[GraphicMatt]

Or we could develop it, raise property taxes and generate revenue. This isn't rocket science.

There are a lot of indirect revenues that come from this kind of thing, too.

 

[archanfel]

I disagree - I think vision is critical. To give an example: We can save a ton of money now by stopping or slowing down Waterfront development plans or we can push forward with vision and create a space that could generate millions in new annual revenues a decade from now. Your no-vision candidate will be more likely to not spend the cash and avoid the tax increase in the near-term, but the long-term cost (in terms of lost revenue) could be significant.

The problem is of course the new annual revenue is far from guaranteed. I am not saying it shouldn't be done, but it should be a strict business decision not a "vision". For example, while developing the waterfront can generate future revenue, so can building multimillion dollar condos there and turn the entire thing into a concrete forest. Given the location and the view, I'd say the condos would be a far surer bet and the city probably doesn't have to spend a cent since private developers will fight for the land. Is that good city building? Probably not. Does it make more financial sense, probably yes. (I am just saying this as an example, I didn't do the cost/benefit analysis to be sure.)

Another example would be the new homeless shelter. Some people argued that helping people back on their feet will generate future revenues for the city, so it's worth the $11.5 million. However, if you treat this as a strict business decision, you would see that it's probably a very risky investment with very little chance of positive return. It might be the "right" thing to do, but it's not a good business decision.

A boring and uninspiring leader does not mean he would do nothing. It only means he would not let his "vision" get in the way of making objective business decisions.

 

[syn]

The problem is of course the new annual revenue is far from guaranteed. I am not saying it shouldn't be done, but it should be a strict business decision not a "vision". For example, while developing the waterfront can generate future revenue, so can building multimillion dollar condos there and turn the entire thing into a concrete forest. Given the location and the view, I'd say the condos would be a far surer bet and the city probably doesn't have to spend a cent since private developers will fight for the land. Is that good city building? Probably not. Does it make more financial sense, probably yes. (I am just saying this as an example, I didn't do the cost/benefit analysis to be sure.)

Another example would be the new homeless shelter. Some people argued that helping people back on their feet will generate future revenues for the city, so it's worth the $11.5 million. However, if you treat this as a strict business decision, you would see that it's probably a very risky investment with very little chance of positive return. It might be the "right" thing to do, but it's not a good business decision.

A boring and uninspiring leader does not mean he would do nothing. It only means he would not let his "vision" get in the way of making objective business decisions.

The problem is you can't treat running a city just like running a business. This is public office, not a corporation. I agree with cutting waste, but it has to be tied into a long-term vision for the city and continued growth.

 

[archanfel]

The problem is you can't treat running a city just like running a business. This is public office, not a corporation. I agree with cutting waste, but it has to be tied into a long-term vision for the city and continued growth.

I was not the one who brought up the future revenue growth. If you don't believe the city can be run as a business, then don't paint your visions as business decisions.

As I said, the people don't care about long term visions at this point. Especially since such "visions" are tied to ideologies rather than common business sense. The people of Toronto wants the city to provide needed services at a reasonable price. So yes, in some sense, we do consider the city as a service provider and a manager of our money, nothing more. Whether such sentiment is justified or not, I can't say, but it's real and got Ford elected.

 

[Tewder]

Nonsense. There is far more to the mandate of any government than the bottom line, even if we do still expect government to be vigilant of waste and spending etc.

 

[archanfel]

Nonsense. There is far more to the mandate of any government than the bottom line, even if we do still expect government to be vigilant of waste and spending etc.

The mandate is given by the people and the people said we care more about the bottom line now more than some long term visions, unless you believe Ford actually have a long term vision.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I don't disagree that a plurality of the population seems to prefer no-vision over vision. The election results speak for themselves. I think four (or eight) years of no-vision will have sad results for the city, though. What do you think?

