Archives

feature — Comments Off on Toronto Spoke: “I choose to feel hopeful,” says Kim Fry
03
Aug 11

Toronto Spoke: “I choose to feel hopeful,” says Kim Fry

Beginning at 9:30 a.m. and extending through to the next morning, the City of Toronto’s Executive Committee — led by Mayor Rob Ford — heard more than one hundred and fifty deputations from a diverse group of citizens. In a sincere bid to ensure that the passion, insight and creativity displayed over the course of that epic meeting is not forgotten, Ford For Toronto will be posting a deputation video every weekday for the month of August.

Deputant: Kim Fry

Occupation: Masters of Education student

Political History: Nothing formal, though seems to have kept herself involved in various causes over the years

Scheduled Speaker No.: 18; Actual Speaker No.: 11

Note: Mayor Rob Ford’s Diefenbaker joke made toward the end of this video just might be the wittiest thing he’s ever said in public

feature — Comments Off on Toronto Spoke: “I think Torontonians know what they’ve got, and they’re willing to fight for it,” says Henry Faber
02
Aug 11

Toronto Spoke: “I think Torontonians know what they’ve got, and they’re willing to fight for it,” says Henry Faber

Beginning at 9:30 a.m. and extending through to the next morning, the City of Toronto’s Executive Committee — led by Mayor Rob Ford — heard more than one hundred and fifty deputations from a diverse group of citizens. In a sincere bid to ensure that the passion, insight and creativity displayed over the course of that epic meeting is not forgotten, Ford For Toronto will be posting a deputation video every weekday for the month of August.

Deputant: Henry Faber (website, twitter)

Occupation: small business owner; graphic designer; has an imdb page

Political History: None, though he admits to voting

Scheduled Speaker No.: 69; Actual Speaker No.: 62

feature — Comments Off on City budget document pegs 2012 shortfall at $530 million (or less)
02
Aug 11

City budget document pegs 2012 shortfall at $530 million (or less)

$774 million. $744 million. $774 million. That number has loomed ominously over every City of Toronto committee meeting for weeks now. The number is like a scythe. Like a sword. Like a scythe and a sword and a bevy of other sharp objects, swinging back and forth above our collective head, — lower and lower — ready to chop us and our finances to tiny bits.

Councillors have been singular in focus: let’s dig our way out of this budget hole before we do everything else. Yes, we have serious issues with customer service and crumbling infrastructure and a lack of social housing and so on, but, we’re told, we need to toss that aside until we can figure out how to address our $774 million budget shortfall. It’s the top priority — the only priority — and we’re going to have to make tough decisions to do it.

All that said, it really is kind of funny that a strategy to knock that $774 million down to $530 million without service cuts was included in a 2011 budget presentation adopted by both the City’s Budget and Executive Committees this past winter.

Here are the tables, direct from the City’s website, as found on page 63 and 64 of last year’s budget presentation:

What this says: We can reasonably expect, before any service cuts or efficiencies, at least $167 million in revenues that can go toward balancing next year’s budget. An expected TTC fare hike of 10-15 cents would bring in another $30 million, and a 2.2% property tax increase would add $47 million to the pile, making for a total reduction of $244 million off the much-ballyhooed $774 million figure, leaving us at $503 million in realistic opening budget pressure. (And these are low-estimate figures!)

This isn’t new information. Councillor Gord Perks has been saying for weeks that the $774 million figure is trumped up. Ed Keenan wrote a gold standard column for The Grid explaining why Perks is probably right. But it still seems startling to me that Ford and his council allies are continuing to trumpet their three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollars shortfall figure even though they were presented information last winter that showed the expected shortfall numbers for 2012 as significantly less.

This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem

Two things to keep in mind: for the most part, the left-wing’s skepticism regarding the Ford budget numbers isn’t meant to deny that a) there is a significant budgetary pressure for 2012 that will require some difficult decisions; and b) the city does face a structural annual opening deficit that is, ultimately, unsustainable. Both these things are true.

The issue we’re having is that Ford is leveraging a singular budgetary challenge for 2012 — which could be overcome through similar tactics as has been done to deal with same-size shortfalls in past years (see the above chart, from the same budget document) — to embark on a rushed and extremely flawed process to immediately tackle the city’s systemic budget issues. The only possible outcome to doing things this way involves drastic, sudden cuts to public services.

