When times are tough they say the tough get going. We knew in the last election the council we elected would have to make tough monetary decisions. We expected them to act on our behalf to use their collective wisdom to accomplish this goal. City councils must balance their books — they cannot run a deficit.

As any business person can tell you it comes down to choices. Many of us watched as our newly elected council agonized over allocation of the budget. What we waited for and never happened was for this council to make a decision to cut the fat at City Hall. All staff and management positions and contracts needed to be examined to determine which ones were unnecessary or could be cancelled.

Instead this council worked without a plan, wandering aimlessly — agonizing over flower baskets, fire pits and advertising signs. Now this council has placed a knife through the heart of the churches and charities — charities that help people in our community by providing services which would otherwise have to be paid for at great expense by one level of government or another. These services are needed more than ever during recessionary times.

I would like to thank the thousands of volunteers in Penticton that spent hundreds of thousands of hours of their time in the charitable agencies and churches in this community over the years. It is sad that your hard work and your belief in the responsible behaviour of our city council has been so needlessly disregarded.

Personally I will remember the decisions that this council made on how to spend my taxes in the next election. I hope you do too.

Elvena Slump

Penticton

Put people first

Money is tight everywhere. That is apparent every time we open the newspaper and we see that jobs are lost in this area.

It has been proven that as financial pressures increase at home, so do social pressures. Many local not-for-profit groups are reporting a sharp increase in demand for their services. These same not-for-profit groups that are providing the social safety net in our city are now faced with losing their municipal tax exemption.

Many of these organizations, which already rely heavily on fundraising and volunteer efforts, have recently lost provincial gaming grants. Many are fighting to even keep their doors open due to lack of funding — this is without even factoring in a tax increase from the city.

Why is the city proposing to tax not-for-profit groups? Apparently to lower the taxes of homeowners. Is this not taking from the less fortunate in our society to give to the more fortunate among us who own homes? Has the city analyzed the long-term cost to our community if we lose our social safety net by pricing them out of the market?

The $50,000 that the city stands to recoup from taxing not-for-profit organizations pales in comparison to the millions in capital spending projects recently announced by the city. It’s time to start balancing our priorities before we no longer have that option.

Tracy St. Claire

Penticton

City punishes good deeds

Our city council’s proposed removal of permissive tax exemptions is an unwarranted rip in the social and religious fabric or our community.

Our forms of government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, recognize the value of charitable donations for the common good by allowing a reduction in taxation. When people fill out their income tax forms they can take advantage of this provision. Bequests to educational, religious, or charitable institutions also qualify for tax exemptions.

These long-standing practices acknowledge and support the giving of one’s time and treasure for causes that advance the common good. Where governments leave gaps in the care of the less fortunate or the care of the environment, fraternal organizations, service clubs or other non-governmental organizations step up to satisfy a need.

In Penticton, the practice of granting city tax exemptions to organizations that enhance the quality of life has been in effect for many years. The proposed gradual removal of tax exemptions to many of these organizations will have far-reaching effects. Some organizations will close their doors. Others will cut back on their services. The burden of enhancing the common good will fall on fewer and fewer volunteers and donors.

The proposed bylaw to gradually remove tax exemptions is flawed both in principle and in its application.

It is wrong, in effect, to tax good works. Applying a ‘sin tax’ to liquor or tobacco is understandable but to tax what benefits society defies both logic and tradition.

It is wrong to simply use their working capital as the sole criterion to single out some organizations for such a retrogressive action. Both large and small organizations should be treated equally. And the social value of the services being given should be taken into account.

Some organizations, especially churches, provide meeting space to a variety of socially valuable service groups. Penalize the host and you penalize all. Changing the social fabric of a community without adequate consultation by stakeholders is undemocratic.

In view of the above and other considerations, I respectfully submit that the motion for a bylaw to withdraw the permissive tax exemptions be rescinded so that a thorough study of the effects of such legislation be undertaken.

Ted Makar

Penticton