Surrey, taxes and representation

Finance committee chair, councillor Tom Gill, announced there will be an increase in city taxes come 2015.

Surprise, surprise given no mention of said tax hikes came about during the election campaign.

Nevertheless, additional sources of revenue will include (as found in Dec. 15 CBC article, found here):

• A property tax increase of 2.9 per cent = about $46.20 additional for the average home owner.
• A fee increase for secondary suites of $116, up from $412, making the new total $528.
• A “Cultural & Recreational Parcel Tax,” which will be a flat fee of $100 per home.
•  A one per cent levy for roads = an increase of $15.93.

These increases, according to Gill, are necessary to ensure capital projects can be appropriately funded.

Fantastic.

What are (some of) these capital projects?

• 100 new RCMP officers and 16 additional officers added each year from 2016 to 2019
• Recreation centre and parks improvements and construction
• General road construction

The budget passed by the city consists of $205 million in projects, as reported by the Province. It includes a new rec. centre in Clayton, an expansion of the Surrey Museum, and the hiring of 100 Mounties to bring the city’s total to 803 officers.

Only on the lattermost point is there no sense of shock as it was part most expected.

In total, as Leader reporter Kevin Diakiw summarized, “the taxes for the average Surrey home will be climbing from $1,593 this year to $1,755 next year,”.

But, the crux isn’t even the amount.

As Jordan Bateman opined in the Now, none of these tax increases were thoroughly discussed during the election save for the general understanding new officers would require some serious money ($14.5 million or so, for the officers and necessary support staff, according to same CBC article sourced above).

Council is also seemingly prepared to move forward with the purported increases despite voiced concerns, a few examples local reporters Amy Reid and Diakiw spotlighted.

But, why should council care?

Surrey First’s mandate, whatever that mandate happens to be, is set for the next few years.

This is the primary concern over electing slates, or any majority.

Citizens can be hostage to the wants and whims of leaders, and thus wants and whims of the myriad lobbyists pushing for their respective causes.

We, as citizens, hope the actions taken by the public officials elected are within the best interest of the public. But history has proven good policy is not always the case.

The wonder, then, is whether government, no matter the level, is truly responsive to its citizens cries.

Moving ahead with policy at the behest of public outcry certainly serves to further cement the disconnect between voters and public officials.

Further, with under 20 per cent of the popular vote, yet passing legislation affecting the entire city populace, it’s little wonder citizens feel detached from government and the decisions made.

No taxation without representation is not just a slogan, it’s a principle.

If public concerns exist, and not taken into account, especially on taxation, why pay taxes in the first place?

At the core of it, the taxpaying public should decide. This isn’t to say we throw a referendum at every issue.

However, given the enormous platform Surrey First had during the election, and the imposing changes planned, there’s no excuse why these fiscal increases should not have been mentioned.

But, that’s politics.

It’s not politically savvy to discuss the hiking of taxes when there’s an election to win.

Politics is the practice of influencing people with ideas; character has nothing to do with it. Perception does.

A Municipal Ward System in Surrey?

It’s been a minute (or two) since my last post, and in pursuit of a saddle to get back on the horse with, the following terse tweet titillated my curiosity:

@bkostinuk please visit helpsavesurrey. com
— helpsavesurrey. com (@Gill22sry) December 20, 2013

The link helpsavesurrey.com led me to a petition. The underlying purpose: underrepresentation in the Lower Mainland’s fastest growing city, which, it states, has led to major concerns and issues left unaddressed. The proposed solution: a new municipal electoral system: wards.

But is a ward system Surrey’s solution to better representation? Are we, or do many here, feel underrepresented? The petition states, blankly, that “7 councillors are not enough to address our safety and concerns.” Is that true? Is a ward system the solution to better local governance? I’m skeptical.

Background

For over a half-million people, Surrey has an eight-member council and mayor to act as political representatives. In rough estimate, that is 62,500 constituents per councillor if the mayor is discounted, or roughly 55,000 constituents per municipal representative, if s/he is included.

This ratio, 1: 55,000, is the jumping off point for ward system proponents, especially since population statistics predict that the numbers are only expected to rise and therefore  “underrepresentation” will increase.

Furthermore, the Marvin Hunt political dualism also contributes fodder for a change in electoral system. Hunt is a sitting Surrey councillor and, as of May 15, 2013, is an MLA for the Liberal Party in the Surrey—Panorama riding.

