A look at past forecasts for Toronto

[TrickyRicky]

What we can take away from this interesting look back at old forecasts is simply don't believe the hype. It is not too difficult to interpret trends but it is difficult to extrapolate them and time them.

I think we should be careful however not to mistake low or zero growth with stagnation. A zero growth employment environment can still be dynamic.

Let me give you a theoretical example that describes how zero growth can be dynamic and how it is difficult to view Toronto and the GTA as isolated entities: Let's say in the 1980's most of the warehousing, transportation and logistics jobs were in Toronto. Because of the growing region and for pragmatic reasons most of these sectors and the jobs they require are shifted to Brampton or Vaughn. So on paper the number of jobs in Toronto is going down, the number of jobs in Brampton are booming. But instead of going down, the number of jobs in Toronto stagnates. How would you describe this system? Is Brampton creating jobs or is Toronto creating jobs? In the example Brampton is benefiting from a displacement of jobs while Toronto is the engine of job creation.

 

[Glen]

I doubt you've ever been south of Steeles...your knowledge of the city seems confined to what's contained in press releases or think tank reports.

Think again.

It did well enough under the circumstances and you can't argue with that. That's what matters.

Way to aim low! If you really think that this city did the best it could, you are out to lunch.

The methodology becomes increasingly problematic when an increasing proportion of jobs are not counted via a quick chat with a secretary or a PR liaison.

It only becomes increasingly irrelevant if Toronto deviated more (more under counting) than areas we are comparing it to.

Oh, and where do you think Vital Signs or anyone else gets its data?

They get from Stats-Can. Unlike you who gets it from ShonTron or seemingly pulls it out of a hat.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Think again.

Way to aim low! If you really think that this city did the best it could, you are out to lunch.

It only becomes increasingly irrelevant if Toronto deviated more (more under counting) than areas we are comparing it to.

They get from Stats-Can. Unlike you who gets it from ShonTron or seemingly pulls it out of a hat.

Aww, a terse, defensive post...how cute. If you start with flawed numbers and then misinterpret them, your argument's just not going to work.

I say we've done a decent job since 1988 - which is true - but that we can always do better (duh) and you consider that as me having said we did the best we could...good job there! What translation program are you running these posts through? Stagnation isn't even always stagnation, you know...9 steps back (most of them not the city's fault) and 10 steps forward is a hell of a lot more dynamic than the resulting 1 step forward seems.

Have you ever read the Vital Signs report or have you just seen highlights in some think tank press release or on a newspaper graphic? As I said, they get their employment data from the Toronto employment report, which covers a decreasing percentage of job types...basically only jobs located in places where a secretary or owner can tell the kids who are canvassing how many employees they have - assuming they're even telling the truth, mind you, or that the person asked even knows the precise number. Why trot out the numbers when you don't know where they come from and don't know why they're rather unreliable indicators of real job growth in recent decades?

ShonTron merely stated a few of the very obvious and very large additions of office space since 1988, proving you wrong in about ten words. I could list some of the other dozens of office buildings built since then, but, then again, you could just look out a window...chance are you'll see some of them. Of course, if they did build 6M square feet of office space along Spadina in lieu of CityPlace condos, there'd have been 6M fewer square feet of office space built elsewhere after that. We still wouldn't have better GO service or a DRL, so those towers (plus the other zillion jobs you'd like to see materialize) would have made traffic that much more chaotic.

 

[Anth]

In other words, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Can't Glen just post "TORONTO'S COMMERCIAL TAX RATE IS TOO HIGH" in like 90-point font and then we can all move on with our lives?

 

[taal]

Can't Glen just post "TORONTO'S COMMERCIAL TAX RATE IS TOO HIGH" in like 90-point font and then we can all move on with our lives?

Glen, that's pretty much it correct?

Or are there other factors at play.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Sorry, no.

Can't Glen just post "TORONTO'S COMMERCIAL TAX RATE IS TOO HIGH" in like 90-point font and then we can all move on with our lives?

Because Toronto's commercial tax rate is dropping as scheduled, and that hasn't turned Glen into a booster.

But, what the heck...

I landed in Toronto from Washington, D.C. in Summer '91. I spent a big chunk of my life in '98-'03 wholesaling mutual funds across Canada. You can argue other time periods ad nauseum, but if you don't think that Toronto is far and away a better burg than it was in the early '90s, or that Toronto growth and prosperity hasn't blown its Canadian competitors out of the water since the shallower recession post-'99 bubble, has an agenda.

Montreal has revitalized rue Ste-Catherine and the Main from the dingy days of '01, but it's no where near the growth and vitality that Toronto has shown -- and that goes for retail, culture, reclaiming industrial lands, businesses, whatever.

 

[taal]

Because Toronto's commercial tax rate is dropping as scheduled, and that hasn't turned Glen into a booster.

But, what the heck...

