feature

feature — Comments Off on ‘Ford Nation’ and Corktown: How the new mayor may impact a neighbourhood
09
Jun 11

‘Ford Nation’ and Corktown: How the new mayor may impact a neighbourhood

Because I apparently never tire of writing about the mayor and city issues, I contributed an article to the new edition of The Corktowner, the newsletter that covers my neighbourhood. It’s a rather exhaustive look at how the new regime at city hall might impact the area over the next few years.

You can read it, and the entire newsletter, at the Corktown.ca website.

I’m also included an unedited version of the article below, purely for Ford For Toronto completists. My first draft was ridiculously long, and so the published version is edited down to a more manageable length. Thanks to the great people at the Corktown Residents & Business Association for approaching me and asking if I’d contribute.

Continue reading →

feature — Comments Off on Rob Ford, October 2010: “I will assure you that services will not be cut”
08
Jun 11

Rob Ford, October 2010: “I will assure you that services will not be cut”

Over at Torontoist, André Bovee-Begun does a hell of a job tearing through the online survey the city is pushing as part of their ballyhooed core service review:

One of the most striking features of the survey: respondents are asked, for any given service, whether “maintaining the quality is more important” or “lowering the cost to the City is more important.” Think the service should be improved? There’s no check-box for that. It provides another misleading set of choices when it asks respondents how they would choose to pay for any cost increases—via increased property taxes, higher user fees, or a combination thereof. Conspicuously absent: the array of other revenue-generating tools the City has at is disposal, such as the now-cancelled Vehicle Registration Tax or the Land Transfer Tax Ford has promised (but cannot afford) to cut. The survey simply chooses from among the full range of options the City could consider, and presents only some of these to the public for deliberation.

via Toronto’s Budget Survey Deeply Flawed – Torontoist.

He’s right, of course. The survey takes a subjective scenario — the city is totally broke and we must cut costs now or face doom! — and presents it as objective. If you believe, as many do, that the city has a revenue problem instead of a spending problem, there’s little opportunity in this survey to express that view. Worse, the survey seems to suggest that the city is clearly trying to do too much, something those who believe in city building definitely disagree with.

I think most people would probably fall somewhere in the middle, believing that there are surely places where the city can find savings but also that more of the money we send to the provincial and federal governments should return to us in the form of services. But even that view is difficult to express given the constraints of the survey.

If you don’t believe services must be cut, you’re crazy. Or so the story goes.

Hilariously, Budget Chief Mike Del Grande has taken to carrying around a plastic piggy bank to remind people that “we have a financial problem that we have to fix.” He speaks as if the city is on the verge of bankruptcy, even though the majority of this year’s budget hole comes from an ill-advised property tax freeze, the elimination of the vehicle registration fee, and mismanagement of the surplus dollars this administration inherited.  (Yes, the city has a structural deficit it needs to tackle but we could have at least made it through 2012 without too much wrangling.)

This week’s National Post Political Panel also looks at the survey and the public consultation sessions that came with it. Even staunch right-wing 905er Matt Gurney wonders about the wisdom of the mayor’s promise “to find hundreds of million of dollars’ worth of gravy while also promising no service cuts.”

Which brings up another point that I feel must be made continuously through this whole process: Rob Ford has no mandate for service cuts. None. As he probably told a reporter who was standing within earshot of the Toronto Star’s David Rider and Paul Moloney last October:

Although his rivals insist Ford’s savings can’t happen without reducing services Torontonians value — and he would need to somehow convince a majority of councillors to agree with his cuts — he insisted there is enough waste to make his fiscal surgery bloodless.

“I will assure you that services will not be cut . . . guaranteed.”

via Ford fiscal plan big on numbers, short on details – thestar.com. (Emphasis added.)

He broke that guarantee less than two months after he took office. And now he’s getting in gear to break it some more.

feature — Comments Off on Of expenses and Halifax trips: micromanaging the ‘gravy train’
08
Jun 11

Of expenses and Halifax trips: micromanaging the ‘gravy train’

The Toronto Star’s David Rider:

Facing revolt from councillors of all political stripes, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday is willing to give only a little ground in his plan to clamp down on their office expenses.

