Yes Victoria: Counterpoint Q16

Counterpoint: Question #16
The Lindsay Post is running a weekly series of questions, with answers by both the "Yes" and "No" sides of the issues.

Question #16:
If you had one question answered by the other side, what would it be?

Can "No" side recognize that $36 per household cost to de-amalgamate is cheaper than continuing failed experiment.

      What one question would we like to ask the "No" side? We'll answer that one at the end of this column. First we want to dispel the myth that de-amalgamation will send us all to the poorhouse.

      At the time of amalgamation back in 2000, the transition board went on a bit of a shopping spree; a $15.5 million shopping spree.

      However, the good thing about it is that the $ 15.5 million included a lot of items that won't have to be purchased when we de-amalgamate: graders, snowplows, fire trucks, computers and computer software, furniture, office refurbishing and so forth.

      Some of these items will stay with the County after de-amalgamation. Others are available for distribution among the lower-tier municipalities.

      Subtracting the items that won't have to be repurchased from the list in the City's application to the Province for restructuring money gives an estimated cost to de-amalgamate of approximately $2.5 million. Double that, to be on the safe side: $5 million.

      For the last ten years, the Province of Ontario's Municipal Restructuring Fund has paid 75% of the cost of municipal restructuring. On November 12th, 2002 Chris Hodgson, speaking as a Minister of the Crown, affirmed that de-amalgamation would be a restructuring like any other and hence eligible for provincial funding.

      So, the cost to local taxpayers would be 25% of approximately $5 million. This works out to around $36 per household, or to use another basis, $22 per hundred thousand of assessment.

      Is a de-amalgamation cost of $36 per household a sound investment in the future? Well, here's the alternative: So far, only three years into the mega-city, total taxes in the City of Kawartha Lakes have climbed by about $6 million, or $175 per household. That's an additional $175 on our tax bills, every year from now on.

      Would you rather face a lifetime of City of Kawartha Lakes-style tax increases, or a one-time $36 cost to get out of the mega-city now? Amalgamation had commendable goals. It was supposed to deliver more responsive local government, and better local government services at a lower cost to txpayers. Taxes, generally, were supposed to come down and services were supposed to improve. For most of us, amalgamation failed to deliver the promises.

      Every bit as bad as the broken promises was the way amalgamation was done in the first place. The provincial government put out a contract on us, and gave the job to Harry 'the hit man' Kitchen to pull the trigger. However, the same provincial government which did this to us in the first place, is also giving us a one-time opportunity to fix their mistake.

      That's what the November referendum is all about. It's up to the "Yes" and the "No" sides to make the case for their respective positions. As we make history in the City of Kawartha Lakes, the rest of the Province is watching us.

      Now for the question which we on the Victoria County "Yes" Campaign would like to ask the Kawartha Lakes Supporters who have tried relentlessly to convince you that we can't afford to de-amalgamate. Isn't a one-time, per household cost of about $36 (the equivalent of 8 jugs of milk), a reasonable price to pay to undo the damage of a failed experiment in local governance?