Not what people think

At one time, politicians deflected questions by saying another level of government was in charge. 

Take healthcare for example. It’s funded federally, administered provincially and aided at the local level by municipal government. Disentangling that web quickly with a political answer is no easy feat, so the easiest option was to lay blame elsewhere. 

Housing is a similar tale, where local regulation impacts efforts upstream to build housing. Development charges, rigid planning specifications and omnipresent competing interests for scarce sewage and water allocation hinder growth. Although those attributes can be helped along, local government shouldn’t be in the housing business. They can’t afford it, but they can stay out of the way.

This election season, rife with videos and tutorials from candidates, exemplifies the extent of confusion. If people seeking office don’t have a good handle on their roles, how can the public be expected to understand how the system works?

Indeed, we wonder for some if they chose the right level of municipal government to pursue their interests. Social services and housing, as an example, are typically handled at the county level. Candidates championing those causes locally should have run for one of numerous county seats that went uncontested weeks ago.

The core jobs of local towns or townships are simple. Keep roads in a good state of repair and clear during winter. Maintain water and sewer services for urban homeowners. Parks and recreation – those community aspects that enhance quality of life – also need maintained and kept up to snuff. 

Straying from the basics has a cost that taxpayers and councillors need to recognize.