LONDONERS VALUE DOOR-TO-DOOR
MAIL SERVICE:
DEMAND TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
Londoners are challenging the Canada Post steamroller
threatening door-to-door postal service in
our neighbourhoods. Some elected officials are
starting to pay attention to community priorities, but
more needs to be done, soon.
Canada Post policy requires ‘meaningful consultation’
(yet to happen in London) before implementing
changes in postal service. In newer subdivisions, where
‘super’ mailboxes have been used for some time, there is
an established system for approval of sites. In contrast,
the imposition of CMBs or ‘corporate’ mailboxes (they
really have nothing to do with ‘community’) in neighbourhoods
that currently enjoy home mail delivery can
lead to many negative impacts as well as serious costs
downloaded on our already strained municipal budget.
The ‘survey’ Canada Post circulated
last November in targeted
neighbourhoods was so biased that
most recipients did not even bother
responding. Out of 42433 addresses
that received packages, the response
rate was only 16%. This suggests that
about fi ve out of every six addresses
surveyed did not find the choices
offered by Canada Post meaningful
enough to be worth filling out. The
package also relies on scaremongering
about mail delivery becoming
a potential ‘burden on taxpayers’,
when in fact Canada Post returned
a profi t to its owners (the Canadian
people) in every year this century except
for one (2011, when they locked
out their employees).
In contrast, Londoners for Door-to-Door volunteers
have been knocking on doors for weeks to talk about
these issues and listen to our neighbours. We’ve been
getting a more signifi cant response rate, so we know
that the choice that most residents really want is to keep
their door-to-door delivery. This basic choice was not
even an option in the Canada Post ‘survey’.
On Monday February 9, City Council passed a motion
calling for further study of how other municipalities are
dealing with the elimination of door-to-door, as well as
for a public consultation process. These are initial steps
in the right direction: kudos to Councillors Park and
Ridley who listened to constituents and brought forward
this motion. But much more needs to be done in
order to protect our communities.
Londoners deserve a meaningful say in issues like accessibility
(has the City’s Accessibility Advisory Committee
even been consulted?) and the safety of the elderly
and people with disabilities, many of whom may be
just one slip or fall away from serious injuries. London
should learn from how other municipalities are facing
this policy challenge.
Hamilton’s city council has called for a halt to introducing
new CMBs while they study the costs of approvals,
estimated at over $500 per box. Medicine Hat came
up with a similar fi gure of $500, yet Canada Post is offering
London a ‘nominal’ $50 per approval. Brampton
found that newly imposed CMBs generate litter that
costs thousands of dollars to clean up, which Canada
Post refuses to pay. Sarnia negotiated a contract with
Canada Post protecting that city from litter and upkeep
costs as well as from being sued for injuries at CMBs.
These important issues are absent London’s report on
CMBs.
The City’s Protective Services Committee has not yet
considered the real possibility of higher policing costs
due to increased mail theft. CMBs have made Surrey
B.C. Canada’s mail theft capital (think stolen parcels,
cheques and identity fraud). Then there are likely reductions
in property tax revenues due to lower home
values where door-to-door delivery is eliminated: is
London prepared for thousands of applications for municipal
tax reassessments?
These issues are too important to be settled behind
closed doors in private talks with Canada Post. More
than half the postal addresses in London are threatened
with the loss of a valued public service, and we need a
transparent process before changes are imposed. When
will the City release the list of proposed new CMB locations?
A Canada Post representative recently told Hamilton’s
City Council they consider public consultation ‘a waste
of time’. Conservative MPs seem to agree, and have not
meaningfully engaged the public on this issue either.
MPs Holder and Truppe seem to be ignoring their constituents
on this issue. This is a federal election year,
and Londoners who value door-to-door delivery are demanding
real accountability.
-
Wendy Goldsmith and David Heap, on behalf of
Londoners for Door to Door
YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THIS
CAMPAIGN BY CONTACTING LONDONERS
FOR DOOR TO DOOR BY E-MAIL
PEOPLE4DOOR2DOOR@GMAIL.COM
From Scene Magazine, February 12, 2015:
http://www.scenemagazine.com/uploads/2/4/1/8/24189503/web735.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment