First blog entry in a month - as you may have guessed, I was on holidays. Then I was at a Citizens' Advisory Committee to the Penitentiary regional meeting in Calgary, then I was at a transportation conference in Saskatoon for three days. Finally made it back to my own bed this past Wednesday, four weeks after leaving it.
Our traditional holiday trip back to Ontario took a different format this year. Usually, we would drive (three days) - this time we tried the train. Andrea had taken the train to Toronto last year for a reunion with her sisters, and had loved it, claiming this to be the first time that she had come back from a trip to Ontario feeling rested. So I agreed that it might be worth trying. Our plan was that we would take the train from Saskatoon to Toronto, then to Guelph, which is close to where my family lives, and then rent a car for our travels about Ontario.
It didn't start well. The train was more than three hours late getting into Saskatoon, so not only did we not get breakfast on the train, but we got to know the Saskatoon train station (which is several miles out of town) really well. Once the train arrived things went better, although the hoped-for making up time never happened, and by the afternoon of day two, train staff had conceded that connections to be made in Toronto would be missed. Then, we found out that there had been a freight train derailment between Parry Sound and Sudbury, which meant that we had to take buses from Capreol (west of Sudbury) to Toronto, which certainly wasn't part of our plan. Once we got to Toronto there was some confusion, but eventually we found the appropriate line to stand in to get our new tickets to Guelph, as well as compensation and food vouchers to use while we waited several hours for the next train.
The rest of our vacation went much more smoothly - a few days visiting my family, a few days in Stratford, Thanksgiving weekend in Millbrook with Andrea's youngest sister and her family, the next week with another sister's family in Toronto, where we went to the Royal Ontario Museum to see the special exhibition of the Terra Cotta Army of the First Emperor of China, a weekend in Deerhurst (where the G8 summit was held last June) for a reunion with most of Andrea's sisters and their families, then back to the Guelph-Fergus area for a couple of days before catching the train to come back. Fortunately this train trip was mostly on schedule, and I'm thinking that train travel is not such a bad thing. The meals are great, it is restful just to read, nap and watch the country go by, and you meet interesting people from all over the world - in our case, people from England, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, as well as from several places in the US. Unlike on a plane, socialization is encouraged, and people aren't in a rush.
We were able to see most of our Ontario-based relatives, and touch base with a few friends as well. There's never enough time to catch up with people, as well as spend time alone, but it was a good few weeks, and we're so lucky to have family and friends who provide us with beds, morning coffee, delicious meals, and the occasional bonus (like Nick Lowe concert tickets from Andrea's brother, who had to head to Ottawa for a conference - not something that we would have thought of doing on our own, but it was a fun night out with Andrea's sister and brother-in-law).
Now that we're back, we're enjoying the company of my nephew Steven, who is finishing a month-long practicum in Occupational Therapy here. Coincidentally, after my last post on encouraging the use of public transit, Steven has been using the bus to get to the hospital every day, and has pointed out that using public transit in this town isn't easy. To start with, he couldn't buy tickets at City Hall - its hours coincided with his time at the hospital. And there are only three other places to buy tickets - SIAST, Gray's Chemists, and a convenience store on the west flat - none of these places is within walking distance of our house. Andrea went to City Hall to buy him tickets last Monday, and was quite amused to find that the sign on the door saying that bus tickets were available had an outdated price list - it claimed that you could get 10 tickets for $18, rather than the actual current price of $20.25. Now, if we really wanted to encourage people to take the bus, tickets should be available all over the city - places like grocery stores, high schools, the malls, the soccer centre - it's a city-owned facility that's open 18 hours a day, unlike City Hall. And other cities have an information number that you can call to find out which bus you should take to get from here to there, and have route information posted at bus stops - we don't have these refinements to our system.
I'm getting caught up on council goings-on in my absence, although in these days of email and texting, I wasn't kept completely out of the loop. When I've caught up with meeting minutes, I'll be posting my thoughts on some of the decisions made in my absence. I was rather intrigued when a gentleman at Sarcan spoke to me on Friday, questioning some of the "bone-headed" things that had happened while I was away. That's the problem with taking vacations in the off-season - life goes on in your absence, and there aren't enough members of council who are willing to ask the questions that should be asked, or who support the brave individuals that try to ask these questions.
The good thing about holidays is that you come back rested and refreshed, ready to start back at it again. And I will.
"The use of travelling is to regulate imagination by reality, and instead of thinking how things may be, to see them as they are." - Samuel Johnson
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Changing our Transportation Habits
A number of people this past week have commented on the picture of me and my bicycle that was on the front page of last Saturday's paper. Considering that the article was about Car-Free Day, which was this past Wednesday (September 22), it was somewhat ironic that the picture was taken in front of another councillor's gas-guzzling truck, which he regularly uses to go the five blocks from his workplace to city hall.
