To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published January 8, 2008)
I'll be watching with great interest as the feasibility studies are done for the performing arts and recreation centres. The net cost to the municipality depends on some very optimistic senior government and private sector funding while economic benefits are a question mark. And don't
forget that nothing comes in under budget around here.
Over and above these concerns, Councillor Cimino's comment that "poor road conditions cannot be used as an albatross that indefinitely precludes investment in other community projects" worries me. He states the city can fix the roads and do these projects as well. Based on the marginal visible roads improvement in 2007, despite record spending, I don't believe that the city can fix the roads even without these projects.
So lets make sure we don't try to live beyond our means. My vote was cast in the last election based on basic infrastructure deficiencies and road rehabilitation and I expect it will be again the next time we go to the polls. What good are state of the art legacy projects if the roads and
sewers have fallen apart?
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Re: "All I had to do was provide the leadership" - Denis St. Pierre - November 27, 2007
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Mayor John Rodriguez accomplishments during first year in office, as recounted by Denis St. Pierre, are impressive. The city auditor, the fair wage policy, resolving the fire chief situation and other issues which seemed to stymie past leadership were handled successfully. And there are great plans for the future with the performing arts centre and recreation complex. The article even mentions acknowledged shortcomings in the areas of homelessness and the province sharing mining taxes.
But what is missing in this review? What was one of the biggest complaints of Sudburians leading up to the last election? How about the roads? We saw a municipal tax increase to improve our roads and received record senior level funding last year and, notwithstanding some major projects on the MR 55 East four-laning, Lasalle Blvd west of Notre Dame and a few other spots, the general condition of the roads hasn't improved. Paris Street from Walford to downtown, the major avenue tourists see entering the city, is brutal. The east end of Lasalle Blvd continues to fall apart. MR 80 through McCrae Heights is a challenge. I could go on and on about major roads that haven't been improved, but those of us driving in this city know what they are. Four of them even made the Ten Worst Roads in Ontario list last year.
I was disappointed with the lack of improvement in the roads. I was surprised to find how little information on road rehabilitation exists on the otherwise informative city website. I am concerned that all I hear of for future work is reference to more major projects with curbs, extra lanes and other fancy features that cover very few kilometers. How about just grinding and relaying some of the asphalt before there isn't any left? Is there a schedule for getting this done? I can't find one.
Until I see some results on this longstanding issue, I can't see committing any support to the arts or recreation projects. What good are 21st century facilities if you can only get to them on 19th century roads?
Mayor John Rodriguez accomplishments during first year in office, as recounted by Denis St. Pierre, are impressive. The city auditor, the fair wage policy, resolving the fire chief situation and other issues which seemed to stymie past leadership were handled successfully. And there are great plans for the future with the performing arts centre and recreation complex. The article even mentions acknowledged shortcomings in the areas of homelessness and the province sharing mining taxes.
But what is missing in this review? What was one of the biggest complaints of Sudburians leading up to the last election? How about the roads? We saw a municipal tax increase to improve our roads and received record senior level funding last year and, notwithstanding some major projects on the MR 55 East four-laning, Lasalle Blvd west of Notre Dame and a few other spots, the general condition of the roads hasn't improved. Paris Street from Walford to downtown, the major avenue tourists see entering the city, is brutal. The east end of Lasalle Blvd continues to fall apart. MR 80 through McCrae Heights is a challenge. I could go on and on about major roads that haven't been improved, but those of us driving in this city know what they are. Four of them even made the Ten Worst Roads in Ontario list last year.
I was disappointed with the lack of improvement in the roads. I was surprised to find how little information on road rehabilitation exists on the otherwise informative city website. I am concerned that all I hear of for future work is reference to more major projects with curbs, extra lanes and other fancy features that cover very few kilometers. How about just grinding and relaying some of the asphalt before there isn't any left? Is there a schedule for getting this done? I can't find one.
Until I see some results on this longstanding issue, I can't see committing any support to the arts or recreation projects. What good are 21st century facilities if you can only get to them on 19th century roads?
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Re: Clement doesn't reflect Canadians' views
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read Dave Wiley's Letter of the Day in the April 13th edition. Mr. Wiley takes exception to the wait time guarantee announced by Stephen Harper's government April 4th and I agree with him. It is a farce and I hope Canadians don't actually believe that will actually have any effect with regard to improved health care.
