New Watson flip-flops — in right direction

Proposed tax hike will address crumbling infrastructure

Behold, the new Jim Watson.

In a move the old Jim Watson probably would have called a 50-per-cent increase in the tax hike, the new Jim Watson says he is willing to let property taxes increase three per cent a year over his next term, a departure from his more familiar two-per-cent limit.

And there is more to the new Jim Watson. Previously highly skeptical of safe injection sites, new Jim now says he supports them, and will even pay for them with city tax dollars if other governments won’t foot the bill. Earlier, new Jim overcame his initial skepticism about the merit of a women’s bureau at city hall, something everyone else on the last council supported. These are what the old Jim Watson would have called flip-flops, but in each case he is flopping in the right direction.

The big thing about Watson’s new tax promise is that he intends to do more to fix our crumbling roads. This is a problem people have brought to his attention during his door-knocking campaign, the mayor says. It is also a problem that city staff reports have been highlighting since almost the beginning of his term.

The way the mayor breaks it down, a twoper-cent tax increase would cover the cost of delivering the city services we have today. Add one more per cent, and another $10 million would be available. Perhaps $2 million of that would go to unexpected pressures such as the costs associated with the new cannabis regime, Watson suggests. That would let the city add $8 million in new money each year for four years, cutting by more than half the $60-million annual gap between what it spends on infrastructure and what it should spend to keep things in good shape.

The city’s long-term financial plan calls for annual spending of $6.8 million to eliminate the remaining gap over the next nine years. Critically, that is just a plan. There is no money committed to it. Watson’s proposal makes the money real and does a bit better, eliminating the gap in about seven years.

The context Watson offers for his new-found dedication to road improvement is somewhat implausible. He blames the poor condition of our roads on “a couple of really bad winters.” No doubt the frequent freezes and thaws increased potholes, but the problem is so severe because the roads were allowed to crack and deteriorate in the first place.

Watson has added a bit of unnecessary fog to his plan by saying he would support tax increases of between two and three per cent. At two per cent, Watson won’t have the money for infrastructure without cuts he won’t want to make. Count on three per cent.

The good news is that Watson is not seeking to impose a fixed number on his colleagues, as he did in the last term. There isn’t a vast difference between a two-per-cent and a three-percent increase, but it’s enough to create the hope and expectation that councillors will seriously debate how they spend our money.

Judging by their comments during this election, quite a few councillors are willing to spend more than two per cent. Watson is probably jumping before he gets pushed on the tax amount.

During the last city budget, the old Jim Watson had to stave off a mini-revolt by a number of councillors who wisely wanted to raise taxes to get our rundown stuff fixed. Watson was against it because it didn’t fit within his two-per-cent promise, but he pulled a surplus out of his hat at the last minute and papered over the problem with some one-time money. Now, he is adding the $8 million a year councillors wanted.

Watson’s new tax plan will go some way toward addressing the infrastructure problems exacerbated by his old tax plan. That’s progress for him, and for the city.

Watson is probably jumping before he gets pushed on the tax amount.