Next Mayor of Toronto?

[GraphicMatt]

We find efficiencies where possible, work out a solution to rising labour costs (and 'get tough' isn't really a strategy - you can't just fire all these guys and move on; it's a process), raise property taxes when necessary and implement additional revenue generators like highway tolls and development fees as appropriate.

We also work with the province to continue to upload services. The province may be 'broke' now, but it's a recession. Recovery will happen.

What's the right's solution? Soundbytes. Cut waste. Get tough. Except that waste and inefficiencies, while terrible and important to address, are only going to get you a couple of percentage points on a huge overall budget.

You want to be a fiscal hawk and crow about Miller's overspending? Tell me where you'd start cutting. Transit expansion? The police force? Community revitalization programs? Make a list.

 

[kettal]

I guess that's the philosophy Miller has been following the past 8 years? - under the guise of the a feel good hipster of course.

And if it was that easy, I would be a millionaire! You forget that in the private sector, there is a breaking point when you raise prices. People stop buying. And so, that's the ultimate equalizer, choice! One can argue that I can choose not to live in the city, but that's why there is a democratic process, which allows me to choose a candidate more concerned about how they spend public dollars.

It's a bell curve. On one end, the price is zero, and so you have zero revenue; and on the other end the price is excessively high, so you have no sales, and also zero revenue. If you are any kind of businessman, you want to aim for the peak in the middle, where revenue is maximum.

And if you want to run a city like a business, you want your taxes to be as high as possible, but just not so high that people leave the city.

Running a city "like a business" is neither left nor right, it's simply a stupid rhetorical nugget.

It's easy to paint me as a 'right wing chabbot' (I'm actually very centerist), but it seems like some people don't want to deal with the fact that before this administration, this city had 4 years of amalgamation and did not have a 3.6 B+ debt.
It seems like the only defence people have for this is to deflect it to the Province and Federal levels.
BReaking news - both other levels are BROKE!

How many balanced budgets did Toronto have in the Lastman era?

 

[GenerationW]

Private sector businesses operate on the premise of maximizing revenues. Transfer that philosophy to government and "running it like a business" equals higher taxes.

That ignores the fact that private sector businesses in competitive industries are also forced to minimize expenses.

 

[urbandreamer]

Just found a cool game-Budget Hero- that teaches you how to balance the books. http://www.heavygames.com/budgethero/gameframe.asp

 

[js97]

It's a bell curve. On one end, the price is zero, and so you have zero revenue; and on the other end the price is excessively high, so you have no sales, and also zero revenue. If you are any kind of businessman, you want to aim for the peak in the middle, where revenue is maximum.

And if you want to run a city like a business, you want your taxes to be as high as possible, but just not so high that people leave the city.

Running a city "like a business" is neither left nor right, it's simply a stupid rhetorical nugget.


How many balanced budgets did Toronto have in the Lastman era?

Yes, it's called maximizing consumer surplus underneath the demand curve, I understand that.
But I was speaking to the other side of the coin, where efficiencies can be found, and tough decisions made based on a limited budget. As a person, a business entity, you would never position yourself in such crippling debt. Why is it okay for a city to do it? I'm not a balanced budget freak, in fact, I think a reasonable amount of debt is healthy. It shows that your're maximazing your potential. But the hole Toronto is in, is not healthy.

And also, no politician will ever actually tell you they will be maximazing property taxes, as I said, because of choice, he/she would never get elected (that and no councillor would ever approve it, again, he/she would quickly get the boot).

Graphic Matt, it's so easy to press those hot buttons of fire/rescue, essential services, but the city budget has a lot more frills than that. I don't have all the details, but...

8 Million dollars to 'study' taking down the Gardiner?
First, we dont' have the 400 million to take it down, and even if we did, would it not make more logical sense to build an alternative before you tear down an artery? That would just create more congestion, pollution, for what? An aethetically pleasing view? (it's already covered by the condos)

TTC museum? Is that a must have for a city that's broke and charge 12 year kids to use the pool?
311? what are councillors going to do now?

If you want the ultimate tax, just put a residence city tax. American cities have it, tack on an extra 3% on your income based on residence and/or place of work. That would solve your nickle and dime solutions.

 

[kEiThZ]

We find efficiencies where possible, work out a solution to rising labour costs (and 'get tough' isn't really a strategy - you can't just fire all these guys and move on; it's a process), raise property taxes when necessary and implement additional revenue generators like highway tolls and development fees as appropriate.

