Editor:
Re: Unexpected costs require levy: mayor, Dec. 30.
Mayor Linda Hepner’s explanation as to why Surrey’s property owners must pay an additional $100 tax levy this year is truly pathetic, made even worse by the deafening silence of her colleagues.
The obvious conclusion is that either the Surrey First team is totally incompetent in managing our money, or deliberately concealed the real state of the city’s finances during the recent election. Take your pick!
I would also bet the taxpayer is probably set for similar surprises over the coming years; that is, unless severe cuts are made to the extravagant planned capital program.
For those who voted exclusively for the Surrey First juggernaut that, with the help of their development friends, crushed any possible opposition – you can have little cause to complain.
Robin Harper, Surrey
• • •
No, this is not an April Fool’s Day joke, just December in Surrey. So… early days yet.
Does any thinking person believe that this was an “oops”? So many councillors, so little time!
There was not a whisper of a tax increase in public statements or printed interviews during the pre-election period. Rather the opposite.
Good gracious, there is a new Surrey virus of slate amnesia. We taxpayers need to come to the aid of our shocked officials, if the whole of the council is in this state of astonishment and wonder.
Are there more miscalculations to come?
Plans for the new majestic, controversial city hall and pools have been in the works for years.
Yet, Mayor Linda Hepner was not aware it was going to cost $2 million to run a pool. Why not?
Rosaleen MacFadden, Surrey
• • •
Re: Team starts with trust deficit, Dec. 26 column.
Columnist Frank Bucholtz has captured the exact essence of our current civic government.
His assertion that the Surrey council team knew they would need a tax increase, but did not mention it during the election campaign, is just another case of a majority junior government only telling the citizens what they want and not being at all transparent in their dealings.
I am, personally, not surprised by anything the team does, as they have exhibited a significant amount of insincerity in the very recent past.
Do we know exactly what the new city hall is going to cost? I think not. The statement that taxes are growing by a modest 2.9 per cent is, in fact, inherently false.
When digging further into property owners’ pockets and attaching the convenient term ‘levy’ – and saying it is not a tax – is simply ridiculous. Can I refuse to pay the levy if I don’t use the recreational and am not interested in the cultural parcel? If not, it is a tax.
The trust deficit is significant, and I am not optimistic anything will be done to address the matter. Count on more political spin and the use of convenient terms such as ‘levy’ to keep the masses uninformed.
Is it not a political belief that by remaining silent, rolling out hot-button issues like crime and safety – and having many positive press releases – is enough to satiate the masses, who are simply too tired from working, raising a family and paying bills to actually be mad?
Aren’t we lucky to have a majority ruling party occupying our grand new city hall? Without opposition, everyone will simply sing from the same song sheet. That way, we can assume we have been well-informed and not think about how we will be snookered again next year.
Wonder what new buzz word will replace ‘levy’ in 2016?
Andrew Johnston, Surrey
