[Irishmonk]

Even for the Scarborough extension, Ford is only implementing a minimal property tax increase.

Minimal because the Feds are expected to kick in the difference with, yup, taxpayers' money. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It does not make for sound or disciplined fiscal policy.

 

[bobbob911]

He definitely could have done better spending-wise, but I also believe he has made some pretty significant changes. He dramatically slowed gross operating budget increases, contracted out garbage collection services and struck deals with unions, while keeping property taxes low and eliminating other taxes (vehicle registration tax, bag tax). There's been some things which he's attempted to accomplish - such as reducing council or some of his spending cuts which were reversed - which would have done some good too.

Let's talk about this in reality, not in the abstract - how much money has Rob Ford personally saved you? If you are a driver, he's saved you $60/year. If you are a homeowner, he's saved you about 1 to 1.5 percentage points off property tax increases relative to a more progressive candidate (of course, debatable, and I'm not including the first year tax freeze paid for 100% by rainy day funds). So maybe $75-90/year by year 4?

So, that's your net benefit under a Rob Ford mayoralty. Has that really been worth the non-stop embarrassment of the last 4 years? The delaying and dismantling of any kind of transportation plan? The complete lack of vision for actually improving our city???

 

[RC8]

I'm fairly certain cowboylogic is just trolling by his continuing to bring up the gross operating budget figures. I struggle to believe he doesn't understand what the gross operating budget is at this stage, and how it can be reduced by lowering taxes and leaving projects unfunded.

 

[Adaax]

I'm fairly certain cowboylogic is just trolling by his continuing to bring up the gross operating budget figures. I struggle to believe he doesn't understand what the gross operating budget is at this stage, and how it can be reduced by lowering taxes and leaving projects unfunded.

The way it's burying Metroman's posts and the rest of the crack story, I'd dare say cl is a paid operative who has mastered the art of deflection.

 

[DarExc]

The way it's burying Metroman's posts and the rest of the crack story, I'd dare say cl is a paid operative who has mastered the art of deflection.

I've read their back and forth and would disagree entirely. I would argue comments like yours are trolling. Both posters have conceded to points from the other and done so in a civil tone.

IMO when one agree's with their chosen politician 100% of the time and disagrees with their opponent likewise\cannot see anything of value their opponent brings to the table then that person has a very closed mind and is just as dangerous as the most uneducated of voters. I find this far too common on opinion forums sadly and amongst all our politicians of every stripe.

 

[Adaax]

I've read their back and forth and would disagree entirely. I would argue comments like yours are trolling. Both posters have conceded to points from the other and done so in a civil tone.

IMO when one agree's with their chosen politician 100% of the time and disagrees with their opponent likewise\cannot see anything of value their opponent brings to the table then that person has a very closed mind and is just as dangerous as the most uneducated of voters. I find this far too common on opinion forums sadly and amongst all our politicians of every stripe.

Not saying you're wrong on the 2nd point, but the fact that this is your first post makes you pretty suspicious. Also, I never accused anyone of being a troll. Also, even the 50-cent army concedes points, when they're smart.

 

[JWBF]

I know it may just be a pet peeve of mine, but why do people call it a "Bag Tax", the "fee" charged by stores never went to the government (except for 1 cent when the HST was introduced), and Robbie just made the "fee" non-mandatory.

I shop at a lot of places that still charge the "fee", however, I have been using my own bags long before this non-issue used to bandy/pander from the attention Robbie craves. I never saw what the problem was, use something, pay something, that's consumerism.

 

[adma]

He definitely could have done better spending-wise, but I also believe he has made some pretty significant changes. He dramatically slowed gross operating budget increases, contracted out garbage collection services and struck deals with unions, while keeping property taxes low and eliminating other taxes (vehicle registration tax, bag tax). There's been some things which he's attempted to accomplish - such as reducing council or some of his spending cuts which were reversed - which would have done some good too.

Keep in mind that a lot of the "he" you're referring to is generic right-of-centre mayoral stuff, i.e. chalk it up to his exec, not to Ford; a Mayor Tory or even a Mayor Smitherman (trust me on the latter; that's why a lot of left-of-centres feared Smitherman more than Ford in 2010, that he'd carry out a lot of the same stuff more "competently") could've done much the same...

