Time for a comment that hopefully spurs some debate.
Tuesday night I sat witness to listening to a council provide a number of reasons why they should advertise in both papers, better communications, the cost of doing business, not beating up vendors, fulfilling their civic duty etc, etc, one councilor even suggested with proper placement we could do it even cheaper. Wow good stuff
This year we had a contract with the promoter to provide advertising at $180 per page x 50 weeks $9000. Administration was directed to go negotiate with the papers to provide advertising in both. When we did both in 2008 we were paying $700 a page lets assume that they do it for even half that amount the cost will become $350 x 2 x 50 = $35,000 a year in theory council just agreed to an additional cost of $78,000 over the next three years assuming only one page a week. (Good Luck)
Anyway this is not the main issue with this post, what amazed me, was what happened a hour later the Food Bank had a request in front of council to waive the Off site Levy on their new building.
(Theory of Off site Levies, are that municipalities charge a set amount to developers or owners of a bare piece of property when they build on it. Dollars that are placed in a reserve to be used down the road to help off set the cost of additional Infrastructure needed due to increase development)
Well the Food Bank being a non profit group ran mostly by volunteers, working on a very tight budget looking to develop a building to house their new home in. Came to council requesting that they waive the off site levy to assist them (approx $7800).
I figured this is a no brainer, especially after council had agreed to support a couple of local for profit businesses to the tune of $70,000-$100,000 over the next three years.
What took place then was one councilor raised the concern about waiving monies that would be set aside for future infrastructure (Gallant), this councilor and a couple of others then suggested that they nickel and dime the Food Bank and look at the possibility of waiving half the Levy.
At that point the Mayor called for a vote to waive 100% it was passed with Councilors Saindon and Londsbury opposed, Gallant put aside his concerns and voted for.
Really amazing there was more concern and opposition to waiving $7800 for a Food Bank than there was to spending $70-100,000 over the next three years in additional advertising costs.
13 comments:
Two sides to one side of this argument.
I personally don't read Municipal ads. But I know many people who do. And of these people, I know many people who read either the Promoter or the Herald. Very few read both by choice. I feel it necessary to have it in both as it is in most other communities with two newspapers. In speaking with a person who works with the Calgary Herald, they think what's going on here is ludicrous. With all the other wasteful spending we've done in the past, is this really that big of a deal? Lets finally keep our population in the light of what's going on!
And additionally, I consider newspapers a local business. I am aware one of our papers is owned by an out of town company, however, it still employs local employees. And with the economy the way it is, taking away municipal advertising could potentially break one of the papers. I, personally, think we're fortunate to have two. Especially since (and I won't mention names here) one paper tends to be incredibly biased and prints only the stories they want you to read.
So, as feared, the price we'll all pay for our new "love-in" Council, is probably going to be higher taxes. Advertising in both papers will not improve communication, it will only increase costs to the Municipality, as Dean has clearly documented. If the Municipality wants to improve communication, how about posting minutes of Council & committee meetings on their website within a week of the meeting, rather than two or three months later, as happens now. This "two papers" thing is a total waste of money and a kick in the teeth of taxpayers. Obvioulsy The Herald got the slate of Councillors it wanted, and couldn't even wait a decent period of time, before asking their buddies (that's a pun) to put them back on the gravy train. What's mext, two clean-ups per year, reopen the Crowsnest Centre, etc.? If this is progress, God help us all. When's the next election?
what happened to the post you had here yesterday?
They are still here, I have not deleted anything.
is it money well spent that all depends on where you are sitting. if you are on council and you want a positive spin on things than it is money well spent. for the public in general they will not find out the details unless they get involved in the procees. the only winners here are the local papers because they wont have to compete for municipal advertising
I personally have not heard any complaints about advertising in only one paper...from the voters. Have you?
I would check Lisa's figures if they are anything like the accounting for the Center we are in big trouble!
If we are spending so much on
http://www.passpowderkeg.com
we are getting ski-poled.
Check it out, all the info on the many pages could go on one or two static page and would be more readable.
(and it doesn't work right in some browsers, that happens when you try to do overly fancy websites and don't know what you're doing.)
I donate food to the Food Bank, but I think the need for FB proves that our economy and "social safety net" aren't working.
Rather than putting resources into a permanent "home" for FB, we should be fix the broken systems that make it necessary.
Also, it seems dysfunctional that the only thing we've built here for years is a FB, and we're plunking a warehouse in a very conspicuous location next to a residential neighborhood where we expect newcomers to buy because of the nice view.
To: Anon 5:57pm
the Pass Powderkeg looks great and works great on my Mac and on my PC.
Not sure what your problem is, but the website looks great for our local hill.
"Obvioulsy The Herald got the slate of Councillors it wanted, and couldn't even wait a decent period of time, before asking their buddies (that's a pun) to put them back on the gravy train."
Did it ever occur to you that maybe they have a deadline? Oh... wait... pretty sure that was addressed as well. Learn all the facts before you spout your ignorant opinion.
P.S. learn to spell. Or proofread.
Hi Dean, I really hope that the new council is taking some time to peruse the local blogs to get a feel of the taxpayers mindset. I live in a 'town' of 90,000 + with one media rag. We haven't supported more than one rag for years. The population of CNP is much less but the council decided to use precious tax dollars to advertise in two papers just to appease an adult spoiled brat.
Funny that this rag which supported the BBoys wholeheartedly is now giving front page space to the outraged residents dealing on a daily basis with the carnage left by the BBoys. No wonder CNP is in deep trouble. Take care
There is no such thing as an " ignorant opinion ".
P.S. Be nice
To Anonymous, Nov. 16/1:14PM
Hi Lisa, I wondered where you were. It's nice to see you're following Dean's blog. However, rather than calling my remarks ignorant, and fussing over a typo or two, why don't you explain to taxpayers why it is necessary for us to subsidize your newspaper? Why not simply sharpen your pencil and submit a bid, and let the chips fall? No, instead, you have to go to Council, and whine, and unfortunately, this new crew bought your sob story. I guess it's the price they're willing to pay, in order to not bring down the wrath of the Herald for the next three years.
I stand by my original post (Nov. 11, 6:21AM) -- advertising in two newspapers is not necessary and is a flagrant waste of taxpayers' money.
PS It's interesting that you are so concerned about spelling and proofreading. I could write a book about the number of grammatical errors I've observed in the Herald. Note, I've used "number" rather than "amount," one of many grammatical distinctions that are not well understood by your staff.
Post a Comment