TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Unlike the SSE, there isn't any plausible way to significantly reduce the cost of the ECLRT. It's the cheapest possibly solution for rapid transit on Eglinton.
|
|
|
rbt
Senior Member
Well, not really. It's the cheapest that was politicly feasible.
Removing all vehicle traffic from Eglinton and keeping the trains on the surface was also a technically feasible option.
salsa
Senior Member
Subway boosters are getting so desperate to make their failed centre "viable" that now they're asking John Tory to relocate 3000 city employees from downtown buildings to Scarborough Centre.
“By moving jobs now, Toronto Council can send a strong signal that they are committed to implementing the transit plan. This will also give businesses confidence that Scarborough is a great place to have corporate headquarters.”
http://m.insidetoronto.com/news-sto...-transfer-3-000-municipal-jobs-to-scarborough
“By moving jobs now, Toronto Council can send a strong signal that they are committed to implementing the transit plan. This will also give businesses confidence that Scarborough is a great place to have corporate headquarters.”
http://m.insidetoronto.com/news-sto...-transfer-3-000-municipal-jobs-to-scarborough
Cobra
Senior Member
In theory, it should be cheaper to move them there. If they work in municipal owned building, the city can sell that asset and just rent offices at a lower price in Scarborough Centre. It actually makes lots of sense.
The Federal government is selling crowned owned buildings and doing the same. The Joseph Sheppard building was sold at Sheppard-Yonge and PWGSC opted to stay there instead of moving downtown at a higher cost.
There's no conspiracy about it, it's a no brainer provided that STC has the office space for the city staff to work from.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The population is increasing in Toronto (and Canada), therefore reducing staff makes sense.
crs1026
Superstar
It's a no-brainer, until someone on a different subway line offers an even lower rent.
One wonders why those workers are downtown in the first place. Either the City has been asleep at the switch as downtown rents have risen, or there are reasons (like needing to meet with Councillors, etc frequently) why they are needed down there.
- Paul
One wonders why those workers are downtown in the first place. Either the City has been asleep at the switch as downtown rents have risen, or there are reasons (like needing to meet with Councillors, etc frequently) why they are needed down there.
- Paul
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
This is stupid - the private sector don't base their locational decisions on whether city employees are around - and if you need that to "demonstrate and improve confidence", perhaps your case is poor in the first place.
And if I really want to be blunt - perhaps said group should add that no parking will be provided.
AoD
Last edited:
Cobra
Senior Member
Not sure what you mean but they are talking about moving staff, not cutting staffThe population is increasing in Toronto (and Canada), therefore reducing staff makes sense.
Cobra
Senior Member
Scarborough wasn't always part of Toronto, so made sense to have most of them downtown. With the city looking for cuts and saving money, selling real estate makes sense to save money. That's what the Harper government did in their tenure and they sold crown-owned buildings and asset.
Cobra
Senior Member
It's truly a poor argument but I could see the city making this happen to cut cost and save money first and foremost
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Unless there is preexisting space available, you might not be saving much given the cost of relocation. Remember the city isn't necessarily leasing spaces in downtown. You might gain a one-time boost by selling assets, but that's it. Plus does it make sense for the jobs to be located in SCC necessarily? Unlike the latter, there IS a definite and irreplaceable locational advantage to downtown - and it may matter for some positions.
AoD
Cobra
Senior Member
Even with expansive relocation, provided you only rent the new space, you will save in the long term if the rent is reasonable and low. Of course, the office space must be already there. Despite owning the building yourself, maintenance costs are very high and usually requires a whole department to coordinate that which ironically requires more office space, equipment, city staff with benefits, pensions etc... That was one of the major reasons the Conservatives started to sell crowned-owned assets. Through attrition, they would eliminate positions and they would no longer be on the hook for all the costs related to owning land/real estate and being responsible for the maintenance. Sure you can hire the private sector to manage things for you, but you still are requiring to have city staff establish benchmarks, quality assurance, reports etc...
It's much easier to pay a flat rent in a leased location and just called property manager when there's an issue than having to run everything yourself.
Yes it does as that why Ottawa and Queen's Park have offices and staff all over instead of concentrating them in one spot...and that for many reasons that makes sense.
Palma
Senior Member
because its the easiest place to get to/. Makes no sense to have the city hall of a city in the suburbs. And who wants to live in scarborough. oops, this is probably a sore point. This will never happen
Cobra
Senior Member
They wouldn't be moving city hall, perhaps a few departments out of the core, don't get what's the big deal.
Also, instead of joking about Scarborough not being desirable, how about supporting the city trying to reverse that? If someone would have ever told me in the 80s that Harlem and Brooklyn would ever be desirable, I would have fainted...and there it is. So can Scarborough
Palma
Senior Member
The majority of queens park is downtown. You have transportation in the keel 401 area, I think another ministry in Guelph (agricu), but the majority is at Queens Park area