Skip to content

Letter: Reader has a 'hard time' seeing need for debt financing

We should have taken better care of our infrastructure
money
We should care for what we already have, and not go into debt to build, says letter-writer JY Bujold (Supplied).

I have a very hard time with the criteria brought forth for debt financing, particularly with the non-reoccurring element.

Problems we currently face are in no small part due to our backing away from proper maintenance of our existing infrastructure.

We must get back to taking better care of that which we already have. We must be more vigilant and demanding of good stewardship of those assets.

What of the resources we have? Are we using them to their full potential? Do we need the added frills? Are we being fed only partial facts to egg us on towards extra expenditures?

Not long ago, I attended a meeting where we were told that existing assets did not meet proper standards and that they should be replaced. Why were these assets let go to such dire conditions?

It is difficult to make a case for enhancing better care of that which we already have as these are not tangible new show pieces which are so in your face.

I believe that sources of funding from all levels of governance should let municipalities have more discretionary spending authority of where money should be directed.

This city has identified $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion of infrastructure deficit. Do we really have to earmark a project, or can we not just submit an accounting of how we have spent funds? 

Yes parameters would be necessary, but even our prime minister commented to the fact that it is the municipality and not the higher level of government that knows what Sudbury needs.

Let's get back to really caring for what we have, and let's argue the merits of good stewardship of our current assets. Bring back service to service delivery.

JY Bujold
Sudbury