Curious if you would have supported taking the $42 million tax room two years ago to build the 4 rec centres, 3 library branches, new central library and the lifecycle maintenance of various recreation facilities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charper
Originally, I was for putting the $52 million towards debt repayment. This would have reduced debt carrying costs on the operational expenditure side while also reducing our liabilities. Then, the issue began to come up on the doors steadily.
I began to rethink my opinion when consistently, people on the doors (unsolicited) kept asking why the City was keeping the money and that the money should be returned to them through a tax reduction. This is overwhelmingly what I hear on the doors. Like me, some are concerned that it isn't clear what the other levels of government will bring forward and we risk being given less if we move on the $52 million. Others are very concerned because they are on fixed incomes and $126 a year does mean something to them. After the flood, I have met folks who believe the $52 million is actually going towards flood relief of their homes (which is not at all the case). So there is a lot of confusion but most everyone believes that they should have been asked first whether they wanted the City to have the $52 million.
So I am in favour of not having the City retain the $52 million in November. (sorry, was just distracted by a twitter chat while I typed this and it took a bit longer to finish)
I'll also add that this has nothing to do with this being the Mayor's idea etc. I do not base my support on who ideas come from or don't come from. I look at the merits of an idea and make my decisions based on that. My hope would be that every member of Council takes that approach.
|