Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Capital expenses don't have to go onto the debt. Every year HRM builds new infrastructure with revenues from that year. HRM's capital budget is around $130M. In other words the stadium represents about a year's worth of capital expenses for the city.
|
Good point. HRM could easily afford to service debt financing of that magnitude if they simply made some reasonable cuts in other areas. Things like the boondoggle integrated mobility plan, the hugely bloated and dysfunctional city bureaucracy, the gold-plated pension plan - the opportunities are endless. I think the problem some have is what we have seen during this year's budget process, in that Council has not only shown no appetite whatsoever for restraint, but in fact has an insatiable thirst to spend even more on all sorts of unnecessary things, which will lead to a significant property tax increase not only this year but will also light the fuse on a taxation bomb that will go off in a few years time when growth slows and with it, HRM's existing gravy train of increasing revenues.
Most responsible organizations would simply make a decision yes or no and then figure out how to pay for it. In the case of HRM Council they typically do not have the "no" option on their agenda.