News   Dec 22, 2025
City Council December, 2025 Zoning Refusals: Towers Turned Back
 982     0 
News   Dec 22, 2025
Aluminum vs Concrete: Weighing Long-Term Value in Balcony Design
 287     0 
News   Dec 22, 2025
4800 Yonge Pushes Above Grade at Sheppard
 742     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
CowboyLogic said:
True, but that could be said of any general statistic or trend. Definitely the context, variables and individual factors playing into the gross operating budget have to be examined, but for the gross operating budget to stagnate without any notable increase in the net operating budget
Click to expand...

But that's not what has happened - the gross budget increased has slowed, but the net budget has increased at about the same pace it did under Miller.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
We give him credit for everything.

Toronto has surplus because TTC gas prices fall - yup, that's totally to Ford's credit :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ford's red hot head also kept temperatures high enough to prevent snow from falling on the city. He's saved taxpayer dollars because the snow budget hasn't been used- if you don't support Ford, you're a sub-zero, money-grubbin' leftie (p.s. if you turn a thermometer clockwise you can see what I mean).
 
CowboyLogic said:
Actually, besides two recent posters over the past day, nothing has been explained to me in regards to the gross operating budget
Click to expand...
I thought you'd been provided with some links that explain it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and refer you to:

http://metronews.ca/voices/ford-for-toronto/519262/debunking-ford-nations-favourite-budget-chart/

Ah, someone beat me to it.

It would be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of what's in the gross operating budget from 2009 to 2013. But as far as I understand it, part of the reason for the drop, is the end of some funding from the province and the feds. And the end of that spending related to it. Thus the city receives less money, and spends less money. But nothing to do with Toronto Council. Isn't the uploading of some funded services from Toronto to the Province that Miller and McGuinty orchestrated part of this - I'm not sure which years that starts to kick in. When it does, you will see a drop in the gross operating budget with a much smaler impact on the net operating budget. Another (smaller) example is the York Region funding to TTC to run transit north of Steeles. York has been slowly taking over these services, so each year pays TTC less and less - thus dropping the gross operating budget - but not effecting the net operating budget.
 
Last edited:
RC8 said:
Can we give Ford credit for the purchase of the new streetcars, too?

I'll stop feeding you, now.
Click to expand...

Me: Provided an (albeit 2-year-old) article stating that Ford and city hall have a plan for 70km of bike lanes, and asked if this isn't true, if anybody had any sources which suggested the contrary.

RC8: Claims that Ford is implementing under 10km of bike lanes, then ignores multiple requests to back up or provide evidence of this claim.

Seriously, you really want to act like I'm the one trolling here? I'm not the one talking out of my ass on this issue, whether I'm ultimately right or wrong. I've been fully willing to accept that I could possibly be wrong on this issue - hey, that's an old article, maybe circumstances have changed or Ford lied or whatever. I simply asked for some confirmation of what you're claiming...and for some reason, you're finding any excuse not to provide anything to back your claim up. Scratch that - you're not even providing an excuse.

You want to talk about lies and baseless complains? Look at your own before you chastise Ford any further. Given that there's about a 3km stretch of separated bike lane being added on Harbord St. alone, I really doubt under 10km of bike lanes are being implemented under Ford's mayoralty.

Right now, its your word against the National Post's. Provide a source or, yeah, stop feeding me, please.


bobbob911 said:
But that's not what has happened - the gross budget increased has slowed, but the net budget has increased at about the same pace it did under Miller.
Click to expand...

True, but wouldn't that mean that there is less overall spending while city spending is increasing at the same rate? Or, in other words, other revenue streams have stagnated, but city spending hasn't increased at a higher rate.

That seems pretty significant to me, because a stagnating gross operating budget isn't being buffered with any significant increase in the net operating budget. Obviously the reasons and variables for this have to be examined, but I don't think this can be dismissed out-of-hand as irrelevant in regards to Ford's handling of city spending.

nfitz said:
I thought you'd been provided with some links that explain it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and refer you to:

http://metronews.ca/voices/ford-for-toronto/519262/debunking-ford-nations-favourite-budget-chart/

Ah, someone beat me to it.

It would be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of what's in the gross operating budget from 2009 to 2013. But as far as I understand it, part of the reason for the drop, is the end of some funding from the province and the feds. And the end of that spending related to it. Thus the city receives less money, and spends less money. But nothing to do with Toronto Council. Isn't the uploading of some funded services from Toronto to the Province that Miller and McGuinty orchestrated part of this - I'm not sure which years that starts to kick in. When it does, you will see a drop in the gross operating budget with a much smaler impact on the net operating budget. Another (smaller) example is the York Region funding to TTC to run transit north of Steeles. York has been slowly taking over these services, so each year pays TTC less and less - thus dropping the gross operating budget - but not effecting the net operating budget.
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone provided me that link a day or two ago. I've already read it before though, and I didn't really see where my understanding of the gross operating budget supposedly conflicted with Elliot's explanation. bobbob911 has been helpful clarifying some stuff for me.

