Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
The Wildrose plan is to give the same amount of money (or a bit more) but eliminate the conditions. The plan is to provide consistent, stable, and predictable funding to the cities.
It seems like you are concerned that Nenshi will decide that C-Trains aren't as important as say bridges and will therefore redirect funding towards bridges, but the people of Calgary voted for their local government and I think that the local government is better positioned to decide funding priorities than say an MLA from Peace River.
One of the key Wildrose beliefs is that decisions should be made closer to where the people are and should not be centralized decisions if possible. By giving the money directly to the municipalities they are allowing the spending decisions to be made at that level.
|
Most municipalities will agree with this philosophy...IF the level of transfer and revenue generating power is actually adequate for the municipalities to meet their particular needs. Keep in mind that cities like Calgary and Edmonton need to build infrastructure like LRT lines. These are billions of dollars each. The big cities should not be treated the same is tiny towns with a totally different set of needs. I've yet to see any party make this distinction - a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Generally, we need to stop treating cities as a some sort of junior level of government able to operate and invest only at the whims of the Province (and to a lesser extent the Federal Government). Our consitution is based on an agrarian society, of which we are not anymore.
Take a look at the City of Calgary Council's Cities Matter survey:
http://www.citiesmatter.ca/