How I ended up in the paper was a result of the reporter calling me to ask if I would be riding the bus to city hall on Wednesday, which was something that had been proposed by the Saskatchewan Environmental Society. They had sent all members of council a free bus pass for that day, suggesting that we could all ride together to city hall for a photo op. I told the reporter that it was closer for me to walk to city hall than to walk to the nearest bus stop, and that I didn't see the point of pretending to ride the bus to get there. I suggested that improving conditions for other options, such as walking or biking, would be a more effective way of discouraging car use - the reporter asked if I would mind riding my bike down to the Herald office for a picture, and what you saw in the paper was the result. I don't want to give the impression that I ride my bike to meetings at city hall - council meetings require business attire, and suits and biking don't mix. But I do walk if the weather is good, or if I'm not coming to the meeting from somewhere else.
For the actual event on Car-Free Day, three of the four members of council who did take this opportunity drove their vehicles to city hall, then walked up to the $600,000 bus transfer station on 14th Street and Central that's still under construction, then rode the bus four blocks back to city hall. Councillor Miller was the only one who actually took the bus from her home in Ward 1, thus achieving the original intent of the idea. For the others, it was more of an illusion.
I do agree with the intent behind such days as Car-Free Day - these are opportunities to look at what we can do to encourage people to reduce their environmental impact by finding greener ways of doing things. That's one of the reasons that Andrea and I have chosen to live in the mid-town area - she has always been able to walk to work, and does. We can also easily walk to the library, to our church, and to the Co-op for groceries, and it's comforting to know that should we be left without a vehicle for whatever reason, we won't be stranded.
But I don't think that city council is doing a very good job of trying to encourage people to find alternative ways of getting around town. Instead of encouraging bicycle use by providing bicycle lanes, we try to figure out what signage and penalties will stop people from riding on sidewalks downtown. We're very good about providing lots of car parking for our city hall employees, but the bicycle rack at city hall only has space for three or four bikes, and it's not very secure. I know that the couple of people who bike to work take their bikes inside the building to ensure that they're still there at the end of the day. Contrast that with the Forest Centre just across the street - it has a large bike rack out front for visitors, in full view of the security guard, but it also has a locked bicycle storage area in its basement parkade for the use of employees who bike to work, and showers and change rooms as well, so that you can change out of your biking clothes. The Forest Centre also has preferential parking spots for people who car pool or drive high efficiency vehicles - check the signage at city hall to see who gets preferential parking, and trust me, neither of those people is part of a car pool.
As far as encouraging use of public transit, we haven't offered city hall employees any incentives to use the bus. A slight subsidy of bus pass costs might convince some to take the bus to work, then perhaps they might look at remaining downtown over the lunch hour as well - if we put back the benches that used to be around the fountain in front of city hall, that might encourage people to have their lunches outside, making that area appear to be more than just a place to walk through quickly.
I'm hopeful that the slight extension in bus hours will encourage more SIAST students to take the bus, but we probably could have done more. For example, I'm not aware of any overtures that were made to the people at SIAST to see if there was the possibility for a bus pass partnership, such has been done with the students at the U of S - Saskatoon Transit saw their ridership increase significantly after a bus pass was included in the registration cost for U of S students - a win for the transit system, and a win for the university, which saw a reduction in its parking problems.
And we haven't done a very good job of encouraging people to live close enough to downtown that car use isn't required. We invest a great deal of money in developing areas that are far from the downtown, but don't spend much on maintaining the infrastructure or the services in the area surrounding the downtown core. And while it's a predictable refrain that we need to do "something" about the downtown, to make it more attractive so that people will want to be there, we don't do much beyond pots of petunias set out in regimented lines in front of city hall.
We need to realize that it takes a great deal of thought and effort, looking at a variety of options and possibilities, to change people's habits. And our job as members of council goes far beyond posing for pictures which suggest that we're doing the right thing - it means figuring out what we can do that will actually influence change, and taking concrete steps to do so.
"Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Jim Stovall
How I ended up in the paper was a result of the reporter calling me to ask if I would be riding the bus to city hall on Wednesday, which was something that had been proposed by the Saskatchewan Environmental Society. They had sent all members of council a free bus pass for that day, suggesting that we could all ride together to city hall for a photo op. I told the reporter that it was closer for me to walk to city hall than to walk to the nearest bus stop, and that I didn't see the point of pretending to ride the bus to get there. I suggested that improving conditions for other options, such as walking or biking, would be a more effective way of discouraging car use - the reporter asked if I would mind riding my bike down to the Herald office for a picture, and what you saw in the paper was the result. I don't want to give the impression that I ride my bike to meetings at city hall - council meetings require business attire, and suits and biking don't mix. But I do walk if the weather is good, or if I'm not coming to the meeting from somewhere else.
For the actual event on Car-Free Day, three of the four members of council who did take this opportunity drove their vehicles to city hall, then walked up to the $600,000 bus transfer station on 14th Street and Central that's still under construction, then rode the bus four blocks back to city hall. Councillor Miller was the only one who actually took the bus from her home in Ward 1, thus achieving the original intent of the idea. For the others, it was more of an illusion.
