News   Nov 19, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Developments, Trends, and Forecasts Across the Greater Golden Horseshoe
 77     0 
News   Nov 19, 2024
News Roundup for November 19, 2024
 288     0 
News   Nov 19, 2024
GO On
 552     3 

Toronto/Chicago comparisons

Glen said:
I would love to see your calculations regarding that point.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is his source or not, but he is being 100% truthful.

Toronto sends $11 billion more a year to Queen’s Park and Ottawa in income and sales taxes than it gets back in programs and services — and a 1 per cent share of sales tax would generate $400 million a year, said Miller’s spokesperson, Stuart Green, citing a 2005 Conference Board of Canada report. http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/yourcitymycity/2010/03/16/should_toronto_go_it_alone.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RC8 said:
You are right regarding economic output, but the problem with the likes of Toronto and other large Canadian cities is that we are pretty much de facto keeping very unproductive regions afloat. The rate at which the Canadian and Ontario governments take money away from Torontonians and spend it elsewhere is shocking. Our city would look very differently if we were allowed to keep more of our money within it.
Click to expand...

And look at our transit system, only now are we being serious that we are the breaking point.
 
Torontovibe said:
Chicago has more and better tourist attractions/museums/art galleries, which it markets much better than we do in Toronto. We still don't take tourism very seriously. It also has better historic districts, with very impressive buildings. Chicago seems to have a whole lot of collages/universities. I was surprised how many there were, although some of them seemed quite small. Chicago people seem to be very proud of their city (even the bad parts) and wear their hearts on their sleeves, while in Toronto, we seem too embarrassed to even admit we like the place. No city is as hard on itself as Toronto but with all the anti-Toronto stupidity we have to deal with (across Canada) I guess that's not surprising. Those are some of the things I've noticed.
Click to expand...


This is 100% true. Toronto gets a lot of hate. Chicago is now but because of who's president. I remember when no one was talking about Chicago violence, it was all about Detroit and this was in 2005.
 
Ontario has the lowest spending per capita of any province, and it wouldn't surprise me if Toronto has one of the lowest spendings per capita of any municipality in most areas.

With our highways falling apart and our transit and bicycle infrastructure needing urgent expansion, with our hospitals overcrowded and our decrepit public realm seriously affecting our tourist industry, when will it be enough?

Ford, for instance, would have never happened if we had a budget like the one a city as productive as ours deserves.
 
RC8 said:
Ontario has the lowest spending per capita of any province, and it wouldn't surprise me if Toronto has one of the lowest spendings per capita of any municipality in most areas.

With our highways falling apart and our transit and bicycle infrastructure needing urgent expansion, with our hospitals overcrowded and our decrepit public realm seriously affecting our tourist industry, when will it be enough?

Ford, for instance, would have never happened if we had a budget like the one a city as productive as ours deserves.
Click to expand...

I think your line of reasoning, and your conclusion, are misguided. I'm not sure whether you mean that the federal government's spending, or the provincial government's spending, or the municipality's spending, is lower per capita than other places, but I'm sure all three are true. That's because the denominator in Toronto is so much larger -- we have tons more people. Of course the spending per capita on what-have-you is going to be lower than Nunavut or Yellowknife. It's true, but it doesn't 'prove' that Toronto is underfunded in any way.

Second, you then throw out a bunch of things that bother you personally that you'd like someone to spend more money on. Again, sure, but who? The feds aren't going to build bike lanes, it's not their responsibility. The province is in charge of hospitals and are building expansions in just about every Toronto hospital I can think of. (Also, IMHO, we don't have a decrepit public realm nor is it affecting the tourist industry, but that's a separate argument.)

Finally, Ford came in to specifically lower the budget! He was elected on a platform of lower taxes, not better bike lanes, or roads, or for that matter hospitals or greener parks. To say he wouldn't have been elected if we had higher taxes and more spending is to specifically misrepresent his appeal and his supporters.

