Friday Letters: UCP Bill 18 Another way to beg for Edmonton

Content of the article

Daniel Smith should be honest on many issues, but the plan to prevent Alberta municipalities from directly accessing federal funds is, in my opinion, to prevent Edmonton and the US from receiving anything but the small amount of provincial funds allocated to them.

After all, starving Edmonton and rich Calgary have a long history of conservative governments.

Content of the article

Content of the article

Darlene Orsten, Fort Saskatchewan

The living conditions of the city are not better

Re. “Council lacks financial vigilance”, Letters, 9 April

Rick Tiedemann seems to think that the utilities we pay for through taxes are a waste of money. Does he object to public amenities because he does not use them personally? Perhaps he will propose selling our public golf courses to reduce maintenance costs. Developers are killing them to turn them into forests of apartment towers whose taxes will increase our city coffers.

It also fails to mention that the province has repeatedly cut municipal transfers due to declining revenues from subsidies it provides to the oil industry through tax cuts and royalty breaks. It doesn't take into account recent legislation that allows the province to avoid municipal taxes, or the fact that our government owes many oil companies millions in municipal taxes and royalties.

By all means, let's get rid of public conveniences to increase subsidies to the richest industry ever.

Content of the article

Content of the article

Allan Hayman, Edmonton

The federal funding bill is more of a brand

Ms Smith's approach to provincial autonomy and control has so far focused on branding. The Alberta Pension Plan and Alberta Police proposals are financially risky and unpopular with Albertans, but they are an Alberta branding exercise that Ms. Smith likes.

By passing Bill 18 — the Provincial Priorities Bill — in the Legislature, Ms. Smith is taking branding to a potentially counterproductive place. The proposed legislation would allow UCP to choose partnerships with the federal government based on “what we want to do.”

He says federal partnerships have “ideological overtones,” but so should the “things” he wants to achieve. Renewable energy partnerships with universities may be blocked or approved elsewhere in Alberta and denied to Edmonton. A partnership to research the lives of trans youth or public health could be blocked on “ideological” grounds, or approved elsewhere and blocked in Edmonton.

Content of the article

Federally funded flood mitigation infrastructure around Parklane can be blocked because it's Edmonton. There will of course be consultations before this bill becomes law. Let's hope these consultations go deeper than branding.

David Gay, Edmonton

Letters are welcome

Content of the article