Saturday, January 29, 2005
Post Title
So a couple of things that have occurred to me recently:
1. The NHL and the NHLPA should have me mediating their dispute. Not because I could reach a resolution (clearly I couldn't), but I could sure waste a lot less of their time. Their meeting on Thursday (sans Bettman and Goodenow) apparently went on for four hours. What did they discuss during that time? I suspect it went something like this:
NHL: So, you're still unwilling to discuss a salary cap?
NHLPA: Yes.
NHL: Okay then - how about a proposal that includes a luxury tax and revenue sharing *cough* *cough* and a salary cap *cough*.
NHLPA: That sounds okay. . . wait a minute, what was that last part?
NHL: Revenue sharing?
NHLPA: So, to be clear, no salary cap?
NHL: If you'll excuse me for a moment, I have to take a leak.
I mean, really. Think of all the time wasted. These sessions shouldn't last more than a minute and a half, allowing time for introductions.
2. I am in the unfamiliar position of siding with provincial government apologists like Mike Nickel and Stephen Mandel against its critics, such as Michael Phair and. . . Dave Hancock and Gene Zwowzdesky? Yes, Edmonton's two cabinet ministers have complained that the government's infrastructure funding shortchanges Edmonton.
Edmonton, apparently, has older infrastructure than Calgary. And apparently, even though Calgary has a larger population, Edmonton's infrastructural needs are just as great, since its infrastructure serves the surrounding bedroom communities as well. Sure. I can buy both of those arguments. But the fact is that the provincial government needs some kind of objective criterion on which to distribute this funding, and population makes more sense than any of the alternatives. It could have taken each kilometer of road and multiplied it by its age, giving us the objective measure of kilometer-years, but that's overly road-centric, and doesn't take into account when repairs were last done. Or, to compensate for the bedroom community thing, it could award funding to each municipality not only on the basis of its own population, but also on the basis of the number of people living within a ten mile radius of it - of course, then St. Albert's going to benefit proportionally much more than Edmonton does, which would have the effect of compensating the leeches more than the leechee. Or something. I'm sure other measures to address the relative states of repair of the cities' infrastructure exist, but then you'd be punishing cities that tried valiently to tackle their infrastructure problems using property tax dollars, and rewarding those who ignored them waiting for just such a program.
There are provincial funds available to address specific infrastructure problems - project-based funding. That's not what this was intended to be. Providing per capita funding was the fairest option available to the provincial government, and it should be commended for taking it.
|
So a couple of things that have occurred to me recently:
1. The NHL and the NHLPA should have me mediating their dispute. Not because I could reach a resolution (clearly I couldn't), but I could sure waste a lot less of their time. Their meeting on Thursday (sans Bettman and Goodenow) apparently went on for four hours. What did they discuss during that time? I suspect it went something like this:
NHL: So, you're still unwilling to discuss a salary cap?
NHLPA: Yes.
NHL: Okay then - how about a proposal that includes a luxury tax and revenue sharing *cough* *cough* and a salary cap *cough*.
NHLPA: That sounds okay. . . wait a minute, what was that last part?
NHL: Revenue sharing?
NHLPA: So, to be clear, no salary cap?
NHL: If you'll excuse me for a moment, I have to take a leak.
I mean, really. Think of all the time wasted. These sessions shouldn't last more than a minute and a half, allowing time for introductions.
2. I am in the unfamiliar position of siding with provincial government apologists like Mike Nickel and Stephen Mandel against its critics, such as Michael Phair and. . . Dave Hancock and Gene Zwowzdesky? Yes, Edmonton's two cabinet ministers have complained that the government's infrastructure funding shortchanges Edmonton.
Edmonton, apparently, has older infrastructure than Calgary. And apparently, even though Calgary has a larger population, Edmonton's infrastructural needs are just as great, since its infrastructure serves the surrounding bedroom communities as well. Sure. I can buy both of those arguments. But the fact is that the provincial government needs some kind of objective criterion on which to distribute this funding, and population makes more sense than any of the alternatives. It could have taken each kilometer of road and multiplied it by its age, giving us the objective measure of kilometer-years, but that's overly road-centric, and doesn't take into account when repairs were last done. Or, to compensate for the bedroom community thing, it could award funding to each municipality not only on the basis of its own population, but also on the basis of the number of people living within a ten mile radius of it - of course, then St. Albert's going to benefit proportionally much more than Edmonton does, which would have the effect of compensating the leeches more than the leechee. Or something. I'm sure other measures to address the relative states of repair of the cities' infrastructure exist, but then you'd be punishing cities that tried valiently to tackle their infrastructure problems using property tax dollars, and rewarding those who ignored them waiting for just such a program.
There are provincial funds available to address specific infrastructure problems - project-based funding. That's not what this was intended to be. Providing per capita funding was the fairest option available to the provincial government, and it should be commended for taking it.
