[toto]

no...no...no.

That $25 million is just the projected increase in revenue from the land transfer tax in 2012, above the current $200 million. Remove that $225 million revenue source and it increases the deficit to $1 billion. Ford's idea to scrap the Vehicle Registration Fee and Land Transfer Tax creates a revenue hole of about $290 million all by itself. Add this to a risky idea of totally cleaning out whatever insurance you have ($346 million in surpluses/reserves), and you have a one-time fiscal mistake of $636 million.

Implementing the LTT & VRF was a smart way to use the city's new powers to generate more diverse sources of revenue. Toronto was the only major city on the planet that was forced to adhere to 19th century ideas of revenue (property tax).

This city has been in a real estate boom, where there are vast sums of money being made buying and selling real estate. It only makes sense for the city to tap into that profitable market as a source of revenue (much more than say...the hotel market).

The Vehicle Registration Fee was another no-brainer. Why wouldn't we charge car drivers something for the luxury of driving in a transit-dependant city? Are we trying to encourage car travel? No...I think we are try to reduce it. So why reward the car driver and penalize the transit rider? Does it make any sense to give car drivers $64 million, this year while cutting service and raising fares to transit users?

At least under the VRF, those who choose to use their cars contributed $64 million in revenue (not much, but at least it's a start). The people who choose to travel by transit contribute $1 billion in revenue (as well as making the city easier to get around in). I mean really...who should be "rewarded" and who should be "penalized" in this scenario?

That's why this idea of "The War On The Car" is moronic. There's a war alright...only it's been a war the car has been winning for over 50 years. But it's a war that is destined to be turned around...it's a foregone conclusion. The only question is how badly do we want to fight it and be in denial?

A very clear, thoughful and accurate comment on this issue!

 

[Tewder]

War on the car ... what BS.

What we have is a war on the poor with major service cuts to fund tax cuts for the rich that can afford cars.

Everybody who has a car is rich? really??

See, this is the sort of the silliness that helped get Ford elected in the first place, by simply offering one completely ridiculous, intractable view as a polarized option to another. This is the new low in public discourse. Shame for Toronto.

 

[lafard]

Everybody who has a car is rich? really??

A large proportion of people that don't have cars, don't have them because they can't afford them. So yes, the car owner is typically richer - ie, have a higher net income - than the carless.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course, and simple observations like that are obscured by the simple fact that higher-income drivers (not so) paradoxically often have smaller disposable incomes than those that have smaller incomes but spend much less on transportation. Drivers also tend to be in demographics (ie, parents) where costs are very high.

When you're talking relative affluence, the suburban homeowning driver is far wealthier than the downtown renter, even if he isn't aware of it. The combination of car + land transfer tax is actually one of the more progressive taxes we've had, for the very reason that it's primarily higher-income types that pay either, and higher still that pay both.

Of course, in Toronto, and a few other cities there is the third group, nominally the "pinkos" or "downtown elitists" that can take advantage of the system and are both affluent and car-free (and often renters, homeownership is another money-pit) that have enormous disposable incomes even with moderate salaries, and these are the ones that the Fordies seem to particularly hate for whatever reason. However, these are the minority.

Driving is a privilege in a big city, not a right, and should be costed accordingly.

 

[spider]

Detractors of Mayor Ford and his platform seem to be rather intractable ideologues, not really open to discussion ( think Jack Layton). I can’t help but think that if Ford walked on water he would be screamed at for removing his shoes or alternately for not removing his shoes. I don’t have the time or patience to be a party to a “debate” with little prospect of resolution but I will offer my position in some of these matters.

I voted for Mayor Ford’s platform, not him, the alternatives were more Miller or a serially failed Provincial hack. I don’t care if he is 300 lbs, a poor speaker and possessed of quite a few warts. I applaud him for his efforts to steer this City in the direction I would like to see it go. More citizens voted as I did rather than against Mayor Ford, you can massage the numbers ‘til the cows come home, he is the peoples choice, get over it.

His demeanour in council is to be commended as all the usual suspects have baited him but have not succeeded in goading him into a meltdown. His opponents are looking sillier by the day.

When Miller “found” money under the seat cushions and applied it to the budget he was applauded as a financial Messiah, when Ford does it not so much.

The war on cars has been hopefully been put to rest, the vehicle tax was a fine for owning a car not for using one. If citizens are to be charged for using their own streets let’s not leave anyone behind. Cyclists spring to mind initially, they feel entitled to ride on the road and sidewalks and lock up their bikes on the sidewalk yet don’t feel they should be burdened by licences or parking fees. Pedestrians use the sidewalks and roads, why aren’t they paying?

Politics are not my hobby, I am just a citizen but not a stupid one.

