Thank You For Asking

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "And Another Thing":

Ummm, do we not also have a deficit of industrial lands?

Giving this land up for parks would mean less commercial taxes, and less local employment.

You criticized the previous council for not selling the old hydro building for the vary same reason, yet you are so willing to give up this important source of revenue.

Keeping this for a park will surely result in tax increases.

**************

The last shall be first.

This land was purchased for recreation . The town did not borrow money to buy it for industrial development. We still need the land for recreation purposes. If we don't use it for the purpose we bought it, at a good price nine years ago, we will need to buy it at to-day's prices which will be considerably higher.

I'm not one hundred per cent sure of this point. But I think we have to  publicly declare  land surplus to our needs in order to be able to sell lands in  town ownership. We cannot do that with any integrity. We do need it. If we have to make a public declaration . I believe that entitles any member of the public to challenge the veracity of the claim, it is surplus to our needs. 

I did and still do criticize the previous and previous to that, council for not selling the former  hydro building to recover the assessment revenue and jobs lost when the building was suddenly, on one month's notice , vacated by  Powerstream.

The building was  eventually being  utilised  by our parks department and for storage of  town hall artifacts when the former council announced triumphantly,  the lease to the Department of National Defence well nigh a year ago ,at a rent of $139,000 a year.

The parks department was able to construct  parks furniture and items  like gazebos  due to the amenity of  the hydro building. .

Now we are talking about twelve million dollars capital expenditure for space  adequate for works and parks combined.

Parks could have been accommodated in the Hydro building.

Works could have taken over the parks building.

Whamo!!!! no need for twelve million dollars which .I understand it is currently being spent.

Rent for the hydro building didn't start  until February 2011,  I heard  the former Mayor altered the lease agreement  after her defeat in the election and without Council authority.Completely illegal.

We spent  far more than a year's rent  in improvements to the building.  We have  funds in capital expenditures for continued  maintenance  because we are the landlord . So the  publicly declared rent is not  precise.

In the meantime, the building has been empty and idle since the parks department vacated it in time for commencement of the lease.

Which near as I can tell, was supposed to start  in September 2010 but didn't until February 2011.

The announcement was made by the Chief Administrative Officer while  a campaign being fought and   short weeks before the election .

I do not argue definitively the entire parcel of Leslie Street lands be used for recreation. 404 frontage obviously  has a high value. Expressway frontage is not necessary for successful recreation .Profit on 404  frontage  could go a long way to developing the rest as leisure lands.As well as increasing our assessment base . 

Talking about the town's  assessment base. I'm  really glad you mentioned that. Check out  the massive areas around the station devoted to commuter parking. What a chunk of town core that takes up without  a penny of assessment revenue for the town. In fact, revenue was lost as a result of provincial ownership.

Certainly no jobs came from it.  Traffic congestion increased to boot .I predicted that. There's little doubt in my mind we are providing parking for commuters from an area far beyond our town.

We take money from business investing in our town,  as Cash in Lieu of Parks. At the time of the election we had $12 million dollars  Cash in Lieu  in reserve funds. It must be used for the purpose  taken. It  makes sense, we  use it sensibly.

To your final point. Do we have a deficit in industrial lands. I do not know that.  But if we do, outside of the planning process, do we have any  responsibility to provide lands for industrial development.
Buy it, develop it. market it ???

I know of no such  mandated  responsibility.

Not like the responsibility to provide  lands for leisure services.

Nor the authority to take funds  from developers with every building permit issued.

The moral commitment to  new homebuyers  that we  provide the  amenities they paid for when they signed on the dotted line.

When they took out a mortgage, with a high rate of interest,  sufficient to pay  hidden taxes, federal sales tax, municipal development charges, and a dozen other government charges  within the price of a home.

When homes are assessed at market value,  include  hidden taxes, requiring the payment of   taxes up on taxes for ever and a day.  plus  ninety per cent of the cost of whatever new recreation facilities the town chooses to build when they get around to it.

There's nothing simple about overseeing  a municipal corporation. Councillors must  be well-informed.
With the best will in the world, an uninformed Councillor is  a  liability to the corporation.More than one  multiplies the liability.

When a person  without experience is a candidate for council ,voters make allowances for that. They give an inexperienced Councillor time to learn.They watch for signs . 

A quick reaction and an  illformed decision does not reflect well .  It is not defensible.

A thoughtful ,well considered , articulate rationale  gets  marks for trying.

People don't have to accept  a Councillor's logic. They do have to know the Councillor believes it