I do agree with the intent behind such days as Car-Free Day - these are opportunities to look at what we can do to encourage people to reduce their environmental impact by finding greener ways of doing things. That's one of the reasons that Andrea and I have chosen to live in the mid-town area - she has always been able to walk to work, and does. We can also easily walk to the library, to our church, and to the Co-op for groceries, and it's comforting to know that should we be left without a vehicle for whatever reason, we won't be stranded.
But I don't think that city council is doing a very good job of trying to encourage people to find alternative ways of getting around town. Instead of encouraging bicycle use by providing bicycle lanes, we try to figure out what signage and penalties will stop people from riding on sidewalks downtown. We're very good about providing lots of car parking for our city hall employees, but the bicycle rack at city hall only has space for three or four bikes, and it's not very secure. I know that the couple of people who bike to work take their bikes inside the building to ensure that they're still there at the end of the day. Contrast that with the Forest Centre just across the street - it has a large bike rack out front for visitors, in full view of the security guard, but it also has a locked bicycle storage area in its basement parkade for the use of employees who bike to work, and showers and change rooms as well, so that you can change out of your biking clothes. The Forest Centre also has preferential parking spots for people who car pool or drive high efficiency vehicles - check the signage at city hall to see who gets preferential parking, and trust me, neither of those people is part of a car pool.
As far as encouraging use of public transit, we haven't offered city hall employees any incentives to use the bus. A slight subsidy of bus pass costs might convince some to take the bus to work, then perhaps they might look at remaining downtown over the lunch hour as well - if we put back the benches that used to be around the fountain in front of city hall, that might encourage people to have their lunches outside, making that area appear to be more than just a place to walk through quickly.
I'm hopeful that the slight extension in bus hours will encourage more SIAST students to take the bus, but we probably could have done more. For example, I'm not aware of any overtures that were made to the people at SIAST to see if there was the possibility for a bus pass partnership, such has been done with the students at the U of S - Saskatoon Transit saw their ridership increase significantly after a bus pass was included in the registration cost for U of S students - a win for the transit system, and a win for the university, which saw a reduction in its parking problems.
And we haven't done a very good job of encouraging people to live close enough to downtown that car use isn't required. We invest a great deal of money in developing areas that are far from the downtown, but don't spend much on maintaining the infrastructure or the services in the area surrounding the downtown core. And while it's a predictable refrain that we need to do "something" about the downtown, to make it more attractive so that people will want to be there, we don't do much beyond pots of petunias set out in regimented lines in front of city hall.
We need to realize that it takes a great deal of thought and effort, looking at a variety of options and possibilities, to change people's habits. And our job as members of council goes far beyond posing for pictures which suggest that we're doing the right thing - it means figuring out what we can do that will actually influence change, and taking concrete steps to do so.
"Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Jim Stovall
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Why I Disagree with a Flat Tax
Once again, the idea that Prince Albert should have a flat base tax has been raised in council chambers. In my ten years on council, I think that this is the fourth time that it's been raised, always by a councillor from a ward on the hill, saying that it isn't fair that residents of their ward pay more than their perceived fair share of taxes.
City administration will give us another report that will not tell us anything that we don't already know.
Resdential taxes are set as a percentage of the assessed value of a property. On average, properties in the hill areas of Prince Albert have higher assessed values, and thus pay higher taxes. Properties in the flats have lower assessed rates, and thus pay lower taxes. The assumption is that, if you can afford to live in a more expensive house, you can afford to pay higher taxes. To some (those paying the higher taxes) this somehow is not fair. They may point out that everyone should pay the same proportion of costs for fire and police, and they may even imply that those in the lower taxed area of town use these services more, and are thus being subsidized by those who pay higher taxes.
They will, of course, avoid arguments about these lower taxed properties having to deal with older infrastructure, resulting in issues such as frequent water main breaks, lead service water connections and unpaved streets. They will avoid arguments about lower proportions of green space in these areas, green spaces which are paid for out of the same pool of taxes that also pay for those police and fire services. They will stick to the police and fire arguments, claiming that those other things which make an area more pleasant to live in are too hard to quantify, and should just be left out of the discussion.
Of course, how do you factor in the police claim that 40% of crime is caused by non-residents? How do you make that fair? How about the taxation costs that are assessed against all residents for the soccer centre, whether or not you or any of the people in your house play soccer? Is that fair?
In fact, many of the beneficiaries of your city taxes are the residents of the surrounding rural municipalities. Do we have higher user fees for non-residents for such city-supported facilities as the soccer centre, the golf course, the Art Hauser Centre, or the Rawlinson Centre? We even pay a higher proportion of the regional library costs than the smaller communities that benefit from access to the regional library system.
In my opinion, the fairest tax is the sales tax. You buy more, you pay more. And you usually (although not always) have a choice in how much of this tax you want to pay. If you want to buy the more expensive option, you will pay more sales tax. Buy the cheapest possible option, or forgo the purchase altogether, and you will pay less.
