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 premise behind collective taxation is that you, I and everybody else shall toss a percentage of our earnings into one big pile. From this pile, all government services will be funded. Some will pitch in more money than others based on financial status, the value of their property and a host of other factors, but at the end of the day, all of us have made our contribution. We all pay whether or not we like it (who does?) and whether or not we take advantage of all of the wonderful and not-so-wonderful services our dollars engender (who does?). We do this because while taxation sometimes feels unfair, this is the fairest way of doing it. So it brings equal parts surprise and disappointment to know that city council now wants to break away from this long-standing tradition. As this newspaper has reported, council intends to hire a new downtown parking enforcement officer using taxes gleaned exclusively from 77 core area businesses. It's not a lot of money, really. Each business would pay an extra $10.82 per month to employ a city worker to ensure downtown motorists are complying with the parking time limits in place. That's not going to make or break anybody. A cash-strapped City Hall is essentially arguing that if downtown business owners are going to gain from a new service, it is they, not the populace as a whole, who must crack open their wallets. The problem with that line of reasoning is that it sets a terrible precedent. If council is prepared to adopt the principle of "you want it, you pay for it" in this case, what exactly is the rationale for limiting it to downtown? A few years back, a group of Phelan Avenue residents requested a curb be installed to reroute rainwater out of their yards and, more importantly, their basements. The city rightly obliged. They did not solicit a special Phelan Avenue tax for the few people who benefitted. They simply drew the cash they needed from that big pile of money. That was the equitable way. Other examples abound. If a fault in the city system causes a sewer or water back-up into someone's basement, we all pay to remedy the problem. That could, after all, have been our basement. It is worth pointing out also that businesses would not be alone in enjoying the fruits of a parking enforcement officer's labour. Since he or she would keep traffic flowing on Main Street, we would all enjoy a higher degree of convenience as shoppers. And more readily available parking means more customers for core businesses, keeping them healthy and supplying the municipality with vital tax revenue. The moment you exclude certain taxpayers Ð in this case, anyone who does not own a downtown business Ð from funding certain services, you invite trouble. Suddenly an argument that never before existed Ð "Tax them for it, not me!" Ð gains merit. At present, the parking enforcement officer debate rests with the Manitoba Municipal Board, which must assess whether the city's preferred taxation method is sensible. A ruling against this measure is deserved. An enforcement officer is indeed required, but all of us Ð not a chosen few whom council sees as the beneficiaries Ð should be footing the bill. Local Angle runs Fridays.
