The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

just ahead I sincerely hope that when the time comes to prepare the 2003 budget, the city doesn't forget what's going om It should adjust the budget's base lines to take into account the surplus and remember that growth is occurring at a rapid rate. It is time for tax hills to come down. There is, of course, always something that money can be spent on. We know that from our own households. A surplus is better than a deficit, I sup- pose, but think about where this money comes from. It repre- sents $1.5 million in taxes that need not have been collected. In fact, while the city raised our taxes last year by 3.56 per cent and claimed that was the best they could do, this $1.5 million repre- sents an overpayment by you and me of five per cent. The reason for this isn't because the city dusted off its calculators and bent over backwards to save money. It was because. thanks to growth. the city's tax base grew by three per cent last year. It's not a time to think about taxes and neither was I, until I read in the paper that the City ofWater- loo had just declared a tax surplus for 2000-2001 of $1.5 million. i In other words, the city could have frozen taxes for 2002 at the 2001 tax rate and had L44 per cent left over. Residents of Waterloo overpaid $1 .5 million in taxes last year You said it The Region of Waterloo is begin- WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE I OB PRIME MINISTER JEAN CHRETIEN IS DOING? h, spring. Everything's blooming and the warm days .remind us that summer is QUESTION MIKE CONNOLLY l:l IH Thirty per cent of 335.000 is $875 a month, and while you could argue that $875 a month can rent you decent accommodation or pay towards a modest mortgage, I am also quite sure than families mak- ing $35,000 a year will find $875 a ning the process of providing about 1,000 units of affordable housing. to come on stream by 2005. Waterloo has had a planning objective for many years of setting aside 25 per cent of new subdivi- sions for "affordable" housing, but the policy has not been strictly enforced. And the big question, of course, is what is "affordable"? The government says no more than 30 per cent of your income should go towards rent or mort- gage. This will be a great achieve- ment, and it is a project that is rightly being done by the region. The province is contributing $8 million to $10 million, and there is already $6.5 million commit- ted from the region's social housing reserve fund. The City of ‘ - Waterloo. meanwhile, is going to conduct a study to tind out how it can help provide affordable housing. a big difference. However, what is affordable is something completely different to a family with a combined income of $35,000 a year, compared to a family with a combined income of $75,000 a year. "l don't like a lot of ot" political system the way it's going. I think there's a lot of screwy things going on with our money from the municipal level on up." "is he working? I sure dont like what he's doing." () THE CHRONICLI That's commend- able. but some of the suggestions show that people are still having difficulty separating affordable housing from social or subsi- dized housing. There is Winston Brunch may“: COMMENT I believe we should first look at strictly enforcing the M-per-cent rule in subdivisions. Contractors can build smaller "starter" homes, on somewhat smaller lots. They could keep the price down by doing something that was done 50 years ago - don't finish the whole house. Sell it with an unfinished basement, and if there's an attic or third floor, with an unfinished attic to third floor. Offering a more modestly- priced house (and the cost can be kept down even further if develop- ment charges are reduced in areas where more housing is desired, such as in the core) is a good beginning. And if people require subsidies to enable them to rent or buy this housing those should be offered by the senior levels of gar ernment, which have broader taxa- tion powers. This is a very fast-growing area of the country. The baby boom echo is coming of age. Housing will be in great demand in the coming years, and it is important that clean, safe, affordable housing - including a mix of apartment, townhouses. semi-detached and single-family homes-- exists for everyone, including single moth- ers, students, the elderly and recent immigrants struggling to become established. This is what municipal planning should concern itself with first and foremost. month - or $700 a month-to be quite an onerous burden. I do not believe municipal tax- payers should bear the burden for subsidized housing. The only major source or revenue munici- palities have is property taxes, and they are high enough. And to save money on top of that, especially with a couple of children, is virtually out of the question. "He's done a good job in the past. he's such a strong leader. But he's had some problems lately that