Year: 2016

I don’t think we’ve truly come to grips with what is needed.

A recent news article stated that the reduction in greenhouse gases Canada has to accomplish in order to meet the promise of our recently elected government is equivalent to that produced by our entire transportation sector.

That’s all transportation personal, business, goods delivery, recreational
All forms Car, truck, bus, train, air.

Yet, I have not heard anyone think that the reduction will seriously affect them.

We continue to drive to events, to work, for pleasure; we continue to take vacations to exotic locations; we continue to purchase foods that have been transported great distances. All with very little thought.

Some time ago (probably in the 1980s – a long time before we knew much about green house gases and climate change/global warming) former Prime Minister Joseph Clark said that in order to accommodate the aspirations of the “third world,” we in the north (“first world”) will have to accept a significant reduction in standard of living – possibly up to 50%.

Even then, I thought he may have something.

The “third world” encompasses roughly 3/4 of the total world population

We live on a finite plane. If all reach the so called “first world” standard, the draw on resources would be enormous. Based on monthly incomes, a reasonable comparison is that we in the “first world” probably use about have about 5 times (and the “second world” about 3 times) the resources of those in the “third world.”

Doing some very simple math { 4 / [.25 x 4 + .75 x 1] } elevating everyone to “first world” standards will increase resource consumption by about 2.25 times. Sort of like increasing the world’s population to more than 15 billion. A 50% reduction in standard of living probably won’t be enough to just keep things the same.

We in the “first world” will have to make very large changes in lifestyle in order to get any handle on minimizing the effects humans make on our very finite planet.

The Plaidneck

Why is the Canadian Government attempting to deal directly with Cities?

Cities are municipalities and according to the legislation that assigns responsibilities in Canada,

CONSTITUTION ACT

VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively plan Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.

It is not legal for the Government of Canada to treat directly with the municipalities. That power is assigned to the Provinces “exclusively.”

It is all well and good for City mayors to have feel-good chats with Canada’s Prime Minister but without the provinces’ participation, there is no proper vehicle for them to exchange cash.

Listen to these Mayors. We have a huge backlog of infrastructure needs; our geared to income housing stock is in need of upgrade; we have growth driven needs.

The question should be why did you let the problems develop? These municipalities had means to address their needs.

• Infrastructure backlog points to under funding. My career was spent in the municipal infrastructure field. It was a constant battle to fund preservation and replacement works but a well planned and explained plan does work and it seems that the property taxpayer would accept the “burden” from a well-managed program.

• Attempting to manage geared to income housing as a business lead decision makers to underfund needed upkeep. If social housing is to be done, the politicians who decide use of public funds must recognize and fund sufficient preservation work even if it requires additional taxation.

• Municipalities have had the means to address a growth-related infrastructure. Development fees. They are legal and they are designed to address future needs created by development. I worked in a variety of municipalities. The well-managed ones had funds from land development set aside to construct upgrades created by growth. The smaller municipalities; however, seemed to think that charging a developer for the public works his/her project would eventually require wasn’t fair to that individual. The rest of the taxpaying properties would be left to pick up the costs in another council’s term.

In the past couple of decades when “infrastructure” programs seemed to blossom, funds were directed toward problems. The problems most often resulted from purposeful underfunding and/or poor management. Those who ran things well got very little and in effect their citizens then paid a second time to bail out the mismanaged.

Can municipalities afford higher property taxes? This a question that is beyond the knowledge I’ve gained, but I believe some of the biggest “we’re underfunded” voices could easily raise taxes.

This data is from 2012. The City of Toronto and the City of Kingston both published their average residential assessments and their residential mil rate. The City of Kingston charged its average residence 8.25% more than the City of Toronto.

Whom do we hear is in most trouble? The Big City – Toronto. What would an 8.25% increase in residential taxation over the past two decades have meant to their ability to plan and perform needed work?

You be the judge.

The Plaidneck.