Which actually makes for the perfect scenario if you’re a politician with an almost fetishistic passion for killing government programs.

feature — Comments Off on Listening to Toronto: On Transit
02
Aug 11

Listening to Toronto: On Transit

One Toronto taxpayer has a bold idea to pay for transit in Toronto

Respondent 2-625 has ideas for public transit in Toronto. Big ideas. “We could hold the first North American Electric Motorcycle Race,” writes the Toronto taxpayer. “These bikes are fast.”

Pushing for a world class racetrack up at Downsview Park, the respondent indicates that a private sector partner — like “Apple or RIM” — would sponsor a subway station connected to the race track that would host “world events in our backyard” with fast bikes and cars and so on. This, it’s said, is a “potential goldmine.”

“I can see it now,” he or she concludes,  “no more boring expensive walkways to the train, I see a walkway that brings your senses alive before you watch million dollar cars race for the day.”

Out with the boring, bland walkways in our transit system — in with the racetrack-adjacent walkways that bring your senses alive.

Let’s hear from Toronto

Earlier this year, the City of Toronto embarked on an extensive public consultation process as a precursor to a planned Core Service Review. Over 13,000 people filled out an online survey while hundreds attended public meetings held across the city. Unfortunately, soon after the data gleaned from this process was released, high-ranking members of Mayor Rob Ford’s Executive Committee dismissed it as irrelevant. The sample was “self-selected,” said one councillor.

And, sure, okay, maybe it would be a stretch to call this data statistically sound, but it still represents the collective opinions of thousands of Torontonians. Isn’t that, by its very nature, something worth considering? Something worth exploring?

I think so, and that’s why I’m doing this: over the next few weeks, I will write brief summaries of all eleven of the Core Service Review qualitative reports. These reports contain thousands of comments written by the citizens of Toronto on a variety of topics. Today, we start with transit. (The numbers refer to the survey question, followed by the response number. All data is anonymous.)

Duh, Transit is important

Seems obvious, but let’s start here: Of the 13,000+ responses, 4,569 reported public transit (or something related to it) as one of the most important issues facing our city in 2011. Many were colourful with their description of the problem. Respondent 1-9’s major issue is listed as “Public transit sucking hard.” 1-306 writes “We need more public transit now!”  2-64 just writes “TRANSIT!!!!!!!” Respondent 1-509 despairs over “the rising price of TTC and the terrible service they provide,” while 1-621 is rather forceful with the belief that “the TTC is the worst transit system of any major metropolitan area in North America.”

The prevailing trend is that people are tremendously protective of the TTC and the role it plays in our urban lives, but, also, simultaneously, they despise it with the fire of a thousand suns. Customer service is noted as a major issue. Respondent 1-2404 lists, as a top issue facing the city, “seemingly deliberate, rude, ornery, poor service among TTC [and other] employees.” 3-20 points out “when you’re paying ever increasing fares on the TTC and dealing with service disruptions, filthy stations and (some) rude staff, the combination is really unappealing.”

Cost comes up a lot, with many decrying the service as already unaffordable.”The TTC relies too heavily on service fees,” says 3-79. “[It’s] to the point where the fares are completely unaffordable to those on a limited income.” 3-19 makes the case for young people in the city, writing that “$120 is a lot for a Metropass right out of university when you work part time at Indigo and have to pay $700 for a basement apartment.” 2-863 makes a strong point, and is one of many who links the cost of transit to the cost of car ownership, writing “I pay 80% of my bus trip, how much of a car trip is paid for by the user?” (The actual TTC fare box recovery ratio is closer to 70% than it is to 80%, but let’s not split hairs.)

Expansion? Yes! How? That’s up for debate!

The word “expansion” appears hundreds of times in the document, with most agreeing that more service to more places is a good idea. Less universal are opinions on where that expansion should occur, and what form it should take.

There are a ton of voices opposing the mayor’s transit ideas and calling for a return to a more David Miller-esque vision. “MORE TTC SERVICE – MORE LIGHT RAIL (EFFICIENT)…LESS SUBWAYS (COSTLY)” writes 1-355. 1-490 concurs, saying that the city shouldn’t be “building subways when LRT is much cheaper.” 1-591 worries about “borrowing 4 billion to build a useless subway” while 1-640 asks that we be “promoting realistic public transit – not the destruction of it as outlined by Ford.”

On the other side of the fence, there’s 1-469, calling for “Building subways, not high speed railways or light rapid transit.” 1-79 asks for “Decongestion of traffic, ie. via delivering promised TTC Subway extending past Morningside Ave. on Sheppard.”

All in all, responses tilt away from the Sheppard plan, with only a few mild supporters in the bunch. The fabled Downtown Relief Line gets a number of mentions, with 2-1172 calling for “Subway expansion, specifically the Downtown Relief Line NOT Sheppard!” Respondent 2-807 points out that “Downtown subway expansion such as the downtown relief line is essential prior to any extension of the Yonge line into York Region.” Otherwise, the response continues, “Torontonians will be waiting on platforms watching trains full of York Region residents pass them by.”

An overlooked piece of the transit expansion debate also emerges, as many call for better TTC service to Pearson airport. 2-509 sums it up best: “What kind of major city doesn’t have subway or above-ground train to its airport in the year 2011?”

The Ford Nation appears? Killing streetcars and privatizing transit

Response 1-509 lists their top issue facing the city in 2011 as “streetcars-replace with buses.” Similar calls are echoed throughout the report, though they are ultimately a minority voice. Response 2-3762 calls for a “move from streetcars to electric buses in downtown core.” Many indicate a belief that streetcars only make traffic worse (2-319). “Streetcars suck,” writes 2-1135, “I’m happy Ford is removing this stupid Light Rail idea and adding more subways…more! More!”

Another vocal minority calls for the contracting out of bus routes or the complete privatization of the TTC. 3-571 says “if you can find somewhere to contract out TTC services, somewhere that does not use a a bloated union and employees are earning outrages salaries for regular jobs, I say do it.” Much of this desire stems from a belief that TTC workers are overpaid. Respondent 3-96 believes the “salaries of TTC workers should be cut…all TTC workers have inflated salaries.”

Fighting traffic congestion with transit

The big takeaway, expressed by hundreds of people in this document, is the common belief that traffic congestion can be solved with more public transit. Response 4-505 proclaims that “Toronto is choking on traffic,” but adds that the “solution cannot be more roads.” 3-237 says that “we need to set up our city as a walkable, and transit-able city. We can’t support the traffic we have now and as the city grows it is only going to get worse.”

There is significant support amongst respondents for new revenue tools for transit, primarily road tolls and congestion charges, though many ask that they only apply to 905 residents who come into the city. Respondent 4-401 echoes a common sentiment: “Our services are used by thousands of 905ers every day who don’t necessarily contribute to paying for them.”

We’ll let 4-327 have the last word: “Congestion is ridiculous and the answer is not widening roads and providing more capacity. The answer is is providing higher order transit and alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle. Rethink your priorities please, Mayor Ford.”

Which is a fair enough point — especially considering at least one member of Ford’s Executive have gone on record with their belief that more roads will solve congestion issues –, but still, I’m thinking we should just circle back to the beginning and really work out a strategy for funding transit with electric motorcycle racing. Those bikes are fast.

link — Comments Off on Manufacturing Toronto’s Budget Crisis
02
Aug 11

Manufacturing Toronto’s Budget Crisis

The Toronto Star’s David Rider put on his columnist hat this weekend and delivered a hell of a piece on the farcical budget process going on at City Hall:

After hearing thousands of words, and seeing some tears, the 13 executive members voted with lightning speed to refer all of KPMG’s suggested cuts to their Sept. 19 meeting. Ford and his policy chief Mark Towhey are weighing what and how much they can cut. The plan will be predetermined.

The challenge for them isn’t erasing the deficit, but convincing councillors and the public they need to keep slicing after it’s gone.

As the Star pointed out, the budget surplus from 2010 and other monies, including an expected 10-cent TTC hike, bring the 2012 operating deficit from $774 million to $443 million. In addition, the administration is looking at forgoing a traditional annual transfer of $200 million from the operating budget to capital. Efficiencies will be found, user fees hiked.

via Toronto News: Shrinking government, not deficit, drives Ford – thestar.com.

About a month into his term of office, Rob Ford changed the boilerplate language that goes out on the bottom of all city-issued press releases. His staff struck out the phrase “Toronto’s government is dedicated to prosperity, opportunity and liveability for all its residents” and replaced it with Toronto’s government is dedicated to delivering customer service excellence, creating a transparent and accountable government, reducing the size and cost of government and building a transportation city.” (Emphasis added.)

For those who doubt that this budget process is driven by anything but a sincere need to balance city services with fiscal realities, take note: the mayor’s agenda to prioritize cuts to government over public services isn’t hidden away somewhere. It’s plainly stated on every city press release.

 

feature — Comments Off on The 22½ hour budget meeting: nothing changed, except maybe everything
29
Jul 11

The 22½ hour budget meeting: nothing changed, except maybe everything

Minutes before 8 a.m. this morning, Mayor Rob Ford hastily wished everyone around him a good weekend and thus put an end to the longest municipal government meeting in the City of Toronto’s history. Attended by Ford’s hand-picked executive committee, plus a gaggle of “visiting councillors” — most of them representing the opposition — and a crowd of hundreds of people, the meeting agenda was all about the ongoing Core Service Review process and the recent KPMG reports which have been the subject of much media attention over the past couple of weeks.

After Ford publicly invited taxpayers to attend the meeting during his interview with CP24’s Stephen LeDrew last week, over 300 individuals signed up to give deputations to the committee on the various budget considerations contained in the KPMG reports. This set the scene for an epic-legth meeting, something that the mayor had previously welcomed. “I don’t care if we have to sit there for three days,” he told LeDrew, citing his need to hear from people as to “what business [they] think the city should be in.”

So there you have it: the vision of a multi-day process involving significant public consultation that will be taken into account as councillors go forward with the Core Service Review process and begin building the 2012 budget.

That was the thought, anyway. Here’s what actually happened:

1. The illusion of consultation proved more important than actual consultation

Just as this administration paid for and circulated an in-depth Core Service Review survey only to immediately dismiss the results once they were tallied up, the events of the past 22½ hours seem to be all about creating the perception that consultations are happening without actually valuing the consultations themselves. The most flagrant insult to those who intended to depute was the decision to continue the meeting overnight and into the morning, taking only short breaks for lunch and dinner.

This had the immediate effect of putting deputants in a very tough spot. Given the variable speed at which the meeting moved forward, the only way people who intended to speak could be sure they’d be in the Committee Room when Rob Ford called their name was to  stay put for hours on end. No one had any idea if they’d be called at midnight, 4 a.m., or even noon the next day. Even worse, the Mayor made only a token effort to give suitable time for those in the building to approach the microphone. At times he barrelled through the speaker list so fast that those who were unfortunate to be visiting the overflow committee room — set up so those who couldn’t fit in the packed main room could still follow the meeting — would miss their chance.

While an impressive number did stick things out and make their deputation, 176 of the 344 people who had signed up missed their spot. And even those who did make it to the microphone — all 168 of them — were forced to deal with an abbreviated speaking time, something the committee voted to adopt early on Thursday.

2. The Core Service Review process remained woefully inadequate and self-serving

One of the more interesting things to see when you watch the Executive Committee in action is that there is a clear division between hard-line true-believer types that will always rally around the mayor and those that, while still supportive of the mayor’s fiscal responsibility mandate, express subtle reservations about certain parts of his agenda. The former group includes councillors like Giorgio Mammoliti, David Shiner and Doug Holyday while the latter includes, amongst others, Peter Milczyn, Michelle Berardinetti and Jaye Robinson.

In this case, the more cautious group seems sincere in their belief that council is embarking on a legitimate service review process that will help us make tough decisions and balance the 2012 budget. This is in contrast to the mayor and his inner circle, who seemingly already have a broad set of program cuts and reductions mapped out and are now just looking to produce a set of reports that justify what they’ve already decided they want to do.

3. We may have seen a grassroots political game-changer

Procedurally, this meeting isn’t notable for much. Things wrapped up with a series of motions from Councillor Paul Ainslie that essentially left all options on the table and punted major decisions to September.

But beyond that, something definitely changed last night. Somewhere in between the moment when 60-year-old deputant Marilyn Wilcoxen triumphantly held up a $50 cheque and a $5 bill — to pay for a voluntary property tax increase and her monthly instalment of the vehicle registration tax — and the heartbreaking scene at 2 a.m. wherein 14-year-old Anika Tabovaradan tried to defend the importance of her local library branch while crying her eyes out, Toronto came into focus again as a city with real people with real values.

And those people? Those values? They’re great.

You can call the sentiment overly schmaltzy or optimistic or — probably rightly — altogether too soon to judge, but the general feeling, watching person after person head to the microphone after waiting ten, 15 or 20 hours for their chance to speak for three minutes, was one of a renewed hope. It was as if, all of the sudden, the more progressive side of Toronto got its voice back. After seven years of living in complacency with a mayor that was never terrible but also rarely came close to the potential voters saw in him, and after coasting through a dour election where no one came close to inspirational, Toronto’s left was finally speaking again last night.

And their collective voice was almost exclusively passionate, creative, endearing and — most critically — diametrically opposed to the idea of Rob Ford’s Toronto.

Which brings me to the other notable part of last night: Ford supporters were a no-show. Only three of the 168 deputants advocated service cuts and, of those, only one seemed to hold views at all congruous to the so-called “Ford Nation.”

This marks twice now where Rob Ford has made a direct appeal to supporters to attend a consultation session, and both times very few in attendance ended up showing themselves as members of the Rob Ford crowd. The defence in social media circles is that Ford Nation represents a “silent majority” of important business types that don’t have time nor the inclination to attend consultations or fill out surveys.

And I guess that’s fair enough — for any government, it’s easier to draw out protestors than it is supporters — , but you’d think that with an open process like last night’s it would be reasonable to expect a 5% or so minority of Ford supporters to make an appearance and support his policies. Instead, almost no one showed. Considering that Ford’s electoral win was primarily due to grassroots populism, it seems conspicuous that the mayor can’t even rustle up a half-dozen members of Ford Nation to wave the flag and talk about their continued desire to stop the gravy train.

feature — Comments Off on Toronto’s looming library cuts: what could happen, and how to stop it
25
Jul 11

Toronto’s looming library cuts: what could happen, and how to stop it

Everyone had a lot of fun last week when Councillor Doug Ford did that thing he does where he says something completely stupid and wrong. This time, it was about libraries. There are too many of them, he said: “We have more libraries per person than any other city in the world. I’ve got more libraries in my area than I have Tim Hortons.”

None of this, of course, turned out to be anywhere close to even kind of a little bit true. Toronto doesn’t even have more libraries per person than other cities in Canada. And the ratio of Tim Hortons to library branches in Etobicoke is somewhere in the neighbourhood of three-to-one. (At BlogTO, Derek Flack actually mapped things out.)

Response to Ford’s comments was swift — and kind of bizarre, honestly — as the Toronto Public Library Workers Union launched a campaign to stop the privatization of Toronto’s library system with a very well-done new website called ourpubliclibrary.to. (The Tonga top-level domain is a nice touch.)

The campaign was effective enough to engage 20,000 people to state their opposition to library privatization, and got author Margaret Atwood all fired up. Less positively, they also seem to catch the attention of corporate library privatizer Library Systems & Services Inc., which led to some articles touting the potential of outsourcing branch management.

Taken altogether, however, it’s a good campaign. But, as mentioned, also a little bizarre. Why jump to the spectre of privatization so quickly? Are these well-intentioned literary-lovers — and, okay, sure, union members — overreaching? Is privatization really the clear and present threat they seem to think it is? And is a dumb Doug Ford exaggeration really the thing you want to point to as a motivating factor?

What KPMG says about libraries

KPMG’s budget considerations for the Toronto Public Library are limited to the following: sharing administrative services with the City; consolidating Toronto Archives with TPL; closing some branches completely; reducing or eliminating some educational and outreach programs; and reducing the hours and days of operation at some branches.

Of all the TPL items, only three are noted as items that could bring potential savings for 2012. And of those, only the latter two above — killing educational/outreach programs and reducing branch hours — are workable as suggestions that will shave significant dollars off the 2012 operating budget. Notably, alternative delivery models — consultant-speak for ‘privatization’ — are not floated as a consideration for TPL.

The real threat isn’t privatization. It’s cuts. Cuts are easier and more immediate. Privatization of library services has never been done on a Toronto-size scale before. So while that threat is probably real — in a Doug Ford “we’re going to privatize everything!” sort of way — it’s not real in the sense that this is something anyone has actively floated or brought up as an option. The real immediate threat to libraries is simpler: drastic and deep service cuts.

How to cut libraries

Putting on my small-government conservative hat for a second — it’s an animal-skin fedora with a condor feather in the brim — here’s how I’d rationalize support for reducing service hours or activities at libraries. First, I’d ask leading questions that refer to technology and the internet: in this era of computers and gizmos and video games, are libraries even still relevant?

Then, I’d talk about youth, and the differences between youth today and youth when I was a youth. (And, since I’m playing conservative, it’s safe to assume that childhood was eighty years ago.) Kids today are different, I’d say, and maybe we need to take an innovative — politicians love to be innovative — approach to the kind of services libraries provide. Are we really providing the best bang for our buck with an outdated model?

Then I’d cut. I’d support closing a few branches, rolling back hours, eliminating a bunch of programs that teach immigrants how to read or seniors how to use computers. I’d say that we’re not shutting down the library or cutting service — just re-adjusting it to fit the new social and fiscal realities. I’d balance this with enthusiastic support for convening a task force or a committee to hold public consultations about new strategies for delivering the kinds of services libraries have traditionally delivered.

“e-Learning! Cutting Edge! Smart City!” I would say these things for no real reason, then I would make a long and rambling half-speech where I make vague references to how much I like the iPad I just got.

