This is the season for wishes, so let us make some municipal wishes. Our wishes would include a municipal swimming pool, a cheese factory, a large splash pad, some new public housing units, and a brew pub. These wishes would cost about $15,000,000, possibly less. A convention centre at the college would cost about another $1,000,000, and of course, we would want an operational Farmers Market. We also need a small concert venue. Perhaps the old arena could be redeveloped, as a concert hall. This must be discussed, as it would be a major tourist “draw” in the core area, and a tax revenue generator in addition. Also, the old High School on Prescott Street would be an ideal “brownstone” candidate, as per provincial guidelines, as a community centre/graphic arts centre/museum, perhaps.
But what are we, the current resident taxpayers, going to get for one hundred and twenty million dollars, the amount which the municipality plans to borrow, then spend, on constructing supporting infrastructure to assist developers build about 2,400 new town houses and shopping centres?
Well, we can expect traffic jams, overcrowded shopping centres, overcrowded recreational facilities, more chain stores and, of course, the probability of increased taxes and an enormous local food deficit; all very negative implications.
All of this urbanization infrastructure is budgeted to cost about $90 million, as per published council figures, which does not include inflation, interest expense, insurance and cost over runs. Nor does it include the $30 million water filtration (drinking water) facility announced on March 9 at the Stantec meeting held at the Municipal Centre.
This cash outlay by the municipality, to support development, may be refundable by developers; but certainly not all of it will be. And remember, it is the people on well and septic, about 60% of the population, who will have to pay the largest portion of the infrastructure costs but will never get a refund of their contribution when council gets some of the money back via the refund from developers. That is an unfair tax, since people on well and septic will never benefit in any way from this expenditure. You would expect a person in Bishop’s Mills would be quite unhappy financially supporting a large developer from Ottawa.
So, if the “loss” is just $20,000,000 on infrastructure cost recovery of the $120 million (which is the estimated unrecoverable portion of the infrastructure cost), we would be better off not to engage in the Urbanization plan at all, and the people, the 60% of the population, on well and septic, would not have to pay the hidden tax. By developing the wish list listed above, the resulting tourist draw would be far more beneficial than having traffic jams etc., and disputes over recreational facilities.
What is ironic is that this “wish- list” development would take place within the “rural development program” and the Brownstone program. The rural development program referred to has already been approved by council, Councillors Osanaya and Bertram, and Mayor Gordon, voting to support it. Councillor Tobin voted against the plan, we may never know why. Now, all that is required is a shift in priorities, from the urbanization option, to the wish list option. However, there appears to be a special interest group opposed to the wish-list process.
In terms of revenue to the municipality, the municipality would be equally as well off, as they would not have to explain the losses from cost-overruns, or construction delays, and they would have revenue from increased economic activity under the wish-list program. Best of all, developers who would want to build in the area would not have to be given discounts and other incentives to locate here. Indeed, lot levies could be increased due to the increased attractions and value in the area. The difference between building now and five years from now, once the wish list is in place, is huge and significant.
Therefore, by pushing ahead with the wish list instead of the urbanization plan, the council and the rural residents especially, would be further ahead. It is a win-win situation, but the council is set in their ways, out of the box thinking is not their style. So, in terms of a wish list, perhaps we should wish for a new council.
I leave you with your thoughts.
-Woody Armour
We often here the phrase “growth pays for growth” bandied about but usually it’s in the context of housing developments. What if we could grow good and meaningful jobs by developing the local food sector? It might give new meaning to the catch-phrase and it might even be a more sustainable activity in the long run.