Current Conditions

Mostly Cloudy
0.3°C

OPINION: Less spending, more saving needed at city halls

Jordan Bateman is the B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Image Credit: Contributed
September 09, 2016 - 1:30 PM

 


OPINION


Editor,

At a time when many B.C. taxpayers are struggling under the weight of their heavy tax burden, growing personal debt, and an incredibly high cost of living, our locally elected officials are there to remind us all of how hopelessly out of touch they are.

Yes, B.C.’s municipal and regional politicians are gathering for their annual, five-day Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) conference in Victoria later this month and, as usual, the thrust seems to be spending taxpayer money, not finding ways to save it.

Truthfully, the point of the UBCM gabfest is three-fold: for elected officials to party it up in fancy hospitality suites, for cities to demand more money from provincial cabinet ministers, and for the local politicians to pass some policy resolutions.

This year’s resolutions are light on ideas to save taxpayers money – but not on ways to claw more dollars out of people’s pockets. Duncan wants a cut of future marijuana taxes for cities. Sun Peaks wants an AirBnB tax. Williams Lake wants higher bylaw infraction fines. Penticton wants to tax vacant land at a higher rate than its zoning allows, while Terrace wants to do the same with brownfields. Langley City wants to split residential taxation into two classes, so they can charge townhouse and condo owners more.

There are also dozens of motions that show councils still haven’t learned there’s only one taxpayer. West Kelowna wants the Christy Clark government to waive the provincial sales tax on infrastructure projects. Sure, the city would save a few bucks, but taxpayers would be no further ahead, as the provincial treasury would be out that revenue. Someone always pays – the taxpayer.

In that same vein, Harrison Hot Springs wants infrastructure projects funded 50 per cent by the federal government, 40 per cent by the provincial government, and 10 per cent by municipalities – moving seven percentage points from the city’s share to the province. But whatever level of government the money comes from, it’s still out of taxpayers’ pockets.

Several corporate welfare programs are pitched – Lake Cowichan wants government to pay private business owners to improve their storefronts. Columbia Shuswap wants a tax credit for people who invest in rural businesses, while Alberni-Clayoquot wants government to pay for farms to harvest rainwater.

Those wanting more bureaucracy will find many friends at UBCM. Cowichan Valley wants to ban plastic shopping bags, while Pitt Meadows is pushing a registry for dangerous dogs. Squamish wants the government to start a North Vancouver-Prince George passenger rail service. North Vancouver City is hoping the province will run a cigarette butt deposit-return program. Powell River wants to set up its own solar power operation.

Bizarrely, North Saanich, located a mere 16-hour drive (plus a ferry ride away) from the Site C dam, wants the project halted and reviewed. None of the cities near Site C submitted such a resolution.

View Royal deserves praise for offering one of the few cost-saving suggestions: calling on the federal government to reinstate the RCMP’s auxiliary officer program, which saved taxpayers money by allowing lower-paid auxiliaries to handle basic policing tasks such as crowd and traffic control. Penticton is also trying to control firefighter contracts costs by having arbitrators take into account local conditions, a good idea.

But these cost saving measures are few and far between at local government’s annual party on the taxpayer dime.

- This opinion-editorial is the first in a series of four on B.C. municipal government issues that the CTF will publish in September.


We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © InfoTel News Ltd, 2016
InfoTel News Ltd

View Site in: Desktop | Mobile