    I think Stephen Mandel sort of did. I am not going to comment on his state of mind. I will leave that for you if you wish.

    I don't have a problem with corporate executives running for political office, but neither do I think they are the most qualified or only to do that. Give me a good teacher, or nurse as a councilor and I bet they could do just as good a better job. Running a business is not the same as running a city. For instance, I never got a parking fine from a business I was a customer of.

    I do have a problem with self interested people running for office and I can see how a high salary might tend to attract them.

    I don't think most successful business people run for office because they need the money. They do it because they want to serve and contribute to their community and have ideas about how to improve things. They are successful already and don't need the money. The ones that are only motivated by the pay - danger, stay away from them.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •