The 'Politics' of Infrastructure Grants

'Letter to the Editor' largely as submitted to the Nanaimo Daily News on Nov. 11/08 (in order to try and stay within their 300 word limit, I had to pare it down to the absolute essentials - although that resulted in leaving out some bits that I thought were important to understanding my point). Think very carefully before you consider rewarding any politician for giving some of your own money back to you.
The Daily News published my letter on Nov. 15th but, since the item was still about 40 words over their limit, they chose to eliminate the entire second to the last paragraph (containing 85 words, dropping it down to 253). Now, for the sake of a few words, especially those particular words, I would have thought they would have let them stand. How do you feel - is it acceptable that local newspapers enforce such rigid limits on items submitted by the public when they themselves can go on and on in an editorial/opinion piece, if it suits their purposes? I see it as one of the many reasons that people are just not subscribing to newspapers anymore.

While we're on the subject of 'bright ideas', what do you think of someone who tells you that paying for services out of reserve funds is great because you get the service without an increase in taxes. While reserve funds can be useful in limited circumstances, I find three things wrong with their use:
1. they result in taxes higher than they needed to be because the monies are collected in advance, so how is that a benefit? If you move money from your savings account to chequing to pay for a major purchase, are you not poorer than before?
2. because the public's approval is not required to create and fund a reserve fund, it can be used as a way to get around obtaining the public's consent for major projects (as would be required if the money had to be borrowed)
3. once the money has been put into the reserve fund, Council is pretty much required to build something for which the fund was designed (i.e., the money is 'restricted' and can't be used for general revenues) so there is really no opportunity for 'sober, second thought'

Dear Editor,
I find it quite troubling that we have come to the point where we actually use how much infrastructure money a politician claims to have obtained for us as a measure of their performance (Compare benefits brought to two Nanaimo ridings, Nanaimo Daily News, Oct. 21/08).
The whole 'era of infrastructure grants' is designed to separate us from our tax dollars and leave us feeling beholden to our politicians/government(s). The entire concept of infrastructure grants is problematic for me - it is a system whereby taxes are collected from the people, squirreled away in government accounts, grant applications are processed by a group of bureaucrats and a portion of it (less 'administrative' costs, of course) is then returned to some of the taxpayers in a blatant effort to influence voters. We are being 'bought with our own money'!
It would be much more efficient (and far less 'political') if the money were raised locally for broadly-supported projects solving real problems from those who will benefit. Otherwise, it becomes a game of 'get yours or somebody else will' and even the 'winners' have no certainty that they have received back anywhere near what they have paid in.
The photo 'ops' and the news releases are always quick to follow the awarding of any monies. The politicians obviously don't write the 'cookie-cutter' press release (I have even seen one where the announcing MLA was still referred to as 'xxx') and typically don't have a clue of the real cost/benefits of the project being funded.
I know of at least two projects where the essential criteria of the grants were ignored and a total of $6.7 million was awarded anyway. $5.6 million of that was in my own community, where it was/will be used to install collector sewers to deal with what the technical evaluation said could be as little as a 5% septic system failure rate and we get to live with the varied 'unintended consequences'. Should I vote for any of Lantzville's current councillors on Nov. 15th or support my MLA, Ron Cantelon, in May '09 based on that? I think not!
We would all do well to remember Rafe Mair's Axiom of Subsidiarity, perfectly tailored for this situation: lesser politicians should always, without fail, beware of gifts coming from higher levels of governments.

Update [08 11 13] Well, that really couldn't have been more timely -
On the Log blog [http://thelog.ca] (Nov. 11/08), Lantzville Councillor Denise Haime said:
With respect to the Tourism plan, it was paid for by a Provincial government grant not out of the District of Lantzville budget.
Doing such a plan was a requirement in order to get other grant monies for items such as Minetown Days.

(Nov. 11/08) Lantzville Councillor Douglas Parkhurst said:
The plan has been funded by a provincial grant. It was required as part of a larger grant that the district received. The other part of the funds have been used to fund mine town days and for the future, it can be used to help with a trail plan and other amenity developments. This plan didn't cost the ratepayers. The province is really the one who paid for it.

