The article doesn’t really go into details of what the developer has planned.
I have to assume they are looking to demolish the block and build something higher than 3 floors with a bunch more units?
It’s unfortunate if the developer isn’t offering any options for tenants to move back into the new building.
This doesn’t feel like a renoviction though.
What part of this change changes that? These locations are setup so that they are close to the people who need them, shutting down the locations doesn’t stop the usage, it just pushes it to happen in less safe spaces
Were billions given upfront for this project? Most of the battery/EV projects I saw were mainly tax breaks.
To clarify your point. The privatization in Europe has nothing to do with the lower prices, it’s the lower tax rate.
In places like Ontario we “double dip” on revenue where the LCBO marks up alcohol as any retailer would and makes revenue for Ontario, but at the same time, alcohol tax is also collected.
When people talk about privatization of the LCBO, it’s a portion of that retail markup revenue which we would be unnecessary giving away.
None of this refutes what was said above.
Privatization resulted in alcohol prices increasing.
I’ve also not seen any numbers that suggest that the Alberta government makes more revenue from the private system than they would have a public system.
Every back-of-the-napkin calculation I’ve done suggests that the move to a private system increases access to alcohol for citizens while reducing the government revenue related to alcohol sales.
This article shares the per-capita government alcohol revenue in Alberta vs Ontario showing Alberta coming out on top.
Does that feel like a strange stat to anyone else? The revenue would be based off total alcohol sales in dollar amount rather than volume of alcohol sold, I know it would hard to correct for that.
When I looked into this before (and that was hard to do because good Alberta data seemed hard to find, I don’t have that data handy unfortunately) it seemed like Alberta cirizens spent like 5-15% more per capita annually on alcohol, knowing that negates the value of a per capita revenue number since on it’s own it can’t correct for the extra spent per person.
I would almost want a “government revenue” per “wholesale/retail value” or maybe multiple numbers where it’s “government revenue” per “liter of liquor/beer/wine/etc” and then compare those in both markets.
Because that’s truely what we want to measure right? We want government revenue to be high, while also not significantly increasing volume sold.
Any one who assumes that another party is going to blanket support a non-confidence vote doesn’t understand how minority governments work.
These are times when other parties have the leverage to influence what bills are being passed.
If things got bad enough that no other parties agreed with direction then ya we would be heading to vote, but realistically things aren’t that bad right now, they could always be better, but it’s not bad enough to just throw away leverage.