let's give our head a shake

London has the highest unemployment rate of any big city in Canada and employment policies are not in place to bring the rate down.

["from London Free Press, April 6 2013"]

London is not alone at making an inadequate response to rising unemployment. For decades 5 - 6% unemployment was the norm. The new normal rate is now much higher across the country. And government and big business practices are hopelessly inadequate to meet the problem head on.

["Will 9 - 10% become the new normal?" London Free Press]

Please note the last line in the above photo, i.e., 'Local Jobs Breakdown'. Though it actually acts as a heading of a list of job gains and losses across certain sectors, it made me think about possible reasons for the last decade of job breakdowns in our country:

Corporate taxes have declined in the last decade while jobs losses have mounted. The 'job creators' (and some of the wealthiest among us) are obviously not doing their job. Maybe they are too busy spending what should be considered our economic stimulus money. 

["Most job creators don't know you exist. Now what?" gah]

Government tax revenues have declined, chiefly thanks to tax cuts, and public service cuts have followed. More job losses. More people not spending money. Job creation is lost as well.

Governments hesitate to raise taxes to increase revenues to keep people at work. Governments aim for zero taxes rather than helping people get back to work. Modern priorities are 'fewer workers', not 'more workers.'

In government and business, expensive 'smart' machines are gaining employment faster than new graduates. Smart equipment is replacing middle-aged employees who are now expected to stay in the game until age 67, not 65. 

["Let's give our collective heads a shake" gah]

As well, consumers are in love with cheap goods from China and other countries.

Why is our thinking so 'outta whack?'

Photos by GH

***

Please click here to read 10% unemployment is coming

job wanted

London's unemployment will likely be at 10% by mid-spring.

One reason:

Doctored photo from yachtown.com by GH

***

Please click here to read '10% unemployment is coming'

Deforest City Blues: What do you want to be when you grow up?

I want to be a successful writer with a fat catalogue of exciting books to my credit, like ‘My Memoirs: And I’m Not Even Dead Yet.’

My brother wants to be a successful artist. I think he already is. He can pay his rent and afford new art supplies and groceries. Come on, what more do you want in life?

And, according to recent news, London wants to grow up and be like Kitchener. A special levy might do the trick, at least so thinks Mayor Joe Fontana, aka ‘10,000 Jobs’ to some.

Although Patrick Maloney of The London Free Press feels “there could be some merit to the idea of an economic-development fund in the context of Joe Fontana’s promised four-year tax freeze,” (Dec. 18 issue) I think otherwise at the moment.

Two reasons.

One. Deforest City ratepayers (you know who you are) already pay millions upon million per year (e.g., $13.5 million) to boost economic development. At least according to another Free Press report.

And two. London already has an economic development fund, and it’s running a surplus.


According to an earlier article by the aforementioned Patrick Maloney, “London Economic Development Corp. (LECD)... has as $800,000 surplus...”

Maybe all LECD needs is a Kitchener-style idea to spend it on. Away we go, Joe.

Maybe the $800,000 could be used to drag our city 100 km. closer to Toronto (I say somewhere near Cambridge and the Galt Knife Brewing Co.) and away from the corn, cattle, soy bean and unimaginative beer region.

Like Mr. Maloney says, “there are many questions with the economic-development idea.”

For example, why would Joe introduce a new tax in a four-year, tax-free, hybrid-corn zone?

Corn dog, anyone?

***

Please read ‘Deforest City Blues Pt 1: Does City Hall still waive development fees?’ for more context.

.

Deforest City Blues PT 2: City Hall waives development fees

Me bad. I ignored Google for my first rant of the day.

I wanted to know if City Hall (in London, Ontario) waives development fees for developers to encourage development.

I had a sense it did, making me wonder why new London Mayor Joe ’10,000 Jobs’ Fontana would ever propose a new tax (“special levy” sounds so much better, eh?) in order to, you know, encourage development.

A moment ago I Googled the following:

London waive development fee Renaissance Towers

And - surprise - up popped about 229,000 results in 0.16 seconds. (So, my day is planned!)

Here’s a little gem entitled ‘Subsidies In Spotlight’ by Norman De Bono, The London Free Press (August 17, 2010, 9:32am) and the opening line clearly suggests Mayor Fontana needs to rethink his plan, in my (always) humble opinion.


["The Blue Heron, outside the subsidized Renaissance Towers, London": photo GH]

“London taxpayers shell out more than $13.5 million a year in subsidies to businesses, with some politicians saying it’s time to reconsider such support.”

Now, doesn’t that raise just a few wee questions?

Like, why does our mayor need a special levy? $13.5 million a year wouldn’t be enough to encourage a bit of development? It ain’t chump change.

De Bono adds it up for us:

“The city waives development charges — levied to help pay for the cost of growth — for new and expanding industries. Those charges totalled $9.5 million in 2009. Instead, taxpayers picked up the tab.”

“Homeowners are also paying $4 million a year in higher water rates than recommended, so business can get a break.”

“Those two policies alone amount to $13.5 million a year.”

Holy Doodle. That’s amazing.

Maybe when Mayor Joe tells us there’s no money in this town for economic development, the common Joe, like you and me, should tell him exactly where to find it!

De Bono adds more good news.

“But a third factor pushes the tab even higher: Between 2000 and 2017, the city will have rebated more than $5.2 million in property taxes for new downtown residential development — again, paid by ratepayers.”

That’s a pretty big waive too!

My head is spinning and it’s not just because a squirrel just climbed across my clothesline - upright - to get to my new bird feeder.

In Thursday’s news Mayor Fontana bemoaned the fact that we’re not as enlightened as Kitchener. They started a $110 million war chest in 2004.

Let’s do the math, shall we. Take 14 million dollars and multiply by 7 years. What do you get?

98 million bucks.

Tack on another year or two and the subsidies or special levy (ya gotta love that phrase) is right up there with Kitchener’s war chest.

So, Mister Mayor. Tell me again why you want to float a new tax?

***

Please read Deforest City Blues Pt 1 for more context.

.

Deforest City Blues PT 1: Does City Hall still waive development fees?

I’d like to know because Mayor Joe “10,000 Jobs” Fontana is thinking about a new tax in London in 2012.

The Mayor wants extra cash for an economic development fund or “special levy.” [See article London Free Press]

Oh, pick me, pick me. I’ve gotta question.

City Hall still waives development fees for developers to encourage development, doesn’t it?


["The Blue Heron at Renaissance Towers": photo GH]

For example, didn’t the Corporation of the City of London recently waive its right to over $600,000 of development fees from the developer of the Renaissance Tower situated at Ridout and King? Didn’t it even more recently waive a similar amount again for Tower number two?

In other words, don’t we - the common taxpayer - already pay a huge pile of extra cash - special levy, in other words - for the sake of the local economy?

Wouldn’t then Mayor Fontana’s ‘economic development fund’ on the back of taxpayers actually be called ‘economic development fund 2’?

Come on, Mayor, I’d like to know.

***

Help Mayor Joe Fontana with ideas for 10,000 jobs here

.

The Lite News: Pick up the damn leaves again

London’s Mayor-elect Joe Fontana struck some kind of chord with his admonition to city staff to “pick up the damn leaves”, even if they’re stuffed inside an old night shirt.


["What? They missed us again?": photos GH]

I say, pick them up, especially if the leaves are on the curb at the proper time in a proper paper bag.

We got missed again.

About once every four weeks our garbage or recycling is missed because somebody parks their car to the right of the pole - and in “no parking” territory - hiding the spot where our stuff is sitting.


Even our neighbour’s leaves get missed on occasion because of the parked-car-thingy.

Joe, I don’t mind using the paper bags, but, can we deposit the bags in the middle of the road?

.

The Lite News: “Pick up the damn leaves”

If I could just have your attention for a moment.

A few minutes ago I heard on the 11 o’clock A-Channel News that our Mayor-Elect Joe Fontana is trying to help us all wade through the confusing and frustrating (for some) leaf collection bylaws.


["Question: Can we put pumpkins in the bag w the leaves?"]

Mr. Fontana’s recommendation, and I quote:

“Pick up the damn leaves in the bags - it’s as simple as that.”

Now, many of you already know that leaf bags that are paper, reusable, compostible or biodegradable are AOK.

