Old Letters Never Die

Imagine my surprise today when Sandy says I'm being quoted in Denis St. Pierre's article in the Sudbury Star. OK, the roads versus legacy projects debate is heating up and one of my briefer rants to the editor was published yesterday. But no, Denis is referring to another letter,one I wrote December 26, 2007 that the Star published January 8, 2008.

The relevant parts include:

The $131-million pricetag for the legacy projects is just one issue threatening to conspire against council. There is a road network pock-marked with the worst pothole outbreak in memory, ever-rising taxes and water rates - and the credibility hit from a concert ticket fiasco, to name a few.

All of which suggests taxpayers such as Jim Robinson won't be easily convinced to reconsider their opposition to the legacy projects.

Robinson recently told The Star he will "be watching with great interest as the feasibility studies are done for the performing arts and recreation centres." He was referring to council's decision to spend $250,000 on consultants to investigate the feasibility of each legacy project.

Like many city residents, Robinson is concerned the legacy projects will be built at the expense of hard services, namely road improvements.

"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," he told The Star.

"So let's 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?"

I wonder what possessed Denis to keep this particular letter on file? Sandy and I were talking last week about the need for a citizen's committee to encourage council and staff to focus on the key infrastructure renewal. Maybe it's time.............

Re: City in a deep hole - March 22, 2008

To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published March 28, 2008)

I note that Robert Falcioni says he recommended $40 million in the City capital budget for road renewal, but Mayor John Rodriquez says that the City can only afford $30 million. I also observed the start of a major project to straighten and widen a stretch of MR80 in McCrea Heights that can't affect more than a couple of kilometers. How many million dollars of that limited capital budget are allocated to this substantial upgrade that benefits so little of our deteriorating roadway?

Streets are disintegrating before our very eyes. Let's focus on resurfacing as much of the substandard surface as we can and not continue to blow the budget on a few major upgrades of limited scope.

Re: Key Year For Legacy Projects - December 26, 2007

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?