From My Bottom Step

Fiscal responsibility is a trait that any municipal government needs to have a firm grasp on; knowing how and when to spend taxpayers money is essential for not only making citizens happy but for ensuring the overall success of any given city.

In the current economic times fiscal responsibility is more important than ever.

When it comes to the City of London and it’s fiscal responsibility is there a lack of competency?

Perhaps.

With economic times in the state they are currently in I would have thought that the City of London would be able to make appropriate decisions based on the needs of the city and the needs of those living within it.  Was I wrong in assuming this?

With London city council throwing a lifeline towards Orchestra London I begin to question how competent they are when it comes to fiscal responsibility.  Although it is fully understood that the City itself is not giving Orchestra London money but rather guaranteeing another loan it is seeking, one can wonder if it is the smartest thing for the city to do in current times.

This can be extended to the issues revolving around Storybook Gardens and how it continues to fall down time and time again and soon will be looking for more money to keep it a float, where sooner or later the question will be raise; “Should a failing asset continue to be supported?”.

These two examples are not abnormalities as most recently the fate of the Rib Fest and multiple other downtown festivals have been questioned, most times in the end coming down to money and the city’s support.  I am all for city festivals as I will be the first to admit that I enjoy them, however, when we face economic times like these I begin to wonder if our priorities are in the correct place.

Shouldn’t city council be concerned with more pressing matters rather than ensuring that two relatively un-popular and failing assets are kept afloat?  Just a question to be raised when we face a time when stretching a dollar is an essential skill to have.

Coun. David Winninger made the comment; “If we let this orchestra go, don’t let us ever call ourselves a creative city again.” ((http://www.lfpress.ca/)), but is this really the case?

Yes the creative city and the creative class can be tied to the orchestra and other similar assets, but is that really what makes up the core of a creative city?  I would argue no.

The creative city and more importantly the creative class find ways to make things work.  Although financial support from municipal governments is certainly a key factor I do not believe for a minute that it should be considered to be the defining factor.  The creative class have the mindset and the ability to be successful and to emerge at the top even in hard times, economic or otherwise.  Creativity, the ability to adjust to current social and economic times and the willingness to produce and create when resources are lacking are key characteristics of what the creative city is and who the creative class are.

So saying that if we let the orchestra go (an asset that in recent years has been sub-par) we can no longer call ourselves a creative city again is not appropriate in my mind.  Yes the orchestra is one form and example of what makes a creative city but by no means is it the anchor or essential in this city, ticket sales and the public support for the orchestra have proven this point.

So when it is all said and done I would question the ability of London’s city council to manage the city’s finances during the economic times we are currently in.  Is supporting failing assets the most appropriate thing to be doing? Should the city “leaders” be associating the concepts of the Creative City and the Creative Class with failing assets and the finances of the city?  Or should city council be looking towards the more responsible ways in which to spend it’s finances, whatever they may be.