Use plain English — you’re asking for tax increases
On Aug. 29, in the Citizen, there was a notification that two referendum questions would be on the ballot, for the civic election on Oct. 20.
The first was for “affordable housing and homelessness protection” and the second was for “Drinking Water and Watershed Protection Service”. The first asked if “you” are “in favour” of an “annual financial contribution” and the second asked if “you” are in favour of “establishment bylaw”. My question to you is: since when are proposed increases in property tax referred to as “financial contributions” and “establishment bylaws”? You make it sound like this is an optional, tax deductible donation and not what it really is — an increase in property tax!
Why can’t you use plain and simple English and simply ask if you are in favour of your property taxes increasing, forever, for these new services? We all know that local government is not responsible for either of these two taxes that you want to load on us. It is a bureaucratic want, not an elector need.
Additionally, in the April 27 edition of the Citizen, Mayor Lefebure suggested that a referendum question was likely to appear on the Oct. 20 ballot. It was for regional tax support for recreational facilities. I checked for the minutes of the CVRD director’s meeting to see what was proposed but sadly, the minutes are missing! Are you planning on putting that question to the electors in October, or have you decided that three tax hikes is a bit much in one election ballot? Or, are you planning on using the sneaky AAP to bypass the electors for this totally discretionary item?
Don Swiatlowski
North Cowichan