Filip
Senior Member
As I said, it goes both ways. The population in downtown is too low for reasonable residential tax revenue, and I doubt the commercial revenue is able to offset it.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Midtown Urbanist
- Start date
As I said, it goes both ways. The population in downtown is too low for reasonable residential tax revenue, and I doubt the commercial revenue is able to offset it.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Filip:
By downtown I am referring to the old City of Toronto - considering the trends in residential development (and s 37 funds), the fact that residential mill rate is indirectly based on CVA, the amount of commercial properties and the much higher rate of commercial property tax rate, I am not sure if what you're implying is true.
AoD
By downtown I am referring to the old City of Toronto - considering the trends in residential development (and s 37 funds), the fact that residential mill rate is indirectly based on CVA, the amount of commercial properties and the much higher rate of commercial property tax rate, I am not sure if what you're implying is true.
AoD
Last edited:
Filip
Senior Member
Then please run the numbers and let's see - I'd be glad to be proven wrong. Point is, there is still significant industrial/manufacturing activity taking place exclusively in the former boroughs. I don't know where the industrial tax rate sits, but I would assume it is similar to the commercial rate.
I want this city deamalgamated with a strong central regional body (this time encompassing the 905 belt as well). Local decisions can be made at the local level, and regional initiatives will be handled regionally. Basically I just cannot stomach Adumb Vaughan screaming bloody murder over airport traffic at Billy Bishop while fully supporting (and encouraging) more jets at Pearson. What, Mississauga and Northern Etobicoke don't count? They are fine to handle all the noise and pollution? Please... Billy Bishop has a regional importance, hence decisions made about it should be taken on a regional level. Small niche interests (like the elite yachters on the islands) should be ignored.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Given the frontpage article, I thought it prudent to bump this thread.
So it looks like we are going to have ward border changes in Toronto after all. Anyone have thoughts on the process, or where ward boundary changes should be directed at?
So it looks like we are going to have ward border changes in Toronto after all. Anyone have thoughts on the process, or where ward boundary changes should be directed at?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I just hope that this doesn't lead to jerrymandering.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I presume that a greater popotion of wards will be in downtown, because of the higher population growth in that area of the city.
CDL.TO
Moderator
CDL.TO
Moderator
It will be interesting if there is a recommendation to maintain the current formula of two councillors for each federal riding. That would bump city council up to 48 councillors.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
There should be one city councillor per roughly 50,000 people.
nfitz
Superstar
I count 25. That would make 50 councillors.
Here's the 2013 Representation Order for Toronto:
The 2013 federal representation order is based on the 2011 census. Before that we had the 2003 federal representation order (based on the 2001 census), where Toronto had 22½ ridings (the ½ being Pickering-Scarborough East, which is about 50% in Toronto) - this is what the current federal and provincial ridings in Toronto are based on. And way back when we had the 1993? federal representation order, based on the 1991 census, where we had 22 ridings in Toronto, which were divided in 2 for the 44 wards in 2000.
Looking at the 3 censues, and what it does to the current community councils (remembering that 2001 never got implemented):
| Area | 1991 | 2001 | 2011 |
| Etobicoke/York | 11 | 11 | 11 |
| North York | 11 | 11 | 13 |
| Scarborough | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Toronto-East York | 12 | 12 | 14 |
| TOTAL | 44 | 45 | 50 |
Attachments
pman
Senior Member
Ward 27 is already gerrymandered to ensure that residents north of Bloor are effectively unrepresented. The new federal riding boundaries will address this anomaly, so it would seem reasonable for municipal ward boundaries to follow suit.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Can you explain to us how it is jerrymandered?
BurlOak
Senior Member
One councillor per federal riding seems about right. Plenty of thought went into those ridings, so why re-invent the wheel.
Also add one councillor (lets call them Aldermen, Alderperson, or just Alder) per Community Council - and give them 3 votes.
The mayor then gets 8 votes.
Everyone (sort of) has 2 local representative, in case they do not get along with their riding councillor.
CDL.TO
Moderator
How on earth is your suggestion anything other than reinventing the wheel? (Especially when compared to my comment on the implications of maintaining the existing system... the exact opposite of reinventing anything.)
pman
Senior Member
Ward 27 combines a small number of residents north of Bloor with a large number of residents south of Bloor. The two geographic areas are radically different communities of interest, to use the phrase on the City's ward redistribution website. While the shape of the ward is nothing as bizarre as US examples of gerrymandered congressional districts, the present ward boundaries do ensure that anyone north of Bloor will not be represented by their elected representative.