I will henceforth confine my postings to this forum to answering queries where I can help, letting the air out of windbags and questioning home made statistics used to prove a position.

Thank you for your time.

 

[GraphicMatt]

More citizens voted as I did rather than against Mayor Ford.

Not true!

His demeanour in council is to be commended as all the usual suspects have baited him but have not succeeded in goading him into a meltdown. His opponents are looking sillier by the day.

Partial credit, but don't you think the mayor being the only member of council to vote against taking money from the province for HIV & STD screening makes him look kind of silly?

When Miller “found†money under the seat cushions and applied it to the budget he was applauded as a financial Messiah, when Ford does it not so much.

Miller identified a surplus from 2009 and used some of it to balance the 2010 budget. The way he communicated that ("I have a surprise for you!") was kind of dumb, but whatever. Ford has now taken all the money remaining from that 2009 surplus, plus the 2010 surplus, and plowed it all into 2011.

The war on cars has been hopefully been put to rest, the vehicle tax was a fine for owning a car not for using one. If citizens are to be charged for using their own streets let’s not leave anyone behind. Cyclists spring to mind initially, they feel entitled to ride on the road and sidewalks and lock up their bikes on the sidewalk yet don’t feel they should be burdened by licences or parking fees. Pedestrians use the sidewalks and roads, why aren’t they paying?

Do you think we should eliminate all user fees in favour of a more equitable system?

Politics are not my hobby, I am just a citizen but not a stupid one.

I will henceforth confine my postings to this forum to answering queries where I can help, letting the air out of windbags and questioning home made statistics used to prove a position.

Thank you for your time.

If you need any help understanding the difference between capital debt and an operating surplus, let me know.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

A large proportion of people that don't have cars, don't have them because they can't afford them. So yes, the car owner is typically richer - ie, have a higher net income - than the carless.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course, and simple observations like that are obscured by the simple fact that higher-income drivers (not so) paradoxically often have smaller disposable incomes than those that have smaller incomes but spend much less on transportation. Drivers also tend to be in demographics (ie, parents) where costs are very high.

When you're talking relative affluence, the suburban homeowning driver is far wealthier than the downtown renter, even if he isn't aware of it. The combination of car + land transfer tax is actually one of the more progressive taxes we've had, for the very reason that it's primarily higher-income types that pay either, and higher still that pay both.

Of course, in Toronto, and a few other cities there is the third group, nominally the "pinkos" or "downtown elitists" that can take advantage of the system and are both affluent and car-free (and often renters, homeownership is another money-pit) that have enormous disposable incomes even with moderate salaries, and these are the ones that the Fordies seem to particularly hate for whatever reason. However, these are the minority.

Driving is a privilege in a big city, not a right, and should be costed accordingly.

Disclaimer: I live in a downtown condo, walk to work, own a car for occasional use, and do not support Rob Ford.

You yourself seem to admit that the VRT is not well-targeted, as car ownership only bears a circumstantial correlation to income. I would guess that geography and the presence of children in a household would have a much larger impact on whether or not a household own one or more cars.

Even low-income households in the inner suburbs are likely to own at least one vehicle, even if it`s a clunker. This is simply because the built form of our cities and the lack of transit infrastructure makes it difficult to live car-free.

As a flat $60 fee, the VRT applied equally to beaters and luxury cars, as well as daily commuting vs. occasional use. A flat fee is also regressive in the sense that it applies equally to rich and poor as long as each owns a vehicle. You can also think of it as a tax on suburban living and a tax on having children.

Finally, a $60 annual fee is actually quite low compared to the total cost of car ownership, so you would be hard-pressed to see that it has any impact on car ownership rates.

The total revenue raised was a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the budget, so what was the point really? The fee is not tied to kilometres driven or cost of the vehicle, so would not encourage people to drive less nor be a progressive way to raise revenue from vehicle owners. It seems that the main effect was to annoy the majority of people in Toronto that own a vehicle and provide an incentive for them to move to the 905.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I agree that the previous mayor and council totally failed to present a compelling case for the introduction of the vehicle registration tax. It's not fair to charge people who live on the edges of the city -- who realistically still very much need a car to live their lives -- a fee that their across-the-street neighbour in Vaughan doesn't have to pay.

They would have been smart to at least direct the revenue to strictly road work and transit, so people could see where the fee was going. Better still would have been a regional approach, either through the implementation of a VRT across the GTA or straight-up road pricing on the DVP/Gardiner -- one of the big issues facing the TTC is that Toronto residents must subsidize thousands of 905 drivers and transit riders every day. That's not fair either.

That said, ultimately this was a very nominal fee -- $5 a month -- so it strikes me as incredibly juvenile that people got so whiny about it.

And, yes, I own a car and paid my $60 last year.

 

[jje1000]

Detractors of Mayor Ford and his platform seem to be rather intractable ideologues, not really open to discussion ( think Jack Layton). I can’t help but think that if Ford walked on water he would be screamed at for removing his shoes or alternately for not removing his shoes. I don’t have the time or patience to be a party to a “debate†with little prospect of resolution but I will offer my position in some of these matters.

The same thing could be said about Ford supporters. The road runs both ways here.

His demeanour in council is to be commended as all the usual suspects have baited him but have not succeeded in goading him into a meltdown. His opponents are looking sillier by the day.

To be honest, he seems to be hiding behind his supporters these days. Look how little he talks to the media these days.

The war on cars has been hopefully been put to rest, the vehicle tax was a fine for owning a car not for using one. If citizens are to be charged for using their own streets let’s not leave anyone behind. Cyclists spring to mind initially, they feel entitled to ride on the road and sidewalks and lock up their bikes on the sidewalk yet don’t feel they should be burdened by licences or parking fees. Pedestrians use the sidewalks and roads, why aren’t they paying?

Pedestrians and cyclists put nowhere near as much wear and tear on a road as vehicles do.

I will henceforth confine my postings to this forum to answering queries where I can help, letting the air out of windbags and questioning home made statistics used to prove a position.

Pedestal, much?

 

[nfitz]

Everybody who has a car is rich? really??

To someone who can't afford a car, they are rich.

They certainly have a lot more money to spend than someone who can't afford a car ... and yet the Ford cut the taxes of those with more money, and cut services that those with less money need.

This is the new low in public discourse. Shame for Toronto.

Mayor Rob Ford is a bigot. This is indeed a new low for the city.

 

[freshcutgrass]

What we have is a war on the poor with major service cuts to fund tax cuts for the rich that can afford cars.

This is not the scenario we have at all.

Yes, the marginalized usually get the short end of the stick all the time anyway, and yes, when you tell people sorry, but we don't have enough money for those shelter beds, and that we can't afford your bus service anymore...and then give away $64 million in city revenue to car drivers...it looks very, very bad.

But this is not a "rich" vs "poor" issue at all...at least when it comes to the car issue.

The truth is, Toronto is in a very interesting point in its evolution as an urban centre. We are indeed a large, urban city, but it is also a city where owning and operating a personal vehicle is still relatively affordable for the "average" person. Except for the usual peak periods in certain areas, driving around is fairly easy most of the time...hell, you can even find parking spaces fairly easy.

The other important fact to point out, is that it is not a "transit rider" vs "car driver" issue either. Fact is, 60% of the ridership of the TTC are "choice riders", meaning 60% of TTC riders actually have access to a car, but chose to use the TTC for that trip. This is a fact we should be proud of...it says a lot about our transit system. In many other cities, it is case of the "poor" take public transit, and the "rich" drive cars. In places like Manhattan, even the rich don't bother trying to use cars...it's way to congested, and even finding a place to keep it is almost impossible (they don't have massive underground parking under every building like we do).

So there's no point in trying to alienate car owners as the enemy of transit users, since they actually make up the majority of transit riders.

This "war on the car" has mainly been a civil war anyway...the biggest obstacle to the car...are other cars. Blaming streetcars and cyclists is just scapegoating.

BUT....this comfortable little dual happy world here in Toronto, where we have a large and well-used transit system, as well as enjoy running around in cars whenever we want is coming to an end. And it is the car that's going to be feeling the pinch. It has been slowly happening all along, but it's starting to reach a tipping point. It is only natural for the car drivers to start screaming about it, and want to pretend the old status quo can go on indefinitely...but the truth is, it isn't sustainable. The longer we pretend it is, the harder it will be.

And this is one of the things I hate about the Rob Ford mentality....he actually thinks it is sustainable, and would rather pretend right to the last moment, and then face a very serious penalty for doing so, rather than recognize it, and start to make the preparations. It is exactly like his 2011 budget....hey, let's enjoy our tax freezes and car ownership bonus cheques...whoopee!!! Let's live it up and pretend it just isn't making it so much worse for next year...let's worry about next year...next year. I'm sorry, but that is just extreme irresponsibility.

It's like standing on the top of a cliff and needing to get to the bottom. Rather than spending the time and effort planning a careful, difficult decent down the cliff to reach the bottom safely, Rob Ford would rather spend the whole night partying it up on the top of the cliff, and then in the morning...jump off the cliff instead. I really never thought Toronto had so many lemmings.

I can’t help but think that if Ford walked on water he would be screamed at for removing his shoes or alternately for not removing his shoes.

Now you are getting into a straw man argument. Nothing Rob Ford has said or done...either in his 10 years on council...in his mayoralty campaign...or as mayor, has shown anything that would even represent a wise policy or platform...let alone some kind of "miracle. Unlike most politicians of any stripe, I can't think of a single thing he has ever said or done that wasn't just plain dumb.