He may be many things, but a tax & spend (even spend on things the rest of us think are necessary) guy he's not. And that's what got him elected, not crappy roads.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
I think your line of reasoning, and your conclusion, are misguided. I'm not sure whether you mean that the federal government's spending, or the provincial government's spending, or the municipality's spending, is lower per capita than other places, but I'm sure all three are true. That's because the denominator in Toronto is so much larger -- we have tons more people. Of course the spending per capita on what-have-you is going to be lower than Nunavut or Yellowknife. It's true, but it doesn't 'prove' that Toronto is underfunded in any way.

Second, you then throw out a bunch of things that bother you personally that you'd like someone to spend more money on. Again, sure, but who? The feds aren't going to build bike lanes, it's not their responsibility. The province is in charge of hospitals and are building expansions in just about every Toronto hospital I can think of. (Also, IMHO, we don't have a decrepit public realm nor is it affecting the tourist industry, but that's a separate argument.)

Finally, Ford came in to specifically lower the budget! He was elected on a platform of lower taxes, not better bike lanes, or roads, or for that matter hospitals or greener parks. To say he wouldn't have been elected if we had higher taxes and more spending is to specifically misrepresent his appeal and his supporters.

He may be many things, but a tax & spend (even spend on things the rest of us think are necessary) guy he's not. And that's what got him elected, not crappy roads.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand my complaint. We shouldn't need to raise any taxes in order to get a lot more things than we do. I've lived in other cities around the world where municipalities get a fair share of the revenue they produce - not all - but a fair share.

In Canada only 8 cents of every tax dollar stay at the municipal level, and municipalities are expected to pay for policing, fire services, social services, etc. While many municipalities then get help from the province and the federal government to meet their needs, Toronto rarely gets any.

As TheTigerMaster points out, what we give and what we get back is completely unjustifiable - given that some of the most serious social issues in Canada can be found in our cities.

If Toronto got a fair share of the revenue it produces, you would see enormous improvements in every department, and people wouldn't go around with the idea that they are not getting their money's worth with the taxes they pay. That is the sentiment that got Ford elected.

It's not just a matter of economies of scale, it's a matter of efficiency. It's scandalous.

governmentspending.jpeg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpeg


The hospital expansions are mostly research oriented, they won't fix the overcrowding.
 
nfitz said:
Okay ... let's stop it there.

The Chicogans (is that what you call them) I know have been deeply ashamed when they had to warn me not to take the subway through certain parts of town, because of they physical danger of being on the train there if not part of the right ethnic group.

Better tourist attractions/museums is all fine ... but it hardly effects the day-to-day lives of the people who live there. Neither does the architecture of a very small part of town. The architecture I've seen there has been from dull 1920s suburban sprawl (and little sign of the kind of refreshment to these areas that we see in Toronto) to really ugly unwalkable and unlivable modern surburban sprawl. There's parts of town where there are literally vacant lots, because the original housing has been knocked down and no one wants to live there.

Whatever advantage they might get, for a bit better architecture in a small part of downtown, and a few more museums (so you say, I've never visited one when I travel there on business) is quickly lost when you look at the entire city, rather than an isolated pocket where the tourists go.
Click to expand...
Other then the violence how is that any different from Toronto? And even then, do you take tourists to Markham and Lawrence or Jane and Sheppard? Or six points? Many Torontonians don't care about the ROM.
 
Hehe, I couldn't help but put this article in here...

It's not a technical paper, merely a Chicago Tribune writer's editorial opinion. Most of it is pretty tongue-in-cheek but he does highlight some good points.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-ocanada-20130204,0,2792849.story

Canada cool

February 4, 2013

The Chicago Bears were watching instead of playing in Sunday's Super Bowl, but that could change next year now that the team has hired a coach from a rising star among nations: Canada.

Yes, Canada. Boring, eager-to-please Canada is taking Chicago by storm — in a nice way, of course.

It isn't just the arrival of Marc Trestman from the Montreal Alouettes as head coach of the Bears that heralds Canada's ascension to the ranks of Chicago cool.

Consider poutine. This homely dish, a tradition in Quebec, has become a popular menu item at some of Chicago's trendiest eateries. Take a mess of french fries, sprinkle on cheese curds then ladle brown gravy all over it. Embellishments range from foie gras to kimchi. Reactions range from "Yuck" to "Yum."

