Survey  Results

Home->Kincardine->2006->June

by Fred Kirby                               June 7, 2006

The headlines recently shouted in the June 1 Toronto Star, “Benefits unjustly delayed.” Since 1998 citizens on the Ontario Disability Support Program have been denied millions of dollars to which they are entitled. That and the infamous clawback of the child allowance that parents on welfare are entitled to receive are only two examples of a nation blinded by gold when it should be inspired by caring.

Consider Finland: The World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, ranks Finland’s economy as the most competitive in the world. Yale and Columbia universities rank Finland first in its ability “to protect the natural environment over the next several decades.”

Robert C. Kaiser, associate editor of the Washington Post, reports that the Finns have one of the world’s most generous systems of state-funded educational, medical, and welfare services. Finns pay no fees for education at all levels including medical and law school. So much for the conventional wisdom that welfare hinders competitiveness. We say we cannot afford to protect our environment. We lie. We do not want to pay for it.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development states that Finland invests more of its gross domestic product in research and development than any other country but Sweden. In Canada we say research and development is necessary to be competitive but do nothing because we see it as a cost, not as an investment.

Finnish 15-year olds score first in the industrial world on tests of their academic abilities. Finns read newspapers and take books out of libraries at rates as high as or higher than all other countries. We rely on gimmicks and want to pass laws to force youth to finish grade 12 whether they learn anything or not. We would have to give up some of our personal gold to implement universal Child Care and Early Childhood Education, the foundation blocks of learning.

Transparency International states that “Finland is perceived as the least corrupt country (the United States is tied for 17th.)” In Canada we are guided by moral flexibility at all levels of government and consider it clever politics.

Norway has the world’s biggest pension fund with $230 bn in assets and expects the fund to grow to $500 bn by 2010. According to the Guardian Weekly, the fund is administered from a fourth floor office in a nondescript building. The fund manager earns $375,000 a year. Compare this to the fund managers in London and New York who earn ten to twenty times more in a year. In Canada we pay a CEO $250,000 to run an area hospital but say we cannot afford medicare. Politicians at all levels are quick to give themselves increases in salaries while our children go hungry. Those Canadians earning high wages want more while

by Fred Kirby June 14, 2006

The American Revolution came about when King George III and his government did not heed the British colonists’ desire to have a say in the way they were taxed. The eminent historian, Barbara Tuchman, in her book, The March of Folly, calls this act of the British government one of the great follies of history.

While the downloading policies of the present provincial Liberal government and the previous Conservative one will never be one of the great follies of mankind, future generations will view the loss of connectedness that unified Ontario into one mutually-supportive community and the destruction of vibrant, healthy communities throughout Ontario as a great political mistake changing the nature of how we think of our province and, indeed, our nation.

When the Conservative government introduced a property assessment method that also greatly increased the taxes on property many home owners could not afford to keep what was once theirs or what they thought they might leave to their children while other owners faced financial hardship.

The Walkerton tragedy caused the Conservative government to introduce stringent drinking water controls. Then, true to their previous behaviour, they placed the high costs of these measures upon municipalities, groups, and individuals without any thought as to whether or not these groups and individuals could afford them. Villagers suffered, long-standing rural community halls closed and property owners saw their taxes increase further.

Adding further to property owners’ costs, Dalton McGuinty, with Bill 206, has given police, firefighters, and paramedics the right to retire earlier with full benefits and added the cost of his generosity onto municipalities. He keeps his promise of not raising taxes by forcing municipalities to cut services or raise taxes.

The Association of Ontario Municipalities estimates that Bill 206 will add an approximately $380 million a year financial burden to municipalities across Ontario. That burden falls on property owners.

Now we have the provincial government’s limit on assessments for wind turbines. This prevents municipalities from taxing wind turbine companies at their true value. Wherever a wind turbine is built, the municipality is forced to subsidize the company. Income is lost to the municipality; income that might offset property taxes. If Dalton McGuinty wants to subsidize private companies, which is a questionable practice, then let the province pay rather than local property owners.

There are no unsightly wind farms in Toronto but Toronto will benefit from our subsidization. The same applies to other major centres in Ontario. They are the major users of electricity but it is the small municipalities that lose income that should be their right to collect.

Modern society is a complex body, unrecognizable from society a century ago when property taxes were our financial base. Today property taxes cannot possibly meet the demands and needs of municipalities. Reform of our tax policies is far overdue. Income without loop holes is the most progressive way to raise revenue and is certainly more equitable that property taxes.

Taxes are necessary but they should be designed to be fair. They are far from fair and the public along with municipally elected politicians need to speak out loud and clear and act to assure their concerns are heard.

We should heed the comment of Jean Baptiste Colbert, 17th century finance minister of France, “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.” It is time to hiss loudly.

by Fred Kirby June 21, 2006

Jim Cameron is upset over my imagery (letter June 7). Jim has every right to express his opinion but I do wish he had written a pointed rebuttal to my column of May 24. Debate is the best way to determine the rightness of any issue and we can all learn from it.

