News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 869     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.7K     0 

Star: T.O. debt balloons $497M in 2007

how can the city be so incompetent and this not result in mass firings at city hall and loss of all confidence in the executive council by the citizens of the city?
Click to expand...

Uh...a city like Toronto running a long-term capital borrowing debt of only $2.7 billion, with a good, manageable pay-back schedule, without high taxes or high debt ratios is about as competent as municipal budgets get. Why do you think they have such a good rating?

The city could get a little more creative in the way it sources revenue, now that they apparently have more power to do these things.

Rather than just increase property taxes across the board, they could focus on more specific taxes...such as tapping into the massive re-sale market, where people are making a killing on tax-free capital gains.

Rather than use fees for new construction, where it actually hurts first-time buyers and effects sales, they should be taking a small percentage of re-sales, where huge, tax-free capital gains are had by those selling their principal residence. Toronto may set the bar for new condo sales, but the re-sale market is actually bigger, with a lot more money involved, and where a small percentage will not hurt anyone.
 
Ed, I stand by the comment. Transit or housing expenditures could be argued to be useful or not but regardless increasing total cumulative debt by 23 percent in one fiscal year is incompetent on the face regardless of your political leaning. Furthermore, the cities commitment to debt repayment isn't even zero, it is negative so this debt will exist forever unless the fiscal management philosophy at city hall is fundamentally altered. The debt level being manageable or not a big deal argument doesn't wash either as it is already the second most expensive line item in the budget. Let's look at the list of city services and add their total annual budgets and see how far we get until we equal the amount we pay just to service the debt at present prior to 2008 increases:

-Toronto Public Libraries
-Childrens services
-Emergency Medical Services
-Toronto Public Health
-information Technology
-Community Partnership & Investment Program
-Homes for the Aged

Sweet, now let's increase our debt by 23% so we can add in:

-City Council
-City Planning
-and finally half the Transportation Services budget
 
Transit or housing expenditures could be argued to be useful or not but regardless increasing total cumulative debt by 23 percent in one fiscal year is incompetent on the face regardless of your political leaning.
Click to expand...


No...not making those capital infrastructure investments is what would have been incompetent. Not buying those buses isn't an option...the service reduction would be unacceptable, and putting off buying them til later only means...they cost more later.

And that's the problem...we are now having to make up for a decade of not spending the money in the 90's. Look at Mississauga and their bragging about zero debt all those decades. They should have invested for their infrastructure that is sorely needed...now they're screwed because they didn't spend when they should have.

And percentages don't mean shit in this argument. If the outstanding debt was $400 million, then it would be a staggering 100% increase. Doesn't change anything.

You borrow money when it is wise to do so, and you don't when it isn't. You haven't presented a very convincing case as to why it isn't.
 
Well, I do agree with Govts going into debt to spend money on more infrastructure.

However with the unions getting higher and higher pay increases and there being more and more wasteful spending, how much is really going to infrastructure.

Some things are better, but the roads still have potholes and TTC is still always crying for money...


That is why I am concerned about the city going in debt, because with such idiotic financial managers at city hall, we can easily get into trouble.

If we had sane and responsible leadership, then the city could get into debt and be much better off.

I just hope we do not become like Berlin. Sure they have nice transit but they are screwed for generations financially.

Look our govts in the 70's got into huge amounts of debts and it almost led to Canada almost getting bankrupt in the early 90's. We then had to cut back and we lost all of those programs we had and our infrastructure suffered.

It is a dangerous way to go, but if it done right then we will be better off as a city.
 
The city is building a lot of new public housing that costs a lot of money not just to build, but to maintain. Can the city continue to afford to build and pay for this type of development? We'll see.
 
If the city can not afford public housing and public transit, then it's time to either increase revenues through increased taxation and fees, along with cost cutting, OR...it's time to privatize the TTC, sell it off to one of the mega corps that own and operate public transit systems throughout the globe. This will immediately free up some cash. Next, if you can't afford public housing, then you have to cut back the program to where you can afford it. City government is for providing municipal services, not housing. I'll take care my own housing thank you, as long as the city sends the garbage men, emergency services, public utilities, sewers and snow plows my way. Nor do I see why it's up to the province to provide housing, but if that's sacred, then Toronto should refuse to service public housing, or continue to sell off such housing such as in Regent Park until the province takes over.
 
Admiral Beez said:
If the city can not afford public housing and public transit, then it's time to either increase revenues through increased taxation and fees, along with cost cutting, OR...it's time to privatize the TTC, sell it off to one of the mega corps that own and operate public transit systems throughout the globe. This will immediately free up some cash. Next, if you can't afford public housing, then you have to cut back the program to where you can afford it. City government is for providing municipal services, not housing. I'll take care my own housing thank you, as long as the city sends the garbage men, emergency services, public utilities, sewers and snow plows my way. Nor do I see why it's up to the province to provide housing, but if that's sacred, then Toronto should refuse to service public housing, or continue to sell off such housing such as in Regent Park until the province takes over.
Click to expand...

Some Torontonians believe everyone has a right to have a roof over their head. I believe we should have shelters, not permanent housing for everyone. But yes, if someone has children, they should be given housing. If they become addicts, they should be kicked out and have their kids taken away. This does happen 90% of the time, thank goodness.

Are we going to send a message to all of Canada's homeless to come here, Toronto will house you, clothe you, feed you and cure you? No thanks.

I believe that some people deserve a chance at affordable housing, not everyone. Affordable housing isn't 'affordable'. It's practically free. A family of 5 can look to pay $250 CDN a month for rent on average. That's not what I call 'affordable', that's almost free. After they're built, Toronto tax payers will pay 90% of their rent to the tune of hundreds a dollars per unit per month. This is where the real problem is.

