justcaws.com

Hey Guelph City Hall would you mind storing my daughter’s soiled diapers for an extra week?

Apparently you believe it’s not too much of an inconvenience to parents of young children. Maybe it’s time you did your part for the environment.

Picking up smelly trash once a week use to be a basic service you could count on your local municipality to do. No longer here in Guelph.

This past month the city cut back the collection of many items including diapers and sanitary products to every other week from the regular weekly collection.

This might be understandable if the city was in a budget hole or the tax base was eroding. Not so here in Guelph. Budgets are increasing each year along with our perennial property tax hike.

The problem lies in this city not making their core services a funding priority. Environmental rebate programs and recycling centres can have a place for city that wants to label itself “Green”. But they can’t be funded at the expense of core services.

Without an understanding of what its priorities should be – I guess I should not be surprised when the city announces funding for an advanced toilet training pilot program for newborns.

Potty humour aside – getting it wrong happens. But on this issue the city is demonstrating irresponsibility and contempt for many Guelph residents.

Yes, I know I am not shy about sharing my beefs with City Hall, but I also like to offer and discuss possible solutions. Yes, I am against the City of Guelph giving people tax funded rebates to replace their large tank toilets.  My main complaint is that I don’t believe people are or should be motivated by a city rebate to throw their old toilet into the landfill. Motivation should come from the desire to reduce their water consumption to help out the environment and their wallet.   Much to wife’s chagrin, I will tell you that we have an old, giant tank toilet.  Years ago, my water guilt took over and I placed a large inflated water bag in the tank to greatly reduce the amount of water required for the toilet to properly operate.  

If the City is hell bent on spending money on conservation initiatives it would seem providing a free water tank displacement bag would be a much cheaper way of reducing water use. It also will stop perfectly good toilets from being needlessly thrown into landfills.

Recently, I tweeted about my displeasure that my child’s diapers are now going to be picked up once every two weeks starting in September 2011. This is unacceptable. I understand the desire from the City to avoid diapers and other sanitary products from “contaminating” the compost found in green bags. But leaving residents to hold soiled diapers for two weeks is unfair. If you think I am whiner on this – then you hold on to my diaper bags during the heat of the summer. All this plan is going to do is cause more illegal dumping that nobody wants.

If sanitary products can be bagged separately from bio-degradable waste at source, surely the garbage trucks could be fitted to accommodate.  Otherwise weekly clear pick up outside the winter months will be required.  

Yes, my accommodation could cost more, but the City could use the money saved from scrapping its rebate program.  I don’t have all the answers, but either does City Hall, so let’s hear some of your cost effective solutions.

Remember, it takes engaged citizens to make a city great.    

A recent column in the Economist Magazine indicates that one of the major implications of global warming will be the migration of millions people from soon to be un livable areas to regions that are able to cope with rising global temperatures.

No resource of course has the impact of damming a place un livable than a lack of fresh water.

Under this scenario Guelph’s water conservation initiatives don’t seem just, but rather greedy and small minded.

In Southern Ontario we have access to vast amounts of fresh water in the Great Lakes. Communities surrounding them have tapped into these great treasures to grow their communities and provide clean, reliable drinking water for generations.

Communities near Guelph have recognised that you can’t stop growth and progress and have made plans to utilise Lake Erie in order to provide for their growing, vibrant communities.

Guelph has decided to in effect cap it’s growth by not investing in developing its water infrastructure. This strategy seems to be endorsed by Guelphites, who want to limit any population expansion. Under this approach the City can tell the province it can’t grow any further because it doesn’t have enough ground water to support increased provincial population targets.

Many support this plan by killing any talk of water pipe expansion and pushing water conservation. The fact that this will come at huge cost to Guelph’s economic growth seems to be of little consequence to a workforce made up of a large percentage public-sector workers. New enterprises and jobs that come with them will be told to go elsewhere with Guelph’s not open for business sign on the lawn.

The other consequence of water conservation is the negative impact it will have on those who cannot migrate to Guelph and enjoy its bounty.
The number of displaced people is only going to grow dramatically with climate change. While other communities around Guelph are getting ready for this increased demand – Guelph ignores the incoming waves.

Conserving a precious resource like fresh water is the right call when it is in scarce supply. But conservation becomes selfish hoarding when you choose not to develop infrastructure to access to abundant water supplies the world needs.

When the world arrives on Guelph’s doorstep with their cup empty – I want to be able to invite them in. I don’t want to tell them that they may have better luck next door because we didn’t want to grow up.

One of the reasons property taxes in Guelph keep going up at alarming rates is that City staff are never going to recommend to Council that they can do more for less. It’s in their self interest to ask Council for department budget increases for more staff and resources. Since they are full-time experts and handle the day to day management of their programs – part-time City Council members usually go along with their requests. It’s tough to go against what City Staff recommends because the choice is usually presented to Council in a very one sided manner where you would be labelled uninformed if you dared to go against the “experts” wishes.

GREGORY CAWSEY

As I did my federal taxes this past week, I was happy to see a modest decline in my taxes this past year.

The ‘Harper hundred’ given every month for each of my boys under six has helped — even though it is taxable — and the fitness credit was of some benefit.

Of course this little tax relief at the federal level is more than eaten at the local level, which has been the case for sometime now no matter what party is in office.

Lately, my federal taxes continue to go down, the provincial taxes stay the same and my municipal taxes keep going up. No wonder my issue is with the level of government that keeps taking more of my money.

Now let me say I’m not one of these ultra right- wing zealots who scream every time a local politician spends more of their money. I am well aware of the downloading of services that the municipality now needs to pay for. I also believe in some income redistribution to meet city goals for the greater good.

But with that also comes the expectation that I want to see my elected officials being cognizant that they have to spend within their means.

I’m not sure if that has been the case here locally, but that’s the great thing about living here in Guelph. I don’t need to feel guilty if I’m not doing enough for the environment or contributing enough to community-based social services. All I have to do is remind myself that I pay Guelph property taxes and reflect on how much I have given and will continue to give.

Debating the merits of where our property tax dollar goes however, is not my current focus of concern.

What bugs me is the new rationalization for the annual property tax increase — that it has to be raised to keep up with inflation.

I heard this from the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, who wrongly indicated there would be no property tax increases in that city, only a cost of living increase.

I have heard that same argument given here, but the last time I checked, the annual cost of living has been running much lower than annual property tax increases.

What makes things worse is that every time they reassess my property it goes up in value, so I am getting hammered on both ends of this calculation.

I’m sure my situation isn’t unique. In fact, I haven’t heard of anyone who has had their home reassessed at a lower price.

So if the tax pie keeps getting bigger each year, why the annual tax hikes at a greater rate than inflation?

Some say it’s needed to pay for all of the city’s growth, but growth if managed properly should pay for itself.

So the only possible conclusions that can be drawn are that our local politicians have managed our city’s rapid growth poorly or they are unable to say no when it comes to increased spending.

My guess is that it has been a combination of the two.

But before we look to criticize our local government, we do need to look in the mirror.

Voter turnout and media attention is greatest for a federal election and lowest for municipal. Yet, the issues that will affect us most in our day-to -day lives are decided at our local city hall. If we don’t take our local politics more seriously and urge each other to get involved, then the branch of government that is growing in importance and taxing us more and more suffers.

Whether it is on Parliament Hill or your local city hall — the best thing and the worst thing about democracy is that people get what they deserve.

I had the following column published in the Guelph Mercury – June 2008. As the city begins the budget process for 2011, I thought I would post it again.

Recently, Councillor Karl Wettstein the chair of city’s finance, administration, and corporate services committee asked city taxpayers for help to avoid an “unacceptable” 6.5 per cent property tax hike next year.

Well like any other taxpayer in this city, I have some thoughts on the matter.

First, let’s get beyond the whining about the downloading of social programs and services from the province to the city.

Yes, that was a misguided decision by the previous Tory regime in Ontario, but the policy hasn’t been substantially reversed by the current government, so it’s time to deal with this reality. Doing so will mean that cuts have to be made, but any educated voter should know that it’s not the fault of council and city hall.  They have been given the jurisdiction to fund programs without the proper financial support from the province. That doesn’t mean, however, that this gives council and city staff the licence to pass the cost onto the municipal taxpayer through continued, annual tax increases.

