2006 Municipal Elections: Pitfield and Miller in First Debate

[TdotTrickyRicky]

Mel Lastman had big business buddies but he was hardly a pro-business mayor. He was more of a right-of-centre populist. For instance his freezing of residential taxes was one of the things that shifted the tax burden more to the business side causing the problems we have today.

Taxes are one thing but the main things a pro-business city hall can do are decrease or streamline beaurocracy and take initiatives to promote investment in the city. City hall at present has a reputation as incredibly beaurocratic and inefficient. Everyone understands that bylaws will be enacted to protect citizen interests but at present there are too many instances where regulation makes people say why bother pursuing ideas or entrepreneurial initiatives. City hall is largely silent on the business investment front.

 

[cdl42]

"For instance his freezing of residential taxes was one of the things that shifted the tax burden more to the business side causing the problems we have today"

During the same period Mike Harris froze the city's ability to increase commercial tax rates, something that was only repealed following the election of Miller and McGuinty. What we had under Lastman was a tax freeze, which due to the way property taxes are calculated, means a tax reduction in real dollar terms.

While there is certainly more that the city could and should do, such as things like red tape, the city certainly isn't silent on business investment. I believe if you phoned Economic Development you'd be amazed at the services and initatives from the city to attract and help business. In fact, I'm sure we do far more than most suburbs. The recent plan to decrase commercial rates over many years is just one sign that Economic Development is serious.

 

[borgos]

Did Miller miss better landfill deal?
Lower price on the table last year
But no action was taken, sources say
Sep. 21, 2006. 05:32 AM
ROYSON JAMES
CITY COLUMNIST


Toronto paid much more than necessary to dump its trash in the Green Lane Landfill site outside St. Thomas, Toronto Star sources say.

Last year, Mayor David Miller ignored an offer to dump at Green Lane for roughly the same price as shipping to Michigan — one of the cheaper places to send garbage — unconcerned about talks of the border closing to Toronto's trash.

And as the secret offer sat on his desk — without council's knowledge — the border wars heated up, the price jumped, and Toronto was forced into a more expensive secret deal this week, sources charge.

Councillor Jane Pitfield, the works committee chair and the lead city politician on the garbage file at the time in February 2005, confirmed yesterday that a deal was in place.

Another source said the price offer to ship and dump garbage was about $1 a tonne more than the Michigan fees, pegged at about $63 a tonne today.

"There was no sense of urgency," the source said. "They could have had it a year and a half ago at a fraction of the cost and no liability, and still continue with recycling targets."

Pitfield said representatives from Green Lane approached the city to make a deal that would see the trash diverted from Michigan, where lawmakers had been pledging a fight to stop the cross-border shipments.

"It sat in his office for three months and nothing happened," said Pitfield, who is now challenging Miller for the mayor's title. "Miller felt we could legally stay in Michigan till 2010 or 2020. It completely took me by surprise yesterday, this proposal to actually buy it."

Miller yesterday admitted the city's purchase price of the Green Lane Landfill would mean disposal costs of between $63 and $88 a tonne. He said he can't disclose the figure until the deal is finalized over 90 days.

But the difference in cost could reach $17 million a year, for 15 to 20 years, over the life of the landfill. Toronto dumps about 700,000 tonnes a year.

Miller says it's better to own the site than holding dumping rights, as was proposed earlier. This way the city controls its destiny. Besides, Toronto will get tipping fees from those using the dump.

A staff spokesman said Miller didn't act on the earlier Green Lane proposal because it was speculative and Toronto needed something tangible.

Sources, however, paint a picture of a mayor not aware of the urgency of the matter, who dithered while the waste crisis grew.

"It's a huge missed opportunity. We kept it confidential. The fact is we didn't act on it. It never went anywhere; it just stayed in his office," the source said.

There will be revenues from owning the landfill, but there are added costs: including liability, perpetual care, managing and operating the site.

City councillors were shown some figures in a quickly called private council meeting Tuesday. All documents were collected at the end of the private session to prevent leaks to the media. One source yesterday said the deal will cost the city $500 million, with half that being the actual cost of buying the landfill.