I'm quite certain this report will show that a base tax will result in a tax reduction of a few hundred dollars to high value homes. It will show a similar tax increase for homes in the mid- and lower ranges. Proportionally, the decrease to the high value home will be smaller than the increase to the low value home. If you're currently paying a $4,000 tax bill, a decrease of $400 is 10%. If you're currently paying a $2000 tax bill, an increase of $400 is a 20% increase. And I would suggest that if you're a senior on a fixed income, just trying to stay in your own home for as long as possible, that additional expense might be enough to push you out of your home. I would also suggest that the $400 break that the more highly assessed family might receive would not be as life-changing.
Most of the residents of Ward Three would be negatively affected by a flat tax. As their representative, I will continue to argue against the imposition of such a tax. If we're so concerned about our tax revenues, let's look at ways of decreasing our expenses. Let's truly review the entire budget this time, instead of rushing it through and not even looking at the largest piece of it - the police budget. Let's look at ways of ensuring that all users of city facilities pay a fair rate for their use, instead of facing constantly increasing deficit financial reports from the Rawlinson and Art Hauser Centres (and the expected deficit from the soccer centre). But let's not put a heavier tax burden on those who live in the lower income parts of the city, who are also the least likely to speak up and complain about it. And for goodness sake, let's not be telling the public that this will make little or no difference to people - if it made no difference, it wouldn't have been proposed.
"There is no such thing as a good tax." - Winston Churchill
City administration will give us another report that will not tell us anything that we don't already know.
Resdential taxes are set as a percentage of the assessed value of a property. On average, properties in the hill areas of Prince Albert have higher assessed values, and thus pay higher taxes. Properties in the flats have lower assessed rates, and thus pay lower taxes. The assumption is that, if you can afford to live in a more expensive house, you can afford to pay higher taxes. To some (those paying the higher taxes) this somehow is not fair. They may point out that everyone should pay the same proportion of costs for fire and police, and they may even imply that those in the lower taxed area of town use these services more, and are thus being subsidized by those who pay higher taxes.
They will, of course, avoid arguments about these lower taxed properties having to deal with older infrastructure, resulting in issues such as frequent water main breaks, lead service water connections and unpaved streets. They will avoid arguments about lower proportions of green space in these areas, green spaces which are paid for out of the same pool of taxes that also pay for those police and fire services. They will stick to the police and fire arguments, claiming that those other things which make an area more pleasant to live in are too hard to quantify, and should just be left out of the discussion.
Of course, how do you factor in the police claim that 40% of crime is caused by non-residents? How do you make that fair? How about the taxation costs that are assessed against all residents for the soccer centre, whether or not you or any of the people in your house play soccer? Is that fair?
In fact, many of the beneficiaries of your city taxes are the residents of the surrounding rural municipalities. Do we have higher user fees for non-residents for such city-supported facilities as the soccer centre, the golf course, the Art Hauser Centre, or the Rawlinson Centre? We even pay a higher proportion of the regional library costs than the smaller communities that benefit from access to the regional library system.
In my opinion, the fairest tax is the sales tax. You buy more, you pay more. And you usually (although not always) have a choice in how much of this tax you want to pay. If you want to buy the more expensive option, you will pay more sales tax. Buy the cheapest possible option, or forgo the purchase altogether, and you will pay less.
I'm quite certain this report will show that a base tax will result in a tax reduction of a few hundred dollars to high value homes. It will show a similar tax increase for homes in the mid- and lower ranges. Proportionally, the decrease to the high value home will be smaller than the increase to the low value home. If you're currently paying a $4,000 tax bill, a decrease of $400 is 10%. If you're currently paying a $2000 tax bill, an increase of $400 is a 20% increase. And I would suggest that if you're a senior on a fixed income, just trying to stay in your own home for as long as possible, that additional expense might be enough to push you out of your home. I would also suggest that the $400 break that the more highly assessed family might receive would not be as life-changing.
Most of the residents of Ward Three would be negatively affected by a flat tax. As their representative, I will continue to argue against the imposition of such a tax. If we're so concerned about our tax revenues, let's look at ways of decreasing our expenses. Let's truly review the entire budget this time, instead of rushing it through and not even looking at the largest piece of it - the police budget. Let's look at ways of ensuring that all users of city facilities pay a fair rate for their use, instead of facing constantly increasing deficit financial reports from the Rawlinson and Art Hauser Centres (and the expected deficit from the soccer centre). But let's not put a heavier tax burden on those who live in the lower income parts of the city, who are also the least likely to speak up and complain about it. And for goodness sake, let's not be telling the public that this will make little or no difference to people - if it made no difference, it wouldn't have been proposed.
"There is no such thing as a good tax." - Winston Churchill
Sunday, September 12, 2010
An Evening of Fine Local Food
Last evening, Andrea and I had the good fortune to attend the dining event at the Forest Centre, coordinated by the PA tourism group. Not surprisingly, it was sold out, and it turned out to be a great celebration of local foods, prepared and presented by local chefs. Everything from the appetizers to the dessert, including the wine (several varieties made from rhubarb, strawberries, raspberries, and cherries) and beer, was made from Saskatchewan products, and were excellent examples of the creativity that local culinary artists are eager to share with consumers. People often talk about the creative arts community that we have in Prince Albert - last night is the first time that I can remember that we've enjoyed a similar celebration of food.
