Rob Ford's Toronto

[syn]

This is why I said it has to get worse before it gets better. People need to see what worse is. Remember Mike Harris? People voted him in to get lower taxes. Then there was utter revulsion towards his policies. And it helped put forward 8 years (and possibly more) of Liberal rule.

I suppose that's true. Everything is cyclical. It seems people aren't intelligent enough to learn without some real damage done. They're then quiet for a few years until a 'left wing' politician does something they don't agree with then they lose their minds again.

 

[adma]

The reversible lane was the great thing about Jarvis before it was removed. In my experience behind the wheel in the few times I used it in rush hour (heading to my posh, upscale Scarborough condo) that it was a great asset to the City. Like the reversible lane of the Peace Bridge between Ft. Erie and Buffalo, it gives flexibility to traffic planning departments based on traffic flows and time of day. Where is the WTF element? It's a sensible arrangement.

I chuckled at the "posh, upscale Scarborough condo" part. Made the post look like a satire.

 

[Armbruster]

I was under the impression Toronto is doing this, too. Did the Bloor-Yorville BIA not cover most of the costs of the Bloor Street Revitalization. Did the Bloor West Village BIA and the Roncesvalles BIA not do the same for their gentrification projects?

I'm sure people more knowledgable with these things can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that this sort of thing has been going on in Toronto.

BIAs were invented in Toronto. And yes, Toronto has benefited enormously from them, including as you mention the $20 million investment from the Bloor BIA.

And that is why it is crazy that Ford's service review has proposed cutting the BIA office, putting the City's access to this private investment at risk.

 

[Armbruster]

Well, of course. I don't support outsourcing merely as a matter of principle. But only as a matter of cost savings. I wouldn't support outsourcing a job that did not meet a set quality standard at an appreciable cost savings.
However, if a contractor can provide a service the same service and reduce outlays by 10%, while meeting service standards, then I see absolutely no reason to worry about who profits. If you can make a profit by doing something cheaper than the competition -- in this case, public sector municipal workers -- then all the power to you.

I for one, have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms with the concept of a private enterprise making a profit from activities it performs for a government customer, as long as the manner in which that enterprise obtained its tender for services was done in a open, transparent and fair manner.

Moreover, I do not want to treat your argument uncharitably per se, but I often feel when someone uses this argument, it is in itself an uncharitable statement at best, and a straw man at worst. Uncharitably interpreted, the position seems to imply that the proponents of private outsourcing of taxpayer-funded services have an ideological desire to merely line the pockets of rich people, by fleecing taxpayers. If this is the correct interpretation of your statements -- and I'm not assuming it is -- then it reeks of sensationalist class warfare language.

The interesting thing is, I would agree that private corporations do, in fact, try to do just this. But so do labour unions. It's called economic rent-seeking. It's rampant. It's all around you. And the best way to defeat it, is through open tendering and competition. Meaning, the elimination of sole-source tendering as well as the removal of collective bargaining and binding arbitration laws for public sector workers.

As a free market economist in the truest sense, I don't tend to view corporations or unions as anything other than self-interested economic actors. I am opposed, in principle, to corporatism (which includes public sector unions).

I agree with you! I have no problem with anyone earning a living in a free marketplace, private sector or public sector. God bless 'em all.

But paying private workers less money does not mean the taxpayer is paying less money overall for the service. Similarly, there are plenty of ways for the taxpayer to pay less overall for a publicly-delivered service, even when those public workers are earning more than their private sector counterparts.

As a taxpayer, I want to know the bottom line: what it will cost me. If a private service costs less than a public option, then by all means hire the private operator. But don't tell me to simply assume the private option is cheaper simply because the workers are paid less, when obviously there are profits and other costs involved in delivering the service. Would I hire a contractor because they paid less for their tools than another? Or because they pay their bank less in interest? Why should the City choose a private contractor based on one expense item? What is the bottom line?

Is it fair that a public worker is paid more than a private worker? I suppose one could argue that the public worker might raise the standard for the others, or something. But that is not my argument. What I am saying is, if a politician says he can save the taxpayer money by hiring a private contractor, but refers only to labour costs and not the bottom line, we should all watch our wallets.

 

[EMP1729]

"Wait a while"? How long can he wait without any city fire service or garbage pickup or road maintenance or paramedics or etc. etc. etc.?

Even ignoring the legal issues (and I'm almost certain such a move would be illegal), the city literally cannot survive without services.

So that wouldn't be "clever", it would be suicidal.

(Unless I've misread what is intended to be hyperbole.)

My comment was indeed made in jest. Rob Ford is the Homer Simpson of Toronto. See the episode "Trash of the Titans" (if you haven't) - what happens when a nonsensical raving loudmouth is elected to public office.

 

[Electrify]

So I guess in 4 years, we will just have to move the city x miles down the road!

