Like everyone else, I understand the
difficulty of arriving at a budget, especially after the
downloading of unfunded responsibilities by other governments.
Unfortunately, my contribution to the debate will not make
council's work any easier.
I am writing to urge council not to approve
the reduction or elimination of the environmental
programs.
We all, citizens and professionals in
industry, business and government, need to know more about our
environment in the city so that we can make better policy
decisions, implement better practices and change everyday
choices, whether in writing the Official Plan, carrying out the
mandate of the public works department, operating the Copper
Cliff smelter or caring for our own backyards.
That doesn't mean the city should put money
into fundamental research or try to pick up everything that the
Ministry of Environment used to be able to do. What it does
mean is the city should have certain community-focused programs
that involve people learning about what is going on, and
thinking about alternative ways of doing
things for the benefit of the community.
Environmental programs should be part of the
core of the city's activity not just a frill at the edge that
can be put on the list of "Reduction Options" every year -
especially here where the natural environment is so much a part
of the quality of life and where there has been so much
historical damage with more stress to come from global changes
as well as development pressures.
Most of the city's good press has come from
putting environmental matters high on the priority list even
when the roads need fixing. Led by the revegetation program and
followed recently by EarthCare and the lake water quality
initiatives, hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers with
very limited city funding have made enormous headway in
creating a better image for Sudbury.
Putting the environmental programs on the
chopping block every year sends a wrong message to those
volunteers and the organizations and agencies
that step up to the plate as partners.
Is the city committed or not? When will those
who draw up the budget options finally get it ?
Let me quote from a letter I received from
one of the EarthCare partners who would not participate in the
budget debate because he fears being accused of conflict of
interest.
"Since the city is one of my primary clients,
it is a conflict of interest for me to be offering any opinions
on the budget. Having said that, the letter of intent (Earth
Care and its partners) from the numerous private businesses in
Sudbury should speak volumes to the committment of the private
sector. Council should know that our firm, and the many others
that have been involved in Earth Care do not take these things
lightly.
"I have often tried to explain, that the
success of our office and business in Sudbury depends on the
success and sustainability of the community as a whole. We know
our survival in business cannot be measured on the short-term
success of a single project. Our firm would not keep our office
open if the business environment in Sudbury could not support
our operation.
"We are also residents of this community. Our
children are raised here, and we want to stay here. When we
raise our voice to support an initiative at the city, it is not
necessarily because we want to win that next contract.
"We know a strong vibrant community will
ultimately allow our business to survive and allow us to
continue to support our families, and maybe our children will
also choose to stay here. The same comparison can be made of
the relationship that Inco has with the businesses in town. You
don't have to work directly for Inco to derive benefit from
their success."
"Again...we do not take these commitments
lightly. When we signed the commitment to Earth Care, we signed
on to a philosophy of business and economic stability through
Environmental Responsibility…We all signed up to the original
deal for good reason. It would be a shame, to think that we
were all wrong."
Good budgets need more than sharp
pencils.
David Pearson
Sudbury