News   Jul 25, 2024
Work Progressing on Mattamy's Westbend Residences near High Park
 429     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
News Roundup for July 25, 2024
 414     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
Street Scale and City Scale
 510     0 

Next Mayor of Toronto?

Christopher Hume makes some good points. Toronto taxpayers (as do all) want something for nothing. Missing from this observation is that fact that we have been conditioned to expect it. Promises of zero % or inflation indexed tax increases while spending increases at 6% per year is the norm at city hall. So while the voting public is to blame for unrealistic expectations, they are, nonetheless, the expectations given to them by the Mayor and council. First and foremost they are culpable.

Secondly, the one person = one vote, so don't blame the Mayor cry doesn't fly when the Mayor is the de facto leader of a municipal political party that votes on mass.
 
Hank said:
I sent him an email asking him not to vote for the strike settlement deal and I got back a boilerplate "thanks for your comments" email (although I did get it back very quickly). He also added me to his mailing list without asking me.

My parents emailed their councillor (Bill Saundercook) and, although he did later vote for the deal, he at least responded to their email with a list of reasons why he thought the deal was the right one for the city. I would have appreciated the same from Vaughan.
Click to expand...

In defence of Vaughan, he represents a tough ward with a large number of politically astute and knowledgable constituents who want to talk to him every moment of every day, so I am not surprised that he provided you with a fairly generic response.

I would not be surprised if the inboxes of councillors like Pantalone, Rae, Fletcher and Giambrone who are in wards with well educated, politically involved constituents have much more activity than the inboxes of say Michael Thompson or Rob Ford. Their wards have fewer special interests like environmental, social welfare and arts groups dogging them every day, and a large immigrant population which is largely unaccustomed to direct contact with local representatives.
 
mjl08 said:
In defence of Vaughan, he represents a tough ward with a large number of politically astute and knowledgable constituents who want to talk to him every moment of every day, so I am not surprised that he provided you with a fairly generic response.
Click to expand...

Communicating with your constituents, especially on such a large issue, is part of a councillor's job. I understand that he can't give a personal reply to everyone that writes to him, but it wouldn't have been hard to draft a generic "this is why I'm voting for the CUPE deal" email that he could have sent to everyone that wrote on this issue (which I'm sure was a significant number of people).
 
re: Stinz

I don't live in her constituency, I don't particularly care for her politics, and she has not instilled faith in me that she can wield details particularly well; however, I did see her on a panel on The Agenda with Steve Paikin and thought she was intelligent and articulate. I appreciate that in a politician.

If Miller runs for a third term, watch out. He'll be tired of the bs, he'll be cranky about all the crap he has to promise in a campaign, and he will probably not want to run again so he'll do whatever he wants to or can get away with. I was debating with someone on another msgbd about bicycle infrastructure and political will, and he pointed out the NYC had some bureaucrat just set up pilot projects to increase bike infrastructure, ie if there's a political will it happens. My bet is 3rd term Miller sees the gloves really come off.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
http://torontoist.com/2009/08/tall_poppy_john_barber.php

Looks like he's putting his money on Miller, but mostly for anti-Thompson and Stintz reasons.
Click to expand...
This statement is rather amusing.

My attitude about it is he was the absolute right guy in 2003. It was an emergency in this city: we needed somebody who was going to be competent and more or less uncorruptible, and that's what we have, five years later. When I look at the Miller policy initiatives…I'm really pleased to see the direction that they're going, just the sort of general moderate-progressive tilt of this government.

Is City Hall the most functional sort of a place? It's fine to have the policies right, but can you really implement them? I think that there's some big problems with the way the operation works. Policy-wise, politically, I'm a complete believer. Operationally, no. I think it's a big bureaucratic bluuuh.

Basically he's saying he agrees with their politics (and we already knew that) but thinks they're incompetent.
 
Since Adam Vaughan served only 1 term, he'll probably want to seek re-election and 'finish what he started' or 'start what he promised'
 
Hank said:
I sent him an email asking him not to vote for the strike settlement deal and I got back a boilerplate "thanks for your comments" email (although I did get it back very quickly). He also added me to his mailing list without asking me.

My parents emailed their councillor (Bill Saundercook) and, although he did later vote for the deal, he at least responded to their email with a list of reasons why he thought the deal was the right one for the city. I would have appreciated the same from Vaughan.
Click to expand...

I just got this from Adam Vaughan yesterday.
Dear Ward 20 residents and friends,

I want to start by thanking all of you who have taken the time to write and call my office with your views and concerns about the City's labour negotiations. As you know, the City has negotiated agreements for four collective agreements with CUPE 79 and also with TCEU 416.

