Rob Ford - Why the Supervillian?

[nfitz]

you would rather deal with ford... he's more straight up then slippery ol' joe.

That's probably a fair comment. I don't trust Smitherman as far as I can throw him ... he seems like a real piece of work - and his abuse of both drugs and people is also well documented (though not quite as dramatically as Ford's abuse has been documented attacking reporters). I don't feel either is really fit to run the city. Though one can at least act like a politician at times. I don't think Ford is anywhere close to having the team-building skills necessary to run council. It's not like he get's to pick the councillors who have to approve his every move.

 

[The_Waffler]

nfitz, Toronto is bankrupt... it just hasn't hit the wall yet. I think saying I'm lying by calling it bankrupt is a bit mellow dramatic, and I'm most confident I'll be proven right over time. There is a discernible pattern to what is happening to this city, and it has happened elsewhere in other organizations. To turn a blind eye to the obvious does not make it go away. The problem is not a lack of funds, it's a lack of control. The only way the city can continue to operate is by raising taxes, adding new fees, clutching, grasping at every source of revenue. That the city is bankrupt is not correct in the truest sense is a moot point... kinda like saying GM was bankrupt by the late 1990's - it wasn't technically, but they were hiding it by taking on more debt and operating at a loss. Look at them now.

The recent leadership has presided over a disaster, which like most financial collapses, will not manifest itself until long after those most responsible have moved on. Like GM and the US banks that failed, instead of addressing the fundamental problems in the organization, they ignore them because it is easier (politically) to try and bury them or blame others. Spending is out of control at the city and it is not getting better. They solution, it seems, it to throw yet more money at the problem through raising and adding new taxes and adding new user fees, blame the Province, blame the Fed's, blame the economy. This is safer politically than addressing the problem. Sooner or later, the axe will have to fall and the longer it's drawn out, the worse it will have to be. By not acting while they can to control the city's spending on their own terms, they are going to let if fester until backed into a corner and the solution will be forced on them - outside powers will call the shots and then we'll really be up the creek. And they (city hall) will act like there was nothing anyone could have done to stop it.

We are living beyond our means, and that never, ever has a happy ending.

FWIW, I am in the process of preping my condo for sale and I'll be taking myself, my respectable income, and my taxes to the GTA. The sad part is that I will have to continue to support this mess through my taxes.

City of Toronto strategy for dealing with their spending crisis:
http://atthebirds.gsbreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/man-with-head-in-sand.gif

PS, when you register your vehicle to a business in TO or an address outside of TO, you avoid the Miller tax. Not illegal.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

FWIW, I am in the process of preping my condo for sale and I'll be taking myself, my respectable income, and my taxes to the GTA. The sad part is that I will have to continue to support this mess through my taxes.

Chances are you will be paying more property taxes when you move out of Toronto. Just saying.

AoD

 

[The_Waffler]

Absolutely, double the property tax, however unlike all the Miller taxes, I get to choose to pay more.

And I get a house instead of a condo... so finally, a BBQ!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So in other words, you are not choosing to move because of taxes per se, but how you wanted to live. And isn't it interesting that you are saying the city is living beyond its' means when the residental taxes are so low and the residents are paying so little for their services?

AoD

 

[js97]

So in other words, you are not choosing to move because of taxes per se, but how you wanted to live. And isn't it interesting that you are saying the city is living beyond its' means when the residental taxes are so low and the residents are paying so little for their services?

AoD

Property taxes so low? do you pay property taxes?

2500 hundred dollars for an 900 sq feet box in the sky vs? 3500 dollar suburbia when you have a 30 ft wide, maybe 130 ft deep lot?

yes, nominally, it's lower... but how can you compare the two?

 

[The_Waffler]

So in other words, you are not choosing to move because of taxes per se, but how you wanted to live. And isn't it interesting that you are saying the city is living beyond its' means when the residental taxes are so low and the residents are paying so little for their services?

AoD

I'm being proactive. Toronto spends more money than it can afford and, though the property taxes (PT) my seem low compared to the GTA, Toronto will have to raise them continuously to feed the machine. This will take time, but my belief is that in a decade the cost advantage Toronto enjoys in PT will disappear. I am choosing to move because of taxes... future tax increases and future taxes that will no doubt result from the City of Toronto act (of which the $60 license tax is merely the vanguard).

Not sure what services we get so cheaply. Though I pay PT for city services, the condo corp pays a separate fee for garbage removal (five figures), so that isn't cheap... infact I we're paying twice for garbage removal. Used to be covered only out of property tax, but now a special fee on top of PT. That is not paying so little for services. This is one example, and as time passes, there will be more.

