A Couple Observations on Reporters

A shorter post today just on two observations I had on the media this weekend.

The first observation concerned this article on muddy signs. I don't really care about the story itself, but this line deserved comment:

"The Free Press requested information from the city on Thursday afternoon... but the city did not immediately respond."

The article is dated for 1 am on the Friday morning. In other words, whichever bureaucrat/secretary got this had at most a few hours to research and communicate city policy (which probably didn't exist on a non-problem such as this) before it was printed. Anybody who has worked with government knows that it is virtually impossible to communicate on an issue in that short a time unless communication materials have been pre-made.

Seeing this phrase always irks me. Rather than wait an extra day to get the facts, far too often, reporters will instead report on something prematurely and it will be either one-sided, incomplete, or filled with unsubstantiated speculation.

In this case, the non-issue wasn't even that pressing. "Staff Writer" would have lost nothing by waiting another day, or even the weekend.

Always be especially skeptical of media reports with the phrases such as "declined to comment", "unavailable for comment", "did not respond", etc..

Second observation: A person from a non-profit in Winnipeg dedicated to helping new immigrants spoke at my church about his work this weekend. At one point he related a story, about his interactions with the media around the deaths of the Hamid Farooq's family. (This is from memory so the details of his story may not be perfect). Essentially, he was being interviewed by a reporter in his positions at this non-profit and was being encouraged to say that the government did not do enough for new immigrants. He told them that the government did a lot for immigrants, and that self-responsibility was important, etc. When he didn't give the reporter the quote critical of the government the reporter was looking for, the reporter lost interest in talking to him.

I am sure that this kind of situation occurs far too often.

The overall lesson: the media does not exist to inform you, that is a beneficial by-product of their activities, the media exists to attract attention and sell it. In addition, each member of the media has their own biases that will shape the news. The media will rarely flat-out lie, but they will often leave out important details or shape stories to attract attention.

Always be wary of what the media says. Also, be wary of what the media doesn't say, it is often as informative.

Also, remember that the media will use some key phrases and weasel words to shape the story without lying. "Declined to comment", "did not respond", "unavailable to comment", etc. are among these. Phrases such as "according to experts", "studies show", "some say", and "[insert vague, general group] says" are also popular. There are others, but I can't list them all, but it's rather a fun game to find these phrases in media reports; it can tell you a lot about what a story's spin.

What's so bad about urban sprawl?‏

Reading over Winnipeg blogs, I came across this. It's a university student reflecting on their values, morality, sustainability, and urban sprawl. On the post itself I'll write only a little. Most of it self-discovery and what not. I do not know enough about the Oak Ridges Moraine to comment.

What I found interesting is that the writer "hate[s] the urban sprawl that surrounds [her], even though [she is] a suburbanite". This seems odd; if a person hates urban sprawl, wouldn't moving downtown be wiser than living in suburbia?

Moving away from directly commenting on the article, but keeping on with my line of thought. Urbanists seem to have a dislike of suburbia and "urban sprawl" and, as is the case of the blog writer, even sometimes think this takes on a moral aspect.

My question would be, why do urbanists believe that governments should force their preferences for living arrangements on others?

Urbanists may prefer living in tightly packed downtown neighbourhoods or in apartments/condos. They may enjoy being surrounded by people and noise at all times. They may not value freedom or space as much as others. That's fine. If people want to live in urban areas, they should be free to.

On the other hand, though, urbanists are in a constant struggle to have municipal and provincial governments enforce their urban preferences on everyone else. Every talk of urban issues comes with the standard calls for governments to promote "urban density" and to limit "urban sprawl". Every attempt to further develop a city outwards is met with resistance, such as Waverly West here in Winnipeg or Richmond Hill in the blog post.

Why should the preferences of urbanists take priority over the preferences of those who prefer the freedom, space, and quiet of suburbia (or even ex-urbia)?

Why is "urban density" superior? What makes living in a cramped, loud, over-populated urban area inherently "better" than living in suburbia, rather than a free choice of trade-offs for individuals to make on their own?

Why should their values and morality be imposed by government on others who do not share them? Or subsidized at the expense of others?

By purchasing homes in the Suburbs/Exurbs, individuals show a preference for the space, freedom, etc. that suburban living provides and are willing to take on the additional inconveniences of increased transportation times and costs to do so. Should this choice not be respected?