I don't think I have misunderstood the gross operating budget, but I have been wondering what the specific reasons for the drop in the gross operating budget would be. If the unloading of city services is a significant part of the reason for the stagnation, then it would go against the argument I've been making (in which I was assuming there was simply a drop in revenue or provincial/federal funding without any unloading of services). I wish there was a breakdown for this too.
 
CowboyLogic said:
Me: Provided an (albeit 2-year-old) article stating that Ford and city hall have a plan for 70km of bike lanes, and asked if this isn't true, if anybody had any sources which suggested the contrary.

RC8: Claims that Ford is implementing under 10km of bike lanes, then ignores multiple requests to back up or provide evidence of this claim.

Seriously, you really want to act like I'm the one trolling here? I'm not the one talking out of my ass on this issue, whether I'm ultimately right or wrong. I've been fully willing to accept that I could possibly be wrong on this issue - hey, that's an old article, maybe circumstances have changed or Ford lied or whatever. I simply asked for some confirmation of what you're claiming...and for some reason, you're finding any excuse not to provide anything to back your claim up. Scratch that - you're not even providing an excuse.

You want to talk about lies and baseless complains? Look at your own before you chastise Ford any further. Given that there's about a 3km stretch of separated bike lane being added on Harbord St. alone, I really doubt under 10km of bike lanes are being implemented under Ford's mayoralty.

Right now, its your word against the National Post's. Provide a source or, yeah, stop feeding me, please.




True, but wouldn't that mean that there is less overall spending while city spending is increasing at the same rate? Or, in other words, other revenue streams have stagnated, but city spending hasn't increased at a higher rate.

That seems pretty significant to me, because a stagnating gross operating budget isn't being buffered with any significant increase in the net operating budget. Obviously the reasons and variables for this have to be examined, but I don't think this can be dismissed out-of-hand as irrelevant in regards to Ford's handling of city spending.



Yeah, someone provided me that link a day or two ago. I've already read it before though, and I didn't really see where my understanding of the gross operating budget supposedly conflicted with Elliot's explanation. bobbob911 has been helpful clarifying some stuff for me.

I don't think I have misunderstood the gross operating budget, but I have been wondering what the specific reasons for the drop in the gross operating budget would be. If the unloading of city services is a significant part of the reason for the stagnation, then it would go against the argument I've been making (in which I was assuming there was simply a drop in revenue or provincial/federal funding without any unloading of services). I wish there was a breakdown for this too.
Click to expand...


look, no one cares about these essays you like to write.

the only thing that matters is that Ford is a regular user of crack cocaine, and will soon be having to confront the fact that he lied about it.

at that point your pseudo-'earnest' sleep-inducing musings about gross operating budgets will thankfully come to an end.
 
thedeepend said:
the only thing that matters is that Ford is a regular user of crack cocaine, and will soon be having to confront the fact that he lied about it.
Click to expand...
A regular user?

An irregular user ... I'd say. He seems to go for stretches without using it. And as evidenced recently, he becomes increasingly more coherent and effective the longer he is off it.

As long as we have to suffer him, perhaps it would be best if we simply embraced his crack use, and encouraged it so as to sideline him. Perhaps someone could provide a large delivery of product to him or something ...
 
Could this be an explaination?

Gross Operating Budget
The term gross operating budget may relate to two things. It may be an outline a company draws up to project gross profit data, which encompasses gross revenues and material costs the business expects to record over a defined period of time. For example, top leadership may direct sales managers to prepare a gross operating budget for the next 12 months or two years.

A gross operating budget also may be a traditional budget -- minus all the discounts, rebates and refunds a business expects to receive on certain expenses. For example, company principals may ask that department heads prepare a gross operating budget, listing operating charges -- such as office supplies and commodity costs -- without transactional reductions or legally mandated discounts. This blueprint may help top leadership test the company's financial soundness, determining how it would fare in a worst-case scenario from an operational standpoint.

Net Operating Budget
Drawing on a gross operating budget, a net operating budget may refer either to net income an organization expects to generate over a given period of time or net expense and revenue amounts it expects to records in corporate books. Net income is an important metric that touches on corporate profitability, the perennial criterion investors check before putting their money to work and buying equity shares. Consequently, department heads and segment chiefs work to ensure that net operating budget information is accurate and complete -- not faulty data or information that personnel pull out of thin air.
Click to expand...

http://www.ehow.com/info_8543119_net-vs-gross-operating-budget.html#ixzz2bGKaFHNu
 
Last edited:
CowboyLogic said:
True, but wouldn't that mean that there is less overall spending while city spending is increasing at the same rate?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly that it means. The issue is that whatever this spending is is funded by other sources than the city tax base. For example, programs that were fully funded by the province and feds that Rob Ford might have left to expire purely out of spite. You can say that "There's only One taxpayer and Rob Ford is looking out for him", but clearly even Rob Ford doesn't believe that (Exhibit A: his stupid Scarborough Subway funding formula).