Others say buying a landfill sends the wrong signal that Toronto is back in the garbage business and is prepared to dump on its neighbours.

In a delicious political twist, the councillors arguing against the purchase of the landfill site were the ones in favour of Toronto's plans to ship waste to Kirkland Lake. And the ones, including Mayor Miller, singing the praises of the new site are the virulent and vocal opponents of the Kirkland Lake proposal and landfill in general.

Miller yesterday tried to argue that the Green Lane landfill is a much more environmentally sound site than the Adams Mine. But even if his argument rang a bit hollow, it is likely what Torontonians want to hear.

Weary of decades of garbage talk, embarrassed about dumping on their neighbours only if their neighbours raise a stink about it, and skittish about incineration (the only known made-in-Toronto solution), they are likely praising Miller.

Meanwhile, the headline in The London Free Press on Wednesday was T.O. DUMPS ON US.As if Hogtown cares.

Stripped of all the political intrigue and the hypocrisy of environmentalists advocating a hole in the ground as the solution to mounting waste problems, the bottom line on Toronto finding a new home for its trash is this: Hip, hip, hooray!!

Yes, Miller shoehorned the deal into a few hours of secret council talk, embargoed, in camera, without a chance for sober second thought, without the messy business of public disclosure and public input.

Yes, this runs smack into Miller's promise of open and transparent government.

Yes, on the eve of an election, he's hurried this through council, without proper scrutiny.

Yes, many of the councillors cannot give you rudimentary details of this deal, once they get past the basics. And they can't even tell you for sure when the landfill site has to be closed.

Yes, speed bumps are given more protracted hearings.

Yes, all of the above is true. But so is this: Most Torontonians don't care about all that. Tired of the garbage talk over the years and the prospects of an incinerator in their neighbourhood, they will gladly swallow this deal.

Miller read them correctly.

Additional articles by Royson James

Click here for copyright permissions

 

[borgos]

Barber responds to Royson's hack job

Mayor didn't sit on a viable deal for hauling trash, firm says
Without expansion approval, Green Lane site couldn't handle city's load, it asserts

JOHN BARBER

E-mail John Barber | Read Bio | Latest Columns
Deal or no deal?

Suddenly and surprisingly, that question has emerged as a major issue of Toronto's current mayoral election, sharply dividing incumbent Mayor David Miller and Councillor Jane Pitfield in a bitter dispute over personal credibility.

Ms. Pitfield initiated the scrap when she charged this week that Mr. Miller had rejected a favourable proposal for the city to ship its waste to the Green Lane landfill, just outside London, more than a year before the city decided to buy the site itself.

Had Mr. Miller accepted the deal when it was offered, according to Ms. Pitfield, the city could have cut its disposal costs significantly. "It sat in his office for three months and nothing happened," Ms. Pitfield told the Toronto Star.

Ms. Pitfield did not respond to The Globe and Mail's request for comment on the issue yesterday.

In an unusually passionate response to the remarks published in the Star, Mr. Miller denounced the newspaper for failing to meet "basic standards of journalism," but declined to answer the charge. "The Toronto Star story was false," he said, "and the reporter involved, who had spoken to my office beforehand, knew it was false."

But Ms. Pitfield stood by her claim that Mr. Miller had failed to embrace the Green Lane deal when it was first offered -- on far better terms than the city obtained when it ultimately decided to buy the landfill early this week.

"I am truthful," she told the Star. "One would hope that the mayor of this city could tell the truth. There's been a lot of talk about integrity and truthfulness. It's important to lead by example."

Ms. Pitfield failed to respond yesterday to messages left on her personal line and requests for comment via a spokesperson. Mr. Miller, on the other hand, was eager.

"I'm not going to comment on anything Councillor Pitfield says about me," he said in an interview yesterday. "But I will comment on the facts, and the facts are very clear. There was never an offer, there was never a price negotiated and it was never possible for the City of Toronto to enter into any agreement with Green Lane."

Both sides agree that a Toronto investment firm named Callisto Capital approached the city with a proposal to haul its trash to Green Lane instead of Michigan shortly after acquiring an option to buy the facility in the fall of 2004. At the time, the city was negotiating a renewal of its contract with Republic Industries to use that firm's Carleton Farms landfill in Sumpter Township, Mich., facing a June, 2005, deadline.

