Vote for Mayor

[haljackey]

At the end of the day all we did is elect a new sock puppet.

I'm doubtful a lot will change.

[quentin0]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Guess none of them have financially struggled after paying $5000+ in property taxes last year. I have heard stories of working homeowners in London unable to save any money or go on vacation because of her tax increases.

Maybe they should have budgeted for taxes when they bought their $400 000+ houses?

[manny_santos]

While the mayor of any Ontario city does not hold any more power than individual councillors (and up until this year, Board of Control members), the fact remains these massive tax increases occurred under Anne-Marie's leadership. She could have done more to stop tax increases from getting out of control.

Several years ago I wrote one of the city council members suggesting the city re-visit its policy of not charging industrial development charges, as I believed some of London's financial problems could be mitigated in this way. By sheer co-incidence the same idea was brought up by Vic Cote at the same time, but it seems to have been forgotten.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by quentin0

Maybe they should have budgeted for taxes when they bought their $400 000+ houses?

No, the people I'm referring to all bought middle-class homes in London in the 1980s when housing prices were at or below $100,000, currently in the $200,000 range. It's kind of hard to budget for taxes 25 years down the road anyways, especially when you don't know what other financial curve-balls could be sent your way that far down the road such as losing a job.

[quentin0]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

No, the people I'm referring to all bought middle-class homes in London in the 1980s when housing prices were at or below $100,000, currently in the $200,000 range. It's kind of hard to budget for taxes 25 years down the road anyways, especially when you don't know what other financial curve-balls could be sent your way that far down the road such as losing a job.

if they are in the 200k range, they dont pay anywhere close to 5k+ for taxes....

i agree that taxes are an issue....but the whole picture has to be looked at. if fontana raids the city's reserves for a 1 time tax savings, it will be a huge mistake.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by quentin0

if they are in the 200k range, they dont pay anywhere close to 5k+ for taxes....

I've seen it first hand, they do.

[MolsonExport]

My home was bought at 255K; probably valued at around 270K today; I pay roughly 3.8K in taxes (School/property and misc). I find that much higher than what I paid on equivalent property in BC/Quebec. Not to mention, the (very) high rates for water/sewer. Now, I might not complain if services were commensurate with what you would expect from "The best and the brightest", but alas, they are mediocre. Almost 5 years living in my subdivision...where is the park (the sign "Zoned to permit park" has been sitting there for 4 fricken years)? Ahh, just wait until my kids are grown up and then it will be built...but collect my taxes nevertheless.

Please, no angry ripostes. Just calling it like I see it, from the taxpayer perspective.

[manny_santos]

I should clarify that the $5K figure I'm using includes sewer and water rates, not just property taxes. I sometimes refer to all municipal taxes in general as property taxes, a habit I should break.

[Snark]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

While the mayor of any Ontario city does not hold any more power than individual councillors (and up until this year, Board of Control members), the fact remains these massive tax increases occurred under Anne-Marie's leadership. She could have done more to stop tax increases from getting out of control.

1) Other than being one vote on board of control (now gone), the mayor has less power.
2) Define "massive", and then define what is acceptable in terms of tax increases - bearing in mind that the inflation rate for Ontario municipalities to operate has been in the 4% to 6% range for years now. In a Joe Fontana'esk way, what would you cut to save tens of millions of budget dollars?
3)What, specifically, could the mayor have done that would have resulted in directly lowering the rate of historic tax increases?
4) Define "out of control"

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I should clarify that the $5K figure I'm using includes sewer and water rates, not just property taxes. I sometimes refer to all municipal taxes in general as property taxes, a habit I should break.

Water and sewer utility charges are not taxes. They are not even remotely close to being taxes. The City could, if it made people feel better, issue a separate utility bill every month just like natural gas, telecommunications, and electricity (and some municipalities do) instead of invoicing as part of the tax bill - but that would be a wasteful inefficiency.

As a point of reference, water and sewer charges are going up about 10% per year in most Ontario municipalities that have older infrastructure, as a result of the provincial Clean Water Act that was imposed as a result of the Walkerton incident. Both water and sewer utilities must by law be non-profit but financially self-sustaining. Infrastructure must be rehabed or replaced when at the end of its lifespan (and there is a great deal of that in older cities). Operators must be educated, re-trained, certified, and re-certified.

I understand people not being happy with increasing rates for these utilities, but what is really happening is that folks are now starting to actually pay the true cost for sustainable water and sewer services. They never were in the past for a whole range of reasons. lastly, I have to chuckle that folks here are bemoaning the increases in such charges (and yes I pay them too and don't like it), but I also read comments in response to the most recent annual spills report about sewage treatment plants having to divert overflows into the Thames, and the infamous watermain break at Dundas and Wellington several years back being the fault of A.M. D.-B. and her "ilk".

Can't have it both ways boys.

Oh, and BTW, just wait 'till the STORM SEWER utility really ramps up as federal and provincial environmental regs ramp up in the future.

[Snark]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Almost 5 years living in my subdivision...where is the park (the sign "Zoned to permit park" has been sitting there for 4 fricken years)? Ahh, just wait until my kids are grown up and then it will be built...but collect my taxes nevertheless.

Please, no angry ripostes. Just calling it like I see it, from the taxpayer perspective.

Your point is well taken, but not a London-only problem. This is a very common in many municipalities in Ontario. It has to do with the complexities (and by God it's complex - please trust me on this - you never, ever want to go to the OMB) of the development charge by-law process, the wide gulf between Capital and Operating costs and the mentality driving both processes, and, believe it or not a shortage of staff to both build and then operate an endless stream of new facilities coming on line. You would be shocked at what a " safety approved" playground system costs. It's obscene.

