Assessed Values – Land 2004 was $2,414,039,884 which increased to 5,756,218,004 in 2008

Assessed Values – Improvements 2004 was 3,780,784,250 which increased to 5,595,821,633 in 2008

Combined Values 2004 – $4,022,188,234 to
$11,352,039,637 in 2998

Why if we had almost a 2.82 times amount of value in assessements did we also get a tax increase over 4 years?

We did because of the reduction of the commercial mill rate in Nanaimo on commercial property. Instead of a 2.82 X amount in taxes we ended up with an increase of less than $22 million instead of an increase from $97 million to $273 million. WOW, that translates to a decrease in commercial taxes of $250 million!

Since 2004 to the present, this strategy has seen residential tax rates increase by 28%, commercial rates rise by 23%, and industrial rates decrease by 1/10 of 1%.

Compared to the rate of increase in the BC CPI over this same period of 8.3%, this means that residential tax rates have increased by more than 3.3 times the Consumer Price Index, commercial by 2.8 times and industrial rates have actually decreased. [Before getting off on a tangent regarding Industrial rates recognize that Industrial taxation is minuscule in the overall Nanaimo tax universe and further that circumstances conspired to create an unfair situation which is now being unwound.] The only rates with which we really need to concern ourselves are those on residential and commercial properties.

The boards of Enron, Nortel and a whole host of financial and other institutions chose to ignore what was happening in the companies for which they were responsible. And their shareholders chose to ignore their boards. They, and we, got what happens in such circumstances. Are we to continue following suit?

I belong to the zero tax increase faction and, in times like these, might even recommend a decrease in recognition of what is happening in the general economic environment.

This thread has given rise to a number of suggestions as to how this might be accomplished. Perhaps someone would begin a new discussion on the means by which such reductions could be implemented. I note that several of our commentators have already raised banners in this direction.

I would throw out ZERO TAX INCREASES as a fundamental.

Wonder if that can be agreed upon??

Jim is right of course about the 25% tax increase over five years as not been sustainable. At this point, its probably best to look at that increase as the price we pay for doing things exactly the way we’ve been doing things for the last twenty years. City hall calls it a “sustainable tax increase,” because their jobs, their job definitions, and their raises are sustained for at least another five years. After five years? There is no reason to believe this pattern of increases won’t persist until the backs of almost all the taxpayers are broken.

More over, we are paying this increase to maintain things as they are knowing that when the taxpayers can do no more, the change to a more efficient system is going to be very expensive. its an insane proposition. Only people with an irrational overwhelming fear of change would support this.

There seems to me a few reasons why staff is getting away with this:

1) Council is apathetic – The last two years this council has been brow beaten into believing there is nothing much they can do about this situation. Also, if staff doesn’t have to change, then they don’t have to change either.

2) Council is directionless – There is nothing to unite this group that would compel all of them to pursue a radical change in policy. When Holdom first proposed that everyone rally around the banner of sustainability I was heartened by the possibility that he could move city hall towards making the necessary changes. Sadly, that initiative got dumped, to be replaced by nothing else. Now we have eight little frogs in a pot of warming water that don’t know that they have to jump and wouldn’t know which way to jump anyway.

3) Council reflects perfectly the mood of the majority of people. This is a council that is not leading. Rather it is being led by staff and public opinion.
We live in a city where the population is very conservative. We will go to extreme lengths to resist change. Accepting a 25% tax increase is an extreme price to pay to keep things as they are, and yet I see most people in this town more then happy to pay.

_______

I think George has a point as well. We should hold council accountable for these tax increases. I think we have to do more then just not vote for them. To be honest, a number of people on council did very well without my vote. I think we have to get organized. They are not going to take us seriously, when we take them on one at a time. Sooner or later someone has got to do this. Better sooner, and it might as well be us.

What do you think?

We need to convince our elected council that anything less than a zero budget will result in their expulsion next election and we must live up to that by convincing others to participate in elections. ONE EACH MORE.

Efficiency and productivity are exactly what is being discussed, the expense side of the ledger is merely the yardstick by which these are being measured.

Only comparing the costs to other cities payrolls is a mugs game. Compare the cost of like functions with the cost in the private sector.

This post, I predict, will be like the others on this blog, it will go around in circles and conclude nothing.

We never even came close to defining what the role of city governance should be.

Do you suppose that sounding off here, and in letters to the editor, simply allows a means of venting so one thinks they are accomplishing something, while in fact changing nothing?

Definitions are in the hundreds and the misconception and misuse of it makes it difficult to understand in it’s many uses.

While Merv Unger may be correct, Sunny Dan has a viable viewpoint. Instead of sounding correct by using the word, why can’t we just tell the truth. Say it in simple language without trying to sound cool by using the word of the moment. And never use the word in the description of the word (grade 4 english) ;) LOL