TORONTO FISCAL CRUNCH (plus Toronto Council video)

[The Mississauga Muse]

But Hazel has not said anything recently about Toronto.

Osama bin Laden ain't been all too chirpy recently with his "Death to Infidels" but that doesn't mean he's not perpetually plotting.

It's loose cannons like Parrish and Saito. I'd be interested to see what Brampton councillors think.

Careful there SeanTrans, I didn't share the entire Torstar and MissyNews articles with you. Councillor Maja Prentice and Eve Adams were stompin' on the ol' David Miller doll too.

Also, just because McCallion didn't get into it doesn't mean this Dump on Toronto thing wasn't orchestrated prior to the public part of the meeting. As a perceptive Toronto Star reporter wrote, Mississauga Council tends to be "rehearsed" ahead of time.

McCallion: OK, I stomped down the snow and blazed the trail back in March now it's your turn to dump on Toronto. (Goes to chalk board) We lead off with Maja who'll run straight down the middle then passes to you, Eve. Carolyn (hands Parrish a script) select anything you'd like to share from the 20 options provided. Just try and sound spontaneous. Nando? Nando you just do your Nando-thing and I'll be happy. OK. Got it?

Everyone: (hands piled atop each other) BREAK!

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

well Brampton doens't need to say anything because they understand toronto's situation and support it! It's thos idiotic politicians at mississauga city hall opening their big fat mouths!

Now now, as a resident of Mississauga I have to take exception to what you just wrote there Bub. "mississauga city hall" should have a capital "M", "C"and "H".

(sheesh)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well said, Muse.

I suspect that's because when homeless people (including youth) are forced into the street they head into Toronto. Plus if I were an evil-empire-municipality (*gasp* you mean there are such things in Ontario?) , I figure that the best way to lower my crime rate and social burdens would be for me to "encourage" "those kinds" to move out of my area. No?

That'd really be interesting to know. Of the souls being helped by Toronto services and NGO's, how many fled Mississauga et al. because the assistance just isn't what it is in Toronto?

Let's face it - Mississauga and a good chunk of the 905 area, as it was planned, actively excludes certain socioeconomic segments. Like, how much social and affordable housing is there in Markham? Woodbridge? I've heard that, through a casual conversation, about half of those needing social assistance in say York Region ended up in the City of Toronto.

AoD

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

(Regarding "user pay philosophy", isn't that just another form of tax? Or the signs around The Big Yellow alerting people to the inevitable ring of parking meters, isn't that a form of tax too? And where the real money will come in --the inevitable parking tickets?)

From Toronto Star:

Mississauga's criticism irks Toronto councillors

Aug 03, 2007 04:30 AM
Donovan Vincent
City hall bureau

Butt out, and while you're at it, do your homework.

That's the message two Toronto councillors fired back at some of their Mississauga counterparts who suggested Toronto is whining about its fiscal mess, and should fix its own problems rather than run to the province for help.

Mississauga councillors Maja Prentice, and Carolyn Parrish said Toronto should raise taxes to the same degree as the 905. Councillor Eve Adams said Torontonians are "clearly not paying their fair way,'' suggesting Toronto adopt Mississauga's "user-pay philosophy'' when it comes to services like pools.

But Councillor Shelley Carroll, Toronto's budget chief, said yesterday she was "shocked by the remarks," which indicate the trio hadn't done their homework.

"Ask yourself, why we aren't hearing that blast from (Mississauga Mayor) Hazel McCallion? She has been doing her homework for several years and my guess is she knows what it means to be a city the size we are,'' Carroll said.

She said the province's current value assessment system "has been so devastating'' in parts of Toronto, she doesn't believe she has the option of levying an 8 or 9 per cent property tax hike city-wide.

Council veteran Case Ootes said one can't compare tax rates in the 905 to 416. "I don't believe you get the same sized house in Toronto (for the same price) that you do in Mississauga. ... The tax rate may be lower in Toronto, but it doesn't mean you're paying fewer taxes.''

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

Letter to the Editor in today's Toronto Star. BINGO!

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Is it any wonder Toronto is in trouble?

