Dear Bill and Michael

 

I’d like to thank both you gentlemen for taking the time yesterday to attend the PLT information session and for your work in helping to bring this issue forward towards a resolution for all those directly involved.  I’m not sure if we really have achieved this but I know for sure that Bill has worked hard and long on this and I’m sure that Michael has also been directly involved.  For the ratepayers that I represent in the Northern Light Lake Local Roads Board the proposed taxation levels make sense as far as the levels of service received go. This has been our position all along, we should only pay for what we get and in our case we don’t get much, if anything. For this my personal thanks, I’m sure the Ministry of Finance listened to you both in this regard and I’m sure our ratepayers will be relieved that they will not be facing an unreasonable tax burden that could result in the sale or loss of their seasonal properties.  While I do have many concerns about the legislation itself and the way the entire process was handle our ratepayers can rest easy…at least until the end of 2012.

 

Please don’t take these next couple of comments personally they are in fact intended for the Ministry of Finance and for Dwight Duncan and his representative Helen Harper . As a point of interest and following up on my question at yesterday’s PLT meeting regarding consultations I have attached a copy of the letter I received from Dwight Duncan Minister of Finance dated August 6, 2008.  On the second page he states “the Ministry of Finance will undertake a second round of consultations” (and yet the invitation for the August 18th session very clearly stated it was an “information session”). Helen Harper asked what my definition was of consultation was and although I’m sure she has no doubt now as to my opinion is nevertheless as I am a bit of a stickler for details I opened up my Oxford Dictionary today and under “consult” I found the definition as follows “ seek information or advice, refer to a person for advice, an opinion, etc,  seek permission or approval from a person for a proposed action.”  Under the definition for “inform” it says simply “tell”.  The meeting held yesterday told us of all the decisions already made and committed to.  There was no true consultation whatsoever as all the decisions have already been made.  It’s nice to finally at least have all the information but what we have been through is an information session not a consultation. This is, in my personal opinion, is an important point, if you make a promise, keep it, especially when you keep repeating the same promise, (this is especially relevant for Bill and Michael in the last paragraph of this email).

 

I suspect there are many others who also question whether or not this is in fact a “reform” as after it is all said and done not much has really changed except we’ve moved to current value assessment.  Perhaps another trip to Oxford’s is in line but I suspect it will say something like “to make or become better by removal of faults and errors”. I don’t think the legislation nor the rates established live up to the full definition of reform, perhaps I need a new dictionary.  A moot point perhaps as this is probably the end of this particular issue, it has no strategic value for the Ontario Government and all it did was stir up a hornets’ nest in the unincorporated areas.  Most of the ratepayers in the unincorporated areas are now breathing a huge sigh of relief in that they are not, at least for the next 4 years, going to be gouged with unreasonable taxes for services they don’t receive.  If there are any lessons learned here they should be that openness, honesty and commitment is what we want and expect from our government. Also when you ask our citizens to participate you should really mean it and it should be done in advance of final decisions being made.

 

To close I’d like to say I was however very pleased to hear that both you gentlemen have publicly committed to restoring the 2:1 funding for local roads boards that was part of the Liberal Party’s election campaign last fall.  I know that our NLLLRB is in desperate need of these funding levels so that we can undertake a much needed crushing operation.  The majority of our roads have not seen any gravel applied in over 12 years and this is presenting both a safety concern and as well drives up our annual operating maintenance costs.  I would suggest that the funding levels be increased, as you have both promised, at the earliest possible time and in any event no later than the beginning of the fiscal year 2009.  Any additional delays will of course aggravate our safety and maintenance concerns and of course our ratepayers will be left wondering if you really meant what you promised. My dear old mom always said “a promise made should be a promise kept”, I don’t think you want me getting my mom involved because if you think I’m tough to deal with you won’t want to deal with her!   Our roads board look forward to the meeting promised by Michael to discuss this 2:1 funding level and other concerns.  We of course have some valuable opinions and suggestions such as the fact that funding levels should be restored to the previous level in legislation and the wording in the LRB act should be changed back to “the ministry shall provide funding’ rather than “the ministry may provide funding”,  One word does make a huge difference and as I stated above I’m a bit of a stickler on words, they are important.  It would also be nice to be truly consulted for a change, not “informed”. You’re both local lads, not just some suits from the south who don’t know and/or don’t care about the North, I’m sure it will happen and soon.

 

Thanks again gentlemen I really do appreciate your concerns and help even if it appears sometimes that I don’t, please take care, Bill.

 

G.W. (Bill) Pilot P.Eng.

Chairman Northern Light Lake Local Roads Board

Ph 807-625-1951

Cell 807-628-5095

 

Back