Yup, they do, albeit inadvertently.
Time and again; with such frequency that we should have collected them here.
And today's letter to the editor from Messrs. Tassie and Kastelen of Coldstream, and Drennan of Vernon, didn't shatter that mold.
They provided successes where local governments (plural)--when combined into one decision-making group--provided efficiencies, if not cost savings.
Herewith a smattering of their quotes, beginning with a phrase from the middle of their letter: "Beyond the financial argument..."
Where years ago, mayors and bureaucrats not getting along was reason enough for residents to support amalgamation, the financial argument takes top billing today with most residents and businesses.
Except some, obviously, from the letter.
"Paying a quarter of a tab is better than paying half".
CTF (Canadian Taxpayers Federation)
Taxpayers demand efficiencies AND cost savings.
Not one or the other.
Business owners need--more than merely desire--efficiencies AND cost savings.
But the fact remains that government -- whether bureaucrat or elected official -- at all levels appear incapable of providing both.
Lest mayors and councils feel targeted, they're asked to look at the bigger picture.
It's not just this area.
The efficiency/cost issue has been raised in many regions.
Even in Ontario, where 13.5 million of Canada's 35 million residents live, there's a "Sunshine List" created by the Canadian Taxpayer Federation that itemizes the rapid and unsustainable growth of the bureaucracy. They "determined how many households paying the average property tax rate are required to pay the salary of the average Sunshine List (bureaucratic) employee." This is based on their logical premise that "a larger number of households is more desirable because the individual tax burden per household is shared and therefore lower." Its undesirable opposite, therefore, is "a smaller number of households means the burden of paying for Sunshine List employees is higher per household," and concluding "Paying a quarter of a tab is better than paying half." The report's 32 pages make for interesting reading.
Back to the recent letter to the editor.
The writers ask: "What is the merit in having one municipality covering such a diverse area?...little benefit to having large rural holdings and viable farms, ranches and orchards included in a city designation? where the differing conditions and aspirations of the residents of Vernon Coldstream and the electoral areas are each provided with different levels of service, different policies and different bylaws." We know the answer to that. Confusion reigns, and people routinely have to do six months' research to ascertain if they--or their business--are allowed to do this and that. Across the fence, the resident or that business, may indeed be able to do this and that.
Condoning confusion, all in the interest of diversity.
Perhaps the threesome of letter writers was referring to Coldstream Mayor Garlick and council wishing to impose their decidedly urban dream with the planned RU10/RU30 rezoning of Coldstream acreages.
Seems to be what the letter writers decry.
Perhaps they weren't affected by the RU10/RU30 attempt, as were many Coldstream Acreage Owners' Association members.
"I'm all right, Jack" is maybe what the letter writers meant.
"In our urbanized society, the loudest voices tend to be the least informed, from backyard-chicken hipsters to...'drive-by environmentalists', who like to look out their car windows at green fields as they motor from their subdivisions to big-box stores."
Tom Fletcher, B.C. Views, November
Their phrase "Beyond the financial argument" can easily stick in one's craw.
The "differing conditions and aspirations...diversity" is justification for being inefficient and squandering taxpayer money, not to mention being ineligible for government grants because of an area's too-small population..."the fundamental role of local government as an institution for residents to resolve problems and provide solutions, to the greatest net benefit."
Huh?
So, by extension, would the ludicrous concept of having a mayor for EVERY SQUARE KILOMETRE in the community then even more adequately resolve problems and provide solutions?
Anyone who has ever attended one of the multitude Public Hearings held in our communities year after year will readily recall that those who sidle up to the microphone are, with few exceptions, proponents of Not In My Backyard.
Boy oh boy, does that ever ring a bell with the golf course construction, and then other public hearings (yes, plural) on the liquor license and its subsequent change (to the type of license other golf courses possessed).
Accept that the unification plan is a sign of the times, where fewer dollars (no matter in whose pocket they reside) are stretched this way and that in an attempt to cover as wide an array of public demands as possible.
But NOT "beyond the financial argument".
It's a result of the financial argument.
As Tax Freedom Day arrives later and later each year, ordinary everyday people are striving to do something.
The trio of letter writers conclude that "some issues ... would more properly be carried out on a regional level, as by their very nature they extend over municipal boundaries..." The letter continues "There is now a mechanism available ... the regional growth strategy, a regional vision that commits the regional district and municipalities to meet common social, economic and environmental objectives through cooperation....
