[allabootmatt]

This is something I have been thinking about: while I think David Miller will probably be remembered as a good mayor in the fullness of time, clearly this year's (mayoral) election result suggests that he made some serious mistakes. There is an element of economic insecurity that drove the Ford base, but I think it is clear that Miller really upset a lot of people--so much so that they made what appears to have been a very radical choice for his successor. While poor communication of accomplishments was clearly an issue, I don't think that was the whole story of why the Miller years ended as they did.

As Toronto's left and centre rebuild from this defeat, how do we avoid this, and rebuild a coalition that can deliver the mayor's office? Any ideas? I will contribute my own thoughts once the (undoubtedly excellent) discussion gets going.

 

[Glen]

Why is the 'centre' always lumped with the left? It is a spectrum. The right and the left will both overlap into the centre. The right-cente can equally claim victory as can the left-centre can claim a loss.

 

[Blovertis]

One lesson and one only:

If you're a lefty, you have to walk that extra mile to stand up to the unions (or at least be perceived to be doing so).

If Miller had shown more backbone during the garbage strike, he'd still be mayor. simple as that.

 

[uptownto]

I feel strongly that the optics surrounding some of the new taxes enabled from the "City of Toronto Act" weren't good. Land Transfer Tax, Vehicle Registration Tax, 5c plastic bag tax, etc.

Rationally, one could argue that even if a Toronto resident adds up what they pay on these taxes + water + property tax, they are still likely better off than their 905 brethren (per assessed dollar of property), average people wouldn't see it that way. They would see that we never needed these before to run the city and now these combined with some unfortunately timed events (i.e. Rae's retirement party, garbage strike, sick days) made a pretty strong case for "waste" which Ford capitalized on.

Another thing that didn't help was that these taxes were subjected almost exclusively to residents of the city. If you have a car and a Toronto street address, you pay. You buy a house in Toronto, you pay. And sellers with houses in Toronto also pay (as the tax would have to be priced into the house price which somewhat impacts their equity). And most importantly, Residents of Toronto = Voters of Toronto.

Going forward a better approach that wouldn't raise the ire of the people is if there is a budget shortfall, simply raise the property taxes as needed. Don't create new visible taxes to supplement. Because if you have to explain it, you have already failed.

Any new taxes/fees to be created should target general users of the city and should go to a specific goal/project, not general coffers so that something tangible could be seen from it. For example taxing big events or attractions that are unique to Toronto you get to broaden the tax base to include people living outside Toronto and tourists, not just residents. Off the top of my head, Leafs, Raptors, Jays, big concerts, major theater productions, special exhibits at the ROM/AGO, CNE, and so on.

 

[js97]

I feel strongly that the optics surrounding some of the new taxes enabled from the "City of Toronto Act" weren't good. Land Transfer Tax, Vehicle Registration Tax, 5c plastic bag tax, etc.

Rationally, one could argue that even if a Toronto resident adds up what they pay on these taxes + water + property tax, they are still likely better off than their 905 brethren (per assessed dollar of property), average people wouldn't see it that way. They would see that we never needed these before to run the city and now these combined with some unfortunately timed events (i.e. Rae's retirement party, garbage strike, sick days) made a pretty strong case for "waste" which Ford capitalized on.

Another thing that didn't help was that these taxes were subjected almost exclusively to residents of the city. If you have a car and a Toronto street address, you pay. You buy a house in Toronto, you pay. And sellers with houses in Toronto also pay (as the tax would have to be priced into the house price which somewhat impacts their equity). And most importantly, Residents of Toronto = Voters of Toronto.

Going forward a better approach that wouldn't raise the ire of the people is if there is a budget shortfall, simply raise the property taxes as needed. Don't create new visible taxes to supplement. Because if you have to explain it, you have already failed.

Any new taxes/fees to be created should target general users of the city and should go to a specific goal/project, not general coffers so that something tangible could be seen from it. For example taxing big events or attractions that are unique to Toronto you get to broaden the tax base to include people living outside Toronto and tourists, not just residents. Off the top of my head, Leafs, Raptors, Jays, big concerts, major theater productions, special exhibits at the ROM/AGO, CNE, and so on.

True in some sense, absolutely.

The other problem is that while these new taxes have been created, property taxes still went up 4%, 2.9%, and during those times, inflation was at a minimal, if non existence. Toronto also managed to increase water utility bills by 30%, and have under the Miller plan go up 9% annually, garbage fees anywhere from 150 to 250 a year. So it wasn't just simply these two taxes. substantial fees where levied in the Miller years that where never seen in previous administrations.

Those that own property prior to 2002 can testify to the exponential increase in city spending and taxation once Miller came into power.

 

[PubCrawl]

People saw an "exponential" increase in their taxes under Miller because tax rates had been irresponsibly frozen under Mel Lastman. Unfortunately, people say they want fiscal responsibility but they don't like what that looks like on their tax bills.

Miller's team absolutely was poor on the communications front. Rather than addressing minor (or major) concerns when they first arose, they let the media blow them up into 'disasters' before responding. They always seemed to be letting their opponents frame the issues and were rarely out in front. Basically I think some of his people were too smart for their own good -- they seemed incapable of breaking things down into simple declarative sentences for people who weren't policy wonks.

