[Thanos]

Look, I want you to understand that I am passionate about and love this city dearly but I also think it is a crime-ridden hellhole with a dark-red socialist history, a dead economy and very little hope for any future beyond inevitably sinking into the lake.

"crime-ridden hellhole"????? Compared to what city? Please provide examples. Compared to the larger cities in the US? heck no. Compared to the larger cities in Canada? no. Compared to the larger cities in europe? not really.
"a dead economy"???? Toronto's economy has been fairly stable when compared to cities in the US or europe. Again, please provide examples.

Fresh Start, to what eutopian city are you comparing TO?
Income tax issue has nothing to do with TO, i'm not sure if you remember but there are 2 other governments in the picture, they are the federal and provincial governments. If you think you have it bad in ontario move to quebec or the maritimes and then you'll see the news flash.
Property tax is not high in the city when compared to the rest of the country.
The cost of goods???? How on earth can the city control what price you pay for your clothes. There are plenty of lower priced clothing options all around the city.
And it's only normal that your 10$ bill can't get you as much as it did in the 80s, that's 30 years ago.
Where's my grandfather to tell me how he would buy a shirt with a quarter when he was my age.

 

[golodhendil]

^ I'm pretty sure GM is being sarcastic.

 

[Fresh Start]

"Fresh Start, to what eutopian city are you comparing TO?
Income tax issue has nothing to do with TO, i'm not sure if you remember but there are 2 other governments in the picture, they are the federal and provincial governments. If you think you have it bad in ontario move to quebec or the maritimes and then you'll see the news flash.
Property tax is not high in the city when compared to the rest of the country.
The cost of goods???? How on earth can the city control what price you pay for your clothes. There are plenty of lower priced clothing options all around the city.
And it's only normal that your 10$ bill can't get you as much as it did in the 80s, that's 30 years ago.
Where's my grandfather to tell me how he would buy a shirt with a quarter when he was my age.

Based on the comments so far, it's no wonder Toronto is a backwards, parochial place when compared to other world cities. Anyone that dares to put forth anything bold is shot down by the naysayers.

And as usual, people read far too much meaning into the things that I post to the point of insisting that I've made claims that I never did make. In no way did I intentionally mean to suggest that these problems are endemic to Toronto alone or that Toronto (or Canada for that matter) has any lasting control over the economic system due to globalization. I'm just not in denial that the City could be in a lot better shape than it is now. Let's all focus on making a system that WORKS, rather then one that looks "nice" first. If you can make one that looks nice, fine. But right now our transit and road systems do not work that should be our priority. Likewise combatting homelessness in a responsible way, expanding the existing 1000+ bicycle lanes, shared roadways and off-road paths before talk of taking lanes away from emergency vehicles down University Ave., allowing homeowners to act as true homeowners and let them install accessible ramps or cut down their trees if they want to, and other things that signal to the taxpayer that their opinions on issues matter. The municipal government could privatize dozens of public-run service industries, slash taxes and business regulations, and severely ease restrictions on private investment. Implementing free-market-oriented reforms in sectors of the local economy could help to shrink the bureaucracy, and increase the amount of capital available to industry by billions of dollars. This would translate into more people with money to spend as more and more Torontonians emerge from poverty.

 

[Thanos]

I'm not in denial that toronto does have issues it needs to address. The same goes for every city. However, one of the main arguments is that the city is full of crime when in fact it's not.
However, you weren't bringing up issues such as the horrendous public transportation, the crumbling infrastructure, the fact that it takes two decades for any project to start, homelessness, afordable housing, more bicycle lanes. These are issues the city needs to address but your arguments earlier on had nothing to do with the city itself.

 

[nfitz]

However, one of the main arguments is that the city is full of crime when in fact it's not.

I don't think anyone is making that argument.

 

[that_girl_there]

allowing homeowners to act as true homeowners and let them install accessible ramps or cut down their trees if they want to

Now this I'm skeptical about - there is a reason why the city requires permits for so many things that you want to do to your home, including, for example, maintaining a neighbourhood's character. Cutting down mature trees doesn't just affect the homeowner, it affects neighbours who benefit from the shade and the overall character of a community which, as is often the case in Toronto, can be defined by having expansive tree cover. I have a couple of neighbours who have taken down trees to the detriment of my enjoyment of my backyard.

Libertarianism really only works if your actions have no negative impact on the people around you. When you live in the city...that's pretty much never the case.

 

[kettal]

Tree preservation laws exist for a reason, and that reason is that our democratic society values them.

 

[GraphicMatt]

These sorts of bylaws are fairly common across other municipalities as well, especially in wealthier suburban communities.

But then I guess that's just more proof that the socialist elites are everywhere these days.

 

[fouronesix]

Based on the comments so far, it's no wonder Toronto is a backwards, parochial place when compared to other world cities. Anyone that dares to put forth anything bold is shot down by the naysayers.