He has agreed to minor changes, for example rewording a section to allow a councillor to order in a pizza dinner for late-working staff.

“But no pricey meals at fancy restaurants across the street, like some have done in the past,” adds Holyday,

via ‘Micromanaging’ Holyday faces revolt over councillor expenses – thestar.com.

Doug Holyday’s been banging the drum for expense reform for a while now, and increasingly my reaction is simply this: Who cares?

Who cares? Who cares? Who cares?

The most important reform to councillor expenses already happened. They’re posted online, quarterly, with receipts. The public can view them themselves or, more likely, read the nineteen articles the Toronto Sun will run the very next day questioning every item that isn’t straight-up office supplies.

Any further reforms should be geared toward ensuring councillors are getting the best deal possible on common items like newspaper printing, and helping our elected reps better work with technology, so they’re not doing moronic things like running up massive international data bills.

Maybe I’m idealistic, but I think we elect councillors to be innovative in the way they do their job and meet their constituents’ collective needs. If a councillor decides that they’ll better serve their ward by going to XYZ conference or even buying their staff pizza with literal flakes of gold as toppings, then let them do it. If the voters decide that a councillor is not being responsible or effective with their office budget, then the recourse is clear: vote the bastard out.

Holyday also criticized the twelve Toronto councillors who attended the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference this past weekend in Halifax, as if conferences for professional development and/or networking aren’t an incredibly common and worthwhile thing in the private sector.

Ford also skipped the FCM conference. When asked why, his director of policy and strategic planning Mark Towhey told the Globe’s Elizabeth Church: “Toronto is a pretty big city. People know where it is.” As he understands it, the FCM Conference is mostly about speculative geography. Also, apparently the city’s relationship with the federal government is now strong enough that no collective advocacy on the part of Canadian municipalities is necessary.

Related: Over at Spacing, John Lorinc makes the push for an argument that says it’s a good thing for Toronto’s reputation that Ford didn’t attend. Silver linings.

feature — Comments Off on City ends 2010 with $88m surplus, but no one’s finding fault
06
Jun 11

City ends 2010 with $88m surplus, but no one’s finding fault

Let’s play compare and contrast.

Here’s the Toronto Star’s Paul Moloney, on a recently discovered surplus found on the city’s 2010 books:

The final tally of the city’s books shows there’s an extra $88 million available to reduce next year’s budget gap.

The year-end report for 2010 shows higher revenues and lower costs than had been projected in September.

City finance staff are recommending that the $88 million be used to reduce the $774 million hole in the 2012 operating budget rather than put the money into capital repairs.

via City ended 2010 with $88M surplus – thestar.com.

Now here’s Royson James, writing for the same paper, in March 2010, criticizing Mayor David Miller for announcing that the city had discovered an approximately 100 million dollar surplus on the city’s 2009 books:

But it raises many questions about how the city manages our money – it seems able to “find” massive sums of cash, almost on demand, while crying poor.

Surpluses are obviously better than deficits – cities can’t run a deficit, by law – but budget integrity suggests you levy the amount of money you need to run city services. And if you took more than you needed, maybe you give it back, not continue to raise taxes.

via James: How did a city that’s broke find $100 million? – thestar.com.

Around the same time, the National Post’s Natalie Alcoba interviewed a number of Miller’s council opponents, who piled on the bandwagon that claimed a discovered budgetary surplus indicates poor fiscal management:

“I’m still trying to get my head around the whole notion of finding $100-million,” said Councillor Michael Thompson (Scarborough Centre).

…

“The credibility of the budget is worn fairly thin. I worry by the time it reaches council they will have found more money under the sofas and desks at City Hall,” said Councillor Brian Ashton (Scarborough Southwest).

via Analysis: The looming battle over David Miller’s $105-million surplus – Posted Toronto.

And the venerable Toronto Sun’s Antonella Artuso talked to the mayoral candidates, who at the time were mostly all pretending to be right-wing budget hawks — not yet understanding that the real key to success as a right-wing budget hawk candidate is repetitive slogans and yelling –, getting more of the same type of reaction:

“That means one of two things – that they overtaxed us or they’re incompetent and don’t understand how to do math,” candidate Rocco Rossi said of the shifting surplus.

