Home › Forums › Bulldog Forum: Ottawa, National And International Debate › Can The O.5-Per-Cent Levy Win At Council?
This topic contains 11 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Marre 6 months, 1 week ago.
December 8, 2017 at 9:14 AM #741077December 8, 2017 at 12:11 PM #741085
I suspect that Mayor Watson will have one of his syncophants (cough cough deputy mayor cough cough) whip the vote by reminding various and sundry councillors of favours owed to His Honour (the committee chairpersons who hold their prestigious positions at the whim of His Honour come to mind), or if necessary making promises on behalf of His Honour that can only be fulfilled in a subsequent term.
As a consequence, the budget as it exists today will pass, but rather than by the customary vote of 22-2, it will be more like 14-10. Later in the day, His Honour will talk to the assembled members of the media, during which His Honour will remind the residents of the city about how fiscally prudent His Honour is, while hectoring the dissenters as irresponsible. Sadly, the print, radio or TV media crowd will repeat this drivel verbatim, with nary a word of challenge.
Finally, names will have been taken and retribution will be forthcoming for those who dared to question His Honour’s infinite wisdom.
Member Emeritus, Cynics ClubDecember 8, 2017 at 12:14 PM #741079
Bob LeDrewDecember 8, 2017 at 12:15 PM #741078
Oh, I guess a levy is to property tax mil rates as a Health Premium is to income tax.
A levy collected on your property tax bill ain’t a tax just like a premium collected on your income tax return isn’t a tax.
They need to be upfront and raise taxes if, indeed, extra is needed. They still, however, need to look at program spending too. If the citizens demand everything they currently get is needed then the citizens must be prepared to pay for what they want.
The pols must be honest. If you want a,b,c,and d to be run in a not half-baked manner it will cost x. If you want x to be less then we must get rid of a or b or c or d.December 8, 2017 at 12:22 PM #741107December 8, 2017 at 12:24 PM #741108December 9, 2017 at 10:03 AM #741149December 9, 2017 at 10:04 AM #741150December 9, 2017 at 5:42 PM #741169
Having lived through the 30% tax increase in Gloucester, I hardly consider 0.5% a major rebellion or sufficient to really fix all that needs fixing. Posturing by all, anything to get elected next year.
Since Watson was part of the tribute to Harry Allen, might be wise for him and all our councilors to revisit the details below.
One of the most controversial mayors in Gloucester’s history now has a bridge named after him.
Harry Allen served as the Mayor of Gloucester for two terms from 1985 to 1991, but it was during his second term in office that he came under fire for raising the property tax rate a whopping 30 per cent.
Allen received several death threats leading up to the tax hike, forcing him to wear a bullet proof vest at council. The controversial tax increase eventually led to his demise in the 1991 municipal election when he was defeated by rival Claudette Cain.
The irony is that the tax hike allowed his successor to maintain spending while either freezing taxes, or passing modest tax cuts.
The tax hike issue aside, Allen oversaw a number of forward thinking initiatives duing his tenure as mayor including the Rockcliffe Parkway realignment and the widening of the St. Joseph Bridge over Green’s Creek.
It is that bridge which now bears his name.
Allen’s contributions to the former City of Gloucester were recognized in a press release by Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Innes Ward Coun. Rainer Bloess.
“Starting with his community projects in Beacon Hill through to his time as Mayor of Gloucester, Harry Allan always kept residents’ best interests at heart,” said Mayor Watson. “It is a great pleasure to recognize Harry Allen’s contributions and legacy.”
“Harry Allen’s contributions to the former City of Gloucester continue to benefit the residents of Ottawa,” said Councillor Bloess. “We are pleased to provide this honour and recognition for his foresight and his many years of public service.”December 9, 2017 at 11:22 PM #741173
The VoterDecember 10, 2017 at 9:49 AM #741179
If previous councils had done the job properly there would have been no need for a one-time correction. There would have been proper reserves set up, there would have been incremental yearly increases, etc.
This is the problem that Ottawa’s 2% is/has created. Your assets are not properly maintained and programs get partially funded and hence are half-baked. New initiatives, that may be needed, get shoved aside or get half-measure funding. You run a deficit that must be paid back in the following year; thus, further reducing funds. A vicious circle.
You guys can’t solve a funds shortage with a one time .5% levy. That is just another pie-in-the-sky way of putting off recognizing the facts.
If your city costs $xxx to run but you are only willing to pay $xx then you have an ongoing problem.
Your treasurer needs to explain the ABC’s of finance to your council. Your council needs to take the 2018 budget back to the drawing board.
The budget DOES NOT need to be approved until March or April of 2018, so what’s the rush?December 10, 2017 at 6:06 PM #741193