syn
Senior Member
Which goes all the way back to the real reason the city will always be struggling to balance the budget - a funding imbalance.
|
|
|
Rob Ford's Toronto
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
Which goes all the way back to the real reason the city will always be struggling to balance the budget - a funding imbalance.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
This strategy will only last a little while - it assumes that productivity/worker can continue to rise ad infiniitium.
AoD
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
Maybe half of city staff will spontaneously retire in January.
Eug
Senior Member
Yeah, somebody mentioned a while back that Ford is a populist, but not really a manager to promote fiscal restraint in a responsible fashion.
One can be both, but it will be very unfortunate if he and his buddies turn out not to be both.
One can be both, but it will be very unfortunate if he and his buddies turn out not to be both.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
SimonP:
Actually there is another possibility - selling assets to fill the hole in the short term.
AoD
Actually there is another possibility - selling assets to fill the hole in the short term.
AoD
toto
Active Member
At $20/ day X room for 300 cars, Nathan Phillips Square could generate enough to pay for councillors' daily cup of coffee.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
Yeah, but how are suburban councillors supposed to get downtown without their cars? It's not like anyone is proposing building transit lines in the suburbs.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
I think Eug has a point with regards to cutting small expenses as a gesture. If you don't believe this is valid I'll take a moment to further explain what I mean:
Conceptually I believe that humans tend to have fundamental holes in their reasoning. It is the reason we play the lottery and can use an argument like "if you don't play you can't win" to justify the act even when we are trying to employ critical thinking.
Notice how in terms of public perception there is little difference between a small expenditure or personal folly and a massive 5 billion dollar folly. I think we are hardwired to agree when someone screws up or cheats (infact these are fundamental aspects of why we developed intelligence and social intelligence in the first place) but there is no real consensus of how we translate the weight of folly into emotional response. Like lottery odds, we sometimes are functionally blind when we are dealing with abstract terms outside of our daily experience.
Furthermore, most people are motivated by a zero-sum or limited belief paradigm. People are more satisfied to have nothing, if others have nothing. People are fundamentally motivated to look out for their own self-interest, a self-interest that is endangered by the capacity of others to look after theirs.
If you accept and combine these two fundamental human behaviours you can understand how you should never overlook the power of small gestures. By voting to take away their morning coffee council can leverage this tiny amount of real capital into a huge amount of emotional capital with respect to policy decisions that in terms of absolute dollar terms out-weight the gesture by a thousand, million or even billion times.
Conceptually I believe that humans tend to have fundamental holes in their reasoning. It is the reason we play the lottery and can use an argument like "if you don't play you can't win" to justify the act even when we are trying to employ critical thinking.
Notice how in terms of public perception there is little difference between a small expenditure or personal folly and a massive 5 billion dollar folly. I think we are hardwired to agree when someone screws up or cheats (infact these are fundamental aspects of why we developed intelligence and social intelligence in the first place) but there is no real consensus of how we translate the weight of folly into emotional response. Like lottery odds, we sometimes are functionally blind when we are dealing with abstract terms outside of our daily experience.
Furthermore, most people are motivated by a zero-sum or limited belief paradigm. People are more satisfied to have nothing, if others have nothing. People are fundamentally motivated to look out for their own self-interest, a self-interest that is endangered by the capacity of others to look after theirs.
If you accept and combine these two fundamental human behaviours you can understand how you should never overlook the power of small gestures. By voting to take away their morning coffee council can leverage this tiny amount of real capital into a huge amount of emotional capital with respect to policy decisions that in terms of absolute dollar terms out-weight the gesture by a thousand, million or even billion times.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
In short - the exploitation of irrationality and sloppy thinking.
With a showy, useless gesture like this, he will be able to drum up enthusiasm among his base as "someone who keeps his promises", and "a man of integrity", and as one who is actually "stopping spending", etc., etc. Petty revenges and meagre gains will probably be used as emotional boilerplate against future failures - even as he embarasses the chamber that swore him in, makes plans to burn through millions re-arranging Transit City, battles a valid lawsuit and keeps acting as emperor without consulting council.
It will be interesting to see how long things can go before these windowdressing gestures wear thin - especially if the larger gains he's so glibly promised fail to materialize.
With a showy, useless gesture like this, he will be able to drum up enthusiasm among his base as "someone who keeps his promises", and "a man of integrity", and as one who is actually "stopping spending", etc., etc. Petty revenges and meagre gains will probably be used as emotional boilerplate against future failures - even as he embarasses the chamber that swore him in, makes plans to burn through millions re-arranging Transit City, battles a valid lawsuit and keeps acting as emperor without consulting council.
It will be interesting to see how long things can go before these windowdressing gestures wear thin - especially if the larger gains he's so glibly promised fail to materialize.
Last edited:
Eug
Senior Member
Well, I have to agree with Ford that some of the expenses from some city councillors are stupid, and cutting their expense account will not only decrease the overall expense budget, but also force people to think about what to spend their expense budget on.
For example, although not "evil", I'm not sure city councillors should be using the expense accounts to donate to charities. It's even worse when those donations are used to advertise one's self, through say names on t-shirts, etc.
Again, it's not an enormous amount of money in the greater scheme of all things Toronto, but it does suggest a certain disconnect between the councillors' mindset and budgetary restraint for the sake of taxpayers.
OTOH, I also think Ford's lack of spending on his expense account is stupid too. I see no reason NOT to expense office stationery and toner cartridges, for example.
For example, although not "evil", I'm not sure city councillors should be using the expense accounts to donate to charities. It's even worse when those donations are used to advertise one's self, through say names on t-shirts, etc.
Again, it's not an enormous amount of money in the greater scheme of all things Toronto, but it does suggest a certain disconnect between the councillors' mindset and budgetary restraint for the sake of taxpayers.
OTOH, I also think Ford's lack of spending on his expense account is stupid too. I see no reason NOT to expense office stationery and toner cartridges, for example.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Eug:
Actually I think there is are very good ethical reasons against using expense accounts for donations - it's not for service rendered and it's way open an avenue for the possiblity of bribery. And it's not even "outreach" - which is a legitimate expense.
Oh there are plenty of reasons - 1. the aura of fruality 2. expenses that are not on public dime are inscrutable from the perspective from auditors and integrity commissioners. If you can afford to spend your own rather substantial dime and you don't want anyone to know what you spent it on...like do you really believe that his office never had any legitmate expenditures of any kind? Who can find out anything about even that?
AoD
Actually I think there is are very good ethical reasons against using expense accounts for donations - it's not for service rendered and it's way open an avenue for the possiblity of bribery. And it's not even "outreach" - which is a legitimate expense.
Oh there are plenty of reasons - 1. the aura of fruality 2. expenses that are not on public dime are inscrutable from the perspective from auditors and integrity commissioners. If you can afford to spend your own rather substantial dime and you don't want anyone to know what you spent it on...like do you really believe that his office never had any legitmate expenditures of any kind? Who can find out anything about even that?
AoD
CN Tower
Banned
1. Increased density and concomitantly increased development charges and property taxes on new developments;
2. Expand advertising and billboard permits across the City to meet demand and charge high taxes on them;
3. Sell off municipal parking lots at faster rate (for $10s of millions a pop), get developer to replace all surface spots below grade; (also leads to DC's and property taxes)
4. Legalize gambling at the CNE, permit a mega casino with world class entertainment, generate DC's, property taxes, profits, etc.
5. Lobby feds for bigger share of gas tax.
6. Toll the roads into the City but give free passes for all residents.
That should do it and then some.
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
I doubt Ford's going to do that.
Maybe you could send that list to him?
Maybe you could send that list to him?
nfitz
Superstar
No one is saying that they shouldn't drive downton - just that the city shouldn't provide free parking (even if it is a taxabale benefit). If they had to pay for the cost of parking like most non-elite workers downtown do - then that would show more respect to the taxpayer.
Much bigger issue than a sandwich during an evening meeting.
nfitz
Superstar
Raising commercial taxes would be a popular move - as it impacts the fewest number of voters - directly at least.
Increased user fees ... time to start hoarding TTC tokens.
- Status