News   Jul 26, 2024
Maple House Wins Sole Canadian ULI 2024 Americas Awards for Excellence
 979     0 
News   Jul 26, 2024
Three Towers up to 55 Storeys Proposed near Sheppard West Station
 2.6K     2 
News   Jul 26, 2024
A Peek Inside The Canada Malting Silos & Bathurst Quay Revitalization
 2.5K     3 

2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

narduch said:
Honestly, the Liberals don't get to critique anyone else's math. They have made too many spending promises to be realistic. And we already know they are lying about the current state of the books.

The platforms of all 3 parties should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

Vote for the party that aligns with your views and is overall making promises you like. None of them are going to keep all these promises. Its just not possible.
Click to expand...
Case in point: High Speed Rail.

One thing I am thankful for in the coming PC government is the end of talks on HSR between London and Toronto. Such an incredible white elephant it makes the gas plants seem reasonable.
 
MTown said:
Pardon my ignorance, but exactly how would the quoted policy lead to this?
Click to expand...
The extremely high land costs in Toronto, rising construction costs, coming increases in development charges and other contributions is already heavily impacting the bottom line for developers. Enforcing developers to take a loss on 20% of units in new builds will (in my eyes anyway) choke the overall profitability of building for most developers who rely on outside equity to receive construction loans (so the ones not backed by pension funds).

Developers will just take their money and invest it in single-detached housing where they are not encumbered by such regulation. Middle-class housing will suffer as a result.

Granted, the Greens are not alone in pushing inclusionary zoning. The Liberals and NDP want it too.
 
WislaHD said:
The extremely high land costs in Toronto, rising construction costs, coming increases in development charges and other contributions is already heavily impacting the bottom line for developers. Enforcing developers to take a loss on 20% of units in new builds will (in my eyes anyway) choke the overall profitability of building for most developers who rely on outside equity to receive construction loans (so the ones not backed by pension funds).
Click to expand...


Ok, just that bit. That makes sense. I thought you meant all of it (including the laneway housing, microhomes, etc).
 
Northern Light said:
As for Manitoba Hydro, it currently has surplus power as well, has interchange capacity of around 500MW w/Ontario.
Click to expand...

The Ontario grid is actually two grids. Manitoba might have that interchange capacity to N/W Ontario, but the one and only connection between the N/W and the rest of the province is a 430km long single 230Kv circuit. There is currently a project to double that, so 460Kv total.

Dumping nuclear would mean replacing over 9800 Mw (~ 60% of total). I doubt there is anywhere near the trans-provincial capacity to handle that. Billions to upgrade. It's no doubt a competitive market, but once a buyer always a buyer.
 
lenaitch said:
The Ontario grid is actually two grids. Manitoba might have that interchange capacity to N/W Ontario, but the one and only connection between the N/W and the rest of the province is a 430km long single 230Kv circuit. There is currently a project to double that, so 460Kv total.

Dumping nuclear would mean replacing over 9800 Mw (~ 60% of total). I doubt there is anywhere near the trans-provincial capacity to handle that. Billions to upgrade. It's no doubt a competitive market, but once a buyer always a buyer.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting that.

Pickering is the only immediate issue, its less than 2/3 operating now.

You're talking about removing 2,000mw and some change.

That's very do-able.

Darlington is a bigger project and would require some in-province replacement power, but I have no difficulty believing we could do so much cheaper than a Darlington Refurb which could run well over 20B.

Bruce is far enough off its a problem for another day.

Though some foresight would be a nice change of pace.
 
steveintoronto said:
As to "buzz" as expounded selectively by at least one poster:
View attachment 143476
Not that the polls are in any way accurate, contrary to claims, but they are indicative used in an appropriate context, and the 'buzz' is that the only party showing a dip in this poll is the NDP. And the Libs are in second place again.

But it's all transitory..."buzz" or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Whatever this poll shows--which'd be the first polling evidence of a pushback on NDP momentum to date--it doesn't detract from that fact that *up to now*, i.e. the week leading up to this poll, ***what the media had been "abuzz" about has been Andrea doing well in the debates, Andrea overtaking Kathleen for 2nd, Andrea this, Andrea that, etc.*** Perhaps if we're to take things at face value, this is a backlash to that "buzz". ***But consider that the backlash wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for that "buzz" in the first place.***

So now, let us conveniently speak of the "buzz" I refer to as being of the immediate past tense, i.e. the past week of press coverage, leading up to this poll. And may I emphasize the "press coverage" element, which may be independent of the "buzz" related to your own immediate circle, your own silo, insulated from said press coverage. Which in this age of contempt for mass media on behalf of customized social media and "thinking for oneself", may be understandable, but...

Properly speaking IOW, ***if you were to take said last week of press coverage into primary account***, you should have been speaking of Andrea's "unearned" buzz, rather than of the buzz being in Schreiner's court.

Instead, by emphasizing the latter, you're coming across as little more than a GPO press agent, relative to the larger press-coverage reality out there.

So--don't critique me. ***Critique the coverage***. Point out *its* lies and distortions--better that than to self-servingly lie about it and distort it in your own turn. All *I'm* doing is reporting on its existence...
 
MTown said:
Difficult to achieve in a winner-takes-all political system with relatively short cycles....at least as long as people are involved.
Click to expand...

People are clearly the problem w/politics! :)

In all seriousness I'm not sure why political parties through thoughtful commissions, bureaucratic reports or even the odd referenda can't manage to reach consensus on some key issues such they have planning cycles well beyond the next election season.

Quebec has done this a few times w/childcare and w/'right to die' where the parties actually worked across the aisle to obtain consensus and then they still managed to fight over scandals, management issues and a host of different ideas where no consensus was achieved.

Credit to them, and shame on Ontario's parties for not aiming higher.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top