The Capital Regional District is in danger of undermining the basic principle that has made the parkland levy such a success over the past 鈥�17 years.
The levy, which started at $10 a household and has now risen to $20, has always had a clear purpose 鈥� to acquire new parkland for the region. After a controversial introduction, citizens have accepted the value in paying into a fund that produces a tremendous legacy.
Money from the levy 鈥� supported by partners 鈥� has allowed the CRD to acquire 4,485 hectares of parkland.
We appreciate the wisdom that saw Beacon Hill Park protected 135 years ago, and treasure the green space. The levy has allowed the region to add the equivalent of almost 60 Beacon Hill Parks to regional parkland, something future generations will thank us for a century from now.
All but the most fervent anti-tax campaigners see value in that kind of targeted use of tax dollars. A 2016 CRD survey found 95 per cent of residents with an opinion supported continuing the parkland levy.
Now the CRD wants to explore changes to the tax. Instead of a clear mandate to acquire parkland, it is proposing new mandates that could include using the money to build new facilities in existing parks, or even pay for basic park maintenance. It proposes an online survey on four options next March.
A small change to the mandate could be useful, in allowing the CRD to use the money to increase public access to newly acquired parkland 鈥� building trails and parking lots and facilities such as playgrounds.
But anything beyond that erodes the basic principle behind the levy that led to its broad support.
It was to fund the creation of new parkland. Using the money for routine maintenance or development in existing parks means this is no longer a special levy, with a clear purpose. It鈥檚 simply part of property taxes, and that鈥檚 where it should be included.
Even proposing the change raises questions that could reduce support for the parkland levy.
Citizens have been told that the CRD needs the levy to acquire new parkland. The fund currently has a balance of $9.2 million, not a lot given the cost of property in the region.
But by saying the levy could be used to pay for routine maintenance of existing parks, the CRD is suggesting it is no longer needed to allow creating new parkland 鈥� the entire basis on which it was sold to the public. If that is true, the levy should be reduced or ended.
Special levies such as the parkland fund can be of great benefit. They tap citizens鈥� willingness to pay for specific measures that will improve life now, and in the future and could be used in other areas, such as housing.
The CRD鈥檚 willingness to abandon the basic principle behind the parkland levy is a backward step.
