Introduction

The consultations have ended, the delegations have finished, the decisions have been reached, and the verdict is: a 7.51% tax increase to existing Burlington home and business owners. The overall increase to our tax bill will be 5.82%.

If memory serves back when this process started the city was talking about 3.79%. How we ended up with 5.82% is still a mystery. Along the way, the city kicked out different numbers and estimates with such regularity that most of us were left totally befuddled.

BRAG repeatedly railed against what we felt were a number of inappropriate and unnecessary expenses. We even put together a 14-page report with a number of constructive proposals and changes that could and should have warranted a serious investigation. When BRAG’s President, Eric Stern, challenged both the city’s calculations and the reluctance to look at changes, he was taken to task for being disrespectful.

Give credit where credit is due. The city’s communication strategy around this budget was masterful and nothing short of brilliant. They leveraged every social media channel and media forum to get their story out. It left many of us scratching our heads in disbelief, and wondering if we were living in an alternate universe. Don’t kid yourself though. This wasn’t an accident.

The Time Honoured Art of Gaslighting

What the city was engaged in was gaslighting, pure and simple. What is gaslighting you may ask? Simply it is a ploy in which one person or entity engages in various actions that would lead another to question their sanity and mental fitness. The term was popularized in the 1940s in a movie of the same name. In the film, a husband employs many different acts to isolate his wife, an heiress, and eventually steal from her. It’s an excellent film, so I won’t spoil the plot for you.

The movie is available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYmtzaHwCKo

One of the critical elements in gaslighting is an imbalance in the power dynamic, sort of like the difference between individual citizens and a corporation not dissimilar to the City of Burlington. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia I thought was very revealing:

“Gaslighting involves two parties: the “gaslighter”, who persistently puts forth a false narrative in order to manipulate, and the “gaslighted”, who struggles to maintain their individual autonomy. Gaslighting is typically effective only when there is an unequal power dynamic or when the gaslighted has shown respect to the gaslighter.”

Not surprisingly, gaslighting is very prevalent in our modern political structure. Read this interpretation on the interrelationship between communications and politics in our society:

“In the 2008 book State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, the authors contend that the prevalence of gaslighting in American politics began with the age of modern communications:

To say gaslighting was started by… any extant group is not simply wrong, it also misses an important point. Gaslighting comes directly from blending modern communications, marketing, and advertising techniques with long-standing methods of propaganda. They were simply waiting to be discovered by those with sufficient ambition and psychological makeup to use them.”

Finally, Wikipedia offers an extremely telling evaluation of some of the harmful effects of gaslighting:

Gaslighting is a way to control the moment, stop conflict, ease anxiety, and feel in control. However, it often deflects responsibility and tears down the other person. Some may gaslight their partners by denying events, including personal violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

An Interesting Metaphor

Here’s an example of how gaslighting might occur in another setting. Assume we have a family of four:  a husband, a wife, and two children. Assume the wife is an excellent cook. She bakes an apple pie, her husband’s favourite. After dinner, she serves the pie. Everyone has a piece, and there is some leftover which she puts in the fridge. In the night the husband comes downstairs and raids the refrigerator hoping to have a piece of pie. There is none there. The next morning he asks who ate the pie. His wife tells him he ate the last slice while watching the football game. He denies this occurred. The kids deny having eaten the pie too.

That day his wife bakes another pie, this time pecan. The wife, the husband, and the two children all have a piece of pie after dinner. There is some leftover. His wife puts the remaining pie in the refrigerator. Before going to bed the husband looks in the refrigerator. The leftover pie is still there. In the night he comes downstairs for a piece of pie. There is no pie in the fridge. There is only an empty pie dish in the sink. The next morning he asks his wife if she ate the pie. She said no. Ditto the kids. Again, his wife insinuates that the husband ate the pie, which he categorically denies.

That night his wife bakes a cherry pie. At dinner, everyone has a piece. Again, there is some leftover which his wife puts in the fridge. Before going to bed the husband who, by now, is deeply suspicious, checks the fridge to ensure the pie is still there. It is. However, rather than going upstairs to bed, he decides to sleep in the living room next to the refrigerator in the kitchen. In the night he hears the refrigerator door open. He leaps up from the couch, rushes into the kitchen, and confronts one of his kids who is holding the pie. “I don’t mind you eating pie” says the husband, “but when I asked who ate it why did you deny it”?  The kid replies “Well, it wasn’t really a meal, but a snack, and besides, no one else wanted any and I didn’t think anyone would notice”.

A Time for Reflection

My little metaphor highlights an important truth about gaslighting. You can fabricate an alternate reality, conjure up different interpretations, adjust the facts and events to suit your assessment of a situation, try to persuade others they are “losing it”, and then, when all else fails, offer up a lame excuse for your actions and behaviour.

The problem though is that, in the end, reality and truth will ultimately prevail. For instance, when I look at my tax bill next year, I’ll bet the increase is a lot more than the 3.79% the city started with. As a community, we are still paying for a lot of things (e.g. Love Your Neighbour program; Service Burlington; etc.) that offer marginal value and limited utility. And, despite hearing words like “engagement” and “consultation” the City of Burlington isn’t really listening, and, if truth be known, they really don’t give a damn either. How else can one explain the dismissive response to BRAG’s 14-page report on recommended changes and improvements?

In summary, like the husband in my little metaphor, it wasn’t Eric Stern who ate the pie, and it wasn’t BRAG who offered contradictory and confusing messaging throughout the budget review process. Going forward, BRAG isn’t going to settle for excuses, or stop looking for improvements, and certainly not because the delicate sensibilities of one Councillor were offended. Rather, we’ll be sleeping right next to the refrigerator watching carefully to see who actually takes the pie.

Here are two examples of our council interacting with city staff over the tax increase:

Ann Marie Coulson – Manager, Financial Planning and Tax – explains how a resident might calculate a tax increase. For information on how to calculate the tax increases using your bills visit: How do I … | Burlington Residents’ Action Group

Watch Craig Millar, Burlington’s CFO, describe a 7.5% tax increase as 3.79% in response to a question from Councillor Sharman. The city web page showing the increase is included at the end of the video. When you combine Burlington’s operating and capital budgets Craig Millar is the CFO of an organization that spends close to $500 Million a year.

Here’s a quick history of this project.

2017 – the Board of Education considers closing two high schools in Burlington.

2020 – June 30 – Bateman High School closes.

2021 – June – The school board declared Bateman as surplus. 

2021 – June 23 – Burlington issues a press release: 

City of Burlington to submit expression of interest to purchase surplus Bateman High School site; partner with Brock University – City of Burlington

2021 – December 14 – Council approved $3 million for a preliminary design (report EICS 20-21).

There was no mention of a total project cost at that time. The 2021 Engagement Matters report stated: “Preliminary engagement has occurred with key stakeholders and partners. As part of the scope of work outlined in the RFP, a public engagement plan will be developed and delivered in the future as a fundamental component of the environmental, preliminary design, and architectural and engineering services.”

The city did not present a public engagement plan until after the contract for Phase One was issued.

2022 – April – Councilor Shawna Stolte is sanctioned for stating, in late 2021, “the reality is that the final cost will be well above $50M.” Councilor Stolte lost a week’s pay, she did break the rules, but she was also being honest with the public.

2022 – May – Burlington starts public engagement on the Bateman project without presenting costs or the need for additional parking. The video is available here: https://www.getinvolvedburlington.ca/bateman-highschool/widgets/149117/videos/10649

2022 – October 26th – Municipal elections are held across Ontario and our mayor and councilors are re-elected.

2022 – November 22 – The city announces a land swap, plus $7.9 million, with the Board of Education and Burlington acquires the Bateman property. https://www.burlington.ca/en/news/city-of-burlington-completes-deal-to-purchase-robert-bateman-high-school.aspx

2022 – November 25 – The city announces the cost is now over $72 million. https://www.burlington.ca/en/news/redesign-adaptive-re-use-and-costing-plan-proposed-for-former-robert-bateman-high-school-building.aspx

While there are many unusual aspects to the Bateman project one that stands out is that before the election there was no mention of the building containing asbestos, apparently, this was public knowledge. After the election information started to appear about the true cost of the renovation. The project is on track to cost over $100 million. Much of the renovated building will be leased by Brock University and The Haltech Regional Innovation Centre.

