0
CCRA criticizes its pet councillors
08 March 2008
[indent]I was somewhat surprised to get an email from a local condo owner that included a severe criticism of council, writing, "i was hoping you would be different .. but your performance with broken promise is shameful." The writer included specific shots at the mayor, and ending the letter with, "you have left a bitter taste."
This letter was followed by a link to the Collingwood Condominium Ratepayers' Association (CCRA) site in which an editorial also criticized council. It also commented that during the election,
Perhaps that's the risk of a special interest group promoting politicians. The group gets angry and frustrated when their pet politicians don't jump as high or as quickly as expected. And it's a risk for the politicians who are now being criticized for not slavishly pursing the special interests at the expense of the rest of the community's interests.
I think it clearly outlines the necessity for electoral reform, when a special interest group can manipulate an election in such a manner, and boast about it. It's time for a ward system in this municipality.
Since I was never their poster child - apparently for personal reasons, not evidently not for reasons of policy because I gave pretty much the same answers as the Chosen Few - I suspect I am not fully included in this chastisement. Just for the record, I recall every candidate during the campaign committed to discuss taxation for condo owners, although most of us were aware that many of the issues were in provincial, or county, not municipal jurisdiction. But most of us didn't get CCRA's overt support regardless.
Well, I'm not sure how 'thorough' the process was: my 'interview' consisted of about 15 minutes of questions and 45 minutes of stern lecture on how I should have voted and what I did wrong in my first term. I had the impression their collective minds were already made up long before they went through the exercise of speaking with candidates.
Despite the criticism and the lack of support for three of us at the table, this council has done several things within its authority to affect a more fair taxation system (for which I also voted in support) including petitioning the provincial government to investigate the tax ratios. But many of the demands are simply outside our control.
That's mere hyperbole. It makes it seem like being a condo owner is a punishment instead of a choice. Condos are not prisons or concentration camps. Condo owners aren't 'victims' any more than someone buying a new car is a 'victim' of high gas prices and subsequently blames the dealership for the cost of driving.
Does anyone buy a property - especially in a prestigious upscale development that's outside the core area - without finding out what sort of additional costs are involved outside the purchase itself? Do you buy a house anywhere without asking about property taxes? Condo owners surely were aware beforehand of the condo fees associated with ownership. I think it's disingenuous to complain later, as if somehow the owners were misled or taken advantage of, when it was really an informed choice.
As Ian Adams comments on his blog,
Perhaps the taxes are unbalanced in some instances. That may be remedied - to a point. But it's not as if this or any other municipality was out to try and abuse any group of owners. The laws for taxation are set by the province, not the municipality. You might as well blame council for the weather or the state of the dollar. But CCRA continues,Swindled is a very harsh and unrealistic term. It suggests a deliberate effort, but where in all of this is the responsibility of the condo owner to ascertain the annual fees and extraneous costs involved in such a purchase before committing to it?
Would it be fair for a resident in another part of town to complain about the town's trails that we have made great effort to ensure reach most of the condo developments? Just because not every resident wants to walk or bicycle to the condo zones doesn't mean we should not extend trails to them, nor should we excuse non-condo residents from having to fund those trails. Council has to try to do the best for whole community, not merely a particular segment of it.
I've always argued that everyone in town has to share the costs of common usage. That means we all pay for plowing the streets, for garbage pickup in parks, for trail maintenance, for sidewalks on public streets, lighting, and so on. That's because we all share the usage of those areas. In the same way, people without children pay for the education system, or people who aren't sick pay for health care. We pay for the arena even when we don't use it, for sidewalks on streets we never walk, we all pay for communal street lights and traffic signals even if we don't drive. In that sense, we are all "victims" of taxation. But it's for the Greater Good. That's the way this country's democracy is structured.
Yes, condo owners have to pay for municipal garbage pickup when they really have to have a private contractor do it, so they pay twice (although to be fair, the private pickup is often enhanced above what other municipal residents get). And we're trying to address that. But the full amount cannot be refunded or credited back because there is still pickup in the common areas such as parks - that cost has to be shared. The same goes for recycling. The costs levied are not simply for individual pickup or recycling, but to maintain the landfill, the recycling depot, the vehicles, the public cleanup, the entire infrastructure of waste management. Individual pickup is a small portion of that. Any rebate or credit granted will not be for the full amount on the tax bill.
Ditto with roads: condo owners pay for the cost of plowing snow by a private contractor, as well as paying for plowing the other streets. Well, that's in part because municipal snowplows can't work on narrow condo streets. Developers don't build wide streets around condo developments in order to maximize the land use and get more profit from it. That means streets too narrow for municipal plows to operate in, and no sidewalks or curbs. It's one of those costs associated with condo developments that you simply have to suck up. If you don't want to pay for additional snow clearing, then buy a home elsewhere. But regardless, you and everyone else in town will still pay for the snow clearing on public roads even if you personally don't use them. The costs go to a larger system of maintenance and repair. That's the Greater Good again.
What annoys me, too, is this comment:
I checked my council email - even the spam filter - for letters from CCRA or the writer of the original message for all email since the start of 2007. And I can find nothing asking for answers, demanding action, or even asking for comments. Nor can I recall any printed letters sent to council asking for a response from either individual members or council as a whole.
Now perhaps, since I wasn't among the Anointed Six, I didn't get anything sent to me - even though I agree on several issues, some of the CCRA execs may assume I'm not sympathetic. It's unfair to damn everyone at the table for not responding without first checking to see if whatever correspondence you did send actually arrived and was distributed - assuming anything has been sent at all.
This editorial signals a growing rift between the Chosen and their special-interest supporters. Those "requests" seem more like demands to me, a call for payback. The piper is calling the tune. And the threat is implicit: dance to our tune our we'll turn our power against you next election. They called the shots last time and succeeded in getting their candidates onto council. But will these recent tactics garner support and compliance at the Council Table? I doubt it. Bullying is usually met with resistance.
Are the Chosen quaking, or simply getting angry? I suspect those who rode the coattails of CCRA support into a seat at the table may be annoyed at CCRA's very public attack. This might backfire against the group. For those of us who got elected without the lobbying efforts of CCRA, it looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost...
Keep your eyes and ears open. Word on the street is that an alternate citizens' group is in the making that will bring the focus back on the rest of Collingwood.[/indent]
This letter was followed by a link to the Collingwood Condominium Ratepayers' Association (CCRA) site in which an editorial also criticized council. It also commented that during the election,
Quote
CCRA then put its full support behind those candidates who committed (if elected) to discuss fairer taxation for condo owners both at the municipal level as well as supporting CCRA at the Provincial level.
Its common knowledge that most of the council voted to power, including the mayor, was a result of the CCRA’s hard work on their behalf. The mayor specifically promised absolutely to address our issues and rectify the abuses. In the 16 months since their election none of them have made any effort towards our cause nor even had the common courtesy to respond to our correspondence requesting their help.
Its common knowledge that most of the council voted to power, including the mayor, was a result of the CCRA’s hard work on their behalf. The mayor specifically promised absolutely to address our issues and rectify the abuses. In the 16 months since their election none of them have made any effort towards our cause nor even had the common courtesy to respond to our correspondence requesting their help.
Perhaps that's the risk of a special interest group promoting politicians. The group gets angry and frustrated when their pet politicians don't jump as high or as quickly as expected. And it's a risk for the politicians who are now being criticized for not slavishly pursing the special interests at the expense of the rest of the community's interests.
I think it clearly outlines the necessity for electoral reform, when a special interest group can manipulate an election in such a manner, and boast about it. It's time for a ward system in this municipality.
Since I was never their poster child - apparently for personal reasons, not evidently not for reasons of policy because I gave pretty much the same answers as the Chosen Few - I suspect I am not fully included in this chastisement. Just for the record, I recall every candidate during the campaign committed to discuss taxation for condo owners, although most of us were aware that many of the issues were in provincial, or county, not municipal jurisdiction. But most of us didn't get CCRA's overt support regardless.
