LETTERS: Amalgamation conversation more than ‘idle chatter’

LETTERS: Amalgamation conversation more than ‘idle chatter’

Editor: Re: Talk of amalgamation is simply ‘idle chatter ,’ Sept. 11.


Re: Talk of amalgamation is simply ‘idle chatter,’ Sept. 11.

I take issue with Frank Bucholtz’s comments in his article on talk of the amalgamation of White Rock and Surrey being idle chatter. He stated that, “White Rock taxpayers, for the most part, are ready to pay more and much prefer a council that is focused solely on their city and not the sprawling and varied communities within Surrey.”

Is this anecdotal, or is there some research that has been done to support this? I’d like to know because I suspect that if the taxpayers in White Rock knew how much it is really costing them compared to Surrey, they might also take issue.

A relative that lives just across 16 Avenue in South Surrey, with a property that is assessed almost identically to ours, pays $1,176 less per year for taxes.

When you add in the cost of water annually, that amount comes to $1,561 annually.

That $1,561, compounded annually at three per cent over 10 years, comes to $18,432.

If a person were to live in White Rock for 20 years, that amount becomes a whopping $43,203. Are people in White Rock really OK with that? Quite honestly, I’d rather have the cash.

Businesses merge or acquire in order to get the improved economies of scale that comes with a larger organization. When the next civic elections come around, I sincerely hope that someone will make the idea of amalgamation a key issue.

We pay a lot more than Surrey and when I look around, I don’t see where White Rock is getting ahead. Maybe it’s time that our civic leaders stopped considering the possibility to be idle chatter.

Bruce McIntosh, White Rock