[salsa]

Here's an excellent overview of the city budget situation.

http://stevemunro.ca/2015/12/03/city-of-toronto-2016-budget-overview/

 

[bobbob911]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ilding-the-city-and-paying-for-it-keenan.html

Is it possible (just possible) that there was some sanity to Tory bringing DMW into the fold? Surely he would have been one of the people jumping up and down raging against this, if not for the fact that Tory now has leverage forcing him to tow the party line.

 

[the lemur]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ilding-the-city-and-paying-for-it-keenan.html

Is it possible (just possible) that there was some sanity to Tory bringing DMW into the fold? Surely he would have been one of the people jumping up and down raging against this, if not for the fact that Tory now has leverage forcing him to tow the party line.

Maybe. It could also be that after the Ford years and the strategies for cost-cutting tried then - KPMG finding virtually nothing to cut, the Chong report, the reluctance of the private sector to cough up cash - DMW is finally coming around to the idea that stuff costs money and we need to find ways to pay for it?

 

[evvabeing]

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/toronto-star/20151203/281831462659715/TextView

 

[bobbob911]

Maybe. It could also be that after the Ford years and the strategies for cost-cutting tried then - KPMG finding virtually nothing to cut, the Chong report, the reluctance of the private sector to cough up cash - DMW is finally coming around to the idea that stuff costs money and we need to find ways to pay for it?

No - I ascribe zero percent chance to that. DMW is far too stubborn and cruel to come around willingly.

 

[salsa]

Maybe. It could also be that after the Ford years and the strategies for cost-cutting tried then - KPMG finding virtually nothing to cut, the Chong report, the reluctance of the private sector to cough up cash - DMW is finally coming around to the idea that stuff costs money and we need to find ways to pay for it?

Best case, long shot scenario: Yes, but is only willing to pay for the most basic and essential city services. In other words...

 

[evvabeing]

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/t...rio-edition/20151203/281681138804314/TextView

 

[evvabeing]

Here's an excellent overview of the city budget situation.

http://stevemunro.ca/2015/12/03/city-of-toronto-2016-budget-overview/

great read... so well explained! and i doubt robbie would understand any of it.

i've also gotta highlight...

In his State of the City address on December 2, 2015, Mayor Tory talked about a new property tax that could generate new revenue to support capital spending.

[…] I will be proposing to City Council that we introduce a modest levy that will start in 2017 as the current Scarborough Subway levy concludes.

This levy would last for just five years, beginning in 2017, and would see Toronto home-owners contributing approximately $13 per year.

For that amount – less than a trip to the movies – we can add tens of millions of dollars per year to the City Building Fund.

And we will be able to pay for transit projects across Toronto, just as we are all working together to help improve transit in Scarborough.

These statements contain very significant errors of fact:

• The Scarborough Subway levy does not “conclude” in 2017. What happens is that in 2016 the rate will top out at 1.6% and it will not rise thereafter. However, the levy is to remain in place for three decades to service the substantial debt Toronto will float to pay its share of the SSE capital cost.
• Tory’s levy would not “last” five years, but would ramp up over five years with a .5% increase annually.
• The average home would contribute $13 in the first year, but this would ramp up to $65 by year five and thereafter. The income, from year five, would be about $70m/year.
• City debt is currently issued for a 20-year term, and each $1-billion of debt would require annual new revenues of about $65m for the life of the debt. A 2.5% tax increase will only scratch the surface of the capital backlog.

For the Mayor to make such blunders in a major address begs the question of whether he or his staff really understand how city finance works, or even worse, if the Tory administration continues the style of its predecessor in understating the true cost and implications of its proposals. Remember how Rob Ford claimed that only a 0.5% tax was needed to fund the Scarborough extension?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd like to see Tory get the TPS budget under control AND reduced before (or alongside) tax increases.

$1.156 billion or 10% of the total city expenditures goes to the TPS. With 7,900 employees (of which 5,200 are sworn officers), that's $146,329 per head (yes, I know that total includes cost of real estate, kit and ops). Surely we can get effective policing for less. For example, let's remove TPS from at least a portion of traffic enforcement and follow Vancouver's model of special constables for most traffic work, where they're paid $23 an hour.

http://vancouver.ca/police/recruiting/traffic-authority/

I am totally fine with tax increases to cover increased investment in the city, but I expect the city to also be looking at the existing expenses, such as TPS.

 

[evvabeing]

why is the parking authority an expense? i would have guessed it generated money for the city.

 

[Videodrome]

Siri Agrell
@SiriAgrell
Me: Did you factcheck that piece? Media outlet: No Any attempt to verify its claims? No So you'll print something acknowledging that? Uh...

This is from a Tory staffer. I bet it about Ford's lies in the National Post.

 

[W. K. Lis]

why is the parking authority an expense? i would have guessed it generated money for the city.

According to this link:

The TPA generates annual gross revenues of over $113 million. There are a total of 37,700 off-street parking spaces in 213 off-street facilities generating close to $68 million annually, plus some 18,600 on-street metered parking spaces generating in excess of $50 million in net income annually.

While 25 per cent of the net income generated by the TPA is retained by the TPA to fund its capital development program, the remaining 75 per cent is transferred to the City of Toronto.

Maybe from the point-of-view of the TPA, transferred 75% of the net income to the city would be considered an expense to the TPA.

 

[rbt]

Maybe from the point-of-view of the TPA, transferred 75% of the net income to the city would be considered an expense to the TPA.

I'm much more interested in how that $80M transferred to the city compares to the appraised value of the land they use. Would that be better or worse than a 5% dividend on invested assets?

We'll stick with just the parking lot land/revenue and leave out the streets themselves.

 

[evvabeing]

According to this link:

Maybe from the point-of-view of the TPA, transferred 75% of the net income to the city would be considered an expense to the TPA.

but it's listed as an $82 million expense to the city.

am i the only one confused by this?

 

[evvabeing]

warning, this is a levy article...

John Tory acting a lot like former mayor David Miller

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/06/john-tory-acting-a-lot-like-former-mayor-david-miller