Re: Council weighs in on municipal debt

Debt puts towns at the mercy of developers – any developer, any project. Most developers seem to be very nice people: certainly their presenters before Council are immaculately attired, polished, and wellheeled. I can always tell when they’re in town, as their Audis, B.M.W.s. and sporty Porsches are parked in close proximity to Town Hall.

The developers have colourful slide shows, talk in mellifluous tones, and appear to be best chums with some members of the Town’s “staff”.

Recently, one such very pleasant developer showed his slides; however, he had managed to insert one crucial slide so it was at right angles, and perhaps oriented backwards, with North pointing off to the left, confusingly. He said smoothly to the Town’s Planning Officer, Mr. Stiver, “James, could we do something about that?”

“We” couldn’t. It was difficult to tell where exactly one of at least three parcelled land segments labelled 2B was to be (exactly).

Councillor Wilson began his usual preliminary growlings, indicating his growing displeasure and/or impatience with inexact offerings; however, he cleared his throat and, after he had asked the staff to weigh in on what development charge money would likely be realized for the new neighbourhood(s) in the vicinity of Blind Line, and after the staff had put their heads together for three or four minutes of figuring, and after he was informed it would be in the neighbourhood of $1.6 million in 2010 values, Councillor Wilson seemed mollified, slumped back into contented bemusement, tapping a pencil’s eraser on his desk.

One affected resident asked pointedly, though, about the loss of a natural watercourse he has witnessed, essentially in his backyard, and the natural “creek’s” replacement with, effectively, a canalized “ditch” (to use his words).

This question got swept away, off downstream as it were, by a quick continuation of and a happy dialogue +and more chummy interplay between the developer and the ever-attentive “James”, with several “Can you point to that, James?” instructions, with James behaving throughout rather like a well-trained retriever around a duck blind through the course of this particular presentation anyway.

Debt diminishes autonomy. Debt diminishes freedom. Debt diminishes independent action. Debt diminishes the valid range of actual choices. Debt incurs servicing charges, which are approximately $1 million annually for Orangeville at present, monies that could serve real, beneficial, and constructive purposes, but money which gets flushed instead.

Debt shackles ensuing generations, who are left to pay the bills. And, worst, debt dulls thrift, economy, and husbandry.

In Hamlet , one speech we had to memorize in school — back when grammar, spelling, and memory work still had their rightful places in education in Ontario — was: “Neither a borrower nor lender be, For borrowing dulleth the edge of husbandry....”

It appears that Orangeville has, as a result of our heavy debts, to truckle to any developer and his wishes. As a result, for example, a real eye-sore — a once achingly lovely patch of naturally beautiful land is now all scrapped away, ugly, and flattened, standing empty and exposed along Riddell Road as another building season hits its prime months and a developer’s ‘dream’ retirement centre, in a nightmare location for its residents, pushed through with all the kinds of smooth and planned subterfuge interwoven in its meticulously crafty drawings and presentations, awaits, awaits, and awaits still, its realization.

And, what is left for us as we, citizens, drive along Riddell Road? What a mess is left for the poor neighbours who get to look at an abandoned-seeming earthworks over their fences on Canada Day — at least they’ve moved that large yellow backhoe.

What is left for residents who dwelt alongside the banks of a once lovely natural creek (somewhere) near Blind Line and who now get to look at a rather grandiose ditch, its neatly controlled and straitened waters rushing on its way to — presumably, soon — a man-made pond at map section 2B, a third 2B, wherever that may be, on a fine, long, early summer’s evening in Orangeville.

Rob. Bredin,

Orangeville

––o––

Magicians and mathematicians would be far better suited for the job of reporting the annual financial being of the town. Removing items from the general ledger gives the illusion that council is doing a far better job than they are, particularly in an election year. Riding high on reports of decreasing taxes from an average high of 6.83% to 2.5% appears to be job “well done” in their eyes until we look back at what was driving the 6.83% plus increases.

Removing sewer and water charges and limiting garbage to a single bag and charging for anything in excess, was certainly a major factor for such decreases in the general tax rate. Not to mention the additional revenues from growth. Water rates increased 54% (the town continues to blame Walkerton) during this period as well as a 100% increase for garbage fees in excess of allowed amounts.

To confuse residents, the town has split the water/sewer portion on the invoice so when questioning the increase in water rates, the town can brag we only raised water rates 10.9% not 12%. This “magic feat” is achieved by charging a different % on water in/out.

The bottom line is we pay the increase no matter how it is presented.

In a further attempt to make themselves appear fiscally responsible, the magicians compare their work to others whose performance is worse than their own, without providing any details as to why the other municipality has

higher increase.

If we factor in all the charges and fees, taxes have increased by double digits not decreased as reported.

During a period of financial instability in the world, job losses not seen since the great depression, loss of personal wealth, pension income losses, our local government has acted as if they are removed from any responsibility to make the hard decisions required in today’s economic climate. Instead they voted themselves obscene raises after public outcry of “grossly obscene” raises. And then after decade plus of feeding at the public trough, they pat themselves on the back and announce they are running for re-election. And why wouldn’t they? They know voter turnout for municipal elections is at an all-time low, even though municipal taxes, can often exceed provincial taxes.

Brent Blackburn

Orangeville