Reading some of the articles and opinion comments regarding the campground issue at city council, it seems many taxpayers haven’t recognized the underlying issue, and I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter.
As pointed out by Coun. Montpellier in the council review of the Core Services report, the report was not about core services, but was about removing services from the smaller urban centres around the former City of Sudbury and directing savings towards the former city.
See Page 21 of that report where Item 95, states “Fully outsource trailer parks,” or Item 97, “Decrease the service level for residential street plowing.”
We’ll see how the general public reacts to Item 97 during the 2020-21 winter season with further reductions to an already inadequate program of snow removal.
Coun. Montpellier was vehemently attacked to apologize or be ejected from that meeting.
Now, we have the same issue brought back to council, disguised as a means to mitigate COVID-19 costs of about $14 million. Really? The potential savings were stated as about $80,000 or 0.5 per cent of the COVID-19 cost.
Recently, council endorsed a $1-million campaign to encourage tourism. The proposed closure of the campgrounds certainly was not about protecting people, and, as a cost avoidance, was a ridiculous distraction to have council spend taxpayer money debating the issue for 90 minutes. That’s 1.5 hours of staff management time while council debated a non-issue that really wasn’t about COVID-19 expenses, but appears to have been more about continued financing of their legacy projects, even during a health pandemic with unknown financial consequences.
Seemingly, Coun. Sizer was one of the few to recognize the absurdity of the entire debate and said so. Whether Coun. Vagnini knew his mute button was off or not is of no consequence. He recognized the “sound judgement” of Coun. Sizer and commended him.
The Mayor then chose to attack Coun. Vagnini for recognizing the “sound judgement” of a fellow councillor, not for having his “mute” button turned off. The eruption of “sound judgement” was the issue.
It has been demonstrated numerous times by this council and the mayor that they are conscientiously opposed to such displays. Councillor microphones get turned off with reprimands by the mayor, or council systematically runs out the clock so that meaningful debate on important issues gets terminated.
Those who have been distracted by the attack on the councillor need to ask themselves; 1) why was a non-issue of such tiny consequence on the agenda and, 2) why was debate about $80,000 allowed to continue for 90 minutes?
A $1-million tourism project by the GSDC was endorsed with almost no debate. Check out Florida, Texas, California and others where tourism was reinstated and judge for yourself the wisdom in that.
Was this done to distract attention from a suggestion to reduce CGS salaries and benefits by five per cent, which would save almost all of the $14 million?
Thomas Price, Whitefish