Taxes (Death is the least of my worries.)
It was reported in yesterday’s Windsor Star that based on costs so far this year, our city is looking at a budget deficit of $6.4 million. According to the article the cost overruns are the result of expenses beyond the city’s control like, the cost of snow removal being more than anticipated and a pay equity settlement. Big deficits at city hall will mean that next year’s budget process will be even more acrimonious than this past year’s debates. The Star article said that cuts to infrastructure and Transit Windsor were being considered to ease the financial strain. Infrastructure and Transit - perfect. Less money for sewer and water projects; and Transit Windsor? Come on, that’s one thing we should be investing in, so that we have options other than cars to get around.
The article didn’t mention the one thing that is causing most of us grief and that is the cost of fuel. I suspect that we will be hearing about more deficit damage control unless, there is a trained psychic at city hall that foresaw $1.40 plus gas and diesel prices this summer.
Almost every city department has vehicles at their disposal and I would bet they are all going to be over-budget on their fuel puchases. I think it would be interesting to know what the fleet fuel efficiency is for the city. Perhaps we need to think about better choices for city workers to get around like; electric carts or e-bikes for Parking Enforcement Officers, 6-cylinder or hybrid patrol cars or more bicycles and motorcycles and definitely fewer SUV’s for the Police Service.
The cost of energy is going to be a big hurdle for all city governments to overcome. However, it creates an opportunity for new ideas to be tried and for real attempts at “smart growth” to help keep costs in line. If the city was to begin pursuing the ideas of more compact neighbourhoods and higher density and mixed-use zoning many things could change. Such as; lower policing costs - crime rates per-capita are lower in high density areas versus low density areas, Infrastructure, shorter pipe runs are cheaper to install and maintain - rebuilding and in-fill developments in areas serviced by existing utilities are cheaper for the developer and in the long run the city, more compact and complete neighbourhoods mean fewer car trips which in turn means less wear and tear on roads, encouraging higher density on transit routes will increase ridership and a well used and well organized transit system would likely be closer to break-even than our sparsely used money-pit, that is Transit Windsor.
We need to start to look at ways the city can save some money without having to hit us with big tax hikes. Here’s one idea that was brought up by the Citizens Environment Alliance - a limit on the number of garbage bags per household. As a cost saver this accomplishes a couple of things, first, less garbage to collect means fewer truck loads of garbage. The trucks will cover more of their routes before having to go to the transfer station to unload and then drive all the way back to their collection areas. This will save fuel and time. The time saved means fewer trucks will be needed to complete the routes. Fewer trucks means lower capital costs and lower maintenance costs.
We can only hope that our city leaders can muster some courage and creativity come budget time next year. The cost of energy is only going to up and governments at all levels are big energy consumers. We need to change the way things are done and consideration of how the city will grow is important when it comes to efficient distribution of services. Continuing to grow outward will only continue to spread our services thinner. The city must say that sprawl is over. Windsor must start to fill itself in and take advantage of its existing commercial, industrial, residential and mixed-use areas.
Tags: budget repercussions, City Council, environment, sustainable development, transportation costs, urban sprawl
Post Feedback
“crime rates per-capita are lower in high density areas versus low density areas”
I’m curious on this claim.. is it because higher density areas have more people to distribute a crime through on a per capita basis? Or is it true that a high-density area, such as a downtown core, has less crime than a low-density sprawl area like the suburbs?
Why is it when every city gets into trouble financially or tell us times are going to be tight/rough etc (even with rising fuel prices,) public transportation always takes the hit but not road repair, road building et al! Why is one part of the citizerny discriminated against while another is not! People who own and drive vehicles in the city are more heavily subsidized with tax payers dollars than those that only have public transportation as a primary means. Inquiring minds want to know.
What I would do is lower the fare for public transportation this time around to increase ridership for those that can’t afford the gas for their cars to get anywhere, let alone work! It would be a great time to capture ridership!
I think the three bag limit idea is a fine idea and if you want to use more bags then pay for it, it will just make you that more conscious of the crap you do throw away! But then I live in a condo and we already pay extra (above our high property taxes) to haul away our garbage and in our building we do practive recycling but not fresh vegetable matter disposal, which I would like to see!
Hey, I’m going to brag about PEI again. The province-wide Waste Watch program has successfully diverted 63% of waste from landfills through aggressive recycling and composting programs. Garbage pickup is every other week, compost pickup every other, but opposite of garbage. Recycling is once a month (I think). Needless to say, even with a family of 6, we rarely exceed our rolling bin for garbage. (About 2/3 the size of a Herby Curby — which we filled to the brim every week in Windsor — shameful, I know…)
That best part, Waste Watch produces high quality and plentiful compost for farmers and home-owners alike. You can pickup 1 cubic yard of compost for $10. That’s about $25 to fill up the bed of your full-sized pickup truck. Try doing THAT at Home Depot!
