Re: Precisely the issue, Observer Feedback, April 1.
The idea of 100 per cent provincially and federally sounds absolutely fantastic. Problem, there is one taxpayer, you and I.
Perhaps in a perfect world perhaps we could have everything we want. Regardless it is the taxpayer that pays; it’s only a matter of how it is apportioned, federally or provincially. So assume Quesnel got this funding – now every other city, village and town would be entitled to the same level of funding for recreational facilities.
Can we afford this? Does government have a magical pot of gold? No, the money comes from revenues and taxes collected.
Where’s our fair share?
Surely it is reasonable to expect some of the hundreds of millions which flow out of our region finds its way back here for more than basic infrastructure and diminished public programs. Over the past 10 years we have had third floor development at GR Baker, Baker Lodge replacement and Dunrovin upgrades, Phase I of the College of New Caledonia and now Phase II to name a few.
We have increased training for doctors, nurses, other medical professions, trades and technologies, is that not more than basic infrastructure and diminished public programs? That equates to millions of $’s to Quesnel. Nor should we forget that every other resource community in B.C. contributes to the economy.
As a past co-chair I want to see the Multi-Centre proceed, not with 100 per cent provincial and federal funding, as I can visualize Pandora’s Box. As I said we need to be aware of the debt that is accumulating, our ability to pay, where the priorities are.
Mary Glassford