And as usual, people read far too much meaning into the things that I post to the point of insisting that I've made claims that I never did make. In no way did I intentionally mean to suggest that these problems are endemic to Toronto alone or that Toronto (or Canada for that matter) has any lasting control over the economic system due to globalization. I'm just not in denial that the City could be in a lot better shape than it is now. Let's all focus on making a system that WORKS, rather then one that looks "nice" first. If you can make one that looks nice, fine. But right now our transit and road systems do not work that should be our priority. Likewise combatting homelessness in a responsible way, expanding the existing 1000+ bicycle lanes, shared roadways and off-road paths before talk of taking lanes away from emergency vehicles down University Ave., allowing homeowners to act as true homeowners and let them install accessible ramps or cut down their trees if they want to, and other things that signal to the taxpayer that their opinions on issues matter. The municipal government could privatize dozens of public-run service industries, slash taxes and business regulations, and severely ease restrictions on private investment. Implementing free-market-oriented reforms in sectors of the local economy could help to shrink the bureaucracy, and increase the amount of capital available to industry by billions of dollars. This would translate into more people with money to spend as more and more Torontonians emerge from poverty.

Let me preface this by saying that I do not think that the city is currently in a perfect, ideal state. Nevertheless, after reading several of your posts, I have to say Fresh Start, that you are full of shit. On the one hand you do nothing more than make vague allusions to the decrepit state of the city, all caused solely by Miller et al. On the other hand you make vague allusions to 'solutions' that express little grounding in reality, or little knowlede of government responsiblity.

Just so I'm not accused of 'reading too much into your post' I'll simply ask you to expand on your policy proposals.

1) How would you combat homelessness in a more responsible way than the current administration has? What has been irresponsible about the current administrations overall homlessness policy?
2) How would you 'expand the exisiting 1000+ bicycle lanes' without taking away lanes from cars or otherwise reallocating road space?
3) Please list a dozen arms-length municipal corporations that could be privatized.
4) Please list the business regulations and restirictions on private investment that the City of Toronto can eliminate so as to free up billlions in capital for the private sector.

Lastly, so far the only 'bold' position you've dared to put forward with any specificity is reducing or eliminating councillor expense budgets . In general, you spout misinformed, vague, or contradictory positions. Its opinions like yours that make Toronto a backwards, parochial place.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I increasingly appreciate the school of thought that argument is pointless. A real tragedy is not the position of socialist elites or the populist right-wing, it is a city where the positive and vital contributions initiatives by such groups make are stifled. The greatest defeat a political movement can inflict on the population is to win too much support.

 

[Fresh Start]

Now this I'm skeptical about - there is a reason why the city requires permits for so many things that you want to do to your home, including, for example, maintaining a neighbourhood's character. Cutting down mature trees doesn't just affect the homeowner, it affects neighbours who benefit from the shade and the overall character of a community which, as is often the case in Toronto, can be defined by having expansive tree cover. I have a couple of neighbours who have taken down trees to the detriment of my enjoyment of my backyard.

Libertarianism really only works if your actions have no negative impact on the people around you. When you live in the city...that's pretty much never the case.

Excuse me? Are you in any way helping your neighbour in the cost and upkeep of those trees? Many people who want to build backyard sheds or pools, or prevent overhanging limbs from crashing into a roof, have their hands tied by bureaucratic red tape and busybody elements of the community. If a tree in your property during a storm damages your neighbour’s uninsured property, who is liable?

 

[Fresh Start]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not think that the city is currently in a perfect, ideal state. Nevertheless, after reading several of your posts, I have to say Fresh Start, that you are full of shit. On the one hand you do nothing more than make vague allusions to the decrepit state of the city, all caused solely by Miller et al. On the other hand you make vague allusions to 'solutions' that express little grounding in reality, or little knowlede of government responsiblity.
Just so I'm not accused of 'reading too much into your post' I'll simply ask you to expand on your policy proposals.
1) How would you... Please list...

Do not insult my intelligence! I’m not obliged to answer to you on a damn thing, and even if I did, you’d twist my arguments and find contradictory bogus studies that appear on the surface to be neutral but really have underlying corporate/political agendas. That’s what happens every time the citizenry presses the system for answers, we get stonewalled and censored. Why don’t you go press City Hall for the answers on any issue area, citing the Freedom of Information Act and see what type of response you’ll get.

If other cities in advanced industrialized societies can make the proposals that I’m suggesting work, so too can Toronto. You should see what City of Vancouver aims to accomplish with a measly $961 million operating budget this year. Let’s compare high tax/high spend Californian cities like Los Angeles to other states, such as Texas, which offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. Which do the people prefer?

“One way to assess how Americans feel about the different tax and benefit packages the states offer is by examining internal U.S. migration patterns. Between April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau. Over the same period, Texas had a net weekly population increase of 1,544 as a result of people moving in from other states. During these years, more generally, 16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/01/opinion/oe-voegli1

Lastly, so far the only 'bold' position you've dared to put forward with any specificity is reducing or eliminating councillor expense budgets . In general, you spout misinformed, vague, or contradictory positions. Its opinions like yours that make Toronto a backwards, parochial place.

