Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 195 posts

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#171

Post by timecube »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #136
abz10 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the down-voters at least tell me why? Thx

The explanation is simple: Canada is socialist. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.". The problem with Canadians is that they don't like to run out of money to support their socialism, so even suggesting to consider giving up to taxes is worse than blasphemy, it's counter-revolution.

Canada is in no way a socialist country. Perhaps the term you're looking for is "social democracy".

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#172

Post by mistermann »

Canada wrote: post #163
msbarnett wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Texas is not part of the US federal government, not even a subset. And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. As recent as the 1949 it was an entirely separate country. It is a latecomer to the Canadian Confederation. America is not unique in its federalism. > Canada is under a single sovereign, with the provincial governments being smalle…

> And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. Name one indictable offense unique to any province. Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces. There is a real difference between the sovereignty of a Canadian province and a US state. In Canada the federal government has substantially more…

> Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces.

Possession of Marijuana in BC vs the rest of the country.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#173

Post by colomon »

stephenboyd wrote: post #158

So Newfoundland has been paying to relocate communities since the 1950s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resettlement_(Newfoundland) I'm looking through the government's publications to try to understand this better. Does anyone here know if the relocation assistance includes any help relocating the community intact to a new location, or are they simply being paid to dissolve the community and leave? It would be intere…

My understanding is third hand at best, but certainly the stuff I've read / heard from the 80s talking about the first wave of resettlement was quite bitter.

"The Government Game": http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/02/game.htm "The Blow Below The Belt": http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/07/blowbelow.htm "West Moon": http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/01/west.htm

"To a place called Placentia, well, some of them went, And in finding a new home their allowances spent; So for jobs they went lookin' but they looked all in vain, For the roof had caved in on the government game."

"Now they're scattered like dried leaves from hell to high water..."

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#174

Post by acchow »

trapperkeeper79 wrote: post #133
CountSessine wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand; this column simply re-iterates what I said. Needless to say, developers once burned have now tightened up the contracts. Buyers must realize that developers get their financing on the basis of pre-sales and rightfully expect and deserve all pre-sales in their development to complete. So, the pre-sale game changed. But probably for the better. Builders offer the 'pre-sale discount' because th…

In Toronto, I heard stories of brokers buying 5-10 pre-release condos and selling them all before taking possession. These people didn't have cash to pay more than the deposit and became millionaires overnight. I don't know how pervasive this was though. There are not too many asset classes where one can pull this off .. so I guess kudos to those people.

This is not easy to do. Most developers in Toronto will not allow you to post on MLS before possession. And many will not even allow reassignment (change the name of who will own the condo).

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#175

Post by colomon »

jkaunisv1 wrote: post #32
balabaster wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny, as a young'un I felt the draw to the city and have worked in some of the greatest cities in the world. Now I'm still not old, but I find myself drawn to places like this. I feel like they could turn their slump into a booming tourism trade. There's nothing like the ocean and the large majority of people only ever get to see it on vacation. I grew up next to the ocean and even in a city where we have easy…

I'm surprised somebody hasn't started a software company in a place like this. Maybe not the very out of the way island featured in the article but similar ones. Rent must be dirt cheap. I wonder how big a company (or collective of freelancers?) it would take to save a town like that.

Hell, I'd love to move to Newfoundland, but even so there's no way you'd ever get me to move to somewhere as isolated as Little Bay Islands. 6.5 hours to drive to St. John's? It's faster to fly from Toronto...

(Edited to add: thought I should say why. Besides fantastic scenery and wonderful people, the traditional music scene there is amazing. St. John's may be a fairly small city (100K), but there are more traditional sessions an easy walk from downtown than there are within an hour's drive of Detroit. Actually, possibly about the same number as in metro Toronto? It's just insane. Hell, last time I was there I was walking back from playing one session and got roped into joining a party of strangers who had an accordion and guitar going on the back porch.)

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#176

Post by Canada »

mistermann wrote: post #172
Canada wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is neither a part of, nor a subset of, the Canadian federal government. Name one indictable offense unique to any province. Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces. There is a real difference between the sovereignty of a Canadian province and a US state. In Canada the federal government has substantially more…

> Name one indictable offense that has force in another part of Canada but not one or more provinces. Possession of Marijuana in BC vs the rest of the country.