You may already know that plastic bags are not OK and that the “NO PLASTIC BAGS” signs that hang in many stores actually mean plastic bags are not the right ones. Look at the other ones.


["Will city staff take leaves right off the tree? Joe?": photos GH]

Not Joe. He just wants the damn leaves off the curb - wrap ‘em up in a dry cleaner bag for all he cares - as simple as that.

London, we’re on our way to a new era in city politics and, if anything, it should be pretty darn exciting.

OK, back to the 11 o’clock news.

***

On another note.

What happens if the guys in the leaf truck drive right past my bags of leaves on the curb? (Yes, it happened again. And good grief, the paper bags are 4 feet tall, fer cryin’ out loud!)

Joe, should I throw something at the truck? Something biodegradable?

More Lite News right here.

.

The more I think about it, the more peeved I get

Can we keep chickens in backyard coops in our city?

Can we not?

The more it was debated by city council the more I leaned toward egg-laying hens in the matter. A free omelette. Nothing wrong with that, I thought.


["Still singin' them egg-layin' blues"]

Okay, and though the door was closed on chickens at this time I can live with that. We can’t collect eggs for that omelette but someone on council is at least collecting more education. (It’s all about public education, as I said earlier).

But I’m still squawking about the following:

“Council was told by city solicitor Jim Barber zoning and animal control bylaws would prevent a pilot program.”

I can understand if it is a money issue. E.g., we can’t afford another pilot project until we pay all the bills on the green bin pilot project.

And sure, we spend millions on crackers and cookies every year in this town but can’t afford a project that might lead people a few steps back from a highly industrialized, fertilized and fossilized agribusiness culture. Really, I can almost understand how backward our thinking is on many things.

But to have bylaws that stand in the way of pilot projects is something else.


I mean, we’re already vulnerable to greater money shortages in the future (oil won’t last forever and our country’s debt - at all levels - is growing quickly), so, to be barred from progress toward better self-reliance by our own bylaws seems ludicrous to me.

Thank you. I feel better now.

.

Pt 2 Why do I suffer Deforest City Blues at times?

Three reasons today.

First - unfriendly bylaws. Want to learn about raising chickens to support a great idea, i.e., eat local? You can’t. There are bylaws that won’t even allow a pilot project inside city limits.

Second - an unreasonable Deputy Mayor, and trust me, I don’t throw the phrase ‘unreasonable Deputy mayor’ around very often. (However, I use the word ‘reasonable’ a lot.)


["Where's Gord? Out of tune?"]

This from Tuesday’s issue of The London Free Press:

Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell said it’s better to leave raising eggs to the professionals, who in Ontario are raising some of the best food in the world.

Yes, the professionals. All you amateurs out there, take note. Forget how good fresh eggs or meat or vegetables or fruit or bread or jam or home preserves or any homemade product tastes - the pros do it better. Yeah, right.

“This is not the 1920s,” Gosnell said. “We are a very urban society.”

That’s right. No one can argue that. We don’t live in a time, like 90 years ago, when the majority of people were more self-reliant and could raise some of their own food or make some of their own clothes, if need be. Now we rely on others, from the womb to the tomb, to do perfectly healthy chores for us, all on the back of cheap oil, thereby leaving our society vulnerable to any changes in the price per barrel.

Mr. Gosnell continued:


["What? We can't grow red pepper for our omelette? There's a bylaw?"]

He said he’s “shocked” at the debate about backyard chickens in a city like London.

“We’re becoming a sophisticated research and development, high-tech community.”

And we can’t do both?

I.e., we can’t raise a few hens, collect fresh eggs and make a healthy, low-cost omelette (better than the professionals) while becoming a high-tech community?

We can’t multi-task or appreciate natural processes while making, what... a better cellphone?

If I was Carla on Cheers I’d say, “What a maroon.”

But I’m not, so I’ll just keep singin’ the blues.

***

More to follow.

Yeah, we’ve dropped the egg on this one.

.

Why do I suffer Deforest City Blues at times?

Three reasons today.

First - unfriendly bylaws.

In what may be the last story the Free Press will carry re the great chicken debate (“Can we have backyard coops? Can we not?”) until fall, when info re bylaws in other cities will be presented, I read the following line:

“Council was told by city solicitor Jim Barber zoning and animal control bylaws would prevent a pilot program.”


["We're singin' the blues. But - where's Gord?"]

Though other Canadian cities allow backyard coops, our city cannot because we have certain bylaws.

And, of course, we follow all bylaws all the time. (Except maybe where developers are concerned; cf current Wortley Village luxury condo project).

So, if citizens of Deforest City desire to step back from heavily-industrialized and fertilized and fossil-fuel powered agribusiness and buy and eat locally, bylaws stand in the way of reasonable projects to help us with that desire.

I’m feeling the blues.

***

More to follow.

Oh yeah. We’ve dropped the egg on this one.

.

Climate Change Concerns Pt 5: Will chickens come home to roost?

I’m talking real chickens, real homes, real roosts in London, Ontario.

City councillor Stephen Orser is preparing to ask London’s council to consider allowing residents of Deforest City to raise chickens in their backyards.

“Growing your own chemical-free eggs is not a silly idea,” said Mr. Orser. He added that the practice would benefit the poor. (April 17 issue of The London Free Press)

His idea will be discussed at a council committee meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m., and I’m going to listen in on the discussion because the issue interests me from a personal and writer’s perspective.

For example, the issue of personal interest because my Dad raised chickens and was rewarded with free eggs and chicken soup for decades. I like the sound and taste of free eggs!

As well, the issue has drama. Some are in favour, others are not.


["I met these birds, and purchased organic eggs, while motorcycling toward Algonquin Park in 2006": photo GH]

On the same day that I discovered Leo Phillip’s letter to the editor re reducing meat and dairy (the same letter I used as a spring board into this exciting - and brilliant - series) another letter appeared that opposed Mr. Orser’s proposal.

“In this era of food safety, traceability and animal welfare, S. Orser’s proposal runs contrary to these important issues. It would represent a huge step backwards in avian disease prevention and animal welfare... As for his assertion this would benefit the poor, this is unlikely, since safe, chemical free, reasonably priced eggs are readily available throughout the city.” John Miller, Rodney.

Good points?

Not really.

With proper education, many people are fully capable of caring for hens and collecting eggs. Dependence upon factory farms located miles from London needs to be questioned.

The issue is also timely. Buy local, some say more frequently now. Reduce meat and dairy, say others. Lower fossil fuel use and reduce carbon emissions, say others.

And another letter writer said, “If they can do it in beautiful Victoria, B.C., (for the past 30 years) and now in Surrey, I do believe London could handle it.”

(At least three other Canadian cities allow backyard chickens as well, i.e., Niagara Falls, Brampton and Guelph, all closer to London than the two cities mentioned above).

Will Mr. Orser’s proposal pass muster? We’ll soon find out.

I feel I’ve come full circle at this point.

I’ve gone from ‘reduce meat and dairy,’ to fertilizer, to fossil fuels, to environmental degradation (Part 4), to backyard chicken coops that would help people reduce meat and dairy production and consumption in some small ways.

The last thing on my list for this series is to attend tomorrow's meeting at City Hall to see if chickens will come home to roost.

.

My Point of View: Is Wortley Village the right place for luxury condos? Part 5

[The following continues a series of thoughts about the development process as it pertains to an empty lot at the corner of Wortley Rd. and Bruce St. in Old South, London]

'Is Wortley Village the right place for luxury condos?’

I say no, not as a current proposal stands at present.

First, each of the four variances developer David Tennant Jr. (Hampton Group) requested very clearly indicate the proposed building is too big for the lot.

Second, the Feb. 17 meeting at City Hall, organized to collect input from the community, was chiefly about design objectives (mostly insignificant) for the building, and not about something far more important to the members of the community that had assembled there.

Third, not only does the proposed four-story building not identify with Wortley Village, but the builder clearly does not as well.

Earlier, I suggested that the developer’s desire to “push to build beyond every conceivable limit says something about his experience as well, as it pertains to building and dealing with well-established neighbourhoods.”

I said at that time that “foremost in Tennant’s mind is likely the following credo: Bigger is better.”

I also said, that to see “the city and developer... shake hands on such a proposal tells me they haven’t spent much time, if any, in Old South, and that other things occupy their minds.”

May I further suggest here that the developer has a stronger desire to fit more money into his bank account than design a building that fits into the community.


["It pays to be aggressive." "And have a good lawyer."]

Why do I think this way?

At the Feb. 7 meeting, when asked by members of community if he would consider reducing the building to three stories, Tennant Jr. flatly said no.

“It’s going to be four stories,” he said on more than one occasion.

A concept more suited to the community was not on his table, and in my humble opinion, it is because larger dollar signs (upwards of $400,000 to $500,000 per unit, 8 units per story) were on his mind when he created a proposal that pushed past the city bylaw for a building’s height in the heart of Wortley Village.

If Tennant Jr. says in the future that he identifies with the community, I will say he does not.

When members of the community requested information about the appeal process Tennant Jr. stated he hoped someone in fact would appeal the process because he felt more than confident of the outcome.

Can he afford the best lawyers? Of course he can.

Can members of the community? Not very likely.

If Tennant Jr. says in the future that he likes Wortley Village, I will say he does not, except as a place to build.

Some will say that making more money is a worthy goal, and to some degree that is true.

I’m even willing to admit that though it doesn’t make my world go round it makes life’s journey a bit more interesting if I have more in my wallet than to simply supply my most basic needs..

However, in the case of the proposed larger than life building plan, I think the city has made it too easy for the developer to make a mitt full of money at the expense of the Wortley Village community.

I feel it’s almost as if, during the process, City Hall had more the mind of a builder or developer than an advocate for the city as a whole, and because of that, I am left with a few questions.

First...

***

Please click here to read Part 6, Conclusion.

.

My Point of View: Is Wortley Village the right place for luxury condos? Part 4

[The following continues a series of thoughts about the development process as it pertains to an empty lot at the corner of Wortley Rd. and Bruce St. in Old South, London]

Is Wortley Village the right place for luxury condos?’

I say no, not as a current proposal stands at present.

A Feb. 17 meeting at City Hall that focused on certain features of a four-story commercial-residential building hardened my feelings.

First, each of the four variances developer David Tennant Jr. (Hampton Group) requested very clearly indicate the proposed building is too big for the lot.

[Please link to Part 3 for context.]

That the city and developer would shake hands on such a proposal tells me they haven’t spent much time, if any, in Old South.

Second, the Feb. 17 meeting at City Hall, organized to collect input from the community, was chiefly about design objectives for the building, and not about something far more important to the members of the community that had assembled there.

A list of ‘Design Objectives for Consideration’ (14 points in all - see below) was presented, a though a feeling of democratic give and take seemed to be part of the process, the list served as more of a distraction than proper focal point.

In other words, discussing the list felt like a PR exercise, and instead of seeing democracy in action that evening, I sat in the middle of ‘distraction in action’ for almost four hours - all hours I will never get back.

Can you imagine how many felt while discussing the first three design objectives for the building - i.e., 1. quality, comfortable, functional pedestrian realm; 2. contribute positively to Village character; 3. provide iconic architecture to further identify with the community - while being told the height of the building was not up for discussion?

Would not a building taller than all others in the area have some negative affect upon pedestrians? Would such a tall, massive building not seem out of character for the Village? Would not its architecture actually identify with the community if it was somewhat the same size as most other buildings in its immediate surroundings?

Would those questions not be worth discussing at great length, keeping the overall size of the building in mind?

How could members of the community, including myself, not be disappointed while discussing further design objectives that related to the shape of the proposed windows when the main thing hitting us in the face was the size of the structure?

We were told the size was not on the table. It was a done deal.

I could go on to discuss draperies too, and the most practical types of toilets for a building of that size in Old South, but the problem with the proposed building is that draperies and toilets are small potatoes, mere distractions, when considering the design of a building that does not fit with the area at all.

I’m sure Mr. Tennant was happy to see all assembled broken into discussion groups and talking about other design considerations - i.e., 7. quality design on all building faces; 8. provide a focal point in centre of Village; 9. take advantage of terminal vista; 10. avoid generic architecture; 11. avoid auto-oriented design, etc. - knowing discussion about the building’s height was closed.

Though many would like to say (and said), “The focal point at the centre of the Village sure is going to be big,” height was off the table.