we all know about. His time to step down has come." "l think it was ridiculous what he did to Paul Martin, but that's the only bad point. I think that was a mistake." Andy Pintar Reg Martin Believe it or not, Eves' announcement does not represent the biggest possible flip flop on the issue of privatization. No, that honour belongs to Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty, who first came out in favour of the scheme. then declared himself opposed. He denied any change in policy until a reporter played him a tape of his initial remarks. "I honestly believed I'd never said that (I was in favour)," McGuinty said on June 3. "i didn't recall at the outset that I'd said what l'd said." Suggest- ing that he had reacted hastily to Mike Harris' surprise privati- zation announcement. McGuinty said that he'd think twice before endorsing any other Tory initiative. "You've got to be careful about coming to a quick conclusion about a very com- plicated matter. When this story broke, and it broke very quick- ly. the subiect to that point in time had been the privatization of generation. I was called upon to make a very quick decision and I did. and upon reflection it was the wrong decision." Other than the fact that the Tories have given observers every reason to be cynical about both their motives and their honesty, there were some tell tale signs in Eves' announce- ment. “The government has decided it's not going to part with control of Hydro One. It's important for governments to listen to their constituency. It is an asset that's owned by the people of Ontario, we do have to do what we think is right with respect to the people of Ontario.” On the surface. it looks like Eves is doing what Toronto Star columnist lan Urquhart calls "driving the opposition parties crazy by doing exactly what they have been asking for." On the contrary. Eves is not planning to keep Hydro in pub- lic hands at all; he's holding on to half of it just long enough to get through the next election. Until then, he's looking at three options to act as the thin edge of the privatization wedge: a.) Finding a "strategic Farmer" io buy less than half the company and help manage it; According to Eves. his most impor- - tam objective with respect to Hydro One is to apply some "private sector SCOIT discipline". When the previous board PIATKOWSKI of directors tried to do that. they were fired by Eves - who feigned surprise that corporate executives are paid a lot more money than they are worth. NDP leader Howard Hampton points out that "The only private sector dis- cipline we've witnessed at Hydro One was the desire to push the salaries. bonuses and expense accounts up to the private sector level. That is exactly the so-called private sector disci- pline that the people of Ontario are opposed to." Nrtunately, few opponents of privatization appear to have been fooled. even if the media have been. "This government doesn't have a mandate to sell one per cent of Hydro One, let alone 49 per cent or 99 or 100 per cent of this asset," said Cec Makowski. vice-president of the Communications. Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) '" one of two unions that successfully blocked the first attempt at selling Hydro One. "It never consulted the people of Ontario on this issue. Our position has not changed at all. We believe if they're going to do anything, they lack the mandate to proceed and they should go to the people of Ontario in an election. This is just in our view a thinly veiled attempt to privatize by a two-step process." Makowski notes that Air Canada was privatized in similar way. Sir Adam Beck, founder of Ontario Hydro As a staunch opponent of hydro privatization. I should probably be celebrating last week's announcement that Ernie lives and his government won't be selling Hydro One ___ at least, not all ofit and not all at this time. I'd be a lot happier ifl wasn't convinced that the announcement was just a ploy designed to temporarily counter public opposition. while con- tinuing to plot the virtual giveaway of our public assets. b.) Creating a so-called 'income trust". whereby parts of the company are sold off that entitle the " unit own- ers' to a share of the profit; Either way, it would be very easy for the next government to sell the rest of Hydro's assets after the elec- lion. Hydro isn't the only issue on which the Tories are practising this particular sleight of hand. As Finance Minister Janet Ecker noted in her budget speech (when she announced the delay in the implementation of the latest round of corporate and per- sonal tax rates), "The agenda has not changed. We have chosen to postpone some tax cuts that were originally to come in this fiscal year. We are proceeding with others." c.) Selling 49 per éent of Hydro One in an ipitial public offering or IPO. "I had hoped to live Ioforge a band ofimn around the Hydro to prevent its destruction by politicians." Hydro isn't safe yet