| Hamilton has a large number of contaminated brownfield properties that present a risk for investors. What, if anything, will you do to make it easier to remediate brownfields? |
Yes |
The true purpose of government is to protect the population from force and fraud. That is Government's only mandate. Is the sale of such properties without full disclosure fraudulent? Yes or No? If the answer is yes, prosecute the perpetrators to the full extent of the law, the criminal law! I'm certain such consequences would make people reconsider making fraudulent transactions. |
| Hamilton has a lot of available office space in the downtown. Will you move any departments to Hamilton to boost the local economy and save on rent costs? Why or why not? |
Yes |
Of course I'd be in favour of anything that saves costs to the taxpayers while simultaneously boosting the economy. Reducing the tax burden always boosts the economy by giving taxpayers more disposable income in their pockets. The immediate benefits of increased income to the local economy due to increased rent revenues are actually of little or no benefit since all it is is a redistribution of wealth, earned by the taxpayers and redistributed to a select few from the select few it was previously distributed to in the first place. However, if the tax burden is lowered by such a move, the amount being redistributed is also lower, giving the taxpayers more money in their pockets. That is where the real boost to the local economy comes from. Resources are finite, there is no infinite supply of raw materials. The only thing infinite is our ability to make use of what we've been given. Whether we do so wisely or foolishly depends on how we do so. Government produces nothing, never has and never will; all governments can do is consume resources. The less resources they consume, the more the people who actually produce will have at their disposal. The more resources we give back to the people who actually produce our wealth, the individual citizens, the better off our economy will be. I'm all for letting people keep what they earn and lowering the cost of government. |
| Do you believe municipalities should have more powers to generate revenue? If so, what would you propose? If not, why not? |
No |
It's not the purpose of government to generate revenues. Whenever the government does so, they move from the realm of protector to aggressor. The only way government can generate revenue is by extracting money from those who produced it by threatening to use physical force against them if they don't comply. Government's purpose is to protect the wealth, great or small, of those who create it, not to steal it. Government does not create products therefore government can not produce wealth; it can only take it from those who have. |
| Do you support completing the Mid-Peninsula Highway? Why or why not? |
No |
Why not let those affected, the electorate vote on it and decide whether or not they want the highway? What right does the government have to reach into the pockets of the people they are supposed to be protecting and extract money from them without their consent to build something (also without their consent) that they never wanted in the first place? Answer: absolutely none! It's called theft! If a private citizen did that, they would be arrested! Government should be subject to to the same laws as every individual citizen is. To do otherwise is a mockery of justice. Government has no right being in the construction business in the first place! The purpose of government is to PROTECT people from the initiation of aggressive force by others, not to initiate it by using its power to forcibly extract funds from the citizenry at the threat of incarceration if they don't comply. However, due to the vast scope of such a project, IF the electorate votes in favour of such a project and IF the same electorate votes in favour of having the government oversee the bidding and tending of contracts for the project, in order to protect the taxpayers from fraud and deception, that I have no problem with.. as long as it is mandated by the voters and the voters still get the final say on which companies get the contract to build the highway. It's their money, they have a right to decide how it's spent. |
| In 2007, the Ontario Government promised two light rail lines in Hamilton. Will you fulfill that promise to build light rail in Hamilton? Why or why not? |
No |
First you have to ask yourself the following. What is the purpose of government? Do you believe that governments purpose is to provide transportation to the people? If so, How do they provide it? Why not just buy everyone a car? It'd be cheaper. Where does the money to provide it come from? Who does it come from? Do those providing that money have any say in how its being spent on this or any other project? If not, why not? Is this fair to those who provide the money? If not, why not? How can we make it fair? How can we make it so that those who provide the funds for the project decide how and where the money is being spent? Answer those questions first and then tell me whether or not government should be building rail lines anywhere. It's not their decision to make Those who provide the funds should have the right to decide where their money is being spent. If you can't decide where you spend your own money, how free are you really? I'd do my best to create an environment in which it was economically viable to build LRT lines. Building those lines isn't government's purpose. Allowing and defending an economy in which it is viable to do so is. |
| The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area has some of the worst traffic congestion in North America. What, if anything, will you do to alleviate the gridlock? |
Yes |
Allow companies a level playing field to produce economically and environmentally viable alternatives by removing all government subsidies that create an artificially unfair advantage to some forms of transport over others. Before the days of gridlock, we had private rail lines running to Guelph, Georgetown, and Mohawk raceway just to name a few. As long as they turned a profit, they existed and flourished. Gridlock was unheard of, it's a modern phenomenon that only came about after the government began a policy of heavily subsidizing the creation of our current infrastructure. It is only once the government started using taxpayers money to underwrite the automobile by creating vast highway systems that gridlock occurred. Gridlock is a consequence of a lack of competition in the marketplace. There is only so much space one can use for roads and highways. More subsidized roads is not the answer, it'll only worsen the problem by using up more land to encourage even more gridlock. We need to create an economic environment where viable alternatives can once again flourish. |
| Will you complete the job of uploading social services costs to the Province? Why or why not? |
No |
No, I'd eliminate those costs altogether and let the people vote for how their tax money is spent, how much is spent, where it's spent and what it's spent on. If such a policy was implemented, you'd see a marked improvement in the efficiency and quality of services provided here in Hamilton as well as everywhere else. Nobody likes to see people suffering in their own backyard. |
| Do you support term limits for municipal politicians? Why or why not? |
No |
As long as the electorate thinks the person in question is doing a good job at representing their interests, they will continue to vote for them. By what right do we believe we have the right to refuse them the right to exercise that choice? Telling others what to do"for their own good" is never for their own good but for the good of others. It's unfair competition; the start on the long slow slope toward totalitarianism and it's done in the name of freedom and fairness. Fair to whom? Certainly not to the persons prohibited from participating in the electoral process or those who would vote for them. |