I think it is important to let you know why I support the contracts as proposed to Council. Through the stress of living under strike conditions and the media frenzy, it has been difficult to get a clear perspective on the facts - so here is my take on the offer.

City of Toronto staff negotiators started this year with a glaring problem. Collective agreements settled beyond our control through arbitration awarded 9% over three years to Police and Transit workers. Arbitrators did not acknowledge that recessions leave cities with high demands for social services and shrinking tax bases to pay for them. While it is true that public sector unions saw little or no increases during the recessions of the nineties, ever since the Provincial Public Service (OPSEU) achieved a 3% a year deal shortly into the new millennium, contracts have been settled in the same range, often through arbitration. In fact, no contract ever signed by the amalgamated City has ever been for less than 3% a year. This is the first contract that gets a handle on the City's labour costs.

All along the City was clear with CUPE leadership that with the global financial crisis there must be an end to 3% increases. To reinforce this position, I personally (as did other Councillors) returned my salary raise to the City. This Council also showed leadership when we broke with the tradition of settling with non-union employees after new CUPE contracts have been signed. Instead we adopted a 0% increase for non-union and management employees without waiting for union negotiations to finish. As the summer approached CUPE was still digging in their heals.

Even after all of these clear indications, CUPE Locals 416 and 79 voted to go on strike and came to the table asking for a 12% increase equal to arbitrated agreements settled before the financial crisis had hit Toronto. Today we know the striking employees have not received half of what they asked for.

City staff negotiators have succeeded in negotiating wage increases totalling only 5.6% over three years and a zero increase in benefit costs. This is less than half the amount that 30,000 workers hit the pavement expecting to win.

All that remains now is to clarify the Sick Leave Plan vs. Short Term Disability war of words.

Whether we like it or think it is fair or reasonable, the reality is that for 60 years all unionized City workers have had the contractual right to bank 18 sick days a year. Over the years, as our City, the complexity of our services and the size of our workforce has grown, this benefit has become much more difficult to afford. The same scenario has played out with most public sector organizations, which is why the Public Sector Accounting Board guidelines recommend abolition of this type of benefit. The contracts adopted by CUPE and the City this week, eliminated this benefit on a go forward basis. In the same way other cites (such as Mississauga and Etobicoke) eliminated this type of benefit, the plan does allow certain staff to maintain the days they have already banked.

Another reality to consider is that the City of Toronto has an aging work force, with thousands of CUPE employees set to retire in the next 10 years. This number doubles when we include staff with 15 years left on the job. As they leave, the most any one employee can claim is 120 days, as a form of severance. Each of these positions will be replaced with new staff who will not be allowed to bank sick days, ever again. The plan is eliminated on a go forward basis. Our retirement turnover forecast means that the unfunded liability caused by the Sick Leave Bank will be decreasing rapidly as soon as the deal is struck.

I know you care about the future of our City, and you care about providing services while carefully managing the threat of increasing tax burdens, which is why I think you will appreciate that this is the most affordable contract negotiation deal that has been struck since amalgamation, one with far reaching favourable financial impacts.

The most amazing thing produced by the strike was the civic pride evident in parks groups caring for neighbourhood green spaces, street cleaning done by local businesses and the way in which neighbours helped each other.

With City services returning to regular operations I look forward to working with you to build on the connections and partnerships to improve our neighbourhoods and parks that this unfortunate situation has kindled and strengthened...................

Sincerely,
Click to expand...

I think that's a very fair assessment. I hope he runs. I'd totally support him.
 
Perfect Candidate:

Mike Clemens!

He's got leadership skills - he can round up 46 grown men from different backgrounds and get them to work together. Successfully!

Hes' got excellent charisma and notoriety for electability purposes

Heavy community involvement

He's has experience running a large organization (Argos)


He'd get my vote.
 
Since when does owning a professional sports franchise make you qualified to run for public office?

However, I agree that looking outside city council is the only way the right can claim power again. John Tory is I think their only true key to victory.
 
He's never owned it.

He's been a player/Coach/GM/ and CEO/CHairman.


And if anyone is 'qualified' to run a city, it would be someone with expereince in balancing the sensitive budgets and varied personalities that come with running a CFL team. And if you look through his bio, Clemens has probably had more community involvement in the last 20 years than any of the incumbents. Especially the Mayor


Tory has business expertise, but i think he's killed himself with the whole religious school thing in the provincials.
 
js97 said:
Perfect Candidate:

Mike Clemens!

He's got leadership skills - he can round up 46 grown men from different backgrounds and get them to work together. Successfully!

Hes' got excellent charisma and notoriety for electability purposes

Heavy community involvement

He's has experience running a large organization (Argos)


He'd get my vote.
Click to expand...
He's also a homophobe.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top