Yes Victoria: Counterpoint Q12

Counterpoint: Question #12
The Lindsay Post is running a weekly series of questions, with answers by both the "Yes" and "No" sides of the issues.

Question #12: Should we go ahead with the referendum vote if there are no restructuring funds available?

      Should we go ahead with a referendum vote? The editor must have been reading that stale old book of debating tricks which includes the infamous rhetorical question "Have you stopped beating your wife?". The trick question is supposed to trap the respondent into a damaging admission, regardless of how he answers.

      The question implies three things: that the Province might renege on the promise of restructuring funds, that the very existence of the referendum should depend on that funding, and that "we" (whoever that might be) can choose to cancel the referendum.

      Let's start with that first assumption. Last Friday's Post editorial suggests that there is no money in this year's provincial budget to pay for municipal restructuring. So what? Last time we looked, there were no municipal mergers taking place either, the government having been burned by the obvious failure of forced amalgamations.Why would they budget for something that wasn't on the horizon?

      In the event of a "Yes" vote, the de-amalgamation of the City of Kawartha Lakes won't be finalized until 2004, a year after the referendum vote, when the transition Council has worked out all the details. That allows plenty of time for the provincial government, whoever that happens to be after the next election, to follow standard procedure and put money aside in the Municipal Restructuring Fund to pay for de-amalgamation. Don't forget, provincial money is still coming in to pay for the original Harry Kitchen amalgamation.

      Instead of indulging in speculation let's look at the facts. It was the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaking for the government, not some crackpot from the back woods, who announced on November 12th, 2002, that the de-amalgamation of the City of Kawartha Lakes would be considered to be a municipal restructuring. When questioned about the cost, he responded: "You would apply to the Province for restructuring funds and you would receive 75% of your eligible costs." That's government policy.

      Here's a challenge to the "No" side, or to this newspaper: Produce a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs which says unequivocally that if the result of the vote to de-amalgamate is "Yes", the City of Kawartha Lakes is sweet out of luck if it thinks it's going to get any provincial money. Bet'cha you can't do it.

      Now for the second assumption: that without an answer to the funding question people can't make an informed decision, so the referendum should be cancelled. In fact, most people we talk to believe that regardless of who pays for it, de-amalgamation is an investment in the future. We're better off out of the City of Kawartha Lakes than in.

      People also believe that the cost to de-amalgamate, which will be peanuts compared to the cost of carrying on forever as the tax-and-spend City of Kawartha Lakes, will be paid for from the money we save by de-amalgamating. The "No" camp, or some of them anyway, think that we should not be having a referendum because voters are confused about the issues, yet they won't debate these issues at public information sessions. We wonder why!

      They probably wish that the referendum had never been called in the first place. Tough. The fact remains that there is going to be a referendum on de-amalgamation on November 10th.

      Which brings us to the final assumption, that "we" might cancel the referendum. Who might "we" be?

      The people have been given the right to choose. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is the only person who can take away that right, and he's not dumb enough to do that. The referendum is a "go", folks.