"The regional growth strategy was adopted in 2011 and is binding on the municipalities and electoral areas.(emphasis: blog) Some of the issues -- parks and recreation, water supply -- have or are being dealt with at the regional district level."
Maybe the trio knows that residents will not accept the status quo any longer.
So, the trio appear to be throwing their support behind the regional district as the one future government of the area if unification proceeds.
We should ask the letter writers if they're aware that "43 per cent of the $5.7 million payroll at the Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO) went to just 24 top managers and staff last year."
Remuneration and expenses for district directors and committee members also rose, from $273,479 in 2011 to $313,622 in 2012.
 | ||||
| Where will it stop? |
How much debt is being carried by Coldstream? By the City of Vernon?
Coldstream's 2012 Annual Report is found at: https://coldstream.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=7515
Coldstream's Financial Statement is here: http://www.districtofcoldstream.ca/services/finance/2012_financial_statements.pdf
Vernon's 2012 Annual Report is found at: http://www.vernon.ca/services/finance/documents/2012_ANNUAL_REPORT.pdf
Vernon's Financial Statement is here: http://www.vernon.ca/services/finance/documents/2012_Financial_Statements.pdf
"Once mayors reject the uber-urban ideas of senior bureaucrats at the annual UBCM meetings," begins Kia, adding "we'll become the communities we want to become...not cookie cutter versions of their ideas."
Even the UBCM website talks about taking a united position.
Government shouldn't be surprised when taxpayers want the same unity.
A business isn't in business long
when wage costs regularly exceed 10 or 12 per cent.
Anonymous
Did Messrs Tassie, Kastelen and Drennan review the new parks agreements before writing this letter? Because if they did, perhaps they would have seen how the new agreements in fact pit jurisdiction against jurisdiction, instead of uniting us in "regional collaboration and mutual respect".
ReplyDeleteIt sure is nice to hope that one day, those ideals would prevail, but we have yet to see that put into practice, in any variety of local government constructs over the past decade or more.
Perhaps that is because the politicians have not been placed in a position where they can succeed as our regional leaders, because they are too busy being backed into corners and fighting their nasty little turf wars and sniping at each other, instead of truly working together for the betterment of our region.
Comments such as "Show some respect” indicate just how little mutual respect currently exists at the regional board level. Just when you thought it couldn’t sink any lower, it does.
It is time for us to quit expecting our politicians to change their mostly myopic attitudes without changing something major, like our governance structure and how decisions are made.
For example, imagine a larger council for our expanded city, with more direct representation of local issues as part of a ward system that helps to recognize the unique characteristics of each neighbourhood and area - for example, East Hill is different from Lavington, which is different from the BX, or Silver Star, or the more urban parts of Coldstream, or Swan Lake, or the Commonage. Finally, we could discuss all the big issues - air quality, traffic, water, reclaimed water, sewer, parks, tourism, economic development, etc - at one table, with one common goal in mind - to work together to find the best possible solutions for our region, not just for our own puny little jurisdiction in isolation from others. But what do I know???
The Province regularly enters into agreements to provide assistance when an electoral area is converted to a municipality. After all, that is their preferred path of service delivery - download, download, download. But just how much the new muni gets from the province, seems to be up to the power of the new muni's negotiating team.
ReplyDeleteDifferent contributions were made by the province during the incorporations of Barriere, Clearwater, and Westside (now West Kelowna) in 2007. In each of these areas, an incorporation vote was held following a lengthy public information and consultation process (which took at least 2 years). Each area received a different amount of assistance from the Province, for roads, policing, infrastructure, etc.
The Province has an entire department dedicated to local government restructuring. As you so rightly point out, the regional district should not be conducting this review and neither should staff at the city of Vernon or the district of Coldstream. Neither should a firm of accountants!
I trust the directors of the governance society are in fact asking for the "askable": a restructure study, not a vote on whether to amalgamate. The petition asked for a review, not a question on a ballot.
So what exactly are Mr. Moore's intentions, as stated in his letter to the editor:
http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/opinion/letters/233010321.html
Is he seeking an amalgamation vote, or an amalgamation study, or a vote to conduct a study?