The intent of the funding was to provide some of its gas tax revenue to municipalities for green infrastructure “to improve water and air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.
Hamilton currently receives $31.9 million a year from this fund. The approved capital budget for 2010 allocates $10 million of this to city hall renovations and the rest to road projects.
Councillor Powers observes. “It started out to be environment and sustainable municipal infrastructure in six different areas, and then it evolved to basically whatever you want,”
Finance chief Rob Rossini subsequently explained that roads spending can be justified “where we can make a case that it helps with traffic, helps alleviate congestion” that can be claimed as environmental benefits.
C.A.T.C.H. lists the projects that Hamilton will be pursuing. By way of example, Margaret Avenue (Hwy 8 to Barton/Federal), is earmarked as follows:
(in millions of dollars)
Gas Tax 1.04, Total cost 1.87, Other 0.83 , Source- Internal, Bikes 0
When one visits Margaret Avenue, not a main artery by no means, there appears to be a disconnect between it and the intent of the program and the expenditures earmarked. Moreover, why Margaret Avenue? It doesn’t appear to have any distinctive features that would serve to differentiate it from other like streets nor does it appear to be be meaningfully consistent with Mr. Rossini’s criteria. Margaret Street, interestingly enough, is home to Councillor Maria Pearson.
Have a look through the rest of the list here. Comments?
Margaret Ave.
Special thanks to WRCU2 for the suggestion for this topic/post.
The Federal Government succumbed to pressure from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Provinces and distributed their largesse to municipalities in the form of money for the environment, but that was only really a cover. There was recognition that years of federal cuts in transfer payments and downloading of services and costs led to surpluses at the federal level and infrastructure deficits municipally. So Hamilton can do what it likes with the money. I don't really care as long as it reduces the municipal level of taxation for me.
ReplyDeleteAt the transit meeting in October, that was stated that the federal gas tax money was suppose to be used for public transit, but the city has done some fancy footwork to get around that.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Aveneue is not a street that would be considered as high volume traffic or high congestion, but then Ms Pearson did receive the highest amount of corporate donations, so what do you think.
The consultants report stated that public transit has to be expanded, yet we have no mney for that, cause we ahve spent it on things like revamping city hall and the roads.
Why do spend money on a consultants report when it goes on deaf ears anyways.
Would we call this, more of the stomach turns.
This kind of rule bending reminds me of the "Merling" syndrome, ward heeling politics at it's finest.
ReplyDeleteWhenever you look at city hall reports they always identify whose ward it affects, so the "pork barreling" is distibuted fairly and credit taken equally.
Check any elected officials street they live on and compare it to the condition of your own street.
As I recall, in a election year "Big Blue" is gotten out of storage and fired up to go on a repaving spree in pre-selected areas of the city.
This machine chews up the top layer of an old road, mixes the old with new paving stuff, heats it and lays it down, so a new road is paved as it moves along.
Stinky and smelly for sure, but the difference is seen right away, not months and months of noise and heavy equipment chugging away for weeks on end.
I was shocked when I read the connection between Margaret Ave and Councillor Maria Pearson. I would be hiding my head in a man hole if I were her. Pretty nervy when there are so many other streets in her riding that need immediate attention. This is a conflict of interest in my opinion. She is using her position for personal gain. I wish I could assign over a million dollars to make my street prettier so that my property value goes up. Personally, I could not stoop that low.
ReplyDeleteNella