Ya
gotta wonder why. Why would a council, representing the taxpayers of
London, want to explore sharing its potential tax and development
revenues with a neighbouring municipality?
Of
course, if that neighbouring municipality is Middlesex Centre, which
includes the village of Arva, and the head of council actually lives
and pays residential taxes in that village instead of the one that he
purports to represent, you might harbour some suspicions about the
motivation.
That,
it seems, is the situation of our mayor. He lives in Arva but makes
the daily trek to our fair city to establish our priorities, harangue
council about our taxes, insult our administrative staff about its
“bureaucratic stance,” and exhort our post-secondary students to
have fun because working hard is “bullshit”. That done, he
returns to Arva where taxes are lower and city amenities
non-existent.
The
question is: Why doesn't he declare a conflict when discussing an
issue which could affect his taxes and which he doesn't share with
his “constituents” generally? Perhaps for the same reason that he
doesn't declare a conflict when matters of waste to energy appear on
the council agenda, despite the fact that he still retains an
interest in a number of businesses which, on paper at least, would
seem to be part of the industry.
Certainly,
the mayor gave an impassioned plea to the council this week,
imploring it to “At least let [Middlesex Centre] make its case!”
Actually,
Middlesex Centre had already made its case in a letter to the Civic
Works Committee meeting the week before requesting delegation status.
And also in 2001 and 2010 and 2011 when councils past and present had
dealt with the issue.
But
apparently the members of the committee had forgotten what it was
all about. It was all news to Councillor Harold Usher who had been
present on all those occasions. He had completely forgotten the previous reports and had voted with the committee to
have staff report back on the request from Mayor Edmondson to double Arva's access to London's sanitary services so that it
could build some more residential units just outside London's city
limits.
Fortunately,
Councillor Joni Baechler has a good memory and an excellent grasp of
the situation. She provided the council with a brief but succinct
review of the background. Back in 2001, Arva needed some sanitary
capacity in order to stop pouring raw sewage into the Medway Creek
and London, being a good neighbour, obliged by providing enough
capacity at its Adelaide Street sewage treatment plant to accommodate
a condo development and a high school. An agreement was drawn up to
provide for modest growth, on the order of 10 additional units per
year.
But
early in 2010, Middlesex Centre was back, asking for more capacity
for a subdivision. The council of the day said no. Ten units per year
was one thing; that would accommodate internal growth. Anything more
would come at the expense of development across the road in London,
resulting in lost development charges and property taxes. The
following year, Edmonson was back, rightly suspecting that the new
council might be more amenable to his proposal. He played, then as
now, the good neighbour card.
“What
does it mean to be a good neighbour?” Baechler demanded, and began
to list them. Being a good neighbour meant giving millions to
hospitals, universities and colleges, for libraries and entertainment
venues—all the amenities of a modern, vital city—at no extra cost
to the neighbouring communities who enjoy them but don't have to pay
for them. That's what London taxpayers do. And now, we're expected to
facilitate their growth at our expense.
Councillor
Matt Brown made sure that council understood just what that expense
was: $4.4 million in lost development charges revenue and nearly half
a million in forgone tax revenue. That's the price for 184
residential units in the first year. That's pretty significant. The
loss of development charges alone is equivalent to a one per cent tax
increase. Brown felt the opportunity costs were too high; he would be
voting against the motion.
Councillor
Bill Armstrong agreed; why would we disadvantage our own developers
and businesses? So did Councillor Nancy Branscombe.
She remembered that when this had been dealt with in 2010, both
Cheryl Miller and Joni Baechler had spoken against it. With two such
polar opposites in agreement, that was enough for her. Likewise,
Councillor Judy Bryant noted that the trend was toward greater
density, not sprawl. She cited several recent articles in local and
national publications that reported on that trend. Calgary was saving
11 billion dollars in capital costs by increasing density by 25%.
Then
the rebuttal began. Councillor Dale Henderson wanted the report to go
to staff which in turn should extricate more money out of our
neighbours. Failing that, we could simply annex them.
Councillor
Steve Orser figured that, if we didn't give them the extra capacity,
Arva would just build its own treatment plant and start building 500
or 1000 residential units per year. Think about them opportunity
costs! Where the money for a sewage treatment plant would come from,
he didn't say. Even London’s population can't come up with the
money for one. Heck, we even have to skimp on the flood protection
for our existing Greenway Plant because we can't find the bucks, as
we learned from a discussion earlier that evening.
As
for Councillor Bud Polhill, he didn't see that allowing Arva to build
more houses would affect London at all. Some people just don't want
to live in London, he argued. They'll find a way to build somewhere
else, regardless of capacity. And then we might just end up with more
raw sewage into the Medway Creek as people take matters into their
own hands.
That
was also the approach taken by Councillor Joe Swan. When this came
before committee in 2011, he had initially been opposed to granting
greater capacity but that was then and this is now. He has a tendency
to be capricious and to come up with some spurious arguments. The
annexation of Lambeth, he suggested, had come about because of
inadequate servicing. It certainly wasn't something the residents
wanted, he pointed out, although the wishes of Lambeth residents held little sway with him when he was proposing "anything goes" zoning as part of the South West Area Plan.
And neither are the residents of Arva supportive of Mayor Edmonson's
request for doubling the sewage capacity to be provided by London.
They love their community as it is, with just enough growth to allow
for their kids to have their own place. They don't want it to become
another suburb. They want it to be a village. At least, that's what
they said when confronted with this matter a couple of years ago.
And
our mayor is one of those residents. But he doesn't represent them;
he looks to Londoners for his votes. So for whom is he speaking when
he pleads with council to “Show some respect for our neighbours and
at least let them present their plan”? After all, we may want
something from them one of these days, he pointed out.
I
wonder what he may have in mind.
And
I wonder why the nine councillors (Fontana, Polhill, Swan, Orser, Hubert, Henderson, VanMeerbergen, and White) who supported the motion to
entertain the possibility of re-negotiating the servicing agreement
with Middlesex County did so. Were they just being polite to a
neighbour? Were they flirting? Are they simply politicians who
can't say no?
Staff
expects to have a report back for the committee in January. It
shouldn't be too difficult. After all, it seems that most of those
who want it didn't read the previous ones from 2001, 2010 and 2011.
It's not that hard to change the date.
3 comments:
anyone going to take JoFo to court over this one (and it is court, not Andre Marin). And it is the only way short of a conviction to get the seat declared vacant. You have 6 weeks.
Who may try alleged contravention of s. 5 (1-3)
8. The question of whether or not a member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3) may be tried and determined by a judge. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 8.
Who may apply to judge
9. (1) Subject to subsection (3), an elector may, within six weeks after the fact comes to his or her knowledge that a member may have contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), apply to the judge for a determination of the question of whether the member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 9 (1).
Contents of notice of application
(2) The elector in his or her notice of application shall state the grounds for finding a contravention by the member of subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 9 (2).
Time for bringing application limited
Just a thought here, Gina. If it's true that there is a deficit between what the City will be required to spend in capital and operating costs over the lifetime of the house and what the City will receive back in dcs and property tax over that same period, why wouldn't we take the money that Middlesex Centre will pay us for the extra capacity and just dump this deficit onto the backs of Middlesex Centre taxpayers?
Just a thought here, Gina. I think it's pretty clear that there is a deficit between what the City pays in capital and operating costs over the lifetime of a development in these greenfield areas and the amount of dollars that are recovered in DCs and property taxes. If this is true, why wouldn't we take the dollars that Middlesex Centre is willing to pay us to rent the excess capacity and dum the deficit that will accrue onto the backs of Middlesex Centre taxpayers?
Post a Comment