News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

EddyMCD said:
I'm sure the Toronto Liberal MPs want to provide the bailout. But I think optically the Liberals don't want to be seen nationally as "catering" to Toronto and giving them favors. Even though we all know they should be based on the disproportionate amount of taxes Toronto generates for the country.
Click to expand...

The only fig leaf required is to provide funds for sheltering refugees/asylum seekers to every jurisdiction on a per person being sheltered basis; that's not an unfair ask, and no other jurisdiction will object.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
The only fig leaf required is to provide funds for sheltering refugees/asylum seekers to every jurisdiction on per person being sheltered basis; that's not an unfair ask, and no other jurisdiction will object.
Click to expand...
I dont think anyone would object to providing funding for asylum capacity, Its just that the funding required across all jurisdictions is way more than the feds can provide.
from quebec city to vancouver to peel region. They all need hundreds of millions in funding
 
generalcanada said:
I dont think anyone would object to providing funding for asylum capacity, Its just that the funding required across all jurisdictions is way more than the feds can provide.
from quebec city to vancouver to peel region. They all need hundreds of millions in funding
Click to expand...

That is well within Ottawa's capacity to provide. Its not even a rounding error on a budget of ~350B per year.
 
Toronto (I assume GTA) gets about 40% of Canada's immigrants a year, so napkin math suggests giving the City of Toronto $250M would be a commitment of about $1.25B across the country if you extended it proportionately.

They could take it out of the $13B earmarked for Volkswagen, if there's anything left after making Via fast and efficient, and ending homelessness.
 
One of the problems with this Federal government is that they love to make cute little announcements/commitments, but when it comes down to getting money out of the door and spending it takes them eons to actually do it because they're out in la la land daydreaming.

So assuming they actually pony up money and commit, another thing to watch would be how slowly *I mean "quickly"* they would funnel the money to the city.
 
Amare said:
One of the problems with this Federal government is that they love to make cute little announcements/commitments, but when it comes down to getting money out of the door and spending it takes them eons to actually do it because they're out in la la land daydreaming.

So assuming they actually pony up money and commit, another thing to watch would be how slowly *I mean "quickly"* they would funnel the money to the city.
Click to expand...

The lapsed time on some Federally designed infrastructure grant programs the City has applied to in the not so distance past, suggest a lapse time of up to 2 years to get approval to spend/money in hand.

We're not talking complicated projects here either.
 
"Quebec will get $100 million of that new money, he said Wednesday at a hastily organized news conference outside the House of Commons."

Since Ontario receives probably 3 times as many immigrants as Quebec, I guess that means $300M to Ontario, leaving -$40 for the rest of the country?
 
evandyk said:
"Quebec will get $100 million of that new money, he said Wednesday at a hastily organized news conference outside the House of Commons."

Since Ontario receives probably 3 times as many immigrants as Quebec, I guess that means $300M to Ontario, leaving -$40 for the rest of the country?
Click to expand...
"Immigrants" are different from "Refugees" (Or "Refugee Claimants") This money is for Refugee Claimants"
 
DSC said:
"Immigrants" are different from "Refugees" (Or "Refugee Claimants") This money is for Refugee Claimants"
Click to expand...
You're right, I hadn't drawn that distinction. I wonder if there's a meaningful difference in terms of the proportion that goes to different provinces/cities.
 
christiesplits said:
Chow will lower the tax increase to 9.5%, as per David Rider at The Star.

www.thestar.com

Mayor Olivia Chow lowers budget tax hike to 9.5 per cent

The mayor will on Thursday propose a property tax hike of 9.5 per cent this year – one per cent less than earlier recommended by city staff on Jan. 10.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...

From the same piece, we also see that the multi-residential class will see a rate hike of 3.5% instead of 4.5% to prevent triggering Above-Guideline Increases by landlords.
 
Northern Light said:
From the same piece, we also see that the multi-residential class will see a rate hike of 3.5% instead of 4.5% to prevent triggering Above-Guideline Increases by landlords.
Click to expand...
It's interesting. Most people who are in rent-controlled units pay significantly below market rate (as they should), and might be the ones who could afford a little more. There's nothing that protects those in the post-2018 built units, who, logically, would be the ones already paying the most, and likely have even higher increases going forward.
 
toaster29 said:
It's interesting. Most people who are in rent-controlled units pay significantly below market rate (as they should), and might be the ones who could afford a little more. There's nothing that protects those in the post-2018 built units, who, logically, would be the ones already paying the most, and likely have even higher increases going forward.
Click to expand...

Fair point; though, landlords have far less motivation to drive up a rent that is or is at the cusp of market pricing vs a long term tenant paying 50% of market.

Either way, the City, currently, has no mechanism for protecting post-2018 tenants, so they're making the only move open to them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top