Open letter to Daryl Katz -- Build your own arena
Dear Daryl,

Daryl, you've gathered a lot of support for a new arena but unless you
build it yourself, it's not going to be built. There are a number of
reasons. The first, the Edmonton Oilers no longer appear to be a
community team. Although the team has always been privately owned, the
previous owners were perceived to be community based. Second, Rexall
Place is a good venue for the Oilers and well connected to
transportation corridors. Third, Rexall Place is a valuable asset (
guess $100 million as it stands) and probably worth more without the
Oilers lease -- it is not going to be closed. Fourth, without Rexall
Place closing, the economics of a competing arena may not support the
investment. Fifth, the citizens of Edmonton realize that current tax
dollars, future tax dollars, and foregone tax dollars are all tax
dollars. Sixth, you want the city to build you an arena, let you use it
for free, and then give you all the revenues generated from the
building. Would you want to be on the other side of this deal?
Seventh, the only reason this project is being proposed is to increase
Oiler revenues. A renovated Rexall Place would allow this and probably
be available with appropriate contributions from the Oilers and a
suitable lease arrangement. Eighth, other projects (convention centre)
could anchor down-town development and provide more sustained use that
would encourage other developments. Finally, the best way to improve
Oiler revenues is to put a successful team on the ice. Without a
competitive team, it won't matter what the arena looks like.
- posted by Larry @ 1:40 p.m.

 
Let's get serious -- What we need to do to be safe in the air.
The recent changes to airport security follow the tradition of adding
more stringent inspections to respond to security threats.
Unfortunately, they only make check ins more annoying and don't do
anything to make flying safer. It is time to recognize that weapons can
be hidden anywhere and people themselves can be weapons. Airport
security is already moving towards the necessary rules to make travelers
safe. The process needs to be speeded up.

First, passengers need to remove and dispose of all clothing, including
diapers (they can be deadly without explosives). This will create a new
market in disposable clothing which would be a boost to the economy.
Just to make sure weapons aren't concealed where the sun don't shine, a
cavity search is a needed. After the search, passengers would be
escorted to their seats and strapped in. This will prevent passengers
from overpowering the crew. This still leaves the possibility of
noxious emissions. Perhaps cabin crews will have fewer bed pans to
empty and the atmosphere will be more pleasant if passengers are
required to fast for three days before boarding. There is still the
threat of infectious diseases that may be caught by a medical before
boarding; however, it would be safer not to let passengers on the plane.
- posted by Larry @ 1:37 p.m.

 
Great Ongoing Debate -- No Zero's
Mr. Enright,

Unfortunately your program regarding no fail policies did not meet
current standards for fair and unbiased reporting. Also, the focus of
the report was assessment and not student learning, which is the purpose
of the school system. When you submit a revised program, I suggest you
consider the following:

First, acknowledge that there are a wide variety of assessment practices
used by teachers and schools across Canada. These practices are revised
continually with the current focus "assessment for learning".

Second, the tenor of the program was "O MY GOD - There are no
standards". Admittedly, there was a token defender of the no zero
policies; but, his views were not understood or ignored. When you
revise the report you should focus on the many changes that are being
tried to improve student retention and learning. These changes were
made in part because of concern over drop out rates and achievement test
results. Change is necessary to improve retention and learning.

Third, you might include the truly innovative ideas about assessment.
Talk to Alfie Kohn. He will explain the decades of research showing
grading reduces the depth and scope of learning and should be avoided.
In addition, he can explain how an ungraded classroom works.

A report about how assessment is being used to improve learning and
focusing on the future would be more useful for your audience. As a
minimum, assessment should be considered in the context of learning.

I'm looking forward to your revised report. I hope you will take
advantage of this opportunity to improve your understanding of the role
of assessment in learning.
- posted by Larry @ 1:35 p.m.

 
End the First Time Home-buyers Program
The city is moving forward with the First Time Home-buyers Program even
though there is no reason to continue. When the program was conceived,
housing inventories were at a record low and an argument could be made
to create affordable housing. Given that a selection of houses and
condominiums that were available, the argument that relatively well off
Edmontonians needed subsidized housing was weaker. However, currently
housing inventories are at record high levels and there is is a wide
variety of condominiums and single family homes available for less than
the $300,000 ( min 2 bdr-MLS and Comfree under $300,000 2609 units;
under $200.000 321 units) the city is planning on charging for their
units. The only purpose this program will achieve is to transfer public
property (parks) to private ownership.

The loss of public parkland is significant when viewed in the context of
council's stated goal of increasing community density and its
willingness to ignore zoning and neighbourhood plans to allow high
density developments. As a practical matter there is no zoning in the
city and preserving parkland is the only guarantee that communities will
be remotely liveable in the future. Picture your favourite park 20
years from now surrounded by high density developments, all using it to
meet open space requirements.

