Three American scholars? One is wearing the Order of Canada and the byline says she is Canadian. What’s with the inaccurate headline?

I dunno, claiming that an elected public official questioning a budget item means they don’t understand the value to those on the receiving end seems like an unfair stretch.

Kim has every right to defend the program. That’s part of both of their jobs here. That’s good governance is it not?

Thank you for sharing this Krista. 🙏

*clutches colonial era perils* won’t someone please think of the rats, where will the rats go when the old buildings are gone?

Those part time jobs are not being held by students and young people. They are being held by adults who need full time, well-paying work. Not part time work in service industries that pay minimum wage.

“Sir you can’t take a poppy with a donation.”

George: I put a twenty in another box and only took one. I am owed at least 19 at this point.

“That makes no sense.”

George: I PUT A TWENTY IN ANOTHER ONE!

He is a law professor. Zero expertise in politics, sociology or physiology. So you lost me right out the gate there.

Yes I am. But you’re clearly not applying the same level of scrutiny to other spending items in the budget. It’s okay though, you won’t see my point. I’m with you 100% on scrutinizing budget items, but that’s not what you’re actually doing here.

And Tim’s focus on the right to the exclusion of the same rage driven extreme left is a massive blind spot.

You should be questioning what people say not parroting things that work for you Dave.

Or am I supposed to just salivate at his expertise and drink it up?

Right…

I never said police were sacrosanct. I am also a proponent of questioning everything and anything municipal council does.

But I’m not the one couching spending items like the bike valet and public square against police spending. You’re doing that and I’m criticizing you for that.

And having an ideological issue with policing is no way to be formulating public policy. Just as the real and ever present desire for affordable housing doesn’t have to come at the expense of the public purse or public scrutiny of projects.

We do need housing. It’s the conflating of clearing so-called barriers for developers (read: things that cost them money and eat into profits) with housing supply.

But you’ve already prioritized a public square and a bike valet over policing. Me thinks your issue is cops in general.

Really helpful stuff here. Thanks for sharing.

Policing is a core service of any municipal government. Goes along with fire, sewage, garbage collection and all of those other mundane things that aren’t sexy enough to campaign on.

Clearing the way for developers to make mad profits by removing costs which generated public revenue…that’s not.