The location, in the atrium of the Forest Centre, was also great. I go there often, since Andrea is fortunate enough to work there, but several people mentioned to us that this was their first time there, and they were amazed by its architectural beauty. It's one of the buildings in Prince Albert that I think would fit very well with an Open Doors Day - one where buildings are open to the public, which gives them a chance to see the inside of buildings that otherwise, they would have no reason to visit. This concept has worked well in other cities, and I think it could work here too, perhaps in conjunction with the Street Fair. And add me to the list of people who think that more than one street fair a year is a good idea - if we could think of different themes, such as this day which was focused on food, that might provide enough variety so that people would want to keep coming back.
After dinner, we went across the street for the third annual outdoor cinema. The crowd was smaller than in the last two years, perhaps because the evenings are chilly now, but it was a perfect night for watching a movie if you were prepared for the cold - clear, no wind, no rain, and it got dark early enough so that the movie was over before ten. And as veterans of this, we were prepared, with lawn chairs, sleeping bags, and hats. This year's movie was Alice in Wonderland, and although Andrea complained at length afterwards because it didn't resemble the book much, it certainly seemed to engross those who were there.
I enjoy these events where the focus is on the downtown. I wish that more of our civic leaders, and the businesses which are located downtown, would actively participate. There's always lots of talk about needing to revitalize our downtown - we need more people who do more than talk, but who actually show up and help with the celebrations. In this case, those who weren't there missed a great meal, and a good movie experience afterward.
"If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." - JRR Tolkien
The location, in the atrium of the Forest Centre, was also great. I go there often, since Andrea is fortunate enough to work there, but several people mentioned to us that this was their first time there, and they were amazed by its architectural beauty. It's one of the buildings in Prince Albert that I think would fit very well with an Open Doors Day - one where buildings are open to the public, which gives them a chance to see the inside of buildings that otherwise, they would have no reason to visit. This concept has worked well in other cities, and I think it could work here too, perhaps in conjunction with the Street Fair. And add me to the list of people who think that more than one street fair a year is a good idea - if we could think of different themes, such as this day which was focused on food, that might provide enough variety so that people would want to keep coming back.
After dinner, we went across the street for the third annual outdoor cinema. The crowd was smaller than in the last two years, perhaps because the evenings are chilly now, but it was a perfect night for watching a movie if you were prepared for the cold - clear, no wind, no rain, and it got dark early enough so that the movie was over before ten. And as veterans of this, we were prepared, with lawn chairs, sleeping bags, and hats. This year's movie was Alice in Wonderland, and although Andrea complained at length afterwards because it didn't resemble the book much, it certainly seemed to engross those who were there.
I enjoy these events where the focus is on the downtown. I wish that more of our civic leaders, and the businesses which are located downtown, would actively participate. There's always lots of talk about needing to revitalize our downtown - we need more people who do more than talk, but who actually show up and help with the celebrations. In this case, those who weren't there missed a great meal, and a good movie experience afterward.
"If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." - JRR Tolkien
Monday, September 6, 2010
2009 Financial Report
Our special council meeting last week was to review the 2009 Financial Report, which has to be submitted to the province by September. For the first time in a financial report, the first half of the report was filled with pictures and bragging about what a good job we're doing. In my opinion, spending city dollars on something that verges on electioneering is a waste of money, putting it in full colour is an unnecessary expense, and including pictures of the current council, when the 2009 budget and spending was the responsibility of the previous council, is somewhat misleading. But it was good to finally see the actual numbers.
And the result showed that we ended 2009 with a debt load of close to $26 million dollars. While we still would have incurred some debt, it would have been less if the previous council had not decided to have a 0% tax increase that same year (an election year, by strange coincidence). The supposed words of comfort from administration that we don't need to be concerned because our debt limit is $40 million, so we're well within that, ignore the fact that we voted to increase our debt limit in order to remain within it. It's sort of like feeling richer after your credit card company increases the limit on your Visa - you're no richer, but you've been given permission to spend more money - at a cost of course. The cost of servicing this $26 million of debt? That will be $5.1 million, not an insignificant amount of money.
The other attempt at misdirection, the statement that most of this debt will not be borne by the taxpayer, is ludicrous. Just because the only debt that shows up on your residential tax bill is your share of the $6.73 million dollars to pay for the soccer centre, that statement ignores the fact that the people who pay water bills, which are now significantly higher to pay this debt and will continue to increase every year, are also tax payers. Just because it shows up on a different bill, doesn't mean that it isn't being paid by the same group of people - different pockets, same pair of pants.
In fact, the rural water users, who get their water from the city, are not paying the considerable increases that have been added to water bills through the sewer rate and the infrastructure rate, although they will benefit from the upgrades done to the water treatment plant.
I wish that we would be more upfront about the choices that we make on behalf of the taxpayers. For example, if we had said when the budget was set at a 0% increase in early 2009 that this would result in a higher debt load at the end of the year, with the resultant higher cost in the long run, people would have been able to see the true cost of the 0% increase. But it's more politically expedient to brag about the 0% increase, knowing that the financial report showing more of the story won't be made public for more than a year after the decision, and relying on people's short memories to prevent them from connecting the two.
