Fraught with danger

In the past month I’ve heard “Fraught with Danger” three times. Fraught is a word that we seldom use anymore, so to hear it so often roused my curiosity. I immediately understood what was meant when the Minister of Defense said our mission to Afghanistan was fraught with danger.

The next day a friend told me about a scheme to mine gold in Central America. When I suggested that this might be risky, he replied that it was fraught with danger. Having once bought shares in a gold mine, I knew that.

The next example was during the recall vote in California when a commentator said that the whole process was fraught with danger. Thinking of our up-coming and recent elections, I can see where anything political could be fraught with danger.

I asked my wife if ‘fraught’ was a word she would use in her classes, thinking that the expedition to Syracuse during the Peloponnesian War could be so described. When she replied that the students were mystified when she referred to a coup d'état, I tried to steer her away from the difficulty she would have using ‘fraught’, but my effort was fraught with false expectations.

Voting in our municipal election could be an exercise that is fraught with many things. The incumbents are pointing to their successes, although some might say that is a mighty thin platform. The new candidates are making promises, that if not impossible to keep, will be fraught with disappointment when they begin to learn just what they can and cannot do.

Anyone can promise to cut or even hold taxes without seeing all the background material. Anyone can promise to bring new businesses to the city, help keep young people in the city, speed up services at City Hall. Do they really believe that their predecessors and the public servants at the city haven’t been trying to do all these things?

Sure, we can all find examples to point our finger at and say we would do it differently. Sell off the serviced ‘parkland’ and public access lanes to the lakes for residential developers – sell the industrial land for next to nothing to attract investors. Is there any danger that if we establish that land in our industrial park is only worth a dollar a hectare that present property owners couldn’t ask for re-assessment on market value? Who will make up the difference in the lost tax revenue?

Why not apply for those grants, as one candidate proposes, for which we have to contribute only a third in matching funds? Those are great deals – if you have that 33% of funding available! I am amazed that municipalities all across Northern Ontario haven’t approached the Heritage Fund with applications. Or are these grants only for specific projects? Maybe, just maybe, that 33% is needed to keep our roads, water and sewers operational until they get the badly needed replacement. It is possible we’ll need every penny of current taxes just to meet inflationary costs in payroll, employee benefits and purchased services.

Perhaps we can reduce the level of services, but be sure you did not vote for the person who promised that before you complain about rink hours, transit routes or waiting for service in City Hall. Don’t complain about the lack of due process in planning when issues are pushed through without proper consideration in an effort to ‘speed’ things up at City Hall.

The municipal election can be fraught with danger, especially if we do not consider carefully whom we elect to represent us. We do not have the luxury of a California-style recall if things don’t work out – we get one chance to choose for the next three years.

Of course we could always stage a coup d'état.