So, we applied for some money that we really didn't need in order to get some that we had a use for and it "didn't cost the ratepayers". Well, I hate to break it to accountants, Haime (x2) and Parkhurst, but just where do you think the province gets their money from? Local governments everywhere appear to be on this grant treadmill that seems to be running out of control, you might even say they are becoming addicted to it. Now I think you can begin to appreciate what Rafe Mair was talking about.

Update [10 06 16] Well, look at that, will you?! In a piece written for Maclean's magazine (Nov. 2/09 issue), Andrew Coyne, National editor and former journalist, editor and contributor to the National Post and Globe and Mail agrees with what I have been saying all along about infrastructure grants, calling the Conservative government's action on this file both a disgrace and rotten. Read the entire article at http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/26/the-cheques-arent-the-real-scandal/

B.C. 2008 Local Elections Voting Advice

Having trouble trying to decide who to vote for in the upcoming B.C.-wide municipal elections (Nov. 15th)?!? Well, you're not alone. One thing you should realize is that you're not required to vote for the full 'slate' of candidates, i.e, if, even after doing all your research, you just can't come up with 1 good person for Mayor, 6 (or 8) good people for Council or 7 (or 9) good people for School Board, then vote only for those you believe will ask for your opinion, search out solutions, keep you fully informed and then make the decision in the best interests of your community. That's what I'm going to do. Maybe, if the results, on top of a low voter turnout, clearly demonstrate reduced voting 'averages', someone will take note and come up with a way to improve the quality of both the candidates and the discussion. Then again, the jaded cynic in me says that if only three people vote, the candidate with two or more votes, will probably gladly take the job!
Also, if you are one of the 55+ jurisdictions where your Council/Board has decided to use electronic voting machines to record your votes and you're just not sure about how accurately they will reflect your intent, I would suggest that you at least indicate to the polling place workers that you are using a machine to exercise your most basic democratic right under protest. That, also, is what I intend to do! Hopefully, with pressure from the voters, a long-term solution to this problem will be adopted by the Ministry of Community Development long before the next election (although scheduled for 2011, your current politicians voted at the last UBCM to ask the provincial government to extend the interval to every four years).

UPDATE [08 11 15]
Well, I went and voted at Costin Hall about an hour ago and, yes, I followed my own advice. Not finding anyone worthy of my support in the Lantzville council race (you might think I would have voted for Rod Negrave as the 'spoiler' but, since his wife used to work for the Mayor's wife and current councillor, Denise Haime [and may still], I wasn't convinced of his independence from the present anti-democratic Council). According to the early results, it looks like the 'average' Lantzville voter could only find 4.6 people running for council to support. However, I am happy to report that I did, through talking to people, reviewing information on websites and attending meetings, find 5 candidates worth supporting for District 68 School Board and I wish them the best of luck. They control a much larger budget than Lantzville Council.
Although Bylaw 70, "District of Lantzville Elections and Other Voting Opportunities" says that a secrecy sleeve shall be provided "if requested by the elector", it appears that everyone was being given one. Although Ian Howat, our former Chief Administrative Officer (and now in charge of 'legislation' with the City of Nanaimo) has recently said that you can't force people to use one, I was planning on requesting one if it hadn't been offered.
When it came time to put my completed ballot into the vote counting unit, I said in a loud, clear voice to the fellow manning the Diebold (now Premier Election Solutions) Accuvote-OS vote counting unit that "I object to having to use a machine in order to exercise this the most basic of my democratic rights and responsibilities" to which he responded that I "wasn't the first, a number of people had said that". O.K. folks, so here's the challenge - let's work together over the next three years to see to it that potentially insecure voting machines like this one are not allowed to be used ANYWHERE IN B. C. unless they have been tested and certified by an approved, independent, testing lab and there is rigorous testing required at the local level before they can be deployed to count your votes. My submission to the Ministry of Community Development, which I feel is the first, major 'salvo' in this effort, should be ready to go by the end of the month. If you are interested and want to help, either post a comment by clicking below or email me at vigilantz@hotmail.com and tell me how you would like to contribute. I'd love to actually hear from someone since I'd hate think that the 2400+ visits to my blogs so far are all Lantzville council members wondering what I am writing.