I have always had a passion for politics with an unwavering faith in the value of comprehensive policy that has a long term focus. However, the ‘long term’ approach seems to be increasingly replaced by short term ideology.
Here are a couple of examples. The promise by our MLA Mr. Guthrie that he will “…not be letting it go” referring to his determination to get Highway 1A twinned, widened and expanded. Here are my issues with this promise.
Although this project was allocated 597 million dollars in the recent provincial budget, the fact is Mr. Guthrie is only one voice in a government that seems willing to cut almost anything for the sole purpose of eliminating the deficit. What will happen if future revenue estimations and/or projected cost savings are not met? My guess is this project will once again be delayed.
That being said, this riding did switch to NDP in 2015 and the NDP candidate only lost by a few hundred votes in the 2019 election. The UPC party might decide that this is one seat that needs something substantial to hold it.
Two, I’ve seen too many announcements from the mayor, town council and MLA's in the past to believe this project will actually take place. Is this yet another politician trying to capitalize on any bit of information and progress for this project?
Three, what services that we rely on to maintain our standard of living will be curtailed or eliminated to make this highway happen?
I am not saying this project isn't needed, but I still think there have been other solutions that Cochrane and/or the provincial government could have implemented for the last decade and/or could be implementing now for a fraction of the cost.
Closer to home we have the recent council debate about a fire pit within a 2.25 acre section of land in Fireside. I applaud Coun. McFadden and Coun. Fedeyko for their contributions in this discussion, but my point - for the purpose of this letter - is that parks/greenspaces, with or without a fire pit, add long term value for a homeowner. If we fail to recognize the long term benefits that this type of planning offers, all of Cochrane loses.
I believe what Albertan’s expected with their vote in the last provincial and federal election was for a financially responsible government. I don’t believe that the majority of Albertan’s wanted nor expected a government that uses politically crafted ‘solutions’ based on strict adherence to a self-defined doctrine of ‘austerity’.
Another way of saying this is to question if the UCP government ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’. This is an old saying but is defined as, ‘an expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole. In this case the ‘details’ I’m referring to is the doctrine of austerity.
I’m not saying I have all the answers. I even support a number of the current cost cutting actions of the UCP. I personally don’t spend money that I don’t have but I am always careful to ensure I’m not sacrificing the long term needs of my family when I do consider cost cutting.
From Edmonton to Cochrane, from big decisions to small decisions, we need to ask ourselves: Are we willing to sacrifice everything and anything now or do we use a more realistic timeline that will achieve the same goal of spending within our means but also considers what these decisions will mean for the future?
- Dan Cunin