The consultations I enthusiastically support would inevitably go nowhere, of course, and the end result would be that the city spends less money and provides less service. But it will feel like a victory for the reasonable middle, who — in supporting the move — will have embraced both innovation and efficiency while demonstrating their commitment to youth.

The end. A bit conspiracy theory-ish? Sure. It’s highly speculative. But just google “Are libraries still relevant?” — the seeds are there.

How to fight that

The Toronto Public Library is one of the busiest and largest systems in the world. Its recognized internationally for its activities. It’s incredibly well-used across the city, with 18 million visits and 32 million items borrowed in 2010 alone. Last year was also the library’s busiest ever, indicating that our libraries are far from forgotten relics.

TPL has also embraced new technologies, letting people borrow eBooks with popular tablet devices and providing computer access and training to visitors. This is not a musty organization dedicated only to paper books.

Most critically, our libraries are public spaces. Just as City parks provide free access to recreation activities, our libraries provide free access to learning and community connectivity. Real cities — thriving cities — value public spaces.

TPL is a cost-effective, well-used organization that provides value for Toronto residents. On an average property tax bill, the Library represents about a $114 per year cost, or $9.50 per month. After sales tax, this is about the same as you’d pay for a Netflix subscription. It is one of the few city agencies taxpayers should feel proud of. It is unequivocally not a place where City Hall should look for significant cuts.

Yet here we are.

feature — Comments Off on The annotated Rob Ford: notes on the mayor’s interview with CP24 (VIDEO)
25
Jul 11

The annotated Rob Ford: notes on the mayor’s interview with CP24 (VIDEO)

The mayor was on CP24 this past Friday for a rare sit-down interview. Unfortunately, the journalist sitting down with Rob Ford was one-time mayoral candidate and aspiring softball pitcher Stephen LeDrew, who didn’t give the mayor much in the way of challenging questions.

Still, Ford’s statements on a variety of important issues are notable for the number of outright falsehoods and misperceptions they contain. Standing on the shoulders of giants like The Grid’s Edward Keenan, who ran a Fact Check column relating to this interview on Friday afternoon, I’ve put together an edited version of the mayor’s interview, pointing out the moments where he departed from the truth.

I call it the annotated Rob Ford. You can watch it below.

Some notes:

First, this is a six-minute edit of a twenty-minute interview. The editing process by its very nature removes context. To be objective, readers should also watch the full version of the interview at CP24 before they make any conclusions.

00:00:35 — The top three priorities identified by Toronto residents comes from Page 4 of KPMG’s summary of the Core Service Review Public Consultation process. Note also that the item given the least priority was “Fair and affordable taxes.”

00:00:55 — The KMPG report lists “Detailed analysis of services to identify efficiency and effectiveness opportunities” as “Out of Scope” on page four of the introductory document. The report does note that an efficiency study could take place at a later date, as a separate report.

00:01:22 — The KPMG report to the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee lists Solid Waste Management Services as having a net budget of 0 on page 12.

00:01:25 — Council voted to send an RFQ out to tender for solid waste collection (and a few other services) west of Yonge Street at the May Council meeting. The quotations will come back to Council for approval, probably early next year.

00:01:29 — Edward Keenan, writing for The Grid: “The right to strike in Canada is considered a constitutionally protected right (as it is in every other large democracy in the world), and contracting out garbage collection does not take away anyone’s right to form a union, bargain collectively or go on strike.”

00:01:42 — See note for 00:00:35.

00:02:17 — Quote is from the Toronto Star. David Rider recently dredged up the quote and discussed its ramifications.

00:02:43 — In fact, most of the grants Ford dismisses as unjustifiable are for programs that help needy people. They include organizations like the Rexdale Women’s Centre, the Crime Prevention Association of Toronto and the New Canadian Community Centre. The Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale has a partial list.

00:03:00 — The City of Toronto’s own website for the Toronto Atmospheric Fund is probably the best resource for information on the fund, its history and the benefits it brings to Toronto.

00:03:28 — Per KPMG’s report to the Public Works & Infrastrucutre Committee on page 39: “Consider reducing snow plowing and snow removal standards on residential streets.”

00:03:48 — The only scenario in which Ford’s claim makes sense is if we include some of the new off-road recreational paths that are to be added as part of the plan, but those serve an entirely different purpose than on-road bike lanes. The Agenda Item History for the 2011 Bike Plan is available online and details which lanes were added and which were removed. The Plan does float the idea of new lanes, notably on Richmond or Adelaide Street, but those are only being studied at this point.

