Tuesday, 18 December 2012

A News Flash And A Response.

I was at Ikea.   A news flash came on the radio as we drove home.:
A pedestrian was struck.
 Police report a ninety-four year old man was hit as he was running across the road.  
He was slightly injured by a vehicle driven by a fifty-seven year man

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Stupiidity and Cupidity Go Hand In Hand":

"Staff and maintenance of any public facility are the cost of operating the facility."

Yet, you always add the cost of maintenance at the Church Street School
.
*********
Ahhh!!!! Now I understand what it is  the poster  does not understand. 
Thanks  for giving me another opportunity to explainan
insane  arrangement  that does not serve the community's interest.  
The town does not operate Church Street School.
It provides funds to cover operation. It transfers  a building rent free, pays to maintains the building ,  pilfers thousands of  tax-payers dollars from the treasury to the coffers of the  board.  
The building  had millions of dollars of hydro reserve money invested into it .
It  is currently  leased  to a separate autonomous  self-appointed governing body, created for the purpose,  on the pretext they can operate the space at no cost to the taxpayer.
In  concurrent  contradiction of the principle,the lease requires rent of $1.00 a year .
No pretext of recovering money invested  to keep the building standing and the weather out for the past fifty years
Or the latest 2,3 million plus three quarters of a million heritage grant, invested to create a state of the art  musuem  to replace the one  in  previous occupation  for twenty-seven years. .
To add to the lunacy, the town pays all costs of maintenance for the building.  
In the first year calculated at $143,000 a year  increasing  since at no less than 3%  each year. .Likely  close to $150,000   in 2012. .
Here  again, no pretext at self-sufficiency to justify independent operation by  self-appointed  autonomous governance. .
To add to the  foolishness, the town  has a second agreement  to "purchase" cultur from the independent,self-appointed, autonomous board which meets in secret.and  has little more space to program than a luxury family home in  the town of Aurora. 
The first agreement paid the board  a sum of $340.000 a year for culture. Instead of decreasing  by revenue earned, it rose  by 3%  each year  to  $380,000in 2012.
The persistent  poster is quite wrong in arguing  while cost of maintenance for the Cultural Centre  is included but for the Seniors Centre ,,,not.  
Excluding any calculation for  cost recovery for millions spent  to  keep building  upright  and  weatherproof and providing  less than thirteen per cent of  programmable space, Church Street School costs the taxpayers in excess of half a million dollars a year to fund  as opposed to $270,000 for  six times more space, serving a membership of 1371 seniors and other permited groups using the space for similar  purpose as the school and paying user fees to the town.
If that explanation is not clear, I will be glad to repeat it.    
. 
  
  
  

6 comments:

  1. The problem is not with your explanation but rather the way it is frame -- you have your blog followers believing that all this money is given away to a select few who have some sort of private club -- in fact the contract and agreement have the Cultural Centre providing services to the citizens of urora on behalf of the municipality -- it's OK to not like the model that is based on but the services are for the citizens all -- not a select few. The same as arenas, the recreation facilities etc

    ReplyDelete
  2. 11:04 AM
    " Your Blog follows believing......"
    Sorry. We know exactly to whom the money is going and for what services. The people receiving the building and funding do not themselves provide the services. They use Aurora's taxpayer money to employ others and use volunteers in the program. They are simply expensive middle-persons who present themselves as Patrons of Culture.
    And saying that it is " the same as arenas, the recreation facilities etc." is simply hooey. There is no accountability and clearly no desire to contribute to the tax base of the Town or to becoming self-sufficient.
    As a ' blog follower ' I take umbrage at your assertion that we all think alike.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 12:32pm...

    "As a ' blog follower ' I take umbrage at your assertion that we all think alike."

    Perhaps 11:04 should have said "Your blog contributors believing..." because it seems as though all of those that contribute have the same view.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Name a local non-profit organization with at least $100,000 socked away in a Contingency Fund & still requiring/ demanding free rent and funding. Is that even legal?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm a "blog follower" and 12:32 PM and I certainly don't think alike, but I know what you mean, 11:04AM.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 6:56 PM
    Of course you would understand that comment. Your work.

    ReplyDelete

If you've got a comment, this is the place to leave it for me. Please feel free to leave your name, or even just an email address if you'd like a response. You can also email me directly.