Hamilton Spectator Article
Smiling suburban councillors Judi Partridge and Lloyd Ferguson exchanged a happy high-five after winning the vote to put off remodelling area rating for yet another year.
But their triumphant slap of hands might just as well have landed on the faces of the members of the Citizens’ Forum, who had just seen their input sacrificed to the petty political gods that rule Hamilton council.
Council created the citizens’ group last year to make recommendations on how to fix the unfair tax policy that has pitted the inner city against the suburbs since amalgamation.
But after a four-hour meeting Monday night — including a presentation and Q&A with forum reps — the general issues committee voted 8-6 to study a new bolt-from-the-blue proposal from the three local chambers of commerce.
That’s colloquially known as being bitch-slapped.
Hopefully, council’s show of disrespect to the community volunteers and to the spirit of the agreed-upon forum process won’t deter other citizens from throwing their hearts and souls into contentious city issues in the future.
But I wouldn’t count on it.
Besides reducing citizen engagement to both farce and façade, the move effectively stalls fixing long-standing imbalances for this taxation year, which was the previous council’s stated goal when the citizens’ group was formed.
According to city finance director Rob Rossini, it will now take at least another six months to analyze the chambers’ “vague” proposal, which pushes any tax reform into the 2012 budget cycle.
If councillors remain true to form, chances are they’ll find an excuse for preserving the status quo next year, too.
There’s no mystery to the politics of this.
A change to area rating means the suburban communities of Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Stoney Creek and Glanbrook would pay more for some city services,
But it would also mean many households in those communities would finally be paying their fair share instead of being subsidized by inner city taxpayers.
In brief, area rating is a tax system used since amalgamation to cushion suburban tax rates by permitting different areas to pay lower amounts, depending on the fire, transit, and culture and recreation services they receive.
Right now, the tax breaks are artificially based on the boundaries of the former preamalgamation communities. That means some urbanized areas within those communities are receiving the same or close to the same services as the inner city but paying substantially less for them.
To address the inequities, city staff studied the issue for more than a year and then in 2009 came up with some options, including a model that more fairly aligned taxation to costs and actual service levels along urban/rural lines.
Rather than go there, council established the citizens’ forum to study the issue. Several months, meetings, focus groups and much research later, the 17 forum members, comprised of reps of all city wards and guided by the principle of fairness and the common good, largely agreed with staff.
The chambers of commerce, on the other hand, argue the divisive issue is more complex than an urban/rural solution, They want to move to a “geographic service zone” model, which seems to mean taking a micro look at service delivery across the city and taxing people accordingly.
The hazy idea was a lifeline to the suburban councillors, supported by Mayor Bob Bratina and east Mountain councillor Tom Jackson. It allowed them to run for cover for another year rather than politically braving up.
Councillor Russ Powers of Dundas wasn’t at the meeting, but two years ago, when the idea of the citizens’ forum first surfaced, he cut through all the obscuring shadow and fog like nobody had before or since.
Powers told council that of course he was going to vote to study the issue longer rather than accept a change that would lead to a tax increase for his residents.
“Am I selfish? Yes,” Powers said. “Am I parochial? Yes. Am I biased? Yes.”
Apparently selfishness, parochialism and bias still pull the strings on this issue while the forum turned out to be little more than an expedient façade for political ward-heelers and wimps to hide behind until a new hidey-hole comes along.
Smiling suburban councillors Judi Partridge and Lloyd Ferguson exchanged a happy high-five after winning the vote to put off remodelling area rating for yet another year.
But their triumphant slap of hands might just as well have landed on the faces of the members of the Citizens’ Forum, who had just seen their input sacrificed to the petty political gods that rule Hamilton council.
Council created the citizens’ group last year to make recommendations on how to fix the unfair tax policy that has pitted the inner city against the suburbs since amalgamation.
But after a four-hour meeting Monday night — including a presentation and Q&A with forum reps — the general issues committee voted 8-6 to study a new bolt-from-the-blue proposal from the three local chambers of commerce.
That’s colloquially known as being bitch-slapped.
Hopefully, council’s show of disrespect to the community volunteers and to the spirit of the agreed-upon forum process won’t deter other citizens from throwing their hearts and souls into contentious city issues in the future.
But I wouldn’t count on it.
Besides reducing citizen engagement to both farce and façade, the move effectively stalls fixing long-standing imbalances for this taxation year, which was the previous council’s stated goal when the citizens’ group was formed.
According to city finance director Rob Rossini, it will now take at least another six months to analyze the chambers’ “vague” proposal, which pushes any tax reform into the 2012 budget cycle.
If councillors remain true to form, chances are they’ll find an excuse for preserving the status quo next year, too.
There’s no mystery to the politics of this.
A change to area rating means the suburban communities of Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Stoney Creek and Glanbrook would pay more for some city services,
But it would also mean many households in those communities would finally be paying their fair share instead of being subsidized by inner city taxpayers.
In brief, area rating is a tax system used since amalgamation to cushion suburban tax rates by permitting different areas to pay lower amounts, depending on the fire, transit, and culture and recreation services they receive.
Right now, the tax breaks are artificially based on the boundaries of the former preamalgamation communities. That means some urbanized areas within those communities are receiving the same or close to the same services as the inner city but paying substantially less for them.
To address the inequities, city staff studied the issue for more than a year and then in 2009 came up with some options, including a model that more fairly aligned taxation to costs and actual service levels along urban/rural lines.
Rather than go there, council established the citizens’ forum to study the issue. Several months, meetings, focus groups and much research later, the 17 forum members, comprised of reps of all city wards and guided by the principle of fairness and the common good, largely agreed with staff.
The chambers of commerce, on the other hand, argue the divisive issue is more complex than an urban/rural solution, They want to move to a “geographic service zone” model, which seems to mean taking a micro look at service delivery across the city and taxing people accordingly.
The hazy idea was a lifeline to the suburban councillors, supported by Mayor Bob Bratina and east Mountain councillor Tom Jackson. It allowed them to run for cover for another year rather than politically braving up.
Councillor Russ Powers of Dundas wasn’t at the meeting, but two years ago, when the idea of the citizens’ forum first surfaced, he cut through all the obscuring shadow and fog like nobody had before or since.
Powers told council that of course he was going to vote to study the issue longer rather than accept a change that would lead to a tax increase for his residents.
“Am I selfish? Yes,” Powers said. “Am I parochial? Yes. Am I biased? Yes.”
Apparently selfishness, parochialism and bias still pull the strings on this issue while the forum turned out to be little more than an expedient façade for political ward-heelers and wimps to hide behind until a new hidey-hole comes along.
No comments:
Post a Comment