"Let us all live within our means, even if we have to borrow the money to do it with." - Charles Farrar Browne
And the result showed that we ended 2009 with a debt load of close to $26 million dollars. While we still would have incurred some debt, it would have been less if the previous council had not decided to have a 0% tax increase that same year (an election year, by strange coincidence). The supposed words of comfort from administration that we don't need to be concerned because our debt limit is $40 million, so we're well within that, ignore the fact that we voted to increase our debt limit in order to remain within it. It's sort of like feeling richer after your credit card company increases the limit on your Visa - you're no richer, but you've been given permission to spend more money - at a cost of course. The cost of servicing this $26 million of debt? That will be $5.1 million, not an insignificant amount of money.
The other attempt at misdirection, the statement that most of this debt will not be borne by the taxpayer, is ludicrous. Just because the only debt that shows up on your residential tax bill is your share of the $6.73 million dollars to pay for the soccer centre, that statement ignores the fact that the people who pay water bills, which are now significantly higher to pay this debt and will continue to increase every year, are also tax payers. Just because it shows up on a different bill, doesn't mean that it isn't being paid by the same group of people - different pockets, same pair of pants.
In fact, the rural water users, who get their water from the city, are not paying the considerable increases that have been added to water bills through the sewer rate and the infrastructure rate, although they will benefit from the upgrades done to the water treatment plant.
I wish that we would be more upfront about the choices that we make on behalf of the taxpayers. For example, if we had said when the budget was set at a 0% increase in early 2009 that this would result in a higher debt load at the end of the year, with the resultant higher cost in the long run, people would have been able to see the true cost of the 0% increase. But it's more politically expedient to brag about the 0% increase, knowing that the financial report showing more of the story won't be made public for more than a year after the decision, and relying on people's short memories to prevent them from connecting the two.
"Let us all live within our means, even if we have to borrow the money to do it with." - Charles Farrar Browne
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Positive Side of Being Negative
Occasionally I'll hear, usually second-hand, that I'm considered a negative person.
I admit, I don't have the happiest face - I'm just not a smiley-face person. Fortunately, in the smile department, both kids took after their mother - they all have great smiles. I don't, and I suppose I do look grumpy a lot of the time, which is not necessarily reflective of my actual mood at the moment. My sister gave me a coffee mug for Christmas once that was labeled My Many Moods, which was covered with identical pictures of a grumpy cat, each one of which was supposed to indicate a different mood - confused, grumpy, content, happy, sad - the expression never varied. My family got the joke at once - I couldn't figure out why she'd given me a mug with cat pictures all over it, or why everybody was laughing. Then I got it.
And my kids' friends were often intimidated by me when they were younger, solely because I looked angry all the time (according to the kids). After helping my daughter move in Saskatoon once, one of her friends told her that he no longer was afraid of me, after we spent some time driving around, trying to figure out how to dispose of a wrecked couch, and coming up with all sorts of ludicrous alternatives before finally taking it to the landfill.
So if you're one of the people who thinks that I'm constantly miserable, just because of the expression on my face, stop to chat, and you might be pleasantly surprised.
And some people think that my tendency to question ideas that come to council, rather than just adding my voice to a chorus of praise, is being negative. Technically, I guess, sometimes they're right. Voting no is coming down on the negative side of a decision, something that many members of council appear to be reluctant to do, even though they might not agree with the decision in question. But if questions aren't asked, if nobody points out areas where improvements could be made, or highlights the potential downside of new initiatives, then how can we expect things to get better? Think of the problems that could have been avoided if enough members of council had asked the right questions at the right time, and voted accordingly.
I will admit that, with the current council, there don't appear to be many councillors who are willing to voice their concerns, and that does tend to make those of us who do so stand out from the rest. To be painted as being negative for doing so is unfortunate, but I'm comforted by being told by many residents that they think that I'm doing a good job, and they wish that more members of council would ask questions and demand believable answers, rather than just going along with the majority every time.
Perhaps of more of us did that, if it became the normal way of doing business, asking questions would no longer be considered being negative, but would be seen as what it is - a necessary step in a good, functional, decision-making process.
"A grouch escapes so many little annoyances that it almost pays to be one." Kin Hubbard
I admit, I don't have the happiest face - I'm just not a smiley-face person. Fortunately, in the smile department, both kids took after their mother - they all have great smiles. I don't, and I suppose I do look grumpy a lot of the time, which is not necessarily reflective of my actual mood at the moment. My sister gave me a coffee mug for Christmas once that was labeled My Many Moods, which was covered with identical pictures of a grumpy cat, each one of which was supposed to indicate a different mood - confused, grumpy, content, happy, sad - the expression never varied. My family got the joke at once - I couldn't figure out why she'd given me a mug with cat pictures all over it, or why everybody was laughing. Then I got it.
