CambridgeToday received the following letter from reader Linda Farley in response to the most recent column by Jill Summerhayes.
I am writing to speak further on the subject of the recent article by Jill Summerhayes titled "Councillors face a thankless task in setting city budgets."
Ms. Summerhayes is so right in pointing out that nothing is free and if we want our municipality to provide services we will have to pay for them. I echo her comments thanking councillors for their time and energy trying to serve us. It sure is difficult to please everyone.
I do have a few suggestions for improving the process.
First, the city can be more transparent about the various budget decisions that are made.
For example, the current project estimate for the new recreation complex is double the original business plan of $57 million which included two ice rinks.
The latest projected cost is fully 60 per cent of the capital budget for the entire city. But there is no easy way for a taxpayer to find out how this amount will be funded.
The City maintains a webpage with documents regarding the new rec complex, but the only business plan on that site is from 2016. To actually see the budget for this complex the taxpayer must troll through a myriad of documents and council minutes to piece together information here and there.
Such a huge project that will increase property taxes almost five per cent should have a link on the main page showing an updated project budget and funding sources each time Council approves further cost increases.
Per this news article, one justification for the increased pool costs was a presentation to Council that said the City could charge $100,000 for a three-day swim meet. I would like to know why then, our taxes have to be increased at all? Why are the proceeds from swim meets not being applied to the debt?
At $100,000 per swim meet, the city could pay off the cost of the complex after 1,000 swim meets.
Of course, there are incremental costs that would be incurred to host a large swim meet, so the net each time is not $100,000. But what is it? And what is the projected number of such swim meets a year? And where is this additional revenue going if we are not applying it to the debt?
Taxpayers have a right to know these details and the City has a responsibility to provide it to them in a clear concise, easily accessible way.
Second, property Taxes are rising much higher than the rate of inflation. This scenario cannot be sustained.
Low-income earners and fixed-income seniors cannot continue to pay taxes that keep increasing faster than their incomes. I would like to challenge the City of Cambridge to disclose the cost drivers in the budget that are increasing more than the rate of inflation. I also would like to see them take steps to bring down those costs.
Third, in addition to the general tax increase of 4.25 per cent, which is already higher than inflation, the city proposes another 1.51 per cent to cover growth.
This is just not acceptable.
Growth should cover growth. As lands are developed, more properties are subject to taxation. And with a larger population, and therefore a larger tax base over which fixed costs can be spread, I would expect to see property tax rates decrease, not increase.
This broader tax base should cover all the costs of maintaining the larger city. Only those who will benefit from growth should cover the costs of building new roads and infrastructure. Existing residential taxpayers should not be expected to cover the costs of expanding the city.
With Bill 23 passed by the provincial government limiting the amount that municipalities can charge developers for roads and infrastructure, we need to STOP and rethink our quest for growth.
The mantra in Ontario over the last decades has been 'growth, growth, growth' to the point that no one can speak up against growth, even though the Emperor does not have any clothes!
Growth benefits developers and land speculators. It also benefits local businesses in the hospitality and retail sectors. It also creates jobs. But with such difficulty these days finding workers, why do we need more jobs?
There is such a shortage of workers in the construction trades that the Construction Price Index has increased beyond any capacity to pay for construction.
Our governments are devising recruitment strategies to attract more immigrants to come into the trades. So if we have more jobs than can be filled why do we use job creation as an excuse for unrestrained growth?
The average residential taxpayer does not benefit from growth so why in the world should we pay for it?
In fact, no one is talking about the societal costs of growth. Traffic congestion, road accidents, road rage, stress, mental illness, drug use, crime, inflation, homelessness. There is a direct correlation between growth and these negative impacts.
We seriously need to hit the 'pause' button and truly reflect on what growth is necessary and why. The only growth we should pursue is that which will be paid for by those who will benefit, not by increasing property taxes for existing homeowners.
In summary, I do appreciate the complexity of city budgets serving a diverse population. But the City can do better in ensuring good transparency and accountability for our hard-earned money. And they should not be raising our taxes for purposes that will not benefit us.
Linda Farley
Cambridge
