OK, there's a lot for me to reply to and I have things to do, so sorry if I missed anything.
At the beginning of his term Ford had control of council. But through his unparliamentary and disgraceful behaviour as mayor, he lost their support quicker than I've ever seen of any politician at any level of gov't. The one and only person to blame for that is Rob Ford. If the man had not shown utter contempt for our elected councillors and had more respect for our mayors office which we entrusted him with, he would probably still be in control of the agenda.
I'm not going to let council off that easily. These are the elected officials who represent us and are paid consummately for their work. Disgraceful behavior on the part of the mayor does not excuse disgraceful behavior on the part of council. Yes, Ford is responsible for working with council, but I also expect council to work with the best interests of their constituents in mind as opposed to spiting Ford.
The claim was not that spending increased disproportionately - its that its continued to increase. Ford has not been able to materially slow the rate of spending at city hall, and property taxes have essentially continued to rise at approximately the same rate relative to inflation (give or take half a percent)
Ford never promised to decrease the rate of spending. That would have been ridiculous. In fact, its just the very nature of spending that it is going to increase year-by-year. No mayor has ever turned in a budget lower than the previous years, and while it would be one thing to hold Ford to that if he promised it, he didn't.
Furthermore, Ford may have slowed the rate of spending at city hall. I'm not going to get back into the whole gross-operating-budget debacle, but it did essentially flat-line and the reasons for that are difficult to determine. Without the facts, I'm not going to make the claim that Ford has slowed the rate of spending, but at the very least, there's a good possibility he has. Unfortunately, the data is inconclusive.
One thing I'm wondering is if anyone has a chart of property tax increases year-by-year relative to inflation. I couldn't find anything on Google.
By all means state them. Avoid wishy-washy statements like "Changing the culture at city hall". I can only think of four direct and current effects (ie actual ways that Toronto residents have been affected) of the Ford Mayoralty:
- Cancelled Bag Tax
- Cancelled VRT
- Cancelled Jarvis Bike Lanes
- Private garbage collection for 50% of the city
Along with what you've listed:
- Without Ford, there is a good chance we would have had LRT's and wouldn't have had the Scarborough subway extension. I understand Ford doesn't get the full credit for these developments, but as mayor he was instrumental in these developments, both in shifting the tone and focus of council, cancelling Transit City and getting federal/provincial funding.
- Negotiating effective deals with the unions (excluding the police union) and avoiding any strikes (besides that minor librarian thing).
- Refusing to introduce new revenue tools or taxes onto citizens, and keeping property taxes in line with inflation (I would like to see a source for property tax increases in Toronto, if anyone knows of one).
- Reducing the rate of increases in the gross operating budget [inconclusive, and admittedly something that the average citizen would not notice]
1) Crack cocaine is an incredibly powerful stimulant. This guy, given his weight problem and very very likely hypertension issue (show me one picture where his face isn't as red as a baboon's ass) is one random hit on a crack pipe away from being a bloated corpse. If you care about his job as mayor and believe he is doing it well, then you should care if he's putting his life in danger every time he uses crack. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
True, but how does this extend to him stepping down from office or being charged criminally?
2) "smokes crack on occasion" - not exactly easy to do, it's one of the most addictive drugs on the planet. Susceptibility to addiction is different for every person of course, some people can use 'on occasion' without becoming addicts, but certainly not everyone. And I would bet that Ford has an addictive personality (he's clearly addicted to overeating). If Ford is (or becomes) an addict, you don't think it would effect his job performance? His thought process, attention to detail, reasoning abilities? I've known addicts before and some of these people were literally out of their minds when they were using regularly. As it is, he's basically already a no-show mayor given that his whereabouts are only accounted for about 50% of the time.
Suggesting Ford has a crack addiction is just too implausible to me, and even most Ford detractors admitted during the crack scandal that there was no way he has an addiction at (a) his current size or with his (b) current performance of mayoral duties. He simply wouldn't be able to function as he does if he was a regular user of crack. That's something which crack addicts have attested to.
3) Doing hard drugs will inevitably eventually put the user in the position where he/she is interacting with sketchy/shady/criminal elements. We've already seen this to be true with Ford, given the picture, video, wiretaps, and numerous other situations related to projects Traveler and Brazen 2. Do you really think it's no big deal if he ends up beholden to a criminal element? Do you really think it's not a big deal if the MAYOR of your city puts himself in a position where he can be extorted or influenced by criminals? What if that element has ties to organized crime/construction industry/garbage industry/corruption in the police force/prostitution, etc, etc. Do you want your mayor in a position of weakness when dealing with these institutions?
Admittedly this would be my only concern, but I'm not sure exactly what "position of weakness" could develop from Ford buying crack off some dealer or how he, a millionaire, would become beholden to some criminal element (especially when these drug dealers supposedly supplied a large portion of Toronto politicians and elites). That would mean his involvement would half to extend well beyond simply being a drug consumer, and then maybe I would have a problem. I don't exactly see how you get from smoking crack once to tied to corruption in the construction industry. Not to mention that any politician, interaction with criminals or not, can be susceptible to extortion. If it came out that Ford did put himself in the position to be extorted by criminals, I would gladly renounce my support of him, but there's nothing to suggest that at the current moment.
4) The bottom line is that crack cocaine possession is illegal. So if you don't mind that the mayor is using it, then you either think 1) it should be legal, or 2) you think that the mayor should not be held to the rule of law. So where do you draw the line on what illegal activities are acceptable for the mayor's office? Is it ok for him to take bribes too? Participate in prostitution? Is it OK for your mayor to send out goons to physically intimidate people he doesn't like? Which laws apply to him and which don't? Just wondering...
I don't think it should be legal, I just could care less what politicians do on their personal time. What a public official does when they go home from work is none of my business, so long as it doesn't interfere with their duties and responsibilities, and they can still perform their job competently. I draw the line at illegal activities being done in or interfering with the mayor's office - what the mayor does at home, I could really care less about. To answer your question, I would care about him taking bribes or sending out goons to physically intimidate people, but I really could care less if he was paying for illegal sex services. I didn't care when Jack Layton did it and I won't care if Ford does it either.