You Can Take The Boy Out Of The Country . . .
WILL RURALLY-BASED SASK. PARTY REMEMBER CITIES?
by David Shield
Saskatchewan’s politically-minded urbanites all seem to have one question on their minds these days — what will the provincial election mean for me?
It’s a fair question.
For the last 16 years, the province has been ruled by the NDP, a party with a traditionally urban base and strong urban focus. Now, the Saskatchewan Party is in charge — and despite making considerable inroads into urban constituencies (especially in Saskatoon and Regina), the party’s base, and history, is solidly rural.
As any political observer will tell you, the election game is rarely played without a hefty price tag attached to it. There’s no doubt that rural residents will be viewing the Sask. Party’s victory as a chance to cash in, as the province’s rural areas have long complained about being ignored by the established power base in Regina. And now that the Saskatchewan Party is in power, some people are wondering whether that electoral support will divert dollars towards the countryside—and whether so many of those dollars will be diverted that urban regions are essentially left in the dark.
The Sask. Party has waged a vigorous (and successful) campaign attempting to separate themselves from the legacy of the Devine-era Progressive Conservatives. Still, one wonders whether the province will see a return to the days of watching millions of dollars being funneled into rural areas, depriving cities of vital funding—days that, in many ways, are responsible for the large infrastructure backlogs Saskatchewan’s major cities currently face.
Not so fast, says Ken Rasmussen.
Director of the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Regina, Rasmussen says it’s in the best interests of the Sask. Party to keep urbanites happy — and voting for them.
Taking a strategy from the federal Conservatives’ wooing of Quebec, Rasmussen says the Sask. Party is well aware that electoral victory hinges on winning urban constituencies. And now that the party has managed to break through in both major cities, Rasmussen says he thinks it’s unlikely that they would ever want to risk alienating those voters.
“According to the theory of electoral politics, they would be keen on spending a lot of time in cities, because that’s where their support is the weakest, and that’s where they need to shore up their political support. I suspect that’s where their biggest problems could arise, so that’s where they’ll spend a lot of their time.”
While Rasmussen believes that more money will probably be going into rural infrastructure (especially roads), he thinks it could be a benefit to the province.
“I think the SaskParty has made certain obligations in terms of roads and infrastructure, and if done wisely and well that can be a good expenditure — everybody says it’s time to spend more on infrastructure, so I would expect to see some of that going on,” he says.
The Sask. Party has certainly built up high expectations amongst its supporters in rural areas (perhaps most notably around extremely expensive items like highway construction). This, in combination with the party’s need to build upon its fledgling support in the cities, brings up the question of where all the money will come from—especially from a party that has pitched itself as a fiscally conservative alternative to the “free spending” NDP government.
Still, Rasmussen believes the party may catch a break, with the historically high prices currently being paid for crops like wheat and other grains lessening pressure to spend more in the countryside.
“Frankly, the SaskParty is fortunate in that many commodities are doing well and there isn’t a huge demand for cash payments, at least in the grain sector. There are always darker spots and brighter spots, but the grains and all the marketing boards are all doing well.”
In terms of where urban centres may actually see positive, rather than negative, decisions made by the Sask. Party, Rasmussen believes that most new provincial government spending in cities will be happening in and around universities — following a path mapped by the previous government.
“Universities are big incubators of development. I think you’ll see a continuation of what the NDP were doing, so I think you’ll see a continuation of many of those sorts of policies to develop the value added sector of our economy.”
MORE MONEY
If Fred Clipsham gets his way, Saskatchewan’s cities will have much greater autonomy when it comes to funding under the Sask. Party.
The long-time Regina City Counsellor and Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA) board member hopes the Sask. Party will live up to their promises when it comes to revenue sharing.
Despite being a central driver in the provincial economy, Saskatchewan’s cities have long had cashflow problems. As more and more people move into the province’s larger centres, infrastructure is becoming increasingly strained. At the same time, cities find it incredibly difficult to find ways to raise revenue, and are often limited to drawing money from property taxes.
Clipsham says the Sask. Party’s platform includes something called an ‘own-source’ sharing pool. Under such an arrangement, revenue gained from sources like sales taxes and income taxes would be fed back to the cities in a stable, predictable form. While this formula was started during Allan Blakeney’s term as premier, it was capped by Grant Devine and quietly done away with by Roy Romanow’s government. Clipsham says bringing back such formulas would help civic planning considerably.
Under the NDP, Clipsham says municipal funding was often doled out on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, with the province deciding how much money municipalities should receive throughout the year. As a result, he says it was very difficult to make informed decisions on municipal budgets.
“If there’s less money available, or if you’re anticipating money that doesn’t come, all of a sudden you have to scramble in the last nine months of the year to not spend that money that you had anticipated.”
The question of how much money cities will receive is up in the air. Clipsham says around seven million dollars is currently being given to the province’s cities through revenue sharing agreement, roughly the amount that was being paid when Romanow put a stop to the plan.
Ultimately, SUMA would like to see 40 million dollars going towards revenue sharing and 40 million towards infrastructure—every year for the next five years. Clipsham says only a major investment of this kind will help cities grow sustainably.
“People elect their mayors and councils to carry out local priorities, and that’s what we do, but doing it on the basis of property tax alone has proven to be extremely difficult.”
However, the Sask. Party has said they don’t plan on implementing the own-source revenue sharing system right away. Instead, the party says it plans on raising cashflow to the revenue sharing program by roughly five million dollars. Clipsham says it’s not enough money.
“A five million dollar increment to be shared among all municipalities just doesn’t go very far. We’re hoping to convince them that if an interim payment is needed in 2008 budget, then it should be substantially more than 5 million dollars,” he says.
Clipsham likes the own-source revenue system because it allows municipal governments to use money as they see fit, without the interference of the provincial government telling cities where the money should be spent.
However, Rasmussen doesn’t believe the Sask. Party will ever step away from dictating where the money will be spent.
“Anything they do, they’re going to want to get the credit for doing. So they’re going to be looking to get credit in urban areas, and they’re not going to be saying, ‘Here’s a cheque, spend it however you want.’ They’ll be doing things with a clear eye so that everybody knows there is a change in policy towards spending in municipalities, and they’ll be the ones taking all the credit for it.”
HAVE YOUR SAY:
feedback@planetsmag.com
Source
http://www.planetsmag.com/content.ph...=7&an=508&sc=1
Linear Mode