00:04:09 – See page 17 of the 2011 Bike Plan Staff Report for details on traffic levels on Jarvis Street before and after installation of the bike lanes. You can also read my FAQ on Jarvis Street.

00:04:33 — It’s not true at the moment, at least. If Ford enthusiastically supports separated bike lanes on Richmond Street, for example, his statement would have more weight.

00:04:44 — It really isn’t true. See note for 00:03:48.

00:04:55 — As per “Mayor Ford votes against all community grants” in the Toronto Star.

00:05:15 — Ford skipped both the traditional Pride flag-raising kicking off the event, which took place steps from his office. He was touring the Air Canada Centre at the time. He also skipped an earlier flag-raising held by the Parents & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, which was presided over by Leafs GM Brian Burke.

00:05:40 — Per the Toronto Star’s “Ford expected to plow surplus into 2011 budget” by Robyn Doolittle: “Mayor Rob Ford is planning to use the city’s one-time surplus to help balance his 2011 budget, avoiding unpopular service cuts and delivering on a property tax freeze, say members of the executive and budget committees.”

 

feature — Comments Off on No recommendations in KPMG reports
21
Jul 11

No recommendations in KPMG reports

We’re nearly two weeks into the slow roll-out of the KPMG-produced Core Service Review reports. All in all, it’s been a process both maddening and mundane. Each report contains something that very clearly should be considered pretty damn sacred — Heritage Grants, Community Investment Programs, childcare spaces, libraries — but, at the same time, neither the mayor nor council has actually endorsed any of these prospective cuts, so getting all worked up about loss of service seems premature. Nothing’s been recommended yet.

Let’s repeat that last bit: nothing has been recommended yet.

For real, despite some media outlets who have continued to report that the KPMG reports lay out a series of recommendations that will save the city cash off its bottom line, what they actually do is far less sexy. The consultants make no recommendations, no suggestions, point out no defined ‘waste’ or specific opportunities for significant efficiencies. Instead, all they do is list and categorize city services, identifying those that are mandatory (ie. bound to exist through provincial/federal legislation), those that are essential (ie. those that without which the city would catch on fire or sink into the lake) and those that are traditional (ie. those that are commonly-accepted municipal responsibilities). The consultants also “grade” the quality of service provided by each function, and identify places where service could be scaled back to be more in line with comparable cities across the globe.

That’s it and that’s all.  The introduction to the reports lays it out pretty clearly. Here’s what they say they’re going to do: “review and analyze all City of Toronto services, activities and service levels provided by divisions and agencies and to apply a core service filter to assist Council’s decision-making. The filter identifies services that are not core, or that are provided at higher than standard service levels.”

Even more telling is what they say  they say they aren’t going to do:  there will be no “detailed analysis of services to identify efficiency and effectiveness opportunities.” Also no “detailed articulation of cost savings potential to be achieved through service changes.” And, lastly, they’re not going to make “management decisions on what actions to pursue with respect to City services.” Or, in other words, this is just a list of items filtered through a framework. These are not recommendations.

And that only makes sense, because they don’t read like recommendations. Why else would things like the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, City-owned parking lots or the Pet Licensing program appear on the list? These programs have a good track record of actually generating revenues for the city. Yes, they’re activities that go beyond the “core” services the City of Toronto should provide, but they’re relative success stories — there’s no business case to recommend cutting them.

The mayor may not understand this

The Toronto Sun really doesn’t seem to grasp this. They’ve used the words “recommend” or “recommended” across most of their stories relating this process. But that’s forgivable: long-winded explanations like the one above don’t just take up valuable column space, they also bore the hell out of people.

More troubling are comments from Mayor Rob Ford, who told the Toronto Sun on Wednesday that, “The report shows there are millions of dollars to be saved by getting rid of waste and duplication.” Well, not really. The report mostly shows that there’s some money to be saved if the City stops doing some of the things it has been doing.

Real efficiency — the kind that doesn’t result in massive service cuts — requires a long-term, measured approach. The KPMG report does vaguely point to some potential avenues that might result in real efficiencies: things like combining HR functions, contracting out cleaning services or outsourcing printing and design work. But those kinds of rejiggerings-of-bureaucracy are slow-movers. They’re not going to provide the same kind of immediate budget-saving impact as would, for example, selling Exhibition Place, shutting down all-night bus service or immediately eliminating all funding for community events like Pride or Caribana.

No focus on improving customer service

One of the things that so endeared then-Councillor Rob Ford to his constituents was his focus on customer service. He was known for visiting residents with city staff in tow, making sure that complaints were dealt with in a timely manner. It’s one of those things that marks the Mayor — despite the political rhetoric and divisiveness — as an ultimately decent and compassionate guy.