…

“He will not be the mayor then… now he’s making next year’s budget on the back of an envelope, the same envelope that he’s used to figure out this year’s budget,” Smitherman said.

…

Councillor John Parker said it’s always nice to find money but he wondered why city finance officials didn’t know about it.

“I see that as nothing to be proud of,” he said.

via Miller playing budget games: Critics | Toronto Sun.

Of course anyone who takes a second to think about it understands why these surpluses happen. The city’s budget is, in many cases, little more than a collection of informed estimates. They estimate how many people will ride the TTC, how much fuel the city will use, what the cost of building materials will be, and so on. Plus, revenues from the land transfer tax are highly variable; the city has no way of accurately knowing how many homes will sell in the city in any given year. Essentially, they just guess.

The difference between this year and last year, of course, is that where Miller made a big show of announcing the surplus at a media event, Ford hasn’t gone on record with a comment about this year’s extra money. You have to assume this is largely because he can’t take credit for a 2010 budgetary surplus. This was forged before he was mayor.

Still, though, I wonder if the same critics will continue to throw barbs should this sort of thing continue into the coming budget year.

Related: Not all budgetary news is good. The TTC is facing a shortfall of at least $39 million. Steve Munro has an excellent analysis of the numbers. It would appear that we’re cruising toward a fare increase. And those promised increases in service we were promised following the recent route cuts? Don’t hold your breath.

feature — Comments Off on There’s a hole in our budget
02
Jun 11

There’s a hole in our budget

The city is currently holding a series of budget consultation sessions in advance of a three million dollar “core service review” set to take place this summer. There’s also an online survey available. It’s structured such that you could, if you wanted, advocate that publicly-owned theatres are the only vital service the city provides, and also that fire services should be contracted out. Don’t do that, though. It’d be wrong.

I haven’t been to a session yet — I’m hoping to make it to the one taking place at City Hall on Saturday — but from what I hear they, like the survey, sort of play out like an elementary school brain teaser. As in: Oh no! The city’s former left-wing Mayor Goofus was addicted to spending and got us in a $774 million budget hole! Help the valiant new Mayor Gallant fix the problem by identifying services that could be cut!

There’s little about revenue generation strategies. Nothing about reinstating recently-cut taxes. Nothing about directing more of the tax money we pay to the provincial and federal governments toward urban initiatives like transit and housing. Instead, it’s a kind of civic Sophie’s Choice: pick the services you love least, because some of them are surely going to die.

Over at the Toronto Standard, Ivor Tossell sums things up nicely:

The whole thing is insane, in a relentlessly logical kind of way. It offers the solutions its framers want to pursue to a solve a crisis they had a hand in creating. Toronto! We may have to raise the taxes we just froze to replace the taxes we just axed to alleviate the apocalyptic financial shortfall we face every year that we just deliberately made worse! What shall we do? Feel free not to care!

via The Useful Hole | Toronto Standard | News, Media, Art, Business, Technology, Fashion, Events.

Similarly, in this week’s NOW, Ellie Kirzner has a nice summary of one of the recent public consultations at Danforth CI. She highlights just how much more challenging Ford’s handling of the 2011 budget have made preparation for the coming year:

Gord Perks sums it up: if Rob Ford hadn’t frozen property taxes, ditched the vehicle registration fee and frittered away the surplus, “we would be in a position where property tax increases just over the rate of inflation could have kept the ship afloat. Now we face significant tax increases or cuts, not because services cost so much, but because Mayor Ford really blew it in his first budget.”

via NOW Magazine // News / Rotten core.

