TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Successive governments and the media have brainwashed the public into thinking lower spending = better results. No competent business would ever be run in such a manner
|
|
|
Successive governments and the media have brainwashed the public into thinking lower spending = better results. No competent business would ever be run in such a manner
Amare
Senior Member
Except for the fact that most businesses operate in that exact same manner. They want to pay employees the least amount possible, with the lowest headcount possible so they can keep as much as the profit as they can.
Governments just spend money inefficiently (re: that is different than "efficiencies" garbage we hear from politicians time and time again) because no one is there to hold them accountable. By inefficient, I mean they dish money out in a manner that gives them the least bang for their buck, while spending in other areas that are just purely questionable. For example, just look at what Doug Ford did with the Hamilton LRT: wasting hundreds of millions there while at the same time saying there is no more money for teachers.
11th
Senior Member
Not the best example, as their defense is that they were "cutting loss". A better example would be if the line was entirely paid for, and was then mothballed.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Businesses pay whatever amount they feel will get them the best value for their money. That doesn't necessarily mean the least possible amount.
Case in point: A software company is buying computers for their engineers. Are they going to buy them the cheapest possible computers? No, of course not. On the contrary, they'd likely end up buying some of the most expensive machines available, as they deliver the best value through higher productivity and lower support and lifecycle costs.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The problem with public sector is their lack of profit-drivers. A business gets things done efficiently because they have to keep a constant eye on returns - if something gets bloated, it gets cut back, while still keeping an eye on key profit drivers.
Public sector is instead result-focused. The goal is set out at the outset - say, build a transit line, and costs accumulate to reach that framework set out at the start. Some bloating gets cut to control spending, but often the initial goal is politically motivated and has a poor return. And when costs do get cut, they focus on lower the capital expenditure, not how to keep costs in line while still delivering a quality product that will sell.
Another huge factor in public sector bloat is stuff that comes from being a government. Things like spending to ensure transparency, slow decision making because politicians need to approve it, open bidding processes to ensure fairness, etc.
A public sector project must be bid out fairly to all qualifying bidders. This sounds great, but reality is that the time and bureaucracy needed to do this often far outweighs the benefits of a marginally lower bid price. Successful private sector companies often realize that the most efficient way is to instead build a trusted group of consultants and contractors that they can single source work to. It may not be quite as cheap as if they had openly solicited bids, but it ensures that work moves quickly, smoothly, and the final product is quality because those contractors and consultants are trusted.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
No, public sector project costs balloon because of risk. The public sector has every desire to reduce costs (but not cut costs) — political motivation, saving money for other projects, etc, but the projects they take on are 1. Huge/complex, and 2. Underbid on. There's a case for lazy public sector workers, but remember, safety standards have to be taken most seriously by the public sector, MOL is setting the standards so they should be following them after all.
Regigate
New Member
Typically, in a commercial setting, the owners pass on property taxes to the occupant of the building. This may not be the case for all lessees along this stretch, but it's much different than say, residential.
smallspy
Senior Member
I think that you would be surprised to hear about some of the stories of "bloat" at many businesses. The idea of "if I don't spend my budget this year, I won't get it next year" is certainly not something confined to the public sector - it happens regularly at places like GM, IBM, etc.
Dan
KevinT
Active Member
And every single one of them on a weekday. Interested out-of-towners need not apply...
(Thanks for sharing it though @W. K. Lis !)
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Generally, those businesses near the station locations would be hit more. During the line construction is also a good time for renovations, repairs, or redeveloping.
Once the stations are finished, expect the leases to be raised because of their "prime location".
jaybe
Active Member
Some people want nothing to change. If your business is located on a busy street where a subway may be day be built, well that is your call. The Eglinton LRT was years in planning and design. Business owners could see what was coming. It should not be up to taxpayers to compensate businesses who decide to stay through construction.
Transportfan
Senior Member
Blah...
Last edited:
NotAToy
New Member
Lot of those businesses can't go anywhere. If it were a big box street situation, sure.
jaybe
Active Member
You are correct. My point is that change is a reality of doing business. A point of comparison, while not recent in Toronto it is possible for real-estate values to go down in value. Loss in value is a risk for the purchaser. A business owner faces similar risks and challenges. There is always a risk of change regardless of whether a community is vibrant and growing or in decline.
If a community goes into decline, temporarily, because we deem it in the social good to improve transit, that is a risk to the business owner and a cost of running their business. Tax payers shouldn't have any obligation to support that business owner. Subsidizing businesses for interruptions due to civic improvements is a slippery slope and could drastically increase the cost of transit.
Last edited: