Dear Editor:
Well-known Burnaby Citizens Association partisan Gord Larkin has recently been in the local press criticizing Burnaby Municipal Green candidates for "attacking" the actions of city staff. Mr. Larkin confuses our clear criticism of BCA policy with implied criticism of city staff.
Mr. Larkin can rest assured that we Burnaby Greens only criticize BCA policy and not city staff actions. (Perhaps this confusion arises as Mr. Larkin forgets that general elections typically require opposing political views.)
Mr. Larkin also seeks specific solutions and Burnaby NOW readers to our website https: //sites. google.com/site/burnabymunicipalgreens/ where they can view pragmatic Burnaby Municipal Green alternatives to BCA policy.
Your readers, particularly Mr. Larkin, should find interesting the specific Green "solution" and related numbers below. This particular solution and related numbers pertain to current BCA-fostered Burnaby taxation and budgeting policies.
On Dec. 31, 2000, Burnaby's fiscal reserve held $293.5 million in cash equivalents and resale land on behalf of 192,400 residents (2003 financial report, pages 23 to 24). On Dec. 31, 2010, that same reserve held $798.3 million in cash equivalents and resale land on behalf of 227,400 residents (2010 financial costs for Burnaby Green policy. I direct him and
pages 30, 36, and 51.) These numbers suggest that as Burnaby's population grew by 18 per cent (227/192) the fiscal reserves grew by 172 per cent ($798/$294).
Inflation alone cannot explain this gap since the consumer-price index, as reported by the Bank of Canada, rose just 21 per cent between 2000 and 2010.
If Burnaby's reserves were keeping pace with inflation and population growth, then the $293.5 million from fiscal 2000 would have grown to $418.3 million by fiscal 2010 ($293.5 x 1.18 x 1.21).
Subtracting this calculated $418.3 million from the reported $798.3 million for 2010 implies $380 million in excess taxation - or $38 million per year for every year of the decade.
I, like other Burnaby Greens, believe that prudent cities save for economic 'floods.'
But we also ask if Burnaby voters wish the city to hold $800 million (and still rising) of their tax dollars in savings for them or if they would prefer to save more of their own money for themselves in the future.
I ask Mr. Larkin (of the BCA; not city staff) to answer two questions. First, why is the BCA building an economic "Noah's Ark" on the backs of Burnaby taxpayers? And second, who does the BCA believe holds the "tickets" to board this ark?
The Burnaby Greens propose to change the city policies which drive this relentless civic "saving" with the following specific actions: (1) Cap the fiscal reserve at three times the current 2011 capital budget (3 x $159 = $477 million) to cover statutory reserve requirements and stabilize the annual capital spending plan; and (2) direct subsequent increases above this cap (after annual adjustment upward for population growth and inflation) into reducing the total property tax levy in subsequent years.
We also propose directing some of the $300 million-plus in excessive savings initially released by imposing the cap (or $798.3 million - $477 million) into alternative civic capital projects (including a new police headquarters building and a contribution to a Burnaby emergency shelter.)
We Burnaby Greens have not yet found a BCA official or candidate willing to share with us that party's future plans for Burnaby budgeting and taxation. Perhaps Mr. Larkin can oblige us in a reply directed to you.
Democracy does require at least two detailed points of view to inform a proper civil debate.
G. Bruce Friesen, president, Burnaby Municipal Greens
