I can understand what Jennifer is going through, it is not her or her husband’s fault . It is fault of our present and past Councils . I am prepare to pay 7% extra taxes to save service cuts and staff jobs.

Scott

The past few City Councils have failed to ask one important and simple question of staff “How much will this cost the taxpayers?” before they approve some scheme recommended by their City staff.

Secondly, the developers no longer pay the costs for infrastructure changes required as a result of their developments. In the olden days, developers paid for the roads, the sewers, the sidewalks, the streetlights and even donated property for parks in order to compensate the public for the costs required to service their developments. These days the taxpayers pay these costs and the developers get the profits.

via the dedicated communists of City Caucus.

1. If you chose to take off work to raise your child (an honourable thing to do, don’t get me wrong), then there is obviously going to be less financial stability with your family’s situation. That is a choice you and your husband made, for which there are always going to be good and bad consequences for.

2. You never thought that this could happen to you? Your husband works in the public sector, which means that his salary is paid for by taxpayers. As such, these jobs are always potentially at risk depending on the economic climate, the city’s revenues, the government-in-power’s policies, etc. Thus this statement is completely naive to me (and in consideration of what has happened to the global economy over the past year, how is the possibility of losing one’s job something that you “never thought…could happen to you?”

3. To say that the cuts being made in the city could be “responsible for the destruction of my family” is absolutely ludicrous. Where does self-responsibility come into play? Like for example, your decision not to work. This is a statement that is beyond comprehension to me.

4. “Most people over 55 can retire and should retire.” Well, tell that to my Mom who is 64 and determined to go until 70, or to the 57-year old who just lost half of their savings in the markets over the past year. This is a selfish and self-serving type of determination that goes completely against the trends that say that mandatory retirement in Canada is becoming a thing of the past.

5. You are now suggesting that the City adopt a four-day work week, representing a 20 per cent pay cut across the board. Were you advocating for that when you and your husband considered your situation “very fortune” and “stable”? I highly doubt it.

She seems to feel as though she and her family are entitled to her husband’s job with the City of Vancouver…as if it is a right.

A later commenter mentioned the silliness in thinking that hundreds of thousands are willing to cough up another 116 /yr to save jobs. Agree.

It’s only because the city’s budget is founded on an annual revenue /expense cycle, not a quarterly one (as is business). That’s why the muni’s /province /feds are the last workplaces to truly be hit by the downturn.

As for a shrinking workforce. Change happens. Those with the foresight to adapt, do. And they most often survive.

As for those who don’t believe that it can happen to them… start to believe it. Start to prepare a strategy in advance. It really can make a difference.

As for those who are not willing to pay more tax to cover the ever-escalating cost of providing municipal services… remember your choice when services DO start to disappear.

Be prepared to hear “No” when calling to have this or that service provided, and accept the reason for it.

Maybe Council needs to consider deferring the $22 million tax holiday for business that was begun times were fat.

1. the impact of a large tax increase on the hapless single family home-owner. Less than 25% of households in Vancouver are SFD – of those, more than half have no mortgage. More than half are rental, and their rent can’t be raised beyond the legal limits, regardless of property tax increases. And yet the debate, for more than 40 years that I’m aware of, is always which services (usually provided to poor renters) should be cut to protect against tax increases that might be a hardship for 10-12% of the richest households
2. the City has (almost) always done surveys around this time of year asking residents if they would rather pay higher taxes or have services cut. I’ve never seen an instance where the respondents didn’t overwhelmingly suppport higher taxes and no cuts.

So what is really going on here? The only thing I can think of is the time-honoured Provincial government trick of making big cuts near the beginning of a term, then giving it all back just before the next election.

Every city in Metro Vancouver has experienced revenue decreases from the development slow down. Municipalities cannot by law show a deficit, so most of them plan to mostly raise taxes, cut a little, or both.

I think Vision is trying to be everything to everyone, so perhaps they feel the need to move to the right from their NDP base to prove to the corporate crowd that they’re capable of “balance”, mimicking the discredited Campbell Tough Love brand of yesteryear.

It’s all a little thin.

Um…if you can afford $4.47/day in property taxes but can’t afford $4.84/day…then, irrespective of hypothetical tax increases, you are living dangerously.

But you don’t seem to have an moral qualms about asking City staff to take a 7% wage cut (whether that would actually cover, more than cover, or not cover the shortfall I don’t know). Assuming a median wage of 60k for a City worker, you’re asking them to forgo $4200. Or $11/day.