That’s why it’s so sad that this Core Service Review process has essentially turned its back on the notion of improving customer service for residents. In fact, it’s been outright hostile to customer service, identifying places where the city ranks too highly and placing them into consideration for potential cutbacks. KPMG’s report introduction states outright that “Services that appeared to have elevated service levels were considered for opportunities for service level reductions, alternate service delivery, or reengineering.”

A few months into this council term, Ford described customer service as his “number one priority.” That priority seems to have been lost in this process.

feature — Comments Off on The incredible shrinking budget gap
19
Jul 11

The incredible shrinking budget gap

Here’s the story, as advanced by Councillor Gord Perks and reported this weekend by the Toronto Star: That $774 million budget gap we’re all freaking out about? The one that has us talking sincerely about de-flouridinating our drinking water and shutting down parks? The one that’s so severe that it’s led to the City’s Budget Chief carrying around a plastic State Farm-branded piggy bank that he pulls out and shakes whenever one of his colleagues starts talking about programs that might potentially require more City spending? Turns out it might not be a real figure.

In actuality, the real budget pressure for 2012 — thanks to remaining, recently-discovered 2010 surplus dollars and an anticipated surplus for 2011 — might be significantly less. Like $331 million less.

But if we’re not actually looking at three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollars of “budget pressure,” why does that figure keep coming up? The Star’s Paul Moloney explains:

Critics accuse the Ford administration of exaggerating the city’s money woes to cow citizens into going along with serious cuts.

“I think the mayor is trying to create a political climate that suggests that the City of Toronto government is broken,” said Councillor Gord Perks, a key budget figure in the old David Miller administration.

“The kind of damage that Rob Ford wants to do to services Torontonians rely on can only be achieved if he terrorizes the public into believing we need to do it,” Perks said.

via City budget gap exaggerated, critics say | Toronto Star.

At Toronto Life, John Michael McGrath links this kind of  manufactured-crisis strategy to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, a sentiment backed up by blogger Sol Chrom, who writes, “Whose interests are served by all this manufactured hysteria around the budget? Apocalyptic numbers and phrases get thrown around and amplified by the transmitters in the media, and soon the sense of crisis is so acute that the stage is set for extraordinary measures.”

Extraordinary measures. Like library closures. Like transit cuts. Like service cuts. You might remember that the Mayor’s Office actually justified their use of previous-term surplus funds to close the 2011 budget gap because it would  mean they had “unmasked the true financial condition for all to see. The 2012 budget forecast reflects the true gap between the city’s revenues and spending habits.”

At The Grid, Ed Keenan contributes a great primer on how the city’s budget process works, and underscores that this year’s budget gap isn’t unique: the previous council dealt with initial shortfalls that were even larger and dealt with them without slash-and-burn service cuts:

[G]oing into the 2010 budget season, David Miller faced a projected budget shortfall of more than $800 million, and he managed not only to balance the budget without cutting any services at all, but to eventually show a huge surplus. So why is the somewhat smaller shortfall that Ford faces an emergency? Why would this, lesser crisis, require considering slashing whole government departments?

via From $350 million surplus to $774 million deficit in one Ford year? | The Grid TO.

But so what? Even if the budget gap is only the $443 million Perks says it could be, that’s still a huge number. And isn’t it time that we got our fiscal house in order and stop with these annual budget games? Shouldn’t Council’s left-wingers know better than to suggest we get through 2012 with yet another short-term, unsustainable fix?

John Lorinc is asking for a more proactive approach from Council’s Left. In his Spacing column this week, he calls on opposition councillors to lay out a “Plan B” budget, proposing an alternative to spending cuts instead of just criticizing the mayor and his allies. It’s not a bad sentiment, but he also adds this: “By the way, if a Plan B hinges on an unspecified Provincial bail-out, it automatically fails the smell test.”

Okay, yeah, it’s not likely that the McGuinty government — much less a prospective Hudak government in the fall — will be willing to cough up new subsidies to the City of Toronto when they’re facing a giant-sized debt and deficit all their own, but to ignore the role the province must play in righting amalgamated Toronto’s financial ship is not realistic. The City’s annual deficit became structural the day Mike Harris cut the provincial TTC operating and capital subsidies. Without a return to a fairer funding model — which will require strong intergovernmental advocacy efforts from the Mayor and Council — the only workable long-term Plan B-type solutions will have to involve politically toxic revenue drivers like a return to something like the Vehicle Registration Fee or even — horror! — a Municipal Sales Tax.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →