Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

[DSC]

And more..

9d - Motion to Amend Mayor's Proposed Budget moved by Councillor Stephen Holyday (Lost)
That:

1. City Council amend the 2024 to 2033 Capital Budget and Plan for Transportation Services, by reallocating $10 million in 2024 from for the implementation of the Cycling Network Plan to the state of good repair backlog of roads, and that the remaining funding for cycling projects be prioritized by the relative existing cycling share to overall volume.

Vote (Amend Mayor's Proposed Budget)Feb-14-2024 4:39 PM​

Result: Lost	Majority Required
Total members that voted Yes: 2	Members that voted Yes are Stephen Holyday, Nick Mantas
Total members that voted No: 24	Members that voted No are Paul Ainslie, Brad Bradford, Alejandra Bravo, Jon Burnside, Shelley Carroll, Lily Cheng, Olivia Chow, Mike Colle, Vincent Crisanti, Paula Fletcher, Parthi Kandavel, Ausma Malik, Josh Matlow, Jennifer McKelvie, Chris Moise, Amber Morley, Jamaal Myers, Frances Nunziata (Chair), James Pasternak, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Jaye Robinson, Dianne Saxe, Michael Thompson
Total members that were Absent: 0

 

[evandyk]

I think that making fares free for kids is probably one of the best uses of Toronto/TTC public funds you can imagine.

 

[Northern Light]

I think that making fares free for kids is probably one of the best uses of Toronto/TTC public funds you can imagine.

I don't mind a contrary argument, in as much as I like the idea of a streamlined fare structure (no discounts for seniors or teens) but reduce the adult (new everyone) fare price. The argument is that its easier to understand, has better fairness perception, for the preceding reasons, its also likely to have lower fare evasion and easier detection/enforcement against same.

My thing here is, the argument needs to be made for the right reasons, not to 'save' money strictly by penalizing those w/young kids, but rather as part of a program to genuinely improve efficiency and reinvest those savings in better service and lower fares.

Because children 12 and under were already very heavily discounted, there is very little to be gained by reinstating 'child fares'. That's what made the promise so appealing is that it was very affordable.

I would argue for something more like this:

3 and under is free; everyone else pays an identical fare of $2.75 and there's a 40-ride monthly cap ($110 a month). Note that this is cheaper than the current low income pass, cheaper than the current seniors pass and cheaper than current student pass. So its not punitive to low income earners or to families.

It would mean an increase for those with children 12 and under obviously; though if its a 2-adult household, and both are regular riders, the adult savings my scheme almost certainly saves each adult at least $40 per month or $80 for the couple, while costing no more than $110 for the child.

****

For all of the above, I don't think its a priority; I simply like something I see as less cumbersome, more affordable to most singles and families and that just seems more logical to me.

Anyone wanting to cut it just to save on taxes will find my sympathies lie elsewhere.

 

[Richard White]

These would seem to be the 6 real conservative right-wingers. Probably strongly supported by our @RichardWhite :->

It may interest you to know that I am a left winger.

While we don't always agree I am a supporter of the NDP.

At one point many years ago, I was so far left that members of the NDP suggested I join the Communist Party of Canada as it may be more suitable.

I am still very much a Communist at heart but I lean towards the NDP during most elections.

 

[Northern Light]

I imagine we must have one.........but I can't seem to dig up a thread for the North York Centre Ring Road........so I'll post this here:

Toronto Bids Portal

www.toronto.ca

Its a tender towards detailed design and construction for the Doris extension.

I think @sunnyraytoronto needs to be looped in............as maybe someone should flag to the Councillor/Transportation that their originally preferred routing/sites may now be in play.

I'm loathe to delay this thing, but at the same time it would be terrible to build an inferior version, if a better one is possible.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

I imagine we must have one.........but I can't seem to dig up a thread for the North York Centre Ring Road........so I'll post this here:

Toronto Bids Portal

www.toronto.ca

Its a tender towards detailed design and construction for the Doris extension.

I think @sunnyraytoronto needs to be looped in............as maybe someone should flag to the Councillor/Transportation that their originally preferred routing/sites may now be in play.

I'm loathe to delay this thing, but at the same time it would be terrible to build an inferior version, if a better one is possible.

Let's see if City of Toronto is dumb enough to rebuild this Sheppard & Doris intersection twice,.... in 2 phases as planed,... or do it right the first time! It's only taxpayers' money!

47-49 Sheppard Ave E (Lev, ?s, ?)

From the Lobbyist Registry we learn the fate of this existing office building is in play. Lev Developments Inc has registered to lobby, beginning January 1st, 2024 on the fate of this site. We do have at least one idea about their plans, in that the lobbying will both for a ZBA and an OPA...

urbantoronto.ca

And also, the City still don't own all the properties required for Doris South Extension,... the City still needs 69 Glendora Ave (southwest corner of Glendora and Tradewind),... owned by Oulahen,... oh, and City hates dealing with them!

55 Sheppard East | 45.41m | 14s

A stranger sight for marcus_a_j Thanks @sunnyraytoronto Forget Doris Ave. extension. Forget any condos or other buildings. Let's just turn the site into park space!

urbantoronto.ca

 

[DSC]

We really may be getting a commercial parking lot levy! This coming to Executive next week: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2024.EX12.3



As a result of this research, staff are recommending the following parking levy design principles in the application of a commercial parking levy:



1. Apply a commercial off-street parking levy to the entire City of Toronto;


2. Include both private and publicly owned or operated commercial properties;


3. Include both unpaid and fee-paid parking facilities including surface parking, underground parking and parking garages;


4. Include a minimum area threshold, which provides an automatic exemption for the first 300m2 for all properties (equivalent to approximately 10 parking spaces) to reduce the burden of the levy on small businesses; and


5. Apply a two-zone rate structure based on geographic area:

a. Zone A – Downtown & Central Waterfront

b. Zone B – Entire City of Toronto, excluding Zone A.



