He explained in French his logic as follows (my translation): "For water and sewage, when a new pipe is provided in an area, users are forced to connect to it at their own expense. If we do that for a service as essential as water, I would have difficulty in not adopting the same vision for public transportation".
Therefore, if I properly understand Félio, the city should not subdize in any way the cost of the public bus service operating out of Clarence-Rockland. He favoured going from subsidizing 22% of those costs as adopted last year, to 0% this year, leaving users to pay the total cost of that service. There is no need to do PhD level mathematics to conclude that such a formula would render the price of the bus pass unaffordable for many users and more expensive than simply taking one's car. I bet that would expose the bus service to the risk of coming to a grinding halt, due to lack of users. Already users which must finance some 78% of the bus service cost will see an increase this year of 13% to the price of the bus pass, going from $216 to $245 a month. Félio's doctrine favored eliminating the 22% subsidy by the city, therefore transferring that amount as an additional increase to the price of the bus pass in order to completely fund the operation of the bus service.
Félio's concept claiming that users should pay the complete costs of non-essential services provided by the city logically implies in my view that the city should, for example, in no way finance the operation of its public libraries, and that those costs should be entirely and uniquely funded by users of that service. Based on Félio's political doctrine, all other non-essential services would need to be funded the same way.
By way of information, I'm told that the city of Ottawa subsidizes 40% of the costs of its bus service. I can hear users of its bus service say: "Thank goodness Félio is not a municipal councillor over there!".
Frankly, in my opinion occasionally Félio has a tendency to publicly showcase a political judgment which seems to me indirectly proportinal to his PhD IQ. I beleive his doctrine requiring users should pay all costs of non-essential municipal services would simply be a retrograde step in the development of a fair and just community committed to enhancing the quality of life and standard of living for one and all; it would simply codemn many of those services to be eliminated in my view. Is that what the Clarence-Rockland taxepayers want? I really do not think so.
« Back to index