I would never deny that the city has financial problems, but it’s ridiculously short-sighted to think we’re a few service cuts away from a long-term solution. Toronto’s problems are complex and resulted largely from a series of moves from senior governments that dumped operational costs on the one level of government that is legally prohibited from running a year-to-year deficit. The path to fiscal sustainability for our city lies not in service cuts — though we must always be vigilant about the services offered and the efficiency with which they are delivered — but rather in coherent, strategic negotiations between levels of government, resulting in a fair deal for Toronto.

feature — Comments Off on For whom the road tolls
01
Jun 11

For whom the road tolls

So only days after Gordon Chong got caught by Royson James musing about the necessity for road tolls to fund Ford’s much-ballyhooed Sheppard subway, the mayor shut down the idea. “It’s nonsense,” he said. “I don’t support road tolls.”

(Later, Ontario’s Environment Commissioner would champion the idea of road pricing in a report. “We need to reduce the number of single-passenger vehicle trips in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area,” he said.)

Ford’s unwillingness to consider road pricing isn’t surprising. At the very least, however, Chong’s suggestion of tolls seemed to trigger a bit of reflection from other councillors about the reality of the transit funding situation. Even the Ford-allied Peter Milczyn, who chairs the Planning & Growth committee, told the Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale and Paul Moloney that “development charges are not going to pay for a subway.”

The transit debate continued at City Hall on Monday, as the Planning committee debated two motions relating to transit on Sheppard and Finch.

Over at his blog, Steve Munro does a hell of a job with a blow-by-blow recap of the meeting:

Councillor Joe Mihevc (former TTC Vice-Chair) argued that avoiding discussion now would lead to a finished product being presented for an up-or-down decision with no time for debate or public input.  He argued that people affected by the cancellation of Transit City want input into alternative plans now.  Stintz replied that Metrolinx is running a series of meetings regarding the Eglinton line, but what these have to do with service on Sheppard and Finch is hard to fathom.

…

As the debate continued, it was clear that Stintz was being too clever for her own good by trying to treat work-to-date as not part of “Transit City”.  This is an example of the gyrations through which Mayor Ford’s team will go to warp history to fit their agenda.

via Think About Transit on Finch and Sheppard, But Not Yet | Steve Munro.

Munro’s summary suggests that Stintz, even as TTC chair, still isn’t playing a significant role in defining the future of transit expansion in the city. It’s not overly surprising that she wouldn’t be able to provide concrete answers on the future of “Transportation City” given that, a couple of months ago, the mayor surprised her by floating the idea of a new subway line on Finch.

So what next? Nobody really knows. Chong has since backpedaled on his earlier comments, telling the CBC that “tolls would be one of the last things that would be considered” to fund subway expansion. He says he’ll have a business case for the privately-funded Sheppard project in a few months. They’ll get some P3 money from the feds, most likely, but that will amount to less than a quarter of the needed funds.

As for Finch? Buses. Fancy buses, maybe. I’d suggest painting a racing stripe on the side to make them look faster.

feature — Comments Off on When will council get to vote on transit plans?
30
May 11

When will council get to vote on transit plans?

As part of the last council meeting, Councillor Janet Davis brought forward an administrative inquiry, asking several pointed questions about the supposed ‘death’ of Transit City, the new transit plan cooked up by the province and the mayor’s office, and the TTIL organization headed by Gordon Chong.

City Manager Joe Pennachetti penned a response to Davis’ inquiries and, though its rather light on detail, the document does contain confirmation of something that’s been an open question since this whole transit mess began: council does indeed get a vote on this. Ford cannot act unilaterally.

Pennachetti outlines several areas where a council vote will be required. First, council must officially adopt the memorandum of understanding signed by the mayor and the province:

The TTC is not a signatory to the Memorandum. The Memorandum is a non-binding framework for the negotiation of agreements to be approved by Council. Therefore the Mayor signed the Memorandum as indicating his desire that the parties give consideration to the new Transportation Plan. Any agreements to implement the Memorandum will require Council approval.

Council will also get to debate and vote on any financial penalties that arise from the cancellation of contracts relating to Transit City:

Any liabilities associated with the agreements necessary to implement the provisions contained in the Memorandum will be set out in the report or reports seeking Council approval.

Lastly, council will also have to approve any funding arrangement drawn from the Federal Government’s P3 fund:

It is anticipated that any federal P3 funding agreement will be conditional on Council approval.

