News   Apr 26, 2024
 280     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 500     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 1.5K     4 

Mayor John Tory's Toronto

The people are dying argument is rather hyperbolic. People are dying because of policy decisions made by all levels of government. They’re dying in large numbers because we haven’t done a better job of infection control in hospitals, by making every room private and spending a lot more on cleaning. They’re dying on high-traffic single lane roads that we haven’t spent the money to improve. Some of our military veterans are dying by their own hands because we don’t provide them with adequate mental health services. However, I don’t read a lot of hysterical accusations against Wynne and Trudeau of the type ADRM has made against Tory. Ford and Harper might be another matter of course. Anyway, my point is that resources are limited, all governments make choices subject to constraints and trade-offs, and no government anywhere on the planet would pass ADRM’s people are dying test. Tory has campaigned pretty aggressively on the idea that municipal taxpayers don’t have unlimited money for tax increases, and that seems to have resonated with a large majority of voters.

This also brings up a significant point. It is not John Tory's fault that the upper tiers of government have dumped all these concerns and service costs onto the municipal level, which only really has the regressive and hyper-visible property tax as a means to fund them.

Maybe more scrutiny should be directed at the provincial and federal inaction on those files that ADRM is raising, than at John Tory.
 
Tory is due a degree of criticism, but in all fairness, he's the Mayor of a city being shid on, and can only do so much.

It's like blaming the bus driver for the shiddy route, when all the driver can do is make the best of it.
 
Steveintoronto, my point on the household size and average tax per household was poorly or lazily communicated.

My point was if we are presenting a graphic arguing that fiscal capacity exists because average inflation adjusted tax per household has declined we need to consider the change in number and composition of households. Basically the number of households increased while the number of occupants decreased, particularly driven by single-occupancy dwellings, thereby tending to increase the financial burden as you say per household if the inflation adjusted tax amount was static.

That also says nothing about the services the taxes pay for. Example being that garbage collection used to be included in the property tax bill at the beginning of the time period in question, then it was excluded but rebated. Now it’s just excluded.
 
The City Clerk and City Manager have made proposals on how the City will be run with 25 Councillors. Coming to new Council in December. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2019.CC1.1

Extra cost for having this "Special Damage Control Meeting".

Now there are 26; City hall needs ‘recalibrating’ after Ford’s shrinking of council, say staff

See link.

The way the city does business needs a big makeover in the wake of provincial meddling, city staff say.

The damage control is spelled out in a new report to be debated by city council at its first meeting of the new term next week.

The logistical changes mean reducing the number of seats council members must hold on committees, boards and agencies now that there are just 25 councillors, down from the original 47 wards, after Premier Doug Ford moved mid-election to change the structure, causing chaos ahead of voting on Oct. 22.

In the report, staff say the current structure with a 26-member council — the mayor sits on council, but is not a councillor — would make it challenging to “remain effective and sustainable.” They note those members would be responsible for holding some 485 seats and interviewing more than 900 citizens for public appointments.

Staff say a special committee of five council members, including the mayor or someone else he picks, should be formed to decided on what to do about governance in the long-term. That committee, which would meet for a limited time, would make final recommendations to council. The amount of time that would take is unclear.

In the meantime, staff have put forward interim measures, saying the city’s seven most important committees should be collapsed into just four — with responsibilities for community and economic development; general government and licensing; infrastructure and the environment, and planning and housing.

The recommended plan would allow Mayor John Tory to make good on his campaign promise to create a standing committee on housing, although its mandate to deal with affordable housing is not yet spelled out.

Tory’s own executive committee, where his closest allies are brought together to consider major city business, should be shrunk to eight members from 13, staff say, which would tighten the mayor’s inner circle.


Other committees and external boards would see a reduction in the number of members appointed.

The recommended revisions to committees would reduce the number of seats to be filled from 97 to 52.

Community councils, which are responsible for neighbourhood issues such as development, tree removals, speed bump approvals and other matters, also have to be restructured because they were recently aligned with a 47-ward system.

The new boundaries recommended by staff largely follow traditional boundaries, with a few exceptions. The residents who were formerly in Ward 13 (Parkdale-High Park) and Ward 17 (Davenport) will be represented by the Toronto and East York community council in their new Ward 4 (Parkdale-High Park) and Ward 9 (Davenport) rather than the Etobicoke York council they’re used to. And former Ward 8 (York West) residents now fall into the Etobicoke York community council in their new Ward 7 (Humber River-Black Creek).

With larger geographic boundaries, and, for some, twice the number of constituents, one of the biggest challenges for councillors will be finding time to handle residents’ concerns and attend meetings.

Although city staff do not provide a recommendation on how to create more capacity in their offices, they lay out several options for increasing councillors’ staff and budgets. One of those is to double the staffing budget to $482,000, as was called for in an open letter from more than 50 neighbourhood associations, and to double their office budgets.

Right now, councillors’ staffing budgets are equivalent to the top salary for three separate positions. Several councillors who already represent nearly 100,000 constituents now split that budget among more than four staff. This means the busier offices have staff that receive lower pay for handling more work.

Doubling the budgets would mean an increase of $1.12 million, compared to 2018. That is a fraction of the city’s overall $13-billion operating budget.

In order to increase their budgets, a council member will have to move a motion to that effect at council next week. This then requires majority approval.

As for councillors’ salaries, staff said there is no comparable salary range, as there are no other councils in Canada with so few councillors for so many people.
Councillors now earn $114,306.

A review could be launched with an independent consultant or committee of citizens, the report says.

There are also expected changes in the mayor’s office already underway. In a letter to councillors and city staff Tuesday, Tory announced his chief of staff Chris Eby and principal secretary Vic Gupta would be leaving at the end of the term, on Nov. 30.

Replacing Eby as the head of Tory’s office will be Luke Robertson, who moved up the ranks as a member of Tory’s staff last term after moving over from the city’s licensing division. Robertson was most recently Tory’s re-election campaign manager, earning a personal shout-out from the mayor at his victory party and the praise of his colleagues.

It’s not yet clear who will be taking Gupta’s place.
 
Last edited:
The City Clerk and City Manager have made proposals on how the City will be run with 25 Councillors. Coming to new Council in December. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2019.CC1.1

I am pretty concerned about the office budget portion of the report and the direction I suspect council will go. The obvious option they will choose is option one. The thing is I think that things can be done more efficiently in larger wards and the do not need a consistency office in each ward for example. At least give it a try with less. Or do a 50% increase in office budget instead of an almost 100% increase per councilor.(which is not a listed option in the report sadly) I understand wanting more but like at least try to get by with less.

Also in the hypothetical world where council moved up to 47 members I do not think council would have reduced their budget per councilor so that the total amount of money allocated to office budgets remained the same as it was under 44 councilors. They would have kept the amount allocated to each councilor and increased the overall budget. It is classic political games where you use one metric that this beneficial to you and then use the other to have the best of both worlds.
 
I am pretty concerned about the office budget portion of the report and the direction I suspect council will go. The obvious option they will choose is option one. The thing is I think that things can be done more efficiently in larger wards and the do not need a consistency office in each ward for example. At least give it a try with less. Or do a 50% increase in office budget instead of an almost 100% increase per councilor.(which is not a listed option in the report sadly) I understand wanting more but like at least try to get by with less.
I saw 1 option to keep expenses the same.
Then 3 options all basically had double the budgets.
I saw it as a way to ignore the keep budget the same and pick one of the 3 other options.

The actual answer is that the number of Wards went down by a factor of 1.8, thus that's the maximum that the budget should have gone up. Due to economies of scale, one would assume that some degree of efficiency would be expected. Other options should have been between a 0% and 80% increase.
 
The census population of Toronto in 2011 was 2,615,060. In 2016, it was 2,731,571. A 4.5% increase. From link.

Maybe the Mayor's salary should be increased 4.5%? Maybe the Councillor salaries should be increased by the percentage of population increased that they have to handle?

Of course, since Ontario's population increased from 33,476,688 to 35,151,728, a 5.0% increase, maybe the Premier's salary should also be increased 5%. ;)
 
I saw 1 option to keep expenses the same.
Then 3 options all basically had double the budgets.
I saw it as a way to ignore the keep budget the same and pick one of the 3 other options.

The actual answer is that the number of Wards went down by a factor of 1.8, thus that's the maximum that the budget should have gone up. Due to economies of scale, one would assume that some degree of efficiency would be expected. Other options should have been between a 0% and 80% increase.
I will just clarify my point a bit here. Status quo option keeps the office expense budget the same as it would have been per councilor at 44 or 47 wards on a per councilor basis but saves taxpayers money due to the ward reduction. (almost 750,000$)
Option 1 basically gives the total office expenses under 44 and scales it up for the new wards. The city claims this saves a small amount (around 90 thousand per year) but I don't completely understand how. Option 2 basically makes it so there is zero net savings from the provincial changes.

At the end of the day I don't think this is that big an issue. However, I think that even option 1, which is what I think council will vote for still looks bad. They should start with a lower number and then review it in a year if it is really inconvenient. They should make it look like they are at least trying to save money.
 
I will just clarify my point a bit here. Status quo option keeps the office expense budget the same as it would have been per councilor at 44 or 47 wards on a per councilor basis but saves taxpayers money due to the ward reduction. (almost 750,000$)
Option 1 basically gives the total office expenses under 44 and scales it up for the new wards. The city claims this saves a small amount (around 90 thousand per year) but I don't completely understand how. Option 2 basically makes it so there is zero net savings from the provincial changes.

At the end of the day I don't think this is that big an issue. However, I think that even option 1, which is what I think council will vote for still looks bad. They should start with a lower number and then review it in a year if it is really inconvenient. They should make it look like they are at least trying to save money.
It's the Cities way of fighting back against Ford. Ford provided the tools for the City to save some money - so the city needs to turn it into a waste of money just to show Ford.
Back in 2013, City Councillor and Liberal government said they would kill Ford (the other one) and his plan of a connected SRT and ECLRT at any cost. We are paying Billions of dollars because of that decision - just to show Ford.
 
I am pretty concerned about the office budget portion of the report and the direction I suspect council will go. The obvious option they will choose is option one. The thing is I think that things can be done more efficiently in larger wards and the do not need a consistency office in each ward for example. At least give it a try with less. Or do a 50% increase in office budget instead of an almost 100% increase per councilor.(which is not a listed option in the report sadly) I understand wanting more but like at least try to get by with less.

A refusal to raise property taxes, recinding of the VRT and zero help from the province (toll highways) has left the city budget strapped for years now. Making councillors work with less per constituent would be the ultimate f-you in the wake of an already brutal arsing of our municipal government.
 
Back in 2013, City Councillor and Liberal government said they would kill Ford (the other one) and his plan of a connected SRT and ECLRT at any cost. We are paying Billions of dollars because of that decision - just to show Ford.

What a crock of shit. We're paying billions (and will continue to pay out the nose in maintenance costs) because the Fords insisted that Scarborough was entitled to a Subway simply so they could create suburban/urban divisiveness on council. Lets also not forget that Ford wanted to bury the entirety of the Eglinton Crosstown, which would've added billions to the cost of that as well. All so they could call it a subway, and all because they have some f-ed up belief that downtown subways are used mainly by people downtown.
 
Unfunded city projects as presented by the City Manager, Chris Murray.
DtM84pOUUAEMvnO.jpg

 
Unfunded city projects as presented by the City Manager, Chris Murray.
DtM84pOUUAEMvnO.jpg

Well too bad for all these projects because apparently a new French language university was a bigger priority of the previous provincial government.

Oh sorry this isn't the provincial politics thread. I feel like I still want to make this point about political priorities.
 
Well too bad for all these projects because apparently a new French language university was a bigger priority of the previous provincial government.

Oh sorry this isn't the provincial politics thread. I feel like I still want to make this point about political priorities.
The French university was hardly a top priority, nor did it cost very much.

I would have been happy to see it go through. It raises our competitive advantage in attracting business, in the same way that plastering OCAD everywhere in Toronto marketing material has been beneficial to us. Of course, we know that OCAD is a tiny university with negligible impact in Toronto, but to the world outside of Toronto, it raises our profile significantly. This French university would have been the same.

In any case, the province, regardless of government in power, nor the feds for that matter, have made funding Toronto's unmet infrastructure needs a priority. In other countries, that TTC - Future Capital Needs (which I imagine is referring to the TTC's state of good repair backlog) would have been funded already.
 

Back
Top