adma
Superstar
Speak for yourself, bub. (NB: that's addressing the user name...)
|
|
|
Economist: Toronto, nice but broke
- Thread starter BobBob
- Start date
Speak for yourself, bub. (NB: that's addressing the user name...)
JasonParis
Moderator
The Economist article may be a bit wrong about certain things (Toronto becoming a city state? If only!), but a part of me likes the fact that it came out very negative. I remember an article in The New York Times about five years ago that featured Toronto's "tent city" and other examples of the city's general state of decline over the previous ten years. It really got people talking and seemed to make the province (Ernie Eves at the time I think) get a bit interested in the city again.
The Hume article is good. He hits all the right notes, but then he usually does when it comes to how cities are treated in this federation. Sadly, he's been going on about it forever now, yet nothing ever changes.
The Hume article is good. He hits all the right notes, but then he usually does when it comes to how cities are treated in this federation. Sadly, he's been going on about it forever now, yet nothing ever changes.
MisterF
Senior Member
Toronto's status isn't in any danger. Toronto's 5 times the size of Calgary, and is still one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country. Montreal never had a lead like that on Toronto. Come to think of it, Montreal never had a lead on Toronto like the lead Toronto has on Montreal.
That's not to say the problem doesn't need to be fixed. This isn't good publicity.
RJR123
Active Member
I totally agree. A lot of it has to do with the people in charge in Ottawa. Harper is not exactly an urbanite, and his party has a definite rural tinge to it. This is representative of Canada for the most part, and explains the anitpathy towards Toronto. God forbid that we have a city that joins the international ranks of greatness, why that would be un-Canadian.
R
roch5220
Guest
I think its more likely over the next couple decades that a Montreal turnaround would be a bigger threat to Toronto's status than a western time zone city (especially when they lack financial infrastructure).
The article is nothing more than facts mixed in with sensationial journalism.
afransen
Senior Member
When the Economist author refers to Toronto becoming a city state, I think they mean a more fiscally independent entity within Canada and/or Ontario.
I think it would be a mistake for the City alone to secede from Ontario or gain province-like status. It really should be the region as a whole, so we can avoid some really peverse economic consequences. Like, if the City seceded, it could afford a much lower corporate income tax rate than Ontario. Thus it could attract many jobs to the City, even where the employees reside in the suburbs. There could be some substantial tension over taxation in this case.
Alas, it's too bad that Toronto and its surrounding suburbs can't get over their mutual distrust or dislike and work together to gain greater independence or autonomy.
I think it would be a mistake for the City alone to secede from Ontario or gain province-like status. It really should be the region as a whole, so we can avoid some really peverse economic consequences. Like, if the City seceded, it could afford a much lower corporate income tax rate than Ontario. Thus it could attract many jobs to the City, even where the employees reside in the suburbs. There could be some substantial tension over taxation in this case.
Alas, it's too bad that Toronto and its surrounding suburbs can't get over their mutual distrust or dislike and work together to gain greater independence or autonomy.
syn
Senior Member
One thing I don't understand is why the rural vote still has such political sway. It's been well documented that 80% of the population now lives in urban areas...so shouldn't cities have a lot more influence?
afransen
Senior Member
I'd be interested in a poll asking Canadians whether they considered themselves to live in an area best described as urban or rural. My guess is that way more than 20% would respond to the latter. I think some of it has to do with some romanticism about rural areas, farming, etc.
Because the populations of the ridings vary wildly and the feds, for whatever reason, don't want to fix this. Off the top of my head Moose River in northern Manitoba has 60,000 people. Most ridings in Scarborough have 120,000. Rural ridings in general all have smaller populations than urban ones hence the rural clout.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,312
- Reaction score
- 12,135
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Part of the problem is you can't take ridings away from the small provinces - and this is consitutionally mandated in many of the cases - something to do with the number of senators (it's almost 1AM and will check later) and other factors. So while the small provinces lose clout slowly relatively, and most seats created are in suburban areas in southern Ontario, and around Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal, it's taking a long time.
Unfortunately, as well, outer suburban voters don't vote like urban voters do - while Brampton and Mississauga vote more like Toronto, York, Durham and Halton are more likely to vote like rural areas.
Meanwhile Steve wants to fix this problem, but reling on a formula that gives AB and BC more seats faster than Ontario.
Unfortunately, as well, outer suburban voters don't vote like urban voters do - while Brampton and Mississauga vote more like Toronto, York, Durham and Halton are more likely to vote like rural areas.
Meanwhile Steve wants to fix this problem, but reling on a formula that gives AB and BC more seats faster than Ontario.
lordmandeep
Banned
in the last 15 years myself and my dad have noticed that Toronto has gone from being financially focus to Arts and Culture focus.