 

[RC8]

That's not the first time that has been brought up either, hence why I perceive cowboylogic's posts largely as trolling at this stage.

He has been explained the finer details of things like the plastic bag fee and the gross operating budget over and over again, yet he takes a break and comes back to repeat it all just as before.

Thing is, we are not stupid, we remember Ford's promises and his campaign, it's still all there in the internet if you want to look for it. Just watch this video of Ford's transportation plan:

[video=youtube;PGyqe3Ewz4I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyqe3Ewz4I[/video]

Some quotes:

"We'll work with the private sector to generate AT LEAST one billion dollars"

"We'll build 100km of new well-lit bicycle trails across the city in vacant green spaces, along ravines, in river valleys, etc"

"Both (of my plan's subway lines in Scarborough) will be completed and opened before the PanAm games of 2015"

"Where we can't afford to build subways today, like Eglinton Ave, we will introduce new express buses."
(note, not BRT, just express buses)

"My transportation plan is sensible, it's affordable, it's realistic, and it will be delivered before the PanAm games begin in 2015"

He won the election by spewing blatant lies like this continuously:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkQ3IS6ea7w

It's frustrating when his supporters now come out and cling on to worthless figures like the gross operating budget (which they either don't understand or choose to not understand) while conveniently ignoring that if Rob Ford had had his way 1) there would be no rapid transit under construction in Eglinton, and 2) his scarborough subways would have failed to get off the ground (as they have anyway) because his 1 billion dollars from the private sector fairies never materialised.

Next they'll tell you how he saved one billion dollars by cutting taxes and implementing fees (which is an inherently incoherent argument).

 

[LowPolygon]

He definitely could have done better spending-wise, but I also believe he has made some pretty significant changes...

indeed. i think we have all really benefited from the introduction of Ford's signature "Crack Day" holiday. i know the elites fought him hard on this one, but he believed so strongly that the 'little guy' should also have access to crack that he saw it right through to the end. now everybody has crack, and he did it without raising taxes a "nickel". so lets all raise a pipe to Rob.

 

[CowboyLogic]

It wasn't just a failed genuine campaign promise. It was a complete and utter lie. Rob Ford knew full well that there was no gravy to cut. This imaginary gravy train was nothing less than a tactic to mine votes.

There have been some efficiencies - for instance, just the reductions in the Mayor's office alone. While Ford was disingenuous in saying no services will be cut, I think there's also been a very broad definition of what constitutes a "service" in this city. For instance, I remember the cuts to the library's budgets as being controversial, but these could only be termed as "service cuts" in the broadest definition of that term. Efficiencies were approved to reduce their spending. Reducing the couple million that the library annually spends on DVDs and popular magazines is more of an "efficiency" than a "service cut" in my eyes.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love taxes to be raised. We need it for transit. I'm chastising him for making fanciful promises of huge tax cuts, without cutting services while at the same time building subways. He fully knew that his promises couldn't be delivered. The only taxes he cut are the relatively tiny VRT and the bag tax.

With the exception of the land transfer tax (as well as keeping property tax increases low), he never promised any more than that. Reducing any tax when there's currently a large push for more taxes is an achievement in my eyes.

Minimal because the Feds are expected to kick in the difference with, yup, taxpayers' money. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It does not make for sound or disciplined fiscal policy.

Federal funding is the status quo for projects, organizations and politicians across the board. Olivia Chow has been calling for federal funding for transit too. Maybe its not sound fiscal policy, but its standard fiscal policy and nothing new.

I'm fairly certain cowboylogic is just trolling by his continuing to bring up the gross operating budget figures. I struggle to believe he doesn't understand what the gross operating budget is at this stage, and how it can be reduced by lowering taxes and leaving projects unfunded.

Maybe you have a better understanding of the gross operating budget than me, but it is my understanding that the gross operating budget is the best way to gauge city spending, as it represents total cost/spending for the city.

The way it's burying Metroman's posts and the rest of the crack story, I'd dare say cl is a paid operative who has mastered the art of deflection.