I landed in Toronto from Washington, D.C. in Summer '91. I spent a big chunk of my life in '98-'03 wholesaling mutual funds across Canada. You can argue other time periods ad nauseum, but if you don't think that Toronto is far and away a better burg than it was in the early '90s, or that Toronto growth and prosperity hasn't blown its Canadian competitors out of the water since the shallower recession post-'99 bubble, has an agenda.

Montreal has revitalized rue Ste-Catherine and the Main from the dingy days of '01, but it's no where near the growth and vitality that Toronto has shown -- and that goes for retail, culture, reclaiming industrial lands, businesses, whatever.

Let's be careful here, Glen or I were never factoring in culture / retail / parkland / ... or anything along those lines. No one has said Toronto hasn't made progress, in the form of leaps and bounds, in that area - this was strictly about employment growth in the city.

Yes, I do recall Glen mentioned there were other factors and I want to know what they are, to be honest I can't quite see what they would be other then land value (and that should be less or a non issues on the city edges).

 

[Glen]

Aww, a terse, defensive post...how cute. If you start with flawed numbers and then misinterpret them, your argument's just not going to work.

What, are you upset not to have found any spelling or grammatical errors to point out into a lame attempt to claim some authority?

I say we've done a decent job since 1988 - which is true - but that we can always do better (duh) and you consider that as me having said we did the best we could...good job there! What translation program are you running these posts through? Stagnation isn't even always stagnation, you know...9 steps back (most of them not the city's fault) and 10 steps forward is a hell of a lot more dynamic than the resulting 1 step forward seems.

Well, if you say that the city has done a decent job, then that is all the proof we need. The guys who prepared this report should have contacted you for the straight goods.

Have you ever read the Vital Signs report or have you just seen highlights in some think tank press release or on a newspaper graphic? As I said, they get their employment data from the Toronto employment report, which covers a decreasing percentage of job types...basically only jobs located in places where a secretary or owner can tell the kids who are canvassing how many employees they have - assuming they're even telling the truth, mind you, or that the person asked even knows the precise number. Why trot out the numbers when you don't know where they come from and don't know why they're rather unreliable indicators of real job growth in recent decades?

Yep, I have read them. I have also read the sources, where available. The Toronto employment survey, is remarkably consistent with the Economic Indicators reports, which use Stats Can data. Again, what do we need Stats Can for, we have you to tell us the truth.

ShonTron merely stated a few of the very obvious and very large additions of office space since 1988, proving you wrong in about ten words. I could list some of the other dozens of office buildings built since then, but, then again, you could just look out a window...chance are you'll see some of them. Of course, if they did build 6M square feet of office space along Spadina in lieu of CityPlace condos, there'd have been 6M fewer square feet of office space built elsewhere after that. We still wouldn't have better GO service or a DRL, so those towers (plus the other zillion jobs you'd like to see materialize) would have made traffic that much more chaotic.

Of course we will have to ignore the fact most of the properties in ShonTron's list were:
A. Planned or being planned prior to 1988
B. Started after Toronto addressed its tax rate disparity
C. Developed by the city of other levels of government.

 

[Glen]

Because Toronto's commercial tax rate is dropping as scheduled, and that hasn't turned Glen into a booster.

Actually, it has been dropping faster than scheduled. If you can figure why, you get a cookie.

 

[taal]

Actually, it has been dropping faster than scheduled. If you can figure why, you get a cookie.

This is news to me, I thought it wasn't dropping as fast as originally proposed.
Unless you're referring to the overall costs as rents have been dropping, but that's irrelevant.

Anyway, that sounds like good news to me.

 

[Glen]

This is news to me, I thought it wasn't dropping as fast as originally proposed.
Unless you're referring to the overall costs as rents have been dropping, but that's irrelevant.

Anyway, that sounds like good news to me.

Here is a quote from Mayor Miller.......

"We have a program to reduce commercial property taxes in Toronto - particularly on small businesses," said Miller following a special Executive Committee meeting looking at the city's $8.7-billion operating budget. "That is going fast - we're cutting faster than we thought. But next year is going to be a tough budget year, and I'm hoping to evaluate whether we can slow that down or not next year."

and one from city manager Joe Pennachetti .....

" City manager Joe Pennachetti said this morning that the provincial assessments are helping the city accelerate its recalibration of property tax ratios, to increase the portion that comes from the residential sector to two-thirds and reduce the ratio contributed by business to one third"

The reason it is working 'faster' is that the commercial assessment base keeps shrinking relative to the residential base.

 

[taal]

Here is a quote from Mayor Miller.......


and one from city manager Joe Pennachetti .....


The reason it is working 'faster' is that the commercial assessment base keeps shrinking relative to the residential base.

ha, of course - but are they actually raising commercial taxes by substantially less due to the increased residential income ? Or is the tax rate staying the same but the value on the residential side increasing. The goal was to meet a certain ratio between the two?

Anyway, I asked you before, but ignoring commercial taxes, are there any other 'large' issues at play?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

What, are you upset not to have found any spelling or grammatical errors to point out into a lame attempt to claim some authority?

Why bother with spelling and grammar when there's factual and logical errors to point out?

