Rob Ford's Toronto

[Thanos]

Yes, more or less accurate (I would argue inflation was closer to 2.5% avg but whatever). The point is that 3.5% is not "many times over" 2%, its less than two times.

Was Miller "fiscally responsible"? Tough to say. If you inherit an underfunded city and you have to grow revenues by more than inflation to get back on track (ie after Lastman's repeated tax-freeze years which were fiscally 'irresponsible'), then that's what you have to do. Its worth repeating over and over - Our property taxes are lower than all of our neighbors in 905. IMO it would be "fiscally responsible" to not pretend we don't have the same expenses that they do, and therefore should not complain about paying equivalent rates.

All of that is simply my opinion - but it is fact that no Miller budget increased tax rates by many times the rate of inflation.

Let's not forget that Miller had to start paying for public transit, infrastructure and public realm improvements. Something Toronto hadn't invested in for 2 decades.
So yes, when you go 2 decades of not investing on anything then eventually you have to start paying and it will hurt. Which brings us back to the age old problem of short sightedness with individuals like js97 : who cares about future generations

 

[RC8]

I beg to differ with the notion Miller was not fiscally responsible. Much like the posters directly above me, I think in context the expenditure that occurred then was necessary, and I would argue still is. Miller was a fiscally responsible mayor. He ran a surplus every time while leading the city to massive financial growth. New fees made a lot of sense, even if some were poorly implemented.

Those who complain about Toronto's debt and budgets from the Miller era just don't understand economics or government very well. I bet all of them have credit cards or mortgages, but are too uneducated to understand that the same principles that allow them to own houses and cars, allow cities to expand infrastructure.

Tax increases during the Miller era clearly did not get in the way of Toronto's prosperity. In countries like Norway, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP float over the 40% mark. They got there gradually and through steady increases in revenue and expenditure. That is a fiscally responsible way of doing things. Theirs is a perfectly valid way of administering a government.

At the end of the day Norwegians are considerably richer and report a higher level of well-being than Canadians. Meanwhile in North America we will continue having to put with the 'big government is evil in spite of any evidence' myths propagated by those who are basically self-conscious and scared of their ability to make it in a dynamic environment.

 

[TrickyRicky]

realtycoon, as mentioned, the description of Ford as a common businessman and anything but a member of the political elite is bizarre. He is a career politician from a family with deep political connections and has essentially zero business experience. I suppose common men have the Prime Minister of Canada over for family dinner, or go fishing with top political Ministers?

Freshcut, what I mean by saying that I would have a hard time voting for someone like Olivia Chow is to inject a dose of reality into the discussion. I think most people here would prefer Toronto go in a new Mayoral direction; however, before you start celebrating and gloating over Ford's removal let's examine his chances of being re-elected. I don't really know anyone who voted for Ford the first time, who would not vote for him again. Scary but true. I would never vote for Ford but I would not vote for Olivia Chow either. Unless there is a centrist candidate that has no ideological opposition to cost cutting or privatization for instance, support will once again bleed towards Ford or a Ford like candidate on the far right.

 

[Blovertis]

A simple search of the City of Toronto's website indicates that from 2003 to 2010 spending went from $6.4 billion to $9.2 billion, an increase of 44%. During that time, the CPI increased by 14%.

You can talk about Norway and "context" and "surpluses" all you want, but there is no way you can call Miller a responsible steward of the public finances.

 

[BurlOak]

Yes, more or less accurate (I would argue inflation was closer to 2.5% avg but whatever). The point is that 3.5% is not "many times over" 2%, its less than two times.

Not sure if the "facts" are true, but from 6B to 9B in 7 years. FV=PV (1 + i)n. I would say the rate of increase is 4.5% per year.

 

[js97]

Which brings us back to the age old problem of short sightedness with individuals like js97 : who cares about future generations

That's like me saying you don't really care if non-union wages received pay cuts during the 2008 crisis... who cares about people that don't belong to unions.

I don't understand how you extrapolated what I posted to your conclusions - but hey, rhetoric always catches on better than facts.

You can't compare Norwegians to Torontonians. Everyone in Norway is subsidized by the production of Oil. It's impossible to immigrate and become a citizen of Norway, and it's also impossible for the working class to afford to buy private property. If you don't approve of the oil sands, then you shouldn't approve Norwegians subsidized standard of living. It's so miopic to think that a comfortable, no concequence lifestyle is attainable without external costs. You're either completely ignorant or choose simply to ignore the facts.

ANYONE can run a city surplus, it's easy when the realities of economic constraints are not addressed. This isn't about the VRT or LLT, both of which I agree with, it's about the spending side of the coin that people seem to ignore. Even the Unions, now owners of car manufacturers, have finally been able to grasp this concept.

It's easy when the money isn't coming from your own pocket.

