Ontario Court Strikes Down Anti-Prositution Laws

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100928/ontario-anti-prostitution-laws-struck-down-100928/

Hurray! I have argued for years that the laws surrounding prostitution in Canada were ridiculous!

These things are illegal (for now):

Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution

Soliciting to hire a prostitute

Operating a common bawdy house (where prostitution takes place)

Living off the avails of prostitution.

See anything missing? Yeah. Prostitution. That's right prostitution is legal in Canada. You just can't advertise it, ask for it, enable it, or spend any money you might make at it.

Politicians ask us to give them a job where they use their talents and abilities to satisfy one of our needs and we pay them to do it. We fund the place where they ply their trade. They spend their take-home pay.

What's the difference? Sex.

Although we frequently get screwed by politicians, too.

I'm just saying...

Fiscal plans for Lethbridge?

Suppose I wanted to win the hearts and minds of Lethbridge voters (all 14,896 at last count), my opening volley might be "Read my lips: No new taxes!". I might strongly imply that we need to be fiscally responsible in terms of spending on capital projects. Not cheap, but frugal. I might say we have to get our priorities straight. We shouldn't have to pay extra taxes just for a , we should just lobby harder to the provincial and federal governments for more funding.

But wait?!? If the provincial government funded more projects for all communities, our provincial taxes might need to go up. If the federal government funded more projects for all communities, our federal taxes might need to go up. Whether I pay it to the city, the province, or the Receiver General for Canada it is STILL my tax dollars. The real difference (and the reality) is that local tax dollars stick around for local projects. Provincial tax dollars may end up in Leduc, Legal, and Lloydminster but not in Lethbridge. Similarly with federal tax dollars.

Project funding is a bit of a red herring anyway. We either save up a little over time until we can afford it (the basic way Lethbridge does it now) or we borrow money and pay it back with interest over time (also a sound financial tool; anyone else have a mortgage?) Doesn't necessarily mean as much because in essence it is a one-time expense.

But we can pay more taxes at other levels and maybe get that back if some other level of government needs to win votes instead of effectively and fairly serving the needs of our community with well spent local tax dollars.

Do the 2010 candidates have some actual solutions or plans or ideas for guiding our community? Or are they throwing up the smoke-screen of we shouldn't raise civic taxes if we could get it elsewhere? Go to a forum. Ask good questions. Demand good answers.

And VOTE!

Stephen

The prompt reply from Lee Cutforth

Thank you for your prompt reply:

Greetings Mr. Graham:

Thank you for your e-mail. I will try to answer your questions as fully as I can, in the order presented:

1. "Major" is not a precise number, or even a scientific concept. Rather, it is more of an admittedly subjective judgment, considering the scope or impact of a given decision. For example, in making that judgment (as to what is a "major" decision and proper for deferral), we would need to look at the degree to which a decision would bind the discretion of future Councils (perhaps by committing to a major spending project). We need to look at the degree of controversy generated - is public opinion stirred so that we need a greater measure of debate or fuller consideration of the measure under consideration (as well as citizens' opinions). We would have to consider the direct consequences of the proposed measure, and degree to which a Council decision would needlessly interfere with peoples' lives and be difficult to reverse.

2. The proper time frame for deferral of major decisions also is something of a subjective value judgment. However, a primary consideration in making that judgment call is the degree of urgency in making a decision. For example, the sudden collapse of a water line may require an immediate decision by a lame-duck Council, simply because the situation is urgent and must be dealt with as a crisis situation. On the other hand, committing many millions of dollars for a non-urgent project, whether it is a sports facility, or a new bridge or even an arts centre, might be best left for a new Council, especially if it is apparent that people have strong opinions, and the election process would allow for that opinion to be expressed and registered through voting. The concern is more with making major decisions without due consideration for the opinions of people whose money Council is spending.

3. It is not a matter of cutting off Council's decision-making power. No one would argue against Council remaining active on administrative matters or emergency situations for the full term of its life. Rather, it is a matter of a Council, in the exercise of its decision-making, having the proper respect for: (a) the opinions of its citizens, and allowing those opinions to have full voice, as much as possible, before Council chooses to act; and (b) the degree to which a Council will bind the discretion of future Councils. In this regard, I am reminded of a statement by then Mayor Dave Carpenter (from the 28 October 1997 issue of the Lethbridge Herald, as reported by the Elect Lethbridge website), to the effect that a Council has to be respectful of allowing the following Council the discretion to set its own priorities.