If City Hall thinks the meeting was to promote democracy in action, or helpful input from concerned citizens, then I’d hate to see a meeting when democracy is not in action or peoples’ chief interests are not considered.

Third...

***

Please click here to read part 5.

.

Deforest City Blues: Our environmental efforts are embarrassing

For years London has been the centre of a region known for its ability to degrade the environment faster than you can cough out the tune to Smoke Gets In My Eyes.


Who says our city isn’t number 1 in an environmental category?

(You don’t get the musical reference?

Well...

“They said someday you'll find
All who love are blind.
Oh, when your heart's on fire
You must realize
Smoke gets in your eyes.”

Our city is bad enough to deserve well-aimed punches from local newspapers.

For example, Joe Belanger wrote the following in the Jan. 23 issue of The London Free Press:

For decades, London has “raced” at a glacial pace to catch up to the rest of the world on environmental issues, especially as it relates to household garbage, transit and roads.

(Punch. Well deserved).

If this city doesn’t soon get its act together on these basic environmental issues, taxpayers aren’t just going to be saddled with enormous costs to catch up. This city could very well find itself sitting on the sidelines when the federal and provincial governments look for green-friendly homes for the emerging green industries.

(Punch, punch. Again, well deserved).


Though our city lags behind, much blame must be carried by our provincial and federal governments.

For example, the lack of an environmental message from our federal Conservative government is deafening.

This from the same issue of the Free Press:

Canada may have a lousy reputation for fighting climate change, but Environment Minister Jim Prentice insists he is a “passionate conservationist” who takes the issue seriously.

“Personally, I believe the wise and prudent thing for us to do as a society in Canada is to reduce our carbon emissions,” Prentice told a Sun Media editorial board meeting. “And I personally...believe there’ll be significant consequences on a planetary basis if we don’t.”


(Though the above message sounds pretty good for a party that is a Johnny- or Stephen-come-lately to saying ‘carbon emissions’ and ‘significant consequences’ in the same sentence, Mr. Prentice tells us, likely without realizing it, the depth of our government’s commitment to the environment).

Prentice, who bills himself as a keen recycler who doesn’t own a car, says every Canadian must make an effort to cut their own emissions by unplugging their flat-screen TVs, recycling and turning off the lights.

Though our country has no clear plan to reduce emissions, perhaps we could all help by turning off the lights.

Embarrassing isn't it?

.

Snow is falling in London but not enough to...

...get a good picture.

By the time there was enough breeze to open the Canadian flag on the porch across the street the snow was almost done for the day.


And when the snow was at its flurriest I sneezed and got a crappy shot.


I include a picture of our bags of leaves (on the curb for 6 days and counting) because I want to show City Hall how conscientious my wife is about keeping to its leaf pick-up schedule.


["Oh, she keeps to the schedule, all right": photos GAH]

City Hall - get over here. My wife is tapping her foot.

.

It Strikes Me Funny: Yes, I said that

This week’s column is divided into two parts, both brilliantly written.

Part 1 is about dogs. Not all dogs, of course. There are so many.

[Has anyone tracked how many pet dogs and cats there are in London? Per capita, are we the pet capital of the world? Just wondering. I bet we’re close to the top. And how many dog parks to we have?]


["Dogs and taxes are related": at The Londoner]

Part 2 is about taxes. And I think parts 1 and 2 are related in some way.

For example, I wrote:

Imagine that a city councillor - pick a ward, any ward - comes to your door in their Sunday best and says, “We’d like to increase the number of services the city provides to you and your family. We’d also like to maintain them well into the future if they seem worthwhile. Any suggestions?”

Next, even though this whole scenario seems like a stretch, imagine what you’d like your city to do for you. (We’ll get to what you can do for your city in just a moment).

By the way, no need to ask for a park for small cats. Studies show most cats aren’t interested, but are in some sort of mood.

See, I told you it was brilliant.

Today’s complete column here.

.

Letter to the Editor: What does this tell us about Deforest City?

I like reading letters that provoke a response inside my little round head.

After reading it I thought, so this is the kind of society we’re becoming, eh?

From the July 25 issue of The London Free Press:

“I would like to express concern about the lack of attention and upkeep the Greenway Off-leash Park for small dogs is receiving from the City of London.


["We demand you clean up our park"]

The area is extremely neglected. The grass has not been cut since the spring (including) the dangerous large weed bushes.

The park is unsanitary. There was a dead animal in the high weed bushes (and) there are many insects.

What do the owners of the dogs have to do for city hall to take care of this area?” Signed, Jane R., London

I think the letter tells us not only about the condition of the park but about Deforest City and modern society as well.

Thoughts from inside my little round head -

1. Note to self - watch out for dangerous large weeds next time you’re out.

2. We’re wealthier than we are clever.

Many citizens can, for now, support a very large and growing pet population and cities can afford to build parks for many animals but together we can’t figure out how to maintain them.

3. This disparity between what we want and what we can maintain may be related to our great desire for all the amenities of life coupled with our lack of desire or ability to pay for them. I.E., Options related to food, clothing shelter, transportation, recreation, communication etc. are growing exponentially it seems (so is obesity and the size of our homes, closets etc.), and almost at the same rate as personal, municipal, provincial and national deficits and overall debt.

4. Perhaps Deforest City is poor or citizens aren’t paying enough tax to support the type of lifestyle we desire.

5. Maybe Jane R. could start by asking if there’s anything she can do to assist.

***

Is our modern day wish list bigger than our collective wallet?

Should we lower the expectations we place on governments at all levels if we aren’t willing to pay the freight?

.

London’s roads ‘losing ground’: Is City Hall solely to blame for our potholes?

“Hold on, Martha. There’s another frickin’ big hole ahead. Ouch!”

“Martha, did you survive back there? Martha? Martha?”

Yup, it’s like bumper cars and demolition derby on the streets of Deforest City but the city’s road chief is partly wrong when he says ‘politicians who underfund road work are to blame’ for the terrible conditions of our roads.

Come on, let’s do the math:

First, road chief David Leckie says he needs $20 million smackers per year to keep our streets from becoming worse than they already are (Worse? Insert laugh track here). And he’s not talking about improvements in other areas.


Second, City Hall spent half that amount last year, will spend less this year and well under $20 mill per year in the future.

Sounds like I’ve paved myself into a corner, eh? Not quite.

Third, have politicians and those that vote for them allowed funding for roads and other infrastructure needs to increase at the same pace as city growth to the far reaches of the known universe, as should happen when sprawling subdivisions and poorly planned development widens the borders of Deforest City faster than one can count the SUVs and heavy trucks that pummel roads into bite-sized fragments? (Whew. Take a breath. That was a long one.)

Fourth, how many people who live miles from work in an inappropriately named suburb (Rolling Meadow? Where’s the meadow now?) put pressure on City Hall not to raise taxes for roads because the payments on an over-sized house and car are too high?

Fifth, how many of us will vote for a councillor who says we need to pay more for the petroleum-based macadam that allows us to get smoothly to our lifestyle choices?

Martha, will you? Martha?

Back to Bernie: Deadbeats at City Hall drag us down, maybe up. No, down

I have three small related items that certainly belong together so that means I have enough for a post and then I’m done for the day and can play with grandson Ollie in our new RV i.e. large cardboard box.

Our neighbours are away and after my wife checked on their empty house (well, it is now! Nice stereo, Dear) she returned to say, “Their house is pretty cold but it’s because they turned down their furnastat before leaving.”

That’s one.

Civic workers in Deforest City missed an average 18.5 days of work last year while the national average stood at 9.7, and local city councillor Bernie MacDonald wants to get rid of deadbeats at city hall with high absenteeism rates because in his words;

“[Deadbeats] are dragging down the average for a lot of good people.” (Free Press)

Think, Bernie. Which way do you want the average rate to go? Up or down?


Pick one - carefully.

(I don’t know why Bernie gets so hot under the collar. Maybe he’s turned his furnastat up too low.)

That’s two.

And for those of you who always thought the light of day was the sun I read the following in the same Free Press article re absenteeism:

Bernie’s fellow councillor Paul Van Meerbergen said;

“If ever there was a city issue that needed the light of day under it, it’s this one.”

Paul needs to get out more, see how the sun works, and even if he means to use a flashlight, it’s mighty hard to get one under the issue.

Done. (I don’t mean the issue.More light will be shed upon it today.)