BY VICKI GILHULA
Every municipal election, candidates for city council and for
mayor promise to make decisions for the common good of all
citizens of Greater Sudbury. And within a short time, they
disappoint their electors by making cowardly choices in an
attempt to try to make everyone happy, and of course, pleasing
only the few with the loudest voices, biggest threats or
deepest pockets.
Last week, council once again revisited the issue of how to pay for a $31 million rock tunnel in the South End.
Without the new sewer tunnel, there could be no further
expansion in this area because there would not be sufficient
capacity for growth.
Taxpayers are already paying the lion's share (68 percent)
of the costs. The province has committed $8.4 million, but the
federal government's original commitment wasn't honoured,
leaving the current $4 million shortfall. (That shortfall could
rise to $7.23 million when interest charges are added over the
course of the 40-year repayment period.)
City staff and pricey consultants suggested the city could raise the money to cover the shortfall by imposing user or development fees that could then be added to the price of new houses, apartments, hospital beds and student residence units. This is a common practice in other communities.
Council had accepted the city's staff proposal at two previous
meetings. But it was forced to hold a public meeting on the
issue before passing a "development charge bylaw" last
Wednesday. At this meeting, it "flip flopped" on its decision.
Ward 5 Councillor Doug Craig, who represents constituents in
the South End, was one of the councillors who voted against
development charges. He said asking 300 future homeowners to
carry the financial burden for the largest infrastructure
program in this city's history is ridiculous.
Is it? Many of the people who responded to this story at
NorthernLife.ca don't seem to think so.
The proposed plan to recover $7.23 million would have seen
private homeowners charged about $4,800 and owners of
multi-family dwellings $2,800. Commercial and industrial
property owners would have been asked to pay $17 per square
foot and hospitals $6,100 per bed to a maximum of $530,000,
while education institutions would pay an additional $475 per
student housing unit.
In voting against development charges, city council still
hasn't solved its shortfall problem and will revisit the issue
of how to pay for the cost of "progress" in September.
I wonder if councillors every considered the notion that Greater Sudbury could grow in other areas of the city that might not require such costly infrastructure? The city could also "grow" by "infilling" areas that already have services.
That's called planning.
I wonder if council every thought for a moment some of that
$31 million could be better spent on the common good of all
citizens by investing in recreation and arts facilities?
At the end of the day, when it comes to growth, it is quality not quantity that counts. The members of the current council just never got it.
