The Truth About Edmonton's Infrastructure Deficit

Vote Jason BALE for #YEGcc in Ward Karhiio

You've probably heard the term "infrastructure deficit" floating around this week. It sounds serious, and it is—but not for the reasons you might be told. The reality is that this "deficit" is being used as political cover by Edmonton City Council in an election year. Rather than confronting the financial consequences of their decisions, some Councillors would rather shift the blame elsewhere, hoping voters won’t look too closely.

Yes, the infrastructure deficit is real. But how it’s being framed—and what it’s being used to justify—deserves a closer look.

A Convenient Election-Year Message

In an election year, it's no surprise that Councillors want to tell a story that excuses their performance and justifies their policies. One of the main goals in elevating the conversation around the infrastructure deficit is to validate the controversial zoning bylaw overhaul that City Council recently passed. The argument is simple: urban sprawl is expensive, and densification is the answer.

There is a grain of truth to that. Urban sprawl does come with some additional costs. But the broader claim—that densification is significantly cheaper and will solve our financial woes—simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Suburbs vs. Density: A Different Picture

In future blog posts, I’ll delve deeper into the economics of suburban vs. high-density neighbourhoods, but here’s a preview: suburban areas on the edge of Edmonton often pay more in property taxes than they receive in city services. In contrast, dense urban cores can sometimes cost more to service than they generate in revenue.

Why? Infrastructure wear and tear, aging assets, higher policing and social services needs, and greater investment in transit and utilities all play a role. It's not as simple as "density = savings."

The $480 Million Question

The City says it needs an extra $480 million per year to catch up on infrastructure maintenance and development. To put that in perspective, that would require a 21% tax increase on top of the increases already passed over the past four years.

Clearly, this level of increase would be politically impossible—and yet, the number gets floated without a detailed breakdown. What exactly makes up this shortfall? What projects are urgent, and what are merely "nice to have"?

Despite hearing about this issue repeatedly, this Council has never made a motion to get a full, itemized list of what’s included in the infrastructure deficit. The Administration offers a lump-sum estimate, and City Council simply accepts it.

Defunding One Line Item, Funding Another

Some Councillors have spent the past few years arguing to reduce the police budget, citing that it was the City’s largest single expenditure. Now, these same voices are advocating for a new single line item—infrastructure—that would exceed the entire annual police budget ($467 million).

The inconsistency is hard to ignore. If budget size is reason enough to defund one department, why is it acceptable to balloon another?

Where Did This Start?

Blame doesn’t rest solely with this Council. Past councils made costly decisions that left a mess behind. And the Province has had a role too.

At one point, the Province stopped providing grants in lieu of taxes for certain properties. This funding was only recently restored and even doubled by the current government. But in the meantime, the City used financial reserves to make up the difference—reserves that were never reimbursed.

While the Province has since provided targeted funding for certain projects (like the Arena Park partnership), these funds often come with strings attached. Council tends to accept these dollars even if the project was never part of their original priorities. The logic? "We’re getting a deal."

But chasing subsidies without asking whether we need the project in the first place is not fiscally sound. A discount is only useful if you are already planning to buy the item. Otherwise, it’s just spending for the sake of spending.

Political Will vs. Practical Action

It’s easy for incumbents to say they were unaware of the full scope of Edmonton’s financial challenges. But that doesn’t fly. They ran for office. They should have known the books before voting on massive tax increases, sweeping zoning changes, and expensive new programs.

More importantly, they had the chance to demand transparency and didn’t. Not once did they formally ask for a detailed accounting of the infrastructure backlog. That’s not a failure of funding. That’s a failure of governance.

What Edmontonians Are Really Asking

When we talk to residents, the question isn’t "Why are my taxes going up?" It’s "Why isn't Council doing more to stop it?"

People understand that costs rise. But they expect their elected representatives to find efficiencies, challenge vague numbers, and spend wisely. Instead, they see finger-pointing, virtue signaling, and tax hikes.

What Needs to Change

The first step to solving Edmonton’s infrastructure and financial problems is electing leaders who ask tough questions and demand clear answers. Incumbents had their chance. They chose politics over accountability.

And to those challengers who claim they can fix the budget without offering specifics: you’re not helping. Vague promises are just another form of distraction.

What we need are councillors who will:

• Push for a fully itemized infrastructure deficit report

• Scrutinize the Administration’s estimates and challenge assumptions

• Reject spending proposals that aren’t essential, even if they’re subsidized

• Prioritize fiscal transparency over political theatre

I’m not claiming to have all the answers. But I am committed to asking the right questions—the ones this Council refused to ask. Only then can we make informed, responsible decisions that truly serve the people of Edmonton.

Bottom Line: Edmonton does have infrastructure needs. But the "deficit" narrative being used this election cycle is more about political survival than financial truth. Voters deserve transparency, accountability, and a real plan—not fear-based messaging and empty slogans.

It's time to demand better.

Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only. It is based on publicly available information and reflects the author’s analysis and opinion. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the information provided may not be exhaustive of all relevant factors. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and seek out multiple sources when forming their own conclusions.

Call to Action: Are you tired of the status quo at Edmonton City Hall? Please have a look around this website, read some of my other blogs and, if you agree with me and my vision, please consider donating and/or volunteering to help support my campaign to be Ward Karhiio's next representative at City Hall.