 

[that_girl_there]

This cyclist discussion is getting out of hand. Cyclists need to follow the rules of the road. There are lots of obnoxious cyclists out there. No one denies that. But if a policeman can hand out a binding ticket for jaywalking, why can't they hand out a binding ticket to an unlicensed cyclist for doing, essentially, the same thing? It just doesn't make sense to say bikes need to be registered. What about a 5-year-old with training wheels? Does he or she need a license? How can we possibly monitor everyone riding a bike and make sure they're licensed? And would there be more tickets given out for not having a license? This sounds like a ridiculous amount of red tape and bureaucracy.

And as was mentioned before, the car tax is for many things (road maintenance, general city coffers, etc) - but the main reason why people are ok with it is because we generally recognize that driving isn't a great thing. The same way that we are generally ok with taxes on oil, tobacco and alcohol - these are sin taxes. They disincent these things by making them more expensive, while at the same time generating money for the government who has to deal with their impacts (health costs, road maintenance, etc).

The reason why I disagree more with the car tax than these other taxes is because it is flat, and punishes everyone equally, regardless of the amount they drive or the type of car they drive.

 

[SimonP]

nfitz, Toronto is bankrupt... it just hasn't hit the wall yet. I think saying I'm lying by calling it bankrupt is a bit mellow dramatic, and I'm most confident I'll be proven right over time.

If Toronto is bankrupt, why does it still have an AA credit rating? For the moment those who have several billions invested in Toronto bonds, mostly the big banks, seem pretty confident that the city is in good shape. Perhaps the banks are part of the Miller/union/illuminati conspiracy that controls Toronto?

If you're confident about your prediction, you should be buying some Toronto credit default swaps. You'd make a fortune if you're right.

 

[milanista]

I'm sorry, but for the city we are, or at least want to be, property taxes are very low.
But since we live in the world of American-style politics, where tax is a bad word, Miller has resorted to nickle and diming residents with things such as the vehicle registration tax in an effort to avoid a widespread and badly needed property tax hike.
Downtown relief lines don't grow on trees. These things need to be paid for and people need to realize just how much of a bargain we are getting (for the most part) living in the 416.
And you can't just paint a broad picture of property tax in the 905. Mississauga is different from Vaughan, and Vaughan is wayyyy different than Oshawa. I know someone who moved from Scarborough to Oshawa, to a house that was only about 350 sq ft. larger and is now paying over $1800 more in property tax annually in his new Oshawa home vs. his old Toronto one. And what do you get for your property taxes in some of the suburbs? Uh.. a park? Possibly with a baseball diamond? Not much if you ask me, but thats because they suck services from Toronto, which is another story all together.
Sure Toronto may have more residents to draw revenue from, but it also has a Gardiner/DVP to maintain where all the highways in the 905 I can think of are provincially owned. Let's not forget the TTC, police, libraries etc ... all of which are the biggest systems in the nation.
If we want a New York or Chicago style transit system we need to start paying New York or Chicago property taxes, or at least move closer to it. The city is crumbling because nobody wants to address the elephant in the room... we need more $$ just to maintain what we have, nevermind expanding/building more. So it's either a tax hike or a massive selling off of our assets, or a combination of the two/public-private partnerships. The economics of our situation make it inevitable.
In 5-10 years when all these large condo projects are up and running I assume we'll have more revenue to run the city with, but will it make a difference? We shall have to wait and see.

 

[that_girl_there]

Sure Toronto may have more residents to draw revenue from, but it also has a Gardiner/DVP to maintain where all the highways in the 905 I can think of are provincially owned.

Hurray for Mike Harris and his downloading of highways onto municipalities!

 

[SimonP]

Was just looking at some New York city budget numbers. If you think Toronto's 21% increase over 7 years is bad, look at where property taxes have gone under Bloomberg:

2002: $8.6 billion
2010: $16.1 billion

That's an 87% increase.

 

[js97]

Was just looking at some New York city budget numbers. If you think Toronto's 21% increase over 7 years is bad, look at where property taxes have gone under Bloomberg:

2002: $8.6 billion
2010: $16.1 billion

That's an 87% increase.

Dude, much credit for trying.

But really, please don't compare Bloomberg with the Miller administration.

He came into the city in a tremendous time of crisis(911), debt, and turned that city around. Have you been in NYC in the mid 90's or prior to Bloomberg (Juliani contributed also)

The city was not broken when Miller came in... and now it is...

That's the difference.

Whether it's lack of vision or inability to execute, either way, he needs to go.

 

[Glen]

Property taxes so low? do you pay property taxes?

