Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Ok, but what does the flood have to do with it since the province and feds will pay for most of the damage?
You're even saying its a changed story by the city, we consulted the people wanted the money back, the floods came and now you can't have it?
Where's the concrete plan, it just feels like the city is not selling us on this, they're bullying and stamping their feet on this.
Look, like I said to me it means nothing more then an exercise in dictatorial democracy. But get off of the evasion and tell everyone what the actual plan is without continuing to change stories, having Nenshi come out and say, "well the people who called me said I should keep the money", oh its for infrastructure its for the flood.
If you're going to scoop up money that literally doesn't belong to the city at least be specific about it.
I know that you work with the mayor and you act as his mouth piece here, but saying hmmm isn't it interesting that the province changed its story for political purposes when the mayor did the same damn thing with the flood a bit hypocritical my friend?
|
Like I said - 1/20th of the next 20 years of the money (2013) is being used for flood - this is out of necessity in the majority of Council's eyes, the strong opinion of the City Manager, the advice of a Provincial Minister, and other disaster-hit communities. You used the word most - yes most of the damage will be insured or covered by the Province, but not all and some of half a billion is still a lot of money. Just ask Slave Lake:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sa...913/story.html
For example, the City will have incurred about $8 million to repair various major sink-holes across the city due to the high groundwater levels. We don't know whether this will be eligible or not under the Province's and Fed's flood recovery programs.
If not this money, the City's portion will just be coming from another taxation source. Or if it drains its reserve, it would have to be replenished (again through taxes). So why not use this available funding in an extraordinary circumstance? Following the flood, there was a lot of public discourse about the desire to use this funding specifically for flood recovery.
Beyond 2013, (this is an annual funding source) doesn't have to be all or nothing - using it for capital or applying it to a tax reduction (or debt reduction) it could be a blend. It's quite clear through the consultation that applying it to a tax reduction was popular - at budget time I'm quite certain all or most of it will be applied to the "give it back" option as a result.
The use of tax room is specific in the policy - debt relief or capital projects (not operating).
I'm not sure how I see the Mayor changed his story - tax room money is to be used for capital or debt relief - the flood presented a sudden influx of capital needs for the City - it's a prudent application of this funding (at least for the immediate term). Cash on hand also relieves all levels of government of taking debt to cover reconstruction costs (remember both the Province and Feds are in deficit, so reconstruction funding would be debt for them).