[nfitz]

Like some of the posters in this thread, who have no hope of getting out of renters paradise. No one in thier right mind that owns property in Toronto supports Miller.

The election results would suggest otherwise; he won many parts of the city with high ownership compared to rentals, quite handily. Off-hand, I can't think of anyone who owns property who didn't vote for him.

 

[junctionist]

It just goes to show you that Miller's support is in the extreme left wing, pro-welfare crowd. Any homewoner who is still supportive of this guy should really give his head a check. We all saved hard and made sacrifices to buy our homes, ie...every cent counts, and then we see this Mayor splurge and splurge and spluge. Does TO even need a budget that HUGE??? Its increased every year in record amounts under Miller.

I can care lesss about Lastman. His tenure isnt part of this discussion. I care about how the current administration has run this city to the ground.

I don't buy the BS that Miller's support isn't among property owners. His pro-development policies meant the construction of a lot of their property in the first place. He has shown to be above the narrowminded small town attitude of attacking small but important projects. And for better or for worse, not everyone, property owners included, cares about the smallest bits of spending.

And many a homeowner is not so cheap and penny-pinching as Miller's detractors claim that City Hall should be. They invest in landscaping in their prominent front yard (Miller and the Nathan Philipps Square redesign), and they renovate their houses and buy attractive furniture (office renovations at City Hall). Home owners splurge because its meaningful to them. The federal government has offered incentives to keep them splurging in their most recent budget.

And yes, an aging city of 2.5 million needs a large budget. Repairing infrastructure and maintenance is put off year after year and the budget grows as more needs to be immediately replaced.

 

[Darren B]

The election results would suggest otherwise; he won many parts of the city with high ownership compared to rentals, quite handily. Off-hand, I can't think of anyone who owns property who didn't vote for him.

He won his first term due to hos then overall apeeal. He did get my vote the first time. The second time was during the closing of my home, so I had to abstain. He only won the second time because of the low turnout. The leftwing anarchists bring out their masses to the polls. It wont happen this time. People have learnt. Everytime there was a tax increase during this term, I've called each and everyone of my firends and told them about it, and told them they have themselves to thanks. All of them never voted municipally before, but all will in 2010.

An inanimate carbon rod could run against Miller and still win.

 

[Darren B]

And many a homeowner is not so cheap and penny-pinching as Miller's detractors claim that City Hall should be. They invest in landscaping in their prominent front yard (Miller and the Nathan Philipps Square redesign), and they renovate their houses and buy attractive furniture (office renovations at City Hall). Home owners splurge because its meaningful to them. The federal government has offered incentives to keep them splurging in their most recent budget.

LOL, as someone who has the nicest front lawn in the entire block, and the nicest backyard in sight, I tend to disagree that you need to splurge to have landscaping. Through composting, wild shrubs, and lunar-gardening, I only spend 5 to 6 bucks on manure a year. I grow an organic vegtable garden that feeds me enough produce that I can can tomatos for the entire year and give some away in Thanksgiving.

Being frugal can still mean making the best of what you have. Those condo dwellars dont vote, just like the 55% that didnt vote the last time

 

[ShonTron]

An inanimate carbon rod could run against Miller and still win.

Please tell that to Jane Pitfield or Prof. Frink.

 

[nfitz]

He only won the second time because of the low turnout.

Ah, the old "he won because of the low turn-out" excuse. Any post-study poll I've seen of any election result shows extremely minor difference between the preferences of those who did, and didn't vote.

Your suggestion is that everyone who opposed him, simply didn't bother to turn out and vote? Yet he took 57% of the vote in 2007 (a margin of 24%) compared to only 43% (a margin of only 5%) in 2003. And he also had almost 333,000 votes in 2007, compared to almost 300,000 votes in 2006.

There's such a complete lack of evidence to support your position here, that I have to wonder about your position on anything else you've said.

You might not like Miller, but that seems to be a minority opionion, and I think you'd be better off to simply accept your in the minority, than to look to blame everyone else (it was the low turn-out; it was the renters, etc.).

When I said I didn't have much objection to the 4% tax increase, you immediately accused me of renting, rather than owning. Why do you invent stuff like that, particularily given I have discussed property ownership many times on this forum in the past?

 

[Darren B]

No I accused you of living in your mom's basement.

Whatever...we'll wait and see in 2010. The minority of tha past has become the majority now thanks to Miller's poor decisions

 

[JasonParis]

No I accused you of living in your mom's basement.

I'm quite astounded by your ability to know the people of this forum better than they apparently know themselves. In two threads now too.

 

[nfitz]

No I accused you of living in your mom's basement.

Oh, and that's any better? Why do you come here and simply insult people who disagree with you?

Unless something drastic happens in the next 18 months, I can't see the 2010 election being any different. Miller has done far more than his predecessor ever did; he's kept tax increases since 2003 to no greater rate than the suburban cities; and even less than some. He's moved ahead on quite a few issues. He's virtually eliminated the beggars on the streets downtown, like they were in the 1990s, and early 2000s. He's expanded bus service significantly, and kept TTC fares under control. He moved quickly to take advantage of the opportunity to build BMO Field at virtually no cost to the city - compare that to the disaster of endless planning in cities like Washington and Vancouver. He's approved 3 major subway expansions, and pushed 9 major LRT projects, that are in various stages of construction and planning. After all the complaints of how snow removal went in 2007/2008 they turned around and made changes this year, and it's been no where near as bad, despite the dumps we received in January. He still has this weird fixation on trying to close the airport downtown - but one's perfect.

I can't see any huge uprising against him. And I don't even see a credible opponent; so far everything seems to centre about Ford - and my god, is that guy a trainwreck waiting to happen. Just who do you think is going to replace him?

 

[Glen]

Miller has done far more than his predecessor ever did; he's kept tax increases since 2003 to no greater rate than the suburban cities; and even less than some.

Taxes yes. Spending no. In 2003 the budget was 6.4 billion. Also this is a city that is not really growing.

He's moved ahead on quite a few issues. He's virtually eliminated the beggars on the streets downtown, like they were in the 1990s, and early 2000s.

That is a stretch

He's expanded bus service significantly, and kept TTC fares under control. He moved quickly to take advantage of the opportunity to build BMO Field at virtually no cost to the city - compare that to the disaster of endless planning in cities like Washington and Vancouver.

Agree

He's approved 3 major subway expansions, and pushed 9 major LRT projects, that are in various stages of construction and planning.

Some, if not all of those LRT projects are nothing to crow about.

 

[Darren B]

I'm quite astounded by your ability to know the people of this forum better than they apparently know themselves. In two threads now too.

It was an accusation. Not an attemt of knowing anything. It was an attempt at humour. Excuse me if it failed. I meant no insult by it.

 

[Darren B]

Oh, and that's any better? Why do you come here and simply insult people who disagree with you?

Oh, and you're any better? You have a pattern of attacking and questioning the credibility of anyone who disagrees with you. You even question how I can live in a Liberal/Socialist neighbourhood if at the same time I consider myself a fiscal conservative.

Lets just get past the personal attacks. I dont agree with most of the Miller's decisions during his 2 terms, and you tend to agree with him. I dont think any less of you or anyone else who voted they way they felt they had to. I'd reserve my criticism to those who chose not to vote, yet gripe about high taxes.

 

[nfitz]

I meant no insult by it.

Remind me - was that before or after you accused me of being a Nazi?

 

[Darren B]

He's virtually eliminated the beggars on the streets downtown, like they were in the 1990s, and early 2000s.

Tell that to Ross Hammond's widow. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands spent employing people to do a census on the homeless. Tell that to the 250k a year this city spends on giving free cigarettes and free wine to the homeless.

 

[nfitz]

You even question how I can live in a Liberal/Socialist neighbourhood if at the same time I consider myself a fiscal conservative.

Oh good grief, these days even Jack Layton considers himself a fiscal conservative ... which is more than I can than Stephen, let's run a 40-billion dollar deficit, Harper.