[GraphicMatt]

Where do you cut? Police? Transit? Housing? Social Services? The media loves to talk about waste in the City government (and any such waste should be eliminated, if it is truly waste) but it never amounts to much money in the grand scheme of things. The City's biggest line items are police and the TTC.

Could you cut wages? Maybe, but not without a long battle fraught with work stoppages. Powerful unions in the city are hardly something unique to Miller's reign.

 

[Torontovibe]

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..

If you consider those good reasons to HATE Miller, I guess it doesn't take much to set you off. I don't see anything there that seriously hurt Toronto or caused great hardship. Almost everything you mentioned there, was done to improve Toronto and NOT for his own personal gain. It would be different if he was caught stealing money, taking bribes or even pulling a Jakobek.

I think Mel's building of a subway to nowhere and all the money it wasted is a much more serious blunder. (Not to mention the disaster that downtown North York is and the theatre he built practically going belly up. I'll take Miller over Mel any day.

 

[Torontovibe]

Where do you cut? Police? Transit? Housing? Social Services? The media loves to talk about waste in the City government (and any such waste should be eliminated, if it is truly waste) but it never amounts to much money in the grand scheme of things. The City's biggest line items are police and the TTC.

Could you cut wages? Maybe, but not without a long battle fraught with work stoppages. Powerful unions in the city are hardly something unique to Miller's reign.

It's funny, the same people I hear screaming about unions never say a peep about the power and budget of the police union. lol Maybe we should think about cutting the police budget.

 

[Eug]

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.

I would attack it from several fronts (including some near untouchables as the police and even the TTC). And to placate the masses, I would do things like cancelling my office renovations before I'm defeated on a budget vote.

EDIT:

It's funny, the same people I hear screaming about unions never say a peep about the power and budget of the police union. lol Maybe we should think about cutting the police budget.

Heh. I guess you just had to wait five minutes to hear it about the police.

 

[nfitz]

Maybe we should think about cutting the police budget.

That's a thought ... crime rates are falling ... and Toronto's are pretty much the lowest in Canada - outside of Quebec at least.

So when do we get the peace dividend?

 

[TOinTO]

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.

In spite of the whining from realtors, the land transfer tax was sound politics. Tax a rare expense that usually occurs when you're shoveling money out the door anyways. The Fraser institute (or was it C.D. Howe?) said the revenue generated would be equivalent to an 8% property tax increase. How do you think an across the board 8% tax increase would have been received?

The right-wing sees their house, their car and their yard and just wants the city government to leave them the hell alone.

And they want more police and however much garbage they put out on a given week picked up for free and they want better roads and they want their sidewalks plowed and THEIR school pool kept open by the city and more parks and they want to city to pay for their downspout to be disconnected and NO MORE of those ugly condos and...
what does all that have to do with taxes?

Not that people shouldn't want those things. I want better roads and nicer parks and better transit and I want the libraries and community centres kept up, and so on. But you have to be mature and understand government has a purpose and these things aren't free.

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.

The problem with the city unions is that they have a monopoly, so the city has little power to counter their demands. I think it's a problem, but I don't think the Mayor has much power to solve it. The fire fighters and police (fatest union of all) are essential services, so they have their settlements determined by an arbitrator anyways. I think Miller has been too generous with the TTC union, but I don't think it's made much of a difference. If the city had been tougher it would have worked out the same way - strike, back to work legislation, arbitrated settlement ~3%/year.

Lastman didn't do any better. He just had no idea what he had agreed to.

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

I don't think any city politician - no, any politician period - has an interest in significantly reducing spending. The councillors who talk about it are stupid or lying.

But Miller, he has no interest in NOT INCREASING spending. He showed that with the last budget - which I though was going a bit far. There wasn't even a hint of regret that taxes were going to increase at a higher rate in the middle of a recession.

 

[Eug]

In spite of the whining from realtors, the land transfer tax was sound politics. Tax a rare expense that usually occurs when you're shoveling money out the door anyways. The Fraser institute (or was it C.D. Howe?) said the revenue generated would be equivalent to an 8% property tax increase. How do you think an across the board 8% tax increase would have been received?

Do you actually think the land transfer tax was well received? The majority of the public thinks it's far too punitive for home buyers.

Of course, had the government been willing to decrease spending over the years, we wouldn't be in as much of a mess.

I don't think any city politician - no, any politician period - has an interest in significantly reducing spending. The councillors who talk about it are stupid or lying.

Then you should look harder. Many governments reduce spending when necessary, including left of centre ones. I think your last statement sums it all up: You suggest anyone who says they want to try to save money is stupid.

 

[jmacmillan]

It's easy to complain. Who would you rather have run the city? Mel Lastman? I support the mayor and many of his initiatives (e.g., tear down the Gardiner, expand public transit, encourage energy conservation, reclaim the waterfront). These take time.

 

[Eug]

It's easy to complain. Who would you rather have run the city? Mel Lastman?

Great argument: "Mel Lastman is such a dolt, that Miller is good in comparison."

 

[Felino]

The griping over the land transfer tax strikes me as realtor whining. It works out to an extra $6K on a $500,000 house.

Realtor whining? I'm not a realtor and $6,000 is not pocket change. Now throw in the HST of another $36,000 plus the garbage tax, car taxes and the higher cost of everything else going forward, Toronto and the GTA in general has just become less family friendly.

Toronto still has a transit system that Western European visitors get a laugh at.

Oh, and our bums love their 9-5 jobs, begging. Mayor Miller encourages it. In fact, he and the rest of Toronto's bleedy hearts think that if you provide all of the city's so-called homeless with their own apartments that they'll stop begging to support their cigarrette, alcohol, drug and Tim Horton's habits.

 

[Eug]

Realty whining? Dream on. I'm not a realtor but I hope to buy a $600k home soon and was hoping on something new. Now with the Land Transfer Tax and the new HST, I'm fecked out of an additional $50k now when all is considered.

Exactly. Very punitive, and esp. so in the GTA where homes cost more. A $600000 home is not considered expensive in the GTA, It is considered a normal purchase for an upgrade from a starter home.

I won't even get taxed on this because I don't plan on buying a new home anytime soon, but I feel your pain. How to deal with the shortfall? I own a home, and would accept some higher property taxes, but only if I see the government is actually trying to reduce spending.

Miller must have known the HST was coming.

Miller had nothing to do with the HST.

 

[TOinTO]

Then you should look harder. Many governments reduce spending when necessary, including left of centre ones. I think your last statement sums it all up: You suggest anyone who says they want to try to save money is stupid.

You may think I suggested it, but that's not what I said.

Actually reducing overall spending is very difficult and very rare. I don't think any city government has done it. I can't think of an Ontario government that ever did. (The Harris Tories increased spending steadily. Sure, they cut the budgets of ministries they didn't like (like MOE) and they let schools fall apart, but overall spending still increased). At the federal level only the Liberals under Chretien and Martin did it and that was partially accomplished by passing the problem down to the provinces.

 

[nstuch]

he complains the city is broke but spends money like a drunken sailor as long as there's some green flavour of the month cause, ie city employees driving premium cars like Priuses or Smart cars, installing green roofs, solar panels. all worthy causes of course, but not when you consistently claim poverty. meanwhile general upkeep and state of good repair of city infrastructure is priority #1000. i'm frankly embarassed at the general shabbiness of the city, i can't imagine what a tourist would think, particularly the sophisticated and discerning ones that Miller thinks want to come here to visit

 

[Eug]

You may think I suggested it, but that's not what I said.

Actually reducing overall spending is very difficult and very rare. I don't think any city government has done it. I can't think of an Ontario government that ever did. (The Harris Tories increased spending steadily. Sure, they cut the budgets of ministries they didn't like (like MOE) and they let schools fall apart, but overall spending still increased). At the federal level only the Liberals under Chretien and Martin did it and that was partially accomplished by passing the problem down to the provinces.

Perhaps that's why the left in Toronto take this sort of unbridled spending as acceptable. However, just because others have blown their wads unnecessarily doesn't mean we have to, too.

I grew up in Saskatchewan, where the NDP government had the courage to do what's actually good for the people, which is to reign in spending when they didn't have the money to spend. And guess what? They eventually balanced the budget and reduced taxes, with the support of the people.

It's not a hard concept. If you don't have the money, then you don't spend it. It's really is as simple as that. You just have to have the courage to do it.

 

[adma]

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.

Or to use an earlier example, NYC Mayor John Lindsay--under whom the Robert Moses regime ended...