Important council meeting today

Dear editor: At the Tuesday, Feb. 6 Penticton city council meeting, an economic development report is being presented and I really wonder how many councillors will think of questions to ask like the following:

• Why shouldn’t the city require any applicants for incentives and tax abatement to demonstrate:

— need for the abatement and how it is critical to the viability of the project.

— that jobs created will be at the average/median level of the city or higher

— that under utilized infrastructure/ depressed areas will be enhanced.

— that net benefits include the export of goods or services out of the city resulting in capital inflows.

— that jobs created meet a residency requirement for Penticton until such time as surrounding areas participate.

— buildings are of higher quality than surrounding developments and will spur other nearby development.

— there should be an application fee to offset the cost of staff time involved in reviewing applications for abatement?

• Shouldn’t analyses of tax incentive and abatement programs need considerable rigour in economic analysis to evaluate and include solid, meaningful measures beyond just creating a brewery where people can go have a beer, watch a movie, that the property looks better than what was there such as suggested in the January 2017 report to council?

• What requests and suggestions have staff received and acted on from residents to improve accountability and meaningful performance measures demonstrating economic incentive and tax abatement programs achieve goals such as:

— household income levels in the city rise faster than surrounding areas

— property assessments rise faster than similar and nearby municipalities.

— residential property values based on sources like MLS show higher rates of increase or lower rates of decline during slow downs in the economy? Wayne Llewellyn Penticton