Aug 04, 2007 04:30 AM

A broadside from 905

Aug. 2

Perhaps when residents of the 905 contribute their fair share toward the cost of maintaining the expressways they use to drive to their jobs in Toronto in their SUVs from their sprawling suburban lots, and toward the cost of cleaning up the pollution they leave behind, and to the cost of social programs to support the troubled 905ers who gravitate toward Toronto, then they can lecture us on how to finance our city.

Jim Rawling, Toronto

 

[doady]

The difference is that Mississauga seems to ask for sustained funding while Toronto looks like to keeps asking for one-time funding. Which one makes more sense and looks better to the public?

For example, the 905 politicians have been complaining about provincial downloading (especially for health/social services) for a long time now, while Toronto has been relatively silent about this, even though it affects Toronto more.

(Brampton endorsed the 1 cent campaign, Mississauga did not).

This is just a lie, as I have pointed out before.

Let's face it - Mississauga and a good chunk of the 905 area, as it was planned, actively excludes certain socioeconomic segments.

I think it is more because the 905 was built during a time when no or less funding for affordable housing was available.

If 905 was planned specifically to exclude poor people as you say, then why are there so many apartment buildings in Mississauga and Brampton? Why are the houses all over the 905 packed together as tightly as possible? And of course there is the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on public transit in 905 each year. If the 905 really wants to exclude poor people, then they are going at it all wrong.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

doady:

The difference is that Mississauga seems to ask for sustained funding while Toronto looks like to keeps asking for one-time funding. Which one makes more sense and looks better to the public?

For example, the 905 politicians have been complaining about provincial downloading (especially for health/social services) for a long time now, while Toronto has been relatively silent about this, even though it affects Toronto more.

Don't equate GTA social services pooling (which transfer funds from the 905 to 416 for the purposes of social services within the region as a whole) to downloading as is - which transfer provincial responsiblities for individuals within each jurisdiction to the municipalities. The former is what the Liberals dealt with, and what 905 politicians complained about the most (along the line of: "giving money to Toronto for their gold-plated services"), not the latter.

I think it is more because the 905 was built during a time when no or less funding for affordable housing was available.

The 905 was built up over a period of 40-50 years; in fact, I would be hard-pressed to find the equivalent of Jane-Finch social housing megacomplexes in the 905.

If 905 was planned specifically to exclude poor people as you say, then why are there so many apartment buildings in Mississauga and Brampton? Why are the houses all over the 905 packed together as tightly as possible? And of course there is the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on public transit in 905 each year. If the 905 really wants to exclude poor people, then they are going at it all wrong.

"Many" apartments by what standard, exactly? Percentage of populuation housed in apartment? Not really. Just taking Erin Mills as an example - the original plan envisioned far more apartment units than was actually built in the end - and that's a plan that explicitly included that built form; most of the subdivisions planned and built 80s onward had little to no apartment component. Ditto social housing.

As to housing packed together as close together as possible - how does it tell me they are for housing the poor? In fact, aren't most of these subdivision predominantly middle-class, and whatever variation having more to do with lifecycle and when they're built?

On the matter of public transit - it isn't like public transit isn't needed by those who are not poor.

AoD

 

[lordmandeep]

Jane-Finch social housing megacomplexes in the 905.

maybe we should not build such things then.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

lordmandeep:

That's not the argument in this debate.

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

Well maybe it should be. The 905 can hardly be blamed if Toronto decided to built terribly poorly-designed social housing complexes which were pretty much inevitably bound to descend into ghettos. The suggestion that poor people do not exist in the 905 is absurd. The percentage may be different from the City of Toronto, but that doesn't mean that the 905 should somehow be ashamed that they aren't "Carrying their load" of the poor. It could be just as easily argued that Toronto does a poor job of helping people out of poverty.

This doesn't mean that I'm opposed to a redistributive tax system. I strongly support additional payments to any jurisdiction where they are required. I really wonder how all the people who complain about tax dollars being "stolen" from Toronto by higher levels of government feel about this. Obviously they don't support the idea of a redistributive tax system at all if they somehow feel it's morally wrong that Toronto pays out more in taxes than it receives in spending.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The suggestion that poor people do not exist in the 905 is absurd. The percentage may be different from the City of Toronto, but that doesn't mean that the 905 should somehow be ashamed that they aren't "Carrying their load" of the poor. It could be just as easily argued that Toronto does a poor job of helping people out of poverty.

