[allabootmatt]

This thread goes somewhat off of the earlier 'We HATE Toronto' thread, a bit off of the Toronto-as-province discussions, and other influences. Basically, I find that in lots of fora--electronic and not--lots of Torontonians and indeed other Canadians seem to harbour an out-of-all-proportions hatred for David Miller. I confess I don't get it. Our present mayor is far from perfect, but I think on the whole he has done a thoroughly decent job. I can certainly see how lots of folks might disagree with some of his choices, but there is a level of venom in much of the criticism that I find perplexing.

I have been thinking about this for a while, and wanted to see what others on the forum thought. What's the source of 'Miller Derangement Syndrome,' if you agree that it exists? The mayor's sometime NDP affiliation? His attempts to play tough with senior governments? The land-transfer tax?

I have my own theory, which is that Miller manages to infuriate both of Toronto's 'two solitudes'--the suburban law-and-order types and some portion of the inner-city left--by being at once social-democrat-ish and pro-development, etc, and by making no apologies about seeing Toronto as a metropolis, not Mayberry (for the suburbanites) or a hippy-dippy college town (for some portion of the downtowners).

But that's just my opinion. What's yours?

 

[Therion]

My biggest complaint is his all-out catering to unions. I know unions and the left go hand-in-hand, but we will never balance budgets if the unions run the town. The current GM/Chrysler situation is a good point (btw, before you trot out some statistic, Ken Lewenza's point that labour is only 5% of the price of a car is bogus). The problem with unions (whom, as a former Marxist, I supported fully until I got a degree in philosophy), is that they get bigger, but they can't get smaller. Therefore it is very difficult to downsize a workforce when things get tough.

I guess I can't be too hard on Miller, though; Obama's doing the same thing down south.

 

[Eug]

This thread goes somewhat off of the earlier 'We HATE Toronto' thread, a bit off of the Toronto-as-province discussions, and other influences. Basically, I find that in lots of fora--electronic and not--lots of Torontonians and indeed other Canadians seem to harbour an out-of-all-proportions hatred for David Miller. I confess I don't get it. Our present mayor is far from perfect, but I think on the whole he has done a thoroughly decent job. I can certainly see how lots of folks might disagree with some of his choices, but there is a level of venom in much of the criticism that I find perplexing.

If you support him, then you will find it perplexing.

I have been thinking about this for a while, and wanted to see what others on the forum thought. What's the source of 'Miller Derangement Syndrome,' if you agree that it exists?

I do not support him at all, and while I find the hate a little too much, I want him out of office, and replaced with someone closer to centre politics-wise. And I say that as someone who has leaned to the left historically.

The mayor's sometime NDP affiliation?

His "sometime" affiliation notwithstanding, it's clear he panders far too much to the left.

His attempts to play tough with senior governments?

He comes off as a whiner, and since he has no desire to try to cut spending on anything, he looks foolish.

The land-transfer tax?

Yes. I don't see how anyone who applauds the land-transfer tax can be considered pro-development. In fact, it was such a hot button issue, Miller was made to look like a fool when the initial vote failed.

 

[SimonP]

I too find the anti-Miller sentiment very odd. After several decades of poor to mediocre leadership at city hall, Miller really stands out. Does anyone really want to go back to any of the centrist or centre right mayors we had in the over two decades between Sewell and Miller? A capable mayor who can bring real improvement to the city is a rare thing.

Miller has presided over one of the largest building booms in Toronto and has neither blocked development, nor given developers so much power that they damage the civic fabric. He's revitalized entire neighbourhoods, such as Regent Park, and is the first leader of the city to seriously try to break Toronto of its car dependency. He's not perfect, but his time in office has really improved the city.

In terms of why there does seem to be so much venom towards him, I think it's because he really is a moderate, centrist leader. Getting things done in Toronto requires a lot of hard work and consensus building, and Miller has been a master at that. But compromises tend to disappoint the true believers who dominate newspaper comment pages.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Miller was a disappointing mayor, but hardly an object of hatred.

