Another view of infrastructure funding
More about infrastructure!
The first reaction I had to the "bikelanes in the middle of nowhere" was here. After some more thought there might be a more problematic side of this situation.
If infrastructure funding is designed to boost the economy and complete projects that Municipalities need then we should look at the extra cost to taxpayers. Normal cost is the taxpayer cost of maintaing the Town without extra projects. Of course all Municipalities have wish lists and Councils want to look good by building assets that may or may not be used by taxpayers. Thes infrastructure projects are accelerated schemes that have been planned but not ready to be implemented because the Municipality doesn't have them money for the project just now.
But if the Feds & the Province come along and start handing out money for "shovel-ready" projects where does the Municipality find the matching funds? From the taxpayers, of course, and what's the impact on this year's taxes?
But the disturbing part of this topic is that because there was the matter of the 600 million dollars of unallocated infrastructure funds from the past two years' budgets. If this money flowing to the County now is "old money' can we expect financial stimulus or just help to the Municipalities with capital projects?
Back to the "bikelanes in the middle of nowhere"! Are bikelanes now the norm in bridge and road design and how much extra does it cost to widen a two lane bridge by approximately two metres? How many manhours do those two metres takeup, how much of a multiplyer effect does the extra concrete and rebar and asphalt produce. And how does this project help the unemployed?
The most disturbing partof this dole-out is this - if the County was going to build this bridge this year (it was) where is the rebate (the money saved by the Feds contribution) to the taxpayers going to go? If the County was going to build the bridge with a three way split then what's the big deal? This is just a normal political announcement with a hyper-spin from the local MPP and the unemployed have still been shafted!
The first reaction I had to the "bikelanes in the middle of nowhere" was here. After some more thought there might be a more problematic side of this situation.
If infrastructure funding is designed to boost the economy and complete projects that Municipalities need then we should look at the extra cost to taxpayers. Normal cost is the taxpayer cost of maintaing the Town without extra projects. Of course all Municipalities have wish lists and Councils want to look good by building assets that may or may not be used by taxpayers. Thes infrastructure projects are accelerated schemes that have been planned but not ready to be implemented because the Municipality doesn't have them money for the project just now.
But if the Feds & the Province come along and start handing out money for "shovel-ready" projects where does the Municipality find the matching funds? From the taxpayers, of course, and what's the impact on this year's taxes?
But the disturbing part of this topic is that because there was the matter of the 600 million dollars of unallocated infrastructure funds from the past two years' budgets. If this money flowing to the County now is "old money' can we expect financial stimulus or just help to the Municipalities with capital projects?
Back to the "bikelanes in the middle of nowhere"! Are bikelanes now the norm in bridge and road design and how much extra does it cost to widen a two lane bridge by approximately two metres? How many manhours do those two metres takeup, how much of a multiplyer effect does the extra concrete and rebar and asphalt produce. And how does this project help the unemployed?
The most disturbing partof this dole-out is this - if the County was going to build this bridge this year (it was) where is the rebate (the money saved by the Feds contribution) to the taxpayers going to go? If the County was going to build the bridge with a three way split then what's the big deal? This is just a normal political announcement with a hyper-spin from the local MPP and the unemployed have still been shafted!
2 comments:
It is very disturbing to think that the politicians don't even care what they spend the cash on, as long as they get their pictures taken doing it.
When we have such a need for affordable housing, both new and for repair/maintenance costs for the existing stock, bike lanes to nowhere are a cruel joke. As already stated, they don't even create jobs.
Surely we can do better than that.
DJO
Co-op housing would be a fine investment. I have lived in co-op housing for 20 years in downtown Toronto. I was the chair of the Capital Planning Committee, Finance Committee, Membership Committee at various times. We had a million dollar budget.
Alexandra Park Housing Co-op was one of three of the first co-ops built in Toronto. We were one of the rare co-ops to stay out of the red every year. We were never subsidized by the state -- the only favour we received was a 50 year mortgage.
The co-op is the total responsibility of its members, so we all took pride in our homes; when the time came to install new windows throughout, we got the most green. The same for new roofs, new bathrooms throughout, new heating. All done over the years.
So there I was living in a two-bedroom in the core of Toronto and paying $815.00 per month, everything included, heat, water, cable tv. We set aside our own money to suppliment another resident who needed it to get through a difficult time.
Building co-ops provides employment while providing affordable housing. It provides continuing employment because the co-op needs servicing.
Post a Comment