Why is it that with billions of dollars worth of natural resource royalty surpluses rolling into provincial government coffers, the City of Edmonton has been forced to propose a 10.7% tax increase for 2009?
Special interest groups, like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, may support the easy route of spending cuts, but after a decade of unsustainable zero-percent tax increases and ignoring increasingly deteriorating public infrastructure, Edmonton desperately needs to catch up to its mountain-sized infrastructure backlog. Constant criticism of government spending priorities is critical, but refusing to face growth pressures head on by passing the buck to the next City Council is fiscally irresponsible.
Though it is likely that the increase will actually be lowered by the time the budget is approved, the increase doesn't include the proposed 4% levy to repair older neighbourhoods. Spending increases also include $11 million for fuel costs and $51 million for higher wages and personnel costs. The increase is also a result of the City's move to transfer waste management into a utility funded by a user fee rather than a combination of fees and property taxes. According to the Edmonton Journal, "this means a jump in the monthly residential charge to $26.59 from the current $15.17, while taxes for the typical home assessed at $400,000 will drop $52."
Dealing with the growth pressures created by a booming provincial economy, while not having access to the vast wealth that is endowed to the provincial government, places Alberta's large urban municipalities in a difficult situation. With former County Reeves Ed Stelmach, Iris Evans, Ray Danyluk, and Jack Hayden gripping Alberta's land of plenty purse-strings, correcting Alberta's fiscal imbalance by introducing increased powers and funding to address the financial needs and increase the sustainability of Alberta's municipalities would go a long way to correcting the fiscal imbalance in this province.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Imagine what the 2 billion dollars Ed Stelmach is pissing away on carbon capture could do for our two major cities, if they were each given a one time allotment of a billion a piece?
ReplyDeleteInstead our record surplus will help to pad the profits of foreign owned oil companies when they take that money for "CO2 capture" boondoggles that never amount to anything.
What's shocking is the fact that the pundits in Alberta are begging for another round of ralphbucks.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Well, steady Eddie isn't popular anymore, so buying votes seemed to work in the past for the Cons.
It's sick.
"Forced" to propose a 10.7% increase? Dave, if you followed Edmonton politics a little more closely, you'd know this is an old game that plays out every year at City Hall. Administration brings out a budget with a huge tax increase, the media faithfully whips up the headlines, then council pares it down to a more acceptable amount.
ReplyDeletemrvnmouse, that makes no sense. First off, pundits are not the government. What they say is not the same as government policy. Second, even if Stelmach's popularity is declining, he doesn't have to worry about an election for four years.
ReplyDeleteYeah, let's give Dave Bronconnier and Howie Mandel and their ilk increased taxation powers. That'll do the trick - yeah, that's the ticket...
ReplyDeleteMrvnMouse said...
ReplyDelete"...Well, steady Eddie isn't popular anymore, so buying votes seemed to work in the past for the Cons."
By what definition of "popular" do you go by? I'd say 72 seats - for a rookie premier - is pretty popular. I'd say 9 seats (Liberal), 2 seats (ND), and zero seats (Green & Wildrose) is somewhat less-than-popular, to use a consistent definition.
Oh, I forgot. The magical 60-odd percent that didn't vote in the last election would all have lined up behind someone else. Riiighht.
Brings me to another observation. If 40% voter turnout makes a win less legitimate (as Daveberta was wont to suggest back in March), just how legitimate is Iveson's win? (not picking on him, same applies to any municipal politician in Edmonton)
"Brings me to another observation. If 40% voter turnout makes a win less legitimate"
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the point I have tried to make surrounds the legitimacy a system that is created to represent 100% of the people (regardless of how they vote) if less than 40% actually participate. The same argument could and should be made regardless of the party in power. It's not a question of the individuals (I really don't think it makes a difference whether it was Stelmach, Taft, or Dinning), but a question of systematic problems.
Is that not a fair question.
Dave said:
ReplyDelete"To be fair, the point I have tried to make surrounds the legitimacy a system that is created to represent 100% of the people (regardless of how they vote) if less than 40% actually participate. The same argument could and should be made regardless of the party in power."
Fair enough comment. But I think the important point is that nothing theoretically gets in the way of 100% participation, so the system is fairly created to represent 100% of the vote. For instance, you no longer have to be a white, male, property owner to vote.
You can argue all you want about FPTP or Proportional Representation systems all you want, but face it - that IS NOT the reason most non-voters do not vote. The real reason is apathy. It is purely elective not to participate. We can make voting easier through technology, but the truth of it is that it is already pretty easy to vote in this country. No one risks life and limb to vote (well, maybe the exception of NE Calgary). As I see it, if a person choose not to exercise their democratic right, that's their loss, and my gain (and a gain for everyone else that does vote), as their vote counts more).