I worked for the MTHA for 7 years. There are many, many drug addicts living in these buildings and we're paying for it. Some of the units turn in crack houses. I'm not kidding. It's not that the MTHA was giving away units to people they knew were crack heads, thats not the case. The MTHA knows better than that. But if they become crackheads 'after' they get housing, it is very difficult to kick them out. Even if that unit becomes a crack house, it's still difficult to kick them out.

That's why when we talk about affordable housing for the homeless, I often laugh. Most of the homeless on the streets are incapable of living on their own. The drug addicts don't deserve housing and the mentally ill should be living in assisted living quarters, not in bachelor apartments. I think we need to properly define what we mean by affordable housing for the homeless.
 
freshcut, I've not argued that capital investment isn't important nor that the present regime is solely responsible for the fiscal crisis. That does not excuse however the fact that on the face the present fiscal actions of the city are unsustainable. Indeed you may be correct that say buses might need to be purchased to replace an aging fleet, but you should never make such an investment without a clear plan in place to pay for it. Raise revenue, cut costs whatever, but don't saddle future generations with bills to satisfy our instant gratification. You can even defer costs through borrowing but where is the plan? I would rather suffer a decrease in the standard of living of people today than defer costs to others in the future. Philosopically I guess this is my problem, some people believe show me the goodies now because people are in need and to hell with the future, where as I believe we should suffer now so that the world of the future is a better place.
 
While it may seem terribly touchy-feely socialist, the simple fact is that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for somebody's apartment than to house them full-time in a shelter. It's a lot better for their quality of life and potential to contribute to society, too. Everybody wins.
 
^A study I would like to see is is it cheaper to just pay people's rent rather than building and maintaining social housing? If so it would be preferable to reserve government housing for people with in residence special needs or assistance and just subsidize the rent of low-income people so that they have the dignity of living in market rental housing where and how they choose.
 
If we must have public housing in the city, then it should be reserved for those that must live in the city due to work. If you're forever unemployed and living on welfare, I see no reason why you can't live in public housing outside of the GTA. If the province retook control over housing then this could be possible. As it is, Toronto is sitting on millions of dollars of real estate being used to house many unemployed welfare cases, which could be sold for redevelopment into market value housing, thus boosting the city's finances. If I was on welfare and not intending to work I'd much rather live in a nice small town than in some crime infested 'hood in Scar'lem.
 
If you're too lazy to work, why should the city or anyone else subsidize your lazy lifestyle? While there certainly are many responsible people living in social housing that are legitimately improving their lives or that literally can't work due to a disability, many more are just freeloaders.

The city needs to put everyone who lives in social housing on notice that if they are still unemployed in 2 years and haven't sought to improve their employability through schooling or some other means, they get the boot. The money that the city saves by scaling back the social housing program should be invested in apprenticeship programs, or other means of providing jobs.

Why the city wants to expand the number of social housing units is beyond me given that massive abuse that runs rampant in the existing system. There's enough room for everyone so long as you use social housing as a stepping stone rather than an excuse to slack off.
 
unimaginative2 said:
While it may seem terribly touchy-feely socialist, the simple fact is that it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for somebody's apartment than to house them full-time in a shelter. It's a lot better for their quality of life and potential to contribute to society, too. Everybody wins.
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe.
 
Admiral Beez said:
If we must have public housing in the city, then it should be reserved for those that must live in the city due to work. If you're forever unemployed and living on welfare, I see no reason why you can't live in public housing outside of the GTA. If the province retook control over housing then this could be possible. As it is, Toronto is sitting on millions of dollars of real estate being used to house many unemployed welfare cases, which could be sold for redevelopment into market value housing, thus boosting the city's finances. If I was on welfare and not intending to work I'd much rather live in a nice small town than in some crime infested 'hood in Scar'lem.
Click to expand...

I hear you, my knee jerk reaction says the same thing. The problem with keeping them all in Scarborough is that we can't have all the bad apples in one bushel. They'll never have a chance. That's the model the U.S. has used and it failed.

But I know what you're saying. I'm all for supporting single mothers who for some reason ended up taking care of 2 kids on their own through no fault of their own. If women decide to have kids out of wedlock (I'm not religious, I'm not going there) then that means they should have the means to support them from the beginning. But many on welfare have kids knowing full well that they can't afford to support them. My 7 years working for MTHA made me HATE the single moms who have kids with drug dealers whom they know will never be a stabilizing force in the childs life. This happens all too often. They just want kids, period. They have no idea the cost involved in raising them, they don't care because they know that welfare is there for them. Yuck!

There are exceptions to the single mom syndrome. I know one young lady who was married at 19 years old, had 2 kids. The guy eventually turned sour. She was in a terrible 8 year marriage, and thank goodness the guy was deported. She now lives with her mom in her 2 bedroom condo, and gets some support from welfare each month. She tried to have kids with a proper father, it wasn't solely her fault that things screwed up. I know, I was her worker for 5 years. She was awesome. She now has her own place, her kids are great, and has a regular boyfriend (with a real job) who's a decent influence on her kids. There are many like 'Liz'.

Then there is Lisa. There are unfortunately many Lisa'. You know, the young ladies who knowingly have kids with drug dealers, these are the ones I hate supporting. If you ever want to meet one, just visit Don Jail during visiting hours, grab a coffee from the vending machine and watch how your quality welfare dollars are being spent. Many of these young ladies grew up in public housing themselves and know, "the more kids I have, the bigger my welfare cheque". They have 2, 3 and sometimes 4 kids. If you don't think this kind of thing has become systematic, think again. I worked in MTHA for 7 years, I know what I'm talking about.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top