Thanks for showing up at City Hall, Neil. The sad reality is that nothing any public delegate ever says at a Committee meeting, not even when it's multiplied a hundred times, ever makes any difference, least of all when it's about the Budget. So yes, things need to be said, and somebody has to say it, but it's not how change will come about.
The whole budget making process has to be challenged. Information (data) has to be released well ahead (at the beginning of the process). It is scandalous that the City is working with infrastructure projections and estimates that date back to 2017. The senior management regime, with the Mayor as their patsy, has to be fired -- they're just not up to the job, unless you define their job as appeasing the major developers in town. They're all short-term thinkers.
I don’t think public delegations normally have much impact on the final vote. But I do think they are useful in shifting the Overton window of what council members view as viable options.
The City can't afford to replace old infrastructure:
- That's correct. Canadian City infrastructure was built with federal and provincial taxes from post-1945 until Brian Mulroney canceled that funding in the 1980s. Cities in Ontario have never been allowed sufficient funds from total tax dollars (taxes at all levels) to afford building or replacing infrastructure.
- Current assertion: Ottawa should not build new infrastructure but invest in intensification, not new satellite cities and their infrastructure. People considering moving to Ottawa should rent/buy in existing areas of Ottawa, not in new subdivisions.
That's not realistic and is entirely unenforceable:
- Intensification only wears out the existing infrastructure faster and exposes the current infrastructure as insufficient. For example, when adding 50% more people within the existing city boundaries, where is the land and $$$ going to come from for new hospitals, schools, and other social and public services for an additional 500,000 people?
- Too many arguments suggest that potential incoming Ottawa residents "should" want to support intensification. Except that that's not reality. Growth in Kanata-Stittsville for the last 10 years has been 6 times that of inside the Green Belt. Failing to build what people want means Ottawa won't grow, which means that the only non-government employment zone - the Kanata Tech Park - will stall due to the inability to offer incoming tech talent places they want to live.
- The history of development in Ottawa, on direction from Queen's Park, is that it only addresses residential (housing), entirely neglecting investment in services, including schools, health (clinics, hospitals...), recreation, community centres, non-profit seniors housing, walkable services and retail, employment areas, ...
- New subdivisions in Kanata-Stittsville built with the Ottawa Official Plan of the last 20 years are housing-only subdivisions with no services of any kind— these experience average occupancy (moving in, to moving out) under 24 months. Needless to say, there is zero community engagement.
I want to thank you so much for standing up for us and being our voice in council.
We have the knowledge of how to build cities for centuries and we are still stuck in this short term mode that will eventually bankrupt us all.
You standing in the way greed as it tries to eat our future.
Thanks Neil
Your ability to speak clearly on financial matters and the knowledge of the city infrastructure projects makes your presentation stand out.
Even if the actions of council are not altered by delegations, speaking clearly and with common sense keeps many of us engaged and voting.
Thanks for showing up at City Hall, Neil. The sad reality is that nothing any public delegate ever says at a Committee meeting, not even when it's multiplied a hundred times, ever makes any difference, least of all when it's about the Budget. So yes, things need to be said, and somebody has to say it, but it's not how change will come about.
The whole budget making process has to be challenged. Information (data) has to be released well ahead (at the beginning of the process). It is scandalous that the City is working with infrastructure projections and estimates that date back to 2017. The senior management regime, with the Mayor as their patsy, has to be fired -- they're just not up to the job, unless you define their job as appeasing the major developers in town. They're all short-term thinkers.
I don’t think public delegations normally have much impact on the final vote. But I do think they are useful in shifting the Overton window of what council members view as viable options.
Key Points
The City can't afford to replace old infrastructure:
- That's correct. Canadian City infrastructure was built with federal and provincial taxes from post-1945 until Brian Mulroney canceled that funding in the 1980s. Cities in Ontario have never been allowed sufficient funds from total tax dollars (taxes at all levels) to afford building or replacing infrastructure.
- Current assertion: Ottawa should not build new infrastructure but invest in intensification, not new satellite cities and their infrastructure. People considering moving to Ottawa should rent/buy in existing areas of Ottawa, not in new subdivisions.
That's not realistic and is entirely unenforceable:
- Intensification only wears out the existing infrastructure faster and exposes the current infrastructure as insufficient. For example, when adding 50% more people within the existing city boundaries, where is the land and $$$ going to come from for new hospitals, schools, and other social and public services for an additional 500,000 people?
- Too many arguments suggest that potential incoming Ottawa residents "should" want to support intensification. Except that that's not reality. Growth in Kanata-Stittsville for the last 10 years has been 6 times that of inside the Green Belt. Failing to build what people want means Ottawa won't grow, which means that the only non-government employment zone - the Kanata Tech Park - will stall due to the inability to offer incoming tech talent places they want to live.
- The history of development in Ottawa, on direction from Queen's Park, is that it only addresses residential (housing), entirely neglecting investment in services, including schools, health (clinics, hospitals...), recreation, community centres, non-profit seniors housing, walkable services and retail, employment areas, ...
- New subdivisions in Kanata-Stittsville built with the Ottawa Official Plan of the last 20 years are housing-only subdivisions with no services of any kind— these experience average occupancy (moving in, to moving out) under 24 months. Needless to say, there is zero community engagement.