September 23, 2012Dear Sir,Um, so a year ago, the Government took away the wharfage fee collection from the City of Hamilton, “replaced” it with a grant that was smaller than the income from wharfage and then increased the wharfage. Hilariously, in several ways, MP Walter Lister said, “This isn’t about the money.” Clearly, it wasn’t the Corporation of Hamilton’s budget. The Opposition did not fall around on the floor in fits of derisive laughter. They are a discreet bunch and don’t get involved in politics. Outrageous statements like Mr Lister’s are passed over with polite peeps and squeaks. No, Mr Lister insisted the whole shenanigans was for principle, democracy in particular. You see, only the Government should tax people (I just don’t know where to start with that one.) The government is democracy so they get all the money. They get to borrow the money too by the way; a very very large amount of it. Since it’s a democracy, the voters will flush with pride as they pay that debt. Perhaps the public will be even more pleased when they realise they cannot possibly repay it. The city now relies on retailers to pay taxes and if they do not live in the city, they cannot vote in city elections. How that is democracy is very difficult to tell. I can’t tell you because when I think about it my mind turns into jelly and stops working. Before, the city seemed to at least have the cash even though it was an imperfect democracy. It’s still an imperfect democracy but now it has no cash. So you see how things have improved.A short time ago, for reasons of the budget we were told, a popular feature of the city, the fountain outside City Hall, was filled in. No one but me thought it was a good idea. I don’t like the fountain but that is not pertinent. It was a very well liked feature on that otherwise odd and difficult stretch of Church Street. At the fountain, people waited for buses. They watched people and chatted. But fiscal probity is honourable, so people gave up their loved spot. Now we are told the feature is to be replaced with something new(?) The new thing will be decided after suggestions have been taken from the public. The decision to take away a popular feature of the town involved the public in no way whatsoever. Why? The imposition of democracy by budget catastrophe made it necessary to do it without consulting constituents. But now, when the feature is to be replaced by a new thing, we get to decide. And if there was a budget problem before, why isn’t there one now? Is all well in the Ice Palace by the bus terminal? Money is now rolling in for a new feature nobody but me thought was a good idea?In the Sun we learn that Mayor Graeme Outerbridge describes the city finances as in “a very delicate position”. There is a nice picture of him looking like a man who would like to start screaming. He will not be permitted to do so. You know, democracy and all. He has to answer to the people who very virtuously put the city’s finances into a democratically principled free fall. So no, the budget is not good. In so saying “not good”, I use understatement. “A very delicate position” is another example of understatement. Where are we to understand the money for the new thing to go in front of city hall is going to come from? Look up into the sky and appeal to the heavens for the answer, for no one on this sweet earth does know. Or we can assume that the request for suggestions from the public is simply the deepest City Hall cynicism. The public is free to suggest ideas for a thing that shall never exist. Stop reading. Now your mind is jelly too.JOHN ZUILLPaget