Quote
Before the Nov. 2006 municipal election CCRA thoroughly investigated and or interviewed all of the candidates to determine their position with regard to condo owner’s unfair taxation. CCRA then put its full support behind those candidates who committed (if elected) to discuss fairer taxation for condo owners both at the municipal level as well as supporting CCRA at the Provincial level.
Despite the criticism and the lack of support for three of us at the table, this council has done several things within its authority to affect a more fair taxation system (for which I also voted in support) including petitioning the provincial government to investigate the tax ratios. But many of the demands are simply outside our control.
Quote
As a Collingwood condominium owner, you have been a victim of unfair taxation for years. You might have been aware of that from time to time but didn’t know what to do about it. This newsletter will remind you of how you’re being abused, but most importantly, what you can do about it.
Does anyone buy a property - especially in a prestigious upscale development that's outside the core area - without finding out what sort of additional costs are involved outside the purchase itself? Do you buy a house anywhere without asking about property taxes? Condo owners surely were aware beforehand of the condo fees associated with ownership. I think it's disingenuous to complain later, as if somehow the owners were misled or taken advantage of, when it was really an informed choice.
As Ian Adams comments on his blog,
Quote
...the CCRA folks tend to forget they chose to move into their enclaves and that there would be maintenance fees every month for a variety of other services. Streetlights? Sorry, that's part of the development you're living in. Snowclearing? Well, your development was built to a standard that doesn't permit municipal vehicles to operate properly.
Perhaps the taxes are unbalanced in some instances. That may be remedied - to a point. But it's not as if this or any other municipality was out to try and abuse any group of owners. The laws for taxation are set by the province, not the municipality. You might as well blame council for the weather or the state of the dollar. But CCRA continues,
Quote
We’ve all been swindled for years by municipal and provincial governments taxing us for snow removal, garbage pick up, maintenance of fire hydrants and streetlights, (just to mention a few), that they’ve never provided. That’s right; we’re taxed every year for all of that but receive none of it.
Would it be fair for a resident in another part of town to complain about the town's trails that we have made great effort to ensure reach most of the condo developments? Just because not every resident wants to walk or bicycle to the condo zones doesn't mean we should not extend trails to them, nor should we excuse non-condo residents from having to fund those trails. Council has to try to do the best for whole community, not merely a particular segment of it.
I've always argued that everyone in town has to share the costs of common usage. That means we all pay for plowing the streets, for garbage pickup in parks, for trail maintenance, for sidewalks on public streets, lighting, and so on. That's because we all share the usage of those areas. In the same way, people without children pay for the education system, or people who aren't sick pay for health care. We pay for the arena even when we don't use it, for sidewalks on streets we never walk, we all pay for communal street lights and traffic signals even if we don't drive. In that sense, we are all "victims" of taxation. But it's for the Greater Good. That's the way this country's democracy is structured.
Yes, condo owners have to pay for municipal garbage pickup when they really have to have a private contractor do it, so they pay twice (although to be fair, the private pickup is often enhanced above what other municipal residents get). And we're trying to address that. But the full amount cannot be refunded or credited back because there is still pickup in the common areas such as parks - that cost has to be shared. The same goes for recycling. The costs levied are not simply for individual pickup or recycling, but to maintain the landfill, the recycling depot, the vehicles, the public cleanup, the entire infrastructure of waste management. Individual pickup is a small portion of that. Any rebate or credit granted will not be for the full amount on the tax bill.
Ditto with roads: condo owners pay for the cost of plowing snow by a private contractor, as well as paying for plowing the other streets. Well, that's in part because municipal snowplows can't work on narrow condo streets. Developers don't build wide streets around condo developments in order to maximize the land use and get more profit from it. That means streets too narrow for municipal plows to operate in, and no sidewalks or curbs. It's one of those costs associated with condo developments that you simply have to suck up. If you don't want to pay for additional snow clearing, then buy a home elsewhere. But regardless, you and everyone else in town will still pay for the snow clearing on public roads even if you personally don't use them. The costs go to a larger system of maintenance and repair. That's the Greater Good again.
