The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
The basic premise behind city council's pitch for cottager fees is that we should all be paying for the public services we use. But council's case for such fees, other than in relation to fire protection, is weakened by a lack of concrete data. When it comes to fire protection for cottage subdivisions, council has some firm facts to which it can point. The Flin Flon Fire Dept. is presently dispatched to blazes in cottage subdivisions beyond the city's borders. There is no legal obligation to do so, so this is essentially a goodwill service. The city says its firefighters have responded to six fires in cottage country over the last decade, and only one of those property owners had insurance that fully reimbursed the cost. So that one is cut and dry. Flin Flon is subsidizing fire protection for road-accessible cottages. The case for a fire fee is made. But the waters are murkier when council talks about other public services and the need for further fees from cottagers. There are no hard stats on how many cottagers use the Whitney Forum, Aqua Centre or Community Hall, or how often. There is no sign-up sheet at those facilities asking you to list your home address. So it would appear all council has in this regard are anecdotal, I-saw-so-and-so-from-Big-Island accounts of what is happening. We don't objectively know whether 30 or 300 cottagers use municipal facilities. Some will say this is a moot point, that cottage country is in many ways an extension of Flin Flon and that usage rates are probably on par with Flin Flon proper. But there is a reason council has failed to win over cottagers with its proposal. And part of that reason is that a very basic question is going unanswered. Council would be wise to explore ways of gathering data on public facility usage by non-residents. Such info would be useful for both sides to consider in this debate. Security Another debate of sorts around Flin Flon involves the rising number of home security systems installed over the last year. Drive down virtually any street and you're bound to see yard signs announcing that this or that home is secured by a Protectron alarm system. Many residents are split over the alarms. Some call them overkill in a small town; others agree with the 'better safe than sorry' mentality. But if someone wants to spend the extra money to protect themselves and their property, who is anyone else to judge? Folks who buy these alarm systems are not necessarily paranoid. In 2011, the last year for which stats are available, Flin Flon actually had more break-and-enters per capita than either The Pas or Thompson. It must be said that the risk of becoming a victim of this type of crime remains low. But low is not zero, so an alarm system can be a prudent investment. Unfortunately, as has been reported in these pages, these systems have been at the root of a number of false fire alarms that cost all of us as taxpayers. The bugs need to be ironed out, but they don't detract from the added barrier of safety these systems provide for many of our citizens. In closing this week, it's worth repeating a call from long-time Channing resident Dave Law, who was featured in a Wednesday's Reminder article. Mr. Law wants Canada Post to charge Channing the same, lower postage rates as the rest of Flin Flon. Currently rates for the subdivision are a shade higher. It's a matter of fairness. Mr. Law was right to draw attention to this issue, and Canada Post would be right to rectify it. Local Angle runs Fridays.