What also caught my eye, though, was Mr. Wiley's criticism of Tony Clement and the perceived threat to the public health care system through privatization and for profit health care providers. He closes with "Canadians want a public health-care system that is fully funded by taxpayers. Clement's job is not to promote the Conservative health-care vision, but the vision of Canadians."
While Mr. Wiley has the presumption to speak for me, this Canadian wants a universal health care system that provides adequate and timely care while making the most cost effective use of the money we Canadians provide for it. The current system is falling short on efficient delivery and, in my opinion, Tony Clement's job is to move towards improved cost effective services without regard to dogmatic ideology. Whether the system that provides the service is public or private does not concern me nearly as much as fact that the service needs to be provided in a much better manner than it is now.
I read Dave Wiley's Letter of the Day in the April 13th edition. Mr. Wiley takes exception to the wait time guarantee announced by Stephen Harper's government April 4th and I agree with him. It is a farce and I hope Canadians don't actually believe that will actually have any effect with regard to improved health care.
What also caught my eye, though, was Mr. Wiley's criticism of Tony Clement and the perceived threat to the public health care system through privatization and for profit health care providers. He closes with "Canadians want a public health-care system that is fully funded by taxpayers. Clement's job is not to promote the Conservative health-care vision, but the vision of Canadians."
While Mr. Wiley has the presumption to speak for me, this Canadian wants a universal health care system that provides adequate and timely care while making the most cost effective use of the money we Canadians provide for it. The current system is falling short on efficient delivery and, in my opinion, Tony Clement's job is to move towards improved cost effective services without regard to dogmatic ideology. Whether the system that provides the service is public or private does not concern me nearly as much as fact that the service needs to be provided in a much better manner than it is now.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Government Funding
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read Denis St. Pierre's story on the city budget (Revenue up more than inflation rate, April 10th) as well as other stories, including the recent health care funding announcement by Stephen Harper. Each tier of government looks to senior levels for funding of various initiatives and programs. Those senior levels may look good by providing money or may be blamed for shortcomings in the delivery of services by withholding the cash. The implication is that the money belongs to whichever level of government, munificent or tightwad, that is making the decision.
The truth here is that any money under discussion, regardless of which level of government possesses it at the moment, belong to us, the taxpayers. The shuffling of cash between the various tiers is nothing more than a shell game that makes accountability for the delivery of services very difficult to assess.
Wouldn't it be nice if the responsibility for providing services and programs was allocated to the level of government that made the most sense, and each government was only able to collect taxes for those specific services it was obligated to provide. With the exception of equalization payments, each tier would levy the taxes and pay the entire bill for whatever its obligations were. Then all the finger pointing that goes on about transfers would be taken out of the equation and our municipal, provincial and federal governments would be totally accountable to us, the taxpayers, for how well they do their jobs.
I read Denis St. Pierre's story on the city budget (Revenue up more than inflation rate, April 10th) as well as other stories, including the recent health care funding announcement by Stephen Harper. Each tier of government looks to senior levels for funding of various initiatives and programs. Those senior levels may look good by providing money or may be blamed for shortcomings in the delivery of services by withholding the cash. The implication is that the money belongs to whichever level of government, munificent or tightwad, that is making the decision.
The truth here is that any money under discussion, regardless of which level of government possesses it at the moment, belong to us, the taxpayers. The shuffling of cash between the various tiers is nothing more than a shell game that makes accountability for the delivery of services very difficult to assess.
Wouldn't it be nice if the responsibility for providing services and programs was allocated to the level of government that made the most sense, and each government was only able to collect taxes for those specific services it was obligated to provide. With the exception of equalization payments, each tier would levy the taxes and pay the entire bill for whatever its obligations were. Then all the finger pointing that goes on about transfers would be taken out of the equation and our municipal, provincial and federal governments would be totally accountable to us, the taxpayers, for how well they do their jobs.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Snowplowing Costs
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I have read several articles now on the recent costs of snowplowing. The question isn't just how much service is being provided but also how cost effectively it is being done.
I am a firm believer in Statistical Process Control. The premise is that, if you want to improve a process, first you have to understand it. To understand it, you have to measure it. Gathering key data is critical.