If people want "urban sprawl", why should we be trying to force "urban density" on them instead simply because a small group of urban activists wants their preferences forced on others?

Councillors Misunderstand the Meaning of Charity

The Sun had an article and an editorial on councillors Harvey Smith and Jenny Gerbasi providing $200 to support some carolers to a prison.

In general, I would be against the allocation of public funds to private events, but the sums involved ($200) are paltry and, from my understanding, ward budgets are created so councillors can provide discretionary funds for these kinds of things, so this does not particularly irk me. (Although, I am moderately surprised that Gerbasi and Smith would be the councillors to support what seems to be a Christian outreach event with public funds). The Sun seems to be lacking perspective on this issue.

On the other hand, there are two related things that concerned me about this issue, both being justifications of the funding. The first issue concerns Gerbasi's justification:

“What would Jesus do at Christmastime?” Gerbasi asked. “I think he’d support this application. He went to the thieves and the prostitutes and lived among them and cared for them. That’s what Jesus did. Think about it. That’s why I felt kind of passionate about it — and I’m Jewish.”

It annoys me when leftists and progressivists pervert Christian theology to justify their redistributive politics. Yes, Jesus and the New Testament state to visit prisons, care for the orphans and widows, and the like. Yes, Jesus spent time with thieves, tax collectors, prostitutes, and other such marginal individuals.

But, not once, does the the New Testament advocate state redistribution. It advocates private charity and self-sacrifice done out of love for others. There is a large difference.*

Use secular justification as you wish, but do not use a misreading of the Bible or Jesus to justify something that is not spoken to in the Bible or by Jesus.

The second concern being Smith's justification:

“It’s Christmastime, we should be charitable,” said Smith.

This seems to be a common misconception among progressivists. There is some thinking among this group that the use of public funds for "charitable" causes is charity.

It is not.

Using public funds raised from mandatory taxation is not charity. Using other people's money to fund causes, however noble, is not charity. There is nothing moral or charitable about it. Charity requires voluntary sacrifice out of concern for others, not mandatory confiscation for redistributive purposes.

If Smith was being charitable, he would have opened his own wallet for the $100.

Now, if you believe public funds should be used for an activity justify it through a cost-benefit analysis or arguments from political philosophy or pragmatism, but don't pretend that it is somehow noble or charitable to forcibly take money from one group of people and give it to another group of people (however charitable the latter's intentions might be).

As an additional note, One Man Committee posted on this topic, criticizing Brodbeck's editorial insinuating hypocrisy because Brodbeck once gained grant funding for a community center. This is unfair to Brodbeck, as, in the editorial, he allows for funding for community events.

He states in the article:

"A community event is something organized by a community group that provides broad benefits to the public, like a seniors group raising funds to enhance the lives of the elderly."

I'm pretty sure community club socials and block parties would fall under community events.

* For those interested in further theology: Parts of the Old Testament, as the laws of governance for the polity of Israel, did require some redistribution, in particular the year of Jubilee, a tithe to support the Levite priesthood who were not allowed to own land, and laws concerning gleanings. On the other hand, these are quite different from the redistributionism of the modern welfare state. I could have a deeper discussion on this issue, but for now it's tangential.

Transit Fair Increase: The Correct Decision

So, the city decided to increase transit fares by $0.25, an increase of about 10%, ostensibly for the purpose of funding future rapid transit purposes.

This has caused some reaction from the Winnipeg blogosphere.

Some of the criticism is valid: for example, the seeming amateurishness of a sudden unstudied rate increase does not look that good and is no way to run a city (but I don't generally expect better of politicians).

On the other hand a lot of the criticism of fare increases reeks of entitlement.

Speaking as someone who buys a pass every month for work and has been using the transit system regularly for almost a decade, it is only right and proper for transit fares to increase significantly; in fact $0.25 is too small an increase, and the increase should not go to rapid transit improvements, but rather to operating costs.

Transit is a very heavily subsidized service for a very small minority people. The Winnipeg 2010 operating budget can be found here.

About 5% of Winnipeg's budget ($43.2M) goes to direct Transit subsidies (p. 9).

In addition, Transit gets a $30.8M direct subsidy from the province (p.20).(This is, of course, subsidizing Winnipeg at the expense of the rest of Manitoba).

