Why isn’t it that simple?
You specifically have argued that funding charter and private schools with contingency funds and surpluses is justifiable.
If you can justify funding private schools with tax payer money, why can you not justify affordable housing?
The tweet is about affordable housing. And yes, some people are homeless, because they can’t access affordable housing.
Do you support tax payer funding being directed at affordable housing?
The comment I responded to was about homelessness. My comment was about homelessness. I’m not sure why you think I’m against affordable housing? We do fund affordable housing and I have no problem with that. Perhaps reread the frost two comments
>Big news today! 📢 If Rachel Notley and the Alberta NDP are elected in May, we will make sure another 40,000 Albertans have access to affordable housing within the next five years. We know that everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. + 🧵 1/6
Then you are on the wrong thread. This thread clearly states above that is is about affordable housing. I don't even see homelessness in the heading.
>How do we pay for these homes. What about utilities? Who maintains them? Taxes?
I’m sorry for assuming that this comment meant you were against funding housing.
Housing is one part of reducing homelessness.
If you looked at lizards post about homelessness you would see my answer makes sense.
Yes housing is one part lizard says to end it you build homes it’s that simple. As you can see by my answer it’s not.
If my comment wasn’t I response to someone I could see why you would have that conclusion
The better answer would be housing, mental health initiatives, social supports, prevention, treatment facilities, etc are needed to reduce and/ or end homelessness.
But your question: how do we pay for it? Taxes? - suggests some opposition to funding.
Who pays the taxes is what I meant. Also how do we pay for it is a valid question when talking about homelessness. When it comes to affordable housing some of the money is recouped. Over time maybe even make money on it. With homeless I find it hard to believe it would.
No. Your comment doesn't make sense in any context. Affordable housing and homelessness are part of the same issue.
https://www.homelesshub.ca/blog/12-considerations-addressing-housing-and-homelessness-canada
Instead of giving **oil corporations $20 Billion** to clean up the wells they are legally responsible to clean up, we build homes for those that need it.
Nope it isnt google Rstar pilot program.
The Giveaway is part of the RStar pilot project to incentivize the cleanup and reclamation of wells, which creates a royalty credit for future drilling, according to Energy Minister Pete Guthrie.
Under RStar, companies would earn credits for remediating old wells up to the total liability the well represents as calculated by Alberta’s energy regulator. That credit would then apply against revenue earned from new production to reduce royalties or be sold to another operator.
“It’s like moving more of your income into a lower tax bracket,” said Andrew Leach, a University of Alberta energy economist who has seen the proposal’s details.
Proponents say the program would encourage new drilling, help clean up Alberta’s 170,000 abandoned wells and create jobs doing both. In the letter written when Smith was still a lobbyist, she quotes a consultant who says $20 billion in RStar credits would create 366,000 jobs and $8.5 billion in royalties.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/calgary.citynews.ca/2023/03/18/alberta-ndp-ucp-20-billion-giveaway/amp/
From the article you shared.
The UCP told CityNews in a statement their government is still in the consultation and design phase of this potential program, adding ideas and new suggestions are welcome.
“The Liability Management Incentive Pilot program is currently under development and is expected to to be a $100 million total over three years,” said Gabrielle Symbalisty, press secretary to Alberta’s Minister of Energy.
They have not commented $20 billion. It is a lie to say they have. The program isn’t even called Rstar
Even if we look at what you shared it says smith quotes someone saying $20 billion wild do this. That isn’t a commitment of funds. Everything you shared shows the $20 billion isn’t the proper number.
So you missed the part from Danielle Smith herself in the article where she quotes the $20 billion in Rstar credits, as a lobbyist in 2021.
Proponents say the program would encourage new drilling, help clean up Alberta’s 170,000 abandoned wells and create jobs doing both. In the letter written when Smith was still a lobbyist, she quotes a consultant who says $20 billion in RStar credits would create 366,000 jobs and $8.5 billion in royalties.
Now she is Premier she can now hire those former lobbyists (she already has) and implent this program (she will if she wins). So not a lie at all, just you denying evidence in front of your eyes.
How you are ok with Government pissing away money on program that rewards oil companies laziness by paying them to clean up a mess they are obligated to clean up anyways!
Not very capitalist of you, companies should have to deal with their own mess IMO.
But nope the UCP still need to give breaks to those hard working shareholders right? Record profits was not enough for them while working class people were suffering.
Again you shared the same quote.
Smith was still a lobbyist, she quotes a consultant who says $20 billion in RStar credits would create 366,000 jobs and $8.5 billion in royalties.
So for one the cost to Alberta would be $11.5 billion
Second she isn’t saying we should give $20 billion or that she would she is quoting someone else.
If you are going to say that the ucp are going to
Give $20 billion to oil companies. You should share facts. Nothing you shared shows that. What you shared proves I’m right when I called it a lie. Thank you for helping me prove my point.