Think about it another way - one percentage point on the property tax base is about $30M revenue. Don't you think if Rob Ford had any control whatsoever of the $7B of the budget not funded by property taxes, it would be trivial to find ~1% savings and ensure a property tax freeze? He would be a hero. The reason he can't do that is the same reason looking at the gross budget is not a meaningful indicator of how well Rob Ford is doing as a cost cutter.
 
Last edited:
CowboyLogic said:
Me: Provided an (albeit 2-year-old) article stating that Ford and city hall have a plan for 70km of bike lanes, and asked if this isn't true, if anybody had any sources which suggested the contrary.

RC8: Claims that Ford is implementing under 10km of bike lanes, then ignores multiple requests to back up or provide evidence of this claim.

Seriously, you really want to act like I'm the one trolling here? I'm not the one talking out of my ass on this issue, whether I'm ultimately right or wrong. I've been fully willing to accept that I could possibly be wrong on this issue - hey, that's an old article, maybe circumstances have changed or Ford lied or whatever. I simply asked for some confirmation of what you're claiming...and for some reason, you're finding any excuse not to provide anything to back your claim up. Scratch that - you're not even providing an excuse.

You want to talk about lies and baseless complains? Look at your own before you chastise Ford any further. Given that there's about a 3km stretch of separated bike lane being added on Harbord St. alone, I really doubt under 10km of bike lanes are being implemented under Ford's mayoralty.

Right now, its your word against the National Post's. Provide a source or, yeah, stop feeding me, please.
Click to expand...

I don't need to rely on mainstream newspapers to understand that stuff, for me it's work-related. You can find all the info about the mayor's bike plan here:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-38906.pdf

If you knew what you are talking about, you would see that the only routes which had not previously been approved and funded and were in fact already under construction when the mayor passed this plan, was the downtown bike lane network which so far has been built entirely on streets that already had bike lanes before.

When his motion was passed in 2011 most of the bike trail network, which had been fully funded since 2009, was under construction. His motion in essence asked for the removal of a bunch of on-street bike lanes in return for separating a few of the downtown, and following through as planned with other already approved and under construction projects.

It is akin to someone in council today voting to go ahead with the new streetcar purchase. You can see all the info regarding each of these 'new' bike trails in the suburbs here:

http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/rinc_projects/

Now look at the date of this picture on streetsview, to see what these bike trails that Ford 'passed' in summer 2011, looked like in summer 2011:

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=43.80014...d=Z1EKOMO3CopLqvrog4Sqlg&cbp=12,87.23,,0,2.58

What he is doing is taking credit for things he did not build, design, fund, or participate toward in any way. The only bike-related infrastructure improvements that are happening thanks to the Ford administration (DMW, actually) are the replacing of bike lanes along sherbourne and harbord (5km in total) with a different type of bike lanes.

Everything else has been either removal of bike lanes, or proceeding with the plan that had already been in place for years before he came to power, and where he offered no input.

And for the record I'm posting this so that people other than cowboylogic can understand the situation regarding bicycle infrastructure in the city right now.
 
thedeepend said:
look, no one cares about these essays you like to write.

the only thing that matters is that Ford is a regular user of crack cocaine, and will soon be having to confront the fact that he lied about it.

at that point your pseudo-'earnest' sleep-inducing musings about gross operating budgets will thankfully come to an end.
Click to expand...

Thank you. For my part, however, I also think it is important that Ford is a genuine idiot and his supporters are idiots and/or are malevolent. But I agree that the "crack thing" goes beyond all that, and is Ford's defining characteristic. I'm hoping that someone scrawls it on his tombstone so I can have something to read while I urinate.

To my mind, the timing and tonal change of CowboyLogic's gives rise to reasonable suspicion that CowboyLogic is a political operative, or at best a dedicated troll. Are there forums that require users to disclose whether they are compensated to post? Maybe with some kind of financial penalty imposed if they lie? While I totally agree that people should be free to voice their opinions, knowing whether (and preferably by whom) any given person is paid to broadcast his/her opinion is crucial to understanding, evaluating and responding to that opinion.
 
vox:

To my mind, the timing and tonal change of CowboyLogic's gives rise to reasonable suspicion that CowboyLogic is a political operative, or at best a dedicated troll. Are there forums that require users to disclose whether they are compensated to post? Maybe with some kind of financial penalty imposed if they lie? While I totally agree that people should be free to voice their opinions, knowing whether (and preferably by whom) any given person is paid to broadcast his/her opinion is crucial to understanding, evaluating and responding to that opinion.
Click to expand...

Even if he is, you'd have no good way of ascertaining the veracity of anything online - and besides, we don't really have a good reason for trying to do so. The timing of the topic change is of course curious, but it wasn't like we have a never-ending barrage on crack anyways.

AoD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top