[Torontovibe]

For as uninhabitable as I think some of the GTA suburbs are, we've got nothing on American suburbia. Try opening google maps and looking at the suburbs of Phoenix or Vegas. They go on forever.

Take a look at LA. It all looks like a slice of Scarberia. Even "downtown" LA is pretty bleak over all. Well, unless you have a thing for strip malls.

 

[taal]

Take a look at LA. It all looks like a slice of Scarberia. Even "downtown" LA is pretty bleak over all. Well, unless you have a thing for strip malls.

True, a few new developments downtown are helping ... the new hotel they have going on (Ritz maybe?) is pretty interesting!

 

[Glen]

Barber isn't saying that things are rosy, just more subtle.

The traffic stats could be a result of the demographics he refers to in his second last paragraph



More people commute into the city for work because there are fewer people of working age living in the city (or at least the old suburbs). Younger people working in the city live in the 905 suburbs and have to commute into the city. This suggestion, that there are significant populations, and neighbourhoods, of retirees in the 416, is consistent with the patterns of low population growth that we saw in the last census.

The Cordon Count statistics tell a different story. Also Toronto had fewer jobs in 2005 than in 1991. It also conflicts with TTC ridership stats that show in 2005 ridership was again approaching the 1989 high.

I can agree with your reasoning though. If families move out of the city but one or both members work in the city, public transit may prove to be inadequate. Even accounting for an increase in single occupancy vehicles, the stats that Barber alludes to seem suspect. 232,200 more people commuting into the city that has ~100,000 less jobs with approximately equal transit ridership. Perhaps I am missing something.

 

[Glen]

Have a look at attachment # 3 in this report (page 50). It shows that between 1991 and 2004 Toronto lost 7.4% of it s full and part time jobs. It also shows that the number of residents working outside of the city increased from 15.1% to 19.2%.

From the 2005 report....

In 1989, total employment in the City of Toronto peaked at almost 1.5 million workers. Since that time, employment in the city has at best languished. In fact, it is estimated that 100,000 fewer people work today in the City of Toronto than fifteen years ago. In contrast, employment in the rapidly growing suburbs around Toronto has increased significantly over this period. In the last 15 years, 800,000 new jobs have been created in the rest of the Toronto CMA (905 area). In 2002, the 905 area became a net importer of labour from Toronto and the rest of Ontario. In 2003, the 905 area finally surpassed the City of Toronto in terms of total employment. Already in 2001, more City residents commuted to jobs in Vaughan, than Vaughan residents worked in the City.

City of Toronto 905 Area Attachment 3 to this report illustrates job loss by ward from 1989 to 2004. It shows that job losses have occurred across the City. The last two columns also show that the percentage of employed City residents that commute out of the City to their jobs increased in every ward in the City between 1991 and 2001.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

City of Toronto Cordon Count:

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/cordon_count_2006.pdf

232,200 more people commuting into the city that has ~100,000 less jobs with approximately equal transit ridership. Perhaps I am missing something.

Yes - it's the growth in GO ridership.

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

Glen: I admire the amount of research you do on this topic and your singular focus, but what's your aim? What would you do if you were elected Mayor of Toronto tomorrow?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I see that business in Toronto peaked in 1989, then had a rough decline through the 90s. You've already admitted that 2002-2007 was a 'decent performance' - does that not imply that the City is on the right track? (The recession has probably stopped any progress in its tracks, but that's hardly a Toronto thing.)

Similarly, you continue to make the point that Toronto's business taxes are too high and need to be lowered. Except the City seems to have already heard this and is now taking steps to lower business taxes while increasing residential taxes. I guess you can quibble with the timeline and say that the shift is too slow, but, again, isn't the city on the right course?

 

[MisterF]

You might want to compare 2009 statistics with 1989 ones. A generation ago Toronto had a smaller population and 200,000 more jobs.

Not true. Toronto has 47,600 fewer jobs than at the peak in 1989. In 2008 the city had 1,309,300 jobs. Nearly all of the losses were in the early 90s, and there has been near constant job growth since 1996 (there was a dip after 2000).

