Dear editor:
The ‘full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes’ decision by town council to borrow $19M for the aquatic/curling centre is both foolhardy and irresponsible. One year ago when they were running for council each showed common sense (maybe it was self-preservation) as not one of these individuals even whispered about such an action and being elected is not a mandate to maximize the debt load for this town.
I was slightly amused to read that Mayor Ivan Brooker recognizes the average resident’s limitations with regard to town financing. He’s right; we don’t have all the details. But most of us know a fundamental of finance is that you don’t deliberately maximize your debt load, and most of us know you don’t try to sell a business plan based upon a concept that has no precedence in the business world. I’m referring to the supposition that the operating costs of this new facility would pay for itself by rental space.
Hey, if this came to be, our taxes would go down, as we no longer have the expenses associated with the old pool. If this was feasible it would already be incorporated across North America, and it’s not. Why would Cochrane be any different? This is reminiscent of the snake oil salesmen in the old West; promise anything to get your sale.
This isn’t about whether a pool is desired or not and we keep hearing from councillor Jeff Toews how everyone he speaks to is in favor of a new pool. That’s no surprise; I fully agree with that position, but continuing to reiterate that is designed to cloud the real issue of how and when the project moves ahead. Council has gone a step further; desiring a new pool doesn’t extrapolate into approving the borrowing of $19M and I am not in favor of fiscal irresponsibility.
There are numerous red flags around this at the moment as Andy Marshall pointed out so well last week and also covered in councillor Morgan Nagel’s website RockTheRoads.
Council’s borrowing proposal is predicated upon the supposition that future provincial grants will continue along the levels of the past…what if they don’t? Guess who picks up the tab? Then the next flushing noise you hear won’t be water going down the drain.
What we have seen over the past year from this council is a single-minded myopic focus on one item, a Taj Mahal aquatic/curling centre. There is so much more to this community and all priorities need to be integrated with each other…not setting one so much higher to the detriment of others, and that is what Nagel’s petition is all about.
I’m dismayed and disappointed that the youngest member of council is the only one demonstrating prudence and I commend Coun. Nagel for his foresight and for having the courage to stand his ground against the bitter criticism directed at him. I read the possibility that his petition for a plebiscite isn’t legally binding and that may be so, but sometimes something that is right doesn’t have to have legal weight behind it.
This needs to be put to the taxpayers of Cochrane in a clear and concise format. Provide a realistic conservative business plan that takes into account the vagaries (such as cost overruns) that are common with projects of this size. If by chance some rental revenue does occur, then that should be considered a bonus, but to have such revenue as a major selling point is not realistic.
A number of council members campaigned on reaching out and listening to their employers, so why wasn’t the largest single spending decision taken to the taxpayers? Several say this isn’t necessary, as they believe this borrowing decision is fully supported; if so, then they should have no concern about proving that to be.
The complexity and size of this exercise demands the input of those who are paying the shot and the right thing to do is to hold a plebiscite on putting Cochrane into this financial position.
Dare we ask which members of council are willing to do what’s right?
George Churchill
