Skip to content

Governing By Survey

You probably get some sort of pamphlet in the mail once in a while from your Member of Parliament. Usually, there is a survey with preconceived answers that can be filled in and mailed back. Many people toss the pamphlet into the trash. I am one who did just that, but I do not do it anymore. I fill it in, write comments if I want, and send it back in the mail. It does not cost any postage. The question is, why bother?

With a federal election on the horizon, my M.P., Susan Truppe, has been mailing out surveys to her constituents obviously trying to find out if the voters agree with her Party's policies.

One of the most unfortunate parts of our government system today is politicians depend on polls when forming legislation. To them, legislation is good or bad based on the level of public support the legislation has. It is my belief legislation should be based on the rights of individuals, and not based on public opinion.

When politicians decide legislation by survey I will always tell them I disagree. It is not the majority, it is individual the government should be protecting.

© Trevor Dailey 

Audio: Marc Emery on CHRW re: Sunday Shopping (June 10, 1988)

 

Stop Throwing Tax Money At The London Transit Commission.

A few weeks ago, I listened to an interview by Devon Peacock on AM980 radio with London City Councillor, Jesse Helmer. Mr. Helmer is one of the majority of new faces on City Council after the 2014 election when London voters tossed out almost all of the incumbent Councillors. One of the many Committees, Agencies, Boards and Commissions, and other Organizations Mr. Helmer is part of is the London Transit Commission, and the London Transit Commission Long Term Growth Report Working Group. This is what the interview was about.

Mr. Helmer rides public transit, and this apparently was seen by Mr. Peacock as a qualification to be a Member of the London Transit Commission, and the London Transit Commission Long Term Growth Report Working Group. I do not understand why. I can ride the bus too, and I did so for many years, but that does not mean I am qualified for those positions.

During the telephone interview, Mr. Helmer sounded distracted, or uninterested, to me, and annoying sounds, like he was eating, or sniffling, could be heard coming from him while the interviewer asked questions. Some of those questions were, what is wrong with London Transit? and how to make it better?

The answers Mr, Helmer gave was the issue of over crowding on some bus routes, and some confusing bus schedules. The solution Mr. Helmer gave for these problems was more tax money for the London Transit Commission.

Overcrowding is a problem on some bus routes, and so is confusing schedules, but that is not all.

London's historic and current ridership growth to service growth ratio has helped keep London in the lead when compared to its peer group, but has also led to an increase in service quality issues:

27% increase in the number of times buses have reported full loads

Actual load counts for weekday service on a system-wide basis exceeding seated capacity for all time periods by 25% to 64% (with the exception of Early AM)

54% increase in service quality complaints (includes schedule adherence, overcrowding, missed passengers and transfer connection) Such performance can be expected to result in a decline in ridership if improvements are not made.

The following chart shows service performance complaints have trended upward since 2010, averaging approximately five complaints per every 100,000 riders. The most significant complaints have been schedule adherence (late) and missed passengers (full load). These two areas of complaint account for 43% of service complaints.

London had a private transit system for 75 years before the City bought it in 1950 for $1 million (about $21 million in 2014 money).

(Click here for a detailed history of London transit

Operating Overview

The City of London’s 2014 Approved Tax Supported Budget for Transportation Services is $61.4 million representing a $1.0 million or 1.8% increase from rates and $4.2 million increase in cost associated with servicing an expanding/growing City. Outlined below is a breakdown of the 7 services that make up the City of London’s Transportation Services Program.

Parking: Parking = 5.0%

Public Transit: Conventional - Specialized = 42.5%

Roadways: Roadway Maintenance - Roadway Planning & Design - Snow Control - Traffic Control & Lighting = 62.5% 

The best solution for London Transit Commission is to privatize it, and not to throw more tax money at it.