The proposed parking levy will apply to properties within the Commercial tax class, and the levy will be calculated based on the total areal extent of the property that is used for parking multiplied by a per-square metre rate. An exemption from the levy will apply for the first 300 square metres for all properties. In addition to the mandatory statutory exemptions from taxation established under Section 268 of the City of Toronto Act, it is recommended that the property tax exemptions of Section 3 of the Assessment Act also apply for various property types. Staff are also recommending refining the definition of “parking area” to exclude certain situations where parking is directly associated with a business use, e.g., vehicle storage for certain commercial operations, as explained later in the report.

 

[Northern Light]

LOL, of course @DSC raced to get it up first!

Initial Revenues estimated at 100M-150M annually.

****

I'm very pleased to see this.

 

[generalcanada]

Also today Toronto gets another 100 million for apperently beating the 2023 housing target by 50%

Whats the total up to now after the Gardiner and the refugee stuff?

Toronto, Canada & Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

 

[Northern Light]

Also today Toronto gets another 100 million for apperently beating the 2023 housing target by 50%

Whats the total up to now after the Gardiner and the refugee stuff?

Toronto, Canada & Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

The 114M is one-time money, not annual money, so its not a fix for any operating shortfalls in the City.

It is, however, helpful in terms of making up some needed funds that can be invested in state-of-good-repair, and/or new (affordable) housing. Do keep in mind, if it went to the latter, that we'd be luck to see 228 units out of it. Which, while better than a kick in the head........would be a very small dent in something like 14,000 homeless people in Toronto.

 

[Northern Light]

Executive Ctte surprised me by referring the proposed parking levy.

As such it will not be approved in this cycle of Council.

They did not spike it.

But I'm leery. As the motion came from Cllr. Carroll who is the Mayor's budget chief......clearly this move had the mayor's blessing.

Agenda Item History 2024.EX12.3

Agenda Item History 2024.EX12.3

secure.toronto.ca

 

[christiesplits]

Big scoop from the Toronto Star:

Toronto signed a secret deal that would have let it back out of hosting the 2026 World Cup

Toronto signed a secret deal that would have let it back out of hosting the 2026 World Cup

Emails obtained by the Star show how the city came to be on the hook for hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup without money from Ottawa or Queen’s Park.

www.thestar.com

Toronto signed a secret agreement that gave it the right to withdraw from hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup if it didn't receive financial support from senior levels of government by mid-2020, internal emails obtained by the Star show.

But for reasons that remain unclear, the city didn’t trigger the deal, leaving it on the hook for the skyrocketing costs of games.

A draft of the deal is contained in emails obtained by the Star through a freedom of information request. They provide the fullest picture yet of how the city joined the bid to host the global soccer tournament in 2018, despite not meeting the key council condition of securing provincial and federal funding beforehand.

 

[DSC]

Executive Ctte surprised me by referring the proposed parking levy.

As such it will not be approved in this cycle of Council.

They did not spike it.

But I'm leery. As the motion came from Cllr. Carroll who is the Mayor's budget chief......clearly this move had the mayor's blessing.

Agenda Item History 2024.EX12.3

Agenda Item History 2024.EX12.3

secure.toronto.ca

View attachment 544671

Not sure I am surprised, in order to have a levy, one needs to know how many and where the parking lots are and it could never have been applied in 2024. This motion admits that 2024 is impossible but provides a method of getting all the necessary info so it COULD be implemented in 2025. Will it happen then? 50:50

 

[Northern Light]

Not sure I am surprised, in order to have a levy, one needs to know how many and where the parking lots are and it could never have been applied in 2024. This motion admits that 2024 is impossible but provides a method of getting all the necessary info so it COULD be implemented in 2025. Will it happen then? 50:50

The initial report did not propose implementation this year, but in 2025.

The info you note was still to be collected, and still will be collected.

The issue was a political one; whether to attempt to push approval, in principle, through Council now, or wait.

The decision was made to wait. Cllr. Carroll has identified that she wanted to see what the interplay would be between this tax and a proposed stormwater charge which may be coming down the pipe as well; she also wanted to see more on potential exclusions, among other things.

Talking to a few folks, I'm under the impression this would been given a vigorous ride at Council and the feeling was that it would be better to have the answers to certain questions before it reaches Council and to figure out ways to massage things a bit.

 

[just east of the creek]

Big scoop from the Toronto Star:

Toronto signed a secret deal that would have let it back out of hosting the 2026 World Cup

Toronto signed a secret deal that would have let it back out of hosting the 2026 World Cup

Emails obtained by the Star show how the city came to be on the hook for hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup without money from Ottawa or Queen’s Park.

www.thestar.com

Is there any chance of seeing the complete article ( I do not subscribe to the Star). I am a big supporter of the World Cup, 'footie ' in general, and the chance to host Cup game here. But, and it is a large BUT., I am also tired of municipalities being held to ransom by organizations such as FIFA. Reading the City report it would seem that much of the support for these costs from other levels of government and the private sector are not yet funded If these charges for the WC Games are growing out of proportion to the benefits (speedier transit growth?), and no further cost remediation, other government support, other corporate supports are to be found, I could see myself supporting the city in saying "Thanks, but no thanks" Having the games would be nice, but not overwhelmingly so, supporting the Canadian team at home would be great, but I think there is only one sure Team Canada game in the FIFA calendar, the first game. I could say no without regret.

And what is and how is $7.5 million in "legacy + indigenous capacity funding" connected to the world cup?