Four Years Is life Time In Civic Politics
The public should be reminded once again heading into this year’s civic election that the term for the newly elected councillors and mayor will be for a period of four years, unlike the previous three year term. There also is no recall , so if you’re not content with what a council member is doing, it will be four years before you can have your say to make a change.
Are there issues that appear to be getting slid under the carpet until after the civic election?
The very first one that comes to mind is the proposed storm water utility , or rain tax as the public sees it. The matter had been before council earlier, but staff say they won’t be able to deliver a new model for the rates until next spring. No deliberate delay they say, but it sure seems convenient that this matter won’t be finalized until well after the fall election and a new Mayor and council ( there will be at least one seat open) are hard at work. The public will be told staff need more time to come up with a suitable way to collect the amount, as the initial model had the rate based on “small, medium and large” impervious surfaces on the taxpayer’s lot, a model the City’s Finance and Audit Committee said was just too complicated.
The rain water tax is the latest way many municipalities have been able to tax the public without it appearing that they are raising the taxes. It is no different in the City of Prince George. You will have noticed that your utilities bill has increased to the point where the average home is paying about $1,000.00 dollars a year, for items such as garbage , sewer and water. Other services, which should be a basic requirement of any winter city, have been given their own special designation on the tax bill, so, snow removal and road repair are both separate line items, along with “general infrastructure” fund, which is a nice way of saying the City’s capital expenditures have been on things well beyond the basic needs. The separate line items on your tax bill are no different than putting a pea under the shell and shifting it around enough to confuse the person to the point that you can pull the wool over their eyes. You are still pulling money out of the same pair of jeans, just opting to dig into different pockets.
The cost of local government has been growing at leaps and bounds over the past decade , and the excuse has been the senior levels of government have been shifting the burden of providing services onto the local government “downloading” is the term you often hear.
Local government could have taken the position that, for example, subsidized housing is the responsibility of the Province, which it is.
You may recall that the city bought the air on top of the old Casino for 900 thousand dollars and then constructed subsidized housing on it, all the while failing to ensure that a covenant on the property to build some condos was met. The City is now saying that we can get the air back from the owner of the property if they don’t go ahead with the condos for a buck. That single venture should be enough to convince the city taxpayer that when it comes to looking after the public’s money in a prudent manner, City Hall gets a D minus, especially since the City shouldn’t have ventured into that area to begin with.
I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.
You can hear One Man’s Opinion on CBC Daybreak North 91.5 every Wednesday morning.
Comments
Thanks Ben for the reminder, I encourage you to keep it up. A major clean up is needed at council chambers (and it’s not the floor) ;)
Still waiting for the condos – amazing! Should have specified an exact date by which the condos had to be finished and what penalties would result if they were not. There are quite a few instances when the city spent a lot of time and effort evaluating developers requests for rezoning for certain projects. Victoria and 7th is an example. There was to be an apartment building with commercial on the bottom floor. Nothing has happened. Then a lot was rezoned on the Hart where a hotel was to be built. Nothing happened. A lot was rezoned near Austin Road East for a pub
and patio. Nothing has happened. How come the city gives in to all those rezoning requests without attaching a clause that the rezoning will revert to its previous status if a timeline is not met> Do these developers pay the city for the time spent and if they don’t it is about time they do!
Ben makes some good points.
Lets not forget that the City discontinued the discount we used to receive for paying our utility bills before the due date. This amounts to an increase of approx. $70.00 per year and generated huge dollars for the City.
Furthermore while they talk about implementing a single line item: Storm Water Tax, they remain silent on the fact that they will receive $3 Million per year for the next 10+ years from the Federal Government Gas Tax Fund, and that this money (or a portion of it) can be used for storm water infrastructure. With the storm water money presently in the budget, and some additional money from the gas tax it would not be necessary to bring in a storm water tax. So it begs the question. Do we need this tax, or is it another manipulation of finances that in the end generates more money for the City to spend.??
We really need to ensure that those running for office are asked the hard questions in the campaign, and not let off the hook. As stated above once elected we have to live with the results for 4 years. In that time they could break the bank. oops I forgot. The bank is already broke.
I agree with Ben.
Our tax rates are incredibly high in PG. Our tax rate is 34% higher than Kamloops. There has been a lot of effort in trying to convince people to move to PG in recent years, and an incredibly high tax burden isn’t going to help. I say it’s time to lay-off redundant positions in the city, and cap low-skilled jobs at a lower pay rate that would be more similar to private industry. Slowly phase out the ridiculous rates of pay, and the unions can have a fit if they want.
