Neutrino
Senior Member
Online, the reverse holds.
|
|
|
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Online, the reverse holds.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Are you talking actual news sources, or people rabble rousing on Facebook?
narduch
Senior Member
Similarly, did the Liberals talk about transit at all in last week's budget?
How will the Liberals afford transit projects and all the new social spending? Projects will have to be cut
Neutrino
Senior Member
No, I mean emerging online news and commentary sites like Areo, Aeon, Quilette and so on. Those are the highest quality I've come across, undoubtedly there are plenty of garbage outlets as well.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Easy - P3 allow the costs to be spread out over years. You still have to pay for it of course, but it won't be a big lump in the budget. How do you think all the current IO projects didn't blow a massive hole otherwise?
AoD
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
crs1026
Superstar
It remains to be seen if this is actually a good way to spend, versus borrowing the money and managing more directly. It's no different than the "fix" to hydro rates, which just refinanced the cost over a longer period but at higher overall expense. A lot will depend on whether ML imposes changes on the P3 vendors.... change orders can be very pricey where a contract has been put in place. I'm very skeptical that ML will retain enough managerial control to be sensitive to inevitable unforeseens and new ideas, without running up bigger bills. And the contractors may be very cautious in the prices they bid.... recall Ontario's experience trying to bid new nuclear reactors a few years ago. The bidders built in contingencies, and the end price wasn't at all appealing, even in a competitive bidding environment.
Wynne got lucky in the sense that provincial revenues stayed strong, so her budgets stayed within spitting distance of balanced....at least until now. Clearly this government is willing to spend big. That's good for transit, I guess, but not necessarily good for the provincial economy. At the end of the day it's tax-and-spend territory.
However, it's nice to be judging someone on their track record. Her opponent remains a great big unknown.
- Paul
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Fair - keep in mind the political benefits of P3 (deficit and debt allergy) is a different issue from the economic benefits of P3 (transfer of risk to private sector, private sector discipline, etc), but that's a different question entirely.
AoD
nfitz
Superstar
Which one? An NDP minority, or an NDP-led coalition government?
Off-hand, I can't think of either an Ontario or Federal coalition government since at least WW2.
nfitz
Superstar
In Canada, where it's virtually all corporately owned? That's why they virtually all endorse the Cons and rarely even centrists like the Libs.
Show me the last NDP endorsement federally or in Ontario? P.S. NOW isn't mainstream media.
Global always seems a bit right-of-centre to me ...
I'm not even sure what mainstream press is "The Observer". THE Observer certainly isn't run by students, nor is it Canadian.
The Star. Left? I'd say not given how hard they go after the NDP in general and David Miller in particular. Even their endorsements are centrist, such as Liberal. You have to be pretty far right to see The Star as Left.
30 years ago maybe. But looking at the endorsements, there's a clear right-wing bias - at least in the English media.
Far left?!? Good grief, they aren't even left enough to endorse the NDP. And explain their hardcore anti-David Miller stuff. If you have Star as far-left, what does that make NOW?
And Globe Left? After what, 5 federal Conservative endorsements in a row?
In 21,000 posts during a period of time that Rob Ford was mayor? It's not like anyone would actually deny such a thing. Looking at the time frame, almost all of references where when Rob Ford was mayor. Only one in 2016, and not even in reference to politics. Twice in 2017 referring to Rob Ford.
Recall that in Drug Fraud's book, anyone who opposes a vile piece of shit like Rob Ford is racist - https://nowtoronto.com/news/doug-ford-redefines-racism/ !
Not sure your point here. Everyone knows if you knowingly support a bigot, then you share and spread their bigotry.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you actually trying to suggest that Drug Fraud is not an anti-gay bigot. And he's not supported bigoted and racist politicians in the past?
And all that aside - surely supporting the PCs in a discussion on Transit, is essentially trolling - as no one would ever claim they are going to be good for Transit - not after they ditched Brown's surprisingly transit-friendly platform, and failing to make any substantial promises since.
narduch
Senior Member
If it were that easy they would be doing more of it already.
I'm curious to see what the Liberals are promising for transit. They seem to not care about it as much anymore.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
And they did - how did you think we basically have the largest capital project expansion over the past two decades at the provincial level at the same time when health and education expenditure are soaring?
What you should ask yourself is how NDP will propose to do exactly the same things, be labour friendly while eschewing P3s. Because we know they are inherently "competent"?
AoD
steveintoronto
Superstar
This is very worthwhile discussion, something not really being talked about in the election. At the beginning of today's string, I wondered if people were using the term "P3" (PPP) differently than the understood Western model.
To use P3 or not? It really comes down to building what otherwise wouldn't get built. The question isn't 'if' but 'how'. P3 has built massive amounts of infrastructure in our closest cousins nations, Australia and the UK. And drastic mistakes have been made, mostly in the UK, but also stunning models of success and management, and valuable return to the taxpayer per investment.
It's a bit like questioning using mortgages to buy a home. Good idea or not? Considering that in 99% of cases (my estimate), mortgages are used, even by many who could outright afford to buy cash up front, the detail is in how, not if.
Ditto for P3. And Ontario is advancing on that to the point of now even leaving to the P3 private partners on how best to configure a solution, not just provide a preconceived and detailed contract. Latest major example being Hydrail. The model appears to be right, the public relations hype is something else though. It is being used to avoid doing what must be done with established technology and done now.
The fault isn't in the use of P3, the devil is in the details, and how it can become an 'out' for fulfilling a commitment already made.
steveintoronto
Superstar
"Coaltion" has a number of manifestations. Some have certainly been used since WWII.
Northern Light
Superstar
The serious problem in most P3s is how the financing is handled.
Almost all P3s are fully financed. (meaning there is no cash-from-current or 'down payment' component)
That, unto itself, is fine, in so far as the project likely would have been fully financed even if delivered directly by government.
However, private sector financing costs are substantially higher (interest rate) than government borrowing.
Typically, 400 basis points higher (or more).
The difference in project cost over 25 years of financing is enormous.
Assume a 100m project.
You'll inflate finance costs on the order of 60M over the life of the project by financing at commercial rates (6%) instead of government rates (2%).
Add that up on financing 50B in infrastructure the same way, and you extra costs of 30B total.
That's an alarming number.
Now, you could drive those costs down, by extending a government guarantee to the P3 consortium.
The problem w/that is obvious, in that it returns the risk the taxpayer, and under GAAP rules as I understand them, gov't guaranteed debt must show on the books as a liability.
If the P3 was not financed, but cash-from-current, the model would be much more attractive financially.
However, there are very few players who could enter that market, or would choose to enter that market.
Almost all P3s are fully financed. (meaning there is no cash-from-current or 'down payment' component)
That, unto itself, is fine, in so far as the project likely would have been fully financed even if delivered directly by government.
However, private sector financing costs are substantially higher (interest rate) than government borrowing.
Typically, 400 basis points higher (or more).
The difference in project cost over 25 years of financing is enormous.
Assume a 100m project.
You'll inflate finance costs on the order of 60M over the life of the project by financing at commercial rates (6%) instead of government rates (2%).
Add that up on financing 50B in infrastructure the same way, and you extra costs of 30B total.
That's an alarming number.
Now, you could drive those costs down, by extending a government guarantee to the P3 consortium.
The problem w/that is obvious, in that it returns the risk the taxpayer, and under GAAP rules as I understand them, gov't guaranteed debt must show on the books as a liability.
If the P3 was not financed, but cash-from-current, the model would be much more attractive financially.
However, there are very few players who could enter that market, or would choose to enter that market.
Last edited: