News   Jun 02, 2020
 66     0 
News   Jun 01, 2020
 250     0 
News   Jun 01, 2020
 1.1K     3 

Crosstown LRT | Metrolinx

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
1,756
The problem with public sector is their lack of profit-drivers. A business gets things done efficiently because they have to keep a constant eye on returns - if something gets bloated, it gets cut back.

Public sector is instead result-focused. The goal is set out at the outset - say, build a transit line, and costs accumulate to reach that framework set out at the start. Some bloating gets cut to control spending, but often the initial goal is politically motivated and has a poor return. And when costs do get cut, they focus on lower the capital expenditure, not how to keep costs in line while still delivering a quality product that will sell.
No, public sector project costs balloon because of risk. The public sector has every desire to reduce costs (but not cut costs) — political motivation, saving money for other projects, etc, but the projects they take on are 1. Huge/complex, and 2. Underbid on. There's a case for lazy public sector workers, but remember, safety standards have to be taken most seriously by the public sector, MOL is setting the standards so they should be following them after all.
 

Regigate

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
76
Location
Toronto
What proportion of those businesses are leased versus owned? I don’t see the merit in giving a tax break to landlords, especially if the businesses have been paying their rent on time through this period. That advantage will not trickle down to the businesses. In all likelihood the landlord is seeing an uptick in market value for their buildings and may eventually raise rents. They don’t need tax relief.
Typically, in a commercial setting, the owners pass on property taxes to the occupant of the building. This may not be the case for all lessees along this stretch, but it's much different than say, residential.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,025
Reaction score
3,283
The problem with public sector is their lack of profit-drivers. A business gets things done efficiently because they have to keep a constant eye on returns - if something gets bloated, it gets cut back, while still keeping an eye on key profit drivers.
I think that you would be surprised to hear about some of the stories of "bloat" at many businesses. The idea of "if I don't spend my budget this year, I won't get it next year" is certainly not something confined to the public sector - it happens regularly at places like GM, IBM, etc.

Dan
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,628
Reaction score
5,388
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
This is just sad. Every business on the strip directly behind the construction on Eglinton is either completely empty or closed for good. Crosstown LRT won’t be complete until “well into” 2022. #topoli
@CityNews

Generally, those businesses near the station locations would be hit more. During the line construction is also a good time for renovations, repairs, or redeveloping.

Once the stations are finished, expect the leases to be raised because of their "prime location".
 

jaybe

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
215
Reaction score
489
Some people want nothing to change. If your business is located on a busy street where a subway may be day be built, well that is your call. The Eglinton LRT was years in planning and design. Business owners could see what was coming. It should not be up to taxpayers to compensate businesses who decide to stay through construction.
 

NotAToy

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
54
Reaction score
29
Some people want nothing to change. If your business is located on a busy street where a subway may be day be built, well that is your call. The Eglinton LRT was years in planning and design. Business owners could see what was coming. It should not be up to taxpayers to compensate businesses who decide to stay through construction.
Lot of those businesses can't go anywhere. If it were a big box street situation, sure.
 

jaybe

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
215
Reaction score
489
Lot of those businesses can't go anywhere. If it were a big box street situation, sure.
You are correct. My point is that change is a reality of doing business. A point of comparison, while not recent in Toronto it is possible for real-estate values to go down in value. Loss in value is a risk for the purchaser. A business owner faces similar risks and challenges. There is always a risk of change regardless of whether a community is vibrant and growing or in decline.

If a community goes into decline, temporarily, because we deem it in the social good to improve transit, that is a risk to the business owner and a cost of running their business. Tax payers shouldn't have any obligation to support that business owner. Subsidizing businesses for interruptions due to civic improvements is a slippery slope and could drastically increase the cost of transit.
 
Last edited:

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,059
Reaction score
7,184
I’m not sure that I can accept the argument that ethnic businesses must remain in the same locale to maintain cohesiveness of their community. You won’t find many Jewish businesses in Kensington any more. The Italian community has migrated all the way from College Street to Woodbridge, Asian businesses have moved from Dundas and Spadina to the east and north. I have lost track of where the Portuguese community has moved from and to. There is no stability of place in Tornto’s development - if anything, it is the exception. Employment availability and related commuting routes may change, and communities may shift as that happens. As socioeconomic status rises, there may be a preference to move up as opposed to remaining in the original community hub.

I agree that Gentrification can be harmful, by forcing a community to uproot before it has achieved the income generation capability or equity to link relocation to “moving up”. Or to be able to simply invest and develop within its original location (Danforth perhaps being an example of that).

I can agree that the Jamaican community may still be in a precarious state and gentrification on Eglinton will make it hard and costly to relocate, but I’m not sure that proves gentrification is evil. It will depend on where that community ends up. In the long run, that may actually be progress.

- Paul
 

Jonny5

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
2,895
Reaction score
582
Some can't, but many can. Happens frequently from the downtown core when landlords jack the rent and the business moves.
A lot of business in the downtown core have equity value in their brands, usually from investor owners. I doubt these ones do, or can raise cash to pay for a move or compensate for the relocation risks, if they can even find an appropriate place available willing to rent to them. Even if they do, it could take six months of being out of business to complete a move and repoen. You can't do that without investor backers as a interim.
 
Last edited:

Burnt creek

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
92
Reaction score
27
Yes. With private sector projects, the sub contractors know that the delays (and ensuing costs) will drive down the Internal rate or return and that there exists a point where project is no longer viable and hence the project will be cancelled . The subcontractors know that.

But on government projects, no politicians or government would ever have the balls to cancel such project given PR backlash that would ensue. Therefore the project sponsor has no leverage. So how do you change that?

Thats tough. But one way you can do that try to alter the incentive mechanism. For example, if governments have to bare the brunt of these delays and get egg on their faces, then so should the subcontractors. The subcontrcators are conveniently hiding in the background. Few know who they even are. If the eglington cross town were part of an olympic bid and if it were required for the olympics, you can bet that that it would not take twelve years. And it would ultimately be complete on time. Thats because these companies do not want their reputation tarnished in front of the world. It would not be just the governments with egg on their face.

Along the same line, I think that calling out subcontractors publically in order to ensure accountability might be a good tactic. We saw the John Tory and others call out Bombardier publicly for their delays. Seems to have worked.

pS.; i was replying to “innsertnamehere”
 
Last edited:

Top