|
Letter to the Editor
The Ottawa SUN
Ottawa, February 27, 2004
Dear Editor,
Leadership required in City’s 2004 budget debate.
Ottawa residents are calling on their city councillors to show
some leadership with the budget. For some, leadership requires
that politicians say whether they support a tax freeze or an
increase, and if so, how much. I do not agree with this approach,
not now, nor during the election last fall (Then, I said that a
tax increase could be expected.). I rejected that simplistic
approach because it leaves open the question of just how the
number selected (0%, 3% or whatever) would be achieved.
Instead of targeting an arbitrary number, it is our job to
carefully examine what the City does, how and why it does it, and
then to use our best judgement on the importance, for the greater
good of the whole city, of any particular expenditure. Of course,
that judgement is not formed in a vacuum. I listen to the public
and consider the input of our professional staff. Finally, elected
officials must bring their own experience to bear in forming their
decisions and ultimately take personal responsibility for those
decisions.
This year is no different. What is different is that past Councils
(of which I was a part) were unwilling to account for inflation.
There was a phrase some years ago that went - “do more with less”.
That has its limits. What is important is that we focus on best
practices and cost-effectiveness.
I am suggesting that we identify “priority areas” as guideposts as
we go through the myriad decisions that must be made. Here are
mine:
First: support cost-effective expenditures on public
security, community safety, and public health. (Note: I define
‘health’ as including physical fitness, mental & intellectual
capabilities and cultural liveliness.)
Second: provide for efficiently maintaining existing
municipal properties to maximize its useful life. (i.e. “Make
certain that the roof is not about to leak before thinking of
enlarging the house”.) Business and fresh capital flow into a
vital and lively city, not into a decaying one. Moreover,
postponed life-cycle maintenance results in increased costs
downstream and amounts to a ‘hidden debt’, not visible on the
books.
Third: provide cost-effective solutions to meet housing
needs of our most disadvantaged, especially our seniors. (It’s not
necessary to own the housing stock to provide assisted housing.)
Fourth: foster an affordable and liveable city for the long
term. (Protect the environment, our heritage structures and stop
urban sprawl).
Fifth: encourage citizen volunteerism in the provision and
delivery of services. (Why can’t we do what our smaller
municipalities used to do so well?)
Sixth: focus on prudent fiscal management as we respect
these priorities.
How do these priorities work in practice? In transportation, it
would mean: maintaining existing road, bridge and bus system
components; expanding urban mass-transit; enhancing security on
our roads by making better and appropriate use of technology (i.e.
red-light cameras, speed-on-green cameras, photo radar).
This approach can result in cuts as well. For instance, in the
past, I have supported closing fire stations because it was good
management. It was not driven by a need to make cuts to achieve a
certain tax rate. So long as the professionals, charged with
administering the fire department, assure us that public safety is
not threatened or diminished, I can support closures. There was no
proposed reduction in the numbers of fire fighters. It’s logical
that the network of fixed stations in a larger amalgamated
municipality might be different from the network that resulted
from the decisions of 11 separate municipalities.
I hope taxpayers find this approach, or something like it, useful
as part of their own strategic examination of what the City does
and how it does it. If we all collectively answer the challenge
this year, we may have set a course for our City that will
preserve its quality of life for some time to come.
Jacques Legendre
Councillor, Rideau-Rockcliffe
back
to index
|