 

[grey]

This is one of the most insightful articles I've read regarding the election demographics and how policy is not communicated/interpreted by Red State Toronto:

http://www.eyeweekly.com/city/features/article/105556--a-tale-of-two-torontos

It strongly relates to this thread and I urge everyone to read it.

 

[archanfel]

I don't disagree that a plurality of the population seems to prefer no-vision over vision. The election results speak for themselves. I think four (or eight) years of no-vision will have sad results for the city, though. What do you think?

Depending on the definition of sad. If "sad" means Toronto will not be a leader in the world or less progressive, then I think the results will be "sad". However, I wouldn't shed any tear over that.

In the best case scenario, I think Toronto will have a leaner and meaner government, less progressive, more of a utilitarianism attitude, probably less fun. Culture and arts will suffer, but not necessarily hurt tourism. I am hoping TTC work will continue, but that's a maybe. Bike lanes may not be extended, which is unfortunate. And we will of course have strikes.

Of course, it's quite possible that we will have a hang council and nothing gets done. That's fine with me, but may not sit so well with the rest of the population.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Why are you okay with nothing getting done? Is there nothing in the city you'd like to see change or evolve?

 

[archanfel]

Why are you okay with nothing getting done? Is there nothing in the city you'd like to see change or evolve?

Because I think the chance of a bad change (high taxes, more police officers, etc..) is greater than 50%. There are a lot of things I'd like to see changes. Like abolishing social housing, better transit planning involving drivers, allowing businesses to develop land rather than leaving it empty for 10 years. However, none of them is likely to happen since the council is still overwhelmingly progressive and the province holds all the power. Ford will likely lower some taxes and cut some spending, but I am pretty pessimistic how far a common sense revolution can go in a city like Toronto with a liberal provincial government. That's why I am content with no new net spending for 4 years. If we can get better roads, cleaner streets and lower taxes, that's icing on the cake.

 

[Glen]

Or we could develop it, raise property taxes and generate revenue. This isn't rocket science.

There are a lot of indirect revenues that come from this kind of thing, too.

Yes the city could raise property taxes but as you yourself said....

I don't think it's so much defending the status quo as realizing that no politician is ever going to jack up property taxes enough to allow for lower business taxes.

 

[js97]

This is one of the most insightful articles I've read regarding the election demographics and how policy is not communicated/interpreted by Red State Toronto:

http://www.eyeweekly.com/city/features/article/105556--a-tale-of-two-torontos

It strongly relates to this thread and I urge everyone to read it.

If it takes a poorly written article from a social rag to give you 'insight' into why Ford was voted in.. then you are the one that's out of touch.

"Voters in the Ford wards are also significantly likelier to have dropped out of high school and less likely to have completed university."
Perhaps the writer is one of those drop outs?

Many Ford voters don't think he's the best person for Mayor, but out of the crop that they had to pick from, Ford was the lesser of two evils.


Toronto will be fine, and they will find a more centrist mayor come next election.

 

[cgguy]

If it takes a poorly written article from a social rag to give you 'insight' into why Ford was voted in.. then you are the one that's out of touch.

Toronto will be fine.

Are you sure? The Toronto Star is promising free umbrellas with every new subscription. They're supposed to keep readers safe from the falling sky.

I for one am worried.

 

[syn]

I was not the one who brought up the future revenue growth. If you don't believe the city can be run as a business, then don't paint your visions as business decisions.

As I said, the people don't care about long term visions at this point. Especially since such "visions" are tied to ideologies rather than common business sense.

I wasn't referring to continued growth in an economic sense, but an overall sense. A city is a lot more than just a place where people live and get their garbage collected.

If you're views are common among Ford supporters I really do fear for this city over the next few years.

The people of Toronto wants the city to provide needed services at a reasonable price. So yes, in some sense, we do consider the city as a service provider and a manager of our money, nothing more. Whether such sentiment is justified or not, I can't say, but it's real and got Ford elected.

In many other ways we consider the city much more than just that.

Sadly Ford hasn't even been able to outline how he'll save all this money; his numbers simply don't add up.