GenerationW
Senior Member
I asked Adam Giambrone that very question at a Transit City information meeting, and he was fiercely opposed to a T. C. referendum. No doubt Miller held the same view.
|
|
|
Toronto should use referendums to vote on infrastructure projects
- Thread starter k10ery
- Start date
Dan416
Senior Member
I wonder why (ok that's a lie).
GenerationW
Senior Member
Obviously campaigning for T.C. would have seriously cut into Adam's couch time!
k10ery
Senior Member
Whixh i why, to make it work, you'd need a law requiring the politicians to hold a referendum for large capital projects.
Since the law would have to be passed by politicians too, it's not likely to happen. The same reason we'll never get any form of PR or preferential ballot, even though it's obviously better. The people in office figure the current system works just fine ... for them.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
One might be able to avoid the more toxic brands of political opportunism in our transit planning through institutional changes but make no mistake - all planning is inherently political. And why shouldn't it be - considering it involves the allocation of massive amounts of public (and private) resources, short and long-term direct and secondary impacts to vast swaths of citizenry, imposes fundamental limitations to the possibilities available to future generations, and to a great extent reflective of the values of the general public. Clearly anything less then a political component to the process - however structured - would be highly problematic in our society.
The issue rests more with our citizenry and their proxies they voted in - and that's a considerably thornier issue to deal with.
AoD
The issue rests more with our citizenry and their proxies they voted in - and that's a considerably thornier issue to deal with.
AoD
Last edited:
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
But Alvin, we already make highly influential decisions that are completely divorced from the political process. Take the setting of interest rates by the Bank of Canada. In the long run, this is far more influential to far more people than the building of a transit line, and has - I would argue - more significant ramifications in people's lives, both present and future. Yet, we entrust this role to a technocratic bureaucracy with an appointed governor that operates outside of the interference of elected government. Technocracy, or rule by experts, also applies to many other brances of civil service that have a huge impact on people's lives. In fact, in those cases when elected government meddles in the affairs of these technocracies - like the Harper government's interference in Statistics Canada's handling of the long form census - we decry these moves as obstructionist and out of bounds...and, I would argue, correctly so.
It's easy for us, at Urban Toronto, to look at the decisions made by the general public electing a bunch of clowns on a kneejerk platform as a sign of the general public's stupidity. But there is no such thing as "the general public". We are all part of it. If the "general public" appears to be tragically misinformed and stupid, it is because other individuals in our society are informed and reasonable in areas that we are not and vice versa, and we tend to get hung up when decisions are made by uninformed people in an area which we are particularly informed about. For example, I think I could make a reasonably informed judgement about how to proceed with transit expansion in this city because I've been studying this and practicing this kind of work for years, but if I had to make a judgement about women's health policy or what kind of police surveillance equipment to budget for, I'd probably make as boneheaded a judgement as Ford's decision to put the Eglinton LRT entirely underground. If I were to make a decision on these issues that I know next to nothing about, it would be based on nicely-disguised misinformation and shady op-ed pieces in the newspaper. I would not understand - nor know where to look for - all the nuances and systemic factors that I would be totally blind to. This is why we need experts.
Technocracy has its faults, and there should be reasonable checks to ensure that experts in the planning system don't get drunk on power and overstep their boundaries like Robert Moses. However, in the main, I argue it's far more efficient and effective than making decisions through representative democracy. Politicians are just people, after all, and can't be experts on all matters; it seems unreasonable for us to allow them to make decisions on everything ranging from streetcar purchases to banning shark fin soup.
Last edited:
doady
Senior Member
People already vote on politicians to represent their views. If there are referendums for everything, then what's the point of politicians?
k10ery
Senior Member
Several people have said that, instead of going towards more direct democracy, we should depoliticize transit planning entirely. But who would we trust to make the decisions about tens of billions of public money? Not those chair warmers on the Metrolinx board.
H. Duck made a good point about central bank independence. But we can do that because inflation affects everybody pretty much the same. There are no big winners and losers. Transit planning is completely different. Some people (local residents, developers, construction companies) stand to win huge amounts based on these decisions. You've got to have direct political accountability in those cases to control the sweetheart deals.