4. In theory, most Council decisions can be reversed by subsequent votes. However, there may be practical limitations on that ability - for example, if contractual obligations on behalf of the City were entered, penalties or other legal liability for cancelling it, may make overturning that decision prohibitively expensive and impratical.

5. My objection to major decisions being made by a lame-duck Council is not rooted in whether opposition may exist, but rather in making sure that the opposition (or opinion of any degree) is given due consideration. The time frame in which an outgoing Council operates does not always allow for that.

The "supporters of the project", whose identity you have questioned, are various people I have met and spoken to through door-knocking or other venues for talking to folks over the past two months. Whether or not you agree with them, they do raise fair questions, that deserve respect and consideration. Even if one accepts the need for a community arts centre (as many I have heard from do), one still can ask whether it needs to be as grand as proposed, or whether it needs to be on prime commercial property (with all of the negative consequences on the property tax structure that would follow). Had we not spent over $ 4 million for prime commercial land, there could have been more money to put into the facility itself. Another example - it did not make sense to spend over $ 30 million renovating Enmax Centre without completing the ring of seats around the ice surface (something that now will be much more expensive to accomplish - that seems like short-sighted planning).

You know, my wife and I belong to the Lethbridge Folk Club, which holds its performances in a former second-floor pool hall on 5th Street - it is not fancy, but it gets the job done. Now, I am not proposing that Bowman Centre patrons make do with second-rate, under-used commercial sites like the folk club does. However, I would suggest that however worthy the public project we may advocate, we should never lose sight of the fact that we are spending other peoples' money, and therefor need to get the best value possible for its use. We cannot just treat the taxpayers like a money tree that can be shaken whenever we need more money to run the City or pay for discretionary projects.

My point in what I have written and said during this campaign is not to criticise the Arts Centre (or any other project). Rather, it is to emphasise that in any public undertaking, we have to spend the money wisely and make it go as far as we can. We also have to be mindful of our duty to provide core services (like the unglamorous infrastructure of roads and water delivery, etc.). I have concerns about the state of the economy, and believe that we have to be cautious about the level of expenditures we commit ourselves to, both personally and as a community. It is more a matter of determining the proper balance - the degree that government (as opposed to non-profit entities) should be involved in driving public projects; the degree to which we can require taxpayers to foot the bill for discretionary facilities (as opposed, perhaps, to looking for a measure of corporate support); the degree to which we should raise taxes go to pay for both the core services and discretionary spending - higher property taxes hurt everyone (they do get passed on to renters). All of this involves a balancing of priorities, and when a lame-duck Council makes significant commitments, it not only binds the discretion of future Councils, it limits the opportunities that voters have in the election process to speak as to what those priorities should be.

I appreciate that you have brought your concerns to my attention, and for the opportunity to respond. I look forward to seeing my remarls posted to your site.

Sincerely,

Lee Cutforth

Candidate for Alderman

City of Lethbridge

Council should be allowed to do its job

A recent blog post from Lee Cutforth suggests that Council should delay "major votes" until after the new Council is elected. This idea raises several questions:

1. How major is "major"?

2. How long before the election would this limitation come into effect?

3. If we don't let Council make decisions in the last, say, three months of their term, why have a three-year term at all? Why not a 33-month term?

4. Are Council decisions permanent or un-revisitable?

5. Given that the decisions of any elected Council will have dissenters, should any Council be allowed to make major decisions?

Separate from the practical shortcomings, I'm also left idly wondering which "supporters of the project have questioned the grandiosity of its scale". At the moment we are talking about new facilities to replace and enhance functionality of the Bowman Arts Centre. That building (a recycled school) was barely sufficient when it was re-purposed originally. The city has more than doubled in size since 1963.

Soon (I hope) we will be talking again about a Performing Arts Centre to increase public performing arts facilities beyond the what the Genevieve E. Yates Memorial Centre can provide. It was opened in 1966 and seats under 500 people (the addition of the Sterndale Bennett Theatre is a separate 180 seats). By the time that a new facility is built the population of Lethbridge will likely have TRIPLED. A 1500 seat theatre is not out of the question.

Perhaps we should put enhancement of our sports facilities on hold for 45 or 50 years?

I'm going to ask Mr. Cutforth to answer these questions and I will post his response when I get it.

Go vote.

People who want to get elected...

...seem pretty quick to boldly and publicly criticize the incumbents and the administration to make their platforms seem bold and critical.

...seem to position themselves as different from other candidates, often crafting their platforms to have a contrary or at least noticeably different opinion of how things should be.

...seem to forget that, if elected, each person is only one voice in a council of 9 and will have to compromise on something and that the next election is only 3 years away.