|
June
1998 Newsletter
False
Media Release Disgraces Region
The
following is a slightly adapted version of a press release
from Friends of Red Hill Valley issued on June 11.
On
June 10 a "Media Release" titled "Support grows for Red
Hill Creek Expressway" was sent out from the office of the
Regional Chairman. The general thrust of the "Release" and
many of its statements were clearly dishonest.
The
release stated that it is based on "preliminary results"
and noted that the full results will not be provided to
council until later in June. This in itself is a very curious
step. The normal practice is that information is provided
to councillors first. However in this instance, the Chairman's
office apparently decided that would not suit its purposes.
In fact, no actual results were provided in the release,
only interpretations of these "results". Both the timing
of this release and the thoroughly dishonest spin it places
on the "results" show that it is intended to sway council
decisions on the Regional budget. In the first sentence,
the release claimed that "support for the Lincoln Alexander
Expressway has increased since a similar survey in 1995".
It went on to say that "81.3% of residents responded favourably
to completing the existing or an accelerated Lincoln Alexander
Parkway project".
These
are categorical statements, but the survey did not ask these
questions. The survey did not ask whether respondents supported
or did not support the Lincoln Alexander Expressway. It
also did not ask if they were in favour of completing the
existing or an accelerated Lincoln Alexander Parkway, nor
did it provide any choices which might reasonably be interpreted
in this way.
The
survey is the "Program and Service Assessment" questionnaire
sent out in April to 1000 businesses and 4000 residents
asking for opinions on 35 programs and services delivered
by the Regional government. The media release does not reveal
how many surveys were returned and the "results" it provides
refer only to item #35 on that list. The "results" provided
appear to refer to answers to the "Restructuring Municipal
Services" section of the questionnaire. For each of the
35 programs and services, respondents were asked: "if choices
have to be made, what one option would you prefer for each
of the 35 services described?". Nine choices were offered.
They were (1) user fees (2) contract-out (3) privatization
(4) strategic alliance (5) reduction (6) eliminate (7) leave
'as is' (8) increase property taxes (9) increase service.
The 35 items included "Water", "Sanitary Sewers", "Wentworth
Libraries", "Police Services", "Public Transit", "Tourism
Development", etc. They also included ONE special capital
expansion project -- #35: "Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway
(Red Hill Creek Expressway)".
This
item is clearly a stone among the marbles. Unlike all the
rest, it is not an on-going service. It is the only new
capital project in the listing. It is also a capital project
that has been completed. It was opened last fall, long before
the survey was sent out. As a result, many of the nine "choices"
make no sense. For example, how would a respondent interpret
the "reduction" choice? Does this mean we should close down
a couple of lanes of the Linc? Or how could the choice "elimination"
be applied? Anyone who took that choice would seem to want
the Parkway entirely torn up. The choices "Strategic Alliance"
and "Contract-Out" make even less sense for a completed
capital project. Whatever ultimate choices were made by
the respondents, their answers cannot reasonably be interpreted
as telling us anything at all about their opinions of another
capital project, the proposed construction of the north-south
expressway through the Red Hill Valley.
But
this is exactly the interpretation the Chairman's office
chose to make. This flies in the face of logic and common
sense. Persons who struggled to answer #35 would most likely
think they were supposed to be giving their opinions on
the Lincoln Alexander Parkway, not the north-south Red Hill
Valley expressway. If any significant number of the respondents
believed the question was about the Lincoln Alexander Parkway,
then obviously no conclusions can be drawn about the north-south
expressway from the survey. Given the wording of the questionnaire,
it appears this confusion was intentional. The relative
popularity of the Linc is being used to suggest that the
north-south expressway has wide support. If the survey designers
wanted to know people's actual opinions on the valley expressway
proposals, they would have asked a specific question on
that. Instead the term used was "Lincoln Alexander M. Parkway"
followed by a bracketed "Red Hill Creek Expressway". Since
the Linc was called the Red Hill Creek Expressway before
it was christened the Lincoln Alexander M. Parkway, respondents
would assume the question was about the east-west cross-mountain
expressway.
To
illustrate the absurdity of the spin offered by the Chairman's
office, consider how the selection of the "Leave 'as is'"
choice should be understood. If the respondants thought
they were being asked about the Lincoln Alexander Parkway,
then chosing "Leave 'as is'" would simply mean don't tear
it up, don't close it down, don't change the speed limits,
etc. If, on the other hand, the respondents thought they
were really being asked their opinion on "completing the
existing or an accelerated Lincoln Alexander Parkway project"
and they interpreted this to mean building of the north-south
Red Hill Creek expressway, then selecting the "Leave 'as
is'" option should mean that the respondent is opposed to
any expansion of the Lincoln Alexander Parkway. Curiously,
the Chairman's office doesn't tell us the percentage of
respondents who selected this option. Given the twisted
way the Chairman's office is interpreting the "results",
disclosure of the actual numbers selecting each choice would
be revealing. The Chairman's office did, however, tell us
what percentage of respondents selected two other options.
The release states: "Of the over 80% of residents favouring
the Expressway's completion, 17% indicated that the project
should be expanded or that they would be willing to pay
higher taxes for the project". This small percentage of
respondents apparently chose either the "Increase service"
or "Increase property taxes" choice. This suggests that
the other 83% don't want to see the Lincoln Alexander Parkway
expanded and don't want to pay additional property taxes
for this purpose. Under this interpretation, which is at
least as reasonable as the one offered by the Chairman's
office, support for the north-south expressway is quite
small.
Further
confusion was created in the survey by the inclusion of
"total cost" and "net cost" figures. Total cost is defined
as "The total cost of providing each service before deducting
any external revenues (subsidies, grants, and user fees)."
Net cost is defined as "Total cost minus external revenues
and financing plans for that service". This distinction
makes some sense for ongoing services which are cost-shared
with the provincial government. It might also make some
sense to apply this distinction to the costs of constructing
a new capital project. However, the survey designers did
not do this. Instead they created a mish-mash of confusion.
The
one-page description of item #35 (which does not mention
the north-south expressway), provides a "total cost" of
the project of $40,302,500 and a "net cost" of $1,859,000.
The actual total cost of emplacement of the Lincoln Alexander
Parkway is more than $160 million. The net cost is approximately
50% of this figure (since the provincial government provided
about half the construction costs). The cost of the combined
east-west and north-south projects is $527 million when
interest charges are included. The provincial contribution
is $186 million, or about one third.
The
$40 million figure only refers to spending during 1997.
The $1.859 million figure apparently refers to the impact
on the operating budget in 1997, an impact scheduled to
rise steadily over the next five years. Since survey respondents
are apparently expected to compare the costs of the 35 services,
these figures are grossly misleading. For example, how does
one compare the $1,859,000 "net cost" of the Linc to the
$11,399,430 for garbage disposal, or the $2,075,920 given
as the net costs of Wentworth Libraries? The use of the
terms total cost and net cost for a capital project is obviously
misleading and inappropriate. We are talking about apples
and oranges. The tiny "net cost" listed for the expressway
reflects the fact that the monies are borrowed and spread
out over decades. This financing option is not even available
for services provided through the operating budget. Providing
annual cost figures makes sense for the 34 on-going services
listed in the questionnaire. It obviously just creates confusion
to apply it to item #35 which is a capital project.
It
is obvious that the Media Release of the Chairman's office
was neither fair nor accurate. Unfortunately, its release
damages the reputation of the regional government as a whole.
It should be speedily withdrawn.
|
