Back in 2008
when RDNO formulated the questions sent out to the electoral areas in the non-binding
survey it missed the opportunity to ask non ambiguous questions in order to get
non ambiguous information. Another error was to assume that all electoral areas
are identical and should be all asked the same questions. The EAs are not
identical. Some electoral areas in the RDNO are truly rural in nature while others
for reasons of proximity are more like suburbs to their more populous and
larger urban neighbours. This is not good or bad it is just the situation.
What is
unfortunate over the years this situation has fostered a we /they mentality
between Vernon and its neighbours. Because the four political units function
under different financial rules they are able to provide differing level of
service to their residents. Though we are told that everyone is happy with
things as are in the EAs Vernon receives annually several requests to be
annexed into the city; so not everyone is happy. As a recent RDNO commissioned report
accurately points out these piecemeal annexations are an erosion of the EAs tax
base. Though some mitigation the from province is possible the EA is faced with
having to provide its residents the services they expect with an ever shrinking
number of folios.(taxable parcels or businesses)They face the hard choice of
either providing fewer services or increase the tax rate. Neither option seems
palatable
Reasons for requesting
annexation to the city in vary detail but a common theme is a desire to be
provided sanitary sewer service; a service not provided by the Regional
District to the EA. Those who make these applications are willing to pay the
increase in taxes and fees to receive this service. There are rules of that
govern these annexations that must be followed. The city has time tested rules
as to who it can deliver sewer services. In some instances the actual cost to
the city for the annexation is greater than the benefit gained by the added
folios. What is to be done?
The recent
report to RDNO outlines in detail the problem that I have only sketched above
and offers some mental acrobatics (something I am sometimes accused of performing)
as solutions. I agree that with Mr. Edwards that all should read this report to
gain an understanding of the challenges faced by Electoral Areas in the face of
what has been termed “death by a thousand
cuts”. The report has as an
assumption somewhat unspoken. The assumption is that the continuing viability
of the electoral areas is desirable and a good thing and possible. As I studied
the report I came to the conclusion that something needs to done. I think the
whole study needs to be repeated at least in the case of EAs B and C with a different
assumption. Assume one larger Municipality including Vernon B and C. Something
like this was done in 1991 in the Sussex Report which looked at many Governance
options for Greater Vernon. Like all reports there were assumptions. Some
remain valid today some do not but after over twenty years the issues remain
the same and unfortunately with no end in sight. The results of this new study
could provide an as yet unthought-of solution that could be presented to the
electorate.
The people have
as yet not been granted an effective voice in all this.
Cheers, Shawn
Lee a Vernon Taxpayer
No comments:
Post a Comment