Time to put this anachronism out to pasture

THE SPECTATOR’S VIEW

It’s unfortunate that this week’s debate on how to make Hamilton transit better and more affordable descended into a parochial political squabble, essentially between inner-city councillors and those representing suburban wards.

It was going fairly well, with some controversial ideas like transit fares geared to income and ability, and even free service at times, being greeted with open minds if not open arms. But then the dreaded area rating dragon reared its ugly head, and things went downhill fast.

It ended relatively well, although in the melee Coun. Sam Merulla impugned the integrity of fellow councillor Robert Pasuta, who has missed a fair bit of worktime due to being injured in a farm accident. Suggesting that Pasuta was somehow slacking was indefensible, and Merulla should apologize.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger ultimately rescued a bad situation by referring the entire matter to public works for a full report.

How an already stressed and maxed-out HSR management will find time to capably complete a report with enough breadth and scope to address the myriad of issues at play is a question mark.

But at least it keeps the issue alive for further deliberation, hopefully in a less-toxic environment.

Let’s face it, area rating — the taxation regime under which urban areas pay more for transit than rural ar- eas — is an anachronism and eventually has to die.

Past councils have recognized that and negotiated an end to it in most areas, transit being one exception. That’s because it is a very hot political potato.

Rural ratepayers don’t get the same, or any transit, services, so don’t want to pay for them.

Urban residents need the service and pay for it, and the trade-off is some tax redistribution to a fund urban ward councillors can tap into for infrastructure projects in their wards.

Complicated enough? It all made sense at the time because it was a constructive compromise given the alternatives. But it’s no way for a unified city to move forward. This is one city, north to south, east to west. The cost of providing municipal services should be shared equally. Should urban ratepayers who will never use a recreation centre in Binbrook pay less in taxes because the service doesn’t benefit them?

Should suburban and rural ratepayers pay more for snow clearing because they have more kilometres of rural roads that require plowing? Balkanizing municipal service costs this way is ultimately nonsensical.

For political reasons, this council agreed to back away from area rating until next term. Fair enough. But next term, once and for all, this debate must happen, and a resolution must be found, bloody or not.