The tradition of select Saskatchewan cities' mayors giving "state-of-the-city" addresses to the local business community is based on bland mimicry of the annual State-of-the-Union address given by the President of the United States. The latter address, broadcast from a combined session of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, takes over American TV during the same week that the Mayor of Prince Albert gives his speech. Fortunately, there is no parallel parade of pompous puffery in either Ottawa or Regina.
In Prince Albert, the speeches are given at a luncheon sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The luncheon is always sold out in advance. It is held at either the Travelodge or the Marlboro Hotel. I personally believe that the speech would be more relevant to the community if it were given at the West Flat Community Centre, Nordale Hall, East End Hall, or Parkland Hall. It would also be fair to rotate the event among these locations, but I'm not sure those venues would sell out . . . .
Both the State-of-the-Union address and the State-of-the-City speech are characterized by extreme enthusiasm, lengthy recitations of the preceding year's spectacular successes, and minimal respect for verifiable fact (see "Incoming - U238!" below). The speeches by Dubya Bush (thankfully, now exiled to his homes in Texas) were noteworthy for their simplicity - a quality that miraculously produced bouts of wild applause and serious harrumphs from the assembled elite in the US Capitol Building equal to the groans and expletives emanating from Canadians who watched the broadcasts.
State-of-the-City addresses by our current mayor distinguish themselves with exceptionally bad grammar (see "Hunh?!?" below). Whatever the source of these errors, fear of offending His Worship blunts any corrective impulses. A closer look at what was said last week illuminates a few of the more glaring examples.**
Hunh ?!?
Persistent use of bad grammar and syntax indicates three things: the speaker is poorly educated, has no desire to change, and has no interest in being clearly understood by his audience. Sadly, people for whom grammar and syntax are important are frequently called "anal retentive." In defense of linguistic wardens everywhere, I think of proper use of a language (English, Cree, French, or any other) as showing respect for the listener's intelligence, and simultaneously trying to make it as easy as possible for them to comprehend the ideas being conveyed. The following recitation of crime statistics, reproduced verbatim from page 6 of the text of the Mayor's January 22 State-of-the-City address, assaults the reader's intelligence.
"Crimes Against Person is up marginally at 2% with 15 more offences.
Crimes Against Property is down 9% our single biggest gain - nearly 300 less offenses.
B&E's at residences, the one that affects most people, is down 34%."
The errors in these three sentences are: incorrect use of singular verbs, spelling inconsistency, a non sequitur [Latin for "does not follow logically"], and incorrect choice of a quantifier. The corrected version of the text, punctuated so that it can be easily read and clearly understood, is as follows [red ink indicates changes].
"'Crimes against persons' are up marginally, at 2%, with 15 more offenses.
'Crimes against property' are down 9%. This category is our single biggest
improvement, representing nearly 300 fewer offenses.
'Break-and-enters at residences', the crime that affects most people, are down 34%."
That's what the Mayor should have said. Here's what he actually said, punctuated accordingly.
"'Crimes against persons' are up marginally, 2%, about 15 more offenses.
'Crimes against property' is down 9%, our single biggest gain, nearly 300 less offenses.
And here's one that comes close to home, because it's about your home. And B-and-Es - break-and-entries-at-residence - is down 34%. That's a third. Thirty-four per cent. Way to go."
Apparently, the noun "crimes" is unequivocally both plural and singular, being "down 9%" is a "gain," and I will always have "less" dollars than you.
Please Clarify - Where's the Money?
The Mayor said that the average residential home in PA is selling for $180,126, "a 34% increase from last year and a 38% increase from just two years ago. Remember, as a home owner, all of this value goes in your wallet, not the taxman's."
I bought a home in 2008 - for less than $180,126. It was way over-priced, but still cheaper than renting, since my rent was being increased by 60% on July 1. The "value" of my home went into the wallets of the we-won't-repair-anything-the-house-inspector-found-or-reduce-the-price sellers, not my wallet. The municipal taxman's wallet will get fatter three years down the road, when revaluation occurs in 2012 - and I'm partially to blame, since I paid an excessive price for my home. "Remember, as a home owner," house re-sale values in PA have dropped since the summer of 2008, so my house's "value" is down. Fortunately, its "value" is irrelevant until I try to sell it or I can't make the payments. Of course, if I sold it tomorrow I would have no place to live, but I would have the pride of knowing that the sale boosted the numbers the real estate board and the Mayor crow about.