So sharpen your pencil, city hall, and make cuts – we won’t hold you accountable.

But if you do nothing but pass the costs on, that shows ineffective leadership and you will be held to account.

Where specifically can you cut?

How about charging for all parking, or returning bus service to previous levels? When you are in a budget squeeze you can’t do both. Besides, the two plans contradict one another when it comes to the environment. The city wants to increase bus service to every 20 minutes to encourage people to take public transit, but the city offers two-hour free downtown parking, which makes it easier to take the car. Talk about sucking and blowing at the same time. Right now we can’t afford either option.

When you are in a budget crunch, you can’t cut your revenues, increase spending and remain solvent. If you want to attract people downtown, have businesses stay open beyond the supper hour. In terms of increased bus service, I think this is a fantastic idea, but can only be put in place if the city can afford to do it — which it can’t.

I would like to retrofit my house with the latest in environmental friendly products, but I can’t afford the upfront cost, no matter how much savings can be amortized down the line.

The other area to look at is increasing community user fees.

Taxpayers like myself are already getting a tax break on their kids’ sport fees from the federal government. So a fee increase only takes back the discount that parents have been getting.

Our budget crunch will mean that all fees will have to be increased. This only makes sense in times of inflation.

The greater tax pool has subsidized low fees for too long and now it is time for users to pay the true cost.

We also need to have a taxpayer protection plan put in place that permanently limits tax increases to minimum levels — one per cent or two per cent).

That would force future municipal governments, regardless of political leanings, to work within their means.

Also, let’s hope our local elected officials don’t play us for fools again with the annual bait and switch game.

In recent years the city has floated a high tax increase only to hear the public yell and scream. The large increase was never going to happen, but it makes a lower increase more palatable and makes people think their elected officials made some tough choices to reduce the budget.

In reality, all we are left with is a delay of fiscal prudence and another unacceptable tax increase.

So council and city staff, enough with the excuses –anything higher than a two per cent increase and you haven’t done your job.  Start cutting and making the tough calls. If the voters get mad — and they will — just remind them your hand was forced on this.

If they continue to complain, tell them to vote accordingly in the next federal or provincial election.  It’s time for showing leadership and spending within our means. Anything else is unacceptable.

 The redevelopment plan at the corner of Stone/Gordon sure has caught the attention of this city and its residents. This isn’t surprising when you consider that an out of town developer wants to replace an existing hotel with two twin towers of 16 and 14 storeys, next door to mature family neighbourhood.

 As expected, most of the vocal reaction to this project has been negative. There have been a few whispers that this project is the type of growth Guelph should embrace as part of a move to increase the density of housing development within the city’s core. While I support increased city intensification to reduce sprawl – this is not the project to embrace.

 If you are against this development – get in line. A full gallery at last Monday’s City Council meeting and two well attended community events opposing this redevelopment are proof that the developer – Abode Varsity Living, has awakened the spirit of civic action for which Guelph is known. 

 So far, the opposition has been primarily concerned with height and density of the building. The fact that Abode is seeking ten amendments to the city’s official plan certainly has sparked resistance as well. While these are certainly valid concerns – I believe the greatest damage this development inflicts upon the neighbourhood is a significant drop of property values. This drop will not come from the size of building – but who lives in it.

Adobe by law cannot discriminate against non-students who may want to live in the buildings. The University of Guelph has indicated that it is no longer building residence due to limited growth and demand. So, it seems rather inevitable that this project over time will move from student purpose to one that is made available to anyone who can pony up the rent. The affordable housing units that this project will soon become will certainly devalue the property values of nearby homes.

Saying that you are against the size and scope of a building is certainly a more popular argument to make than saying you don’t want certain people living next to you and bringing down the neighbourhood. Focusing on the size of this development however, is only going to get you a smaller building.  But in the end a building half size of the original, is still not going to add any value to the area.

I believe the overwhelming size of this project is a red-herring and that it’s the builder’s intention to pull the ol’ bait and switch on the City of Guelph and its concerned residents. I doubt the builder has any intention to build a residence of the scope proposed. Hence, the reason it hasn’t done an exhaustive study on the impact of such a large project. The City has been left to order a bunch of reports and complete the due diligence that should have been done by the builder. 

I am confident the city will reject this redevelopment on its own merits. My concern is what changes will take place and what the final project might look like.

Arguments against the redevelopment should focus on rejecting this development for reasons that cannot be accommodated regardless of the final size and scope of this project.  

Pollution of all kinds, security concerns, decreased property values, and the fact that the development has no connection with the University of Guelph are just a few reasons for the city to soundly reject any version of this plan.

When changes are eventually made to this proposal and the final scaled down proposal is brought forward, Council should keep in mind that the site in question is not just any piece of property.  This corner is a gateway to our beautiful city.

It neighbours beautiful, mature family homes that represent the perfect mix of development and green space that sets this city apart. Disrupting this balance for the purpose of intensification would compromise Guelph’s values and standards which are the foundation of this great city.

I have the misfortune of falling into one of two categories that make one feel undervalued here. While I don’t suffer the fate of residing in one of Guelph’s new neighbourhoods, I’m one of its motorists. My heart goes out to those who are part of both camps. They’re on the outside, looking in when comes to city planning. Just looking at a couple of examples indicates that how you get treated in this city seems to depend greatly on two things – where you live and whether you have the gall to still travel by car.

Take our “hurry up and wait” Hanlon Expressway. I have lived in this city for over a decade. Each year I have heard and read about imminent upgrades pending for this vital city artery. Yet, sure enough, years pass and nothing is done. Unfortunately, with its increased traffic, the constant delay in getting the Hanlon up to speed is not just a convenience issue, but a safety issue one as well.

Anyone travelling south on the Hanlon during peak times knows its hazards. Insufficient space in the left-hand turning lanes at its major intersections cause a queue of left-turning vehicles that spills into the left-hand passing lane. I’m not the only one who has come up quickly behind a car that is stopped because of such a bottleneck. I’ve avoided rear-ending anyone and spurring a chain reaction of destruction. That’s largely because I’m aware of these trouble spots and try to skirt them. This seems to be the same policy that too many of our elected officials take on our Hanlon Delay-way.

Avoiding the issue, rather persuading the province to act on the Hanlon sadly demonstrates, yet again, how this city lets ideology trump pragmatism and common sense. Take Coun. Maggie Laidlaw’s rationale for her tepid support of the Hanlon Expressway. She believes we won’t be driving cars in 20 years anyway. One would hope city hall would be would be pleading with Queen’s Park to bring our transportation infrastructure up to the level needed for a city with aspirations of being a hub of commerce. Unfortunately, we get different priorities when our civic leaders believe that everyone should ride a bike or take the bus regardless of where they live.

The intersection of Rickson and Edinburgh also demonstrates where this city’s priorities lie. It received considerable attention after a fatal collision a few years back. Many area residents tried unsuccessfully to get traffic lights at the intersection. The city decided only to install a crossing signal. Now, years later, with more traffic using the road and a nearby school now built, the city must reconsider. Traffic lights are a must for the safety of motorists and pedestrians at this location. Just try crossing Edinburgh at Rickson. Your plan better include getting out of your car or asking a passing pedestrian to hit the crossing signal. Otherwise, it’s a quick look both ways before you slam the pedal to the metal to avoid hidden cars moving up and around a bend one way and motorists coming up a steep hill in the other direction.

Now, compare that to the streets and intersections of Guelph’s old neighbourhoods. Many of these lightly-travelled streets have so many stop signs, traffic lights, and traffic calming measures that I get passed by people using walkers when driving there. If all the traffic lights and signs are still deemed necessary in one end of town, the same standard should be applied everywhere.

The debate on whether Guelph should have grown as it has is over. Recent arrivals are here now and paying property taxes, just like everyone else. Cars aren’t going away either. They may all become electric, but they still require safe roads going forward.

Avoiding these realities and treating our fellow citizens like second-class members will only make Guelph a second-class city. We deserve better.