The problem, according to both the mayor and Callisto partner James Walker, was that the Green Lane site was too small to meet Toronto's needs. But Callisto hoped to win provincial approval for an expansion before Toronto had to renew with Republic. This was the conditional proposal that Callisto brought to city hall.

It was sufficiently attractive that city staff discussed with the province the possibility of expediting the Green Lane expansion process, according to the mayor. But the province declined, and in fact did not certify the expansion for more than a year after council voted to renew its contract with Republic.

"Those are the facts and the truth," the mayor said, "and Councillor Pitfield was actually involved at the time as chair of works."

In fact, Ms. Pitfield led the charge to ratify the Republic deal in May, 2005, making a successful motion to cut the debate short, then voting in favour. There was no discussion of any alternative deal that might have been available at the time.

The city had to renew with Republic because Green Lane failed to get the necessary approval in time, according to Callisto's Mr. Walker, who supported Mr. Miller's contention that the two sides had not come close to making a deal.

In the event, Callisto's option to buy the landfill, which was conditional on the company's ability to sign up Toronto garbage, expired before the province announced its approval of the expansion. But the formal "certificate of assessment," which could have included conditions prohibiting Toronto garbage, was not issued until last Friday, according to the mayor.

"We couldn't sign an agreement with anybody or entertain an offer seriously until that was issued," the mayor said. "We acted immediately when it was."

 

[urbanboyto]

Re: Barber responds to Royson's hack job

Pitfield is starting to show a disturbing propensity for making many unsupported claims about Miller. But I guess that is politics..keep throwing it until something sticks.

 

[toforumer]

Are there any other serious contenders to take away Miller's crown? I voted for Miller in the last election and haven't been all that impressed that I want to vote for him again. And Pitfield doesn't seem much better. Like someone else mentioned, I wonder if John Tory would have done a better job.

 

[urbanboyto]

note Barber's comments about Pitfield's dishonesty and Tory's classy quality.


Oh, for the 'high-water' election race we had in '03
JOHN BARBER
The GLOBE and MAIL September 26, 2006

I never bother to read most of the urgent e-mails that the energetic office of Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory reliably emits almost every afternoon. Queen's Park ain't my beat. But as I cover what is my beat, especially the 2006 mayoral campaign, I can't help thinking about John Tory, the former candidate for mayor of Toronto.

It happened first during last week's opening debate between Mayor David Miller and Councillor Jane Pitfield, his leading challenger, when Mr. Miller took credit for putting an extra 400-odd uniformed police officers on the streets of Toronto during his first term. But whose idea was that? Back in 2003, candidate Miller opposed candidate Tory's proposal to hire an extra 400 police officers. Crime and safety barely figured in the eventual winner's platform, whereas the police pledge was the biggest single spending commitment in Mr. Tory's.

Time, circumstance and Mr. Miller have combined to prove the wisdom of Mr. Tory's policy. Thanks in large part to provincial help, Mr. Miller got the new coppers at a discount. But Mr. Tory deserves credit for identifying the need and proffering a clear-cut solution.
Mostly, though, it is the embarrassing ineptitude of Mr. Miller's current challengers that makes me think of John Tory. I remember attending his campaign kickoff at the old Sai Woo on Dundas Street in February, 2003, and just being floored by the professionalism and polish of both the candidate and his nascent campaign. After years of Lastman-led buffoonery, this new champion of the right was a revelation. His policies made sense and he articulated them clearly. He had mastered the details, and the numbers added up.

From his first appearance as a candidate for office, Mr. Tory was a front-runner. Apart from some unfortunate but telling subterfuge involving fellow candidate John Nunziata, his campaign was impeccably well-managed. More than 250,000 Torontonians voted for him that November.
In fact the entire campaign was terrific, both as a horse race and as free-wheeling, high-order debate about the future of the city. After the election, Tory campaign manager Rocco Rossi said the speeches delivered at the Canadian Club by the three leading candidates -- Mr. Miller, Mr. Tory and Barbara Hall -- "set a high-water mark for political discourse in Canada." It's no wonder that Mr. Miller is facing a crisis of expectations as he seeks re-election.

