Zero means Zero, Cut the Fat, Yada, Yada, Yada
Mayor Larry O’Brian campaigned, and got elected, on a “0% tax increase” platform, and now we know what that entails….. “Ottawa City Council would have to take an axe to $63.2 million worth of services and programs to deliver a property tax freeze in 2008.”
Zero means zero means nine wading pools closed.
Zero means zero means two outdoor pools closed
Zero means zero means reduced ice bookings at public-private facilities.
Zero means zero means closing a number of community centres.
Zero means zero means closing as many as nine libraries.
Zero means zero means reduced snow removal.
– and, among other things, zero means zero means a 5% hike in transit fares.
Who uses the majority of those services?
* Whose children are not going swimming if the local pool and/or wading pool is closed?
* Whose children are going to be affected by the closing of a community centre?
* Whose children are going to lose out when the library closes?
* Who are the primary users of public transit?
City Hall sure seems to have a vastly different idea of what fat looks like than I do.
O’Brien was a liar, and the voters of Ottawa-Carleton are idiots.
This strategy was as old as the hills.
a) Promise no tax increase.
b) Get elected.
c) Present electorate with the consequences of honouring your commitment. “I promised you NO tax increase, and I stand by my commitment! Of course, it will mean no police force or snow removal, but dammit, a promise is a promise. Unless, of course, you folks are willing to tolerate just a TEENSY tax increase. But hey…it’s up to you.”
Is there anyone, really who didn’t see this bullshit coming?
I don’t think we can dump all the blame on Larry for this one.
While it was a rookie mistake to promise a zero tax increase before even starting at City Hall I think that he really thought his business prowess could make it happen. Larry went in with full intentions of attacking the city’s consulting budget to find his savings as that’s where a huge amount of municipal tax dollars are spent. While it may have been naive to think he could find as much as he needed I don’t think it quite makes him a liar.
He’s also dealing some fierce opposition from the more outspoken city councilors like Maria McRae, Alex Cullen, and Clive Doucette whose egos desperately want O’Brien to fail. They jump in front of local cameras any chance they get to second guess Larry and then go into their “If I was mayor” routine. This would make it difficult for anyone to get anything done.
I think even though Larry was the one to promise a zero tax hike the usual hike is going to be the usual team failure we see every year at City Hall. This year the other councilors are just doing a better job of off loading responsibility.
If the services that I listed are lost or reduced, and the cost of other services like public transit are increased in pursuit of his “zero means zero” program, I will most certainly blame O’Brian – who else is there?
He opened his yop and spoke campaign stupidity, and now it seems he has a couple of choices:
(1) fess up to the stupidity and eat a bit of crow, or
(2) carry on with “zero means zero” service cuts and price hikes that primarily (by design IMO) affect a specific segment of the local population that depends on them.
A mature and intelligent individual would make one choice, a pigheaded politician unwilling to admit to mistakes the other – which do you think we’ll see?
I think there’s a C in this A vs B argument. Administration costs at City Hall. It’s the option that none of the councilors want to touch because it involves their salaries, and the number of people they can hire to do their more mundane tasks for them.
City council likes to make it appear that the only thing they spend money on are things like whats listed at the top of this post, but it’s bullshit. I’d like to see a public audit done on how money is spent inside City Hall on administration costs and employees before anyone starts talking about closing libraries and community centers.
There’s lots of middle ground Gwylim, but the middle ground you are talking about is sacred and I would be really surprised to see either O’Brian, or the council as a whole, go there.
We will see service cuts, and they will not be the kind that affect those who have their own swimming pools, wouldn’t be seen dead in a community centre, and who don’t need libraries because they have a houseful of computers connected to the Internet via high speed DSL or satellite.
We will see another public transit fare hike, and the people who can least afford it will once again be forced to ‘figure something out’ if they want to go to work in the morning.
“I don’t think we can dump all the blame on Larry for this one.
While it was a rookie mistake to promise a zero tax increase before even starting at City Hall…”
Nonsense. I’m not a politician, but I am a businessman, and I knew exactly what would happen the moment he made his promise. See response 1. The only possible variant was a shocked announcement along the lines of “Gee, things are MUCH worse than I thought they were because of shoddy accounting practices, so we’ll just have to raise taxes a LITTLE bit for a LITTLE while because my predecessor lied to you.” (The McGuinty Manoeuver).
“…I think that he really thought his business prowess could make it happen.”
The great delusion. In business, there is ONE bottom line and one only: financial return on investment to shareholders. Everything else serves that goal.
In not for profit and political organizations, solvency is a big plus, but it’s not the only goal; delivery of service, user/client satisfaction, and the achievement of social goals and targets are equally important. The public sector can learn many things from modern management approaches: but managers who think they can run a political system like a business are in for short and ignominious careers. Mr. O’Brien, I think, is going to be a case in point.