In addition to the loss of public space, the structure of the program
sets the home buyers up to lose their homes. The idea that people who
can barely afford to buy the condo units will be able to increase their
mortgages to buy the land a few years later is similar to the schemes
that led to the housing crisis in the US and the home grown market
collapses in the early 80`s. If the first time home-buyers are to keep
their homes, their income and property values will need to increase
substantially. Although, if prices rise and incomes don't the first
time home buyers will have an excuse to become first time flippers.

There is no justification for the First Time Home-buyers Program. There
is no shortage of affordable housing and middle income earners don't
need subsidies to buy homes. It is a program whose time has past and it
should be ended.
- posted by Larry @ 1:33 p.m.

 
Betrayal Leads to Low Voter Turnout
Commentators are explaining the massive Conservative majority and the
poor voter turnout by suggesting there weren't alternatives to the
Conservatives. This explanation is only available if the two results,
Conservative majority and low voter turnout are considered to have the
same cause.
Clearly, there were credible candidates and alternatives. More than 40%
of Albertans felt strongly enough about the candidates and the issues to
vote. The silliest argument for the outcome is that Taft and Mason
lacked charisma. I challenge anyone to find a description of Stelmach
as charismatic before the vote was counted. Candidates, platforms, and
campaigns don't explain the voter turnout.

The logical explanation for the low voter turnout is the belief that
voting is a pointless exercise. Decades of betrayal of the electorate
by winning parties suggests that those who stay home are the rational
citizens. My memory only goes back to Stanfield's defeat over wage and
price controls and Trudeau's rapid introduction of the same. There is
the Liberal Red Book; the Conservative mandate to implement free trade;
eliminating the GST. I'm sure everyone has their favourite promise
broken or surprise mandate. There isn't a government elected in the
last 30 years that hasn't broken promises or claimed electing them gave
a mandate to implement obscure and unpopular policies. How many
Albertans voted conservative because they wanted electrical
deregulation, private health care, to be shut out of regulatory
hearings, or the environmental disaster in the oil sands.

After decades of governments telling citizens what they want to hear and
then governing and interpreting being elected as a mandate for any
action it chooses, sane people stop participating. The most effective
thing that the Conservatives and Ed Stelmach can do to improve voter
turnout is to keep their promises to Albertans and govern on behalf of
all Albertans, not just the 22% who elected them.

However there are signs that this won't happen. Despite assurances that
a variety of user groups would have expenses covered to appear before
the Alberta Utilities Commission, made to assure opponents of Bill 46
the practice would continue, the Utilities Consumer Advocate has already
written to the Board saying that UCA should represent all user groups at
the Board hearings and don't expect to be welcome at pipeline and
transmission hearings unless you own the land in front of the bulldozer.
Despite being told the Third Way is dead, Ron Liepert is citing the
Mazankowski and Graydon reports, which advocated market solutions and
reduced coverage, as the basis of his proposed health care solutions.
Despite promising to raise royalty rates beginning in 2009 there are
signs (fine tuning needed, the Syncrude contract) that increases will be
less than promised. And despite promises to eliminate health care
premiums and fund the teachers pension liability and memorandum, Iris
Evans is saying there is not enough money to fund the promises made
during the election campaign.

The conservatives were given a mandate to meet Alberta's infrastructure
needs; improve the health care system (not shift costs to individuals);
ensure Albertans a fair share of resource revenues; improve and maintain
the opportunities for citizen participation; and maintain and improve
public education. So far it looks like promises are just that, the
smoke and mirrors needed to get elected. If Albertans are expected to
vote, that vote must have meaning.
- posted by Larry @ 1:30 p.m.

 
Do Albertans Benefit From Oilsands Development?
Alberta is currently reviewing the royalties assessed on oil and gas
production. This review has come about because ordinary Albertans feel
the royalties charged on oil sands production is not sufficient. The
sore point is the 1% royalty charged while capital costs are being
recovered. This is a particular problem for the oil sands because
capital costs are always being incurred because of the nature of the
operations. This extends the time before 25% royalties are paid. It
isn't the same as drilling a well and hooking it up. The nature of the
operation is different and a different approach to royalties is needed
if Albertans are to get a fair return on their resources.

An indicator that the royalty returns favour industry is the multiple
oil sands projects being built and planned. The current regime is so
attractive that companies are willing to pay inflated prices for
workers, plants, equipment and mineral rights. (Why wouldn't they, they
don't pay royalties until they have recovered the inflated costs).
Meanwhile, Albertans are paying inflated prices for roads, schools, and
housing, if they are built at all. For example, Edmonton city council
just agreed to move forward with the 23rd Avenue interchange. The cost
overrun is over $130 million. Albertans are paying an outrageous price
to give away our resources. It is time to curb our generosity and make
oil sands development less attractive. Projects are now importing
labour; plan to import plants built in Asia; and exporting bitumen to
the US. All Albertans are receiving is inflation and pollution.

In addition to the royalty rates, the review committee should be asking:
What is included in capital costs?
Is the definition such that capital costs are never recovered?
After considering the inflation related to the oilsands, do Albertans
receive any net benefit?
- posted by Larry @ 1:28 p.m.