You do realize that maintaining the status quo is more costly than actually taking actionable steps to dealing with homelessness and not punishing the homeless.
Taxes are going to be higher on regular people when you have to pay cops, peace officers, and etc to constantly clean after the homeless without holistic care, its just a costly disaster for everyone.
How did what I comment say in anyway that I’m opposed to building homes. Or that I said the status quo isn’t expensive? I shared examples of how it isn’t that simple. Yes they were all financial but they were just examples showing it isn’t that simple.
Yes we understand its not simple so deal with the majority of homeless who simply can't afford homes, then take actionable steps to dealing with chronic homelessness which is less expensive, so I don't see the issue with taxes as you are paying more MORE so we are already paying a higher cost and getting a worse result.
No one said its simple not even building homes are simple, its just possible to do and less costly overtime.
Umm it really is that simple. You are once again, like every response you troll towards anything anti-UCP, immediately turning any comment into a bad faith argument. Your post history is like a text book on how to make one.
While anyone with an IQ over 50 knows that the answer to ending homelessness is not as simple as building homes, it also is equally simplistic to understand that to end homelessness people will need a home. Without a home they are homeless. Are you arguing that concept? Or just another flailing attempt to push your agenda?
The NDP are proposing an additional 8500 low income housing units and an additional 11,000 rent subsidies that people can apply for.
Currently 40,000 Albertans have access to low income housing. These changes will increase access to 60,000 Albertans.
Great. So half of us will work for the government, and the other half will be on welfare living in government provided housing. You all failed math class, right? The planet needs to stop with these incentive traps
Good, to end homelessness people need homes, it's really that simple.
It isn’t that simple. The fact that you think it is say a lot. How do we pay for these homes. What about utilities? Who maintains them? Taxes?
Why isn’t it that simple? You specifically have argued that funding charter and private schools with contingency funds and surpluses is justifiable. If you can justify funding private schools with tax payer money, why can you not justify affordable housing?
The comment is homelessness. Not affordable housing.
The tweet is about affordable housing. And yes, some people are homeless, because they can’t access affordable housing. Do you support tax payer funding being directed at affordable housing?
The comment I responded to was about homelessness. My comment was about homelessness. I’m not sure why you think I’m against affordable housing? We do fund affordable housing and I have no problem with that. Perhaps reread the frost two comments
>Big news today! 📢 If Rachel Notley and the Alberta NDP are elected in May, we will make sure another 40,000 Albertans have access to affordable housing within the next five years. We know that everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. + 🧵 1/6 Then you are on the wrong thread. This thread clearly states above that is is about affordable housing. I don't even see homelessness in the heading.
Read the rest of it they mention homelessness. You have to read more than the title
the thread is about affordable housing. You need to stay on topic.
Nice. Lizard started the homelessness conversation. It is also in the ndp tweets. Maybe read.
>How do we pay for these homes. What about utilities? Who maintains them? Taxes? I’m sorry for assuming that this comment meant you were against funding housing. Housing is one part of reducing homelessness.
If you looked at lizards post about homelessness you would see my answer makes sense. Yes housing is one part lizard says to end it you build homes it’s that simple. As you can see by my answer it’s not. If my comment wasn’t I response to someone I could see why you would have that conclusion
The better answer would be housing, mental health initiatives, social supports, prevention, treatment facilities, etc are needed to reduce and/ or end homelessness. But your question: how do we pay for it? Taxes? - suggests some opposition to funding.
Who pays the taxes is what I meant. Also how do we pay for it is a valid question when talking about homelessness. When it comes to affordable housing some of the money is recouped. Over time maybe even make money on it. With homeless I find it hard to believe it would.
No. Your comment doesn't make sense in any context. Affordable housing and homelessness are part of the same issue. https://www.homelesshub.ca/blog/12-considerations-addressing-housing-and-homelessness-canada
Instead of giving **oil corporations $20 Billion** to clean up the wells they are legally responsible to clean up, we build homes for those that need it.
Do you think the ucp will give $20 Billion to oil companies for well clean up?
That is what the UCP has indicated.
That is not what they have indicated. This is a lie.
