Governments are often accused of not doing enough long-term thinking, which includes planning for infrastructure projects. It’s a fair comment – they don’t do a good job.

There is some irony, then, in the fact Wellesley is under fire for its 2023 budget, in large part due to spending on infrastructure, specifically a new township recreation facility.

That project accounts for more than half of a 14 per cent tax hike, putting the average taxpayer – something of a misnomer – on the hook for $112 in extra taxes this year alone. That’s the result of a small tax base having to pay back millions over the next 20 years. The increase was made tougher by a fairly large increase in general taxes applied at the same time.

Large jumps in taxes are in vogue right now – with bureaucrats, not residents, of course. Woolwich is at eight per cent, while the region is even more out of whack at 9.5. Most of that is down the rabbit hole of unchecked operating budgets, with some lip services to the growing gap between available money and the cost of replacing roads, bridges and facilities – aka the infrastructure deficit.

The townships are certainly not alone in that regard – every government everywhere finds itself in the same boat. Nor is it alone in failing to adequately budget for such expenses, in the past through to this very day.

The reality is that there’s little hope for most municipalities to get caught up with such deficits. They’re burdened by past spending decisions that did not account for future replacement costs, and such planning is still not part of the equation today. We’re still inflicted by short-term political thinking that wants to spend today but let some future citizens pay the bills and deal with any fallout.

There has been some effort, but local councils have done little to rein in operating budgets in order to make a real dent in the deficit rather than taxpayers’ wallets. The extra funds being set aside are a good start, but they have not kept up with the growing list of projects. Even at today’s estimates – real costs are likely to be much higher, as there’s a history of being well off the mark with forecasts – local municipalities are losing ground.

Despite plenty of talk, governments continue to do very little in the way of long-term planning, let alone actual follow-through.

The first step to breaking out of this failing mould is for politicians to demand each expenditure is justified, the opposite of what generally happens today. There’s a simple question – who benefits, and at what cost? – that should be asked of every expenditure.

Leaving aside government expenditures for the most vulnerable members of society – some expenses are just things we do as part of a civil society – there’s a whole lot of discretionary spending that goes on without question. There’s often a notion that spending is good just because it’s government spending or, worse still, that because it’s always been in the budget that it should always be in the budget, unchecked.

Long-term thinking is not just for issues such as climate change, though Canada and every other country on the globe are not prepared to tackle even that issue, despite the consequences. No, it’s all about living for today. But long-term planning is crucial for a host of issues clearly part of today’s political reality, encompassing all levels: long-term resource consumption, human migration, transportation demands, retirement and pensions and the like. Weighty issues. By comparison, decisions at the local level should be much easier … if questions get asked.

They’re not, and therein lies the problem, one that’s hitting residents increasingly harder with each passing budget year.