Dear Publisher,
I had a read of your November 21st issue and I find there is not much to agree with except for Councillor Golden’s sage comments. Thank you Smokey.
John, you are suggesting land tax increases of 14%. I’ve checked with many people and I’ve found the response to be a resounding no! That is so far above inflation that it’s inflationary itself. Whose income has increased 14%? This is especially galling after reading in the same issue the media release entitled “Bruce Grey’s Living Wage Increases by 9.6 % for 2023 to $22.75/Hour”. Who around here makes that kind of money but the chosen few working at the Park or the Township? Or I presume, the Peninsula Press?
Furthermore your assertion that “Property taxes must go up by about 10%” is appalling when the populace is struggling with 6% inflation, high interest rates and the multimillion-dollar revamp of an old arena. An increase below the cost of inflation is necessary and would be much more appropriate – financed thru our large “slush fund” or cutting back services and Township staff thru optimization methods.
Most of us live outside of Tobermory, so we have little interest in sidewalks in Tobermory itself. Bicycle lanes in a retirement community that’s buried under ice 6 months of the years sounds like a dubious venture to me. And let’s never forget that over 93% of the tax base is residential with the vast majority living outside of the two villages.
Now, on to Smokey’s alarming letter regarding the recent Parks Canada decision thru the Minister’s Office to include Bruce Peninsula National Park in a program to “Accelerate Conservation of Areas Around Canada’s National Parks”. They have allocated 30 million to the project. She is 100% correct when she states that one of the main conditions of the referendum that allowed the establishment of this Park was that “The boundaries of any national park to be within the limits of the national park study area in St Edmunds Township”. And we were all provided with a map at the time.
I understand the conditions in and the very existence of the Federal/Provincial agreement that allowed the formation of our park in St Edmunds in 1987 are unique in Canada. BPNP was the first park created after the difficulties/violence associated with the formation of New Brunswick’s Claire-Fontaine /Kouchibouguac National Park and so it contained new procedures, policies and promises to convince the locals to vote yes, such as no expropriation and no interference with private property.
So this may all be a mistake and/or an oversight by the Minister’s Office. In any event possibly we should all contact Council to forward a letter reminding them of their obligations. As has been pointed out before, the peninsula is very small and already has a huge percentage of park/conservation land. Moderation in all things my grandfather used to say. People live here and need a chance to earn a living via a reasonable amount of growth, we need land for our grandchildren to buy, mature untended forests are a fire hazard as history has shown via most of the peninsula burning over twice in the last century. And, as you hinted Mr. Publisher, we need the tax money a reasonable amount of development would provide.
Regards,
Kevin Doyle
Dorcas Bay