By law, he is fully able to occupy both seats. He left it to council to make a decision on whether a byelection for his seat would be called. Council, however, did nothing and left it to the Surrey councillor himself, citing other councils (Langley, Delta and eight others) having permitted leave of absences in the past.

Also working its way into the equation are finances. Another reason no byelection was called was associated to the costs our at-large system, which would place the expense somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 to $750,000. Hence, yet another—financial—reason, beyond the added representation argument, that does bear consideration in judging the current paradigm.

At the very least, Councillor Hunt did the most respected thing and, while not stepping down from his council seat, pledged to fork over all his pay to charity as reported by the Now and Surrey Leader. It is half his $60k salary given the space of time between July and the new year.

The ward system

Langara political scientist, Peter Prontzos, commented in 2011 that those who run for office tend to be people with money and wealth therefore they are commonly out of tune with the issues of low-income or middle-class earners. A notable subject is public transportation, for instance.

Subdividing Surrey’s municipal electorate into smaller units, perhaps 18 to 21 wards, with an elected representative from each, sounds like a sure way to spread representation more equally.

Voices from every pocket of Surrey’s society will be provided  an opportunity to contribute to municipal political decision-making. Furthermore, a byelection would cost significantly less given the smaller electorate base that would be required to poll.

Case study: Ottawa

A ward system would not be alien to Canadian municipal politics.

Ottawa has used a single-tiered system for quite some time, having done revisions to update its structure in 2002. Ottawa, as of 2011, had a population of a little over 883,000. Its electoral base is subdivided municipally into 23 wards.

What’s important is Ottawa’s discussion of “effective representation,” a term, in essence, that means “each citizen should have a voice in government and the ability to bring their concerns to a representative who understands their interests. . . In addition to population, issues such as geography, local history, community interests and minority representation need to be considered.”

In this instance some relevant concerns come to mind before any decision can be made, for or against, any kind of ward system.

Concerns…

Concern #1: Will there be enough worthy participants?

Voters are apathetic; historic lows in turnout across all levels of government are common. A shift to a ward system doesn’t mean voter turnout and political participation will suddenly skyrocket. Perhaps at first, but once the newness runs its course, the interest in politics will wane. Even under a ward system, Ottawa’s turnout rates—about 44% in the most recent 2010 municipal election—haven’t been stellar, and this is in the nation’s capital.

Now, consider Surrey. Just 25% showed at the polls in the 2011 BC municipal elections. There clearly isn’t very much concern over local political affairs. Finding 20 or so worthy political actors, who are knowledgable and truly care, seems difficult to attain.

Concern #2: How much additional costs would the city incur under a ward system?

Yes, it has been confirmed that a Surrey byelection would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and thus remains a good reason Hunt is a two-seat filler. But how much would it cost to pay for a little under two dozen municipal politicians? At about $62,000, perhaps more, per annum? And will these individuals—ward representatives—also have support staff?

Concern #3: ward system = better governance?

The petition to “help save Surrey” indicates a ward system will combat Surrey’s underrepresentation, alleging “councillors are ignoring major concerns and issues.”

The site mentions specifically: crime, dirty streets, a need for transit upgrades, border lines for gas, the homeless, and other political issues at large. In addition, the site lists: “extremely high ratios” between teachers-students, doctors/nurses, correctional officers-inmates, plus court file back-logs, youth needs, and general city-wide problems.

I have issue with several of these points, including the petition itself. First and foremost, it is irritating to view public figures discussing systemic or societal problems but failing to offer any solution, in kind. Homelessness, crime and Transit funding are just some examples.

A new system of government does nothing; if local, neighbourhood leaders wish to participate in the political cycle, then run for office. If anyone puts up real solutions towards progress, I will vote for them. It’s easier today, than it was ten or 15 years ago, to get up on a soapbox.

We don’t need a new system; we need visionaries and independent thinkers.

Final thoughts…

Bloating council to 20 or more ward representatives seems outrageous and loosely fitting for a voter base already apathetic to local politics. In addition, there is the glaring puzzle of breaking down the city into a rational and effectively representative grid of wards. And God help us during resource allocation decisions and upgrades.

The city needs to grow more cohesive. A ward system decentralizes and can therefore divide an electoral base more so than it may already be.

If you want change; don’t vote for the same figureheads. Better yet, run for office or show up at council meetings with ideas to go with the complaints.

We do need change, but not the electoral system wholly.