Only $69.2M, just under half the operating costs of Transit ($143.2M), comes from fares.

The operating cost to the city in 2010 was $2.43 per a passenger (p. 23), while bus fair was $2.35 ($1.85 reduced), and even less if you bought tickets ($2.05) or passes. The city paid more for passengers bus ride than the passengers themselves did, in many cases by a substantial amount.

On the other hand roadway construction and maintenance, is funded for $43.2M (although, 2010 is significantly lower in spending than previous years due to lower debt charges and increased service revenues) (p.4). Municipal roadway construction and maintenance in 2010, is effectively the same as the transit subsidy.

Snow removal and ice control is another $31.3M (p. 15). Another $11.8M goes to transportation planning (p. 10). (None of these three expenditures gets program-specific, direct provincial funding).

Transit's combined direct provincial and municipal subsidy for Transit was roughly the same as the entirety of the city's funding for road construction, maintenance, and snow control. Given that Transit uses these same roads, this road funding is also an indirect subsidy of Transit.

We see that Transit passengers get an excellent deal, paid for primarily by homeowners and taxpayers.

For those who will then argue about subsidies for vehicle users, the Federal Gas Tax, which is paid for by vehicle users provided $40.5M in revenues for Winnipeg (p.211), about the same as road construction and maintenance costs. The costs of snow removal and transportation planning would then be fully subsidized. Snow removal and transportation planning also directly benefits Transit users, cyclists, and pedestrians, so these subsidies subsidizes them as well. Transit users also enjoy the benefits of roads, but Transit's gas tax costs would be part of the Transit operating expenses, so it's a wash. (Although, I am of the belief that these too should be paid for through fuel consumption taxes rather than through property taxes and general revenues).

Now, let's look at usage figures (p. 9). Transit users make up only 13.5% of work-trip users; vehicle drivers and passengers make up about 78%.

In other words, Transit subsidies which roughly equaled the entirety of roadway spending, are used to support only about one in seven workforce travelers.

In conclusion, a fair bus fare should be about $4.80, double what it is now.

Those complaining for personal/financial reasons about a higher bus fair should realize the amazing deal they're getting on transportation at the expense of everyone else and should not be complaining about a small increase, especially when it is earmarked to benefit them (through rapid transit) rather than making up the operating deficit of the service.

Those who support massive Transit subsidies for ideological or "practical" reasons should consider a few questions:

1) Why should the rest of the population be heavily subsidizing the transportation choices of the small Transit-using minority?

2) Why should those in the rest of Manitoba be subsidizing transportation choices available only to those in Winnipeg?

3) Why should the city be operating and subsidizing a mode of transportation that requires so many resources for so few persons, many of whom would likely not use it were it not so heavily subsidized?

4) For the urbanists, if you desire population density and the renewal of the core, why should the city be heavily subsidizing a service that lowers the cost of commuting, thereby promoting suburban/commuter lifestyles? It seems counter-productive.

5) Would a private and competitive transit system be superior? (Would a competitive transit system even be possible or is transit a natural monopoly-like situation?)

As for myself, I'm not sure what my position is on transit. Basic transport infrastructure is generally best carried out by municipalities, funded by fuel consumption taxes, due to the natural monopoly of roads in a crowded urban environment, but a transit system for Winnipeg seems fairly inefficient given the subsidies necessary to even keep it running. Would a transit system where users paid the full cost of the system through fairs be viable?

Maybe a transit system only open during peak hours would make it more efficient? Maybe Winnipeg is too spread-out to sustain a transit system? Maybe the system is necessary for other reasons? Maybe a redesigned system could be more efficient?

Anyway, that's enough for now. Maybe I'll discuss Transit again another time.

CWB: Hypocrisy

The WFP had this little gem of an article on the CWB battle.

First, notice that the 7 wheat farmers elected to the House of Commons all belong to the same party. They also all support the elimination of the CWB.

So, which politicians should we trust on the CWB: the western wheat farmers who were elected by rural populations, or an urban union man?

Second, that the opposition parties would even have the gall to argue that eliminating the CWB will provide benefits to wheat farmers so as to better position themselves in voting against it speaks a lot.

As for the mandatory CWB issue as a whole the only question worth asking is this:

Should farmers be imprisoned for selling their own crops?