Maybe I should stop fretting, and accept what the Mayor says on page 8 of his State-of-the-City address: "It's All About Money! ['Repeat, repeat' was added for the live audience.] It's All About Money!" I would cheerfully acquiesce, but I can't help thinking this is an echo of Gordon Gekko (a character played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 movie Wall Street), whose creed was "Greed is good."
How Does a "Target" Get Carved in Stone?
In his speech, the Mayor said, "I assure you that in 2009 we will target a zero increase in taxes and do everything we can to reach that goal . . . That might be subject to some applause. I assumed you were in shock."
I'm confused: when he wore his hat as Chair of the Police Commission at the council meeting 10 days earlier, the Mayor had no problem approving a 6.92% increase to the police service operating budget (set at $9.979 million for 2009). Seriously, he gave State-of-the-City luncheon attendees notice that "zero" was a 2009 property tax increase "target," then let his exuberance get the better of him when being interviewed by the media afterward, suddenly declaring to them that there would be no increase in property taxes. There's definitely a devil in that detail.
Incoming - U238!
Like many civic leaders in Prince Albert, the Mayor is excited about the potential for uranium industry expansion. In his State-of-the-City address, he pointed out that "Currently, we mine the uranium, mill it into yellowcake, and then truck it to Ontario to be transformed into fuel for reactors. It's a simple scenario - uranium supplies are lower than expected, demand is growing, prices are going up." If prices are "going up," then maybe we should all buy stock in these companies.
Unfortunately, I can't find evidence that uranium prices have been"going up" lately - and I looked really hard. Specifically, this
graph, reproduced from InfoMine.com on January 26, 2009, shows the price of uranium for a two-year period that began on January 26, 2007. It's a bit hard to see, but the price today is $51 US per pound - higher than the two-year low of $44, set in late October 2008 - but also $85 per pound less than the high of $136 set in late June 2007 (that's a drop of 63% in 19 months). The blue line in the graph tells the story best: over the past two years, uranium prices have not been "going up," they've been falling. You might want to hold off on the share purchases.
On the other hand, maybe my analysis is too short-term. Looking at a ten-year graph of uranium prices, like the one on the right, we see that the blue line does rise. The $50-per-pound price was first achieved in late summer 2006. For the six-and-a-half years prior to June 2005, however, the price was always under $25 per pound - less than half the January 26, 2009 price of $51.
Iogen - Again, and Again, and Again . . . et cetera
If I had a dollar for every time in the last ten years that I've heard someone say the Iogen ethanol plant announcement is just around the corner, I could pay my heating bill for the next six months. On January 22, 2009, the Mayor of PA said: "I believe this mega-project is a breath away from being announced." He proceeded to give us "the math" - $250 million in construction costs, with "630 direct and spin-off jobs upon completion."
I'm just a victim of reality, of course, but these claims don't seem to match the content of a May 12, 2008 article in our local daily newspaper, where the Reeve of the RM of Birch Hills, "who has been trying to bring such a plant to his community since 1999," states that "'There’d be 80 to 90 jobs at the [ethanol] plant,' with a spin-off effect of 1.4 to 1.7 jobs for each one at the facility." At the high end, then, Reeve Mickelson figures there would be 90+(90 x 1.7) new jobs - a total of 243. After 10 years of work on this file, the Reeve knows more than a bit about ethanol plants, so I think we should trust his numbers. That means that the 630 jobs claimed by the Mayor represent excess optimism of at least 387 jobs - or at least 159% more than what regional economic development planning for this development should take into account.
-----------------------------------------------------
Later today - the January 26, 2009 council meeting notes.
-----------------------------------------------------
* This evaluation of the January 22, 2009 State-of-the-City address by the Mayor of Prince Albert is based on a close comparison of the 13-page written version, posted on the city's web site, and the 33-minute video clip of the speech posted on www.paherald.sk.ca.
** Perhaps they should be projected onto the south wall of the Rawlinson Centre, or into the night sky by the casino's six over-sized spotlights, as a way of helping the city's young scholars avoid making the same mistakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment