Mr. Self Destruct

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Neutral

About Mr. Self Destruct

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect
  • Birthday September 13

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    This chair
  • Interests
    Biking, skiing, hockey, cycling.
  1. Good to come back and get a point, but I was choked we took that penalty in OT. Just sloppy. Having said that, if the refs had called the 3 Stars infractions that took place before that penalty, it may never have gotten to that point. The Stars were getting away with murder out there in OT. Still, 3/4 pts to begin the road trip. I'll take it!
  2. And yet we're perceived as the divers and embellishers... just goes to show, every team does it.
  3. If only it were that easy to acquire an elite defenceman. I remember back in the summer of 2005 we had an opportunity to sign Scott Niedermayer but management at the time stated that they'd prefer to sign Markus Naslund instead (due to the limited cap at the time). As much as I liked Naslund, imagine what could have been if we'd signed Niedermayer instead? Or if we'd drafted Shea Weber? I hope the current regime can draft and develop an elite defenceman. I doubt we'll acquire one through a trade.
  4. I write a comprehensive response to your questions, and this is the response I get? I can see why others are getting frustrated by your replies as well. You didn't answer any of my questions. Like most people on the No side, I am not saying that we shouldn't be funding transit. I think some of the main factors for me voting No to the Mayor's initiative are as follows: 1) The Mayors Council, as previously shown, and much of the Lower Mainland does not trust Translink, or at least their ability to manage their money properly. Yet we should give them more and this is a solution to our woes? Overhaul the inept system first, make them accountable to the Public and then come back to us for money. 2) New projects and transportation initiatives such as cycling infrastructure are great. However, do we need to have 3 or 4 megaprojects going on at once? If they're talking about 1 million more people coming to Metro Vancouver by 2040, why do we have to have all of the infrastructure in place by 2025-2027? They're talking 10-12 years to get most of this stuff on the ground, no? 3) The Yes campaign's argument is built on fear and hyperbole. I don't appreciate the robocalls, the threatening ads, and the sheer arrogance from many on this side of the fence. They act as if nothing can be done if we vote No. This simply isn't the case. I think many people will be discouraged from voting Yes simply by the nature of their campaigning. It certainly has rubbed me the wrong way. And spending 6 million on a failing campaign is yet another example of waste! However, having said all this I think you and I can agree to disagree on this issue. I highly doubt any of this is going to sway you to the No side and you will not be able to sway me to the Yes side. So I'll cast my ballot as I please and I encourage you to do the same. I do appreciate the fact that we get a say in this, and it is my hope that something good will come of all this. Such as overhauling Translink and starting fresh.
  5. Is a new tax even needed? Check out Barbara Yaffe's article: "The mayors now say they need another $250 million in tax for transit. If we vote No, what then? Even while confronting a $5-billion budget deficit, Alberta Premier Jim Prentice has rejected introduction of a provincial sales tax. And Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger nearly lost his job last month because he boosted his province’s sales tax in 2013 to eight per cent. Now, in B.C., voters in Metro Vancouver appear to be rejecting a 0.5-per-cent PST hike for transit improvements regarded by most people as crucial. What’s going on? Sales taxes are high profile, smacking taxpayers in the kisser each time they make a purchase. And in non-HST jurisdictions, like B.C. and Manitoba, companies pay PST on their business inputs, putting them at a competitive disadvantage with companies in HST provinces. Any increase to B.C.’s PST will worsen this problem. It will also increase construction costs for new housing in the region. Sales taxes are always trouble. Recall, Canada had several political crises after the Mulroney government introduced the GST. Ontario MP Sheila Copps resigned her seat in 1996 over a campaign statement she had made about a Liberal pledge to kill it. Consumers were thrilled when Stephen Harper later reduced the despised levy by two percentage points. Of course, there are other taxes that could be hiked besides the PST. There’s property tax and the property transfer tax, tax on fuel, carbon, medical services, vehicles, imports, alcohol and tobacco. In some instances, we even pay a tax on tax. That’s a whole lot of tax. Indeed, Canadians last year paid a total tax equivalent to 41.8 per cent of average family income — down somewhat from a decade ago, but up from 33.5 per cent in 1961, according to Fraser Institute research. And remember, taxes reflect spending over which most people have little control. Add in housing, food and clothing costs — consuming another 36 per cent of income — and nearly 80 per cent of a family’s income is spoken for. Probably more than that in Vancouver, due to high housing costs. Over time, a larger share of income has been gobbled by taxation because governments are providing more services — in response to public demand. The mayors now say they need another $250 million in tax for transit. If we vote No, what then? Christy Clark opined in February, “mayors ... have always had the ability to raise money for transit through increasing property taxes, and that would be one of the options available to them.” But it’s not that simple. Such a solution almost certainly would prompt a tsunami of public fury. Especially since many — with homes that have crept past the $1.1 million mark — are about to lose some or all of their homeowner’s grant. In any event, the mayors have stated with conviction, property tax increases for transit are not on. It is a fact, Vancouver homeowners and businesses pay less per $1,000 of tax assessment than their counterparts in many other cities; $3.68 per $1,000 of assessed residential property, compared to $6.10 in Calgary, or $7.23 in Toronto. But those figures don’t reflect the fact assessed property values tend to be greater in Vancouver. Also, property taxes in this city are being hiked every year: 2.08 per cent in 2010; 1.88 per cent in 2011; 2.84 per cent in 2012; 1.36 per cent in 2013; 1.62 per cent in 2014; and a proposed 2.4 per cent this year. And the increases all get compounded. Further, any move to hike property taxes when the Property Transfer Tax remains ridiculously overinflated, is unthinkable. But all is not lost. Governments collect billions in revenue and have a degree of flexibility in their spending. For example, B.C. lately has reduced its annual rate of spending increases for health care. B.C. is spending a total of $46 billion this year. Vancouver, just one of 23 municipalities in the Lower Mainland, will spend $1.2 billion. Armed with sharpened pencils, politicians should be able to identify within existing revenues the $250 million a year for Metro Vancouver’s transportation infrastructure — if it’s as crucial as they claim."
