http://app.dnv.org/
http://app.dnv.org/
http://app.dnv.org/
Saturday, February 13, 2016
The "A" word is a back
Merging municipalities, re-unification, Amalgamation, call it what you will this topic has probably been discussed more than any other here on the blog since inception in 2005. This Jan. 25 council workshop was the focus of re-unification and the reports have been made public for your reading enjoyment.
http://app.dnv.org/
http://app.dnv.org/
http://app.dnv.org/
http://app.dnv.org/
http://app.dnv.org/
http://app.dnv.org/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As long as the City's Council has no interest, this is a waste of time and resources.
In the last election the top two Mayoral candidates were opposed to amalgamation, so it is clear, the electorate is not voting with this issue top of mind.
I would bet that if residents of the city realized that their taxes are now HIGHER than the district, they would be beating down the doors of their elected officials demanding a referendum on the subject. Of course, by the time that happens, the District will probably reject it because it is no longer in THEIR best interests. Go figure!
Up to now, it hasn't gone ahead primarily because some people were afraid of losing their jobs.
It isn't all about the taxes. BTW, can you show me where you see that the City taxes are now higher than the Districts? The District is a sprawling mess of infrastructure that is going to get more expensive with each passing year as that infrastructure ages and needs replacing. The City is compact and with a fixed amount of infrastructure that, when it's time to replace, would have a much more manageable/predictable cost. The City is also more serious about densification and affordability than the District. It seems to me that they each have different philosophies about what they should be. Amalgamation is a non-starter.
The City is the downtown of the District. The mill rates passed each other four years ago and taxes have been rising in the city at a higher rate for over a decade. Yes, the city should be able to take advantage of their more dense development, but they have a way higher staffing ratio, and infrastructure improvements in a compact space can be very expensive. In the District they just dig up a berm and replace the sewers, in the city, they have to dig up Lonsdale over and over again. They could easily amalgamate, and it COULD save money.
The District "mess" has over 100 parks plus the mountain biking trails used by the City residents far more than they recreate in the City.
The City pays full administrative staffing for services that would just be a small portion of a District division. For example, a full slate of Chief Officers to run 1 Fire Hall? Wow. The District could add that 1 hall to their half dozen facilities with no difference in service - just less expense. Multiply this by each of the City division administration costs, an extra City Hall, an extra works yard, an extra Council etc.
No brainer.
John.
Would it be possible to open a topic to discuss how we are doing under the new Federal government? Thanks.
Hello anon 5:19 pm. Would be happy to, but I in keeping with topics of local interest, I'm not sure what that would be. Can you suggest sonething?
I may have misunderstood the basis of the blog. I thought that it was a political blog dedicated to discussion around the politics that shape our community.
There seemed to be a great deal of spirited discussion on the blog during the Federal election. Federal, provincial, regional and local politics all shape our community.
I think that local topics are fine but not sure that the discussion need to be limited to those exclusively.
Maybe others might like to state whether they prefer to focus on local flavour or if a broader discussion including local would be of interest.
I don't think John is disputing that. He's asking you to supply a specific topic that you'd like To discuss.
I had taken his reply of "in keeping with topics of local interest" as narrowing the scope to local topics. I had already suggested that we see if people are interested in discussing how they think that we are doing under the new gov't. I was seeking clarification.
In any case he has kindly posted a new topic and we will see if there is any interest in that topic.
I think what the poster who said about City taxes being higher than District's was referring to the tax rates. Which has been true for most of the last 4-5 years.
Catch is on average District housing prices have been higher than City's so the actual taxes in District are higher while the actual tax RATE is lower.
In an amalgamation scenario one would expect the rates to be blended. I.e. DNV rates would be higher, CNV rates would be lower.
Assessments are mostly done by BC Assessment so rates are really the only thing it's fair to compare between municipalities. Apples & Apples, Oranges & Oranges.
Post a Comment