 

[GraphicMatt]

PubCrawl is bang on with the big problem being communication. The administration was awful at communicating the work they were doing, to the point where this "taxes went up and services got worse!" thing became a mantra. (Miller's biggest specific failure, in my opinion, was letting the Toronto Star (almost inexplicably) turn against him.)

 

[js97]

I can't see how Lastman was irresponsible, he maintained the status quo, and ran a really lean shop. Budgeted within the means of the city.

The problem was that Miller simply expanded spending too fast compared to the rest of the economy.

THe budget went from 6.2 billion to 9.2 billion (operating) That's a rate of over 6% annually, COMPOUNDED. During the same time, inflation and interest rates where record lows. The capital debt also went from 1.2 to almost 3 billion dollars.

At the end of it, Miller grew the budget too much too fast, you don't need to be a policy wonk to figure that out.

-We had our garbage pickup cut from weekly to twice a week, yet we have new fees to pay for them (but fancy new bins to hold them)
- we now have to pay user fees to use recreational facilities, where as before we did not.
- TTC prices have skyrocketed, yet service is quite frankly much worst (a result of capacity, but also poor management at the board)

Those are the optics for Torontonians.

It's a simple choice.

 

[GraphicMatt]

It's all about how you look at it (ie. how it's communicated). Yes, garbage pick-up is less frequent (but green bin service more than makes up for it, in my opinion) but the program is now completely sustainable in the long-term, so much so that garbage was not an issue at all during this election season. Similarly, TTC fares have increased, yes, but service levels are higher than they've been in decades and ridership at an all-time high. If service is 'worse' it's because of overcrowding. If service was 'better' under Lastman it's because ridership was lower.

 

[Glen]

People saw an "exponential" increase in their taxes under Miller because tax rates had been irresponsibly frozen under Mel Lastman. Unfortunately, people say they want fiscal responsibility but they don't like what that looks like on their tax bills.

Miller's team absolutely was poor on the communications front. Rather than addressing minor (or major) concerns when they first arose, they let the media blow them up into 'disasters' before responding. They always seemed to be letting their opponents frame the issues and were rarely out in front. Basically I think some of his people were too smart for their own good -- they seemed incapable of breaking things down into simple declarative sentences for people who weren't policy wonks.

You must look at revenue and expenses together. If a tax freeze is combined with a spending freeze it nets out. If a small tax increase is combined with a larger spending increase we are worse off. It is revenue-expenses, not revenue alone that determines fiscal responsibility.

 

[PubCrawl]

Mel Lastman did not have a spending freeze -- he dug deep into City reserves to cover the shortfall from his tax policy. Guess what? Running a city worth living in requires spending. Cutting spending to the point where you are no longer providing good services is not good governance or fiscally responsible. Toronto's problem is not that it is providing too much service -- it's that people shriek like small children when they are asked to pay their share of living in a civil society.

Given that 60% or more of the City's budget is non-discretionary I would be fascinated to know what cuts to spending Glen would suggest. Personally, I would like to shave a few hundred million off the police budget but I think we can all agree that would be political suicide if it were even possible.

 

[old boy]

People saw an "exponential" increase in their taxes under Miller because tax rates had been irresponsibly frozen under Mel Lastman. Unfortunately, people say they want fiscal responsibility but they don't like what that looks like on their tax bills.

Miller's team absolutely was poor on the communications front. Rather than addressing minor (or major) concerns when they first arose, they let the media blow them up into 'disasters' before responding. They always seemed to be letting their opponents frame the issues and were rarely out in front. Basically I think some of his people were too smart for their own good -- they seemed incapable of breaking things down into simple declarative sentences for people who weren't policy wonks.

Failing on the communication side and, at the same time, standing, unheroically, against the groundswelling, puerile anger represented by the Fordasaurs doomed the Smitherman as well. Too smart ?

 

[Roy G Biv]

Budgeted within the means of the city.

A city can control its revenues through taxation, so what exactly does your comment mean? Nothing.

 

[js97]

A city can control its revenues through taxation, so what exactly does your comment mean? Nothing.

It means that a report released by the city stated the need to raise property taxes anywhere from 10- to 12% annually for the next four years, to sustain our budget (without provincial funding)
Yes, the city can raise taxes, but how many councillors are willing to approve these increases? (Paula Flectcher?, Gord Perks?) Maybe the papers should ask them, I bet you non of them will go on record to doing it.

When your'e unwilling, or can't increase that revenue stream, but disregard the expenditure side of the equation, then yes, you are budgeting beyond your means.

This includes a city that's budgeting with a 250m deficit and 'hopes' different levels of goverment will bail them out is not budgeting within it's means.

One can argue semantics and philosophy as much as they want, but from a financial planning standpoint, the uncertainty of how the city will meet that gap, is poor planning.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Miller's other big mistake: consistently releasing numbers projecting budget holes in an effort to guilt the province into restoring funding/service levels to pre-Harris levels. It didn't work, and it gave people the idea that the city is 'bankrupt.'