Rob Ford's Toronto

Interesting to hear that Consultants have been unleashed on the machinery of city departments in the past but their recommendations were ignored by a Mayor who wasn't willing to take the heat that might be generated. Those Consultants may have known that their reports would be ignored and may not have worked on them all that hard. This time there is a new Sheriff in town and he is not afraid to draw.

It might be instructive to see the results of a Consultants review of only one or two departments initially. If the results reveal serious problems and they are corrected the perceived threat of a review just may grab the attention of the remaining departments with salutary results.

As far as applying all of a surplus to the 2011 budget instead of spreading it over several years (or worse, spending it just because it exists) I am rather perplexed, how can the city have a surplus and a debt at the same time. I agree with Ford's action.

You don't understand how the city can have an operating surplus and financed debt simultaneously?

If you don't understand how the city can have debt and have a budget surplus at the same time, I'm rather perplexed at how you can agree with his policies then.

But what resonates with Ford supporters has nothing to do with fiscal reality. He will build subways...he will give me $60...he will stop the gravy train.

spider said:

Interesting to hear that Consultants have been unleashed on the machinery of city departments in the past but their recommendations were ignored by a Mayor who wasn't willing to take the heat that might be generated. Those Consultants may have known that their reports would be ignored and may not have worked on them all that hard. This time there is a new Sheriff in town and he is not afraid to draw.

Click to expand...

Don't you understand? The whole purpose of hiring consultants is because politicians are too afraid to make the cuts that everyone already knows will have to be made. Rob Ford is the worst of all. He was elected promising that a mysterious money hole exists in city bureaucracy. Once we find it, we can plug it up and cut taxes while improving services. The consultants are just buying him time before he has to admit that the money hole doesn't exist. Eventually he's going to have to come out of hiding and admit that his promises have been pure fantasy. At least then he will have to look Torontonians in the face and say "sorry, but you're going to be loosing a lot of your services". We'll see how people feel about the "new sheriff" when the cost of a TTC ride increases but the level of service goes down. Or when libraries stop opening on certain days, or families are hit with higher user fees at community centres.

spider said:

As far as applying all of a surplus to the 2011 budget instead of spreading it over several years (or worse, spending it just because it exists) I am rather perplexed, how can the city have a surplus and a debt at the same time. I agree with Ford's action.

Click to expand...

It seems like you should do some research about city finances before commenting on this issue: http://www.toronto.ca/finance/debt.htm. If anything, Ford should have acted like a conservative and used the surplus to pay down the debt.

The budget pressure for 2012 stands at $774-million. Cut the land transfer tax, which Mr. Ford said Wednesday he was still committed to do, and it would be $799-million.

Click to expand...

no...no...no.

That $25 million is just the projected increase in revenue from the land transfer tax in 2012, above the current $200 million. Remove that $225 million revenue source and it increases the deficit to $1 billion. Ford's idea to scrap the Vehicle Registration Fee and Land Transfer Tax creates a revenue hole of about $290 million all by itself. Add this to a risky idea of totally cleaning out whatever insurance you have ($346 million in surpluses/reserves), and you have a one-time fiscal mistake of $636 million.

Implementing the LTT & VRF was a smart way to use the city's new powers to generate more diverse sources of revenue. Toronto was the only major city on the planet that was forced to adhere to 19th century ideas of revenue (property tax).

This city has been in a real estate boom, where there are vast sums of money being made buying and selling real estate. It only makes sense for the city to tap into that profitable market as a source of revenue (much more than say...the hotel market).

The Vehicle Registration Fee was another no-brainer. Why wouldn't we charge car drivers something for the luxury of driving in a transit-dependant city? Are we trying to encourage car travel? No...I think we are try to reduce it. So why reward the car driver and penalize the transit rider? Does it make any sense to give car drivers $64 million, this year while cutting service and raising fares to transit users?

At least under the VRF, those who choose to use their cars contributed $64 million in revenue (not much, but at least it's a start). The people who choose to travel by transit contribute $1 billion in revenue (as well as making the city easier to get around in). I mean really...who should be "rewarded" and who should be "penalized" in this scenario?

That's why this idea of "The War On The Car" is moronic. There's a war alright...only it's been a war the car has been winning for over 50 years. But it's a war that is destined to be turned around...it's a foregone conclusion. The only question is how badly do we want to fight it and be in denial?

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/945176--fiorito-source-says-tchc-audit-reveals-lavish-spending



http://www.thestar.com/news/article/944630--giambrone-on-hook-for-overspending-at-ttc-chair-says

freshcutgrass said:

That's why this idea of "The War On The Car" is moronic. There's a war alright...only it's been a war the car has been winning for over 50 years. But it's a war that is destined to be turned around...it's a foregone conclusion. The only question is how badly do we want to fight it and be in denial?

Click to expand...

The best thing is, no matter how you spin it, the war on transit will eventually become a war on cars with the increased traffic.

Anyways, Spider, what do you think of Ford's tactics and actions in the council chamber? How about that of his supporters?

As far as the VRT goes, I'd guess that Metrolinx will introduce a GTA-wide Vehicle Registration surcharge to pay for transit infrastructure eventually. It makes a ton of sense.

The best thing is, no matter how you spin it, the war on transit will eventually become a war on cars with the increased traffic.

Click to expand...

....and increased fuel costs
...and increased insurance costs
...and increased environmental pressures
...and dwindling parking spaces and increased parking fees
...and increased sharing of the road by more efficient forms of transportation who have a right and are entitled to use said roads.

I'd guess that Metrolinx will introduce a GTA-wide Vehicle Registration surcharge to pay for transit infrastructure

Click to expand...

Metrolinx is going to be given GTA-wide taxing powers?

War on the car ... what BS.

What we have is a war on the poor with major service cuts to fund tax cuts for the rich that can afford cars.

I'm totally just speculating but something has to give -- it seems like a decent way to raise needed revenue.

it seems like a decent way to raise needed revenue.

Click to expand...

Oh..it is a decent way to raise revenue...and provide net benefits beyond that.

But if such a sensible plan can be very handily shot down in a transit-friendly city like Toronto, how do you think it has a chance in the car-loving 905 and beyond?

freshcutgrass said:

But if such a sensible plan can be very handily shot down in a transit-friendly city like Toronto, how do you think it has a chance in the car-loving 905 and beyond?

Click to expand...

Which is why the province doesn't have it's own car tax.

I guess that's what you get when you elect a wife-beating pathological lying drunk-driving criminal as mayor.

Click to expand...

The domestic issues and drinking problems are not what concern me all that much...it's the pathological lying bit that concerns me quite a bit. Or I should say, voters lack of concern about it that scares me.

It's quite obvious that this man suffers from one or more personality disorders, and by his own words and actions, unfit to be the mayor. I don't blame him...he can't stop being Rob Ford. I blame the voters who have a certain responsibility to society that they have neglected to understand.