 

[MetroMan]

Mammolitti just threw Ford under the bus in City Council this morning. He's moving to have Doug Holyday take over while Ford appeals. Doesn't want Ford to remain Mayor during the process. He's also so eager to move on without Ford that he's getting ahead of himself to vote on whether of not to have a by-election having had to be reminded that Ford must first ask for a stay of the ruling.

 

[drum118]

People were asking at Sq One Food Court around noon if Ford was going to show up as Santa Claus due the fact the area around Santa Seat as well Burger King being rope off with security personnel on site. With Ford loosing his seat, he needs a new job was the call and he would fit the bill as Santa.

The area was rope off as well the closing of 3 stores above BK was due to in the store and waiting for the fire department.

It would been a hoot to see Ford show up as Santa and spend the day there.

 

[RC8]

You can't compare Norwegians to Torontonians. Everyone in Norway is subsidized by the production of Oil. It's impossible to immigrate and become a citizen of Norway, and it's also impossible for the working class to afford to buy private property. If you don't approve of the oil sands, then you shouldn't approve Norwegians subsidized standard of living. It's so miopic to think that a comfortable, no concequence lifestyle is attainable without external costs. You're either completely ignorant or choose simply to ignore the facts.

"And it's also impossible for the working class to afford to buy private property". What are you talking about? Are you referring to land? 1) I'm sure that has nothing to do with the size of the country, and 2) Why is owning land so important?

Norwegians are subsidised by oil and so are Canadians. Albertans, most specifically, are immensely subsidised by oil and have very little to show for it - unlike Norwegians (who also produce minimum carbon emissions through the extraction of their oil - in stark contrast to Alberta).

But feel free to look at Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, and even Germany and you will find that the whole 'economic growth is reliant on low taxes and small government' rethoric to be nonsense. There are countless examples at municipal, provincial, and federal level everywhere that show that increased government spending coupled with new revenue generating mechanisms can lead to great levels of economic growth and well-being. You may personally not like it, but there is nothing inherently wrong with increased government spending on the back of increased taxes and fees.

The only disconnect between economic constraints and reality happened within an electorate which demanded certain things on one hand, and wasn't willing to pay for them on the other. The whole Ford-subway situation being the most obvious manifestation of that phenomenon.

Torontonians need and demand services which can only be provided by a well-funded far-reaching government. Miller provided more services and more funding - with the obvious consequences of increased fees and spending. Once again, he did this as the city blossomed financially.

 

[Torontovibe]

I know this is a very left wing site but I need to put my rant here about this situation. I'm going to bet that I'll get banned for this, which is fine, as it will go ahead and prove my point about the lefty ruling class.

Kids, the lesson here is that in Canadian politics, if you are not a member of the elite, Liberal-socialist ruling class, or a member of the clubs, or an alum. of Upper Canada College or St Andrews, Rosedale/Forrest Hill, member of the big boys club, then you have absolutely no chance in Canadian Politics.
Poor Rob Ford, the voice of the common person, the hard working tax payer, never even had a chance in the face of the left wing, socialists, and the Toronto "Red" Star newspaper. Public opinion is against him just because he didn't fit the image that the left created while the Toronto Star, the CBC and other biased media shaped the image of an idiot when he actually did many positive things for Toronto (no strikes, canceled the vehicle fee, contracting out garbage collection, fixed the Jarvis bike lane, added Sherbourne bike lanes and championed a subway expansion)
So now, he loses his job, for something as minor as $3000 for his Football team while others who happen to be Liberal/NDP/Socialist/Left Wing, get away with massive corruption, nepotism, and boondogles (E Health, Natural Gas Plan scandals etc).
I for one am so disappointed in the so called "democracy" in Canada it makes me sick. I would rise up and fight, but how can we when we are wasting soo much time in gridlock traffic and inadequate public transit commuting to a job that underpays in order to pay off the massive mortgage and high cost of living.
The lesson here is that democracy is a sham in Canada, the left have the power and control, and will do what it takes to get their way, even when they lose the elections.
I for one am NEVER GOING TO VOTE AGAIN!! Why should I WASTE my valuable TIME when it's so obvious that it doesn't even matter.

Thank you.

Right, so Rob Ford had nothing to do with the way people see him? Yes, he's an upstanding citizen, excuse me, TAX PAYER, who just got painted as a buffoon by the left wing media but this was nothing of his own doing because as we all know, Mr. Ford, is never guilty of anything. (except maybe conflict of interest) If Toronto is too lefty for you, maybe the rabid right out in Edmonton, might be more to your liking.

 

[allabootmatt]

I have a great deal of respect for you for your work on this forum, so I'll just say this and I'll be on my way.

