Growth is a topic often bridged at municipal council meetings and the general consensus among both staff in councillors is usually that it’s a good thing. But is it always?
I had reason to reflect on the question some months back when deliberation on an area municipality’s sewage allocation policy took an interesting turn at a council meeting.
While the phrases “sewage allocation policy” and “interesting turn” could only be used in the same sentence by someone who’s spent way too much time covering municipal politics, it non-the-less happened.
While debating some minor tweaks to the policy, which is designed to allow council some control over growth through limitations on the amount of capacity released annually, one councillor asked if the policy was bringing pressure on staff from developers who want to move faster than allocations allow.
Another member of council took a stance rarely voiced at such gatherings: that it doesn’t much matter.
The council member pointed out the pressure staff and council feel from the development community represents only one side of the equation, discounting perhaps some of the goals a municipality may have in terms of creating a good place to live.
This is a pretty radical departure from the usual kowtowing to developers that goes on among many councils desperate for development and the increased assessment dollars that come with it.
There’s an argument to be made in support casting a wary eye at growth, in terms of maintaining a small-town atmosphere, and perhaps fiscally as well. Municipal finance staff often assert that increased assessment allows a municipality to spread costs around, which helps keep taxes down, and tools like development charges mean that “growth pays for growth” without burdening current ratepayers.
And yet, if any small-town homeowners were to conduct the mental exercise of moving their current abode to a significantly larger centre, they might find the combination of their home’s higher individual assessment and the local mill rate would see them paying even more property tax on the same type of house.
So who needs growth?
Well, we all do, it can also be argued. Financially for sure, as communities that aren’t renewed with both new residents and new infrastructure will atrophy and end up with a smaller pool of hangers-on left to pay for ongoing maintenance and upgrades needed to remain viable.
And then there’s the whole question of why are the “rights” of residents already here more important than those of people seeking to move in, or to branch out from their family homes into places of their own? Is the latter’s need for affordable housing less imperative than the sanctity of the single-family home neighbourhood?
So what’s the answer? Stay tuned. The debate plays out in some form at many council meetings and upper tier legislative sessions these days.
****
Patrick Raftis is the editor at Midwestern Newspapers. He can be reached at editor@midwesternnewspapers.com.