Poutine commands attention, like so many imports from the land of moose and maples.

Often ignored and taken for granted, Canada is on a roll. From the U.S. point of view, the tail is wagging the dog in North America, and that's not so bad. The economic activity helps both countries.

The key to Canada's success has been avoiding some of the worst mistakes made by its neighbor to the south.

Americans failed to regulate their banks. Canada's banks are stable.

Americans overinflated their real estate market. Canada's housing market never went pop.

Americans can't get their elected officials to straighten out health care and entitlement IOUs. Canada's got it better covered, having kept its debt and spending at more sustainable levels than the U.S.

Petrochemicals have helped. Canada is experiencing a gold-rush-style energy boom. The oil sands of Alberta contain enough petroleum to rate serious comparisons with Saudi Arabia. Improved drilling technology has made it practical to tap that vast resource. Money is pouring in, despite lower oil prices.

On a per capita basis, Canada is among the world's most prosperous countries. The Canadian dollar, nicknamed the loonie for the aquatic bird pictured on it, trades at an equal value to the U.S. dollar. Used to be, loonies traded at a substantial discount, but that was before Americans racked up a $16-trillion-plus national debt.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (we know many Americans have never heard of him) has pursued an ambitious trade agenda. He has sought to improve relations with China, enhancing economic ties. He also is expected to ink a free-trade agreement with the European Union this year. That will put pressure on the U.S. to follow suit, as well it should, for the substantial benefits that flow from tearing down commercial barriers and harmonizing regulations.

A lingering frustration is the Obama administration's opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, an important cross-border infrastructure project needed to move oil from Canada to U.S. refineries and beyond.

One sticking point recently gave way when Nebraska lifted its objections to the pipeline's traverse of the state.

Now it's up to the U.S. State Department to stop pandering to environmental lobbyists and give the go-ahead. Can't happen soon enough.

While Canada waits, at least its citizens can take solace in the National Hockey League's return to the ice after a frustrating labor dispute.

Chicagoans who cheer for the resurgent Blackhawks should keep in mind that half the team hails from Canada, as does "Coach Q," the Ontario-born Joel Quenneville.

Land of the north, Chicago is calling to you. Calling your sesame bagels, smoked meat and Tim Hortons double-doubles. Calling your low rates of gun crime, and universal health care. Calling your oil, especially your oil. We hope some of that Canadian good fortune rubs off on our city.

~~~
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Other then the violence how is that any different from Toronto?
Click to expand...
Point me to a Toronto residential neighbourhood where lots of houses and stores are disappearing, and there's just acre after acre of grass appearing in it's place. You see this in a lot of US cities, like Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, etc. I'm yet to observed it in a Canadian city. I'm particularly surprised to see it in Chicago, near their mass transit stations. I'd assume that real estate values must be very low in parts of the city.

Not sure where you take tourists in Toronto has to do with livable cities ...
 
RC8 said:
Re: Chicago and crime:

I don't think you could reach the absurd levels of crime there without the ruling elites being careless and even incompetent. I would be thoroughly ashamed of living in a city as ethnically segregated as Chicago - but generations of people have opted to maintain that status quo.
Click to expand...

Do you have any understanding of American history at all?

Let's not pat ourselves on the back too much. These centuries-old problems simply weren't ingrained here. I mean, the occasional Orange Man might have bad-mouthed an Irishman now and then or something, but you simply cannot compare the two contexts... and even though we ought to have known better poverty and crime are becoming extremely ethnically segregated in our city and region.
 
Tewder said:
Do you have any understanding of American history at all?

Let's not pat ourselves on the back too much. These centuries-old problems simply weren't ingrained here. I mean, the occasional Orange Man might have bad-mouthed an Irishman now and then or something, but you simply cannot compare the two contexts... and even though we ought to have known better poverty and crime are becoming extremely ethnically segregated in our city and region.
Click to expand...

Chicago was not that dangerous in 1950. The violence is 30 years old, really since the crack epidemic. It destroyed to many working class neighborhoods. Chicago also lost manufacturing, which hit south Chicago and Gary hard. Plants closing here did not have the same impact.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top