As someone who was born and raised in Scarborough, to an immigrant family that came from nothing and worked hard to get a decent job in the financial core, I've noticed (and so have many other outsiders) that Toronto is still ruled by an old boys club of North Toronto, Rosedale, Forest Hill, Yorkville, UCC grads. They are the political, social and financial elite in Toronto. Ford was not a part of that group, thus had to be removed. With the help of the Toronto Star and their lawyer buddies, they succeeded, against the democratic voice of the city.
In the working work, just like politics, especially in the financial, banking, legal, consulting and real estate industries on Bay Street, it's very hard to get ahead when the CEO golfing buddy's son get's fast tracked, while hard working stiffs get screwed. Yes there is opportunity in Toronto, but there is a wall, where the only way to truly get ahead in this city is to be part of the elite.

Thanks for letting me air my views.

I don't want to take on this post in its entirety, but will address one point: the Toronto Star (!) is a tool of the 'elite?' Really? Are we talking about the same paper? And how many journalists at that title (or, frankly, any of the other dailies) do you think spring from this closed circle?

 

[Jonny5]

I don't want to take on this post in its entirety, but will address one point: the Toronto Star (!) is a tool of the 'elite?' Really? Are we talking about the same paper? And how many journalists at that title (or, frankly, any of the other dailies) do you think spring from this closed circle?

To be fair, it's the only explanation for how Rosie DiManno is still employed.

 

[js97]

You may personally not like it, but there is nothing inherently wrong with increased government spending on the back of increased taxes and fees.

There is a big difference between government spending and producing a result, and government spending to appease a small minority group. I have absolutely no problems if the City of Toronto all of a sudden added a 'wage' tax, but used it to deliver deliver a subway net across the city. I do have a problem if they implemented the new wage tax to simply add more entitlements to the minority city employees.
---

Torontonians need and demand services which can only be provided by a well-funded far-reaching government. Miller provided more services and more funding - with the obvious consequences of increased fees and spending. Once again, he did this as the city blossomed financially.

If you think it was Miller that contributed to this rennaissance of our city, you're completely out to lunch.

Have you actually ever lived in any of those countries you listed? First of all, those countries you mentioned have very little immigration, and have minimal room for mobility across social classes. To reach this 'utopia' you continually champion for, you'd have to substantially reduce our current immigration policies (and become a bit of a xenophone). The far left would have to make concessions on their demands, as unions in those countries are far less 'militant' than ones in Canada. And everyone would have to be happy with living in equal arrangements, but also work as much as everyone else.

This isn't about no taxes and a complete free market. Unfettered capitalism is no better than a 'far reaching' socialist government. It's about striking a balance between 'wants' and 'needs' with realities of what can actually be afforded, and Miller lost that balance. Almost half the city agreed, that's why less than 20 % elected to continue his policies with Pantalone. If that's not proof, I'm not sure what else.

 

[Thanos]

That's like me saying you don't really care if non-union wages received pay cuts during the 2008 crisis... who cares about people that don't belong to unions.

I don't understand how you extrapolated what I posted to your conclusions - but hey, rhetoric always catches on better than facts.

You can't compare Norwegians to Torontonians. Everyone in Norway is subsidized by the production of Oil. It's impossible to immigrate and become a citizen of Norway, and it's also impossible for the working class to afford to buy private property. If you don't approve of the oil sands, then you shouldn't approve Norwegians subsidized standard of living. It's so miopic to think that a comfortable, no concequence lifestyle is attainable without external costs. You're either completely ignorant or choose simply to ignore the facts.

ANYONE can run a city surplus, it's easy when the realities of economic constraints are not addressed. This isn't about the VRT or LLT, both of which I agree with, it's about the spending side of the coin that people seem to ignore. Even the Unions, now owners of car manufacturers, have finally been able to grasp this concept.

It's easy when the money isn't coming from your own pocket.

Where in my post did i compare Torontonians with Norwegians?
I just pointed out the fact that Toronto had not invested in the city for 2 decades and thus everything has accumulated and all of a sudden the investments required are far too great considering what the city takes in.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

A simple search of the City of Toronto's website indicates that from 2003 to 2010 spending went from $6.4 billion to $9.2 billion, an increase of 44%. During that time, the CPI increased by 14%.

You can talk about Norway and "context" and "surpluses" all you want, but there is no way you can call Miller a responsible steward of the public finances.

That's not true, unless you think that the term 'responsible steward' is equated with 'lowering taxes.' Miller addressed the need to build more transit, which most fiscal conservatives would theoretically agree was necessary even if they'd like to pay for it with cuts to other services before tax hikes. As other posters have already mentioned, Toronto taxes were actually arguably too low in comparison to our neighbours.

So, the fiscally responsible thing to do in a market-clearing theoretical sense would be to increase tax rates to whatever level would raise revenue without causing flight of the tax base. Given the other intangible benefits of living in Toronto (shorter commute, don't have to tell people you live in Markham ;-)) that rate is probably higher than other regional tax rates.

Of course, 'don't tax me' types aren't rational about tax rates, they're actually irrational.

As you might guess, I think Miller did a very good job of balancing funding needed projects with keeping overall rate increases low. I expect you cannot even conceive that that result is possible or desirable.