By opposing my views, you're only siding with the ethically bankrupt status quo. Only a true leftist would view a tax as an opportunity and a prerequisite for success. Do you not notice that businesses are continuing to move from high tax Toronto to the 905? The economy is not growing but shrinking as the private sector is dying. The city needs to limit wage increases to inflation and eliminate egregious benefits like accumulated sick leave. Until they do that, any requests for even more tax money cannot be taken seriously.

Read this list of top City executives' salaries from 2008 and weep!

• Toronto City Manager Shirley Hoy has an annual salary of $322,128 plus benefits worth $9,079.00
• TTC chief general manager Gary Webster earned $273,735 with benefits of $13,731
• Police Chief Bill Blair earned $270,052 with a benefits package of $1,480
• Toronto Chief Financial Officer Joe Pennachetti earned $244,897 in salary and $13,309 in benefits
• Medical Officer of Health David McKeown earned $225,801 in salary and $9,787 in benefits
• Deputy City Manager Susan Corke earned $225,595 in salary and $11,735 in benefits
• Toronto Zoo CEO, Calvin White earned $208,963.86
• Toronto Library, City Librarian, Josephine Bryant earned $195,743.10
• Director of Transportation, Gary Welsh earned $176,051.85
• St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, General Manager, James Roe earned $145,924.79

When you artificially subsidize services, you create a situation where people make poor economic choices. Outsource the work to the private sector and marvel at how efficiently things can get done within budget, on time, and with accountability to the taxpayer and to the customers/clients of the respective services.

Quit using taxes as a form of social-engineering.

 

[fouronesix]

The article you provided is interesting. It does seem to suggest a correlation between lower taxes and positive net migration. The problem with some guy pulling numbers from the Census Bureau is that this is not statisitcal analysis. While there may indeed be an association between lower taxes and positive net migration, there could be other variables that are more strongly associated with positive net migration.

As for the point that 'business is leaving the city', this is in part true. I suspect that this decision is not based solely on taxes. Firstly, to be more accurate, business is growing at a slower rate in the city than in the suburbs. Secondly, the figures I've seen cited are not absolute rates but percentage rates. Assuming that the city is starting from a much greater baseline, that the suburbs have experienced greater relative growth should be expected, and if it had not would have meant that the suburbs stayed as 'bed-room communities'. Secondly, a number of factors could come into play in the locational decisions of new businesses. These could include the cost of land, access to transportation networks, and location of similar firms, if the business is horizontally integrated. Any of these factors could make a suburban location more attractive for a firm. Even if taxes do play a significant role in stifling business creation in Toronto, the rate of commercial tax has been decreasing under Miller.

As for the pay of city executives, I would suggest that they are compensated at or below a level of their equivalent in the private sector. Imagining the city as $9 billion private corporation, I do not think it is unreasonable that its executives make between $100,000 and $350,000 a year. Furthermore, although you didn't directly mention it, there is a complaint that the proportion of the city budget devoted to salaries, something like 80%, is far too high. Again, I would suspect that many private corporations, except those with a high level of automation in manufacturing, have a similar proportion of their budget devoted to salaries. Perhaps the only comparative disadvantage of the city with regards to its labour force is that it is relatively inflexible due to the high level of unionisation. Whereas non-unionized private corporations can downsize their labour force with relative ease should economic conditions call for it, this is much more difficult for the city to accomplish.

 

[Glen]

. Secondly, a number of factors could come into play in the locational decisions of new businesses. These could include the cost of land, access to transportation networks, and location of similar firms, if the business is horizontally integrated. Any of these factors could make a suburban location more attractive for a firm.

In every factor you listed Toronto has an advantage. In Toronto commercial land is cheaper, has better access to transportation and has a higher commercial agglomeration. Yet the city has stagnated commercially. As far as the program to lower taxes, it amounts to doing as little as possible over as long a period of time as possible. Moving taxes from preposterously high too ridiculously high is not a solution. It is optics.

 

[fouronesix]

In every factor you listed Toronto has an advantage. In Toronto commercial land is cheaper, has better access to transportation and has a higher commercial agglomeration. Yet the city has stagnated commercially. As far as the program to lower taxes, it amounts to doing as little as possible over as long a period of time as possible. Moving taxes from preposterously high too ridiculously high is not a solution. It is optics.

Glen, I'd agree with you that commercial property taxes should continue to decrease, but I question some of your other assertions. Due to land availability, I would assume that the average price of commercial land is higher in toronto than in the surrounding suburbs, although I may be wrong should you have numbers that indicate otherwise. Secondly, while Toronto does have a more complete multi-modal transportation network which is good for moving workers, the majority of major transportation networks for goods are located at or near the suburbs, and this is the access to transportation that I was referrring to. And while Toronto's CBD is certainly the greatest agglomeration, the costs of commercial operation here, taxes excluded, are probably the highest.

I guess my arguement assumed that the greatest gains in employment in the suburbs were a result of industry moving out of toronto (affected by cost of land, new industrial agglomerations, and access to transportation networks) and satellite offices of major firms being established (low office vacancy, higher cost of land in CBD).

My main point is tax is one of many factors that are taken into locational decisions, and that the tax rate may not be the greatest factor.