Business isn't as important to the city as is arts and culture is the attitude our leaders have now..
Now that is why the city is in debt.
I agree the Economist is 100% right. The city is very nice and its inner city is vibrant and powerful unlike most cities but some parts of the city are failing quite badly. Its saying the city should be careful as Toronto has been somewhat free of the ailments that effect American cities and it should make sure it does not happen.
IMO what is going to happen, The inner city and downtown will be a place of great arts and culture and great wealth, however the outer areas of the city will continue to decline. This will also starts to spread in to some suburban areas as well.
Business isn't as important to the city as is arts and culture is the attitude our leaders have now..
Now that is why the city is in debt.
I agree the Economist is 100% right. The city is very nice and its inner city is vibrant and powerful unlike most cities but some parts of the city are failing quite badly. Its saying the city should be careful as Toronto has been somewhat free of the ailments that effect American cities and it should make sure it does not happen.
IMO what is going to happen, The inner city and downtown will be a place of great arts and culture and great wealth, however the outer areas of the city will continue to decline. This will also starts to spread in to some suburban areas as well.
afransen
Senior Member
According to the Canadian constitution, no province may have fewer MPs in the HoC than Senate seats. This is a rather useless requirement, as nothing restricts the number of seats in the HoC. Alas, it's written in the stone that is our constitution, so we might as well move on from there.
So check out this table of population per senate seat for each jurisdiction in Canada:
Wikipedia Entry
We can accept that PEI will be overrepresented with 4 MPs. The province with the next lowest population per senator is New Brunswick, with 72,950 per senate seat. If every riding outside the territories and PEI had this population, there'd be 445 seats. Some might say that's a tad too many, given how most MPs don't get soundbites in on the national newscasts as it is.
Fine, then let's accept that both PEI and NB will be overrepresented, and use Newfoundland and Labrador as the yardstick, at 85,488 per senate seat. That would give us about 385 MPs.
Sure, most MPs are just a waste of space and a hundred thousand dollar salary, but if increasing their number by 20 - 50% will largely redress the rather extreme distortion of rep-by-pop in this country, especially the urban-rural divide, then I think it's worth the extra $20 million in parliamentary expenses. Unfortunately, it might require a bit of a drastic renovation of the House of Commons. Other than that, it is a move that can only win votes, as the areas that will benefit will have a larger say in national affairs. Do any parties have the guts to stand up to the tails that are the Maritime provinces waving the Ontario/BC/Alta dog, or stand up to the rural 20% who stand to lose considerable influence?
I could see either the NDP or Liberals proposing it, as it would fatten up their bases. Well, the Liberals would only propose it after their next rise to government.
So check out this table of population per senate seat for each jurisdiction in Canada:
Wikipedia Entry
We can accept that PEI will be overrepresented with 4 MPs. The province with the next lowest population per senator is New Brunswick, with 72,950 per senate seat. If every riding outside the territories and PEI had this population, there'd be 445 seats. Some might say that's a tad too many, given how most MPs don't get soundbites in on the national newscasts as it is.
Fine, then let's accept that both PEI and NB will be overrepresented, and use Newfoundland and Labrador as the yardstick, at 85,488 per senate seat. That would give us about 385 MPs.
Sure, most MPs are just a waste of space and a hundred thousand dollar salary, but if increasing their number by 20 - 50% will largely redress the rather extreme distortion of rep-by-pop in this country, especially the urban-rural divide, then I think it's worth the extra $20 million in parliamentary expenses. Unfortunately, it might require a bit of a drastic renovation of the House of Commons. Other than that, it is a move that can only win votes, as the areas that will benefit will have a larger say in national affairs. Do any parties have the guts to stand up to the tails that are the Maritime provinces waving the Ontario/BC/Alta dog, or stand up to the rural 20% who stand to lose considerable influence?
I could see either the NDP or Liberals proposing it, as it would fatten up their bases. Well, the Liberals would only propose it after their next rise to government.
JasonParis
Moderator
Any way you read the current budget problems, it's pretty hard to put the blame on culture. In fact, it's downright ridiculous.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
If you are making reference to the financial sector, Toronto is still the number one city in Canada for this business activity. You can't be more than number one. It is also one of the top five in North America.
Arts and culture are revenue generators for the city. So I can't quite see how you and good old dad managed to make these determinations that arts put the city into debt.
I'm in the arts and culture sector and believe me the city, province and feds make a tidy sum from me. The city gets property taxes from me both at home and at the office. The office payroll also finds itself into their hands as do various other expenses.