CBC and Quebecor: Dishonesty

In case you're not up on the going-ons of Canadian media, Quebecor (the owners of the Sun News media chain) and CBC have been having a spat recently.

Sun News has been pressing a freedom of information request on CBC, so they will open up their finances. The CBC, the paragons of public media that they are, have been stonewalling these requests, and have been losing.

Sun News has also been complaining regularly about the $1-billion or so in subsidies the CBC gets each year.

So anyway, the CBC has released a press release accusing Quebecor of receiving $500-million in subsidies over the last three years.

First, we'll skip over the fact that the subsidy is only about one-sixth of what CBC has received over that same period.

We'll investigate the claims:

The biggest chunk of the subsidy is $333-million in spectrum cost that, according to CBC, Quebecor saved in 2008.

It is true that Quebecor was in a restricted auction and won spectrum in that auction, along with other media companies. They also probably saved some money.

On the other hand, this was nothing special that was created for Quebecor. In 2008, Canada decided to increase competition in the television market, so, when they had an auction, they reserved some of the spectrum for new entrants. Quebecor, and Globalive, participated and won this auction.

This was not a direct subsidy, it was not something made to benefit Quebecor, and Quebecor received no public funds.

The second largest chunk, is $117-million in production tax credits Quebecor has received. This is a subsidy and Quebecor did receive the money, but these tax credits are available to anybody making Canadian content and meeting the conditions.

This was not a special subsidy for Quebecor, it was not a direct subsidy, and Quebecor received no public funds.

In total, these two make up $450-million of this supposed "subsidy". I'm not going to waste time on the smaller subsidies, because this makes up 90% of the supposed "subsidy". If you're interested you can find Quebecor's initial response here, which addresses other claims.

On to my point, it is fundamentally dishonest of CBC to compare $450-million in tax credits and savings at an auction, in which Quebecor received no public funds and which were/are freely accessible to anybody, to a $1-billion/year in public funds given directly to a specific corporation.

As for accountability, CBC is a public corporation, their books should be open to all, without hassle. If they want to continue to be a public corporation, then they should realize that we, the people, own them and they are accountable to us. They should not be spending public money to stonewall access to information requests.

Quebecor is a private corporation, they are accountable to their owners, and their owners alone.

There is no valid comparison in accountability and no valid comparison of the "subsidies". CBC is lying and in the wrong.

BTW: I am against the tax credits and any public subsidies to media coporations, be they to Quebecor, the CBC, or anyone else.

Provincial Election

It's been a while since my last post, but with the provincial election on the way, it's time to weigh in on the platforms of the various parties, and see who the blog endorses.

First up, the governing party: the NDP. Here's their plan.
Followed by the opposition: the PC's. Here's their plan.
Finally, the perpetual also-rans: the Liberals. Here's their plan.

Right off the bat, the Liberals have an advantage. Their platform is coordinated in one .pdf document. I normally hate .pdf files, but I do like having everything in one convenient document, rather than spread across multiple .html files, or, for some absurd reason, multiple .pdf files. It is 2011, surely these parties can hire someone with enough web design sense to let me see the entire platform without having to load a half dozen pages. We all have broadband now.

Now that the petty rant is over let's get to the meat. I'm going to go over what I see as the highlights (and lowlights) of the plans by topics of my choice.

Economy

The NDP spends a few paragraphs bragging about their fiscal irresponsibility and slagging the PC's. On the other hand, they do promise to end the small business tax, a surprisingly wise move from them.

The PC's predictably slag the NDP's economic performance. They promise to reduce red tape by 20% and establish a more transparent procedure for creating regulations, which is a fantastic promise. They promise a decrease in income taxes and a permanent Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit (yawn).

The Liberals promise to reduce marginal tax rates. Outside of their platform, they promise to eliminate the payroll tax.

For some reason, the "conservative" party is offering less tax cuts than the other parties. Anyway, this goes to the Liberals. Eliminating the payroll tax is simply smart policy.

Fiscal Responsibility

The NDP has promised deficits until 2014, and rewrote balanced budget legislation to allow them to do so.

For some reason, the PC's think it is smart to be even more fiscally irresponsible and promise to have deficits until 2018, blaming the NDP for lying about Manitoba's fiscal problems. Given the lies the NDP has spread about the bipole costs, I'm willing to believe the PC's on that, but still, a conservative party should at least pretend to be more fiscally responsible than the social democrats. At least they make vague promises to try to end our have-not status (an admirable goal, but there's no substance to the promise). They also promise the ever-popular reduce "waste and mismanagement".