Yea...being a phat, uncouth, poorly spoken, poorly dressed, close-minded, angry, uneducated, lying, anti-urban embarrassment certainly isn't going to be considered positive points, but if he were to actually pull off some city-building feats of genius, I would forgive these things (maybe). But no policy he has put forward, nor anything that he has actually said or done shows this will ever happen.

In fact, it is the Ford supporters that seem to cling to whatever fantasy that resonates with them and ignore the reality of what his policies mean that have me wondering. When the soundbites gravy trains and respect for tax payers gives way to the reality, I'm wondering if people will awake from the Ford coma.

When Miller “found†money under the seat cushions and applied it to the budget he was applauded as a financial Messiah, when Ford does it not so much.

Look...it's no secret that since Harris screwed the city by downloading, every year since then has been a case of dealing with the fact that Toronto simply doesn't have the revenue to to maintain the status quo. So of course you have to get creative with the accounting. But you don't ignore that fact and pretend everything is tickity-boo. Revenues need to be raised by modest tax increases, fees and cutting services only when it's absolutely necessary. You also try and get some of that money back by getting the province to upload some of it back (done) and securing funding for capital projects from the province and feds (done...to the tune of $12 billion). You do a lot of little things to keep things afloat and avoid total melt-downs until you can manage to get things back on track.

What you don't do, is what Ford has done....it is absurdly irresponsible. It should be obvious by now, that his fiscal plan outlined in his campaign can't work...because he was unable to produce it. The proof is there for everyone to see as plain as day. Yet I'm sure the bulk of Ford supporters are completely oblivious to this fact.

The war on cars has been hopefully been put to rest, the vehicle tax was a fine for owning a car not for using one.

Right...because people own cars for...lawn ornaments? Extra room for out-of-town guests? I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you own a car...you use it.

If citizens are to be charged for using their own streets let’s not leave anyone behind. Cyclists spring to mind initially Pedestrians use the sidewalks and roads, why aren’t they paying

?

There is a huge flaw in your logic....everyone DOES pay. And since we ALL pay, we ALL have the right to equal access to said streets. ( It's only people like Rob Ford who live in this fantasy world where somewhere along the line we agreed that roads belong to cars and they have some kind of priority over other users. This is simply not true...never was...we just put up with it for a long time).

But we have a little problem here....we spread the cost over the entire population, except private vehicles take up 95% of the road space. On top of that, they demand we let them use 1/3 to 1/2 of these roads for storage of their private vehicles. ROADS ARE FOR DRIVING EH!!

And then when far more efficient users of the streets want better and safer access to these streets that they are rightfully entitled to (wider sidewalks and safer intersections for pedestrians, ROW for public transit and bike lanes for cyclists) the private vehicle owners scream bloody murder. The cheek!!! The gaul!!!

But that's all fine....dominate the city streets all you like. But the time has come for this massive disproportion to start being reflected in how it is funded. The party is over....the status quo can't be sustained. Anybody who thinks cities are going to continue subsidizing private vehicle usage to the degree it has up till now is really out of touch with reality.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Wow..such rage

 

[W. K. Lis]

Monday, February 28, 2011 is the last date to get rebates for your new low-flush toilets. Click on this link for the PDF application form. Interesting that the city website does not even mention that little update. Rob Ford's little clique is hoping we'll all forget to apply before it is too late.

Applications must be postmarked by Monday, February 28, 2011 for owners and tenants within the City of Toronto to qualify for the rebate. Rebates in other parts of the GTA continue, for now.

 

[jje1000]

Wow..such rage

Indeed

 

[spider]

Within the confines of my self imposed rules of engagement I have to state that I find this statistic amazing, can you provide references? My observations in admittedly limited use of the TTC in peak periods reveal a large student component of the ridership who are obviously not riding by choice, they are too young to drive.

Fact is, 60% of the ridership of the TTC are "choice riders", meaning 60% of TTC riders actually have access to a car, but chose to use the TTC for that trip.

 

[nfitz]

Yea...being a phat, uncouth, poorly spoken, poorly dressed, close-minded, angry, uneducated, lying, anti-urban embarrassment certainly isn't going to be considered positive points, but if he were to actually pull off some city-building feats of genius, I would forgive these things (maybe).

Other than the lying, I don't see that any of these points are a big issue. The big issues are his extensive criminal record, his alcohol addiction, his long history of abuse, his drug-taking, his drunk-driving, and his long history of bigotry which continues unabated.

If he was merely a phat, uncouth, poorly spoken, poorly dressed, close-minded, angry, uneducated, anti-urban embarrassment then it wouldn't be so bad!