So council must vote. The question still lingering is when will council vote? At the very least, why hasn’t the memo outlining the new agreement between the city and the province/Metrolinx — which was released in March — come before council for approval? What’s the delay?

feature — Comments Off on Ford will have to institute road tolls to pay for promised subway
30
May 11

Ford will have to institute road tolls to pay for promised subway

The Toronto Star’s Royson James:

It will likely take new road tolls and congestion charges and other revenue tools to help deliver “the biggest transit deal in North America, or perhaps the world,” says the man hired to pave the path toward the $4 billion Sheppard Subway.

As such, claims that the private sector will step in and build the line on their own are not realistic, says Gordon Chong, ex-city councillor, ex-chair of GO Transit, ex-TTC commissioner and now chair of the Toronto Transit Infrastructure Ltd., the dormant investment arm of the transit company.

via James: Ford’s subways will require tolls and grants – thestar.com.

In other words: this subway will never happen. Not with this mayor.

The sad part of all of this is that road pricing is a good and necessary thing. It’s an inevitable part of every major urban centre in this country finally getting their financial shit together.

But road pricing to fund a subway extension on Sheppard is a terrible idea. It’s the kind of thing that dooms tolls and congestion charges to the same dustbin of political third rails that currently houses photo radar, religious school funding and the Ontario NDP.

Here’s why: there is no report anywhere that shows projected subway-level ridership on Sheppard. Not now and not decades from now. Not enough people want to ride this train. It’s a black hole, dooming the TTC to spiralling operating costs for little network benefit.

The worst part is that this isn’t a case where Ford traded one far-off, conceptual transit plan for another. The Sheppard East LRT — an alternative that would have provided rapid, high-capacity transit for a quarter of the cost of the proposed subway, and covered more kilometres — was under construction. It would have opened before the next municipal election.

We traded real, shovels-in-the-ground transit for magic, private-sector beans. And now this administration must reap the results.

feature — Comments Off on City Council Scorecard: Garbage, Bridges, Committees & Sewage
25
May 11

City Council Scorecard: Garbage, Bridges, Committees & Sewage

Toronto Council Scorecard

May 25, 2011 Update: Download (PDF) – Download (PNG) – Google Docs

Last week saw a big three-day council meeting filled with all sorts of exciting developments. I’ve added four votes to the City Council Scorecard. By my count, Council has now considered 17 major items since their term began in December.

In other exciting developments, I’ve finally published the scorecard as a Google Spreadsheet for easier viewing.

New Votes

The four votes added:

  • PW3.1 — The garbage issue, pertaining to solid waste collection west of Yonge Street and litter collection in parks. While initially written as an all-in-one motion that would see council vote to both send a contract out to tender and automatically approve the best bid through the Bid Committee, the mayor and his team conceded to their opponents prior to the meeting and promised to amend the item. As passed, the item is an invitation to the private sector to submit bids. Council will then examine their numbers versus the status quo, and determine how to best proceed.
  • MM8.6 — The motion that killed the Fort York bridge. Sticklers and apologists will tell you that the bridge wasn’t killed when Councillor Mike Layton’s motion to reintroduce the item to council failed to achieve a two-thirds majority vote, but they’re being pedantic. The outcome of this vote means that it will likely be 2015 before anything gets built, which is a lifetime in political terms.
  • EX5.3, Motion 1a — The ultimate outcome of the mayor’s attempt to eliminate citizen advisory committees was delayed by a month, as motions to save many of the committees on the chopping block were referred to the mayor’s office. Staff will report back at the next council meeting, at which time we’ll learn which of them — if any — will survive. One committee that will definitely live on is the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, as Layton was successful in passing a motion that saved the group, despite the objections of Mayor Ford. A relatively minor vote compared to others on the scorecard, but important because it was a major defeat for the mayor.
  • PW3.5, Motion 1 — In an item relating to the treatment facility at Ashbridges Bay, Councillor Gord Perks moved an amendment that would see the city move toward using environmentally-friendly ultraviolet light technology in the facility, instead of the chlorination process used in other city facilities. Team Ford lost this one, though they might have won had more councillors been in the chamber when voting took place.

