News   Jan 09, 2025
Oxford's Union Park Swaps Office Tower for More High-Rise Residential
 1.3K     2 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: Record-Low Sales, Award-Winning Innovations, and 2025 Training Opportunities
 421     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UTPro Q4 2024: GTHA Crane Count Stabilizing After Several Large Drops
 1K     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eug said:
When I read The Star headlines, I thought "Holy sh!t! They defeated the budget!". Then I read the article and thought, "WTF is The Star talking about?".

I guess restoring $19 million is a symbolic victory for the anti-Ford group, but it almost seems like some are missing the forest for the trees, considering that the budget was actually passed, with far larger cuts than $19 million.
Click to expand...

It's more than symbolic. Council essentially passed every amendment on the floor. (There was only one exception, and it was a hail mary play.) There was no effort made to reverse any of the other cuts nor did council's left seek to vote down the budget as a whole.

More importantly, Ford was vocally steadfast in his demand that council not use any of the operating surplus to fund programs. And then council went and did it anyway.
 
It should be remembered that this was a budget. A budget is what is planned to be received and spent for the coming time period.

It is like setting up a budget in your home for a project you want done. Unfortunately, reality may come into play and by the end of the year, the budget maybe over or under. That light fixture was $100 last year when you planned a renovation, is now $130 when you go to the store to buy it and install it.

Was inflation taken in account? What happens if the prices of materials goes up higher than inflation? Ford wanted a 10% (an arbitrary figure) reduction in the budget, but will outside forces make that number what it is, an imaginary number?
 
Last edited:
The rest of the budget isn't really that bad - it looks very much like a Miller type budget.

Here's my question - how on earth are they going to layoff 1200 workers, without contract concessions from the unions? Is this budget built on the assumption they will be able to delete the so-called jobs for life clauses?
 
bobbob911 said:
The rest of the budget isn't really that bad - it looks very much like a Miller type budget.

Here's my question - how on earth are they going to layoff 1200 workers, without contract concessions from the unions? Is this budget built on the assumption they will be able to delete the so-called jobs for life clauses?
Click to expand...

"Jobs for Life" is a slogan more than anything. The city can still layoff unionized workers, but it involves a long and expensive 'bumping' process that sees employees with seniority protected.

The budget as a whole is tricky to evaluate because we won't know the qualitative impacts of base budget cuts until much later on. I'm concerned about continued cuts to departments that are already overworked. City Planning, for instance, has been thrashed for years. Little attention was given through this process to maintaing or improving customer service across the city.
 
GraphicMatt said:
The budget as a whole is tricky to evaluate because we won't know the qualitative impacts of base budget cuts until much later on. I'm concerned about continued cuts to departments that are already overworked. City Planning, for instance, has been thrashed for years. Little attention was given through this process to maintaing or improving customer service across the city.
Click to expand...

I've read through the EMS Operating/Capital budgets, there is a 1.4% drop in spending from last year. BUT, this was essentially just done with not rehiring the 36 medics who left through attrition, and postponing a couple infrastructure projects that are going to need to be done eventually anyway.
Everything that was reduced is just temporary, why bother doing it at all. The administration doesn't seem to get that the city is growing very quickly, holding the line on spending isn't always possible.
 
After the first week:

10 lb loss for Rob.
9 lb loss for Doug.

We'll get an idea over the coming weeks how much of that is water, vs. true weight loss.
 
Eug said:
After the first week:

10 lb loss for Rob.
9 lb loss for Doug.

We'll get an idea over the coming weeks how much of that is water, vs. true weight loss.
Click to expand...

Considering their body weight... not much of a deal... True testament will be if they can lose and maintain 30 lbs...
 
Do we really need to dignify this attempt by the ford brothers to make them appear more likable with actual discussion about it?
 
It's really grating on me that Ford declines to answer questions about real issues (Stintz's comments on the Eglinton LRT) while making time for fluffy BS like the weigh-in. What possible defence could there be for having such an attitude? Spider? js97? Ford Nation, where are youuuuuuuuuuuu?

Oh well, I guess I should be thankful that the giant moron has been brought to heel, for the time being, at least.
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
It's really grating on me that Ford declines to answer questions about real issues (Stintz's comments on the Eglinton LRT) while making time for fluffy BS like the weigh-in. What possible defence could there be for having such an attitude? Spider? js97? Ford Nation, where are youuuuuuuuuuuu?
Click to expand...

That unfortunately is the downfall of the 'far left' and why Ford is in office.

Just cause I believe in fiscal prudence and having a City not beholden to the 1% union population (vs. the 99% of the residents), doesn't mean I'm part of 'Ford Nation'.

But on the case of Stinz's political peacoking, she's got an excellent point.
If a TRUE LRT was originally proposed, with less stops to significantly reduce travel times (then the proposed 5 minutes of savings that shepperd saw) and enhancements to co-ordinate lights, maybe Transit city would have been a reality.


If I was advising Ford, I would definitately tell him to take the deal. It's an excellent compromise that can see ground breaking by the next election.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top