The percentage makes all the difference where the funding for social services is concerned, in the context of this debate (which is about downloading and local need for services). In addition, if I am not mistaken, those projects are funded provincially and federally - and subsequently downloaded onto the municipalities in its' entirety during the Harris years; where there is more housing, the higher the cost is to the municipality in question.

I am not saying poor people doesn't exist in the 905 - I am saying that there are intentional institutional barriers to housing poor people in the 905. In addition, to say that the city does a poor job of helping people out of poverty is silly without comparative stats; what kind of poor people are they? Those with mental health or physical disabilities? What are the rates of people moving out of poverty? What's the rate of new poor people moving back into the city? It isn't solely the job of the city to move people out of poverty - where's the province and the feds in this? Have they pulled their weight? We can get into a huge debate about poverty and welfare politics easily.

This doesn't mean that I'm opposed to a redistributive tax system. I strongly support additional payments to any jurisdiction where they are required. I really wonder how all the people who complain about tax dollars being "stolen" from Toronto by higher levels of government feel about this. Obviously they don't support the idea of a redistributive tax system at all if they somehow feel it's morally wrong that Toronto pays out more in taxes than it receives in spending.

Unlike the hard-core few, the issue at hand isn't having a redistributive system; but the impression or reality that redistribution has less to do with need (where they are required) than political convenience. In addition, what is the hierachy of needs?

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

I also agree with a redistributive tax system that is based on wealth and need. Of course poorer provinces and areas (such as Northern Ontario) are going to get more than the give tax-wise, and I don't have a problem with that.

Toronto's needs aren't simply being met, so there is something wrong when tax money is being diverted elsewhere while the "golden geese" (each of Canada's biggest cities - even Montreal) are starved. The easiest way is also the fairest way - upload provincially mandated social programs and require municipalities to pay for municipal programs and initiatives.

 

[unimaginative2]

I completely agree. All of the social services should be uploaded, though a $3 billion per year program can't be taken on overnight.

My only problem is with the spouting of lines like "$10 billion leaves our city," when that is clearly an inevitable result of a redistributive system. Not to mention the various programs (i.e. defence) where the city's benefit is very real but also very difficult to quantify.

As for social housing, it was always developed by the municipality, though it used to be paid for by the province. Regent Park, for example, was a City initiative.

 

[lordmandeep]

Well its not like the tax dollars from cities are paving golden roads in rural Ontario.

Apart from the highways that lead cottagers from the city (like highway 400) to the cottage most of the roads are sub par and apart from Tourism thier economy is quite bad.

So whoever it was saying that rural areas are greatly benefiting from this is wrong.


Really the city is mismanaged. I live in Brampton and have lived in Toronto for a few days and weeks at a time in the Summer (with my cousins) and the level of programs and social assistance is amazing. Some may complain but compared to where i live its much better. I fail to see why can't residents cannot accept to increase thier already low property taxes to fund thier rather very well run programs that they all use and want.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Apart from the highways that lead cottagers from the city (like highway 400) to the cottage most of the roads are sub par and apart from Tourism thier economy is quite bad.

So whoever it was saying that rural areas are greatly benefiting from this is wrong.

So, their economy is sub-par (less taxes), and yet they have the same, if not better levels of services - where does the money for that comes from? In addition, are you arguing the state should prop up settlements that's not economically self-sustaining? How socialist of you.

Really the city is mismanaged. I live in Brampton and have lived in Toronto for a few days and weeks at a time in the Summer (with my cousins) and the level of programs and social assistance is amazing. Some may complain but compared to where i live its much better.

Why do you think, necessarily, that services in the core area has to be better than the suburbs? Higher level of need? Greater negative impacts to the city (e.g. homelessness, crime, increased use of expensive primary health services, etc.) if those needs aren't met, and that these individuals are more likely to stay within the core city with or without services? And that's mismanagement?

AoD