News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

toronto.cityhallwatcher.com

The City Hall Watcher interview with Mayor Olivia Chow

City Hall Watcher #260: In a wide-ranging chat, the mayor answers some questions submitted by readers, talking traffic, finance, housing and roller skates for toddlers
toronto.cityhallwatcher.com toronto.cityhallwatcher.com

Matt Elliot - who writes the excellent City Hall Watcher newsletter (I pay for a subscription and would recommend it) - has an interview with Olivia Chow.

Interestingly, congestion was brought up there, and the possibility of asking for payments for construction-related street closures.

I was a little sad that Olivia Chow didn’t mention transit at all in her interview. It seems that she has (correctly) determined that housing is where she will be judged - but it does give me the sense that projects like the Waterfront LRT will remain on the back burner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
allengeorge said:
I was a little sad that Olivia Chow didn’t mention transit at all in her interview. It seems that she has (correctly) determined that housing is where she will be judged - but it does give me the sense that projects like the Waterfront LRT will remain on the back burner.
Click to expand...
Waterfront East LRT is the only way to start to open up the Portlands for new Housing, so I expect it will remain at least on the "middle-burner"...

 
allengeorge said:
I was a little sad that Olivia Chow didn’t mention transit at all in her interview. It seems that she has (correctly) determined that housing is where she will be judged - but it does give me the sense that projects like the Waterfront LRT will remain on the back burner.
Click to expand...
HousingNowTO said:
Waterfront East LRT is the only way to start to open up the Portlands for new Housing, so I expect it will remain at least on the "middle-burner"...

Click to expand...
I think the Portlands is arguably a non-factor for tackling immediate housing needs, and any affordable housing inventory build-out there should be seen more as an inclusionary planning exercise over the medium-to-long term.
 

As was expected. No numbers given, but I truly appreciate the messaging and pragmatism coming from Shelley Carroll. Specifically:

* Acknowledging that some expenses are no longer ‘pandemic-related’, but the new normal
* Acknowledging that the practice of ‘balancing’ contingent of one-time funding from upper levels is misleading
* Stating clearly that the pressure for a new deal has to come from the electorate (true, but good luck with that - people barely understand jurisdictions wrt services, and they definitely don’t for funding)
 
allengeorge said:

As was expected. No numbers given, but I truly appreciate the messaging and pragmatism coming from Shelley Carroll. Specifically:

* Acknowledging that some expenses are no longer ‘pandemic-related’, but the new normal
* Acknowledging that the practice of ‘balancing’ contingent of one-time funding from upper levels is misleading
* Stating clearly that the pressure for a new deal has to come from the electorate (true, but good luck with that - people barely understand jurisdictions wrt services, and they definitely don’t for funding)
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. The CBC piece quotes our favourite skin-flint:

"Coun. Stephen Holyday said the city needs to take a deep look at the services it provides, and that it might be time to cut back."

This is a bit rich from someone who fought for years to keep leaf collection going in his Ward. No doubt there ARE things the City could stop doing but it is long past time where Councillors should be able to get away with these general statements. If someone wants to stop doing something let's hear what they suggest. Then we can have a proper discussion!
 
DSC said:
Agree 100%. The CBC piece quotes our favourite skin-flint:

"Coun. Stephen Holyday said the city needs to take a deep look at the services it provides, and that it might be time to cut back."

This is a bit rich from someone who fought for years to keep leaf collection going in his Ward. No doubt there ARE things the City could stop doing but it is long past time where Councillors should be able to get away with these general statements. If someone wants to stop doing something let's hear what they suggest. Then we can have a proper discussion!
Click to expand...

Holyday is an opportunist.

He says whatever suits the moment and agrees with whatever saves his political skin.
 
DSC said:
Agree 100%. The CBC piece quotes our favourite skin-flint:

"Coun. Stephen Holyday said the city needs to take a deep look at the services it provides, and that it might be time to cut back."

This is a bit rich from someone who fought for years to keep leaf collection going in his Ward. No doubt there ARE things the City could stop doing but it is long past time where Councillors should be able to get away with these general statements. If someone wants to stop doing something let's hear what they suggest. Then we can have a proper discussion!
Click to expand...
Agreed. I’ve excoriated Holyday’s hypocrisy in the forums before.

I am very open the the city stopping certain services, and I agree with you that there needs to be concrete suggestions and discussion of those options (as opposed to generalities).

Of course, the problem with specifics is that when push comes to shove people realize that they love those services that are being proposed for cuts.
 
allengeorge said:
Agreed. I’ve excoriated Holyday’s hypocrisy in the forums before.

I am very open the the city stopping certain services, and I agree with you that there needs to be concrete suggestions and discussion of those options (as opposed to generalities).

Of course, the problem with specifics is that when push comes to shove people realize that they love those services that are being proposed for cuts.
Click to expand...

In the words of PT Barnum.. you can't please all of the people all of the time but you can please some people some of the time.

Every special interest group wants their services protected but at some point cuts need to be made
 
allengeorge said:
Agreed. I’ve excoriated Holyday’s hypocrisy in the forums before.

I am very open the the city stopping certain services, and I agree with you that there needs to be concrete suggestions and discussion of those options (as opposed to generalities).

Of course, the problem with specifics is that when push comes to shove people realize that they love those services that are being proposed for cuts.
Click to expand...
Totally agree and I suspect that in some cases a service may be 'required' but MAYBE it should not be paid for or subsidised by property taxes. I am more than ready to pay higher property tax but an example of something which should be, in my opinion, be looked at is Long Term Care homes. Of course, there should be LTC homes and some (maybe all) should be provided by subsidised by 'the government' but the City spent $93 million subsidising them them last year. Similarly, we paid ca $90 million on child care subsidies. Are these really things that City property owners should pay through a very 'unfair' property tax system?
 
Last edited:
Richard White said:
In the words of PT Barnum.. you can't please all of the people all of the time but you can please some people some of the time.

Every special interest group wants their services protected but at some point cuts need to be made
Click to expand...
How about we return to the marginal tax rates of the middle of the 20th century, when the feds and province could sustainably pay a fair share for municipalities and the growth of the middle class just exploded?

Oh yeah, because rich folks won't get as rich as fast.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top