  6. Personally I found this 'proposal' quite hilarious. In the 'A Message from the Mayors Council' section they actually say: "The Mayors’ Council is calling on the Provincial Government, once again, to make additional amendments to the TransLink governance structure. The changes made to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority do not go far enough to instil public confidence in the operation of TransLink. It has always been, and continues to be, the Mayors’ Council request that the Provincial Government amend the legislation to provide our Council with oversight of TransLink’s operating budget. If this does not occur, we are not at all confident that our Vision or Investment Plan will be realized." So we're supposed to support this proposal, vote Yes to increase Translink funding, and be confident that a Yes vote will foster positive building when the Mayors Council doesn't even have confidence in Translink to actually implement these changes? Come again? Doesn't anyone see the problem with this? Have the BC government fix the problems with Translink first and then come to us for money (if it's needed). Where did you grow up in Surrey? And do you drive or bus into Surrey right now? Where are you coming from now? If the Yes vote succeeds and they decide to throw Surrey a bone by providing more buses, would you honestly switch from using your car to taking a skytrain/bus, if you do drive? Show me a comprehensive plan about what route service increases they plan/promise to bring it to Surrey. I've yet to see one, other than promises of more B-Line buses and LRT (which, by the way, would be god-awful if they run it down 104th Avenue like they're talking about. It is one of the most congested streets in Surrey; I can't imagine them taking a lane away from this street... havoc would ensue). I would continue to argue that for the actual resident that lives in a suburb of Surrey (not just the extreme north part of the city) the issue still remains - making connections to the major routes will continue to be a challenge even when these so-called positive changes are implemented. Like all politicians, the Mayors are great about making promises that our lives will be greatly improved by just giving them a little bit more money. The trouble is, they'll come back for more and more as costs and budgets increase. It would be naive to think they'll stop at a 0.5 percent increase, it's an open-ended tax with no termination and no promise that it won't be increased. I simply don't see enough solid plans for me to change to my mind to vote Yes. All I see in this proposal are promises from a Mayors Council that don't even trust the transportation authority that is ultimately in charge of the spending. NO thanks. As for your question about what they have botched in Surrey, well, it's no secret that Surrey has been neglected and ignored for years by the high-brows at Translink and the provincial govt'. The Port Mann bridge should have been replaced 15 years ago, it's been congested since I started driving in the late 90's, and it's a joke that they can build a luxury Sea to Sky highway with no toll while charging south of the Fraser residents $3.00 to cross - each way... It's a joke that the Skytrain ends at King George, it should have been extended years ago. Also, as I've previously explained, it's very difficult to use transit to get anywhere that's not near a Skytrain station or major street. Service has been cut to local neighbourhoods. And now they promise to fix all of this if we just give them a little more money? I think not. From what I've seen, most people in Surrey aren't buying it. We weren't born yesterday. Words are cheap but this new tax won't be. They won't stop at 0.5 percent and they will continue to look into other forms of taxation, including a by-kilometre road pricing scheme, which for me is a complete non-starter. Might be time for a revolution if they bring that into effect.
