GREATER VANCOUVER Onus is on the provincial gov't to provide relief for homeowners Tens of thousands of homeowners have appealed their property assessments as part of a movement to compel Victoria to change its unjust, inflexible, and broken down municipal taxation ““system’’. Three factors have sparked the mass appeals: 1. The wild speculation in land prices, condoned and fostered by Victoria through its B.C. Place developers’ extravaganza. 2. The grim economic situa- tion. People face increases in the prices of nearly everything, while at the same time unemployment is at the highest level since the ion. 3. A feeling that such appeals will serve as insurance against ex- pected increases in municipal taxes as well. I and the other COPE alder- men and school trustees have been active supporters of the as- sessment appeal movement be- cause we want to maintain the standard of municipal and school board prorams, and because we knew that our citizens want relief from Victoria’s tax gouging at our expense. Victoria, on the other hand, is trying to place the blame on the municipalities’ and the school boards, trying to force cuts in ser- vices, and to get Victoria off the tax hot-seat. And they have their NPA and TEAM helpers on council and school board who go along with this Proposition 13 type of Reaganonics. But they have no facts to back themselves up, only their pre- judices and the big business in- terests they serve. What are the bottom line facts as far as Vancouver is concerned? In 1981, compared to 1980, the total cost of all services provided by the city and school board in- creased a scant 1.5 percent, after allowing for inflation. For the same period and on the same real basis, the municipal taxes Victoria required the city and school board to collect in- creased by a substantial 23.8 per- cent for the average single-family homeowner. Real cost of services up 1.5 per- cent, taxes for the average single family homeowner up 23.8 per- cent, this is the glaring contradic- tion brought about by two features of Victoria’s system that must be resolved. The two features are the éduca- tion tax formula and the require- ment that the general tax mill rate for municipal services be the same for all classes of properties — residential, commercial and in- dustrial. Under the education tax for- mula, Victoria’s share of the cost of its approved basic education program has dropped froma high of 48 percent in 1975 to a low of 32.4 percent in 1982. Applied to Bruce Yorke Vancouver, this means that tax-’ payers will be charged $20 million more than the total increase in school costs from 1980 to 1982! Under the single general pur- pose mill rate provision, the average’single family homeowner ° in Vancouver was socked with a 42.5 percent increase in taxes last year, and large areas of the city had increases in the 80 percent range. Yet commercial and in- dustrial properties escaped unscathed because Victoria for- bids a different tax rate being ap- plied to their-assessments. The long range solution to the problem, as supported by COPE for many years, is the McMath commission recommendation that Victoria pay 75 percent of the overall province-wide cost of its ' basic education program, and the municipalities pay the remaining 25 percent. After last year’s massive municipal tax increases there was plenty of time for finance minister Hugh Curtis, municipal affairs minister Vander Zalm and education minister Brian Smith to correct their ‘‘system’’, but they have done nothing of conse- quence. Caught in the wave of protest, they filed assessment ap- peals themselves, hoping to create the impression that Victoria is not to blame. Their ploy failed. Now they. say that the municipalities can cut the general purpose mill rate to keep taxes down. Translated, this means — slash services. But that ploy too will fail. What it amounts to is double tax jeopardy. Social Credit keeps adding to the taxes they pay provincially, supposedly for services such as education. Now it wants them to pay again at the municipal level — and it cuts the services. No doubt they will try to juggle ‘the assessments downwards in those cases which benefit Socred areas, and/or raise the provincial education mill rate to ‘“compen- sate’ for such downward juggl- ings. Both are unacceptable. If technicalities are confusing, I can only say that they were meant to be by those in Victoria who designed them. However, thereis . a short term demand, made by Vancouver school board, which cuts through all the technicalities. This demand says: raise the province-wide homeowner grant by $200, but restrict the increase for school purposes only. This is not a demand for an overall in- crease in the homeowner grant by $200 as the daily press and Curtis have deliberately misrepreseiated it to be. The restriction placed on the demand is vital because it would not only decrease the ‘‘cost’’ to Victoria dramatically, but also it would prevent more tax dollars going to Socred strongholds, where the homeowner grant already operates to wipe out school taxes and even some por- tions of general purpose taxes as well. Vancouver school board’s pro- posal would work out precisely in this way: If the calculated school taxes (the assessments times the provin- cially determined education tax rate) come to less than $580, then the homeowner, by a provincial grant, would pay no net school TAXCSic If the same calculation comes, to more than *$580, then the homeowner would get a $580 grant, and his net school taxes ‘would be that portion over $580. The demand is fair because it helps those who need help. Even with this relief Vancouver tax- payers would still end up paying . for the entire increase in school - costs over the past two years! I urge you to protect the stan- dard of services being provided by the city and school board, to maintain our present programs and to allow for modest -im:: - provements. The best way to do that in my opinion, is to follow up the mass assessment appeals with a massive show of support behind the demand for a $200 increase in the homeowner grant for school purposes only. I firmly believe that this is the _ direction that the tax revolt move- ment needs to take in order to achieve its objectives. Bruce Yorke is writing this week in place of alderman