News   Jul 22, 2024
Hazelview and Fitzrovia Break Ground on Affordable Housing at Bloor & Dufferin
 49     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
News Roundup for July 22, 2024
 323     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
Colour and Texture
 388     0 

New City of Toronto Act Passed

A

AlvinofDiaspar

Guest
From the Star:

Province endorses Toronto's power play
City given power to make minor, major decisions
Tories oppose plan, concerned about tax powers
Jun. 13, 2006. 05:22 AM
KERRY GILLESPIE
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

Toronto councillors won't need provincial permission to put a speed bump on a road any more.

Along with eliminating a number of outdated rules like that one, the city has been given broad new powers to change the face of Toronto by setting design standards for buildings and targeting development to specific areas. More controversially, it will have new powers to tax such things as tobacco and alcohol.

The provincial Legislature passed a new City of Toronto Act yesterday in a 58-20 vote, with Liberals and New Democrats supporting it and Progressive Conservatives opposing it.

The law should be in effect by the end of the year.

It's not everything the city originally wanted and it's not, by most measures, all the city needs, but Mayor David Miller is happy just the same.

"I applaud Premier Dalton McGuinty and the provincial government for listening to Toronto and recognizing the unique needs of this great city," he said in a statement yesterday.

The mayor was not in the Legislature when the act, the product of years of lobbying, was passed.

In exchange for the new powers, Miller is expected to "streamline" the way the city runs. If he doesn't, the province has retained the power to impose changes and could decide to force the issue.

The view at Queen's Park, and in many business circles, has long been that councillors spend too much time discussing neighbourhood issues like front-yard parking and not enough time developing sound fiscal policies and a strategic direction for the city.

The province favours a system that puts more decision-making power in the hands of the mayor and a small group of councillors.

"Toronto will be able to deal with a lot of issues in a much more direct fashion," Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen said of the changes.

Right now, if the province doesn't specifically say the city can do something, it can't.

The law will end provincial micromanaging of everything from putting a speed bump on a road to setting bar hours.

"Will it solve all the problems? No," Gerretsen said.

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory fears it will actually cause more.

"This is a bill that focused on new powers to tax and new ways to get money from taxpayers," Tory said.

The province should have fixed the city's fiscal problems caused, in part, by downloading instituted by the last Progressive Conservative government, he said.

"I hope the city doesn't use those powers to tax going forward because taxpayers are paying enough," he said.

The business community fears that councillors, always short of cash, will jump at the opportunity to tax everything from tobacco and alcohol to parking and vehicle registrations as a way to avoid raising the property taxes of voting homeowners.

City staff have estimated the new taxing powers are worth about $50 million a year. The province contends they are worth much more.

"It will do a little bit of good, but it is certainly not the answer," NDP Leader Howard Hampton said of the act. "It's not going to solve in any way Toronto's financial difficulties."

When the push first came to give Canada's largest city more power, it was also about giving Toronto new ways to raise revenue.

The city wanted a portion of provincial sales and income taxes so it could reduce its reliance on property tax. Queen's Park said no and gave the city the power to add on its own tax to various goods and services.

Along the way, the province shifted the debate to focus on the need for city council to change the way it operates in order to better use its new powers.

"The city is left with a highly problematic financial situation and (a law) ... far less substantial than the city needs," NDP MPP Peter Tabuns said.

"(The law) may not be perfect in everyone's eyes," Gerretsen said during debate. But it "is a much, much better situation than the bills that currently govern the City of Toronto."

AoD
 
I worry that all we'll end up with is a situation like we have in development with the OMB - whatever decision the city makes being challenged and the province having to step in and make final decisions anyway. Hopefully it doesn't end up there.

Greg
 
^ The province has the ability to step in in some cases when the city makes poor decisions which could have significant negative economic consequences. The are a couple of sections in Bill 53 where the province can make adjustments if Toronto oversteps its authority.

The OMB exists to save the city from itself when it can't act like a mature level of government. While City politicians and AMO state in public all the reasons that the OMB should be dismantled.... meanwhile behind closed doors duing the Bill 51 OMB and Planning reform consultations AMO stated that the OMB is necessary to overturn poor municipal planning decisions that most often result from political games and councillors trading votes rather than based on the merits of the application.