Nice try :)

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#177

Post by rangibaby »

dmix wrote: post #69
guessmyname wrote: post #4

TL;DR — Fishing villages [...] sent into a tailspin by a fishery collapse, oil-price slump and mounting debt that left it with Canada’s most severe fiscal and demographic crisis. The provincial government now is pushing to close places like Little Bay Islands altogether rather than service them, offering [...] at least C$250,000 ($189,000) each to leave—and spurring a bitter, three-year fight over whether to cash out…

> some people with houses near the coast are retired, they just want to live a peaceful life near the sea, they don't want to relocate, What about social services? We have public health care in Canada and seniors are the most expensive. Plus, with no industry where are they going to get medication and food? And it's not all seniors, the person in the article isn't leaving because he scared he won't be able to find wo…

Well in the end there is nothing. I watched Mangakino in New Zealand, a town built to service a dam nearby until those jobs were either finished or given to a computer, slowly deteriorate from a being regular town in the 1980s to something more dysfunctional in the late 90s, ending with the entire town being sold in a shady business deal. First the bank shut down, then the hospital, then the gas station...

There was a lot of petty crime committed by bored young people. My grandmother was punched in the face by someone prowling around her work at 6am in the morning. A cop was murdered, etc.

Apparently the town is doing better now as a tourist location for rich people; it has a beautiful lake that is heavily polluted by an upstream paper mill and dairy farming, but it was sad watching it slowly decay a little bit every day.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#178

Post by msbarnett »

Canada wrote: post #164
msbarnett wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell, the entire Quebec legal system is distinct from anywhere else in Canada, owing to its roots in France's legal traditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_law

Only civil law.

This is just goal post shifting. That the US and Canada draw different lines between federal and state/provincial matters does not magically make the Provincial government of Newfoundland some adjunct arm of the government of Canada. Yes, in Canada, criminal law is a purely federal matter. Things that aren't a federal matter, like civil law, or like the bloody relocation program this story was about, vary wildly between provinces.

This whole insane dispute was whether you could refer to the actions of one Province as being a program run by "The government of Canada" without hopelessly misleading any sane person into believing it was a federal program. You simply cannot. It's a massive misunderstanding of Canada's governments to think otherwise. On Provincial matters, the provinces are wholly independent and asinine pedantry about minuteau of how constitutional devolution of powers to states or provinces works doesn't change that.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#179

Post by sandworm101 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #152
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enumerating the rights of states in the US is hard. The things that are clearly states rights is unclear. People assert various things as being states rights, but I think they are incorrect that this is an answerable question. There is usually an assertion that something is in that category, but others will not agree. Is the right to marry with restrictions a state right or a federal right or both?

Its actually not hard, as there aren't any. States (like all governments) don't have rights, they have powers. And those powers are usually detailed in the state constitution. The federal Constitution limits the powers of states, assigns certain roles to the states, and reserves certain powers to them (or them and the people together), but generally the powers of the state are defined per state by the state's own fou…

State constitutions regulate the relationship between the state and its people. So they do not have rights per se in that relationship. But the term "state's rights" refers to the relationship between the states and the federal government. In that case states really do have certain rights against the fed much as individual persons have rights under the US constitution. This is most clear in case where the state sues various wings of the fed, asserting their rights under the US constitution. One of the largest cases in recent years would be Shelby County[1] v. Holder that struck down much of the voting rights act. At the most basic level, states have the right to bring cases in federal courts.

[1] Shelby County is a local government, a devision of the state of Alabama under the Alabama constitution. Holder is an attorney general, an employee of the federal government and, importantly, not an elected official. Suing the prez is a very different ballgame.

Re: Can payments persuade Canadian residents to move away from dying villages?

#180

Post by AdrianB1 »

timecube wrote: post #171
AdrianB1 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation is simple: Canada is socialist. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.". The problem with Canadians is that they don't like to run out of money to support their socialism, so even suggesting to consider giving up to taxes is worse than blasphemy, it's counter-revolution.

Canada is in no way a socialist country. Perhaps the term you're looking for is "social democracy".

Tomato, tomato. Living in a former communist country that was calling itself "socialist" you can call Canada any way you want, it is socialist. I am not saying communist, that's your "democracy" difference between the two.
Post reply on HN