I will probably vote for Rossi.
Let me first clarify that I largely share the same vision for this city that many of you do: I want a socially-inclusive, urban Toronto with vibrant communities, responsible governance and access for all. I don't think Rossi is against this; as his speech at the Empire Club demonstrates, he wants this too, but he plans to approach it from a different, more pragmatic way.
John Lorinc and people on this forum have focused mostly on Rossi's opinions on transportation, but this is not the main point of this election. That is a red herring, in my mind, that is distracting from the far more important issue of this city's impending fiscal disaster. As I will describe, and for matters largely beyond our control as Torontonians, we are entering an era of fiscal restraint. A "progressive" visionary like Miller is not what's needed. We don't need "exciting" but expensive city building projects at a time when we are hemmhoraging cash. We need someone to clean house. Moreover, I believe that we can build the city we want in a much more pragmatic fashion, and I don't think Rossi is necessarily standing in the way of that.
The most important factor in this upcoming election is the escalating cost of public services. As I see it, the city, whose role is to provide those public services faces several options to maintain fiscal accountability:
1. cut services
2. raise taxes/introduce new sources of funding
3. lower overhead
4. beg higher governments for more funding
#2 is obviously off the table for discussion in an election year, but has been used a great deal by the Miller administration. It's probably the second best option, and should be exercised prudently. Indeed, I think it is inevitable that Rossi will have to raise taxes somewhere or introduce new sources for funding. This is getting difficult, though, because the McGuinty government is probably the most generous provincial government Toronto will ever deal with, and Miller squandered his new taxing and funding opportunities during his tenure. Moreover, we are entering a period in which cities of the inner 905, notably the very large Mississauga, but also parts of Durham, Brampton etc. will be in a fiscal straitjacket of their own. Toronto is no longer in a position to go begging to the provincial government due to its size (especially when its share of the provincial population is slipping), and, as I said, with the increasing financial vulnerability of the populous 905 and the fact that the next premier will have to rein in deficits, I think option #4 is a goner, too.
That brings us to options #1 and #3. Unfortunately, the worst aspect of David Miller was his cowardly tactic of crying poor and threatening to cut services in desperation - and it was usually something symbolic, like the Scarborough RT or Sheppard subway. By "cutting services", I don't just mean the TTC, of course, but the public services citizens of the city of Toronto receive in all areas. Luckily, McGuinty usually came to the rescue in the 11th hour, but this is clearly an unsustainable arrangement. Option #3, lowering overhead, is not necessarily the "best" option, but it is the "best we have" given the non-viability of #2 and #4. In most contemporary cities, the majority of overhead consists of the cost of labour and, after this year's garbage strike, the public is painfully aware just how cushy most public sector blue collar jobs are. Rossi goes straight for the jugular by suggesting that garbage service be open for bidding. I assume that other sectors will, over his tenure, be up for a similar review as their contracts expire. He is not disbarring public sector unions from bidding for the job, but it is unlikely that the cost of maintaining a very expensive sick bank and the kind of benefits that garbage workers enjoy will allow them to win that bid. Moreover, removing garbage, though important, is something that can be privatized because producing garbage is an environmental 'disamenity' that needs proper costing to internalize and thus reduce. In the end, what is achieved is a reduction in garbage production, while the achievement from Miller's side is to provide high paying jobs for garbage collectors.
We cannot afford to maintain the current Miller fiscal structure where cutting the exorbitant wages and benefits enjoyed by public sector workers is off the table but 2.5 million people must collectively suffer lost services. When you think about this, this is extremely unprogressive; collectively, citizens suffer to maintain favourtism for an elite sector of the population. This is not much different from right wing corporate welfare, except that instead of industrialists/bankers, you have another favoured interest group in the form of public sector blue collar workers. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
But, since transit and bike lanes seem to be the hangup of most people here and on Spacing, let's examine them with some more transparency.
Transit City is a deeply flawed plan which has been dissected to detail by many people on various threads in this forum - I won't need to get into the specifics; just go and consult those threads. I think it would be better to walk away from it now, than to commit to a plan that is fraught with problems. Yes, we incur penalties for doing so, just like Ottawa learned and it is akin to a bride leaving her groom at the altar. But it is better to leave someone at the altar than to enter into a horrible marriage. Unlike Ottawa's LRT plan, TC is ideologically-driven and doesn't address the city's urgent regional transportation needs. Also, if TC is built, we will (and this goes to my point about no premier ever being so generous on Toronto ever again) not see another transit expansion program within this city in at least a generation. We cannot squander this opportunity. Under Rossi, Sheppard would be the only part of TC built and that's it. In 7 years time (or whenever the damn thing will finally be finished, if St. Clair is any indication), critics will look at an orphaned Sheppard line with its unique track gauge and special LRVs and call it the "Rossi Rocket" or bestow upon it the name of some other folly (it will probably be the new Scarborough RT!), but let's face it: the costs of TC will escalate beyond our proportions and I think the plan will be curtailed such that the system, as built, will be something of an orphan in any case. Worse, I foresee that someone like Giambrone would cut existing bus service to pay for the higher operating costs of LRT. I am not advocating for subways or BRT or pandering to mode ideology here, and neither is Rossi. We have to pick our transit lines carefully in this era of restraint and we have to be honest and open about what mode we use. While I'm not particularly sold on TC, I do think there are places for LRT in our region, but not as part of an all-or-nothing $10 billion plan.
Bike lanes:
Downtown progressives have tarred and feathered him over this comment without looking at the particulars: he didn't say he would rip out all bike lanes; he was supportive of them on side streets which is where most of them are, already, and what seems to be less of a political nightmare to institute. Secondly, I think it was a reactionary comment in regards to the plan to put bike lanes on Jarvis which is not very smart, considering that the bike lane on Sherbourne is a block away. Finally, how "progressive" have Miller and Giambrone been to bike advocacy? During Miller's time, only a few, unjoined scraps of bicycle lanes were actually painted on the road. Giambrone took an opportunity in his own ward to put bike lanes on Lansdowne and squandered it with a wider sidewalk (not needed) and useless sharrows that make the bike experience less safe than how it used to be.
---
I will give Smitherman a fair shot (forget Giambrone), but Rossi has impressed me the most so far. Listening to his speech, I find myself agreeing with him, not because I cheer forpeople on one half of the political spectrum over another, but because he has suggested the most pragmatic approach to dealing with the major issue facing this city right now.
