News   Apr 20, 2026
OLT Settlement Backs Trio of Towers Near St Clair-Old Weston Station
 414     0 
News   Apr 20, 2026
Glazed Balconies Improve Building Performance, Resident Comfort, and Long-Term Cost
 291     1 
News   Apr 20, 2026
News Roundup for April 20, 2026
 396     0 

Economist: Toronto, nice but broke

The new cultural buildings were mostly paid for through individual and corporate donations, with the Feds and the Province chipping in the rest. The City gave next to nothing. Luminato and Nuit Blanche wouldn't happen without corporate sponsorships, and long term Provincial funding for the former is what guarantees its future. The AGO and ROM are Provincially funded.

That little leaflet that arrived with our final property tax bills this year broke down where the City spends the approximately $3,150 of tax on an average Toronto home: "Economic Development, Culture and Tourism" got exactly $16.61 of it.
 
From the Star:

Tory pledges to help Toronto
Aug 01, 2007 12:49 PM
Kerry Gillespie
Queen's Park Bureau

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory met with a group of Toronto councillors today and assured them that, if elected in October, he would help solve the city's budget problems.

But Tory would not specify exactly what he would do to help fill Toronto's budget hole, estimated at $575 million.

He said he wants to wait for the results of a joint municipal-provincial review about uploading social services to announce his fix.

The review, started by Premier Dalton McGuinty, is scheduled to report its findings early next year but Tory said he'd move it up a couple of months to the end of December.

Right now, property taxpayers across Ontario are paying more than $3 billion for provincial social services including welfare, housing for the poor and drug costs for the disabled.

Both both Tory and McGuinty have said this is unfair and have committed to, over time, fixing the problem.
_______________________________________________

Yet another Trojan Horse called Municipal-Provincial Review.

AoD
 
what i meant is the stupid idea to keep residential property taxes low while increasing business taxes over the years.

That has hurt Toronto greatly as its surrounding cities have much lower business taxes. Even though Condos and new arts and culture venues generate taxes, office towers and business generate more taxes more then anything else.


I am saying the city should have kept business taxes lower and its financial state would still be difficult but nothing crisis like.
 
The financial crisis of this city is not all about taxes. Look to the province and its game of having passed the buck onto someone else so it could cut taxes and look good.

Thanks Mike Harris, for the legacy that keeps on taking.
 
Residential property taxes haven't been kept low; because of the impact of Current Value Assessment they have risen sharply in many parts of town. This is happening at a time when the commercial to residential property tax ratio is being reduced in stages over the next 15 years. So, increased taxes by people who live in properties that don't generate income are subsidizing the reduced taxes of people who own properties that do.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Residential property taxes haven't been kept low; because of the impact of Current Value Assessment they have risen sharply in many parts of town. This is happening at a time when the commercial to residential property tax ratio is being reduced in stages over the next 15 years. So, increased taxes by people who live in properties that don't generate income are subsidizing the reduced taxes of people who own properties that do.
Click to expand...

Sorry to bump an old thread but this deserves a response.

Insinuating in anyway that residential taxpayers are subsidising non-residential taxpayers in Toronto is patently absurd.

First to have any logical debate on the subject one must look at where the city spends its budget. Most expenses that the city incurs are geared towards citizens not businesses. If the property tax burden was at par between the classes, it would still amount to a subsidy of residential taxes by the commercial / industrial class. This is why the province, both in the old and new Municipal Act, has a regulation that defines what is fair. The ratio that is regulated is between .6 and 1.1 to that of residential, for an average 85%. Not the current 350%.

The fact that the city has consultant's reports that show that it is not feasible to build most types of offices in Toronto, despite industrial land prices being up to 55% lower than surrounding regions, should be alarming enough to all. Toronto residents are subsidised heavily by the commercial industrial and multi residential tax payers because that is where the votes are. As the city's decline over that last decade has shown, those affected have voted with their feet.
 
Point well taken....but can we please avoid the 'decline' lingo that is the stock and trade of so much commentary on Toronto? How on God's green Earth is it a city 'in decline?' Even if we are talking strictly about commercial, was there ever a net loss of jobs in the city? Certainly a smaller proportion relative to the region, but that's normal for a large conurbation.

If the last ten years represented a decline then an ascent must be quite spectacular indeed.
 
allabootmatt said:
How on God's green Earth is it a city 'in decline?' Even if we are talking strictly about commercial, was there ever a net loss of jobs in the city? Certainly a smaller proportion relative to the region, but that's normal for a large conurbation.

If the last ten years represented a decline then an ascent must be quite spectacular indeed.
Click to expand...


From the Toronto Vital Signs report.


2000-2006 Toronto lost 23,700 jobs.

During the same time the 905 region gained over 600,000 jobs.

There are less jobs in Toronto today than there were 18 years ago, while in the 905 region there are a million more jobs.

I think the use of the word decline is appropriate.
 
ganjavih said:
Find the city's employment statistics here: http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/survey2006.pdf

Hardly a picture of decline...
Click to expand...

Everything is relative. If everyone surrounding you is getting 50% pay increases, do you celebrate the 1% raise you got? Despite the mammoth 14,100 jobs that were created in 2006 (which have been more than lost again in 2007), the long term trends have been negative for the city. Are you aware that the city had projected in the City of Toronto Official Plan, 2005 1,519,000 jobs in 2005 but had an actual of 1,262,700 jobs? That is a shortfall of 256,300, or 20% behind projections.
 
Considering the population has been flat in the city, increased job growth in the city would require better transportation infrastructure to bring people in from the burbs. Since we don't have that, job growth out in the burbs where the people are only makes sense, no?
 
BobBob said:
Considering the population has been flat in the city, increased job growth in the city would require better transportation infrastructure to bring people in from the burbs. Since we don't have that, job growth out in the burbs where the people are only makes sense, no?
Click to expand...

That is a very complex question.

I think that two things demonstrate that this is not the case. Downtown North York and areas along the new Sheppard subway line would be very attractive for increased commercial office development if that was the case. But that is not happening. Why would someone build an office in Mississauga compared to downtown North York. Land is cheaper in North York (for non residential) and it is on a subway line. Yet it still is not happening.

It is because property taxes are so high in Toronto that it makes it unfeasible. Have a look at this report.

NB. while not addressed in the report it should be noted a large amount of the existing space is being used by non typical tenants. For example Around the Keele Finch area, a tremendous amount of 'factory' space is now occupied by used car dealerships. These are typically not very entrenched tenants, which reflects on demand. The same cannot be said for the 905 region.
 
The suburbs have been growing quickly and offer lower tax rates. It's no surprise they've been gaining business. That's about to change as they mature though. Mississauga is starting to encounter the problems of larger cities.
 
true, when a city builds out, it starts to mature....

Brampton and Mississauga have finally realized they are cities now instead of small little towns....

About the city being in decline, i would say this...

Downtown and other areas are thriving however the suburbs bordering the 905 are really hurting....
 
Yes Downtown is booming ..
Midtown (Eglinton) Isn't doing to bad either.
NYCC has been pretty stable .. no losses + minimal gains. No losses though, there is very little office space available.

Don mills has been hit hard I think as well as other areas bordering the 905 i.e. etobicoke.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top