  7. This piece sums up a lot of my feelings pretty well: "Merran Smith of Clean Energy Canada (the spawn of the tendrilous and pervasive eco-activist group Tides Canada and Simon Fraser University) and one of the dozens of Metro Vancouver leaders pushing for a Yes vote in the TransLink sales-tax plebiscite, met with our editorial board earlier this month to discuss her group’s concerns about the economic consequences of a No vote. At one point during the meeting, Smith, an otherwise delightful and intelligent person, launched into the ridiculous talking point that all the Yes men (and women) have been parroting about the vote. She claimed, as many politicians and business leader continue to do, that the plebiscite isn’t a vote on TransLink. The public-relations hack who suggested repeating that mantra to all the six-figure elitists in municipal politics, the universities, the unions and the business community in the Yes campaign should be fired. Guess what, everyone? In a democracy, the voters — not politicians — have the final say on what the issues are and the polls show that voters are screaming loud and clear that they are already overtaxed by TransLink and that they don’t trust the organization with any more of their cash. By a two-to-one margin, for the past week, voters have almost certainly been marking big fat Xs in the “No” circle of their mail-in ballots and shipping them back to Elections B.C., many further infuriated that the Yes side continues to spend millions of public dollars on ad campaigns promoting what is surely a lost cause. For the Yes proponents to continue to push the “it’s not a referendum on TransLink” line demonstrates equal measures of hubris and stupidity. What a slap in the face to taxpayers. And who among the Yes proponents even believes it? If it’s not about TransLink, why did Vancouver mayor and chief Yes man Gregor Robertson scramble to bring in octogenarian billionaire Jimmy Pattison to oversee the money — at least “initially,” as the mayor admitted later? Given Pattison’s age, I suppose “initially” is a given. And Transportation Minister Todd Stone didn’t help the Yes crowd when he announced recently that he has no plan to reform TransLink or its governance, despite the public’s furious reaction to the proposed regional sales tax and the organization in general. Todd Stone? More like Todd Stone-Deaf. Another remarkably inept comment you hear repeatedly from the Yes side is the denunciation of No-vote-advocate Jordan Bateman of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and his complaints about TransLink’s spending. Some commentators have nearly implied that Bateman and his “secretive” federation should have no right to speak. It’s sour grapes, but it also shows that Yes folks aren’t listening to — or in tune with — the public. Bateman’s campaign would get nowhere if thousands of Metro Vancouverites didn’t feel as he does about TransLink. There’s that inconvenient dang democracy again, getting in the way of the technocrats and their mega-plans for the serfs. Another talking point from the Yes side that — like the “it ain’t about TransLink” line — is doing their campaign more harm than good is the claim that there is “no Plan B.” That’s absurd. In politics, as in life, there is always a Plan B, C or even a D or E. The mayors’ insistence that there can only be a Plan A shows such a remarkably low level of imagination and problem-solving that they really ought to step aside so smarter folks can take over their jobs. And who among them thought it was a bright idea to threaten voters with the “no Plan B” claim? Did they really think that extortion would inspire people to back their plan? While most people want more transit and roads, they want it provided more efficiently with the growing, existing tax streams and they want big changes to how TransLink is run. Politicians and other leaders who ignore the public’s will on those points do so at their own peril."
  8. I think you're missing the point, and you didn't say whether you lived in Surrey or not. Do you? I've been here for all of my 32 years and I can tell you that the price of a ticket has doubled in the last 15 years and our services to local neighbourhoods have been cut. Service cuts to buses that take people to, you know, where they actually live. It's all well and good to promise LRT and a few B lines buses on the major routes, but I honestly don't believe it will benefit the average joe that lives off the major arterial routes like the KGB for example. So when they say they'll increase service to Surrey / Langley, they really mean that they'll run transit along major routes, but you're still out of luck if you need to get from your house TO the major route. Do I have all the answers? No. I'm not a professional planner, but everything Translink has touched in Surrey has pretty much been botched. So I voted No, because I don't trust their ability to use this money wisely and actually implement the types of changes that are clearly needed here.
  9. Do you live in Surrey? Ever had to rely on Transit to get you from, say, Bolivar Heights to Fleetwood? It is just not a viable option and let's just say I have my doubts about their ability to invest in or manage to build anything other LRT and maybe a few extra B lines here and there. Surrey has been promised much in the past and received little. One can hope. I think it sends a message to the provincial government that they need to step in and listen to the will of the people and do something (for a change). Any my forum name is really just a reference to my favourite band and one of my favourite songs, so don't look into it too deeply
  10. Out of the three projects you've quoted, I'd say only the Canada Line is well-managed. Too early to tell with the Evergreen line, and the bus system is great if you live in downtown Vancouver. Try using it in Surrey and you'll see how poorly managed it is.
  11. I voted No. Translink needs an overhaul before they can be trusted with an open-ended, potentially limitless sales tax when they can't even properly manage the existing projects they've undertaken (ie: Compass Card). I also don't agree with the Mayor's strategy of building all these mega-projects over the next 10 - 12 years. They need to take things on one at a time and use their money wisely. Besides which, their campaign of fear irritates me ("Think traffic is bad now? Just wait.." etc etc). They make it seem like nothing will be built unless we vote Yes, which is a complete lie. Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner has openly stated that LRT will be built in Surrey regardless of the outcome of the plebiscite, and necessity will force them to replace the ageing Pattullo bridge.
  12. I love seeing Quick getting exposed by a skilled Sharks offense. Also love seeing Doughty lose. Two of the most arrogant, dislikeable players I can think of getting humbled. Keep it up Sharks!
  13. Lions aren't playing particularly well, but this reffing is completely one-sided.
  14. Edit: this one may be a bit too obscure...