The funny thing is I am not even arguing against privatization - I am pointing out the reality that see privatization as the panacea of all ills, which is how it is often represented by those on the right. For every example of cost saving, there is a counterexample of higher cost and poor services.
Privatization can be both good and bad, but at least by having another option out there to offload some of Toronto's massive budget burden on, other underfunded programs such as affordable housing, road repair and neighbourhood revitalization can take some essential services' place.
That posits those who are interested in saving money (and if it save money) are also interested in shifting any potential savings to these areas. Are they though?
One may claim that we'd be privatizing our profits as well as our loses, but give me one example of where the TTC is actually profitable... and I doubt you could find one. What are these so-called profitable aspects of the TTC? Which routes are worth more than what they cost citizens and taxpayers-- including vehicle and fuel costs, maintenance, and salaries? The way the TTC is operated today, routes can never be profitable because buses/streetcars never run on reliable schedule and meagre efforts are being made by the transit authority to proactively expand the only mode that comes close to profitability. By contrast bus service along VIVA routes is highly dependable.
Give me one example of a transit system that is profitable in a relatively low density environment regardless how they are run? And since you used the example of VIVA, what is the cost recovery ratio in comparison? In addition, comparing bus service along VIVA routes, with the extremely limited number of stops and relatively low frequency (~10 mins at peak) to what are essentially neighbourhood bus services at what, ~5 minute or less headway is like apples and oranges. TTC definitely isn't alone when it comes to schedule reliablity when it comes to high frequency routes - you'd find that in MT as well, particularly passing through areas with high traffic/stop frequency.
Bob Kinnear should've be fired for his incompetency and creating a culture of laziness and disrepect to customers on the TTC, but his union post protects him from justice. And contracting out garbage collection? Etobicoke already does this, saving the City $2 million annually
As much as I dislike Bob Kinnear and his tactics, he is under the employ of the union, not the city. His job (as much as we might dislike it) is to represent the interests of TTC workers. Just like having a lawyer for the defendant. Once again, I have to question your understanding of labour law and how things really operate.
Ford proposed offering rent subsidies to help move people waiting for a home into a private apartment building though, whereby the poor could occupy the many thousands of private units available.
You said:
He just seems to stand for the same things that I do: cancel Transit City, build more subways, fix the road network, downsize the bureaucracy, privatize some essential services, slash taxes, build more affordable housing, create job programs for disenfranchised youth, etc.
Don't shift around and tell me all these "nice things" that he had done - that is
not building more affordable housing. In addition, the so call rental vacancies tend to be at the higher end of the accomdation spectrum, not exactly something subsidies would be able to help paid for - and I quote:
Rob Ford proposed offering rent subsidies to help move people waiting for a home into a private apartment building stating that there are currently forty thousand private units available, although this particular figure has been disputed by The Wellesley Institute’s Michael Shapcott. Following the debate Mr. Shapcott stated on Twitter that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) reports there are 7,962 vacant unites available, and many are in the “upper end of the rent scale.”
http://www.votetoronto2010.com/board/big-idea-hammering-home-the-need-for-affordable-housing/
And to further that argument - if you want to say that TCHC buildings can be terrible - yes, but I don't think the lower end of what private sector offers is much better. In fact, I would argue that it is universally worse - imagine what you'd get (if there is rental to be get) for what, 1/3 of your welfare income, for example? So, we are providing public money to put people in substandard housing on a temporary basis, with no gain in assets on the part of the city and actually encouraging the private sector to benefit from public largesse?
So I don't necessarily think that his trademark voting against the majority is really about dissenting against an issue raised, but in the how City Councillors propose to tackle it i.e. spendriftly, requiring hired consultants, running past deadline, offering no temporary solutions while the people affected are left to wait, etc.
Really, even considering the majority of monies actually go into paying for new units and renovation of old ones? That's spendthrift? And if you don't build, you will be offering nothing but temporary "solutions".
AoD