Lowertown
Community Association

Submission on the proposed budget 2007 on behalf of the Lowertown Community Association

February 21, 2007 

presented by Angela Rickman, president

 I am here this morning representing the Lowertown West Community Association.  Thank you for taking the time to listen to this presentation.

First, I would like to point out to Councilors that while it may be more efficient to shorten the budget process, the extremely short timeline between the release of the proposed budget documents and the hearing of public delegations makes real and effective consultation impossible.  My community association meets once a month, and while we have solicited opinions by email in the last week, we had no opportunity for a comprehensive process; so much of what is represented here is based on general direction from the community.

As a downtown neighbourhood, we have serious concerns about the direction the city is taking.  We in Lowertown west already shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden, paying as much to put in new roads and sewers in sprawling new subdivisions, as well as paying for their maintenance and upkeep.  We pay for better roads to get more cars downtown, while suffering with the traffic congestion, noise, and pollution that come with the vehicles.

Many of us have our own cars, but in Lowertown, where many houses were built without driveways, we pay for the privilege of having vehicles by paying for on-street parking permits to leave our cars behind while we walk or bus to work.

Our property values have spiked with new development and infill downtown, which in turn means that we pay more taxes, without any improvement in services.  As property values, and taxes, have increased, many who have lived in the area for a long time can no longer afford to do so, and without any policy on affordable housing as a percentage of new developments, it will mean that the core could soon be a place where only the wealthy are able to afford to live.

Lowertown also has the highest concentration of shelters in Ottawa.  We have a growing crack problem as well, as some of the most vulnerable are preyed upon by drug dealers, replacing alcohol dependency problems with crack addiction.

While programs like the Safer Inhalation Program have been shown effective in reducing disease transmission in high risk groups, their benefits extend beyond the drug users. The cost of providing care to a patient who has been infected with HIV or Hepatitis-C is substantial, and vastly outweighs the cost of preventing infection in the first place. The controversy surrounding harm reduction programs like this one arises when the decision to provide a crack pipe is considered a moral one. If it is not legal to do crack, is it "right" to provide a crack pipe? If we insist on making it an ethical issue, perhaps we might re-phrase the question; if we can prevent someone from becoming very ill and dying, do we have an obligation as a caring society to do so?

No one who advocates the crack pipe program advocates doing crack, nor is a crack pipe program a replacement for good community health units, drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, or policing and enforcement of existing laws. I have lived in Lowertown for over 20 years, where there has been an ongoing problem with drugs. Since the inception of the crack pipe program, however, the number of used syringes in our parks and playgrounds has diminished dramatically, which benefits me, my kids, my dog, and my neighbours. We all pay the price when it comes to treating disease in our society, so we all have an interest in preventing it. We should not cancel a program that is successfully preventing harm, but nor should we provide crack pipes and think we've done our part. We all have a duty to ensure that programs that help prevent drug use in the first place and those programs that help treat and rehabilitate drug users are established and get the funding they need.

Furthermore, supports to affordable housing, including the capital expenditures for the OCH Public Housing Program must be maintained.

Transit fee increases are a foolish, regressive move.  In a city where one of our stated goals is improving the use of alternative transportation, we are instead punishing those who opt for public transit by increasing fares and fees for park and ride, while holding the line on parking fees in city lots.  What about charging for the use of roads?

The proposal says the city should:

“ increase the revenue-cost ratio, revenues could be raised by:

- increasing fares above 7.5%

- introducing an age limit for student pass eligibility

- reducing the discount on the EcoPass program from 15% to 10%”

In fact, fares over the last 2 years alone have grown well beyond inflation rates.

Road maintenance and construction fees, however, are tremendous, yet are not subject to the same kind of user fees.   The City’s documents estimate the following costs:

Roadways 170 lane kilometres at $6,200 per lane km on average from new development, and city capital works on roads; Roadway modifications from developer site plans $131K; Sidewalks & pathways 83 kilometeres at $3,000 per km on average from new development, and city capital works on roads; Traffic signals 23 at $6,800 on average; Street lighting 1,200 at $129; Street signs 170 lkm at $625 and Pavement Markings 170 lkm at $425; The growth in network and managed assets requires the addition of a signal crew (2 FTEs) $133 and electronic technician (1 FTE) $74, for Signal Operations, a seasonal  pavement marking crew (2 x 0.58 FTEs) $71K for Pavement Marking Operations, a technical clerk (1 FTE) $57 for Parking Operations, 2 Transportation Systems Management Coordinators (2 FTEs) $140 and an additional 2 seasonal Right-of Way Inspectors (2@ .5 = 1 FTE) $80 for Safety & Traffic Studies.

We would, however, emphasize that sufficient funds be set aside to complete changes to King Edward Avenue that make pedestrian, cyclist, and high occupancy transit traffic a priority.  The City must work with partners on both sides of the river and all levels of government to ensure that King Edward Avenue is returned to the residents of Ottawa’s oldest neighbourhood and is no longer a high traffic truck route.

The city must implement the proposals outlined in Ecology Ottawa’s green budget petition.   We believe the City should fund and implement the Air Quality and Climate Change Management Plan

Ottawa falls far short of other Canadian cities when it comes to air quality, the cost of public transit, the quality of public transit, on waste diversion, etc. 

The City proposal to increase revenues in solid waste by accepting additional tonnes of industrial and construction industry at landfills is short-sighted and foolhardy; we would do better to improve waste diversion and charge higher fees for dumping.

Additionally, downtown development fees should be restored where they have been waived, and a proportion of the new developments should be affordable to allow for diverse, vibrant communities.  Support for heritage programs that support the character and nature of our historic district in our historic city are also essential.

Time constraints here and in the process limit the number of recommendations and the depth of analysis I am able to provide here today, but I would be happy to answer questions here or later, and will further communicate Lowertown residents concerns in writing to Council in future.

Thank you.

Angela Rickman

President

Lowertown West Community Association

613-859-5701

info@lowertown.ca

www.lowertown-basseville.ca