Since you have raised the issue, can you tell me why perception should take a greater importance over actual statistical evidence?
People living in their communities, and interacting with crime in a real and personal way, don't need your
statistics to tell them that everything is hunky dory.
Again, you speak to perceptions alone - perceptions you claim to know of. It's clear that you particularly value unsupported opinions when they service your own political agenda, but I am questioning your the veiled idea that your knowledge of these perceptions is somehow superior. What is the nature of your deep insight into the collective impressions of the citizens across the city? Do you know the exact reasons behind every vote for Ford? If you do, please share.
I've never said that my perceptions are superior. This isn't about my perceptions, and I never made a comment that says I value perception over fact or vice versa. You dismiss all who voted for Ford off-hand, judging them all as lacking in critical thinking. This is your own perception, after all... or do you have stats to show this as well?
City services can be supported or increased if there is money available to do so. That being said, the city cannot control certain costs (electricity, fuel, construction supplies, inflation, etc) which factor directly into budgeting. Decreasing or freezing taxes will result in less money for services. There is no "more for less" to be had. If people want to pay less in taxes, they should fully expect fewer services. The debate will be about what stays and what goes. There is no extra-special list for what should go first - all perceptions aside. In addition to this, proof is required to show that funds are not being managed well. It's easy to state an opinion on what constitutes poor money management, but that actually requires a set of facts and a reasoned presentation to support such an assertion regarding poor management. I'm not doubting the existence of poor management practices in a bureaucracy, but it has to be shown to be so. Mere assumptions and "perceptions" don't cut it.
No offense, but this is nothing but a load of bunk. If you 'feel' that everything is being run fine, that funds are being well managed, and that there is no room for improvement then fine.... but where's
your proof? At the end of the day this too is your perception only.... and not that there's anything wrong with that.
You jump to the conclusion that I supported everything Miller did. I agree, City Beautiful didn't achieve much, but under Ford it is likely as good as dead. As for cultural infrastructure spending, I believe that many conservative politicians like Ford dislike such spending. If you supported both of Miller's initiatives, you are quite likely to be disappointed by Ford's approach, so why even cite them?
At the end of the day Miller had vision but did nothing about it so what's the difference? At least one is being honest about where they stand. Who knows, the perception of Ford as 'despoiler of culture' may just inspire great things in the arts and culture communities.
As for Ford's approach to building subways, in some instances he's talking about funding subways through the sale of air rights. This would presume some form of high-rise development. But he also has stated that people should not have to endure development out of scale with their neighbourhoods. Since most of the presumed subway building would be in the suburbs or in low-rise neighbourhoods, its hard to see how this disconnect could be overcome. That's being out of touch.
His approach may be BS, or maybe it will change as it gets fleshed out... but at least he is talking about mass transit, and a commitment to it. This for me is just about the single most important issue for the city right now (my perception only disclaimer). Again, this isn't about 'loyal defenders'. If he cannot deliver on improving mass transit he will be tossed out. Toronto needs to start to demand leadership. Period.
Time will tell with respect to loyal defenders. But if you have paid any attention to politics over the years, I can assure you that this will happen. Council will stymie poor mayor Ford, the province will say no, this or that interest group will apply pressure - it will never be about the fact that his promises were unworkable in the first place. It is a tried-and-true political tactic to blame someone else for failures or promises that could never be kept. You won't be seeing the land transfer tax going away and you won't be seeing streetcars vanishing. That was Fordian political theatre that he knows is impossible to deliver on.
... and you're happy with this? If council can stymie he who you consider a dangerous/misguided mayor what's to stop them from doing the same with somebody who you would support? How did this state of affairs help Miller with his vision? Shouldn't this change?
Finally, regarding what's best for the city, you state that as if the content of that ideal were absolutely clear. It isn't - no matter how much you value your insight into perceptions. What's best is at the heart of the political debate. In fact, it is politics. It's a surprise that you would miss something so obvious. Now that is an absence of critical thinking on your part, or just a presumption of your own sense of superiority on how things ought to be understood (or perceived).
For somebody who claims to rely so much on fact you seem to like to read between lines and run away with assumptions. I have never claimed in this discussion to know what was
ideal for the city. Most people without an agenda are simply trying to vote for a better outcome, and hoping to get one.
