[taal]

Filled out ... it does seem a little silly overall but I like the effort. I didn't find the questions leading ... except clearing the underlying objective is what can we cut not how can we improve our city ... given the shortfall we face you can argue this is just.

Another central theme is the user fees vs property tax dilemma.

 

[grey]

I appreciate the spirit of the survey as a form of public consultation... but the idea that they might base policy decisions on the results of a survey filled out by the grossly uninformed public is ridiculous. Especially when one quarter of all possible answers are "I don't care as long as it's cheap".

 

[EnviroTO]

I appreciate the spirit of the survey as a form of public consultation... but the idea that they might base policy decisions on the results of a survey filled out by the grossly uninformed public is ridiculous. Especially when one quarter of all possible answers are "I don't care as long as it's cheap".

The ordering of services within a department doesn't seem to have any value at all. I'm glad they had the options they did because by having a "I don't care as long as the quality is good" option there at least it is honest in that there is something (quality) likely to be lost for going cheap. This is a far cry from saying "there is gravy everywhere we can have amazing quality by redirecting gravy". What happened to all the gravy anyways? Why isn't he using the savings on gravy to eliminate the need for tax increases or service cuts?

 

[CanadianNational]

I just did the survey, but didn't like it much. It's crude and, I think, skewed.

First, they're asking the public about all sorts of things it really doesn't need to be voting on. Like human resources, zoning and engineering and such.
Second, the questions are quite manipulative. When asked to put multiple selections into a hierarchy of importance, there's no way to make them equal - so you end up with misleading prioritzations. I mean, choosing between things like public immunizations, water inspections, ambulance service and 911 calls is ridiculous.
Third, the choices are always have "Increase" at the start of their heading. There's no neutrality or other options presented. Just "Increase!" of taxes or user fees. That wording alone will be guaranteeing that people lean to outsourcing mode, because who wants all-around "increases"?

Also, as EnviroTO notes above....wasn't there supposed to be a zillion litres of golden gravy just waiting to be tapped? What's this about cuts?

 

[Parkdalian]

As someone who has written public opinion surveys for a multinational corporation, I can say that the entire survey is incredibly poorly written and overly biased. One question says that homeless shelters could be funded with user fees. Pardon? There's another question where you are asked to rank things by 1-5 but it doesn't clearly state which is higher - 1 or 5. Why are the only funding options cut, property tax increases or user fees? That's a leading question and a definite no-no. How can the average person give informed responses about 80% of the services the city provides? Why is it being done by an American company - we have many good market research companies in Canada. Why is the information being stored in Ireland - to avoid Canadian privacy laws? And as we've seen in California, getting the electorate to set their own tax rate is a recipe for bankruptcy or a complete evisceration of services. Anyone who fills it out should simply say that all of the services are equally important, and that taxes should be incredibly high to pay for them. After all, it's not like the brothers Ford will raise taxes anyway.

It's disgusting, and shows how the Fords are going to go about cutting the city's services - the popular ones will stay, and the unpopular ones will go. So, bye-bye services for homeless people and other disadvantaged groups! Bye-bye cultural services and urban planning! THE MOB HAS SPOKEN

 

[cgguy]

It's disgusting, and shows how the Fords are going to go about cutting the city's services - the popular ones will stay, and the unpopular ones will go. So, bye-bye services for homeless people and other disadvantaged groups! Bye-bye cultural services and urban planning! THE MOB HAS SPOKEN

As one of Ford's loyal downtown "Mobsters" I'm nothing short of thrilled!

 

[Parkdalian]

As one of Ford's loyal downtown "Mobsters" I'm nothing short of thrilled!

Putting on blinders to the reality of other human beings' needs certainly has its thrilling benefits, I suppose. The more you care only about yourself, the less you have to think about! You can just sink back into your pool of self-satisfaction and concentrate on the one thought that is rattling around your head: ME

 

[EnviroTO]

The short sightedness is that not caring about others ends up hurting oneself to some degree. When major cuts to psychiatric hospitals and services was made the number of people on the street increased. Obviously reducing anything related to housing or looking after homeless people is going to lead to more people on the street. More people without optimism means more people turning to crime. Eventually we are all impacted either because those directly impacted change our lives indirectly (making our city a place we feel less safe in, less proud of, has a reduced economic performance, etc), or because our lives change to become one of those directly impacted (we get sick, old, unemployed, loose our homes in a financial meltdown, etc).

 

[jje1000]

A live feed to the council meeting.

http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&rid=16&sid=1030&lve=22608

Discussing citizen committees right now.

 

[GrandSlam]

Ford taking aim at Jarvis bike lane next. Coming out shortly with a new bike lane plan that will move bike lanes to ravines, secondary roads, and parks.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Ford taking aim at Jarvis bike lane next. Coming out shortly with a new bike lane plan that will move bike lanes to ravines, secondary roads, and parks.

I imagine it goes without saying that Bob and Doug will scrap the Jarvis Street Streetscape Improvement plan along with the bike lanes?

 

[PCC]

Jarvis is an arterial road and the Miller plan was just as ideologically based as the push is to restore it to five lanes.

 

[ttk77]

What's done is done, and quite frankly the road is far less confusing with four fixed lanes than it was with the reversible fifth. Changing it back is a waste of money...hopefully council will vote down the change.

 

[tkip]

My understanding of the Jarvis lane is that it's largely unused. I've heard too many people comment that only a handful of bikes can be spotted using that lane daily. It's the same thing with the bike lane along Vaughan, up the street from me. I've never actually seen someone use it.

 

[jeff316]

I'm surprised - I live up that way, I use Vaughan Road multiple times per week to get to family at Duff/eg and to get to the Allen and there's pretty much some guy on a bike going each way each time, particularly east of Oakwood. It's a very direct route north without having to brave Bathurst.