The land shown as "Zoned to permit park" is a requirement of the developer to set aside a certain amount of land in a subdivision for public park space. Then, once turned over to the City, the City is on the hook to build and maintain something. That is where it get's dicey, because there are 10 or 15 other spaces that were ceded to the City that same year as well. Who goes first in actual park development? There isn't enough money for all. In the end, it's like a lot of other topics: sustainability. Too many things = can't keep up. It's a downside of living on the fringes of an Ontario city: last one inserted into the system = please take a seat and wait.

I hear these very same concerns from folks inside of the system. They feel passionate about their commitment to the service that they provide, yet can't do it all.

[Highinthesky]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

No, the people I'm referring to all bought middle-class homes in London in the 1980s when housing prices were at or below $100,000, currently in the $200,000 range. It's kind of hard to budget for taxes 25 years down the road anyways, especially when you don't know what other financial curve-balls could be sent your way that far down the road such as losing a job.

No way someone owning a house worth in the $200,000 range is paying $5000 in property taxes. Its very simply to figure out what you will pay in property tax. If you have a house that MPAC values at $299,999.99 you take the city's tax rate, which in 2010 is 1.504425%, and multiply that by the assessed value which for the sake of this example is $299,999.99. $299,999.99 x 0.01504425 = $4513 a year.

[MolsonExport]

Guilty verdicts leave Best, ex-mayor in tears

http://www.lfpress.com/news/2011/01/28/17074421.html

Best testified he didn’t know he hit the first car and panicked after the second car crash. He called his brother, Ted, for a ride, then said he drank a light beer and nine ounces of vodka after getting out of the truck.

If you say the lie often enough, does it become the truth? Hey brutha, I think I may have just hit two cars....mind if I drink a beer and nine ounces of vodka to forget my troubles?



LFP

"Come and See Me Now for the BEST payday loans in London!"

[MolsonExport]

"I wanted a drink of Vodka"
http://www.lfpress.com/news/columnis.../17019881.html

[MolsonExport]

I find it rather interesting that of the 16 people that responded, not one voted for her majesty.

[Simpseatles]

One speech, many faces
By JOE BELANGER, The London Free Press

He was folksy, direct, enthusiastic and, at times, funny and brash.

After about 90 minutes of talking, it was clear London Mayor Joe Fontana had won over the city’s business community.

In his first major speech as mayor, Fontana challenged Londoners to join his team to “be the best city we can be.”

“I’m not afraid to kick butt,” Fontana told a gathering of more than 1,300 business leaders, politicians and other movers and shakers at the annual state-of-the-city breakfast at the London Convention Centre Wednesday.

“We’re not going to be ignored. We’re not going to be taken for granted. We’re going to demand our fair share and . . . We’re going to kick ass.”

It was a speech clearly designed to inspire, focusing not on past achievements — Fontana has held the job for only three months — but on the city’s strengths and potential.

It was also a lively, optimistic and interactive speech, with Fontana clearly determined to demonstrate a leadership style that’s brash and determined, in sharp contrast to the more subdued approach of his predecessor, Anne Marie DeCicco-Best.

“It was all about energy, enthusiasm, sincerity and compassion,” said Gerry Macartney, general manager of London Chamber of Commerce.

Fontana used video to deliver his message, but relied heavily on his personality while also handing the microphone over to several community leaders and business people to talk about the city’s strengths and its potential to draw investment and create new jobs.

“I want London to be BAD — better, active and different,” Fontana told the crowd. “We won’t come late to the party anymore.”

Among those handed the mic was David Johnston, president and chief executive of PenEquity Realty Corp., which announced it would develop a property south of Hwy. 401 just west of Wellington Rd. into a destination retail-hospitality centre with more than 500,000 square feet of space.

“It is very unusual to find a community with locations for development that are as visible as this is,” said Johnston, backing Fontana’s enthusiasm to see more development along the city’s Hwy. 401 and Hwy. 402 corridors.

And Fontana assured the crowd there would be more development along the largely rural highway zones, saying “having a couple of cows in a field and couple of barns is not my idea of showcasing London.”

Others who spoke included Amit Chakma, president of the University of Western Ontario, and John Denstedt, citywide head of surgery, who talked about CSTAR, the robotic surgery research centre at University Hospital.

Fontana, citing UWO and Fanshawe College, said the city’s talent pool is “deep” and needs to be nurtured.

“We need to ensure a vitality remains in the city and to do it, we must actively engage our young people,” he said. “We need to retain our young, vibrant entrepreneurs and we want those who have left to come back.”

He assured the audience council will find another $2.4 million in cuts or revenue to deliver a city budget with no tax hike this year.

“Our goal is to grow the tax assessment, not the tax burden,” said Fontana. He also promised “not to leave one person behind” in reference to the city’s jobless and poor, noting one in six children in London “go to bed hungry and I don’t want to hear those tummies rumbling anymore.”

Fontana also talked about the downtown and the importance it plays in shaping the city’s identity. “It tells people who we really are,” he said.

Partnerships, like one proposed with Fanshawe to establish an arts program in the core with the city kicking in a $10-million grant and up to $10 million for renovations, will “set the stage for additional private sector investment” to establish an arts district, he said.

“The heart of a city is often the standard for which a city is judged.”

[MolsonExport]

You go, Joe!!