The program isn’t perfect, and illegal dumping is a problem, but at least we are doing *something*. I wonder if Slick Eddie and the gang can figure this one out.
You know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Does that mean that Windsor city council is insane?
Oh yeah, check out this link — http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/brazil1203/future.html
Curitiba, Brazil is the South American master-piece for urban growth. Not without issues, but certainly in far better shape than many North American urban centres!
Our city council Josh is not insane by your definition, because they haven’t even done one thing yet, let alone getting the chance to do it over again to see if there is any results!
Landfills are expensive and disappearing, trucking needless garbage to landfills is expensive, burying that landfill is expensive if no one is digging foundations for buildings because they have all move away is expensive, buying over package items is expensive, not composting is expensive, buying more food than you can really or want to eat is getting to expensive but yet they said no in Windsor to a three bag limit and haven’t even touched on compost pickup! Just drive down Wynadotte Street the night before garbage pick up, you can’t get off the bus at some stops!
Windsor isn’t doing nothing because it takes all the energy and bullying power that Eddie has to drive Greenlink down our throats!
If the experience of other municipalities is any indication, the three bag limit will turn into another tax grab.
Take for example, Owen Sound. Implemented in 1999 the three bag limit had no cost to taxpayers associated with it.
But then, lowe and behold, in 2005 they instituted a charge for the tags residents had to attach to garbage bags.
In 2008, the charge increased to $10 for 5 tags - to be place on all garbage bags.
That’s about $20 a month and over a year $220 in extra revenue for the city.
While its intent is admirable, it will be used as a user pay system to shovel more money into city hall coffers - this way, councillors can rest easy they won’t have to increase taxes.
juxtaposeur, I would agree with your assessment about density. More people = more crime but overall it is reduced compared to smaller areas. That is why small towns show higher rates of crime than some larger cities. The same goes with murder rates. The results can skew these demographics substantially.
Windsor WOULD have money if it wasn’t for the massive spending on an arena that wasn’t supposed to impact Windsor’s finances…so much for that idea. I guess this adminstration does the same as everyone else. That is not save enough money for rainy days until those days come. I guess not being prepared it typical of most people today but I have always thought our elected officials should be held to a higher standard.
We would also have money if Eddie would stop playing entrepreneur on taxpayers money. Just how much money do we need to keep spending at the airport, the tunnel corp., marina, golf course, sidco…and then there is Greenlink and the $800,000+ spent on LOCAL advertising (advertising to the masses that supposedly already support it) W.E Can adverstising to LOCALS yet again (shouldn’t this be adverstised to the USA and to the rest of Canada instead or is this just propaganda?) , and of course we can’t forget about the $4 million in lawyer fees for Greenlink and the $2 million so far for the tunnel.
Windsor sure does have money but it is the priorities of how it is spent that drives me nuts! Would you rather mass transit, good infrastructure or would you rather yet another city owned corporation, more money spent on consultants (only to shelve the reports anyway) and more moeny spent on lawyers? Call your councillors and the mayors office to let them know!
Chris,
The same thing happened in Stratford. I would rather the city move to pick up recycling more often than the twice monthly pick-up we have now. They can also reduce the amount of pick-ups for garbage (not large items but the bags themselves) and that way people will be forced to recycle more.
I would also say build larger recycling boxes because the ones we buy are too small and fill up too quickly.
Go! London Go!
City wants developers to pay
Thu, June 12, 2008
Proposal would end the longstanding practice of taxpayers subsidizing the costs of growth, former councillor says
By JONATHAN SHER
London city hall wants developers to shoulder more of the cost of expanding roads, a change officials say would save taxpayers about $90 million over 20 years.
The shift, one of many changes proposed by city staff, will end a long-standing practice that had taxpayers subsidizing the costs of growth, said Sandy Levin, who has represented the Urban League in talks at city hall over growth.
“Taxpayers have paid more than their fair share and this will correct that going forward,” Levin, a former city councillor, said yesterday……”
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/06/12/5851176-sun.html
It is about time that this city get real with developers, and just not paying for the real cost of their developments and for seven generations down the road but also their construction to LEED standards.
NEVER going to happen here…at least it is happening somewhere. Our city hall is much too spineless to do that and besides what do they get in return. In Windsor it still is the ‘ol boys club which is why we are 50 years behind any progress other cities have ahd. Outmoded thinking for an outmoded way of life.
Ya! I know! It seems that no city in Ontario at least has ever had the backbone to say NO! to any developer and when they do, the developer usually weasels out the agreement or gets so many admendments, the city says yes just to get rid of him, not knowing what real harm the are doing.