It's also worth noting that most of the job losses have been in manufacturing, which made up 22% of all jobs in 1983 compared to 11% today. The institutional and office sectors have shown the strongest recent growth. Nearly all the job growth (and residential growth for that matter) has been downtown.

To me, this all seems to indicate that the biggest problems were in the early 90s, not today. The shift in employment base from manufacturing to office and institutional work is a positive shift for the city, since industrial jobs are usually best in suburban areas. While the recession has no doubt eliminated jobs, the gradual lowering of business property taxes can only help future job growth prospects.

Glen, I'm wondering the same thing as GraphicMatt - what do you think is causing the problems you're seeing and how would you fix them?

 

[Glen]

Not true. Toronto has 47,600 fewer jobs than at the peak in 1989. In 2008 the city had 1,309,300 jobs. Nearly all of the losses were in the early 90s, and there has been near constant job growth since 1996 (there was a dip after 2000).

At its peak (1989), Toronto had 1.5 million jobs according to the city.

As for your and Matt's question as to what I would do. That is simple, I would be honest with taxpayers. Take a look at today's budget , over the next ten years the shift of taxes between the residential and non residential classes will amount to ~20% increase in residential taxes. Add in inflation and that amounts to a revenue neutral average increase of taxes for residents of 3-5%. There is hardly an appetite for this by residents and councillors. Do you think that Torontonians are aware of the spending commitments that the city has already made?

We also have Mayor Miller hinting that the program to shift taxes might be in jeopardy for next year. We have councillors on the right suggesting that residents cannot afford higher taxes. On the left we councillors suggesting that reducing commercial taxes is unfair to residents. I don't think that there is the political will to see through the necessary changes.

The implications of such is that the city/region will continue to develop in a way that is detrimental. Furthermore we have a city engaged in initiatives to alleviate problems that its tax policy exasperated in the first place (pollution and sprawl). Look at the money spent on Transit City. I think that an argument could be made that transit expansion should be geared towards areas with employment growth. It is plausible that the TTC might have reached its peak in ridership and expansion of such will not not increase ridership much and have poor returns. With the relative stagnation in Toronto's job market it could be argued that the city would be better off spending $1 billion solely on bike paths. With the balance of money going towards transit in under served areas.

The spillover effect of the loss of the assessment base will be felt by residents, eventually. To quote Mayor Miller.........

Employment growth within the city is important for fiscal, social and environmental reasons. A shrinking business and property tax base diminishes Toronto’s ability to adequately provide the social services and other public amenities that are the hallmark of a just and caring society.

Environmental Impacts of Office Location
Annual Impact Downtown Toronto Surrounding Regions
Transit trips 634,800 57,363
Auto kms. 3,259,300 11,153,700
Fuel use (l.) 291,025 995,925
Emissions (kg.) 940,800 3,129,500

Then, there are the personal stresses of long commutes stuck in traffic gridlock to drive to a job that go hand in hand with increased fuel consumption and increased emissions that contribute to environmental stress. It also means that people who do not have access to a car have reduced access to job opportunities. Toronto runs the risk of becoming a “bedroom community†if we don’t take action now.

Higher residential tax are coming to Toronto. The question is will they be forced upon residents by the loss of the non residential assessment base or by policy choice. If done by choice the city can avert some of the consequences.

BTW my first act as Mayor would be to hire Don Drummond to run the city. I would then immediately retire.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Really good post - thanks for responding!

I think your views are a bit pessimistic, but your point about politics making the tax shift difficult is well-taken. Realtors, especially, are likely to continue to freak the hell out at any kind of increased residential tax burden. The media doesn't help, as they seem to be allergic to mentioning that Toronto's residential taxes are still lower than the 905's.

As far as spending and Transit City is concerned, this is clearly coming from an ideological place for Miller. He believes that running transit lines through low-income areas will have a transformative effect.

It's idealistic as hell, and I'm skeptical as to how well it work (The Dundas streetcar rolled through Regent Park for years and didn't seem to help) but that's his gambit.

 

[Glen]

Really good post - thanks for responding!