We also work with the province to continue to upload services. The province may be 'broke' now, but it's a recession. Recovery will happen.

What's the right's solution? Soundbytes. Cut waste. Get tough.

Yeah and the above doesn't sound like soundbites. I am no Rossi fan, but if the best the left can offer is a pledge to "find efficiencies where possible" then they are doomed. And pray tell how you are going to find a "solution to rising labour costs" without getting tough? Our closet union lover has been trying to do that for the last 8 years. Some success he's had capping the city's wage envelope. This city needs a mayor who's willing to go to war with the unions and willing to use every play in the book (including privatization) if costs are to be reined in.

You want to be a fiscal hawk and crow about Miller's overspending? Tell me where you'd start cutting. Transit expansion? The police force? Community revitalization programs? Make a list.

Privatize and outsource wherever possible. Ditch the fair wage clause for city contracts. Implement a hiring freeze across the city workforce with only the absolutely essential positions being filled. Get rid of surplus land or develop it. Just look at the expanse of Warden station's parking lot. Why can't the city get in bed with a developer to do something with that? And if absolutely necessary re-evaluate Transit City and only proceed with plans that will reduce costs (after all the TTC keeps saying that TC is cheaper than buses, why not study that in-depth). If residents really value things like transit expansion, they should be willing to pay for them. And at that point tax increases can be brought into play. But first, I figure most residents would like to see the city tighten its belt. I'd also like to see Councillors accept a voluntary 5 year pay and expenses freeze (or even a cut) for themselves as a symbolic gesture.

 

[kettal]

Yes, it's called maximizing consumer surplus underneath the demand curve, I understand that.
But I was speaking to the other side of the coin, where efficiencies can be found, and tough decisions made based on a limited budget. As a person, a business entity, you would never position yourself in such crippling debt. Why is it okay for a city to do it? I'm not a balanced budget freak, in fact, I think a reasonable amount of debt is healthy. It shows that your're maximazing your potential. But the hole Toronto is in, is not healthy.

Some ideas can be taken from the private sector, but not all. For example, if you run a private business and want to downsize, you just have to lay 500 people off, point them towards the welfare office, and then they're no longer your problem. Government is different, because you are the welfare office that your laid off employees will be going to.

That's why fair wage contract requirements make sense. Nothing is gained if we can pay the city workers minimum wage, but their family still has to get welfare and subsidized housing.

And also, no politician will ever actually tell you they will be maximazing property taxes, as I said, because of choice, he/she would never get elected (that and no councillor would ever approve it, again, he/she would quickly get the boot).

Another reason why government is different from private business.

Graphic Matt, it's so easy to press those hot buttons of fire/rescue, essential services, but the city budget has a lot more frills than that. I don't have all the details, but...

I do believe that Toronto Police Service is the fastest growing budget, and is unsustainable.

8 Million dollars to 'study' taking down the Gardiner?
First, we dont' have the 400 million to take it down, and even if we did, would it not make more logical sense to build an alternative before you tear down an artery? That would just create more congestion, pollution, for what? An aethetically pleasing view? (it's already covered by the condos)

The cost of maintaining the Gardiner over the years probably adds up to more than the cost of taking it down. The study might even show that taking it down is profitable. A 50% increase in GO train service on the Lakeshore line could more than make up for the loss of capacity from losing the Gardiner (a single GO train holds more people than the Gardiner moves in an hour).

So yeah, just because it sounds like a waste of money to the casual observer, doesn't mean it is. There's a lot more to it.

If you want the ultimate tax, just put a residence city tax. American cities have it, tack on an extra 3% on your income based on residence and/or place of work. That would solve your nickle and dime solutions.

Probably a good idea.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Graphic Matt, it's so easy to press those hot buttons of fire/rescue, essential services, but the city budget has a lot more frills than that. I don't have all the details, but...

8 Million dollars to 'study' taking down the Gardiner?

It's a study to replace the eastern portion of the Gardiner (from Jarvis to the DVP) with an at-grade boulevard, not to take down the whole Gardiner. It was initiated by WaterfronToronto as part of their revitalization plans.

The Gardiner will require some 300 million dollars worth of repairs and refurbishments over the next 30 years as it gets older - we will need to continue studying alternatives. We could just do nothing and let it fall down, but Montreal tried that and voters did not like it.

First, we dont' have the 400 million to take it down, and even if we did, would it not make more logical sense to build an alternative before you tear down an artery? That would just create more congestion, pollution, for what? An aethetically pleasing view? (it's already covered by the condos)

This is why you do studies, but off-hand the benefit would come from a whole new residential and commercial neighbourhood on the eastern waterfront (which is currently almost completely empty) expanding the tax base and generating revenues.