2500 hundred dollars for an 900 sq feet box in the sky vs? 3500 dollar suburbia when you have a 30 ft wide, maybe 130 ft deep lot?

yes, nominally, it's lower... but how can you compare the two?

Do little police officers respond to your little condo? Seriously this whole I live in a small condo or a small house in Toronto so I Should pay less tax argument is ridiculous. The amount of tax you pay should represent your municipalities spending, period. How it is proportioned is another matter. Residents of Halifax had the same felling .........

http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/why-...tys-new-property-tax-plan/Content?oid=1436219

A lot of urban homeowners think this is a fine idea. "I'm really, really, really tired of subsidizing the people who live in huge homes in the suburbs and drive two cars (more when their kids grow up)," explained one "tax reform" advocate in an email. "Most of these people make more money than I do. They are a drain on our collective resources... It costs as much as three times more to service a house in Kingswood or Fall River as it does a home that is on a 40×100-foot lot in the city."

"In fact, my analysis of hundreds of homes and apartments throughout HRM shows that, far from being the "best possible tax system," the proposed tax system will slash millions of dollars off the tax bills of high-value properties and make up the lost revenue by increasing taxes on modestly priced houses. Further, contrary to the claims of "tax reform" supporters---and as the figures from Kingswood attest---the new system will reward suburban sprawl with tax breaks, and raise taxes for those living in compact, transit-friendly communities."

Many south enders felt that their larger tax payments were being used to subsidize services being delivered in the suburbs. Suburban residents didn't see it that way---thanks to the overheated housing market, suburban tax bills rose by large amounts every year too, albeit not quite so much as in the south end.

By 2005, the lingering distrust from amalgamation and the roaring real estate market prompted south end business people to call for "reform" on the entire tax system. Traditionally, property taxes in Canada are based on the value of one's home---the more expensive your house, the more you pay in taxes. The "reform" movement, however, wanted to ditch that system and replace it with a system that bases taxes not on the value of property, but rather on the cost of services.

Responding to those demands, on October 3, 2006, then-councillor Sheila Fougere, who represented the Connaught district, put forward a motion at council to "rebuild the foundations" of HRM's tax system. The motion was seconded by south end councillor Sue Uteck, and passed on an unrecorded voice vote. By January 2007 the Tax Reform Committee was formed, and given direction to explore how to switch from the existing assessment-based system to a fee-for-service based system. The switch was to be "revenue neutral"---that is, the new system was to bring in the same amount of total tax money as the existing system.

According to Mills' poll results, people in HRM want property taxes "based on the cost of the services actually received by the property owner"---no one should be subsidized by someone else. But if we built such a system, the very first thing we'd have to do is to nearly triple property taxes.

As city budget documents show, if you add up all the residential taxes collected in HRM and compare it to the cost of all the services delivered to residential properties, you'd find that the costs are 2.7 times higher than the amount residents pay in taxes. The difference is made up by commercial property taxes.

So people on the Halifax peninsula who think they are subsidizing suburbanites are wrong---they aren't. It's Burnside and Bayers Lake industrial parks, and businesses in HRM generally, that are subsidizing suburbanites and peninsula residents alike.

The Waffler is absolutely correct that much higher taxes are coming to Toronto.

SimonP, Do you realise that these are the same credit rating agencies that missed the sub-prime bubble and rated them AA?

 

[Parkdalian]

This thread, like all political threads, is devolving into nothing.

I think the key reason why I don't like Rob Ford is because he uses a lot of the terms that some of the posters use here - terms like the system is "broken," the city is "bankrupt," we need "to cut taxes." - populist rhetoric that means nothing. Cutting councillors' expense accounts and fighting bicycle lanes is vote-grabbing bull dung. The next mayor of Toronto needs to have a vision for the city based on solid, proven facts and a willingness to make unpopular decisions for the betterment of the city as a whole. That means taking into account how the city actually runs rather than spouting useless, divisive rhetoric like "broken" and "bankrupt." Or slagging groups of vilified people (cyclists) in order to distract citizens from the real problems. And this would also mean suggesting wildly unpopular moves like extracting concessions from entrenched unions (like the police or the public works) or instituting congestion charges and road tolls that could have a real effect on the city's fiscal situation.

Sarah Thomson may be as far out there a candidate as you can get, but she has probably one of the most credible transportation platforms out there because she actually proposes doing something unpopular - road tolls - to get us to where we need to be. Rob Ford doesn't even have a transportation plan. His voting record is just a record of voting against *anything* the left supports, whether or not it makes sense. If I felt for one minute that Rob Ford was doing something not as an excuse to get votes but because, after a lot of careful thought, he felt it would help the city, I would consider voting for him.