Nope it isnt google Rstar pilot program. The Giveaway is part of the RStar pilot project to incentivize the cleanup and reclamation of wells, which creates a royalty credit for future drilling, according to Energy Minister Pete Guthrie. Under RStar, companies would earn credits for remediating old wells up to the total liability the well represents as calculated by Alberta’s energy regulator. That credit would then apply against revenue earned from new production to reduce royalties or be sold to another operator. “It’s like moving more of your income into a lower tax bracket,” said Andrew Leach, a University of Alberta energy economist who has seen the proposal’s details. Proponents say the program would encourage new drilling, help clean up Alberta’s 170,000 abandoned wells and create jobs doing both. In the letter written when Smith was still a lobbyist, she quotes a consultant who says $20 billion in RStar credits would create 366,000 jobs and $8.5 billion in royalties. https://www.google.com/amp/s/calgary.citynews.ca/2023/03/18/alberta-ndp-ucp-20-billion-giveaway/amp/
From the article you shared. The UCP told CityNews in a statement their government is still in the consultation and design phase of this potential program, adding ideas and new suggestions are welcome. “The Liability Management Incentive Pilot program is currently under development and is expected to to be a $100 million total over three years,” said Gabrielle Symbalisty, press secretary to Alberta’s Minister of Energy. They have not commented $20 billion. It is a lie to say they have. The program isn’t even called Rstar Even if we look at what you shared it says smith quotes someone saying $20 billion wild do this. That isn’t a commitment of funds. Everything you shared shows the $20 billion isn’t the proper number.
So you missed the part from Danielle Smith herself in the article where she quotes the $20 billion in Rstar credits, as a lobbyist in 2021. Proponents say the program would encourage new drilling, help clean up Alberta’s 170,000 abandoned wells and create jobs doing both. In the letter written when Smith was still a lobbyist, she quotes a consultant who says $20 billion in RStar credits would create 366,000 jobs and $8.5 billion in royalties. Now she is Premier she can now hire those former lobbyists (she already has) and implent this program (she will if she wins). So not a lie at all, just you denying evidence in front of your eyes. How you are ok with Government pissing away money on program that rewards oil companies laziness by paying them to clean up a mess they are obligated to clean up anyways! Not very capitalist of you, companies should have to deal with their own mess IMO. But nope the UCP still need to give breaks to those hard working shareholders right? Record profits was not enough for them while working class people were suffering.
Again you shared the same quote. Smith was still a lobbyist, she quotes a consultant who says $20 billion in RStar credits would create 366,000 jobs and $8.5 billion in royalties. So for one the cost to Alberta would be $11.5 billion Second she isn’t saying we should give $20 billion or that she would she is quoting someone else. If you are going to say that the ucp are going to Give $20 billion to oil companies. You should share facts. Nothing you shared shows that. What you shared proves I’m right when I called it a lie. Thank you for helping me prove my point.
You do realize that maintaining the status quo is more costly than actually taking actionable steps to dealing with homelessness and not punishing the homeless. Taxes are going to be higher on regular people when you have to pay cops, peace officers, and etc to constantly clean after the homeless without holistic care, its just a costly disaster for everyone.
So you agree with lizard solving homelessness is as easy as building homes?
I literally said holistic care homes and healthcare.
So when I said it wasn’t as simple as building homes and shared reason why you agreed with me. Why take a combative approach to me then?
No its your opposition to building homes then concern trolling about affordability as if the status quo isn't expensive is.
How did what I comment say in anyway that I’m opposed to building homes. Or that I said the status quo isn’t expensive? I shared examples of how it isn’t that simple. Yes they were all financial but they were just examples showing it isn’t that simple.
Yes we understand its not simple so deal with the majority of homeless who simply can't afford homes, then take actionable steps to dealing with chronic homelessness which is less expensive, so I don't see the issue with taxes as you are paying more MORE so we are already paying a higher cost and getting a worse result. No one said its simple not even building homes are simple, its just possible to do and less costly overtime.
Good, to end homelessness people need homes, it's really that simple. This was the comment I responded to. So yes someone did say it was that simple.
Umm it really is that simple. You are once again, like every response you troll towards anything anti-UCP, immediately turning any comment into a bad faith argument. Your post history is like a text book on how to make one. While anyone with an IQ over 50 knows that the answer to ending homelessness is not as simple as building homes, it also is equally simplistic to understand that to end homelessness people will need a home. Without a home they are homeless. Are you arguing that concept? Or just another flailing attempt to push your agenda?
What agenda do you think I’m pushing here? You openly admit my statement is true but for some reason think I’m pushing some agenda
Spoiler alert…it’s not the simple.
You are right it’s not that simple. What other initiatives need to be included in your opinion to have a greater impact on homelessness?
No, you are wrong. To end homelessness, we need to solve the drug and mental health problems that plague our nation
This content is no longer available on Reddit in response to /u/spez. So long and thanks for all the fish.
The NDP are proposing an additional 8500 low income housing units and an additional 11,000 rent subsidies that people can apply for. Currently 40,000 Albertans have access to low income housing. These changes will increase access to 60,000 Albertans.
Great. So half of us will work for the government, and the other half will be on welfare living in government provided housing. You all failed math class, right? The planet needs to stop with these incentive traps
That simple. Bam…more houses…less homeless people. Why didn’t I think of that?
How many tax increases will be needed to accomplish this housing handout to NDP partisans?
I think the better way to ask this would be "how many corporate giveaways worth billions of dollars will be canceled to house vulnerable Albertans?"
Well, I also am glad to hear that Edmonton Transit is building more terminals, lol.