Did Ford mention it directly? It surprises me you'd side with Ford if he didn't.
Or is the argument against Smitherman his plans really don't mesh well with a lowered tax rate - which is understandable - given his proposed property tax tax freeze across the board and spending over top the original TC plan.
It is the latter.
Long term vision and long term success are indeed two different beasts. One could argue Miller's long term objectives were waterfront development / environmental protection / transit improvements for the outer core (i.e. non downtown) which is basically what TC amounts to. At one point there also seemed to be a little push to improve the business climate in Toronto - while I think some of these plans were good in spirit and layed down a foundation - we've really failed to follow up on them like originally intended or found ways to make it look like progress was being made when in reality we're moving farther away from the objectives.
These things are not unto themselves. They are means to an end. At some point we have to evaluate what we are getting. Has the Miller's 44% increase in spending made Toronto more prosperous, reduced congestion, put the city on a firm financial footing, improved the environment, reduced poverty. No. Let's look at the waterfront for example. The the public is paying to clean up the soil as to facilitate redevelopment. But what private redevlopment has, or is, going to happen? Condos. While this may be nice for those whom move there, there is a cost to the rest of the city*. So long as the majority of redevelopment that occurs is residential most of the goals will be negatively effected. Without a proportionate rise in local employment there will be an increase in outbound (SoV) traffic. The city will be increasing expenses more than revenue and housing will continue to increase in price by he fact that the subsidisation of services will be capitalized into values. So housing will be less affordable, the environment will suffer, and the cost will be borne by the city at large. The city in turn, will continue to try and isolate residents from the impacts. As such, whenever assessment values change between classes, necessitating a shift to the residential class, council will avoid it (see 2004), accelerating the process.
*To the degree that new residential development is causing a fiscal operating loss
for the City (i.e. tax revenue brought in by new development is less than added
operating costs needed to service that development), a higher residential tax rate
would reduce (or eliminate) this loss. The higher tax rate would increase the tax
revenue that new development brings in. The higher tax rate might also slow the
pace of residential development to some degree. If new development continues
to produce an operating loss even at the higher tax rate, a reduced pace of
residential development is fiscally beneficial
Dr. Peter Tomlinson