Unfortunately it is all a big political game where local politicians will pander to ratepayers groups and put out all sorts of negative spin about the OMB to the media to get the public all worked up about it, where in reality it is the OMB that is most equiped to make the proper planning decisions - most local politicians know that - they would just never say it in public or to the media.
 
Hopefully the new governance model will allivate some of that, with local decisions being made at the local level and more power for city-wide, policy decisions with the "executive." Given the way politics runs in this city, though, not sure I should expect much.

When I was reading through the governance model about how the local councils can set their own speed limits and put in traffic calming measures, I had a horrific vision of the various local councils all coming to different decisions on what the "major" street should be. Etobicoke cranking up the speed limit on Eglinton and expanding it with transit lanes, only to hit East York, where they've reduced it to one lane in each direction and put in speed bumps. :eek I doubt it'll happen, but you can't help but expect the worst from Toronto city council...
 
When I was reading through the governance model about how the local councils can set their own speed limits and put in traffic calming measures
Click to expand...

The intent there is to get that stuff off the City Council Agenda so it can focus on advancing some kind of real city-wie goals and ojectives rather then getting bogged down in useless mundane stuff. The current system is broken and hopefully a new governance model will fix some of the problems.

As for the rest of the Act, I'm somewhat uneasy with the broad new authorities and how council may use those authorities.
 
I, for one, am comfortable with councillors having a fair amount of power. If anything inappropriate is done with that power, they will be turfed.
 
incumbants have a huge advantage over other competitors in municipal politics. Most councillors stick around for eons, which is not common in provincial and federal politics.

Councillors will now have four year terms instead of three years, so the public can forget everything they did the first year.

How do you explain people like Ford, Moscoe or Walker getting elected again and again... it is very difficult to upset and incumbant municipal politician - not just in Toronto, look how long many of the 905 mayors and councillors have been around. Also unlike provincial and federal politics, where business interests have a stronger role to play, the nature of municipal politics is often at odds with business interests. New powers and long terms for councillors could hinder the economic competitiveness of the city. Which is why the only people that mounted any significant protest over some specific components of Bill 53 were various business groups.
 
How do you explain people like Ford, Moscoe or Walker getting elected again and again.
Click to expand...
Lack of parties.

People generally vote for the prime minister, premier, and mayor. MPs and MPPs turn over when people become fed up with a party as a whole. Works the other way too. Some lousy MPs and MPPs can hang around because people want a certain party in power.

At the municipal level they vote for the mayor and select the only name they recognize for the councillor. Tie the mayor and councillor together somehow and you will turn over a significant portion of council every time the mayor changes.
 
rbtaylor,

You very clearly articulated the main problem with the quality of our municipal politicians and the lack of turnover. Toronto needs new blood and new ideas on council.

afransen,

The problem is they don't get turfed when they make bad decisions, they just keep getting elected again and again - four year terms may only exasperate the problem.
 
Perhaps term limits is something to consider?

For example, three terms for a councillor (12 years) and two terms for a mayor (8 years).
 
From the Star:

Powerful committee endorsed
Jun. 21, 2006. 01:00 AM
VANESSA LU
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

A plan to revamp the governance structure at city hall to give the mayor more power has received a ringing endorsement from a key committee.

The unanimous vote yesterday came after many Toronto citizens paraded before the policy and finance committee, urging against the creation of a powerful executive committee.

Under the proposal, which will go to city council next week for final approval, the mayor would pick the chairs of seven standing committees.

Those chairs, the mayor and the deputy mayor, plus four councillors chosen by city council, would make up the 13-member executive committee, which will push the strategic direction of the city.

The budget committee would remain separate, with the chair chosen from among executive committee members. But it would report to the executive committee.

While some residents raised concerns about the committee's structure, Mayor David Miller told reporters that final decision-making rests with council.

"The office of the mayor of Toronto needs the ability to steer, and that's all this does, give a little bit more ability to steer," he said. "In the end, council's supreme; that's as it should be."

Councillor Cliff Jenkins, who had proposed letting council select members of the new committee, said the vote doesn't reflect the will of the people.

"The mayor is a very strong mayor. The mayor is able to establish the ... entire program of council, which he does now," said Jenkins (Ward 25, Don Valley West).