Well, if you say that the city has done a decent job, then that is all the proof we need. The guys who prepared this report should have contacted you for the straight goods.

You bitch about Toronto jobs failing to meet projections and then ignore everything but office jobs. That report uses scary hyperbole to try to goad the city into taking more action...the city *has* done a decent job with employment since 1988, but of course they should do more to stimulate office job growth, as they should with every sector and as they are already doing with some. Who ever said our tax/transit/boosterism/etc. policies should not be changed?

Yep, I have read them. I have also read the sources, where available. The Toronto employment survey, is remarkably consistent with the Economic Indicators reports, which use Stats Can data. Again, what do we need Stats Can for, we have you to tell us the truth.

You dredged up the Vital Signs report, Vital Signs gets its numbers from the TES, not StatsCan, and the TES does not include a large percentage of Toronto's jobs - jobs that are counted by StatsCan...over 200,000 residents of Toronto are working in places not counted by the TES. The Economic Indicators report does not include jobs located within Toronto. The number of employed 416ers is similar to the number of site-fixed and non-household jobs located in the 416, but the two obviously aren't the same thing. That's the truth. Anything else you need cleared up?

Of course we will have to ignore the fact most of the properties in ShonTron's list were:
A. Planned or being planned prior to 1988
B. Started after Toronto addressed its tax rate disparity
C. Developed by the city of other levels of government.

Yes, ignore facts...that'll really help you out. You'll also have to ignore the other dozens of office towers built since 1988. Oh, wait, you already have.

 

[Glen]

You bitch about Toronto jobs failing to meet projections and then ignore everything but office jobs. That report uses scary hyperbole to try to goad the city into taking more action...the city *has* done a decent job with employment since 1988, but of course they should do more to stimulate office job growth, as they should with every sector and as they are already doing with some. Who ever said our tax/transit/boosterism/etc. policies should not be changed?

Again, just because you say that "the city *has* done a decent job with employment since 1988", does not make it so. Your belief, relying on statistics from one source and a disclaimer that some amount may be missed due to data collection methods and those who work from home, yet ignore all other sources (StatsCan) that show a similar trend. The trends are the same using StatsCan data, with a consistent methodology. Unless you are suggesting that only people in Toronto work from home.

You might want to have a look at pages 12 and 50 of this report. Between 89 and 04 the city lost 7.4% of Full and Part Time jobs. The number of residents that commuted outside of the city for work increased by 27% between 91-01.

You dredged up the Vital Signs report, Vital Signs gets its numbers from the TES, not StatsCan, and the TES does not include a large percentage of Toronto's jobs - jobs that are counted by StatsCan...over 200,000 residents of Toronto are working in places not counted by the TES.

Yep, those places are in the 905 cities.

The Economic Indicators report does not include jobs located within Toronto.

Sure it does, just not exclusively. It also counts self employed and those employed but absent from work.

You also seem to be ignoring the impact of a diminished assessment base.

Yes, ignore facts...that'll really help you out. You'll also have to ignore the other dozens of office towers built since 1988. Oh, wait, you already have.

If you think that everything is/was fine then good for you. Even thought i files in the face of numerous studies. Even the Mayor gets it!

It started as a whisper, “Did you hear, that multi-national software company just announced a major investmentâ€â€“ but it wasn’t in Toronto. We shrugged and life went on. Next, there was an occasional article in the daily paper, “Major corporations merge to expand market-share†– but it wasn’t in Toronto. We shrugged and life went on. Until, finally, the whispers became a roar and suddenly everyone was talking about employment sprawl, traffic congestion, and under-employment in Toronto. If we continue to shrug and ignore these warning signs of economic decline, we do so at our peril. As members of the Mayor’s Economic Competitiveness Advisory Committee, we, like many other Torontonians, are noticing some disturbing trends in our city. The economic success that characterized Toronto during the latter half of the twentieth century has become a historical fact rather than a constant characteristic of our city. We’ve seen other cities that years ago were playing catch up to our lead, surpass us in terms of economic growth.

The bad news is that the job growth is happening in the region surrounding Toronto, not in the city itself. This means that while more and more people live in Toronto, increasingly, they must travel, usually by car, to jobs outside the city. And, it shouldn’t come as a surprise then that because of the employment boom outside of Toronto, that median household income in the Toronto region is higher than within the City of Toronto itself, where over the twenty year period of 1980 to 2000 the number of low-income households increased from 18 per cent to 22 per cent of all households in the city.



Employment growth within the city is important for fiscal, social and environmental reasons. A shrinking business and property tax base diminishes Toronto’s ability to adequately provide the social services and other public amenities that are the hallmark of a just and caring society

The report I linked to before describes your thinking perfectly....

The downtown restaurants appear to be full at lunchtime, the usual tide of office workers streams to and from Union Station during the rush hour, there are construction cranes everywhere (even thought they are building condominiums or opera houses, it makes the City centre look busy). Any cries of alarm are drowned in the usual downtown hubbub.