The city likes to ignore the fact that even if our tax rates remained flat, we would be paying more as our property values have been climbing steadily. This year, some areas of PG saw a 10% increase in their property value, add on a tax increase, you’re looking at quite a significant increase in tax burden.
I say, start cutting city costs, keep taxes where they are now, and maybe the new surplus could be used to provide a better, cleaner looking city.
Well said pgjohn!
The four-year recommendation, approved by Liberals, goes against residents opinions. The four-year term, is recommended by the Union of BC municipalities, without public approval. Apparently, not supported by many BC residents if you trust media reporting. A four-year term supports UBCM members, mayors and councillors. Great pension plan and no accountability, some of the anticipated perks, even if you sign a legal document called “Oath of Office” stating you will follow the Rule of Law of the land, the Municipal Act and voters. There are some good elected representatives voted in. The fluoridation, non-binding referendum in 2014 is an opportunity for longer grief so vote taking time to learn the truth. Demand elected representatives make a binding commitment, either way (their word needs to mean something, doesn’t it?) According to official Hansard Legislature documents, elected officials ignored provincial and municipal legislation requiring a bylaw (and binding assent vote) or a binding referendum before beginning (or ending) fluoridation. (Apparently, also the understanding of the Provincial Medical health Officer in FOI documentation). Examples of unethical failures to follow the Rule of law and Municipal legislation. In 1954, The City resolution ignored the requirement for a fluoridation bylaw and binding referendum vote, before starting. The 1957 Municipal Act; fluoridation required a binding referendum with City Water Service expansions. When the City stopped fluoridation around 1998 they informed Northern Health asking them to inform the dentists that fluoridation had ended (residents were apparently not informed). The City quietly chose to again ignore Municipal legislation changing from adding a federally registered pesticide / poison, sodium fluoride to a Transport Canada, hazardous waste containing lead, arsenic, fluoride and other toxins. Lead is a known toxin with no safe consumption level. It builds-up and is stored in your and your children’s bodies causing long-term health problems. Remember the NDP? They provided the recently described “grandfathering” opportunity to the City for the 2014 non-binding fluoridation referendum, without checking the facts or asking people in PG; Do you all really support fluoridation drinking diluted hazardous waste? Like, are you for real!?!? Don’t you know how damaging that stuff is? Guess the Mt. Polly residents in Likely and Quesnel Lakes should really appreciate the fact they are being provided hazardous waste in their pristine, salmon bearing drinking water, for free! Maybe we could send them some fluoride to help their teeth and replace the calcium in their bones too!
Palopu: “Lets not forget that the City discontinued the discount we used to receive for paying our utility bills before the due date. This amounts to an increase of approx. $70.00 per year and generated huge dollars for the City.”
The discount is still there. It’s just known now as a bonus for paying early. The City could just as easily give you a bill for the higher rate and say that you could save money by paying by the due date. There’s no difference.
I woild never vote for anybody who was a PG councillor in the past, even if only for one term as they all went along with the endless increasing of taxes and fees while at the same time virtually rubber stamping most of the wish list (not required items) items that were put in front of them by the administration. They also ignored items which could have been eliminated for immediate and continuing savings.
We need a new competent person to step forward, one who has a sense of financial responsibility and accountability and business acumen. Please!
Can we reasonably expect new candidates (and older ones that might be voted back) will publically make and keep commitments (within Canadian, Provincial and Municipal laws including the Rule of Law definition and reasonable ethics including appropriate humanity considerations like the Precautionary Principal) and that they will stand by before we vote and apply when they might be elected? Is it really too much to ask elected people to keep their promises, and if they cannot, provide full documentation WHY NOT? Democracy is supposed to be open and transparent, (not invisible) isn’t it?
After all, they are only human like most of us!
Is it too much to (naïvely) expect that; honesty, integrity and democratic values including human based moral rights are mandatories for elected people including all people to live and work by (including City administration)? Saying you will be transparent, refusing to provide public documents supporting public impacting decisions means you must be honest with the people and provide the honest documentation or be fired.
People in PG are generally an intelligent bunch who can be quite reasonable and figure things out, given all the truthful information and facts. Why not prove you support that belief by keeping elected people fully accountable, responsible for their actions and removable if those human expectations are missed (unless you do not wish to be honest, responsible, and reasonable.)
Let’s not forget the fluoridation non-binding referendum in 2014 as more than an opportunity for saving money. If we can end the dumping of hazardous waste into our drinking water including the Rule of law and respectfully apply the Precautionary Principal supported by responsible medical and elected professionals, we might gain back our individual health responsibilities.
People who run in an election are the same people most of us are… until elected.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, do four-years of “absolute power” seem like a reasonable option without being able to hold each of them, individually and collectively accountable and removable?
Good luck to all of us!
Ugh, can we save the anti-fluoride nonsense for the fluoride threads at least?
this anti-fluoride movement is nonsense. Israel just stopped water fluoridation! The Lancet just published a peer reviewed study which adds manganese and fluoride to its list of proven developmental neurotoxins. Some of these are arsenic, lead and mercury. You may know what developmental means in this kind of research. It is about the fetus in the womb, the newly born child and the toddler whose brain is still developing. The Lancet connects manganese and fluoride to autism an Attention Deficit Disorder and a lowering of IQ. Let people quote
the latest scientific evidence! What do you gain by calling it nonsense! Because if you do you are denigrating the serious research work of the present (not the 1950s!) as nonsense and the scientists as idiots!
Posting my comment the beginning was cut off: JB, you say this anti-fluoride movement is nonsense.
I already know what your reply will be: As long as this neurotoxin is sufficiently diluted it is perfectly safe! That is complete nonsense of course! Poisons can accumulate in the organs of a living body and do damage that becomes apparent only after long term exposure! Why force people to ingest identified neurotoxins against their will? No Canadian Forces Base accepts fluoridated water anymore since 2008! Why, if it is such a benefit?
Fluoride as applied by dentists is a surface treatment for tooth enamel, Drinking it is completely ineffective and it causes dental fluorosis as acknowledged by the Canadian Dental Association on its website.
Enough already!
Stop spreading misinformation, PG. You know and I know that your alarmist statements are BS.
Fluoride in water is a non issue. Very few people give a s..t one way or the other. More people are killed by the consumption of alcohol, smoking, car accidents, and drugs.
JB. On the issue of our utility bills. I think you are wrong. Seems to me that the utility bill was set at a certain rate, and if you paid early you got a discount. The City now has it set at the (certain) rate and if you pay it by the due date, that’s what you pay. If you are late you pay a penalty for late payment.
If it was the same, then why would they bother to change it????
JB:”Stop spreading misinformation, PG. You know and I know that your alarmist statements are BS.”
The Lancet is spreading misinformation and BS!? How ridiculous is that! Obviously you are afraid to face the truth of latest advanced scientific truth! Enjoy the wood preservative you get in your tap water!
As I’ve said many times, PG, fluoride at approved levels causes no harm. 50 years of science has proven that.
I know you’re not interested in the science and what the world’s public health organizations have to say. I’ll take their word over anti-fluoride conspiracy theory websites.
Palopu: “JB. On the issue of our utility bills. I think you are wrong. Seems to me that the utility bill was set at a certain rate, and if you paid early you got a discount. The City now has it set at the (certain) rate and if you pay it by the due date, that’s what you pay. If you are late you pay a penalty for late payment. ”
It’s the same thing, just the numbers are reversed. My theory as to why they did it is simple psychology. Since the rate has skyrocketed over the last few years, putting the larger number first would probably be more shocking for people. It looks nicer to put the ‘smaller’ number as the due amount and tack on a late charge if the payment is late.
It’s just playing with numbers.
I think PG John makes some excellent points about our tax rates. One thing missing though is the fact our current council and city administration have worked hard to lower heavy industrial and light industrial tax loads all this time it was being downloaded to the home owners.
So yes downloading is happening, but it is not from the federal government or provincial government to the municipalities (hello gas tax revenue), but rather it is from heavy and light industry to the home owners on our property tax, user fees, and utility bills. It is shameless politicking from our current politicians and their financiers that would have us believe otherwise.
I think the next council should not implement the rain water run off tax, and should put in place a property tax freeze against any rate increases for the entire next term of council. City Hall could pay for this in three ways.
#1 New gas tax revenue… $3 million per year
#2 Abolish the IPG… $2 million per year
#3 Any cost increases paid for by increases to major and light industry property tax payers, or cut out the unnecessary spending like the 100% cost over run 4th avenue fiasco.
The home owners of PG can not continue to take the downloading of responsibility for the spending of politicians that are funded and wholly owned by the special interest business groups that have been awarding themselves all the tax cuts and all the cost allocations.
This election should be about the rights of homeowners.
Save how much more by finding local experts to have brainstorming sessions, rather than hiring professional lobbyist’s from Washington DC and Toronto?
Lots of room for savings at City Hall… start by letting expensive contracts expire without the roles being refilled. Flatten the management structure at city hall and involve union employees more in administering departments under greater openness and accountability. There is no need to have the amount of 6-figure employees PG currently has on the payroll.
Comments for this article are closed.