Harry Rankin. Sagat ay E ver since the starting revelations of former CIA officer Philip Agee and the exposure of the sinister role of the CIA and PEOPLE AND ISSUES ITT in the fascist coup in Chile, the world intrigues of the Central In- telligence Agency | have become a matter of virtually public knowledge. But the screening in Vancouver last week of Allan Francovich’s power- ful film on the CIA, On Company Business — and the appearance of the filmmaker himself whose comments were often as revealing as his documentary — reminded us once again just how pervasive the activi- ties of the CIA really are. As it turns out, Francovich was asked during an impromptu session with the audience about the role of the CIA in Poland. He responded that he had ‘‘no doubt that the CIA was involved in Poland.” His ei were fostered, he said, by the activities of one Irving Brown , Several months ago, was appointed to head up an AFL-CIO com- mittee providing funds to Solidarity. As the head of the AFL-CIO station in Paris, Brown is probably. the most notorious CIA figure in the U.S. labor movement — a fact which earns him dishonorable mention in the film. No less intriguing was the case of the New York office of “Friends of the Polish Union Solidarity Incorporated’’ which was set up in space donated by the United Federation of Teachers in its office building. The CIA connection there? ‘‘The president of the Federation of Teachers is a long time collaborator with the CIA,” said Francovich. For Canadians that story has more than just passing relevance. The man who opened the Solidarity office in New York — in fact, he was the president of Friends of Solidarity Inc. — was Zygmunt Przetakiewicz, the same man who, as readers have no doubt seen, is reported as “‘Solidarity’s representative in Canada.”’ Przetakiewicz, a member of the dissident Polish group Committee for Workers’ Defence (KOR), told the press conference on opening . day, Sept. 25, that he had been appointed to the position by Janusz Onyszkiewicz, the official press spokesman for the Solidarity organiza- tion. Yet although he was in the U.S. only ona tourist visa, Przetakiewicz did not return to Poland when the Friends of sce office closed in November. Instead, he re-appeared in Canada in December — although he was~ not described as Solidarity’s representative in Canada until after the” declaration of martial law. Earlier this month, he told the Tribune in Toronto that he had been appointed as the Solidarity representative by Stefan Trzcinski, the deputy press spokesman for Warsaw branch of Solidarity. Behind Pretakiewicz, the suspicions still linger in New York. Accor- ding to Covert Action Information Bulletin, the journal monitoring CIA activities, Friends of Solidarity Inc. received all its mailing lists from Freedom House, a right wing group with well-established CIA connections. * * * * * or the past 18 years, ever since he retired, Alex Storm has worked at the People’s Co-op Bookstore. Officially, his job was to mail out orders. But like others who give their time to the store, whether on a regular or casual basis, to anything from cleaning windows to taking inventory, he found himself called on frequently to mind the store, run errands, move stock, whatever was needed. This week, Alex retired from retirement. And to honor him, mem- bers of the board of directors took him out to supper in Chinatown and made him a presentation —a small tribute he was not expecting but one he had well earned. " PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JAN. 29, 1982—Page Repeal of loophole demanded Continued from page 1 Her landlord, M.G. Harvey, as applied under the provisions OF Section 67(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which was added by the Social Credit government jus! one year ago, on Jan. 16, 1981. The section reads: ‘‘The R talsman may, on the application the landlord, on conditions he co siders appropriate, order that landlord may increase the rent an amount greater, and at time other than, that permitted undef Sections 64 and 65.’’ Greg Richmond, secretary of North Shore Tenants has charge¢ that the section is - ‘‘a_ built regulated profitfor landlords.” The tenant’s group has deman ed that the government move im- mediately to repeal the secti which has already resulted widespread rent gouging landlords. According to rentalsman offi Kathy Ramsdale, who confirm the figures for Richmond, there 20,000 applications for Section increases presently before the talsman’s office. And another officer, executive assistant to the Rentalsman, / ir thony Dibley, confirmed in an if terview this week that 10,000 ap plication were approved by his fice last year. “Only a few of those cases w fought because in many cas there was implied approval by Rentalsman’ 8 Office,” Richmo Vetad ol. The letter sent to Woitas was ont such example. Her landlord sal@ that he was seeking the increase ‘ accordance with the office of Rentalsman regulations.”’ Woitas’ case has also reveal what tenants suspect may be widespread practice that landlo . may be engaging in wh renegotiating mortgages. Rath than get a new mortgage equal the amount of the principal s outstanding, they are increasing total amount of the mortg Then then take the difference invest it somewhere else — and é ply for a Section 67 rent increase cover the costs of increased mi thly payments. Thus, if a landlord ow $100,000 on his building when mortgage comes up for renewal, will get a mortgage for $150,000 more, take the extra $50,000; 2 invest it while using Section 67 impose the extra costs on tenants In seeking the increase fro Woitas, Harvey stated that mortgage was up on Jan. 26 an admitted that it would “substantially higher than the isting mortgage that we assumed on purchase of the building.”’ Tenants are concerned thal many other landlords are following the same practice, known a5 “‘withdrawing your equity.’’ Richmond also noted that th are no provisions in the act, even a landlord’s increased mortgag' costs are legitimate, to redu tenants’ rents if, for example, i terest rates go down, thus reducing landlords’ costs. Also this week, in a letter sem out by president Richar Blackburn, the North Shoré Tenants urged other tenants’ groups to consider forming 2 province-wide renters’ organiza tion.