[BurlOak]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...evenue-tools-ended-in-thoroughgoing-disgrace/



So 22 Councillors changed there mind in a few months time. These are the ones who are in the way of transit because the biggest problem is flip-flopping. It is one thing to not like one someone else proposed. It is completely worse to not like what you agreed to a short time ago. I am too lazy now, but I would like to track down who these 22 are.

I tried counting who the 22 were that voted to support letting Metrolinx proceed with Transit City in November, and then voting now to change TC to a subway to STC - and wound up getting 23.

Either the Post made an error, or it was me - I appologize if it was me. here is the list I come up with.

Ward 5 Peter Milczyn
Ward 8 Anthony Perruzza
Ward 9 Maria Augimeri
Ward 12 Frank Di Giorgio
Ward 15 Josh Colle
Ward 16 Karen Stintz
Ward 17 Cesar Palacio
Ward 18 Ana Bailão
Ward 21 Joe Mihevc
Ward 23 John Filion
Ward 25 Jaye Robinson
Ward 27 Kristyn Wong-Tam
Ward 28 Pam McConnell
Ward 29 Mary Fragedakis
Ward 30 Paula Fletcher
Ward 32 Mary-Margaret McMahon
Ward 35 Michelle Berardinetti
Ward 36 Gary Crawford
Ward 38 Glenn De Baeremaeker
Ward 41 Chin Lee
Ward 42 Raymond Cho
Ward 43 Paul Ainslie
Ward 44 Ron Moeser

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Didn't stop the provincial money coming in, did it? (unlike the spectre of an MOU without council approval, which was what the original vote for TC was about) Besides, as you well know, the move is political - to enable the discussion of the funding mechanisms to take place requires the support of Scarborough councillors.

The biggest problem with building transit isn't those who basically unilaterally stopped physical work in the new lines, and dragged their feet on getting the requisite agreement signed - but those who debate on paper. Interesting perspective you got there.

AoD

 

[Johnny Au]

Here is an interesting way to fund for transit: using Indiegogo. It is working for the purchase of a video showing a certain mayor smoking crack cocaine. It is also completely voluntary (but has some perks, such as having a tile with the donor's name in a subway station).

 

[innsertnamehere]

good luck getting 34 billion out of that.

 

[rbt]

good luck getting 34 billion out of that.

$35.36 billion actually. Indiegogo would take $1.36B in fees for handling the money.

 

[gweed123]

Here is an interesting way to fund for transit: using Indiegogo. It is working for the purchase of a video showing a certain mayor smoking crack cocaine. It is also completely voluntary (but has some perks, such as having a tile with the donor's name in a subway station).

If anything like that, I think Transit Savings Bonds would be the way to go. Wouldn't raise a tonne of money, but would be a good way to "buy in" to the system.

 

[Johnny Au]

If anything like that, I think Transit Savings Bonds would be the way to go. Wouldn't raise a tonne of money, but would be a good way to "buy in" to the system.

Transit Saving Bonds would be a good idea, if the perks are more than just a fancy certificate. They should also allow individuals to buy individual tiles with their names on them.

Many public institutions have a list of donors.

 

[TOareaFan]

Transit Saving Bonds would be a good idea, if the perks are more than just a fancy certificate. They should also allow individuals to buy individual tiles with their names on them.

Many public institutions have a list of donors.

Well, a bond by definition has an interesting old school perk of earned interest and the fancy certificate is evidence of the debt owed and the terms thereof.

A bondholder is not a donour they are a lender. Sure, give tiles to donours but if you are going to issue bonds you may as well go whole hog...... borrow all the money in the bond market now/up front and do all the work....as part of the bond issuance, define the revenue tools over the next twenty five years that will be sequestered for repayment of that bond issuance.

 

[rbt]

Well, a bond by definition has an interesting old school perk of earned interest and the fancy certificate is evidence of the debt owed and the terms thereof.

A bondholder is not a donour they are a lender.

This is an important distinction. Bonds are not a funding source. They do time-shift the revenue stream but they are not a source of revenue.

In short, bonds are useless for funding transit but can be extremely useful in combination with a real revenue source like increased fares/tax/toll.

 

[pman]

This is an important distinction. Bonds are not a funding source. They do time-shift the revenue stream but they are not a source of revenue.

In short, bonds are useless for funding transit but can be extremely useful in combination with a real revenue source like increased fares/tax/toll.

Well not exactly useless. We do have to pay for transit expansion but we don't have to pay upfront for infrastructure that will last for 50 to 100 years. With interest rates at all-time lows, we should at least think about borrowing the $35 billion for Let's Move upfront and amortizing the principal payments over 30 to 50 years. The long maturities aren't unreasonable since lifecos and pension funds are starved for long dated assets. Interest and principal repayment would be funded from new revenue sources like tolls, parking space levies and gasoline taxes. A provincial guarantee of principal and interest would lower the funding cost but wouldn't be necessary provided the province did guarantee it would levy the revenue streams. Absent the guarantee the province could kick in some equity, say around 10% of the total. Absurd, you say? It's basically the funding model that the private sector uses to pay for stuff like, you know, long-lived assets.

 

[rbt]

Absurd, you say? It's basically the funding model that the private sector uses to pay for stuff like, you know, long-lived assets.

Private industry doesn't buy things without revenue either.

Interest and principal repayment would be funded from new revenue sources like tolls, parking space levies and gasoline taxes.

This is your revenue stream. Once it exists, the province can issue debt through their usual mechanism at their usual rate. If you separate it, the rate will be higher (GTAA doesn't get the federal rate despite being an entity under the feds).

Anyway, those new revenues require cooperation from either NDP or Conservatives to implement and will need to survive an election. Issuing bonds will not change that.

 

[Adjei]

Maybe now that the NDP will support the budget, the revenue tools will find it easier to be implemented.

 

[TOareaFan]

Maybe now that the NDP will support the budget, the revenue tools will find it easier to be implemented.

Not seeing the connection

 

[doady]

The Ontario NDP is now a populist party. Don't expect them to support any new taxes or fees for transit.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I wouldn't be surprised if they do. If anything, the passing of the budget shows that they are not willing to go to an election, and I have a feeling they will work out some sort of concessions such as the closure of tax loopholes or something and pass it.