What annoys me, too, is this comment:
Quote
They won’t answer our requests so now its time for every condo owner to bombard them with demands for action. Attached to this newsletter is a list of every Collingwood councillor including our mayor, their email address, postal address and telephone number. Take the time to help yourself. It’s you they are double taxing every year! Contact every one of them and tell them you’re mad as hell and you’re not going to take it anymore. You want answers! At the very least forward this newsletter to each of them and demand a reply.
I checked my council email - even the spam filter - for letters from CCRA or the writer of the original message for all email since the start of 2007. And I can find nothing asking for answers, demanding action, or even asking for comments. Nor can I recall any printed letters sent to council asking for a response from either individual members or council as a whole.
Now perhaps, since I wasn't among the Anointed Six, I didn't get anything sent to me - even though I agree on several issues, some of the CCRA execs may assume I'm not sympathetic. It's unfair to damn everyone at the table for not responding without first checking to see if whatever correspondence you did send actually arrived and was distributed - assuming anything has been sent at all.
This editorial signals a growing rift between the Chosen and their special-interest supporters. Those "requests" seem more like demands to me, a call for payback. The piper is calling the tune. And the threat is implicit: dance to our tune our we'll turn our power against you next election. They called the shots last time and succeeded in getting their candidates onto council. But will these recent tactics garner support and compliance at the Council Table? I doubt it. Bullying is usually met with resistance.
Are the Chosen quaking, or simply getting angry? I suspect those who rode the coattails of CCRA support into a seat at the table may be annoyed at CCRA's very public attack. This might backfire against the group. For those of us who got elected without the lobbying efforts of CCRA, it looks like the pigeons are coming home to roost...
Keep your eyes and ears open. Word on the street is that an alternate citizens' group is in the making that will bring the focus back on the rest of Collingwood.[/indent]
The comments in the newsletter are inflammatory and exacerbate relations with council. The writers are doing their members a disservice by this approach. Cooperation would certainly help their cause a lot more.
Regardless of who supported whom during the election, council has collectively taken several steps towards fairer taxation. But the problem is twofold... First, issues like taxation and waste management are outside our jurisdiction. They are provincial or county affairs, respectively. We have appealed to both to investigate and address these issues, but the municipality does not have any authority to change these matters.
The second problem is that the writers make condo owners out to be victims of unscrupulous governments, but none of these additional costs were hidden when the owners made their decision to buy. Condo fees, extra service fees and municipal property taxes are all presented with any offer to purchase. These are informed decisions, and no one was blindsided afterwards. It is the responsibility of the buyer to understand the nature of the purchase and the nature of life in a condo community - including what tradeoffs in services it offers for that lifestyle.
And finally: the writers overlook one of the crucial concerns about fair taxation: that we all have to pay for common areas and common services. That's the concept of the Greater Good. We all pay for ploughing municipal streets even if we all don't drive on them; we all pay for maintaining trails and parks even if we all don't use them; we all pay for education even if we all don't have kids in school. And in fact your taxes pay for more than just the hands-on service you can see: in waste management for example, it's not just the curbside pickup you pay for, but the maintenance of the vehicles, the maintenance of the landfill site, personnel, consumer education, environmental studies, recycling programs, blue boxes, legal issues, etc. - it's a whole system of interlocked services. How can you isolate just the curbside pickup portion?
So even if a higher level of government agrees to reduce some portion of the tax that is seen as 'double dipping' everyone still has to share in the cost of these common portions. This means the costs for these services can only be reduced, never completely eliminated. So far no one has done any calculations on how much that common portion is. It doesn't mean we shouldn't go through the exercise, but I suspect once the calculations are done, any proposed reduction in property taxes will be minimal.