But the real letdown of 2006 is the total collapse of the vaunted discourse -- as dramatized neatly by Mr. Tory's decision to seek his fortune at Queen's Park. The great democratic debate that made such an impression three years ago has degenerated into a petty squabble that would embarrass a blogger.

Indeed it's easy to detect the malign influence of the "blogosphere" in Ms. Pitfield's candidacy. As she proved last week with her easily disproved allegations about the Green Lane landfill deal, she will say just about anything to score points, with little regard for facts. In this world, facts are whatever you can persuade people to believe -- and they morph to suit every new opportunity to exploit them.
Yesterday, two superannuated Liberal hacks showed up at Nathan Phillips Square to press this dubious offensive on the part of the challenger. Hardly anything they said made the slightest sense. Their message was a wash of semi-coherent assertions mixed with personal feelings and partisan bile. One of them, Senator Jerry Grafstein, was the mastermind of the campaign that gained Mr. Nunziata an impressive 5 per cent of the vote in 2003.

They expect us to take them seriously, but they won't return the same consideration. That's what I miss, and why I remember Mr. Tory's campaign so fondly. Together, the three leading candidates in the last election reminded us forcibly that the future of Toronto was serious business. Today, Mayor Miller is fighting the opposing thesis -- that it's just a joke played out by clowns -- all alone.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Post:

Poll reveals 'horse race'
Miller leads, but Pitfield has serious support
Challenger Jane Pitfield is gaining on...

James Cowan, National Post
Published: Friday, September 29, 2006

TORONTO - Mayoral candidate Jane Pitfield poses a legitimate threat to Mayor David Miller in November's municipal election, according to a poll released today.

The Ipsos Reid survey, conducted on behalf of the National Post, Global News and CFRB, shows 55% of decided voters intend to support Mr. Miller compared with 40% for Ms. Pitfield. The contest becomes even closer among decided voters who are "absolutely certain" to cast a ballot, with 51% backing the Mayor versus 46% for Ms. Pitfield.

The results suggest the mayoral race will be much tighter than many people expected, according to John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid.

"This is a real horse race," Mr. Wright said. "They are starting even at the gate."

Today is the last day to register as a candidate in the Nov. 13 election. Stephen LeDrew, a former federal Liberal party president, was yesterday rallying a team to mount his own last-minute campaign. While he will make a final decision today, he was poised last night to enter the race.

With no other high-profile contenders until now, Ms. Pitfield has garnered support because of a "rising crest of disappointment" with the current Mayor, Mr. Wright said.

The number of people who believe Mr. Miller deserves to be re-elected has fallen over the past year. Last October, Ipsos Reid found 69% of people believe the Mayor had earned a second term, compared with 57% today.

And again, the numbers are closer among Torontonians "certain" to vote: 51% said Mr. Miller deserved to be re-elected, while 49% said he did not.

Mr. Wright said due to the typically low turnout for municipal elections, the figures for "certain" voters -- which in this case represent 62% of Torontonians -- are more significant than those for decided voters, many of whom will not bother to cast a ballot.

The election will be a referendum on Mr. Miller's lacklustre first term, according to Mr. Wright.

"A candidate with the stature and potential of David Miller should be much higher in the polls," he said. "There is a lot of disappointment. The city does not feel like it is moving ahead."

Mr. Wright said the Mayor's faltering popularity largely accounts for Ms. Pitfield's strong showing.

The pollster said Ms. Pitfield could be even further ahead in the polls if she had a stronger campaign team and made fewer gaffes. The councillor, who represents Don Valley West, has failed to capitalize on several controversial decisions made by the mayor over the past year, Mr. Wright said.

"We've got talks about a garbage dump behind closed doors, we've got sleight-of-hand for a raise for councillors that slipped through, we've got a sole-source contract for Bombardier -- with those things, a great candidate could shellac Miller."

With 43% of voters still undecided and six weeks left in the campaign, Mr. Wright said the Mayor must act now to avoid slipping further.