Trend Watch

Only 13 councillors remain in the 100% club, having voted with the mayor on every major item. The are: Paul Ainslie, Vincent Crisanti,  Mike Del Grande, Doug Ford, Mark Grimes, Doug Holyday, Norman Kelly,  Denzil Minnan-Wong,  Frances Nunziata, Cesar Palacio, David Shiner, Michael Thompson and Giorgio Mammoliti. On the other end of the spectrum, Gord Perks and Pam McConnell continue to share the crown in the anti-Ford club, with Perks holding a slight edge because McConnell has missed a couple of votes.

Questions

Questions about the Council Scorecard? Read my notes on methodology. Also, you can email me.

feature — Comments Off on The Cover of QuAIA: Why is Rob Ford avoiding Pride events?
24
May 11

The Cover of QuAIA: Why is Rob Ford avoiding Pride events?

In a few hours, the city’s executive committee will discuss EX6.21, “Compliant with the City of Toronto’s Anti-Discriminaion Policy.” By definition, this item amounts to little more than a staff recommendation that the executive committee receive a city report “for information.” In practice, however, this items presents an opportunity for someone — likely Giorgio Mammoliti — to attempt to pull city funding for this year’s Pride event.

This all stems from the potential participation of the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid group. Though they’ve promised not to march in the parade this year, the Toronto Sun’s Don Peat reports that, for Mammoliti, that’s not good enough:

Mammoliti vowed that if the group takes part in Pride — and they’re is outrage — he will move to strip the city’s portion of funding.

“If the group shows up and people get upset in the city then it becomes a political decision on whether or not the funding should continue,” he added.

Ask if he’s worried he and Ford will be accused of being homophobic if they try to stop Pride funding, Mammoliti shrugged.

“It’s not about being homophobic, it’s about taking care of taxpayers’ dollars and where they should be going, they shouldn’t be going to help spread hatred,” he said.

via Pride funding controversy heats up | Home | Toronto Sun.

The whole thing is ridiculous, of course. Whatever your feelings on QuAIA and their message, the city doesn’t get to dictate a cultural group’s actions and associations simply because they feel like it. A $128,000 cultural grant isn’t much of a ransom when you consider the millions upon millions of economic activity the city would forfeit if Pride disappeared from the city’s event calendar.

The issue was dead the moment staff ruled that the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” didn’t violate the city’s anti-discrimination policy.

The far more interesting story in all of this is the mayor’s continued disregard for the city’s gay community. In addition to his checkered voting record at council, in recent weeks Ford has skipped two major Pride-related events. And before apologists pull out the argument that says the mayor is busy and can’t be expected to attend every event in this city, it must be pointed out that both these events took place at City Hall. A token appearance would have required the mayor only to make a short trip from his office.

The first snub was bad but somewhat forgivable. Taking place on a Monday evening, the “Proud of Toronto” ceremony was part of the International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia. There were no major meetings at City Hall that day, so it’s possible the mayor was tied up in another part of the city.

It’s the second snub, coming the day after, that’s less defensible. Taking place during the lunch break on the first day of last week’s City Council meeting, this short event saw the raising of a flag on the roof of City Hall by PFLAG — the Parents & Friends of Lesbians & Gays. The headline speaker was Brian Burke, the General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs and father of the late Brendan Burke.

The event seemed a natural fit for our mayor. Restrained, respectful, and tangentially related to a major sports team, it’s challenging to even come up with reasons why he wouldn’t make an appearance. Toronto is not a city with a large anti-gay voting bloc, and even for those social conservatives that do exist, where are they going to take their support? The mayor loses no political capital with his base by showing up, shaking hands, and posing for a quick photo.

Calling someone homophobic is a harsh accusation in this day and age, and probably too weighty for this set of circumstances. But the mayor’s actions — or lack thereof — have given the label far more plausibility than it should have. It’s time for the mayor to stop hiding behind the pretenses of the QuAIA controversy and make at least a token gesture to the queer community in this city.

A leisurely downtown stroll during Pride week would be a good place to start. But, oh, he says he might be busy that day.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →