Three
articles in Wednesday's Advocate paint an interesting picture
of the near future for this province. Between the front page (Like
it or lump it: province reneges on sewer funding) and
the Comment page (No
spending cuts means tax hikes are coming) lies
the real observation (Disruptive
innovation a boon to some business, a bane to others).
On
the Comments page, we can already see that the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation didn't get it completely right. There will indeed be
spending cuts, and these cuts affect municipalities (and therefore
taxpayers). But their logical conclusion is probably correct: we're
being softened up to accept tax hikes.
But
if we take the message of Jim Harris to heart — that disruptive
change creates a need to adapt or die — we can conclude that what's
happening in Alberta's economy is perfectly normal.
The
South Red Deer Regional Wastewater Commission is a partnership with
board membership from six municipalities, all of them growing, and
all of them needing newer, more sustainable infrastructure to handle
their growth.
You
can't grow your towns and counties without the ability to flush and
drain wastewater for treatment. All the partners agree that the most
efficient way to protect fresh water resources is to co-operate and
have one large, modern wastewater treatment plant.
They
realize it's better for all to build a sewage pipeline to one large
plant, than to build six small ones, and have local inefficiencies
add up to more pollution in the Red Deer River.
This
is a result of the kind of disruptive innovation that Harris talked
about, in his City Centre Stage address to the Donald School of
Business.
A
societal agreement that we need to take the best care possible of our
water resources, plus an economic need to support growth means that
towns, cities and counties need to co-operate to manage growth.
Managing
growth costs money. The municipalities have already spent a lot of
resources over eight years now, on a plan for a wastewater line from
Olds, to Bowden, to Innisfail, to Penhold, to Red Deer, and including
the counties in between. The province, realizing the benefits of such
a plan, promised to put up 90 per cent of the construction costs.
Now,
with economic disruption on Alberta's agenda, the provincial
government decided 80 per cent funding would be enough.
That's
a $10 million shortfall the municipalities will have to either tax
for, or transfer from other needed projects. As a result, some
commission members are asking themselves if this is all worth the
frustration and cost. Without the province's full commitment, the
chain will likely be broken.
The
disruptive innovation that Harris mentions is the fact that
municipalities can agree to co-operate on major projects that have
wider benefits for the whole province than for each of their own
ratepayers.
The
adaptation we need is from the province — it must honour its
funding agreement, even if it hurts politically.
Some
adaptation is also needed from the opposition in the legislature.
This obviously beneficial project cuts through municipalities that
are all represented by Wildrose Party MLAs.
Wildrose
has done nothing but scream for infrastructure funding delays or
outright cuts, ever since last year's election. With the growth of
economic problems in the province, these demands have only gotten
more strident.
Yet
the very cuts Wildrose demands threaten the ability of a huge area of
their ridings to grow in a sustainable way.
Alberta
is still adding population at a rate of about 80,000 people a year.
Those people have to live somewhere — and they would prefer to live
in a place where the toilets flush, without polluting their drinking
water.
If
this co-operative project is abandoned, new Albertans will tend to
settle in places not represented by Wildrose — because
infrastructure growth along the hotbed Hwy 2 corridor south of Red
Deer will have been set back by a decade.
Winners
and losers. Disruptive innovation, change and adaptation.
The
main thesis of the Alberta Taxpayers Federation article is true:
Albertans are being softened up for a tax hike.
The
disruption in our economy demands it. Or, alternatively, we can just
proceed with the old, inefficient solutions, and put up with more
pollution.
No comments:
Post a Comment