And my kids' friends were often intimidated by me when they were younger, solely because I looked angry all the time (according to the kids). After helping my daughter move in Saskatoon once, one of her friends told her that he no longer was afraid of me, after we spent some time driving around, trying to figure out how to dispose of a wrecked couch, and coming up with all sorts of ludicrous alternatives before finally taking it to the landfill.
So if you're one of the people who thinks that I'm constantly miserable, just because of the expression on my face, stop to chat, and you might be pleasantly surprised.
And some people think that my tendency to question ideas that come to council, rather than just adding my voice to a chorus of praise, is being negative. Technically, I guess, sometimes they're right. Voting no is coming down on the negative side of a decision, something that many members of council appear to be reluctant to do, even though they might not agree with the decision in question. But if questions aren't asked, if nobody points out areas where improvements could be made, or highlights the potential downside of new initiatives, then how can we expect things to get better? Think of the problems that could have been avoided if enough members of council had asked the right questions at the right time, and voted accordingly.
I will admit that, with the current council, there don't appear to be many councillors who are willing to voice their concerns, and that does tend to make those of us who do so stand out from the rest. To be painted as being negative for doing so is unfortunate, but I'm comforted by being told by many residents that they think that I'm doing a good job, and they wish that more members of council would ask questions and demand believable answers, rather than just going along with the majority every time.
Perhaps of more of us did that, if it became the normal way of doing business, asking questions would no longer be considered being negative, but would be seen as what it is - a necessary step in a good, functional, decision-making process.
"A grouch escapes so many little annoyances that it almost pays to be one." Kin Hubbard
Sunday, August 22, 2010
More Special than Regular Meetings
I've mentioned before that for some reason, not discussed in council, there were only two regular council meetings this summer - one in July, one the first week in August. This assumes that nothing much happens in the summer, and also gives those who take summer holidays the chance to take those holidays without affecting their attendance record.
But this August we will have not one, but two special meetings, one tomorrow, the other the following Monday. You probably won't be aware of these; they weren't mentioned on the city page in yesterday's newspaper, even though the next meetings in September were. And that's my big problem with these so-called special meetings - they are very poorly publicized (notice on the city web page and on a bulletin board on the second floor of City Hall allows us to meet legal requirements, but not the ethical requirements of openness). They also aren't emergencies - often they're set to have the third vote on a issue that didn't receive unanimous approval for a third vote in a single meeting, often caused by me exercising my rights as a councillor for the opportunity for sober second thought before finally making a decision. Can these decisions wait until the next regular meeting, and be included in the agenda then? Of course, but this way, members of council are inconvenienced, and it looks like it's my fault for holding out for democracy.
This week's special meeting is to have third vote on changing the time of regular council meetings, from 7 p.m. to 5 p.m. I disagree with this move for a few reasons. My main one is that this makes meetings even less visible to the public. At 5 p.m. most people are leaving work, heading home, starting supper preparations. It's not usually a good time for sitting down and watching a council meeting on television, and you'd be surprised at the number of people who make a point of watching our goings-on regularly. And while we don't have a lot of members of the public who attend our meetings in person, this will make it more difficult for those who do. I know that some members of council would be quite happy not to give the public the opportunity to voice their opinions in the council chambers during public forum - this will make an already restrictive process even more so.
The change will also make it more difficult for members of council, both now and in the future, to attend meetings without affecting their other, full-time job. Being on council is supposed to be a part-time job, reflected by the fact that it doesn't pay a full-time salary. Moving the meetings means that those whose jobs have regular-type hours needn't bother to apply - you will have to take time off work to attend meetings. And not just every two weeks - the Committee of the Whole, in camera meeting, which currently is held a couple of hours before council, will be moved to the other week, before Executive Committee meetings, that have always started at 5 p.m. And there's the additional time required to clean up and put on a suit, as "business attire" is required for council meetings. Not a problem if you're in an office job, more of a problem if your job isn't one that requires a suit. Taking this extra time might not be a problem if you're in a job with flexible hours, or if you're the boss, or if you're retired, but most people don't have that sort of freedom to leave the job a few hours early, every week.
So, what's the impetus behind this move? Well, some members of council find that going so late into the evening (meetings usually end around 8:30 p.m.) is tiring, so they would like to go home earlier. Apparently they missed the part of the job description that says that being on council isn't intended to be a full-time, and certainly not an overtime, commitment, and trying to live up to that expectation could prove to be tiring. Nobody is forced to be at City Hall at 7 a.m. every day, and nobody would have a problem with committee meetings set later in the day, particularly on council meeting days or the day after.
But it's way easier, I suppose, to set meeting times to fit one's personal preferences than respect the public's opportunity to watch and participate in those meetings. The only possible benefit to the earlier meeting time is that it should remove the need to provide meals, not only to council members, but also to staff who attend these meetings, at the tax payers' expense. But that's a small price to pay for making our decision-making processes less visible to those who have to pay for those decisions.