I can only wish I was being paid for this. While I'm flattered that you think I've mastered the art of deflection, the real reason that I've been posting more now is because I was busy the past few weeks and didn't have proper Internet access. If the video is coming out, its coming out. I'm not sure any amount of posting on this forum could change or deflect that.

I've read their back and forth and would disagree entirely. I would argue comments like yours are trolling. Both posters have conceded to points from the other and done so in a civil tone.

IMO when one agree's with their chosen politician 100% of the time and disagrees with their opponent likewise\cannot see anything of value their opponent brings to the table then that person has a very closed mind and is just as dangerous as the most uneducated of voters. I find this far too common on opinion forums sadly and amongst all our politicians of every stripe.

Thanks. I really do not think I've done anything on this forum anywhere close to trolling. A lot of people seem to think I'm a troll simply by virtue of the fact that I like Ford. I've tried to have open and honest discussions about Ford and I've admitted when I'm wrong or when I don't know know something. It is funny how a lot of the people accusing me of trolling are the ones throwing insults around and not discussing the issues.

I know it may just be a pet peeve of mine, but why do people call it a "Bag Tax", the "fee" charged by stores never went to the government (except for 1 cent when the HST was introduced), and Robbie just made the "fee" non-mandatory.

I shop at a lot of places that still charge the "fee", however, I have been using my own bags long before this non-issue used to bandy/pander from the attention Robbie craves. I never saw what the problem was, use something, pay something, that's consumerism.

Well, that was the problem with it. You had the municipal government mandating that stores charge a fee that went directly into the business owner's pockets. I actually wouldn't have had a problem with the fee if it went to the city and was put towards some environmental initiative or funding for some project, although unfortunately that wasn't a possibility.

I have no problem if business owners do want to charge the bag fee of their own volition, but the government shouldn't be forcing business owners to charge a for-profit fee.

 

[RC8]

I have no problem if business owners do want to charge the bag fee of their own volition, but the government shouldn't be forcing business owners to charge a for-profit fee.

Why?

 

[somuchwater]

Maybe you have a better understanding of the gross operating budget than me, but it is my understanding that the gross operating budget is the best way to gauge city spending, as it represents total cost/spending for the city.

Not spending by the city. That's the net operating budget. The gross operating budget includes, for example, money 'spent' by the city on programs that are funded one-hundred per cent by the province. The actual amount of money that the city spends each year has gone up under Ford, which, given that the population is going up, is perfectly reasonable.

 

[CowboyLogic]

He has been explained the finer details of things like the plastic bag fee and the gross operating budget over and over again, yet he takes a break and comes back to repeat it all just as before.

First of all, unless I'm having a major memory lapse, the bag tax has never been discussed me on here. I understand it anyway, but this is the first time its come up with my involvement or input.

As well, the gross operating budget has been discussed, but, once again, never explained to me on here. It is my understanding that the gross operating budget is the best way to gauge the city's spending, as it represents the total cost to the city.

If you feel like my understanding of either of these things is insufficient, feel free to fill me in with what you think I'm missing. Nobody has ever quibbled with me on either of these issues before.

"We'll build 100km of new well-lit bicycle trails across the city in vacant green spaces, along ravines, in river valleys, etc"

You can take any politician and pull out things from their campaign that never materialized. In terms of accomplishing campaign promises, Ford has a better ratio than most in my estimation. I'd agree a lot of his promises were unfeasible, but with the exception of the "no service cuts" issue, he hasn't actively gone back on any of his promises. In fact, the bulk of them, he has either accomplished or made a push for in council.

As for the cycling trails, Ford actually has been working on this: http://torontoist.com/2011/06/a_look_at_rob_fords_bike_plan/

 

[CowboyLogic]

Not spending by the city. That's the net operating budget. The gross operating budget includes, for example, money 'spent' by the city on programs that are funded one-hundred per cent by the province. The actual amount of money that the city spends each year has gone up under Ford, which, given that the population is going up, is perfectly reasonable.

Thanks for the response, somuchwater. Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. By "total cost/spending for the city" I meant the "total cost" for city services no matter where the money was coming from. I do know, as I read the Matt Elliot and Edward Keenan articles before, that user fees and provincial funding factor into the gross operating budget. It was my understanding that the gross operating budget is the total cost for the city as opposed to what the city was actually generating and spending itself.