The following editorial appeared in the October 14 edition of the Guelph Mercury:
Of all the election campaigns I’ve covered over the last 20 years, one about a fringe candidate with no hope of winning has most stuck with me.
The candidate was local garage owner Tom Bradburn, who, in 1995, ran in the provincial election under the Libertarian Party banner. His campaign strategy was simple: He would lie right to constituents’ faces if he thought it would get their vote.
“I’m going to go along with what people want to hear, even if it’s a lie, because I don’t have to stand up to my convictions anyway,” Bradburn told me at the time.
Fifteen years later, I still sometimes think of that line when covering current campaigns.
Bradburn’s position was, of course, beyond cynical. But I believe his point was that candidates will sometimes make statements or promises with the sole purpose of getting elected, whether those statements or promises can ultimately pass the sniff test for accuracy.
I have thought of it recently while covering Guelph’s latest municipal election campaign. Some of the statements being floated by various candidates are simply not true, or have been presented in a manner which could, intentionally or otherwise, confuse voters.
Here, in no particular order, are a few examples.
1. Taxes are out of control: No, they’re not. In fact, the 3.66 per cent increase approved by the current council for 2010 is the lowest increase in more than six years, and was achieved during a terrible recession. It’s easy for candidates to score points with the electorate by saying taxes are too high and promising to reduce them, but this is rarely feasible.
Mayoral candidate David Birtwistle pledged at the start of the campaign to impose a one-year moratorium on tax increases, but by the time the debates rolled around was qualifying this by adding he would do so “if that is possible.”
Realistically, it’s not. Without expansions, it costs about $8 million more each year to operate the city, with most of this coming from tax revenue. The only way to hold the line on taxes is through deep service cuts, which the majority of councillors would hopefully not support just to meet one person’s misguided campaign promise.
2. Spending is out of control: Again, not so much. The city has doled out a lot of money this year, as evidenced by the number of ongoing construction projects, but keep in mind two-thirds of that work is being funded by the provincial or federal governments.
This summer, credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s confirmed the city’s AA credit rating, suggesting the city’s planned expenditures are manageable and the debt load under control.
During this term, council approved a new debt management policy and has set new rules around capital projects which require that a manageable funding source be in place before the project gets underway.
3. There is no justification for a new main library: Given the price tag attached to this capital project, it would be handy for several candidates if this statement was true. It’s not.
At an all-candidates ‘meet and greet’ Wednesday evening, Ward 2 candidate Andy Van Hellemond showed me a set of figures he believes proves we don’t need a new main library. The table — which I subsequently confirmed with library staff on Thursday — indicates the total number of items loaned out by the main, and at the time only, branch in 1980 was about 525,000.
In 2009, the Guelph Public Library loaned out 1.8 million items, with about 700,000 of these coming out of the main branch. Clearly there is still a demand for library services in the core, and with Guelph’s population about to balloon by 50,000 residents — with a significant number of them downtown — it is reasonable to believe this demand will remain.
Paying for a new library is another matter altogether, and the project has been put on hold while the city looks for a manageable funding source, as outlined under point number 2.
Trumpeting that fact, however, is unlikely to score the challengers many points.