LPRCA BUDGET DELIBERATIONS...AND A 46% INCREASE
Although the numbers seem huge there are many other issues to be considered when considering the recent LPRCA request for an increase of 46% to their annual operating budget. It may seem excessive, but when put up against other options(like what Woodstock came up with) the price is not that high. I would like everyone to consider what has happened in Woodstock when making their decision on the fate of the LPRCA budget. In Woodstock our city council voted to allow our local conservation authority to sell off or lease out substantial parts of our conservation authority park system(Burgess and Standard Tube Parks...part of the Pittock Conservation Area) for the developement of a new golf course. This course is a private for profit venue, and will have zero access to the public who have enjoyed these lands for some 45 years since the land was donated by Mr Burgess for the formation of a park. The land was donated and now it is being given away to the lowest bidder...actually there was no bid process, the land was just given away period.Given away to one company, one man, who only has one vote in our community. Six thousand people signed a petition against this, and lost out to one man who wishes to privatize our parks and waterways. There are many reasons why they(our city council and mayor)say we do not need the green space.(even though Oxford has a reported green space area of less than 11% according to the Oxford Natural heritage Study, and is well below the provincial average recommended for a healthy ecosystem)but the number one reason though appears to be for the building of a golf course, and nothing more. Worse though is the fact that on one hand, our mayor was signatory to the Oxford Natural Heritage Study,voted to spend the money on it, even wrote the heartwrenching preamble to it, and then when it came time to apply it, wiped his butt with that huge piece of science(that we financed at his behest) and decided to sell out...to the lowest non-bidder. So really,you have to wonder why.It is concerning that only one company was given the right to bid on the lands, and it seems improper that only one company was given access to all of the necessary reports in order to make a bid for the land.The community was not apprised of the potential sale/lease, until several years after the deal happened. There was no public consultation on the matter until our council was caught with its' pants down. The sale/lease was done to bolster the coffers of the conservation authority who claim that they have a lack of money to operate. It appears that LPRCA may be headed the same way. If council does not approve its' budget, will your authority begin the sell off of the lands surrounding your community?(and remember most of your source water comes from within this area) In our community, they did just that against the public will. Even though thousands of persons(in the form of petitions that council refused to recognize) told our council that they wished to keep the land in the public trust, the council voted against the community and for the developer who promised to contribute a tiny amount to the conservation authorities' coffers and a small yearly payment(bnased on the rounds of golf sold)that will be made to the city. If we as a people wish to keep these conservation areas operating, then we will have to pay for it. If we wish to have access to nature and fresh water then we will have to pay.It is much better than the option of giving it away to the lowest bidder, and cutting off public access to those areas. If I were you people, I would agree to the increase, otherwise your council just might vote to sell it all off or lease it out to one of their friends for a period of 25 years like they did here. Your conservation authority was 'invented' to protect source water, and to control flooding.If you feel that water and resources are precious, you will find a way to maintain what you have and you will forget about the bickering. Your water and access to nature is more important than a few measly dollars. We have enough money for corporate subsidies, fat bonuses to public officials and constant pay increases to elected members that we can surely find a few bucks for the environment. Here's to hoping that Tillsonburg and area decides to help maintain the conservation region. Sadly, it is going to cost something.Unfortunately, nature no longer is a free ride.
6 comments:
So why do they need a 46% increase? Is it necessary to preserve our conservation lands or are they planning to build a new administration building like the one the County is shoving up our collective ass?
Can they justify the increase?
Maybe they need the money to cover the cost of all those squirrel licenses. They got lotsa squirrels.
Nah, it's OK. There's a feral cat problem in Norfolk. The cats just eat the squirrels, licensed or not.
Wait a minute! Are those cats licensed to eat squirrels?
If a cat eats a squirrel then that's one less squirrel that will be renewing his license next year. These cats should be held responsible for the projected revenue shortfall. But if the cats don't eat the squirrels then they will starve and the cats won't be renewing their licenses.
Nature confuses me. We'll let council figure it out.
if you think that this council can figure out anything other than how to rip us off even more, then you are as fubar as they are lmao
so who,s fillin their pockets this time!
Post a Comment