[PinkLucy]

Fixing poor management/delivery of service also doesn't equal cuts. Efficiency doesn't equal cuts. I'm sure there are many areas where efficiencies can be realized through improved processes, staff re-allocation and other means. Slash and burn doesn't achieve anything.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Did it occur to you that others in this city don't share this view? That other citizens want other options beside seeing their taxes forever going up? And my street hasn't been done in several years. It's falling apart. This city isn't well managed at all. We all know this. We're not addressing the underlying issue at all. Poor management/delivery of services.

Property taxes HAVE to go up every year, at the very least to keep up with inflation. Gimmicky property tax freezes essentially result in a net reduction of revenues for governments. Income taxes and sales taxes, on the other hand, are based on percentages that grow with the economy, so they can stay stagnate and still generate more revenues in good times. If people earn more and spend more, the provincial and federal governments generate revenues. The City's largest revenue driver -- property taxes -- doesn't work that way.

Poor management is a customer service issue and may involve more spending in the short-term to identify the issue and work to fix it. I agree that it's worth doing, though.

 

[Tulse]

other citizens want other options beside seeing their taxes forever going up? My street hasn't been done in several years. It's falling apart.

And the money to fix your street will come from...what exactly? Donations? Private corporations? Bake sales?

 

[Justin10000]

I think the point being made is that you can't just keep raising taxes forever to avoid balancing the books. At some point, you have to make cuts somewhere. People down there yesterday didn't seem to want cuts of any kind. At least, the type of cuts that are necessary. It's not realistic. The city can't pay for everything, forever. Doesn't sound like anything was really accomplished yesterday.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course taxes could be raised and MUST be raised every year. A modest increase every year, and Toronto could have avoided this mess. Most people do not mind paying a small increase in taxes if it means maintaining or improving services. Ford could kept the vehicle tax, implemented a small increase, and THEN look at services, and see where there could have been some savings. He screwed up royally.

 

[tkip]

Fixing poor management/delivery of service also doesn't equal cuts. Efficiency doesn't equal cuts. I'm sure there are many areas where efficiencies can be realized through improved processes, staff re-allocation and other means. Slash and burn doesn't achieve anything.

Sometimes, restructuring and making cuts are necessary. Some wanting no changes besides making others foot the bill forever is no solution. People down there yesterday didn't want cuts of any kind.

 

[TonyV]

To my fellow posters here who oppose the nonsense that the Ford Bros and their cronies are perpetrating: write your councillor. I just did.

 

[PinkLucy]

Fixing poor management/delivery does sometimes require restructuring and making cuts. People down there yesterday don't want cuts of any kind and want the entire city to shoulder all the costs with no end in sight. How is this a solution?

It doesn't require a slash and burn type of cut; it requires taking a CLOSE and careful look at current systems and procedures before restructuring. That hasn't been done.

 

[Lansdown]

Fixing poor management/delivery does sometimes require restructuring and making cuts. People down there yesterday don't want cuts of any kind and want the entire city to shoulder all the costs with no end in sight. How is this a solution?

Nice job openly conflating restructuring with cutting.

 

[tkip]

So..... They don't want any cuts. Don't want any programs touched. Don't want layoffs of any kind. They want others to foot the bill forever as a solution. Have I got this right?

 

[Bruvyman]

So..... They don't want any cuts. Don't want any programs touched. Don't want layoffs of any kind. They want others to foot the bill forever as a solution. Have I got this right?

It is my understanding that "Ford Nation" were among the groups that don't want any cuts. After all, isn't that the platform that Ford ran on and that they voted for?

 

[ladyscraper]

It is my understanding that "Ford Nation" were among the groups that don't want any cuts. After all, isn't that the platform that Ford ran on and that they voted for?

Yep. He said he wouldn't have to cut any major services to reduce spending. It was a complete lie that any person with even half a brain could see through. Clearly, the people that voted for him didn't have the brains.

 

[jje1000]

So..... They don't want any cuts. Don't want any programs touched. Don't want layoffs of any kind. They want others to foot the bill forever as a solution. Have I got this right?

You seem to be saying the same stuff over and over again, so I'm going to quote PinkLucy on why these people came down to city hall yesterday.

It doesn't require a slash and burn type of cut; it requires taking a CLOSE and careful look at current systems and procedures before restructuring. That hasn't been done.

They want city council to take a good second look to see how these cuts will affect the city.

 

[CanadianNational]

tkip: please get this straight before posting more repetitive malarky.

The overwhelming singular solution proposed by the majority of the speakers down there last night was that they were freely willing to pay more taxes in order to guarantee no cuts to spending. That is, they were willing to pay themselves.

Again:
This was the overwhelming message to Ford: There is no gravy as you stated. It will cost to keep the services we have. Therefore, we are willing to pay for those services through taxes.
As one speaker put it: "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society".

The KPMG report is one of indiscriminate, non-contextual, uniformed cutting. It is not a refiner of efficiencies. Thus, your street is not likely to benefit from the resulting expansionsist pool of negative effects that would be the consequence of acting on the KPMG report as it stands.
There has been no equivalent impact statement issued, outlining the effect of the cuts. This may actually be required by law, according to the city's own rights code.

Expansion of government organizational capacity to keep in line with the organic complexities of an expanding 21-st century city is natural, not a problem, especially when wanted and needed by the citizenry.
The city - organically created by it's citizens - is not a business.
Businesses are not democratic.

A city grows not just in size, but in complexity. The Toronto of 2011 is not just larger than the Toronto of 1911, it is exponentially more complex as well. These necessary systemic complexities require complicated and extensive social, financial and governmental support. This intertwined web of contributions and dependencies are part of the formal tissue of what is called society. A tax model from 1911 - or 1961 - or 1981 - would not address it's nature.
Growth of intelligent, transparent and accountable government as requested and needed by the people is not an imposition nor a necessary evil. It is a civilized, natural good. Without it, civilization - our defense against raw cruelty, hierarchy and nature - would collapse.

 

[jn_12]

Nicely put, but again this process tonight isn't contributing anything to that.

So, in your opinion, things aren't worth doing unless they're guaranteed to have an impact? All people can do is get involved and try their best to have their voices heard. If they're falling on deaf ears, that's not the fault of the people who stayed up all night to voice their opinions.

I think we're also going to find that last night was a bit of a tipping point. The level of civic pride that was expressed last night seems to have motivated a lot of people who have never got involved in city politics before (my girlfriend being one of them). Events like last night can have multiple goals and outcomes, and it's fair to say that last night will have an effect on Toronto's future in some way.

 

[Marko]

* edited to remove by brain fart regarding the way property taxes increase *

Toronto property taxes have been kept artificially low for some time now. An increase of 2 to maybe 3% above the increases already occurring as actually a lot. Combined with property values, property taxes are already pushing the elderly and low income out of the ability to own home in the first place. For all the supposed talk of helping the working poor, etc, tax increases only serve create a larger number of them. The answer is always "more taxes" which is a never ending vacuum that creates an ever widening gap between "haves" and "have nots" - and it's not the "haves" that are to blame for this because they are already paying a greater share of taxes not only in bulk numbers, but by percentages.

There is a balancing act that has to be made where raising property taxes doesn't eventually make Toronto a place where only the rich can live. A lot of people think this balancing point has been reached - or crossed years ago. Of course everyone wants infrastructure and services and supports for those who need them - but decisions need to be made regarding the level of those services that are reasonable to place on the local government. When things are going well then great, do more, but things that were once deemed 'extra' or 'more' end up becoming permanent because no politician ever wants to take anything away, but eventually when times change it has to happen.