"We really don't need the mayor having tons more power."

With files from John Spears

AoD
 
And Royson on the matter, from the Star:

Together, the 3Ms created a new Toronto
Jun. 21, 2006. 01:00 AM
ROYSON JAMES

When David Miller strode into city hall in November 2003 as the new mayor of Toronto, his election completed a radical transformation of the political landscape. The public, nasty battles between city hall, Queen's Park and Ottawa were over.

Gone were Mel Lastman, Mike Harris and Jean Chrétien, sometimes referred to as the Three Amigos, though they rarely saw eye-to-eye. In their stead were now Prime Minister Paul Martin, Premier Dalton McGuinty and Mayor Miller — the 3Ms.

Within months of being elected, Miller was saying of Martin's Throne Speech, "This is the start of a beautiful relationship." McGuinty kept calling Toronto his indispensable driver of the economy. And for the first time in the most recent campaign to gain cities a new deal — more power, money and respect — there was reason to hope.

Miller knew the file as well as any politician on city council. Where Mel would tire of the grind to lobby senior governments and the slow progress, Miller volunteered to fill the stand-in role. City staff knew he was engaged on the file. So when he became mayor, they saw this as their chance to turn up the heat and go for broke.

Martin, who admitted he was once opposed to giving cities a portion of the gas tax, was by now an avowed new deal convert. Now as PM, he and Miller "hit it off" and the new mayor sought to curry his favour.

But it would be McGuinty who would surprise all to become the champion of a new, empowered Toronto.

In a pre-election interview, he told the Toronto Star:

"We can no longer enjoy the luxury of resenting progress in Toronto because this has an inevitable spillover to the rest of the province. If I don't get (Toronto), in particular, firing on all eight cylinders, I won't have the capability to help build stronger Kapuskasings and Timminses and smaller communities around the province of Ontario. This is my engine and it's missing right now."

But few believed him — least of all the provincial finance bureaucracy.

"We had our battles, but the key was always, in the end, the premier was onside," said Brad Duguid, a former city councillor who is now parliamentary assistant to the minister of municipal affairs and housing.

"The premier was really driven on this file. He was saying what many people across the province may not have wanted to hear — that Toronto was important."

Within months of Miller's election, city council voted to re-offer Toronto's position paper on landing legislated new powers from Ontario. The Lastman council had approved the document and sent it to the conservative government where it gathered dust. Now, with a pro-Toronto premier and a new mayor, they tried again.

McGuinty embraced the plan. He agreed to a joint review of existing legislation governing the relationship between Toronto and the province. And at one unforgettable evening in Toronto in September 2004, as Miller hosted mayors from the 10 largest urban regions in Canada, McGuinty told them he would introduce a new City of Toronto Act within 15 months.

"The room kinda went nuts," said Tobias Novogrodsky, who'd spent years with other policy wonks like Phillip Abrahams honing the city's position. "I was pretty excited. It was better than ... well, it went beyond what everyone expected."

Once McGuinty had made his position clear, he had a lot of help from the likes of cabinet ministers Gerard Kennedy and George Smitherman, Duguid, and the man whose file it was — John Gerretsen, the former Kingston mayor who knew all the ancient grievances.

"The question wasn't if, it was when. The bureaucrats are into due diligence and process and incremental change. Gerretsen was more into turning it on its head," says one provincial staffer close to the development of the deal.

When Gerretsen's ministry staff took different elements of the plan for Cabinet sign off, bureaucrats were flabbergasted at how easily monumental shifts in provincial positions occurred.

Again, the alignment of the stars assisted Toronto's quest. Gerretsen's assistant was Judith Pfeifer, who'd spent years at city hall in the city manager's office. Her city hall boss, Shirley Hoy, had spent time as an assistant deputy minister at Queen's Park. Gerretsen also had Ralph Walton on the file; Walton spent time at city hall as well.

"If it didn't happen then, it wouldn't have happened at all," one observer said.

Even as McGuinty was opening the door to more autonomy and powers for the city, Martin was opening the purse strings.

Almost exactly a year ago, the prime minister came to town to and delivered a speech worthy of the new deal apostle he'd become. He also brought $1.9 billion in gas tax money for cities.

