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.
By Jonathon Naylor By now, the arguments in the great cost-sharing debate between city council and cottage owners are well established. Many cottagers believe that since they are not Flin Flonners in the geographical sense, they should no more pay an annual fee to City Hall than fly to the moon. Council believes that cottagers are basically Flin Flonners who benefit from municipal services and thus should contribute directly into city coffers. Council says it will attempt annexation unless cottagers formulate a suitable (and voluntary) funding plan; many cottagers vow to fight any such effort with all their might. At this point, annexation remains strictly hypothetical. Council would not even have the final say on the matter; the provincial government would. Nonetheless, it is very much worth exploring the concept of annexation, including some of the potential consequences that have been largely overlooked in this debate. For one, what would broadening the Flin Flon map to include cottage country do to the value of all those lakeside homes? Is a home that might currently sell for $200,000 or $300,000 still worth that much when it is suddenly comes with an annual property tax bill in the several thousands of dollars? A number of year-round cottage owners tell me they currently pay about $1,000 a year to the provincial government for the privilege of living at the lake. Annexation could jack that bill up multiple times depending on the value of the cottage in question _ making depreciation a very real possibility. Flip side On the flip side, one could argue that unless City Hall is able to improve its financial picture, Flin Flonners may face some serious depreciation of their own. If, hypothetically, city council saw it necessary to close public buildings like the Aqua Centre or Whitney Forum, suddenly Flin Flon becomes a less desirable place to live. That means more population decline, not to mention additional challenges in recruiting and retaining doctors, nurses and other professionals on whom any community depends. In such a scenario, Flin Flonners and cottagers alike suffer, as do the thousands from Creighton, Denare Beach and the northeastern Saskatchewan First Nations who utilize Flin Flon as a service centre. Another factor often overlooked is that contrary to popular wisdom, not all cottagers view themselves as Flin Flonners. Cottage country is a pretty diverse place. It has Americans who come up for four months a year and retirees from communities far beyond Flin Flon. It even has people who arguably utilize Cranberry Portage as more of a service centre than Flin Flon. For proponents of new cottage fees or annexation to uniformly say 'We're all Flin Flonners' ignores reality. Some cottagers are just cottagers, and they honestly don't feel the connection to Flin Flon that in-town residents or some other cottagers do. Should someone like that have to pay a 'Flin Flon fee'? Should someone like that be annexed? As this debate stretches on, as it undoubtedly will, it will be important for both sides to consider all of the implications. Local Angle runs Fridays.
