Lake Country Needs More Economic Growth

I received a few e-mails asking that I clarify my position with respect to the article “Just a Bit More Balance, Please” published last week in The View as it relates to Lake Country. I am happy to do so with this blog.

The article, which was written by Tom MacDonald in Victoria, was not at all concerned with Lake Country business or the Lake Country Chamber. It was a general reflection on the economic crisis and reactions to it, including some from a number of local government officials.

The issue in the article was about the continuous reports from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) about businesses being taxed too much by local governments and statements by CFIB with respect to the value-for-money from local governments in general. The Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) has tried to counter CFIB claims (for a copy of the UBCM report on CFIB claims please go to Comments on Fiscal Management in BC Municipalities) and I did have some discussion with provincial staff on the Premier’s position about local governments. In my opinion, CFIB comments are one sided. There are not only issues with local governments taxation systems, if you wish, but also with the way both federal and provincial governments are dealing with the economic crisis and the impact (or not) on the work force and the taxpayers. Having said that, I believe that:

·         The 2008 bailout was wrong and created a bigger gap between the middle class and big corporations. In fact the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ which the article talks about was a reaction to the way the bailout money was utilized;

·         The small and medium businesses came out with the short end of the stick in the current economic crisis;

·         The issue of taxation is real for business and residential taxpayers alike but small business is also struggling more than others because of the economic crisis and cannot afford more taxes and rightly questions the value-for-money for the services they receive (or not) from local governments;

·         All taxpayers are reaching a capacity limit in what they can pay to sustain community and all governments services;

·         We need to work together to find solutions. Conflictual positions do not help.

In Lake Country we need more business and more economic growth. We cannot be sustainable on residential tax base only. It just does not work. In addition, the existing businesses cannot afford to pay more or they will collapse. Furthermore, I know and I appreciate much of the hard work and countless volunteer hours that members of the business community and the Chamber provide to Lake Country. I don’t think a community could really be such without those contributions.

I understand the issues the District of Lake Country is facing and I will continue to work with all stakeholders to make our community an even better place for residents, tourism and business investment. As a supporter of economic development, I will continue to make an effort in cutting back our budget to relieve the taxpayers of unnecessary tax increases, and I am confident the new Council will make the right decisions for the community on this. The vision is there and I will pursue it with vigor. Finally, I also hope that we can all support the efforts of our good District staff, recognizing that adjustments need to be made to the organization and work together to make those adjustments. Cooperation is the key and our partnership with the Lake Country Chamber of Commerce and other important stakeholders in the community will be critical to accomplish our goal of creating a unique place to live.

adf

Just a Bit More Balance, Please

I just recently came across an article by Tom MacDonald, the Executive Director of the Local Government Management Association (LGMA) of British Columbia and 2011 Silver Medal Lieutenant Governor Award of British Columbia. The article fully reflects my sentiments about the subject topic of local government taxation and relationship with the business community and so I asked Tom if I could publish his article in my blog. He agreed and here it is:

"I can't think of even a single time over the past eight years where anything even remotely political in nature has been the subject of this report. After all, normally we leave the politics to the folks at UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities). However, a few weeks ago I was out walking with a local government colleague and we got onto the topic of the various "Occupy" movements that were manifesting themselves across North America including Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria. While the "Occupy" groups seem to be at best incoherent collectives of people with beefs against "the system," the prevailing theme of the movement is that corporate greed has led to a situation where a very small percentage of the population controls much of the wealth, and that the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.

 

So what does any of this have anything to do with local government in British Columbia? Well, most of you who are our members and readers will know that local governments have been under a concerted attack this year by business lobby groups who are saying that local government spending is out of control, that business pays too much, and that business has no voice in how they are taxed. Earlier this year, an excellent response to these concerns was prepared by the UBCM in collaboration with LGMA and GFOA to address these specific points. (See www.lgma.ca: Resources and Publications for a copy of the report.) While not wanting to rehash the report, it did acknowledge that local government expenditures and taxes were rising, but that in virtually all cases, these costs were coming from the local taxpayers who were demanding the increased services. It also provided data showing that the business share of property taxes has actually gone down over time versus residential taxes, and that the majority of elected officials in B.C. were from a business background.

 

So now back to my walk with my colleague and our conversation about the "Occupy" movement sweeping North America. "How is it," he said, "that the business community and Chamber of Commerce groups often lead the charge for pressing local governments to provide additional services – deal with homelessness/street people in business areas, deal with criminal gangs, undertake beautification projects in business areas, provide more downtown parking, install new underground infrastructure to facilitate development, etc., etc. – but in the next breath, they attack local governments for increased expenditures? Isn't this just a bit hypocritical that the business lobby always seem to want more but that they want others to pay? Could this be a version of the same principle that the "Occupy" movement has seized upon when they complain that a very small minority control the wealth while the rest of the population bears the burden?" Of course my friend also raised the point that any business person reading this article would simply make the assertion that as local government employees, comments such as these from us are just self-serving and an attempt to protect our fat-cat jobs. In response to this, one might ask, how many local government managers make up that 1% who control the 99% of the wealth compared to those who are business people?

 

"Just a bit more balance on this debate please!" said my colleague."

 

The article speaks for itself…thank you for listening.

 

adf