I think your views are a bit pessimistic, but your point about politics making the tax shift difficult is well-taken. Realtors, especially, are likely to continue to freak the hell out at any kind of increased residential tax burden. The media doesn't help, as they seem to be allergic to mentioning that Toronto's residential taxes are still lower than the 905's.

I forgot to add the future burden of not being able to count on monies from reserves, the province and GTA pooling. The spending commitments in place suggest much higher taxes to come.

As far as spending and Transit City is concerned, this is clearly coming from an ideological place for Miller. He believes that running transit lines through low-income areas will have a transformative effect.

It's idealistic as hell, and I'm skeptical as to how well it work (The Dundas streetcar rolled through Regent Park for years and didn't seem to help) but that's his gambit.

It may be his gambit but it is our money.

Cheers

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

As far as spending and Transit City is concerned, this is clearly coming from an ideological place for Miller. He believes that running transit lines through low-income areas will have a transformative effect.

I would argue that the two lines really can't be justified by other means is Malvern and perhaps Jane - everything else has appeared in planning documents over the years as potential lines. What's perhaps more ideological is the mode of the transit - but that's been through a zillion times in TC threads on here.

Besides, it appears that TC is no longer being paid for by the city.

AoD

 

[MisterF]

At its peak (1989), Toronto had 1.5 million jobs according to the city.

Nope.

According to the City, Toronto had 1,356,900 jobs in 1989. That number dropped to a low of 1,153,800 in 1996 and has since risen to 1,309,300.

http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/surveys.htm

 

[Glen]

Nope.

According to the City, Toronto had 1,356,900 jobs in 1989. That number dropped to a low of 1,153,800 in 1996 and has since risen to 1,309,300.

http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/surveys.htm

According to this it was 1.5 million (page 12). There is a similar discrepancy in the 1996 numbers in both the Places to Grow and Toronto Regional Forecasts. Perhaps different counting methods.

 

[MisterF]

According to this it was 1.5 million (page 12). There is a similar discrepancy in the 1996 numbers in both the Places to Grow and Toronto Regional Forecasts. Perhaps different counting methods.

Perhaps. But the report you linked to gives only estimates, while the annual employment surveys have a consistent methodology and give exact numbers year after year. So I'd rather trust those numbers.

 

[Glen]

The necessary job of dragging Toronto down too is made even more difficult by all those pesky outside experts - KPMG, Mercer Consulting, The Economist Intelligence Unit, Foreign Policy magazine, Standard & Poor's - that continue to publish surveys ranking it, by every measure imaginable, as one of the world's best cities.

John should have noted that the report itself addressed the differences of the KPMG report...

According to the KPMG report Competitive Alternatives 2008,16 the Toronto CMA does well on its total tax index, which measures total tax paid by businesses relative to their pre-tax income. This report uses the KPMG index to benchmark the Toronto CMA against 13 other metropolitan areas. On this basis, Toronto ranks fifth out of 14, better than all U.S. cities and earning Toronto an “A†Grade. This result, however, masks a very important issue: namely the business property tax differential between the City and the 905 region. This matter is not addressed in the KPMG study. The lacklustre economic performance of the City vis-à-vis the 905 region over the past 20-plus years has been attributed in part to the City’s higher business tax. A 2005 report prepared by the Canadian Urban Institute for the Toronto Office Coalition found that, in part due to this tax differential, there has been a 25 to 50 per cent increase in assessment value in other Greater Toronto Area municipalities between 1992 and 2005, compared with a decrease in Toronto’s assessment base over the same period.17 A companion report by the economist Peter Tomlinson notes that “instead of being driven by economic fundamentals, investment [due to the 416 / 905 tax-rate differential] is artificially driven outside the Toronto boundary.â€18 From 1992 to 2007, non-residential building permits have grown almost twice as fast in the 905 region — by 13.2 per cent per year compared with 7.1 per cent per year in the City. This rapid economic development has led to much faster employment growth in the 905 portion of the CMA (see “Job Growth in Toronto CMA†on page 38). No doubt, the fast pace of job creation in the 905 region attracted many new residents to that region. During the past 15 years, population growth averaged 3.4 per cent per year, compared with 0.9 per cent per year in the City. Given the importance of population growth in the determination of potential economic growth, the City has
reason for concern.