If I can sum up the man in one sentence: he promised us everything and accomplished practically nothing.

I think that when he was a left-wing mayoral aspirant, he dreamed of joining the ranks of Ken Livingstone (London) and Enrique Penalosa (Bogota). These were uncompromising men who used their powers for civic good, sort of like the good versions of Robert Moses. 6 years later, it's clear that Miller will be a mere footnote to mayors like these, probably being remembered in the same way as Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles) - a man who was more bark than bite and, despite grand plans for transforming auto-centric LA into a bastion of progressiveness - only has a smattering of mediocre, expensive and delayed projects to his name.

What are the things that Miller will be remembered for? Monster recycling bins that didn't solve the trash problem, a useless "one cent now" campaign, killing the island airport bridge without killing the airport, placating the unions only to have them throw wildcat strikes, little taxes on everything, and the soon-to-be-debacle against which he will be judged forever: Transit City.

 

[Whoaccio]

Its probably the same reason why so many people hate Harper or McGuinty. As leaders, they don't do anything grand enough to convince disbelievers (like Mulroney & NAFTA or Pearson & Social Security) but they go on these ridiculously unnecessary crusades to fix non-issues. Like Miller harping on one-cent-now or whining about handguns. Even if it was a good idea, there was never a chance that Miller could change it.

 

[realtycoon]

A few reasons to hate Miller
- Land Transfer Tax
- Car Tax
- Garbage Tax
- Threat to knock down the Gardiner
- Missing in Action during the Propane Explosion
- Failure to do anything about the Tamils holding Toronto hostage

I can go on but here is a few points to stir the pot..

 

[TOinTO]

A few reasons to hate Miller
- Land Transfer Tax
- Car Tax
- Garbage Tax
- Threat to knock down the Gardiner
- Missing in Action during the Propane Explosion
- Failure to do anything about the Tamils holding Toronto hostage

I can go on but here is a few points to stir the pot..

I think that captures the Miller Derangement mindset well.
- no understanding and no interest in the historical and political context of the changes that have occurred during this tenure.
- tendency to inflate minor events that have little to do with the Mayoralty into major failings of his administration.

I also think that one of the causes of this attitude is the lack of regional context in our municipal news. For example. Toronto's tax increase for 2009 was headline news. The fact that most of the surrounding municipalities introduced similar tax increases was a back page story. This makes it easy to pretend that a looney-left socialist mayor is entirely to blame for the tax increases and union issues that we have had.

 

[Eug]

I think that captures the Miller Derangement mindset well.
- no understanding and no interest in the historical and political context of the changes that have occurred during this tenure.
- tendency to inflate minor events that have little to do with the Mayoralty into major failings of his administration.

I also think that one of the causes of this attitude is the lack of regional context in our municipal news. For example. Toronto's tax increase for 2009 was headline news. The fact that most of the surrounding municipalities introduced similar tax increases was a back page story. This makes it easy to pretend that a looney-left socialist mayor is entirely to blame for the tax increases and union issues that we have had.

The big tax news was the land transfer tax, that nearly doubled the existing land transfer tax. Instead of more equitable taxes across the board, along with spending cuts, the choice was to punish those who might want to move to Toronto.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The griping over the land transfer tax strikes me as realtor whining. It works out to an extra $6K on a $500,000 house, yeah, but how many times are you going to buy a house in your lifetime? 2 or 3? It's like complaining about a tax on wedding dresses.

The only people who really took a significant hit from the tax were flippers and speculators, and they weren't exactly good for the city in the first place. Good riddance.

The divide between left-wing and right-wing in this city's politics is gigantic, which drives the Miller Derangement. The far left-wing tends toward idealistic ideas on what the city means and how it can matter in the world. The right-wing sees their house, their car and their yard and just wants the city government to leave them the hell alone.

I'm left-wing (duh) so it actually boggles my mind that a guy like Rob Ford is able to get elected again and again on a platform that is, essentially, "I will attempt to do absolutely nothing!" But that's the right-wing attitude in Toronto. Doing nothing is good. Doing things cost money.

Never trust a person who can't use the phrase 'tax dollars' without sticking a 'my hard-earned' adjective before it.

 

[nfitz]

A few reasons to hate Miller
- Land Transfer Tax
- Car Tax
- Garbage Tax
- Threat to knock down the Gardiner
- Missing in Action during the Propane Explosion
- Failure to do anything about the Tamils holding Toronto hostage

I can go on but here is a few points to stir the pot..

I really don't see any of those being an issue. We all know that taxes had to go up. How else would you have dealt with the deficit issue. The province put the City in this boat, giving them the ability and making it clear it was the only option. Garbage tax ... good grief, most people got a reduction ... or no, or very marginal change. As for that propane problem in North York - I don't think I've even heard anyone mention that for a while ... pretty low on most people's radar ... and hardly a municipal issue. Tamils??? I don't see how that falls on Miller ... it's a federal issue; and the feds are as usual, absent - and now have finally appeared, simply to try and make it clear that they aren't involved, and sure up the white-bigot vote.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Being considerably left of centre, you can add me to the list of not understanding the hatred for Miller. I don't hate him and I don't think he's done a terrible job by any means. I'd give him a "B". I'll certainly take Miller over Lastman any day. So many great things have happened on Miller's watch. Have there been problems or issues I don't agree with? Of course.

Consider the problems cities have had with downloading, how are city services to be paid for if not by taxes? There's been a discussion on this board recently about how crappy our sidewalks and parks are, well, let's pay even higher taxes and we'll have beautiful sidewalks and showcase parks plus perhaps we could afford to modernize our aging infrastructure at a more rapid pace.

As for unions, I'm not clear on "the unions run this town" statement. Does the comment mean that they run City of Toronto employees or the City as a whole? In 1985 I worked at a cinema where the union projectionist worked as an electrician by day, then by night made $32.36 an hour + COLA (about $5-$6/hr at the time) to run the projectors of two movie screens. Minimum wage then was about $3.75 an hour for the cinema staff. He threaded two projectors (total time 5 minutes), pressed a button at showtime (yes, one button) and then sat and read the newspaper until the next showtime. Today, cinema staff do the exact same job for minimum wage, the exhibitors bounced the union out. I use that example because it's one that I was close to and know the details of, there are many others. I should state that I sit in the middle on the union issue but I do believe we Canadians still deserve to earn a fair living wage with a fair benefits package.

I think it partly comes down to you can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Eug]

This thread makes it pretty clear that those supporting him lean heavily to the left. One thing I've never understood is why the left in Ontario think the only solution to budget deficits is to raise taxes.

The left in Saskatchewan have demonstrated to us a long time ago is a government should spend within its means, and part of that involves cutting spending significantly when necessary.

The problem here is the Miller government has no interest in trying to significantly reduce spending.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

This thread makes it pretty clear that those supporting him lean heavily to the left. One thing I've never understood is why the left in Ontario think the only solution to budget deficits is to raise taxes.

The left in Saskatchewan have demonstrated to us a long time ago is a government should spend within its means, and part of that involves cutting spending significantly when necessary.

The problem here is the Miller government has no interest in trying to significantly reduce spending.

If you were Miller, what would your cuts be to reduce spending? I'm not being sarcastic or a smart-ass, I would really like to know what spending you would reduce.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Eug:

One thing I've never understood is why the left in Ontario think the only solution to budget deficits is to raise taxes.

As opposed to cutting taxes and hope that whatever economy activity that stimulates it will balance the books? Look where that got Harris/Eves and now Harper?

The left in Saskatchewan have demonstrated to us a long time ago is a government should spend within its means, and part of that involves cutting spending significantly when necessary.

"Should"? Or is it part of the trend during the Neoliberal era of 80s-00s? And what does "means" actually meant? Increasing the means via higher taxation level, or reducing that capacity through lower taxes?

AoD