Support for Maley Drive unexplained

Sudburians are in a significant, two-issue time period: 1) A new session of City of Greater Sudbury council meetings and, 2) An election to determine our federal representatives in Ottawa.

The proposed Maley Drive extension has exposed a glaring hole in the transparency, honesty and integrity of both groups toward us, the taxpayers.

The upcoming time period allows both an opportunity to recover somewhat.

Current CGS council has failed to inform taxpayers of any valid reasons for proceeding with the project, and has not even requested a presentation of the proposal for their review, consideration or debate.

Presumably, they prefer to lay any blame that may accrue on the shoulders of past councils.

This is disturbing considering their claims of transparency and their expectations that taxpayers instead of CGS management should identify savings of $6 million.

There is, apparently, in excess of $10 million already in reserve for the Maley Drive project with no verifiable need given for the project.

The balance of funding for the required CGS contribution to the project is expected to come from development charges over the next few years.

Therefore, saving $6 million would appear to be very simple. Considering there is a recognized $30- to $50-million shortfall per year in the roads maintenance budget, the obsession with Maley Drive becomes even more puzzling.

City council can demonstrate their transparency and honesty by calling an emergency debate on the proposal before moving any further towards implementation of the project.

By doing so, Sudburians will have an opportunity to find out if we made a mistake in electing the new council.

The provincial government has already pledged undying support for the project, so the electorate knows their position even though the reasons for that position are not known or understood.

The federal government position regarding the project has been made unclear by the outgoing government and local candidates of all parties seem unwilling to declare their support for, or resistance to funding the project.

The total project will cost taxpayers $200 million or more, will be the largest project undertaken by the city and will be done at the expense of increasing the deterioration of an already unacceptable infrastructure within the city.

Local federal candidates know this, and it is incumbent on all of them to state their position on the matter and the reasons why they are taking that position.

Only then can Sudbury taxpayers decide which of them we want in Ottawa.

Thomas Price
Whitefish