This is the kind of public reaction that Vision Vancouver critics would have you believe the party is facing after the just-completed budget process. Nothing could be further from the truth, however.
What do you get with:
- The previous NPA dominated council increasing spending by 15.65 per cent (from $771 to $894 million) over three years – 2006-2008
- A salary negotiation achieved under the era of Sam Sullivan’s “leadership” to break a three-month old strike ensured a $26.7 million jump in salaries for the coming fiscal year
- A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2006 of 6.4 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 1 per cent
- A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2007 of 8 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 2 per cent
- A tax increase to Vancouver homeowners in 2008 of 2.13 per cent, including a tax shift from business to residential of 1 per cent (lower due to City Council directing staff in June 2007 “to use savings resulting from the 2007 work stoppage to reduce property taxes for City taxpayers in 2008 on a one-time basis. An analysis of the 12-week work stoppage identified $11.8 million in savings which translated to a property tax reduction of 2.32 per cent.” This was a work stoppage that didn’t need to paralyze the city for three months, making the “savings” a reflection of incompetence rather than solid management).
- A drop in development and building permit revenues by about 50 per cent (slide 5) due to the global recession
Well, you get the budget that the City of Vancouver just completed. And, all in all, you get a pretty reasonable process that took the needs of the collective into consideration above the loud voices of the minority.
In 2006, as an example, there was a similar deficit situation looming over the Council of the day. So, instead of looking internally on how to achieve savings, they dumped a 6.4 per cent tax increase on Vancouver homeowners, which funded things like the hiring of 127 new police and city workers and additional spending for programs.
In October 2006, this is what Peter Ladner said about the looming tax increase:
“We can’t have taxes going up by 6.3 per cent. So we’re going to have to find some cuts to make, and we’ll have to make some difficult choices.”
So even then, the NPA thought that cuts needed to be made so that citizens didn’t have to bare the burden of Council’s additional spending decisions.
And in the end, Ladner, Sullivan and crew didn’t have the guts or the personnel (City Manager Judy Rogers was never inclined to chip away at her little fiefdoms throughout City Hall) to make those “difficult choices.” They just went ahead with the 6.4 per cent tax increase, and called it a day.
On the other hand, what you have from Vision Vancouver is consistency. Listen to Councillor Raymond Louie from that time frame:
“We’ve already increased taxes substantially. We’re looking at another one. It’s due to their mismanagement. Taxes did not have to rise over the four per cent range that it did last year.”
So unlike some critics that claim that Vision is trying to out-NPA the NPA, this is far from a reflection of reality. Vision has advocated for proper fiscal management for several years, and with the economic crisis that was encountered over this past year, something had to give.
Council and the new City Manager decided to look internally – workers, spending, programs – to see where we could reduce. And, simultaneously, Council gave direction to city staff to limit the tax increase to 1.5% to 2.0% while maintaining all necessary public health & safety standards across all agencies and protecting services to vulnerable populations and funding to arts and culture.
That is what you call making “difficult choices.”
In conclusion, to Paul Faoro, who thinks his membership’s 26.7 per cent wage increase shouldn’t have been touched in addition no workers being laid off , or to Daniel Fontaine, whose selective memory about the regime he presided over in the Mayor’s office is very convenient, I say give up your mock anger.
This is a budget that is reasonable, that maintains the policy priorities of Council’s majority, and that looks to rein in irresponsible spending and services over burdening taxpayers.
No matter how much mud is thrown at the tough and resolute decisions that Council just made, it is something that will be supported by Vancouverites in the long run.
Mark my words.
