Realities for Penticton

Dear Editor: My two recent letters discussed patently inequitable natures of tax abatement from social, environmental and political perspectives. This part completes discussion and presents alternatives.

Penticton’s staff report delivered Jan.17, 2017 on Economic Incentive Zones is flawed and merely an after the fact description and rationalization of an ill-advised program to begin with. The report does not address the tendency that the benefactors of tax abatements will exaggerate the effect.

There is no discussion of other factors affecting location decisions and site selection (i.e. cost of labour, transportation, energy, rents, occupancies, suppliers, customers, police and fire protection.) There’s no comparison of regional economic impact and Penticton’s lower tax rates for commercial and higher tax rates for residential compared to other Okanagan cities.

Nothing in the report balances or addresses other economic impacts because there are no measurable economic impacts from tax abatements. Some of the realities for Penticton are the:

• Residential tax rates are much higher than other Okanagan cities,

• Percentage of Penticton’s building permit values compared to the rest of the Okanagan has declined over the last three years,

• Residential effective tax rate in Penticton has risen dramatically since the inception of these programs,

• Assessment base growth rate in Penticton is the second slowest in the valley, only next to Osoyoos, and

• Planners, politicians and economic development officials cannot micromanage an economy.

I suggest the only job created by the EIZ program was the one giving our tax dollars away. All of the jobs “created” by developments would have occurred anyway.

None of the real social, environmental, economic and political issues have been addressed in the staff report.

Municipal officials/planners have better options than corporate welfare to promote development. Here are a few:

• Higher rates of tax on vacant land,

• Get a tougher good neighbour bylaw,

• Do not reward projects that would be built anyway,

• Use tax deferral programs instead,

• Stick to land use plans ensuring compatibility among adjoining and nearby existing land uses,

• Do not allow street facades out of character with the area (such as some downtown renovations, oversized houses in residential areas, etc.),

• Ensure growth is orderly and services are delivered efficiently ,

• Protect, conserve and use natural and financial resources wisely,

• Adopt performance metrics for the planning functions so they start to show some real value for money,

• Stick to the Official Community Plan. Wayne Llewellyn Penticton