‘Talking the talk, but not walking the walk’


We received our utility bill for last monthÖ $94 and change.

I was a little shocked, as we are not living in the house this month and are not consuming any water, expensive sewer services, garbage pickup or recycling. I wonder how much higher it will be when we are actually living in our home.

This is a prime example of what happens when the council of the day (not this council) makes decisions on services without looking at the long-term effects of those decisions on the folks in the town they are elected to represent. Utility costs have almost doubled.

When asked in the past about why we are hooked up to the Red Deer system, at great expense, the response has always been, “what could we do? We had no choiceÖ.”

There are always choices. But in this case, the choice has led to hardships for older pensioners. At one stage, I suggested to Helen Dietz, the chief administrative officer, that a lower minimum consumption level be established for the low-volume users such as single seniors, widowers, the handicapped living on assistance and so on.

I was told it would be looked at. Nothing ever happened and I never heard a word back about why.

This is just one of many examples of talking the talk, but not walking the walk. These are the kinds of actions that make people mad and clamouring for change.

My little rant is over, but I hope it communicates to council a bigger message. Think about what your decisions will look like down the road; after you have retired from public service, voluntarily or otherwise.

We are stuck with your decisions long after you are gone.

Chuck Blanchard



About Author

We welcome letters to the editor. Letters submitted for publication must bear the name, address, phone number and email address of the writer. Letters should be kept to 500 words or less. We will edit for grammar, punctuation, spelling, length and libel.