The St. Albert Taxpayers Association has received some harsh criticism lately, particularly the accusation that it opposes everything the city tries to do and is only interested in cutting the budget.
The St. Albert Taxpayers Association has received some harsh criticism lately, particularly the accusation that it opposes everything the city tries to do and is only interested in cutting the budget. This is hardly true, and I would argue the association does stand for something.
One main reason why the association seems to be opposing all of the city's current initiatives is because St. Albert is taking on several high-cost projects at once. What many of the association's members are worried about is that the combined costs of Servus Credit Union Place, the Riel Park redevelopment and the implementation of DARP will all hurt our long-term fiscal health. How much can we afford to spend on these projects, and how many can we take on? The numerous cost overruns some of these projects have incurred has given a lot of people cause for concern. A related worry is that all the money we're spending on these things is draining away funding for core services like trash pickup and infrastructure.
Our taxes have gone up with our spending, and some people in the association are afraid we're making St. Albert unaffordable for young families and seniors alike, both groups tending to have a harder time paying property taxes. People became concerned about what effects increased taxes and spending would have on the city's long-term financial health, and formed the taxpayers' association to make themselves heard. The association arguably stands for making St. Albert affordable for people of all incomes, focusing on core services to its citizens before anything else. That's why the association has criticized so many recent city projects —because they're concerned about whether we can really afford to spend so much money on them. No one is opposed to funding arts and heritage or recreation, but how much can we afford to spend on non-essential services in a weak economy when many citizens are having trouble making ends meet?
What's really unfortunate are the accusations people are lobbing at each other. From city council's perspective, the money the city is spending is an important investment for the future. As James Burrows told me, councillors are taxpayers too, and they raise property taxes because they feel it's necessary, not because they enjoy taxing and spending. It's also unfair to say the taxpayers' association is only concerned with cutting budgets. Lynda Flannery and others have actually offered a number of suggestions for how and where to spend money more efficiently, and the whole reason the association was formed was because its members were concerned about how long we could sustain our current levels of spending and taxes.
The best thing that could come out of the approaching October election is a debate on these issues. What we as a city need to do is actually figure out what kind of community we want. However, we won't get there by insulting and attacking each other for having different points of view.
Jared Milne, St. Albert
