[King of Kensington]

Very good analysis, Simon.

 

[Glen]

I'll take it a step further ... did you even read the report Glen ......

The majority of the recommendations take a left wing approach - invest in neighborhoods / more social programs / help youth ... there's merely one recommendation for more jobs - moreover, it's more a long the lines of making it eaiser for these people to get jobs - not necessarily creating a lot more jobs.

There's no perfect fix for this - creating jobs (and not the type your thinking of) is likely only one small part of the fix.

While this is definitely an issue - and it's occurring throughout North America - the whole argument for more job growth in the outer 416 isn't the be all and end all - frankly, again, more jobs (high pay jobs) will likely only create more denser pockets of these areas or have them move into the 905.

I definitely see a huge issue in the lack of job growth in the outer 416 - but I don't think these two issues go hand in hand, this would / will occur either way unless other approaches are taken.

I pointed to them because of the findings, not recommendations. But yes, I have read the reports. I have also discussed with Dr. Golden about them. The reason being is that I disagreed about the long term benefits of the proposed solutions, and the underlying cause. It was not a radical change in immigrant demographics nor numbers that increased poverty in Toronto, the same factors were innocuous in the surrounding GTA, it was employment levels and types. The stats used in the report were from 1991 to 2001. Canada, Ontario, and the rest of the GTA was growing during this period. Toronto was not. See page 12 here.

As noted in the recent TD report .......

The last two bullets reference the particular struggles of
the City of Toronto (the 416 area) relative to the suburban
905 area code warrants some further attention. Notably, the
plentiful supply of economic data encompassing the broader
Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) conceals the
widening disparity between the City and its neighbouring
suburbs. In fact, in the early part of the decade, the City was
only one of two major Canadian municipalities (the other
being Windsor) to suffer a decline in median income.

While I do not have any delusions of Toronto being able to combat the effects of global trends or mercantilism, the city can do something about the factors that it does control. Enough with the excuses already, what was happening in Toronto while this was happening across its northern border..........

was Toronto being effected by a global slump or NAFTA while its neighbours were immune?

 

[js97]

Clearly Miller was a lot more left leaning - and likely did a lot more for homeless and the extermely poor then Ford will ever do.

That kind of rhetoric is so unfounded.
Ford has a TCHC in his ward and he actually goes in and visits the residents.
The guy isn't even been sworn in yet!

That's the type of rhetoric that swings centrist voters right to the arms of ford.

Rediculous!

 

[urbandreamer]

Er, pretty obvious what's been happening.

1)Successful immigrants for the most part, and young (born and bred) Canadian families, have mostly moved to the suburbs, a new house etc.

2)B&B affluent singles are moving to condos in Toronto, while mostly fob immigrants with little money are moving to rental and public housing in Toronto.

3)The kids of first generation c.1960s-1980s Toronto immigrants are mostly moving to the 'burbs--Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Markham, Brampton, Milton etc. Folks move to where their family is located.

4)NAFTA, high Canadian dollar, etc killed off much of the industry that made Toronto what it is today; replaced by condos (LV area, all those loft conversions) with only crappy retail jobs replacing decent paying industrial/factory jobs.

So there's really nothing wrong with what the city is doing; just a basic supply/demand equation.

 

[taal]

I pointed to them because of the findings, not recommendations. But yes, I have read the reports. I have also discussed with Dr. Golden about them. The reason being is that I disagreed about the long term benefits of the proposed solutions, and the underlying cause. ...

I think you know I completely agree with you ... what I was questioning was the direct link with poverty in the city - while some can be attributed to the lack of job growth I think there are a lot of other factors at play here - and simply new office towers with medium - high paying jobs isn't going to resolve that for them.

 

[taal]

Er, pretty obvious what's been happening.

1)Successful immigrants for the most part, and young (born and bred) Canadian families, have mostly moved to the suburbs, a new house etc.

2)B&B affluent singles are moving to condos in Toronto, while mostly fob immigrants with little money are moving to rental and public housing in Toronto.

3)The kids of first generation c.1960s-1980s Toronto immigrants are mostly moving to the 'burbs--Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Markham, Brampton, Milton etc. Folks move to where their family is located.



4)NAFTA, high Canadian dollar, etc killed off much of the industry that made Toronto what it is today; replaced by condos (LV area, all those loft conversions) with only crappy retail jobs replacing decent paying industrial/factory jobs.

So there's really nothing wrong with what the city is doing; just a basic supply/demand equation.

Why little to any office development anywhere north of downtown ? While moving a little north of steeles up to Hi-way 7 - quite a few offices have been built - a similar argument can be made to other areas and their respective 905 counterparts.

Is it solely attributed to where people have been moving - that is the 905 and jobs are attempting to locate where they live ? That's a fair argument to make.

Or is it the commerical tax rate?

It may be many combination of factors - I do wonder, say taxes, starting tomorrow, were 100% equalized in every sense of word ... would we start seeing office development in the outer 416 - or are many other factors still proving to be barriers.

In which case this whole cause to lower tax rates may only be one part of a very large picture.

 

[MisterF]

These results go to show why amalgamation was a bad idea. No matter who wins, a significant portion of the city will always be unhappy. That's Mike Harris's legacy.

That kind of rhetoric is so unfounded.
Ford has a TCHC in his ward and he actually goes in and visits the residents.
The guy isn't even been sworn in yet!

That's the type of rhetoric that swings centrist voters right to the arms of ford.

Rediculous!

You do realize that this is the same guy who said it was an insult to his constituents to even think about putting a homeless shelter in his ward, right? I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty close to his exact words.

 

[Red Mosquito]

A poll by poll map. Its even more telling.

http://www.patrickcain.ca/?p=329

Can we de-amalgamate?

 

[nfitz]

was Toronto being effected by a global slump or NAFTA while its neighbours were immune?

You show York Employment numbers but not Toronto. Hardly a fair comparison, given that York is still expanding and Toronto is pretty much built out. But at the same time, from January 1998 to January 2001, Toronto Employment increased from about 1,150,000 to 1,240,000; and has since grown to 1,330,000. If you put Toronto Employment on the same graph, it would make Vaughan look about half the height King is!

 

[Glen]

You show York Employment numbers but not Toronto. Hardly a fair comparison, given that York is still expanding and Toronto is pretty much built out. But at the same time, from January 1998 to January 2001, Toronto Employment increased from about 1,150,000 to 1,240,000; and has since grown to 1,330,000. If you put Toronto Employment on the same graph, it would make Vaughan look about half the height King is!

Yes I did. As noted page 12 here.............

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pofedp2rpt/cl001.pdf

In 1989, total employment in the City of Toronto peaked at almost 1.5 million workers.
Since that time, employment in the city has at best languished. In fact, it is estimated that
100,000 fewer people work today in the City of Toronto than fifteen years ago. In
contrast, employment in the rapidly growing suburbs around Toronto has increased
significantly over this period. In the last 15 years, 800,000 new jobs have been created in
the rest of the Toronto CMA (905 area).
In 2002, the 905 area became a net importer of labour from Toronto and the rest of
Ontario. In 2003, the 905 area finally surpassed the City of Toronto in terms of total
employment. Already in 2001, more City residents commuted to jobs in Vaughan, than
Vaughan residents worked in the City.

PS. the time span is large enough to avoid the cherry pcking you did. PS

 

[taal]

Glen do you think property taxes (and the like i.e. development fees ... so on) are the only issue though ? - and if that were solved we'd suddenly see more jobs in the outer 416 ?

 

[nfitz]

Yes I did. As noted page 12 here.............

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pofedp2rpt/cl001.pdf

You didn't reference that document in the post I replied to.

And I'm not sure your point there; this document only goes up to 2004. Employment did peak at about 1.34 million in late 1989, and then dropped to about 1.1 million in 1997. However employment has been steadily growing since 1997, with an amazingly small drop during the recent recession. By 2004 it had recovered to about 1.26 million, almost 100,000 below; and it peaked at about 1.36 million in early 2009, before moving to the current 1.33 million.

The steady increase in employment since 1997 indicates that if there was a structural problem, it was solved near the end of the last century.

I'm not sure why you are trying to solve yesterday's problem, today.

PS. the time span is large enough to avoid the cherry pcking you did. PS

How you can possibly accuse me of cherry picking, when you have the gall to only examine the first 7 of the last 20 years is beyond me, and then select to use 6-year old employment data to make your point.

I really don't know what your agenda here is, but the cherry picking you do to prove your 100% wrong points is obscene.

 

[BobBob]

Glen, don't you have other threads for your tax thing? This one's title suggests a different topic.

 

[Glen]

You didn't reference that document in the post I replied to.

Check again.

And I'm not sure your point there; this document only goes up to 2004. Employment did peak at about 1.34 million in late 1989, and then dropped to about 1.1 million in 1997. However employment has been steadily growing since 1997, with an amazingly small drop during the recent recession. By 2004 it had recovered to about 1.26 million, almost 100,000 below; and it peaked at about 1.36 million in early 2009, before moving to the current 1.33 million.

Toronto has yet to match it's 1989 level of employment. Keep in mind that even if it did, that does not take into account population growth. If Toronto had the same number of jobs as 1989 the unemployment level would still be a lot higher.

The steady increase in employment since 1997 indicates that if there was a structural problem, it was solved near the end of the last century.

I'm not sure why you are trying to solve yesterday's problem, today.

http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/survey2009.pdf
Now compare that to global/national/regional trends.

How you can possibly accuse me of cherry picking, when you have the gall to only examine the first 7 of the last 20 years is beyond me, and then select to use 6-year old employment data to make your point.

I used the time frame in the United-Way reports. If you don't like them take it up with them.


Bob,

Sorry I was trying to relate this to poverty and the economic decline in the majority of areas that had large support for Rob Ford.

 

[nfitz]

Toronto has yet to match it's 1989 level of employment.

Yes it did, as I noted above, the peak was in early 2009, slightly above the 1989 level.

Keep in mind that even if it did, that does not take into account population growth. If Toronto had the same number of jobs as 1989 the unemployment level would still be a lot higher.

You haven't taken into account the large increase in 905 jobs, with Torontonians commuting to 905.

The simple story is that since 1997 there has been a very steady growth in jobs in Toronto to a level higher than ever observed in history; with very little fall back during the recession.




http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/survey2009.pdf
Now compare that to global/national/regional trends.


I used the time frame in the United-Way reports. If you don't like them take it up with them.


Bob,

Sorry I was trying to relate this to poverty and the economic decline in the majority of areas that had large support for Rob Ford.