© Trevor Dailey

Audio: Just Right, 133 – Public transit and essential services / Unions and strikes

Government Meddling With The Rent

The letter from The Corporation Of The City Of London addressed to "Occupant" I found in my mailbox informed me that owing to a reduction in the Municipal Property Tax for the building I am a tenant in my monthly rent is to be reduced by 0.54%. The letter mentioned the law (section 131 of the Residential Tenancies Act) that required my Landlord to decrease my rent. I waited to see if I would hear from my Landlord before the rent reduction was due to take effect.

My Landlord soon sent me a letter regarding the letter from the City I had received, and informed me my rent would be reduced in accordance with the regulations. My rent has decreased by $3.26 per month as of January 1, 2015. That is until July, 2015.

A Landlord may increase a tenant's rent, within certain limits, each year, at the time a lease was signed, according to the law. My rent increase, that has happened each year except for one, occurs in July. That is when I will likely loose some, or all, of that rent reduction to a rent increase.

Why government feels the need to regulate what my Landlord and I agree to pay in rent is beyond my understanding. Government is not helping me because my Landlord will still raise my rent in six months. Government is not helping my Landlord by reducing the property tax and at the same time reducing my Landlord's source of income.

What percentage of property tax collected goes to employing people at City Hall to calcuate the rent reductions, and to mail form letters?

I think government should stay out of the rental business.

© Trevor Dailey

On December 31, 2014 the rent for your rental unit is reduced by 0.54%

The rent reduction is allowed under section 131 of the Residential Tenancies Act because the municipal property taxes for the residential complex have decreased.

Tenants do not need permission from the landlord or the Landlord and Tenant Board (the Board) to reduce the rent by this amount. However, tenants and landlords should discuss the calculation of the dollar amount of the rent reduction before the rent is reduced.

1. The Corporation of the City of London is not responsible for deciding whether the amount of the rent reduction set out above is correct or whether the rent has been reduced by the correct amount.

2. If the landlord or tenant believes the percentage rent reduction set out above is not correct, they can file an application with the Board for an order to vary the amount of the rent reduction. They must apply on or before the later of:

(i) the 90th day after the notice of rent reduction is issued;

(ii) March 31, 2015

3. If the rent the tenant pays is not reduced in accordance with the notice, the tenant can apply to the Board for an order requiring the landlord to pay them a rebate. The tenant must apply by December 30, 2015.

4. If the tenant has already received a Notice of Rent Increase effective after December 31, 2014, it may or may not take into account the rent reduction set out above. The tenant and the landlord should discuss what the tenant is required to pay on the effective date of the Notice of Rent Increase.

5. This notice does not apply to tenants whose tenancy agreements began after December 31, 2014.

6. For information about how the rent reduction set out in this notice affects the rent for a rental unit, or about applying to vary the amount of the rent reduction, please call the Board at 1-888-332-3234. For information about how the percentage rent reduction was calculated, please call the City of London Tax office at 519-6611-4540.

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

Let Business Grow

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.

Politicians like to talk about bringing new business to the city. They talk about how they will spend more tax money on another scheme, and this will bring business to the city. It never does. This is a good reason why learning a bit of history can be helpful.

If one looks at the City of London over the past 200 years or so, one will see that there have been an impressive number of business that have started right here in the city. Here is a short list of a few of the sucessful businesses that began here in London:

Canada Trust (Huron and Erie Savings and Loan Society. 1884)

Carling (1843)

Club House (1883)

Emco Corporation (1906)

Imperial Oil (1880)

Labatt (1847)

London Life (1874)

McCormicks (1858)

Supertest (1923)

Some on the list are unfortunately gone, McCormicks and Supertest, but the others either exist within another company, like Canada Trust, Carling, Club House, Labbat, and London Life, or they still stand independently like EMCO Corporation and Imperial Oil. Each one of those on the list achieved great success from small beginnings here in London. Most still employ many Londoners today. 

Politicians should stop trying to "bring business here", and start allowing the small businesses that have already started here in London to prosper. (A small few of which are:)

Black Fly Beverage Company (2005)

Forked River Brewing Company (2012)

A Couple Of Squares Inc (1997)

© Trevor Dailey