TTC museum? Is that a must have for a city that's broke and charge 12 year kids to use the pool?

It's not going to be a free museum and they want to get a major corporate partner like Bombardier to cover costs. This might be something I could see cutting at the moment, but right now it doesn't amount to any savings considered it's essentially just an idea.

311? what are councillors going to do now?

Have you used 311? It's a fantastic service and they've done a great job. The City already had a responsibility to respond to questions and reports of potholes, etc, but was doing a poor and inefficient job at it. Now they're doing a much much better job.

But, sure, cut all three items from your budget. You're still only chipping away at things. The Gardiner study is 8 million-ish, the TTC museum is essentially 0 at this point as it's just an idea (IIRC) and 311 cost about 35 million to set up.

 

[kEiThZ]

300 million over 30 years isn't that much. The alternative proposed by Miller is 400 million + the cost of road maintenance for that stretch. Let's not pretend it's cheaper. It's not. The question is one of value. In a situation where you have to cut costs though sometimes value isn't what's valued! It's gotta be whatever's cheaper. If cuts have to be made, I don't see why the 'Grand Avenue' should not be on the chopping block. My alternative would be to hand the whole thing to a private consortium and let them take down the whole Gardiner and bury it and charge tolls to use it.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Re: TTC museum

The museum really shows what is wrong with TTC thinking. "We have extra land, right next to a close in subway station, lets build a project to show how great we are" vs "we have this great land we could sell to make lots of money to help expand the system". Option number 2 should be the automatic decision - the TTC is holding onto land all over the place they don't need.

 

[Glen]

It's a study to replace the eastern portion of the Gardiner (from Jarvis to the DVP) with an at-grade boulevard, not to take down the whole Gardiner. It was initiated by WaterfronToronto as part of their revitalization plans.

The Gardiner will require some 300 million dollars worth of repairs and refurbishments over the next 30 years as it gets older - we will need to continue studying alternatives. We could just do nothing and let it fall down, but Montreal tried that and voters did not like it.

As pointed out, 10 million a year is an easier pill to swallow than 400 million up front. Besides the proposed road to replace it will need maintenance and repaving in that time frame.

This is why you do studies, but off-hand the benefit would come from a whole new residential and commercial neighbourhood on the eastern waterfront (which is currently almost completely empty) expanding the tax base and generating revenues.

More residential development only hastens the city's fiscal problems. Commercial development on the other hand would certainly help it. What makes you so certain the Gardiner is an impediment though?

It's not going to be a free museum and they want to get a major corporate partner like Bombardier to cover costs. This might be something I could see cutting at the moment, but right now it doesn't amount to any savings considered it's essentially just an idea.

This is far to easy to predict. Just like the overruns for the St. Clair LRT and the Homeless shelter at Portland and Richmond, There is a near certainty that this will bleed red ink.

Have you used 311? It's a fantastic service and they've done a great job. The City already had a responsibility to respond to questions and reports of potholes, etc, but was doing a poor and inefficient job at it. Now they're doing a much much better job.

Agreed!

But, sure, cut all three items from your budget. You're still only chipping away at things. The Gardiner study is 8 million-ish, the TTC museum is essentially 0 at this point as it's just an idea (IIRC) and 311 cost about 35 million to set up.

The TTC wants to spend 120,000 for a report on the museum idea.

 

[PinkLucy]

Smitherman talks privitization: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...man-backs-selling-off-some-city-services?bn=1

Reposted because I cut and pasted the wrong link. My apologies!

 

[Eug]

Yeah... Smitherman's really is reaching out to the centre right these days.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...man-backs-selling-off-some-city-services?bn=1

P.S. In the past, this may not have been considered centre right. It might have simply been considered right (pun not intended). However, the uncontrolled overspending in recent times has really pushed attitudes of much of the general public further right IMO, which is why he's leaning this direction too now.

BTW, I find this quote from CUPE just laughable:

"Unions don't bid. We're not corporations. We're not in the business of delivering services – we are city employees, and certainly a bid process is something that is not workable."

 

[js97]

"Unions don't bid. We're not corporations. We're not in the business of delivering services - we are city employees, and certainly a bid process is something that is not workable."

by far the best quote of this election!

 

[Dilla]

We're not in the business of delivering services
We're not in the business of delivering
We're not in the business