John Best states “I submit that the city engaged in deliberate obfuscation of the financial scope of the project, as they engaged in public consultation. Indeed, those members of the public who participated in surveys and town halls had no idea for what they were actually providing buy-in, making the public consultation piece a sham“.

The full Bay Observer article and the report from the Integrity Commissioner is here (December 4th, 2024).

Good morning and thank you for your time today.

The “Stop the 7​.​5% Burlington Property Tax Increase” petition has been presented to council. Twelve hundred and forty-seven people signed the petition asking for a zero percent tax increase. The multi-year forecast called for 8.9%, by asking for zero we were hoping to meet somewhere in the middle, at 4.4%, oh well.

I have to say I was surprised to see Burlington get out early again this year with the fictional “4.97%” overall tax increase.

It was interesting to watch Mr. Basit present a 4.97% on November 4th when the Halton Police budget had been made public on October 30th. Did Mr. Basit knowingly misrepresent the truth?

On November 18^th I listened to Leah Bortolotti talk about 6.7 million people visiting the website annually. I did another double-take. For a dose of reality, only 200,000 people live in Burlington. Are we expected to believe that every person in Burlington visits the website an average of 33 times a year? How many of these visits are to book the kids into a swim class? More confusing is that the budget document states on page 48 “our website—with its 1.5 million annual users”.

You have approved $148,000 for an SEO Marketing position. What is the payback?

Will there be a staff reduction in Service Burlington because people can find information themselves? Will there be KPIs to monitor this or is this just another overhead cost?

What residents need is information, not marketing spin, Google can make that information searchable. Adding a web marketing SEO position will slow down the posting of information making that information less accessible to taxpayers. Do you remember the taxpayers?  The people who pay for this.

The mayor talks about training bus drivers and then those drivers take jobs in other cities as a justification for higher pay. This statement is not supported by the 5.3% turnover number presented on November 4^th. A rate of 5.3% is lower than any private sector group except for heads of organizations and executives at 3.8%. This indicates the city has the right mix of salary, benefits and working conditions. An average, across-the-board, salary increase of 4.58% when inflation is 2.5% sounds high.

My theme today is clarity. Residents deserve factual information, clearly presented on the city’s website, by staff and the council, without the deft hand of a communications department spinning that information for the benefit of our elected representatives and city staff. I resent being taxed to pay for information to be marketed to me.

Looking ahead to 2026, what considerations are being made for a conservative Federal government and severe cuts to the housing accelerator fund? Much of the expected $21,000,000 may evaporate.

In terms of provincial funding, what happens if the city does not meet its housing targets and no provincial funds are available?

Burlington is building out community centers, transit, etc. for people who may or may not move into the community. What happens if the builders don’t build and the people don’t materialize? Is it time for more prudent cost controls?

The Burlington Residents’ Action Group submitted to this council, in writing, 14 pages of possible cost savings and economies of scale that the city could consider.

I’ve watched many council meetings, people who ask for money often receive money, and people who ask for cuts often receive nothing.

Why are lower tax increases important?

Lower increases leave people with more money for heat pumps and EVs.

Lower increases reduce renovictions by landlords who, through rent control, can only increase rents by 2.5%. This will reduce homelessness and help to “solve the crisis”.

Lower increases leave more money in people’s pockets, reducing food bank visits and crime, and lower the overall cost of policing.

I’ll conclude with, Your Worship, you win, for now, you hold all the cards, residents are not given enough time to review the budget, the budget does not include explanations for the programs, or what the return on the “investment” will be, and requests for details go unanswered. Congratulations on passing another huge budget increase without the community understanding what the percentage is or what the dollars are for!

What is happening with taxes in Burlington and why is the increase percentage so confusing?

The amount of revenue the city collects from Burlington property taxes will increase by 8.3% in 2025. New homes and condos, referred to as new assessments, will offset about .75% of this increase, leaving existing taxpayers with a 7.51% tax increase to line 1, the M-Municipal line on our tax bills. If the new assessment dollars don’t come in the way the city expects them to the “Tax Rate Stabilization” reserve fund will be used to make up for any shortfall.

Where does the 5.76% number come from?

If you look at the total tax bill, including taxes from Halton Region, Halton Police, and the Board of Education, our total tax bill will go up 5.76%. At this time, December 5th, 2024, the region has not voted on their increase so things may change.