One of the most frustrating things about watching politicians rationalize spending without a business case, is their minimizing the cost through use of 33 1/3 cent dollars, “dollarettes”.
Fudging the real capital cost goes something like this, “If we get equal shares from the Feds and the Province for our $15 million Arena, then it’s really only going to cost $5 million.” Well that might be true if the taxpayers funding the other 2/3rds of their new ice palace are from Mars. They aren’t. They are from Rothesay. Why?
Because all of Rothesay’s demands for money are totalled up and considered within the limited funding frameworks federal and provincial funding agencies are working with. If there is any money in their coffers for Rothesay, then it is an absolutely finite amount.
What we spend on an arena will not be available for other infrastructure needs. Money we might get from the feds and the province is money from a zero sum game.
Later this year, Rothesay will join the long lineup for money with other municipalities, all of whom should have established their priorities to be best aligned with the priorities of the other two levels of government. The successful municipalities will be the ones who have best played the game.
In pursuing as a priority the new Arena, which is a “want” not a “need”, Rothesay risks getting nothing. Worse, if in the unlikely situation that Rothesay does get arena funding, that may be all we get, period. Then the total cost of fixing our water and sewer or building safer streets will be borne by local taxpayers alone.
Why is the 33 1/3 cent dollar a poor argument ? Because today’s public sector decision makers don’t use it in their benefit cost analysis nor do they use it to set priorities. Our local politicians who use it demonstrate a poor understanding of the arguments that resonate with the funding agencies.
On Nancy Grant’s facebook page, this dollarette argument is made all the more specious by using 33 1/3 cent dollars for her new arena option, but using 100 cent dollars to contrast the more fiscally responsible option of fixing the existing one.
In other words, if you compare apples to apples, you have to assume cost-shared dollars for both options. Then, the shared “Cost” of new is $5 million (plus the doubled operating cost of two buildings) versus the substantially lower, $1.2 million for the cost-shared, renovated arena (with no added operating costs).
The lowered request for money to the feds and province also means that there just might be a little extra cash left to pay for some of Rothesay’s “needs” like water and sewer and roads.
The reality is that the $80 – $90 million earmarked for New Brunswick has to be shared among communities with a combined funding requirement many times more than what is available. So the 33 1/3 cent crowd are living a pipedream if they think we can go to the well for an arena that we haven’t made a business case for and then return for a bigger ask to fix our water and sewer system.
It appears Candidates like Nancy Grant, Wells, Mcguire, Alexander, and Lewis, are still pitching the new arena option at a time when the Federal priorities are clearly elsewhere and the Province is preaching extreme austerity.
By doing so, they are showing little connection with economic and political reality, something voters should be concerned about on May 9th.
In the meantime, time to turn your Star Destroyer around, Councillors, and return to earth.