"The new deal, I believe, is a national project for our time," Martin told mayors gathered in Richmond Hill.

A year later, McGuinty delivered what he promised — passage of the most progressive set of rules governing a Canadian city, one that sets Toronto on the path to becoming a charter city with unique powers.

One in a series of columns on the new City of Toronto Act. Later: the Act's successes and failures.

AoD
 
For those following this a new Municipal Amendment Act has been introduced with many of the same broad permissive powers as the City of Toronto Act to apply to the rest of the province.
 
From the Star:

T.O's mayor gets power boost
Will appoint new executive committee
Community councils expand their role
Jun. 28, 2006. 06:39 AM
VANESSA LU
CITY HALL BUREAU

In a landmark move, Toronto City Council yesterday bolstered the power of Mayor David Miller and his successors, while at the same time making it easier for residents to get what they need in the neighbourhood — say, a speed hump installed on their street.

While falling short of a U.S.-style "strong mayor" system, the governance proposals approved after a 4 1/2-hour debate yesterday create a powerful new 13-member executive committee that would be mostly handpicked by the mayor.

Council will also appoint a speaker and deputy speaker to chair council meetings, which currently tend to get bogged down in bizarre debates for hours, or even a whole day. For much of this term, make-up days have had to be added to deal with agenda items that weren't completed during the scheduled three-day council session.

Community councils — how many remains to be decided — will get a boost in power, too. They'll be given final say on many local matters, from on-street parking and fence exemptions, to tree removals, traffic lights and bicycle lanes.

"Under the new structure, council will be able to set priorities much better with the mayor's guidance through the executive committee," Mayor David Miller told reporters after the 27-to-13 vote.

"And people will see a much better opportunity to be part of decisions in their neighbourhood."

The governance changes, which will take effect in December after the Nov. 13 municipal election, come as Queen's Park is handing over more power to the municipality under the new City of Toronto Act. With the new act, the city will get to make more of its own decisions and have the power to levy new taxes.

However, Premier Dalton McGuinty has made it clear that, with these new powers, city council has to change its structure to give the mayor more authority. If not, the provincial government warned it was reserving the right to impose a model for Toronto.

A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen said yesterday that the ministry plans to review the changes before commenting.

In the new structure, the executive committee, consisting of the mayor, deputy mayor, chairs of seven standing committees — chosen by the mayor — and four members chosen by council would drive the mayor's agenda on strategic matters, from transportation to taxation.

The executive committee would pick a budget chair from among its members, and the budget committee would report directly to the executive committee, rather than to a finance committee as before.

The changes will give the mayor "more ability to steer the agenda," said Miller, noting it's an important reform because the mayor is the only Toronto politician elected by all the voters.

The point of having a speaker and deputy speaker chosen from among the councillors is to improve decorum in the chamber. But not everyone agrees it will make a difference.

"It's unnecessary," said Councillor Case Ootes, who chaired most council meetings in the Mel Lastman days. "This will give two people a fancy title. It won't make a difference in the decorum of this place."

The most contentious issue yesterday was how many community councils there would be, and how they would be structured. Some councillors wanted the current four to be increased to eight. In the end, the matter was deferred for further study.

Splitting councillors among eight community councils would mean having only five or six on each, instead of the current 11, Ootes (Ward 29, Toronto Danforth) warned.

"If it's too small a number, you are doomed to run into quorum problems. And on planning or zoning matters, the opportunity for corruption is that much greater," he said.

But others, like Councillor Michael Walker, see more community councils as an answer to the struggles of governing a large city.

"The megacity doesn't work. Local neighbourhoods want to have their say," said Walker (Ward 22, St. Paul's). "I say, the more community councils the better."

Some questioned the need for any of the changes at all.

"I don't think things are that bad at this council," said Councillor Norm Kelly (Ward 40, Scarborough-Agincourt). "As a group, I think we do a pretty darn good job."

Miller conceded that under the new system, council would probably still have spent much of the day debating the subject.

"Sure, there will be debate, but debate is great. It's healthy," Miller said. "The debate will be much more about issues of policy and citywide significance.

"What you won't see over time is a lot of the issues we spend two or three hours on ... like whether there should be speed bumps in a lane."

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top