Make the PDI sale fair to everyone

One of the major problems with the sale of PDI is making it fair for everyone. PDI, after all is a community asset. As such its sale should benefit everyone in the community, or at least as closely as possible.

My problem with the current two proposals is that they do not go far enough in doing that.

I have two additional proposals that I think do a better job of fairly handling the funds: One is to use it to pay for the utility increases of the future. The second is more general. It is to use it for offsetting the two to three per cent annual tax increases.

The plan to pay utility increases would work by investing the principal. The interest would also be allowed to accumulate. If the future carries with it an increase in the cost of utilities, use the accumulated interest to offset the increases.

Each person who pays utilities directly benefits from the sale. For council it allows them to avoid an unpopular sale.

A third advantage is that the principal is preserved for a much longer time than my second idea (see below).

A fourth and final advantage is that council can’t turn the proceeds into a hidden tax. Any solution that invests in city structure allows council to impose a real tax rate that is higher than the stated tax increase. In other words; would a three per cent increase become a six per cent increase?

The second idea is to use of the proceeds to offset tax hikes. The annual tax increases represent approximately a $9 million spending increase by the city. If the principal was used to pay the tax increase, it would last for about five to six years. The net result is that taxpayers would get a five- to six-year holiday from tax increases.

Again, for council and residents, this would be a win.

The one loser in this second plan is that the renters would lose out. As we all know, landlords would much rather pass on costs to tenants, and retain benefits for themselves.

A second disadvantage of the second option is it bankrupts the principal in a narrow time frame. A third disadvantage is this second idea also carries the discrepancy between real and apparent tax rates.

If the totality of public input is going to be choked down to an online survey, our choices will be the two choices the council has approved, and perhaps another option. Usually these other options come with a chance to tell the city what we, the residents really want.

My last thought: We should be wary of solutions that do not directly benefit everyone in the community.

John Kaufman, Sophia St.