Is this how things work with City?

Dear Editor: At the recent infrastructure meeting Wayne Llewellyn reports that one staff member said that in his discussions with developers he thought tax abatement was a good idea. What happened to projected forecasts of the financial consequences? Is this how we make decisions at City Hall these days?

I would like to thank Wayne Llewellyn (Herald letters, Dec 6) for his explanation of the property tax exemption. His summation, “It’s simply unfair to pass the tax burden for essential public services onto every other property owner, resident and business owner that still pay their full taxes.”

This only exacerbates an already dire financial infrastructure deficit.

It seems that council has a basic understanding of the unfairness of tax favoritism. In their mail out on sewer rates they said that a minimum monthly payment would be required to cover those property owners that have little or no consumption in the winter months and therefore are not contributing to their fair share of (infrastructure) taxes.

That explanation of sewer rates leaves only two assumptions: Either they know taxpayers must be treated on a fair and equitable basis or they do not understand the underlying principle of tax fairness.

The tax abatement scheme for new development needs to be discontinued immediately. Council cannot expect taxpayers to cough up for a $175-million dollar infrastructure deficit and also cover the costs of developers looking for a free ride. Elvena Slump Penticton