Counterpoint: Question #7
The Lindsay Post is running a weekly series of questions, with answers by both the "Yes" and "No" sides of the issues.

---

Question #7: How can you show your system will provide better services to the citizens of Kawartha Lakes?

---

Not Everyone Wants a Rolls Royce

As you drive down the 401, you can't help but notice that not all the cars are Rolls Royces. In fact, it's probably safe to say that not all cars are less than five years old. Much as we would all like to drive a new Rolls, few of us can afford it. This is good news for the automobile industry. It gives them a market for cars in all price ranges. And that, in turn, is good news for the world's economy.

     Why, then, is it assumed that all taxpayers want, and can afford, uniform, top-of-the-line services? In the former County, service levels varied among the municipalities, because they were based on taxpayers' ability to pay or willingness to volunteer. With amalgamation, levels were "standardized" throughout the City.

     In one of the few accurate predictions in Mr. Kitchen's report, he cautioned that "the savings from restructuring could quickly dissipate if service levels and compensation were allowed to level up". That is exactly what has happened. Everyone pays the same price, and they expect the same service.

     This isn't the fault of taxpayers, nor of Council. It's the basic, fatal flaw in applying an inflexible one-tier system of government to a mixed rural-urban population.

     Taxpayers don't want higher service levels, they want appropriate sevice levels. What's the difference? Well, a cottage-owner who is here only on weekends probably doesn't care if his garbage is picked up at his residence or at the end of his road. However, he cares a great deal about when it is picked up, if his Sunday garbage rots until Friday in the summer sun, and is scattered across his yard by grateful raccoons.

     However, amalgamation hasn't even brought uniformly higher service levels - just higher costs. We hear complaints from every corner of the City about deteriorating road maintenance, bureaucratic run-arounds from City Hall and skyrocketing user fees for a whole shopping list of municipal services. Yet City bureaucrats are advising Council to offset the massive deficit by reducing the road maintenance budget!

     What happened to all the "efficiencies" of amalgamation? Mr. Kitchen predicted an annual cost saving of $3.3 million within a two-year period following restructuring. Well, the two years are up, and we face a $4.4 million deficit. It's time to conclude that our bigger government costs more. Fancy that!

     Big, single-tier government is inherently more costly. Services are harmonized upward. Large governments breed bureaucracies. Salaries directly related to their department size encourage bureaucrats to spawn empires. Might this explain our sudden need for a business incubator, an airport, an "agri-tourism" program?

     The two-tier structure allows more flexibility. It also encourages competition, giving politicians benchmarks to compare efficient and inefficient governments. This, in turn, fosters innovation.

     For example, before amalgamation, many services were provided by volunteers or private enterprise. Now that these have been taken over by City staff we are told we can no longer afford such "luxuries" as the Norland Winter Carnival, or Canada Day celebrations. Is this better service?

     Will a "yes" vote for de-amalgamation result in better services? It depends on where you live. By removing area rating on some services, Council guaranteed better services for a select few. If municipalities are restored, people will be taxed for only those services they actually receive, and it will be up to the taxpayers to decide what they want to pay for. Not everyone wants a Rolls - not even the Barenaked Ladies.

     If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-Car, a nice Reliant automobile.