COPE Coun. David Cadman fears the current property-tax debate will slip behind closed doors where consultants will tell business interests what they want to hear.

And Cadman and former COPE councillor Tim Louis, who ran the city's finances for three years, told the Georgia Straight they fear Vancouver residents will be hit hardest.

“The tax shift is nothing more than an attempt to make residential- property owners, including seniors, pay the taxes of business-property owners, including the downtown office towers and the banks,” Louis said in a phone interview. “It's a regressive tax shift from those who can pay to those who cannot.”

At a city services and budgets committee meeting on September 28, real-estate executive Bob Laurie””cochair of Vancouver's business-oriented Fair Tax Coalition””told council that a shift was necessary to prevent overtaxed businesses from fleeing to the suburbs. He later told the Straight he wanted to see a ratio of around 3:1 or 3.5:1 for businesses and residential-class taxpayers, respectively, rather than the 6:1 ratio quoted as the current norm on the Fair Tax Coalition Web site (www.FairTaxCoalition.com/).

“There should be a gap between what you pay [in property taxes] as a resident for a $1-million house and a $1-million commercial property,” Laurie said by phone. “The taxes paid by the commercial property [owner] should be greater than three times more than the residents, but probably less than 3.75:1. Because businesses deduct property tax as a legitimate business expense, and residents don't, there should be a gap.”

In April 2004, the COPE–dominated council rejected a similar proposed shift, but in 2005 Laurie again approached council, having sent the Straight a chart showing that in 2004 no other local municipality””aside from Vancouver (5.47:1) and Coquitlam (4.98:1)””had a ratio higher than 4:1. On April 20, 2006, council duly voted (with Cadman opposed) to shift one percent of the share of property taxes on to residents, meaning the city now collects 44.9 percent from residential and 55.1 percent from commercial properties.

“I fear a continued process, where we are shifting more and more on to residential,” Cadman told the Straight. “I fear we will create a situation where taxpayers say, 'I can't afford to live here.'?”

Sparks were flying at the September 28 committee meeting when financial planning manager Karen Levitt introduced a report asking that council approve the establishment of a property- tax–review commission, along with a “preliminary” $100,000 budget. Council approved the report by a 10–1 vote, with Cadman against. The three-person commission must be selected by a council subcommittee by October 31. Levitt's report noted the commission will have a mandate to recommend to council “a long-term policy for defining and achieving a 'fair' distribution of the property tax levy and addressing the perceived inequity in the share of the City of Vancouver's property tax levy”.

Cadman immediately voiced concern because the commission will meet behind closed doors. He added that the Vancouver Charter stipulates that all civic meetings are open to the public unless the City of Vancouver risks litigation or exposure of proprietary information by doing so.

Despite not having support from Vision Vancouver or NPA councillors, Cadman repeatedly asked city manager Judy Rogers if the commission's secrecy was a violation of the city charter. She dismissed Cadman's concerns.

“You will get the transparency when you get the [commission's] report coming forward,” Rogers said.

Corporate services general manager Estelle Lo said she did not believe there were any “procedural” inconsistencies and added: “This is a technical work team, and basically they need to go and do [their] analysis. Let me make it clear, this is a very objective consultation, in which everyone is engaged. And that's not just the business community but also the residential community.”

If members of the public feel left out of the process, Laurie told the Straight, they have a part to play.

“I think councillor Cadman, at the end of the day, is right in that once these people [on the committee] have begun to create the germs for ideas and consensus among themselves, the process should be brought into the open,” Laurie said. “At what point, I can't tell you, but certainly long before there is a final document to be adopted by council.”