News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 388     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 824     4 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.1K     6 

Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

T3G said:
It's like a feedback loop of stupidity. North Americans are incapable of taking personal responsibility for themselves, so the authorities respond with weird dime store dictator rules to protect the lemmings from themselves, lest they get sued. I truly hope there is no by law officer who will go around ticketing people for this.
Click to expand...

I doubt there will be enforcement. Hell, the city doesn't enforce dog leash laws to any meaningful extent—let alone stuff without overt signs, like the swaths of delivery a$$hats driving their 300lb scooters 30kms/hr on the sidewalk.

T3G said:
Why can't they put up signs saying "Tobogganing on this hill could be dangerous, and the city takes no responsibility for any death or injury that may occur"?
Click to expand...
Because you're dealing with kids who can't legally "sign a contract" themselves. And ultimately injury disclaimers are a crap shoot if they aren't 100% airtight, which would probably require signing paperwork.

Reasons Your Liability Waiver May Not Hold up in Court & What You Can Do About It

/CNW/ - Liability waivers are legal documents with the potential of providing comprehensive protection against liability for your business. However, there are...
www.newswire.ca www.newswire.ca
 
Last edited:
Toronto Community Housing's presentation for Budget Ctte is now up on the City's website.


There's precious little there to sink one's teeth into.

But this slide illustrates 2 problems, one, the shortage of funding for certain capital needs (we knew this); but second the fact that the details of those needs are completely hidden. What are the projects that lack funds?

1705508882488.png


The presentation from the Development and Growth services also covers housing, so I'll add it here:


There's a lot of unfunded housing in various forms here:

1705509101742.png


I think I'll flag @HousingNowTO for comment.
 
afransen said:
At this rate she might be the future Kim Campbell.
Click to expand...
There are rumours she will be looked at for the next Secretary General of NATO. The current office holder will be leaving October 1 after serving for ten years, an unusually long term for the job which averages about five years.

She has some good contemporary credentials for the job including her Ukranian heritage, and also she can speak that language and passable French and apparently Italian too. Also there has never been a woman or any Canadian holding that position in history and there's some pressure to change both of those.

The item against her is Canada not meeting that 2% of GDP on defence goal during her long tenure as a senior cabinet minister, though the counter is she can push for it as NATO SG.

But it's a nice gig. 315,000 Euros/year, lots of expenses covered, and you are essentially recognised globally as equivalent to the president/prime minister of a nation, and are treated as such on any travel.
 
Last edited:
Many of you will be familiar with IMIT grants that rebate a portion of property taxes for a period of several years to induce certain types of development.

@Amare and I, among others have taken issue w/this program, which has certainly had the appearance of giving a good deal of money to projects that would have been built anyway, based on market conditions.

The latest report looking at the program goes to next week's Executive Ctte.

Should it be approved, it will make material changes.


From the above:

1706022078312.png

1706022104248.png

1706022144184.png

1706022194937.png

1706022220246.png

1706022263961.png

1706022293466.png


I agree with the general direction of the changes above, in particular limited support for new office (likely a non-issue for a few years anyway); and implementing a sunset clause so that beneficiaries can't 'bank' an approval.
 
Northern Light said:
Many of you will be familiar with IMIT grants that rebate a portion of property taxes for a period of several years to induce certain types of development.

@Amare and I, among others have taken issue w/this program, which has certainly had the appearance of giving a good deal of money to projects that would have been built anyway, based on market conditions.

The latest report looking at the program goes to next week's Executive Ctte.

Should it be approved, it will make material changes.


From the above:

View attachment 534688
View attachment 534689
View attachment 534690
View attachment 534691
View attachment 534692
View attachment 534693
View attachment 534694

I agree with the general direction of the changes above, in particular limited support for new office (likely a non-issue for a few years anyway); and implementing a sunset clause so that beneficiaries can't 'bank' an approval.
Click to expand...
Absolute fantastic find @Northern Light and i'm very happy to read about the quite significant amount of change proposed to the IMIT program!

Over the past decade there have been numerous large firms who have been able to milk this program without restraint while full while knowing they didnt need to, but they were able to because of how convenient the program was and how easy it was to access these grants. I've had very strong words regarding this program in the past and i've stated it should be outright eliminated in the downtown core because it's essentially providing free money for firms who would've built in the core irrespective of if the grant was around or not.

There are several things I love about the proposed changes:

-The narrowing of eligibility for office developments is fantastic (although the effect will be a bit mute for the foreseeable future because of the downturn in the office market),
- Simplifying the extensive list of sectors the could qualify is great so the city isnt giving out blanket grants to sectors who in no way need the benefits,
- Scrutinizing and severely limiting/eliminating IMIT grants for the downtown core while being flexible to extend grants outside the core is something i've been calling for and it's great to see the city finally looked into this
- The elimination of the Enhanced Grants is great, it was a needless free money piss away and in my eyes low-hanging fruit that should've long been eliminated

This is the kind of stuff our municipal government needs to do, and i'm glad the current administration has the guts to do what was a long needed change. The previous status quo administration (*cough John Tory*) was a joke for not changing this program and frankly the city was being exploited financially.

For those who arent quite familiar with the program, the changes that are listed are quite substantial and they'll all benefit the city tremendously without costing the city a dime.
 
In looking at the budget briefing notes that came forward today for Budget Ctte wrap-up, this caught my eye:

1706290826570.png


From: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/bu/bgrd/backgroundfile-242548.pdf

I consider the above reasonable. I'm still trying to reconcile that with 11.9M budgeted for work on the washrooms at Bluffer's Park though. (there are 2 or 3 sets), any which way that's 4-6M per washroom.

On the basis of the above, 126 washrooms remain to be winterized, at a median cost of $450,000 each, this would be a budget of $56, 700, 000 ; delivered systematically, over 5 years, just over 11M per year, a very do-able number.

We clearly need more washrooms in parks, in TTC and elsewhere; I don't have a precise number in mind, but for argument's sake, 100 additional washrooms in parks at a cost of 1.1M each would be 110M; delivered over 10 years, also 11M per year.

There are so many important investments that this City needs, in housing, in transit and so much more; that said, sometimes a comparatively small investment can be seen and appreciated in a way that allows people to support greater taxation to help finance the larger problems.
 
Last edited:
While I'm here, Budget Ctte has now wrapped. The motion made by Budget Chief Councillor Carroll closes out this part of the process, but there will be further changes before the Mayor presents the budget as it will go to Council.

Before we get to the latter though, the motion is question is worth a closer look as it gives some indication of changes coming:

1706293455291.png

1706293500574.png



Lots to chew on...............but I think a few things are noteworthy, an expressed desire to reinstate windrow service; the need to lower the multi-residential tax increase so as not to trigger AGIs (above guideline increases) from landlords would be my top two.

Some other stuff of note that will impact next year's budget.......but we'll leave that for another post.

* One bonus item; the report on a City Parking tax goes to the February 29th meeting of Executive Ctte
 
so its uh january 26. still no word from the feds about the 250 mil right?
thats when the budget chief said she needed word right?
so 16% it is?
 
generalcanada said:
so its uh january 26. still no word from the feds about the 250 mil right?
thats when the budget chief said she needed word right?
so 16% it is?
Click to expand...

It is not set just yet. You'll hear the Mayor's budget proposal in just over 2 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top