But just cause you need politics doesn't mean you need to leave it to the politicians. For the people who say voters can't be trusted in a referendum system, then how come it seems to work in the US? Lots of cities spend way more on transit per rider than Toronto does, even though their projects get voted on directly.
H. Duck made a good point about central bank independence. But we can do that because inflation affects everybody pretty much the same. There are no big winners and losers. Transit planning is completely different. Some people (local residents, developers, construction companies) stand to win huge amounts based on these decisions. You've got to have direct political accountability in those cases to control the sweetheart deals.
But just cause you need politics doesn't mean you need to leave it to the politicians. For the people who say voters can't be trusted in a referendum system, then how come it seems to work in the US? Lots of cities spend way more on transit per rider than Toronto does, even though their projects get voted on directly.
Planning should be done centrally by Metrolinx, but priorities should be set by the Metrolinx Board, made up of a combination of: Industry Specialists, Federal Representatives, Provincial Representatives, and Representatives from Municipalities. Make the numbers so that no two groups alone can make a decision (need a 2/3 majority). That way you would need 3 of the 4 groups to agree with the decision in order for it to happen. This also means that the replacement of 1 of the Representative groups doesn't derail everything.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
This is ridiculous.
How can the City hold a referendum on where to put other people's money?
Despite everyone bitching about McGuinty not giving enough money for transit, I dare one of you to name ANY city on this entire planet where a senior level of government is going to build a new rapid transit line and not ask the local government or people of the city to contribute one plug nickel. Just one example will do.
Perhaps if Torontonians were actually putting any of their own money on the line they may demand more accountability ie $1.2 billion for 6km of LRT track which will require 4 years to lay.
A REAL referendum would be one where the city asks the locals to put their money where their industrial size mouths are.
American cities vote on referendums all the time to raise funds for their mass transit whether it be Seattle, L.A., Denver, Phoneix, or the most recent example Durham/Raleigh. Their cities are building rapid transit because their citizens have agreed to pay their fair share of. They didn't wait until the senior levels of government to pay for it all. They rightfully expect senior levels of government to pay their share as they have larger taxing powers but they know that to expect everyone to pay for someone elses infrastructure is unfair.
The people of London, Sarnia, Sudbury, and Kingston expect that they must contribute to their own infrastructure costs but somehow Toronto should be exempt. Even the idea of Toronto paying 1% of the Eglinton line is nothing short of heresy. Those other places don't have and fiscal problems of their own. Since when does London have to pay for transit, welfare, roads, sewage, water, the arts etc?................only Toronto does that. I know for a fact that Londoners don't even pay municiple taxes because they let Queen's Park pay for everything. Who ever said London was a bunch of gutless WASPs?
Newsflash............Queen's Park is broke and unless Toronto can ever gets it's head around the notion that they should also contribute to their own transit infrastructure, Eglinton will be the end of it.
Metrolinx and Toronto need to lay down the law and state that we need X amount of dollars and the only way we can do it is gas taxes and/or sales tax. Any city that OKs the referedum get's 100% of the own money with a percentage going to GO. If a city doesn't OK the deal they know ahead of time that any future transit money is now dead and their GO fares will be going up will the other city's will see theirs decline.
They could also design the question to take the guess work out of where the money should go and how it should be spent.
Question #1.......Do you support a 0.5% regional sales tax and a 5 cent increase in gas taxes for GO and local transit for the nexxt 10 years? If yes, continue to question #2...............if no, questionaire finished.
Question #2........It has already been determined that 20% of all raised funds will do towards GO expansion and operational costs. The other 80% will go 100% towards your local transit autgority {eg in Toronto funds will to the TTC}. The 26km Eglinton LRT line is already funded and underconstruction. You you prefer the funds going to the TTC A} 100% towards daily operations to improve things like frequency and hours of operation, B} 100% towards future rapid transit expansion, C} an even split between the two.