If staff has been doing this, they should be able to provide data correlations to Council like charts of daily snowfalls compared to daily variable costs and maintenance costs compared to hours of equipment utilization. This would serve as a framework for explaining both what has happened and how they are working to make it better. Quoting total costs without this kind of information doesn't provide any insight into the underlying factors, and makes it difficult to assess how things are really going.
SPC has been used in business for quite some time. If staff are using it, the data should be readily available. If they aren't, then I have to wonder why not?
I have read several articles now on the recent costs of snowplowing. The question isn't just how much service is being provided but also how cost effectively it is being done.
I am a firm believer in Statistical Process Control. The premise is that, if you want to improve a process, first you have to understand it. To understand it, you have to measure it. Gathering key data is critical.
If staff has been doing this, they should be able to provide data correlations to Council like charts of daily snowfalls compared to daily variable costs and maintenance costs compared to hours of equipment utilization. This would serve as a framework for explaining both what has happened and how they are working to make it better. Quoting total costs without this kind of information doesn't provide any insight into the underlying factors, and makes it difficult to assess how things are really going.
SPC has been used in business for quite some time. If staff are using it, the data should be readily available. If they aren't, then I have to wonder why not?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Costs May Sink Kingsway Project
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I travel the length of the Kingsway almost every day. I don't feel a great need to widen the roadway between Laking Toyota and Brady Street for the original $3.3 million city dollars, no matter how much the senior levels of government were kicking in. I certainly don't support the project if our local price tag jumps to over $8.0 million.
I am dismayed by all the large dollar widening and enhancement projects when the condition of many of our existing road surfaces are sub-standard. As a taxpayer, I suggest we should scrap this project, as well as others of this nature, and invest every road dollar we have in resurfacing what we already have. I would rather see $3.3 million of new asphalt than $8.0 million of widened roadway.
On a related note, perhaps the City staff needs to review the process they use to estimate project costs. This Kingsway project is not an isolated case, as you point out with your reference to the four laning of the Kingsway to the by-pass and the rock tunnel. How can council make rational decisions when the cost estimates provided to them are so far out of touch with reality?
I travel the length of the Kingsway almost every day. I don't feel a great need to widen the roadway between Laking Toyota and Brady Street for the original $3.3 million city dollars, no matter how much the senior levels of government were kicking in. I certainly don't support the project if our local price tag jumps to over $8.0 million.
I am dismayed by all the large dollar widening and enhancement projects when the condition of many of our existing road surfaces are sub-standard. As a taxpayer, I suggest we should scrap this project, as well as others of this nature, and invest every road dollar we have in resurfacing what we already have. I would rather see $3.3 million of new asphalt than $8.0 million of widened roadway.
On a related note, perhaps the City staff needs to review the process they use to estimate project costs. This Kingsway project is not an isolated case, as you point out with your reference to the four laning of the Kingsway to the by-pass and the rock tunnel. How can council make rational decisions when the cost estimates provided to them are so far out of touch with reality?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
MPP has stepped up
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read Rick Bartolucci's letter responding to your editorial. There was an incredible amount of self congratulation as he described all that he and the governing Liberals have done to improve health care in Sudbury.
Here is our situation. My wife suffers from fibroid tumours, which are not life threatening but have reached the stage where they are uncomfortable. She visited her surgeon in early October and was told that a hysterectomy was a "no-brainer". He told her that the surgery would probably take place in February. Before Christmas, a call to his office indicated that the date would more likely be at least in July or August.
I don't care how many supposed improvements and initiatives Mr. Bartolucci lists in his letter or whether the problem lies with Toronto, the SRH Board or anybody else. Despite his glowing self review, the system is not working up to what I (as a taxpayer and a voter) consider to be anywhere close to acceptable. As long as everybody keeps pointing the finger at someone else, nothing will ever get done.
Keep walking the halls of Queen's Park, Rick. I'll be thinking of you on election day.
I read Rick Bartolucci's letter responding to your editorial. There was an incredible amount of self congratulation as he described all that he and the governing Liberals have done to improve health care in Sudbury.
Here is our situation. My wife suffers from fibroid tumours, which are not life threatening but have reached the stage where they are uncomfortable. She visited her surgeon in early October and was told that a hysterectomy was a "no-brainer". He told her that the surgery would probably take place in February. Before Christmas, a call to his office indicated that the date would more likely be at least in July or August.
