Monday, March 13, 2006

Local News In Review - Translink, Carvolth, 15% Tax Increase & Much More

So, Former Mayor Grinnell is appointed to head the review panel of Translink by the Province's Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon. Let's be clear, we very much agree with Falcon's Gateway project and we agree with Falcon's concern of the Translink Board. But face it the writing is on the wall, Translinks' board is toast. Too bad our Mayor Kurt Alberts and all the other politicians on Translink who won't much longer make any more money sitting on Translink. It would probably not have gotten us much in Langley anyway! Is this 3 member panel basically window dressing to do the Province's bidding to help them push the delete button on the gaggle of goofs at Translink? We predict that this facade of a three 3 member panel will put the ultimate control essentially back into the Province's hand once again. See reports here, here and here and here
Carvolth School is also a done deal. It's toast. A valiant effort by the community. What they should understand is that the elected School Board Trustees do not fear the wrath of only a few hundred at best angry parents at the far away next election two and a half years from now. See reports here , here and here and here

Township Tax Increases and Financial ManagementSince 2000 when Mayor Alberts' slate was essentially first conceived we will have seen his present Council's budgeted average property tax, actual and plan, for the period 2000 to 2008, grow from $1416.00 to $1985.00 for an increase of $569.00 annually which is a whopping 40.2% increase. This will be this Mayor's Council legacy to us the taxpayers during his term in office. When is the public going to say enough is enough?

It is beyond us as to why the local media are not pounding on the 3 year 15% tax increase planned and an Alberts' Council overall 8 year dynasty rule of a 40.2% tax increase? Then of course there are other new apologist's like rookie Councillor Jordan Bateman who once again played into the hands of Mayor Alberts' Council by moving the actual motion to increase our taxes 4.95% for this year and for each of the next two years. His simplistic rationale is that tax increases are necessary to maintain our growth of police and firefighters. Using this simple rationale why not go to 9.95% or 14.95% or 19.95% for even better growth of our protective sevices? This comes from financial whiz kid, rookie Councillor Jordan Bateman who also got snookered to move the motion to increase the $3-4-5 million Grandstand budget by another $1 million with financial help by Langley City, hah! Bateman and the Council seem to have no problem whatsoever criticizing others for their tax increases though. What hypocrites. Do they all really believe that we will buy their 95 cent special marketing pricing ploy? Give us a break. See reports here , here and here and here
This previous last link which is the Times editorial spin makes me really warm up towards the Alberts' Council and to the editor when it basically translates to me that we are really lucky that Council is listening to us (hah!) because they reduced their property tax increases down from essentially 20% to 15%! Why does he not mention that under the Alberts' Council regime the total property tax bites will have been a whopping 40% increase? The Editor is quoted "There will be some who say there should be no tax increases. This is not practical or realistic in a growing community." Why not? Why does he not suggest that perhaps this township's growth is not sustainable because the more we grow the more it costs us? Why does he not suggest that this unsustainable cost of growth be funded by those that profit from the growth not the Township Taxpayer? (Example from our financial savvy neighbours on tax sustainability). Why does he not suggest that the annual 1 or 2 % cost of living increases be paid for by those who profit from Township's growth rather than the taxpayers? Why doesn't he question a 15% tax hike? Why doesn't he criticize a 40% tax increase under Alberts' Council regime? Why doesn't he require Township "shake ups" as he does when he questions Translinks tax hikes ? Why doesn't he move to Langley to help us pay for our increased and increasing taxes?

Speaking of waste of dollars see here.

And the final words go to Don Woode and Glen Tomblin . They should both be on Council!

No comments:

Post a Comment