The times are changing – again – over at the City of Courtenay council chambers. For a long time the Post War generation dominated the City Council until the Baby Boomers came along. Both of those groups were more interested in maintaining the status quo – and their own political careers.

But in 2018, a bunch of level-headed Millennials took over and started fixing everything the boomers left undone – because they were afraid to raise taxes enough to maintain even basic infrastructure.

Now, those 2018-2026 council millennials and Gen Xers and the odd Boomer (looking at you, Doug Hillian) are stepping back, letting it ride and taking it easy. They’re turning over the reins to another as-of-yet-unknown wild bunch of council members, some just as old, maybe, but in large part, crazy as bat guano.

TAXES

You’ve got some gun slingers promising to cut your property tax bill, but who won’t admit this entails once again letting the infrastructure rot in place, cutting staff and slashing services. The savings might elicit a murmur on your tax bill, but the shouting will be deafening when public facilities reduce hours and you can’t get somebody to fix the blinking street light outside your bedroom window.

DEBT

You got your math wizards, like Dick Clancy and Manno Theos, littering your door knobs with flyers full of BS. Their door hangar claims that under the city’s five-year plan, the intended borrowing will result in a forecasted annual debt interest payment of $4.6 million per year beginning in 2029.

They’re spreading misinformation faster than a farmer with a load of manure. A debt interest payment of that amount would require additional borrowing of $115 million. The most recent capital plan shows accumulated borrowing of $83 million in 2029, but that includes the $13 million for South sewer. The borrowing for that project will be paid for by connection fees and DCCs – not taxation or sewer fees. Courtenay residents should not be paying for South Sewer, it should be the properties in the extension area that cover that cost.

There is also $31 Million for the Outdoor pool, which hasn’t been approved yet and will need funding from the region to get off life support. (The $31 million is simply a placeholder for potential grant applications). If you take those two projects out the borrowing in 2029 is $39 million – and some of that will also be paid by DCCs and ACCs – not taxation or utility fees.

Assuming the whole $39 million is all paid for by taxation, the interest would be $1.56 million a year, not $4.6.

Isn’t it obvious by now? Manno, Dick and the gang just don’t understand the city’s finances. Ya’think that might be a red flag for voters?

UNDERCOVER?

Then there’s weight lifter Kitty Pitt and decorated aviator Dave Mellin possibly running undercover candidacies. They seem like normal people, but in the dark of night I suspect they’re plotting the annexation of the Puntledge Triangle, what we used to call the 3L Development property. They were big fans back in the day.

But does anybody want to hear how $1 million-plus houses will solve our housing affordability crisis, or how it’s worth the cost of extending infrastructure to get access to an old river swimming hole?

Whether or not voters elect them, the Puntledge Triangle debate will soon surface on its own at the CVRD. What’s different this time is that the CVRD started a Park Service for land acquisition, specifically to enable our region to purchase parcels like 3L for public access. The argument that we need to approve an annexation or the development project to get the swimming hole back to the public is no longer true.

POOL NONSENSE

You wanna talk about swimming? How about the outdoor pool? It’s too easy to pick on Dick again, but he and a whole lot of other candidates keep expressing “deep concerns” about how much the city plans to spend on replacing the pool. Which begs the question: Shouldn’t people running for office know what the hell they’re talking about?

There’ s been no approval to spend a cent on replacing the pool. The incumbent candidates, the retired councillors and the city have all said clearly that the pool is a no go, unless it’s part of the regional Aquatic Strategy. It’s in the city’s capital budget for grant application purposes only (see above about misinformation on the debt).

When Clancy was told all the pool information was available online and in YouTube videos, he was even more irate. “This raises some very serious questions,” he posted online. “You are telling me that I must watch hours of videos and that what is posted online by the city… this is not what I would call transparency.”

To sum up, Clancy is either too lazy or just not interested enough to read the minutes, watch meetings online or haul his ass down to city hall and sit through long and mostly boring meetings. But he’s angry that Mayor Bob or somebody doesn’t spoon feed him facts for breakfast.

Oh well, what can you expect from someone who also posts online, in response to Nick Moore, “Where would the First Nations be in today’s world if they had not been educated.” Or, in response to someone else, “So you think that they would be better off today only able to speak their tradional (sic) languages, stuck on a reserve isolated from civilization?”

But that’s enough about Dick.

WATER METERS = EQUITY

While we’re on the subject of water, let’s talk about usage meters. Almost all the candidates have opinions about them. Some candidates like ‘em, some hate ‘em. John Dacombe would install them faster. Manno and his slate think water meters will send large families “further in debt.” They want us to “work together” through education.

But here’s what’s really missing about the water meter debate.

There’s a lot of talk about water conservation and water supply, but not a lot of emphasis on the cost of delivering and treating water. It’s actually these two things that make water meters necessary from a fiscally conservative viewpoint.

By staying on a billing system that allows for low water users to subsidize the high ones, we stay on a path that leads to higher treatment and infrastructure costs – bigger plants, pumps and pipes to meet demand. Even if there is an unlimited supply of water (e.g. desalination), the cost of delivery and treatment will not go away.

A system without water meters is a system where the majority of water users subsidize the water of people who want green lawns and swimming pools. Water meters mean that people who want those things pay the actual cost of them – not that they can’t have them.

These aspects – equity and infrastructure – are completely overlooked. Those who favor meters and those that hate them, focus on supply. If you like meters, you’re protecting our supply. If you hate them, you propose other ways to boost supply.

But this is really not the most pressing reason to get water meters. It’s equity – who pays for the infrastructure.

IN CONCLUSION, VOTE!

Well, we might have gotten carried away again. But we hope a few things got straightened out and that you all vote on Saturday.