Thursday, October 18, 2007

Musical taxes

According to the London Free Press, Mayor Anne-Marie DeCicco-Best was "surprised" that no mention was made in Tuesday's throne speech of the cities' agenda to transfer federal tax revenues to their own spending reserves. As an officer of an institution under provincial jurisdiction, perhaps she was not equipped to interpret this part of the speech:

"Our Government believes that the constitutional jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected."
But on the other hand, that part of the speech is also an almost complete lie, so DeCicco-Best could be forgiven for her disappointment. And as a long-time Liberal knows, a promise of a little hand-out here and there never hurt anyone. If anyone should wonder why a city that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past decade on discretionary and unnecessary capital projects and is contemplating spending tens of millions more on a performing arts center should need even more revenue, well that's not a subject on the cities' agenda. And if anyone should wonder how paying taxes into one government's pocket just to be put into another government's pocket benefits the taxpayer in any way, well that's just not any politician's agenda… for fairly obvious reasons.

4 comments:

Elaine said...

Why in the hell would they say they were giving London money? They know this city council will just waste it on buying something stupid like installing another elevator at city hall that speaks eight languages.

That was really needed wasn't it? Just put a big sign up in the elevator showing a dummy falling out the door, because they didn't have enough sense lift their feet.

eng said...

Just put a big sign up in the elevator showing a dummy falling out the door, because they didn't have enough sense lift their feet.

I always wondered what you look like.

Elaine said...

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2007/10/20/4591067-sun.html

Now isn't that a lovely story in the paper today. London is to become a subdivision of Woodstock.

Wasn't that long ago that Woodstock was considered a little town, and now because of some enonomic vision it is becoming a city. A prosperous city at that.

It is too bad London city council doesn't realize the importance of economic growth. They just can't seem to make the connection that jobs, that pay good money, and what a valuable asset that would be to this city.

There is rumor that Woodstock has been approached to put a Canada's Wonderland theme park on the east side of their new city.

Where do you suppose that leaves London in the designated tourism department?

The only thing London has left is to bill itself as a retirement town. A place to go to wait around to die.

London would even screw that up, with the old socialist banshee cabal screaming over cutting down a tree to put in a bocce field,.....or a golf course.

Jake said...

This city is very serious trouble with this anti-growth crowd running the show. The development is already packing their bags in some cases.

Cities and towns like St. Thomas, Woodstock, Ingersol, and Middlesex Centre are already attracting Londoners who are fed up with the soaring taxes and lack of economic development. The proof is in the pudding since the regional communities want to expand the Huron/Erie water line supply.

St. Thomas is expected to grow by 10,000 in 15 years and they are planning a land annexation that will make St. Thomas city limits closer to London.

Elaine is exactly right when she says that London will become ghettoized as younger families leave and more poorer families take their place.