Question #3.........If you stated you would like some or all of the funds going towards rapid transit expansion already knowing thet the 26 Eglinton line is already funded, where do you think any future rapid transit expansion funds should go......A} Continue the Eglinton line up to Malbern and west to Pearson airport, B} Complete the entire Sheppard subway line Spadina subway to STC, or C} A new Downtown Relief line from Danforth & Pape to Bloor and Dundas West stations via Queen or Union stations?
Then just leave room for the comments they never read anyway.
Such a plebisite would take the guesswork out of how to get funds and where they should be spent.
Mc Guinty {nor any of the party leaders} would refuse to allow the implementation of such new revenues if it was OKed by a plebesite.
How can the City hold a referendum on where to put other people's money?
Despite everyone bitching about McGuinty not giving enough money for transit, I dare one of you to name ANY city on this entire planet where a senior level of government is going to build a new rapid transit line and not ask the local government or people of the city to contribute one plug nickel. Just one example will do.
Perhaps if Torontonians were actually putting any of their own money on the line they may demand more accountability ie $1.2 billion for 6km of LRT track which will require 4 years to lay.
A REAL referendum would be one where the city asks the locals to put their money where their industrial size mouths are.
American cities vote on referendums all the time to raise funds for their mass transit whether it be Seattle, L.A., Denver, Phoneix, or the most recent example Durham/Raleigh. Their cities are building rapid transit because their citizens have agreed to pay their fair share of. They didn't wait until the senior levels of government to pay for it all. They rightfully expect senior levels of government to pay their share as they have larger taxing powers but they know that to expect everyone to pay for someone elses infrastructure is unfair.
The people of London, Sarnia, Sudbury, and Kingston expect that they must contribute to their own infrastructure costs but somehow Toronto should be exempt. Even the idea of Toronto paying 1% of the Eglinton line is nothing short of heresy. Those other places don't have and fiscal problems of their own. Since when does London have to pay for transit, welfare, roads, sewage, water, the arts etc?................only Toronto does that. I know for a fact that Londoners don't even pay municiple taxes because they let Queen's Park pay for everything. Who ever said London was a bunch of gutless WASPs?
Newsflash............Queen's Park is broke and unless Toronto can ever gets it's head around the notion that they should also contribute to their own transit infrastructure, Eglinton will be the end of it.
Metrolinx and Toronto need to lay down the law and state that we need X amount of dollars and the only way we can do it is gas taxes and/or sales tax. Any city that OKs the referedum get's 100% of the own money with a percentage going to GO. If a city doesn't OK the deal they know ahead of time that any future transit money is now dead and their GO fares will be going up will the other city's will see theirs decline.
They could also design the question to take the guess work out of where the money should go and how it should be spent.
Question #1.......Do you support a 0.5% regional sales tax and a 5 cent increase in gas taxes for GO and local transit for the nexxt 10 years? If yes, continue to question #2...............if no, questionaire finished.
Question #2........It has already been determined that 20% of all raised funds will do towards GO expansion and operational costs. The other 80% will go 100% towards your local transit autgority {eg in Toronto funds will to the TTC}. The 26km Eglinton LRT line is already funded and underconstruction. You you prefer the funds going to the TTC A} 100% towards daily operations to improve things like frequency and hours of operation, B} 100% towards future rapid transit expansion, C} an even split between the two.
Question #3.........If you stated you would like some or all of the funds going towards rapid transit expansion already knowing thet the 26 Eglinton line is already funded, where do you think any future rapid transit expansion funds should go......A} Continue the Eglinton line up to Malbern and west to Pearson airport, B} Complete the entire Sheppard subway line Spadina subway to STC, or C} A new Downtown Relief line from Danforth & Pape to Bloor and Dundas West stations via Queen or Union stations?
Then just leave room for the comments they never read anyway.
Such a plebisite would take the guesswork out of how to get funds and where they should be spent.
Mc Guinty {nor any of the party leaders} would refuse to allow the implementation of such new revenues if it was OKed by a plebesite.