Next week's special meeting is to see the 2009 financial statements for the city. These have to be submitted to the province by the end of August. A more logical approach would have been to include these in an earlier, regular meeting, with sufficient time for council to review before forwarding them to the province. In fact, I'll be interested to find out why these are being reviewed so late in the year, and at a special meeting, to boot. It's not as if this is a new or sudden expectation of the province.
So why two special meetings, and not just one? Who knows. We're just told when, and what's on the agenda. And too bad if you planned your holidays based on the announced schedule of meetings.
I often think how much easier it would be if I could just accept the various actions that are proposed to council at face value - if I could believe, for example, that we were moving council meetings earlier to make it easier for people to attend meetings, which was the reason put forward to the press. But even the slightest consideration of the change shows far more negatives than positives, and it's part of my genetic make-up, I'm afraid, to point these inconsistencies out. And while my pointing things out rarely changes the votes or the minds of others at the council table, at least I'm doing my job in making sure that other points of view are put on the table for discussion - a basic tenet of the democratic ideals that should be driving everyone on council.
"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility." - John Stuart Mill
But this August we will have not one, but two special meetings, one tomorrow, the other the following Monday. You probably won't be aware of these; they weren't mentioned on the city page in yesterday's newspaper, even though the next meetings in September were. And that's my big problem with these so-called special meetings - they are very poorly publicized (notice on the city web page and on a bulletin board on the second floor of City Hall allows us to meet legal requirements, but not the ethical requirements of openness). They also aren't emergencies - often they're set to have the third vote on a issue that didn't receive unanimous approval for a third vote in a single meeting, often caused by me exercising my rights as a councillor for the opportunity for sober second thought before finally making a decision. Can these decisions wait until the next regular meeting, and be included in the agenda then? Of course, but this way, members of council are inconvenienced, and it looks like it's my fault for holding out for democracy.
This week's special meeting is to have third vote on changing the time of regular council meetings, from 7 p.m. to 5 p.m. I disagree with this move for a few reasons. My main one is that this makes meetings even less visible to the public. At 5 p.m. most people are leaving work, heading home, starting supper preparations. It's not usually a good time for sitting down and watching a council meeting on television, and you'd be surprised at the number of people who make a point of watching our goings-on regularly. And while we don't have a lot of members of the public who attend our meetings in person, this will make it more difficult for those who do. I know that some members of council would be quite happy not to give the public the opportunity to voice their opinions in the council chambers during public forum - this will make an already restrictive process even more so.
The change will also make it more difficult for members of council, both now and in the future, to attend meetings without affecting their other, full-time job. Being on council is supposed to be a part-time job, reflected by the fact that it doesn't pay a full-time salary. Moving the meetings means that those whose jobs have regular-type hours needn't bother to apply - you will have to take time off work to attend meetings. And not just every two weeks - the Committee of the Whole, in camera meeting, which currently is held a couple of hours before council, will be moved to the other week, before Executive Committee meetings, that have always started at 5 p.m. And there's the additional time required to clean up and put on a suit, as "business attire" is required for council meetings. Not a problem if you're in an office job, more of a problem if your job isn't one that requires a suit. Taking this extra time might not be a problem if you're in a job with flexible hours, or if you're the boss, or if you're retired, but most people don't have that sort of freedom to leave the job a few hours early, every week.
So, what's the impetus behind this move? Well, some members of council find that going so late into the evening (meetings usually end around 8:30 p.m.) is tiring, so they would like to go home earlier. Apparently they missed the part of the job description that says that being on council isn't intended to be a full-time, and certainly not an overtime, commitment, and trying to live up to that expectation could prove to be tiring. Nobody is forced to be at City Hall at 7 a.m. every day, and nobody would have a problem with committee meetings set later in the day, particularly on council meeting days or the day after.
But it's way easier, I suppose, to set meeting times to fit one's personal preferences than respect the public's opportunity to watch and participate in those meetings. The only possible benefit to the earlier meeting time is that it should remove the need to provide meals, not only to council members, but also to staff who attend these meetings, at the tax payers' expense. But that's a small price to pay for making our decision-making processes less visible to those who have to pay for those decisions.
Next week's special meeting is to see the 2009 financial statements for the city. These have to be submitted to the province by the end of August. A more logical approach would have been to include these in an earlier, regular meeting, with sufficient time for council to review before forwarding them to the province. In fact, I'll be interested to find out why these are being reviewed so late in the year, and at a special meeting, to boot. It's not as if this is a new or sudden expectation of the province.
So why two special meetings, and not just one? Who knows. We're just told when, and what's on the agenda. And too bad if you planned your holidays based on the announced schedule of meetings.
I often think how much easier it would be if I could just accept the various actions that are proposed to council at face value - if I could believe, for example, that we were moving council meetings earlier to make it easier for people to attend meetings, which was the reason put forward to the press. But even the slightest consideration of the change shows far more negatives than positives, and it's part of my genetic make-up, I'm afraid, to point these inconsistencies out. And while my pointing things out rarely changes the votes or the minds of others at the council table, at least I'm doing my job in making sure that other points of view are put on the table for discussion - a basic tenet of the democratic ideals that should be driving everyone on council.
"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility." - John Stuart Mill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)