I don't care how many supposed improvements and initiatives Mr. Bartolucci lists in his letter or whether the problem lies with Toronto, the SRH Board or anybody else. Despite his glowing self review, the system is not working up to what I (as a taxpayer and a voter) consider to be anywhere close to acceptable. As long as everybody keeps pointing the finger at someone else, nothing will ever get done.
Keep walking the halls of Queen's Park, Rick. I'll be thinking of you on election day.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Health Care Funding
To the editor of the Sudbury Star
I read the article in the January 24th edition describing how Dr. Brian Day, incoming head of the CMA, called for funding hospitals based on the number of patients they treat instead of the current "global funding model". This just shows how woefully ignorant some of us are about how the system works. I thought that, just as OHIP pays doctors for the specific services they provide me, they also paid the hospitals on the same basis. In an attempt to educate myself, I wandered through the Ministry Of Health and Long Term Care website and found no clear cut description of how the current funding works.
The present system Dr. Day describes, blocks of dollars being doled out to hospitals based on some obscure Ministry criteria, looks to me like a root cause of our current problems. It does not take into account the quantity or types of services that hospitals provide, especially if the volume is changing. When money runs out, services must be reduced in some way to avoid the dreaded deficit. This appears to reduce any incentive for the hospital to actually treat more people, or the same number of people in a more timely manner, since their revenue side is fixed. The only help now is for Big Brother in Toronto to grudgingly provide more money. OUR MONEY!!!! And this appears to be a battle every time.
Payment to the hospitals by OHIP at a fixed fee schedule for specific services provided would seem to encourage them to provide the required care since their revenues would bear some relationship to their actual expenditures. The quality of service could be maintained as well, since we know that qualitative reductions in care and ancillary functions occur as the current budgets get stressed. Relative efficiencies of the various hospitals could also be compared because they would each get the same amount of money for the same procedures.
I believe that Dr. Day is onto something here and his proposal could change the whole way things are done for the better. Imagine the Province paying for the hospital care that is required instead of trying to jam our needs into the much smaller box of whatever lump sums they are willing to commit. I'll even bet that, if the government had to pay hospital rates for Long Term Care patients, they might see that funding enough long term care facilities would be more cost effective too.
Now if only all of us could get as irate about this as we did about the Mayor and the Francophone flag.....
I read the article in the January 24th edition describing how Dr. Brian Day, incoming head of the CMA, called for funding hospitals based on the number of patients they treat instead of the current "global funding model". This just shows how woefully ignorant some of us are about how the system works. I thought that, just as OHIP pays doctors for the specific services they provide me, they also paid the hospitals on the same basis. In an attempt to educate myself, I wandered through the Ministry Of Health and Long Term Care website and found no clear cut description of how the current funding works.
The present system Dr. Day describes, blocks of dollars being doled out to hospitals based on some obscure Ministry criteria, looks to me like a root cause of our current problems. It does not take into account the quantity or types of services that hospitals provide, especially if the volume is changing. When money runs out, services must be reduced in some way to avoid the dreaded deficit. This appears to reduce any incentive for the hospital to actually treat more people, or the same number of people in a more timely manner, since their revenue side is fixed. The only help now is for Big Brother in Toronto to grudgingly provide more money. OUR MONEY!!!! And this appears to be a battle every time.
Payment to the hospitals by OHIP at a fixed fee schedule for specific services provided would seem to encourage them to provide the required care since their revenues would bear some relationship to their actual expenditures. The quality of service could be maintained as well, since we know that qualitative reductions in care and ancillary functions occur as the current budgets get stressed. Relative efficiencies of the various hospitals could also be compared because they would each get the same amount of money for the same procedures.
I believe that Dr. Day is onto something here and his proposal could change the whole way things are done for the better. Imagine the Province paying for the hospital care that is required instead of trying to jam our needs into the much smaller box of whatever lump sums they are willing to commit. I'll even bet that, if the government had to pay hospital rates for Long Term Care patients, they might see that funding enough long term care facilities would be more cost effective too.
Now if only all of us could get as irate about this as we did about the Mayor and the Francophone flag.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