Since I would not wish to make an unfair comment, I reviewed my column of May 24th. The first four paragraphs offer straightforward opinion with which a number of folks agree and others disagree. Nothing “vitriolic” there that I can see. The fifth paragraph describes factual events which I witnessed. What is “scandalous” here is our Deputy Mayor telling the speaker for the Hartwick development at Council that he was not afraid of lawyers. Sandy’s bravado does not ring true in light of his reason for staying with the Medical Clinic’s architect. Then he said the architect had to stay otherwise the architect would sue. This is how Council deliberates! Why would any developer wish to deal with Council? The next two paragraphs are simple observations with which most readers would find no quarrel.

The last paragraph is not “scurrilous.” I describe our Mayor as lacking leadership. Jim does not refute that. Where is Glen’s leadership when he brushes past Westario strikers and refusing to speak with them? Is it leadership to intimidate people by demanding apologies without cause – a misuse of his office - while refusing to apologize to those whose properties were inundated with sewage – a failure of responsibility? The mayor shows no leadership in the need to reform Bruce Telcom’s oversize Board of Directors, a board that eats up $74,000 from a municipally-owned business in payments to members. These are but a few examples. To describe what is already known does not do damage to the Mayor’s reputation. It only highlights it. If it was not known and not true then that would be scurrilous. The chain of office does not only signify position but carries with it responsibility. There are far too many politicians who want to lead the parade but duck the battle. Glenn, unfortunately, is one of them.

I have never attacked the personal life of our Mayor, or of any other member of Council for that matter, but when Glenn assumes the mantle of office yet ignores his responsibilities then he is a legitimate subject for tough criticism. Democracy demands nothing less.

Jim, let me tell you what I find offensive and you can tell me why you disagree.

I find it offensive when the mayor refuses to personally apologize to the homeowners who have had their homes and property inundated with raw sewage. It is disgusting, it is a health hazard and it is costly to clean up all because the Municipality has ignored the problem for years. This mayor has had nearly three years to take leadership in correcting the problem. I find it offensive when a cottager comes up to his cottage one spring to discover his cottage had been flooded with sewage and then told by the Municipality that he caused it. I find it offensive when the Municipality displays signs saying trees along the beach are protected by the Municipality then proceeds to cut down those same trees. It is offensive to me when rules are changed after the fact as happened at the Hartwick Farm project. I am offended when one area, Tiverton, can say no to development while other neighbourhoods cannot. I am offended when the Municipality installs a water pipeline then give some citizens the option to hookup to the water pipeline while others have no choice. Politicians who come to Council with hidden agendas cause me great offence for these politicians break every ethical principle of good government.

Jim, what offends you and what offends me are obviously different matters. Where I stand on municipal issues is out there for all to see. Speaking out for fairness, integrity, and transparency in government always draw criticism. I can live with that.

by Fred Kirby June 28, 2006

Princes Street apartments were on the agenda once more when Councillor Ribey asked that council reconsider a proposal to build a 12-unit apartment complex on vacant lots opposite homes on south end of Princes Street. This proposal was rejected by council in December 2005. This second attempt to change the zoning in order to permit the apartments to be built was again defeated. The following councillors who voted against the motion need to be congratulated: Maureen Couture, Guy Anderson, Gordon Campbell, and Randy Roppel. Those who voted for the change were: Glenn Sutton, Ron Hewitt, and Howard Ribey. Barry Schmidt declared a conflict of interest and did not vote. Sandy Donald was absent.

Developers and homeowners need clear, fair, and binding rules. When a person builds or purchases a house in an R1 zone, they should be safe in believing that their decision is secure from radical change. On the other hand, when a developer proceeds with a plan and begins to invest money, then the developer should have assurance that the principal aspects of the planned development are acceptable.

It is disquieting to hear Councillor Ribey refer to earlier closed discussions on the Princes Street matter. Secrecy is an anathema to transparency. Secret deliberations never protect the public.

If a developer buys property on speculation then the risk is the developer’s. Similarly, if someone builds a house in an open field, not specifically zoned for single dwelling, that person is taking his or her chances. But when you operate under a set of rules then those rules should be consistent and hold fast unless there are exceptional circumstances; and even then nothing unexpected should take place without a fair and transparent procedure.


Nor should it be political appointees on the OMB who make such decisions. We need a far better instrument for appeals than this totally undemocratic entity.

If the municipality wants to develop the vacant lots at the south end of Princes Street then let the municipality encourage single family dwellings there. I heard that one person, who bought a lot on which to build a single family house, sold it when he heard about the apartments. Uncertainty will discourage such people; council can remove the uncertainty.

There is a further consideration that the Municipality of Kincardine must keep in mind when thinking of imposing its will on homeowners. Council has no moral authority to impose its will on home and cottage owners as long as it exempts the residents of Tiverton from development in their area. The mayor voted twice against the residents on Princes Street. How does he square that with his lack of leadership in sorting out the Tiverton water vs. development mess? Expediency should not trump ethics.