Cullen, MacLeod Agree On City Spending: QUOTABLE
The level of disapproval is amazing with Mayor Mark Sutcliffe’s so-called “Fairness” campaign to get the federal and provincial governments to fund Ottawa’s spending problems.
Here below are two people from the left and right agreeing, at least partially, on their opposition to the Sutcliffe plan.
Local PC MPP Lisa MacLeod on the same page as former NDP MPP, ex-city councillor and now prominent community activist Alex Cullen? Hard to believe.
The community appears to be coming to the conclusion that the Sutcliffe campaign is based on a faulty foundation and, in fact, the city’s fiscal problems are the result of wild over-spending and low tax increases funded by draining reserve funds. Those reserve funds are close to gone. This went on during the administration of former mayor Jim Watson and has continued with Sutcliffe.
Now the situation has reached the point where the city is running out of money. The incompetently, extravagantly planned, and poorly executed light-rail project is the major reason for these difficulties.
When Sutcliffe says he might delay the opening of LRT stages if senior governments don’t agree to bail the city out, he is being serious. One veteran city hall type believes the city is simply running out of money. The LRT might not be able to be finished. The project is too big for the city to complete and horribly difficult to fix.
Add to that the estimated (by the city) cost of servicing the Tewin project at $590 million, the 75-per-cent increase in the new central library to $306 million, $1 billion to be spent on electric buses that will be powered by natural-gas generators and $500 million for improvements to the failed Lansdowne project. Then there are the confidential legal settlements with unknown parties for LRT that the CBC estimates will be in hundreds of millions of dollars plus the city cost of fixing the infamous Rideau Street LRT sinkhole believed to be around $300 million.
So when the city cries poor, it has only itself to blame.
And who will pay for this fiscal over-spending? You and me. Rich people and, sadly, poor people trying to hold onto their homes.
Hardly seems fair does it. Maybe more people will spend more time considering candidates, votes and civic public policy. Nothing gets people’s attention like something around a seven-per-cent property-tax increase.
Accordingly, Sutcliffe is toast come next election time. And most likely, left-leaning councillors and mayor will take power on Laurier Avenue.
Ironic that centrist and right-wing politicians will be the cause of their own downfall.
Incompetence and extravagance from so-called conservatives.
From X:
Ken Gray
For You:
Province Should Intervene Now To Save City: THE VOTER
Sutcliffe Prepares Ottawa For Big Tax Increase
Sutcliffe Blasted On X For Extra Funding Plea
MacLeod Notes Disgust With Sutcliffe ‘Fairness’ Campaign
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
Take a look at what you paid monthly for taxes last year and this year. The tax increase was around 3% but somehow what I pay monthly went up 9 % without any changes to my house. Those that say taxes aren’t keeping pace with inflation haven’t bothered to look at last year’s tax bill. They’re playing games with those extras on your taxes to declare they’re keeping taxes low but in reality increasing them. Water bills soon to include rain taxes too! Great article. Montreal spent $756M for e-bus infrastructure and Ottawa budgeted about a third of that. Non-discretionary spending to have all buildings retrofitted soonest because of the climate emergency – hundreds of millions. Massive increases in city staff at around $225K pp or higher when you include payroll taxes and benefits. Programs designed by city staff to increase staff numbers such as changing the tree bylaws to the suburbs, garbage educators, empty house tax staff, etc. It’s time to dial back the programs, reduce staffing, and extend the deadline for building refits to 2060 to better spread out the costs.
So, short of money, the City cuts transit before unnecessary projects like Lansdowne 2.1. Priories indeed. Wasn’t the most recent estimate of debt repayment for Lansdowne 2.1 in the range of $15 – $20 million annually? We don’t seem to feel it necessary to audit the the LRT procurement to see if we could learn anything from issues like a $60 million sole source contract for design of LRT Phase 2? Returning to Lansdowne, was there an open competition process used to select an architect for Lansdowne 2.1? Do we need that audit to highlight what might be learned to support the generally accepted practice of competitive bidding?
“And the lion shall lie down with the lamb.”
(Not about to make any suggestions around which one is the lion and which is the lamb …)