Daily Aggregation: Wolfdog Vs. Corgi


1. SNOW AND FROST? What are this words mean? No liek!

2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FAIL A Regina affordable housing project becomes market-rate housing, but don’t worry! People are still going to make money on it.

3. SEAN FRASER, FRIEND OF TRANSIT The city councillor commits to a week of riding.

4. ALBERTA JIM New PC leader Jim Prentice will be Alberta’s next premier, and maybe the last premier from the reigning Progressive Conservative dynasty.

5. A GREAT CANADIAN FRAUD TRIAL It opened in Calgary today. Background here.

6. WELL HELLO THERE A Russian fighter stalks a Canadian frigate.

7. ALZHEIMER’S STINKS Spirit Of The West frontman John Mann is diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s.

8. MOM JAILED FOR HELPING HER DAUGHTER GET AN ABORTION The anti-choice activists who work hard to produce ridiculous outcomes like this in Pennsylvania are vile pieces of human shit. To put it generously.

9. THE GRIM 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SPACE AGE’s DAWN On Sept. 8, 1944, London was hit for the first time by a Nazi V2 rocket.

10. APPLE’S BIG EVENT Will the company announce an iPhone 6 tomorrow, less than a week after I dropped my 4S in a water dish?

11. HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL Ninety-seven scientists are participating in a project called 97 Hours Of Consensus. You can read more about it here, or alternately, you can keep your head shoved up your ignorant climate change denying ass.

WOOF Here’s a wolfdog puppy playing with a corgi.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees. He's been with Prairie Dog since May 1999 and will die at his keyboard before admitting his career a terrible, terrible mistake.

10 thoughts on “Daily Aggregation: Wolfdog Vs. Corgi”

  1. (2) Makes you wonder what the point of a fixed price contract is. Are those the ones where the developer guarantees a price and takes the risk for going over cost?

  2. (2) What really bothers me about this is there were three options the gov’t could have taken. Hold the company to the original contract, pay the extra $200,000, or do what they did. Two of those options would have provided 48 units of low income housing that people in this city need. They took the third. That makes me angry. Further, the majority of the people in this province will likely say they did the right thing by saving the taxpayer $200,000. Ugh.

  3. I wouldn’t say they did the right thing by saving the taxpayers $200,000, I’d say they did the right thing by sending a message to developers that the government will no longer just automatically pay whatever invoices they’re sent. They should have at least sent them a letter threatening to take them to court, however.

    Another option that was available there would be for the developer to say, “Okay we took our shot but a contract is a contract so we’ll eat that loss given that we’re already making a couple of million dollars in profit off the deal”. But hey, I guess it’s just fashionable to attack the government whenever things don’t go as planned.

  4. 10. Cell phones are shit. Can anyone, besides those who’ve been stuck in a snowbank on the highway at -40C, or those with ill family family members, really say they’ve done ANYTHING to improve life on this planet?? They’re just a constant worry and expense. Probably going to give us all Alzheimer’s, too. I just dropped my blackberry Q5 and the screen cracked. It actually works fine now with packing tape holding it all together, even tho Sasktel granted me a “free upgrade” new one after just 11.5 months into my contract. (I guess they can only give them away at this point.) Point is, a beeper would work JUST FINE.

  5. Jason, ya the message they sent was that contracts don’t mean anything if you have a good relationship with the folks in power. That is not the right thing at all.

  6. Collette, something would be gained by burning a relationship with a company that’s currently doing other projects for the government, would it?

    Again, pretty sure this could have been handled by one group’s lawyers reminding the other side’s lawyers how a contract works.

  7. Jason, at least it would have indicated to the developer they shouldn’t do it again. If the developer had indeed already “made a couple million dollars in profit on the deal”, which I doubt, it makes it even more bizarre that they weren’t held to the terms of the contract. In that scenario the developer, already a couple million ahead, now owns 48 units of housing they can rent out, or sell I suppose, at market rates. Sounds like a pretty attractive proposition to me. But I’m not a developer.

  8. Actually, disregard everything except the 1st sentence of my previous post. The rest doesn’t make sense. I blame it on a cold. Or stupidity.

  9. Jason, if it could have been handled by a simple letter from a lawyer, why didn’t they send one?

    Also, since when do people (and in this case, government and business) need to be superbest friends to do business? Deveraux should not have been shocked if their friends decided to uphold the contract. In fact, Deveraux admits it’s their own fault. So, if the government says no, how can Deveraux actually be angry about it?

    The government upholding a legal and binding contract is not going to ruin their relationship unless the relationship is built on something unstable. Like political donations.

    The whole system stinks.

Comments are closed.