An interesting side issue re municipal power. In Alberta municipal governments have had some of their powers removed to regulate local development, specifically hog industries. There have been effective campaigns in some Allberta municipalities to restrict large hog operations. It is my understanding that now the provincial government will have the power to approve or disapprove new facilities. I am wondering if the same thing might happen in Manitoba where there have been several effective municipal campaigns against expansion.
Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:43 AM Subject: [PEN-L:28849] Re: Question on US local government revenues > I know nothing about the US, but in New Zealand our centre-left > Labour-led government is proposing to give local government considerably > wider powers. I'm not sure how that effects the ability to tax, but it > seems to be modelled on the activities of the City Council in > Christchurch (where I live) which was dubbed "The People's Republic of > Christchurch" by the right-wing Business Roundtable (which has been worn > as a badge of honour by the city since then). That was because, while > other councils were going the way of the neoliberal central government > of the 80's and 90's, cutting back services and privatising everything > else, Christchurch was a haven of relative enlightenment, compensating > for the cutbacks to some degree, preserving (and enhancing) > council-owned services and firms, becoming the largest landlord in the > country with low-cost housing, initiating local economic development > programmes, financing art festivals, etc. To do this it had to stretch > the rules and the new laws legitimise such behaviour. > > The widened powers are being strongly opposed by business interests such > as the Roundtable because they are worried that they will be used by > local government to back out of the neoliberalism of the past two > decades and expand the role of local government. > > So much so good. There are some flies in the ointment. Firstly, while > the new law bans privatisation of many services (such as water), it > still allows public-private partnerships for up to 15 years, which is > the cause of considerable opposition, based on experience here and > abroad. Secondly, the minister responsible for the bill, Sandra Lee, > stepped down before the election that was held last weekend. That is > part of a much messier story about the bust-up of the left party, the > Alliance, which was in the governing coalition. > > Bill > > Bill Burgess wrote: > > > I've scanned the footnotes and definitions for data for US local > > government finances, but can't figure out: > > > > Do state and the federal govt. pay property taxes to local governments > > in the US? Or, do they pay a grant in lieu of property taxes (as in > > Canada), and if so, is it included under property tax revenues (as in > > Canada), or under intergovernmental transfer revenue? (I'm aware > > that District of Columbia is a special case.) > > > > There is currently a big campaign underway in Canada to give municipal > > governments more fiscal (and even constitutional!) power. It is > > usually motivated as necessary for cities to become more 'competitive' > > locations in the world market, especially as federal and provincial > > governments withdraw or download service responsibilities to local > > governments. The US is being cited as a **positive example** of the > > ability of (some) local governments to tax local income, sales, > > payroll, hotel rooms, etc., while in Canada local governments are > > (generally) restricted to taxing only real property. I'm trying the > > show that more fiscal power for individual local governments generally > > means more disparity in the public goods and services local > > governments provide. > > > > Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. > > > > Bill Burgess > > >
