As a resident of Sudbury for many years, a representative of several advocacy groups, much varied experience and an observer of the local political scene, I present the following for consideration as the new four-year term is underway.
Realistic Expectations
There is a reason to be optimistic with a new mayor and several fresh councillors to start off this four-year term. Many citizens have expressed disappointment with the dysfunctional performance of recent councils with rancour and discord much in evidence. It is hoped that this time it will be different and that those elected will successfully face and resolve important issues including the renewal of present resources before any consideration of new endeavours. Of particular concern, unfortunately overlooked, is our cities greatest challenge, demographics. The census shows that our city does not have a young and growing work force sufficient to replace those of middle age, the soon and already retired, many of whom are of the “boomer” cohort who will “pass on” in the 2030s, 2040s and finally in the 2050s. As well, many of our youth leave for real or perceived opportunities and experience elsewhere and in the past several decades the retention of immigrants in any significant numbers has been discouraging. Therefore, the mayor’s goal of greatly increasing our population while commendable may be elusive. Sustainability would be a more realistic objective, controlling expenditures, allocation of available resources for practical local initiatives and to create liveable communities within the City of Greater Sudbury, all of which is more likely to retain and even attract new residents.
Bureaucracy Considerations
Related to the above, it is apparent, but not it would seem to some councillors, that staff and management have self interest in the creation of work for themselves, not that unusual for those in government service, and not always for the benefit of citizen taxpayers. As an example, proposed new and expanded roadways, despite modest population growth and the Official Plan recommendation (11.2.2) that “priority will be given to the maintenance of the existing road infrastructure over the construction of new roadways.” Our last city Transportation Study noted “that congestion is relatively low throughout the city at less than five percent and that instances where congestion does occur is only at certain times, notably commuter periods and delay times are very small”.
However, staff contends that proposed new road works are in anticipation of need, not that the need is in evidence at present, and significant population growth to create this need is questionable. The various “improvements” suggested including the construction of an interchange connecting Montrose Avenue to Maley Drive, Silver Hills Drive from the Kingsway to Bancroft Drive, widening of Ramsey Lake Road on the south side of Ramsey Lake and Howey Drive widening from Elgin Street to Bancroft Drive and several others. As well, it should be noted that new and expanded roadways in the watershed of Lake Ramsey would contribute many more metric tons of salt annually into the lake, already at elevated levels due to sodium and chloride contamination affecting human and aquatic life. There is also no practical reason for the Montrose- Maley Drive connection, except as another “make work” project to keep relevant staff and road work companies busy as well as satisfy developer “needs”. As none of these projects are necessary and the considerable costs involved should be a consideration of councils intent with respect to fiscal responsibility and need vs want. It is therefore suggested that until real need is obvious and proven that these costly and unneeded endeavours not be undertaken, and the subsequent development and maintenance upkeep savings realized
Clarity lacking
Does council really understand certain “arranged” considerations? A recent example at a council meeting where the chair and several councillors were unclear as to a “deal” with a developer concerning repayment of city road creation costs on private property by residential development charges. It seemed that the arrangement was most favorable to the developer as money would be taken from city reserves and no consideration of the interest “lost” on this money over the time development charges would be recovered and why would these charges be directed specifically to this project? Further examination of other instances would indicate that a number of these “cost sharing” arrangements do favour developers and have been asked for at their request. It does call into question why staff entertain these relationships and will they now even apply with new provincial legislation in effect prohibiting development charges for most new residential construction. Should council not have more oversight?
Other Considerations
There are likely to be many others brought forward at regular ward meetings as suggested by the mayor and several councillors during this term of council as part of a new openness to citizen input – more democracy in evidence, hopefully. Best wishes to all as we enter the New Year of 2023.
John Lindsay lives in Greater Sudbury. He serves as president of the Minnow Lake Restoration Group, the chair of Friendly to Seniors and Chair of CARP Sudbury. He also sits on the boards of the Ramsey Lake Stewardship Committee and the Greater Sudbury Watershed Alliance, and has been chair of the Sudbury Blueberry Festival for more than 30 years.