While not in their actual platform document, the Liberals vaguely promise to "act fiscally responsible."

Sadly, that vague promise is the most fiscally responsible of the 3 plans; it beast 8 years of deficits or rewriting the law to spend irresponsibly, then bragging about it. So I guess, fiscal responsibility goes to the Liberals. (sigh...)

Manitoba Hydro

As far as I can tell, the NDP do not mention their obstinate idiocy on this subject in their platform (embarrassment, perhaps?), preferring instead to lie about the PC's planning to privatize Hydro, despite there being a law that they cannot do so without a plebiscite. Although, I guess it is possible for the PC's could simply do what the NDP and simply rewrite the laws constraining their ideological impulses.

The PC's predictably promise to move it down the East Side. A good plan.

The Liberals have the intriguing under-the-lake plan. If John Ryan's figures are correct and it could come in at under $2-billion, I'd support this plan. That the Liberal platform said they would only do this if it was "feasible and affordable" makes it even better.

The NDP lose on the Bipole. The PC's and Liberals tie, because the PC's plans are known to be possible, while the Liberal's plan while theoretically better is untested.

My position on the Bipole has already been posted.

New West Partnership

The NDP do not seem to mention their refusal to enter the New West Partnership. The PC's promise to enter the partnership in their platform. The Liberals do not seem to mention it in their platform, but they promise to join elsewhere. To be fair to the NDP, it seems that they changed their mind on their initial refusal and have been exploring the partnership, but that's a little too bit, a little too late.

PC's and Liberals tie.

Law and Order

PC's: Gang database, more police, fugitive lists and bounties, and more prosecutors. Typical tough on crime stuff, I like it.

NDP: More police, more prosecutors, some community programs. A solid plan.

Liberals: More use of police Cadets, an FASD

Health Care

Why bother? They all promise more money, more doctors, more nurses, less hallway medicine, etc., etc. The specifics of the more doesn't matter, it's all more or less the same track with difference emphasis. None are promising any underlying reforms and nothing will change. The demand for free health care will continue to grow, and so will the costs, and there will be no real improvement in service.

Manitobans lose.

Child Care

The NDP promise 6500 new spaces and 1000 new nursery spaces.

The PC's offer a child care tax benefit.

The Liberals offer more spaces and the integration of some child care into public schools.

The PC's have the best plan. The government should not be subsidizing the lifestyle choices of those choosing to work over those where a parent stays home.

Post-Secondary Education

All three parties support freezing tuition at inflation. The Liberals and NDP promise to expend the education rebate program. The NDP promise to increase spending on post-secondary education by 5% a year.

No one wins on post-secondary education, as a tuition freeze is a horrible policy. The PC's do slightly less worse, because they don't promise to expand the useless rebate program.

Education

The Liberals and NDP offer a bunch of relatively meaningless fluff on education. The only seemingly important thing here is the Liberal plan provide affordable broadband to everybody, not sure what I think about that.

The PC's don't seem to mention education, except to say they will put police officers in schools. They mention some happy sounding progressive-babble about "counseling" and "relationships", but police in schools. This is Canada. Why the hell do we want or need police in our schools? This plans reeks of police state. I simply can not vote for a party advocating police officers in schools.

Conclusion

Anyway, I think the Liberals win the blog's endorsement (sigh...). Ending the payroll tax is a great idea, the NDP are sticking with the West Side route despite all the evidence that it is a wasteful idea, and the PC's want to put police in schools (police in schools!!!) and spend 8 years in deficit.

I have never voted Liberal before, but I guess I will have to swallow my bile, hold my nose, and vote, (then probably try to drink away the feeling of uncleanliness and corruption) the other options are horrible.

The only consolation I have is that this is the provincial party. If this was the federal Liberals, well, I have all the disdain any Westerner has had for the party since the abomination that was the Trudeau years, and I probably would refuse to vote if the Liberals were were the best option. Even so, this is going to be one hard election day.

Sadly, the Freedom Party doesn't seem to exist anymore, because after reading these platforms I really wish I had a third (fourth party, I guess would be more accurate?) to dump my vote on.