 

[syn]

Ford makes layoffs sound like a certainty
David Rider Urban Affairs Bureau Chief

Mayor Rob Ford is making layoffs of some of the city’s roughly 50,000 employees sound like a virtual certainty.

Ford made the remarks Friday morning in an interview on AM 640’s The John Oakley Morning Show.

“In business the first thing you look at is the labour. Your labour should be making up maximum 20 per cent, not what we’re at, 80 per cent, it’s just unheard of. So we’re going to have to take a serious look at union and non-union employees and looking at exactly what they’re doing and taking it from there . . . ,†Ford told Oakley.

“The last thing we want to do is layoff Johnny but when (payroll) makes up 80 per cent of your budget, there’s a lot of gravy there.

“There’s a lot of people, unfortunately, there’s just not enough work to go around.â€
Ford’s payroll figures, however, don’t jibe with the official city numbers for this year’s $9.38 billion operating budget.

A February staff report to Ford and other members of his executive committee states: “Altogether, salaries and benefits account for nearly 48 per cent of the city’s 2011 BC recommended gross operating budget.â€

The city is offering a buyout package, worth up to six month’s salary, to 17,000 staff. The offer does not apply to several categories including police officers, firefighters and TTC staff.

When Oakley asked the mayor about the costs of shedding staff, Ford said it would be short term pain for long term gain.

“It’s going to cost us a bit now but it will save us millions and millions of dollars in the long run . . . We’re trying to clean up a mess that was left behind.â€

Despite the layoff threat, Ford made balancing the 2012 budget sound positively easy.

“We’ve saved over $70 million in the first six months so if we can find $70 million I’m sure we can save $700 million, that’s for sure,†Ford said.

“So many great ideas are coming forward and then it’s for us to implement it. There’s tonnes of gravy,†he said, Ford’s pet word for waste.

The mayor repeated that taxpayers won’t be hit with a property tax higher than 3 per cent next year. “Not one dime higher than that.â€

He also downplayed controversial proposals coming out of KPMG consultant’s reports suggesting cuts that have included closing daycares, long-term care homes, Riverdale Farm and local zoos, taking fluoride out of drinking water, merging fire and ambulance services and reducing recycling targets.

Ford noted this is one step in a long budget process.

“These are just some ideas they’re looking into and saying this is what you coud do and then give you the option.â€


http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1025454--ford-makes-layoffs-sound-like-a-certainty?bn=1

 

[Tulse]

“In business the first thing you look at is the labour. Your labour should be making up maximum 20 per cent, not what we’re at, 80 per cent, it’s just unheard of."

And yet again Ford shows just how uninformed he is. A city is not a business -- it doesn't make physical products, spend huge amounts on advertising, etc. etc. etc. Most of what a city provides are services, which are, essentially, labour. Businesses have huge capital costs tied into the production of products, so of course the percentage of their costs that are labour are lower.

 

[syn]

And yet again Ford shows just how uninformed he is. A city is not a business -- it doesn't make physical products, spend huge amounts on advertising, etc. etc. etc. Most of what a city provides are services, which are, essentially, labour. Businesses have huge capital costs tied into the production of products, so of course the percentage of their costs that are labour are lower.

I noticed this quote too. While I'm not completely averse to thinking of the city in business terms, you're right. The city isn't a business. His narrow views have no place in office.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yeah, his comment about 20% of your costs being labour is frighteningly ill-informed. That may be true for a manufacturing company, but it's certainly not true of any company in the service sector.

 

[DTowner]

As a taxpayer, I want to know the bottom line: what it will cost me. If a private service costs less than a public option, then by all means hire the private operator.

Is the bottom line the deal-breaker for you? What if you receive BETTER service via the public sector? Yes, we'd be paying for it, but it would be better service. There's more to running a city than the bottom line. As a tax payer, quality is just as important to me as is cost. Mind you, I'm not saying that public is always better than private or vice versa; but, the bottom line shouldn't be the only consideration when running (and developing, which Ford isn't) a city (I don't think so, anyway).

 

[Tulse]

Perhaps more accurately, if one wants to think of the city as a business, one needs to have the right business model. The "products" of the city are overwhelmingly services (e.g., the police don't produce widgets), and those "products" typically do not involve major continual capital costs or marketing costs. For any business with those features, the overwhelming costs would be labor (e.g., private security firms).

 

[Electrify]

How does Toronto's payroll numbers compare to other GTA municipalities and other major cities?

 

[Thanos]

A quick google search gave me Seattle's number at 72%.

 

[DanTheMan]

“We’ve saved over $70 million in the first six months so if we can find $70 million I’m sure we can save $700 million, that’s for sure,” Ford said.

Hey everybody!...I found a 10 dollar bill in between my couch pillows today, so logically, there MUST be a hundred dollars in there!

God help us all