"He's got to define the three or four things this campaign should be about, because right now the issues are defining him," Mr. Wright said. "He's got all the pieces that he could do well, he's just not using them."

Mr. Wright added Mr. Miller maintains a slight edge over Ms. Pitfield because of the Mayor's popularity among homeowners, the demographic group most likely to vote. Fifty-one percent of homeowners surveyed said they would support Mr. Miller while 43% said they backed Ms. Pitfield. "He was eight per cent ahead of John Tory amongst homeowners in the last race and it carried him over the hump," Mr. Wright said. "He's in the same position now."

Finding a solution to Toronto's trash woes is the top priority for most voters, the survey found. Thirty-one per cent of respondents identified garbage as the an important issue for the next mayor to address, followed by public transit at 29%, crime at 27%, poverty at 14% and taxes at 15%.

Mr. Miller said the city under his leadership is "addressing all those issues. We need to do more, but I think we've laid a very good foundation in this term of council," he said.

Ms. Pitfield alleged the mayor has lost touch with the electorate. "I think that it's really important to be in touch with how people on the street feel and I've made a big effort to do that," she said.

A total of 804 Torontonians were polled over the Internet between Sept. 21 and 26. The results are considered accurate within 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

jcowan@nationalpost.com

© National Post 2006

AoD

 

[spmarshall]

So Stephen LeDrew thinks he will enter the race?

Stephen LeDrew ---------------- Prof. Frink

 

[borgos]

Wow, what a self-delusional dork.

 

[spmarshall]

Oh, I agree. I guess splitting the anti-Miller vote is the best way of avoiding another four years of Miller.

I know who LeDrew (who does have an uncanny resemblance to Professor Frink) is, but I am guessing most don't. That isn't going to change that much in a mere six weeks. If he thinks he can win, that's self-delusion for sure.

Royson James will have to decide which of the two will be his bestest friend.

From the Star:

Ex-Liberal chief to run for mayor
Sep. 29, 2006. 10:36 AM
JIM BYERS
CITY HALL BUREAU


Former Liberal Party of Canada chief Stephen LeDrew today said he's definitely running for mayor of Toronto.
LeDrew said he'll file his nomination papers at City Hall today at 2 p.m.

"We're going to have a great six weeks," he said in an interview this morning.

LeDrew told the Star on Thursday that the city can't take another four years of incumbent Mayor David Miller.

"I'm looking at this because the city truly is deteriorating," LeDrew said.

Miller and Toronto City Councillor Jane Pitfield (Ward 26, Don Valley West) are among 34 candidates currently in the Toronto mayoral race.

The civic election takes place Nov. 13.

 

[borgos]

Yes, he will ciphon off some of the anti-Miller vote. This will certainly help Miller but probably not that much. LeDrew's going to get embarassed. Remember the last back room operator who had visions of electoral success - Jim Coutes? Don't remember him? There's a reason why.

 

[adma]

Maybe another comparison point is Gerry Meinzer in '84 (who siphoned off enough Rowlands votes to elect Barbara Hall, to everyone's surprise).

Otherwise, well...I must say, I haven't been as dismissive of Pitfield's sleeper chances as a lot of pundits have--mostly because there's still a pretty sturdy right-of-centre core that'd galvanize around *any* borderline-credible candidate that's not NDPish. (Sort of like how in NYC, there's still, say, a 40%-or-more core that'd vote for even a weakish Democratic standard-bearer against "strong" Republican mayors like Giuliani or Bloomberg.)

 

[building babel]

Miller has moved so far to the centre in order to "guarantee" a second term that to call him an NDP-er is absurd. He endorsed Liberals, including John Godfrey, during the last federal election while ignoring NDP-er Marilyn Churley who was in what otherwise might have been a far closer race with a Liberal. Godfrey won, Churley lost.

If a genuine candidate from the left was running for Mayor, Miller would be seen as that "borderline-credible candidate that's not NDPish" himself.

It isn't just Miller, but this whole council - which had the opportunity to do so much more - that has dropped the ball as far as I'm concerned.

 

[unimaginative2]

Whether you agree with his policies or not, Miller is an NDPer. He's got the entire party machinery behind him, and he's the all-but-officially-nominated candidate.