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/