[Eug]

Just look at the fiasco that is the licensing of new street food vendors. Does anyone really want to give these people more power?

Definitely not. If they did demonstrate some level of budgetary common sense and weren't so anti-business, I might agree with giving the city more power, but right now the mayor and city council seem completely out to lunch on so many issues so I'm personally glad they don't have more power.

 

[allabootmatt]

@Eug: I agree about the food carts--that was a fiasco. But what about the current mayor's economic management is so 'out to lunch,' in your opinion? Miller strikes me as maybe the most pro-development mayor we've had in 30 years, and the balanced budgets speak for themselves.

 

[Glen]

and the balanced budgets speak for themselves.

Balanced with bubble gum and tape.

If not for continual provincial bailouts and the raiding of reserves the budget would not be balanced. Now that the reserves are empty and the province might be unable or unwilling to increase funding Toronto faces another big shortfall for next year.

So what’s next? For a start, both levels of government should clean up their finances. Drummond thinks Miller and McGuinty could learn something from Martin and Chrétien about being upfront with citizens about the problems their governments face. “Chrétien and Martin didn’t just slash government spending out of the blue. They put it in context and brought the public into it. And by the time they did it, the public was actually egging them on to be more aggressive than they had intended to be.â€

Miller and McGuinty, Drummond says, need to tell their constituents that Toronto and Ontario are suffering from structural deficits that must urgently be fixed. By “structural deficit,†he means that, on a regular basis, neither government has enough revenues to pay for its programs. The city is not legally allowed to run an operating deficit, so it balances its budget by drawing on its reserves. Drummond thinks that city hall should cut spending as much as possible, then cover the remaining shortfall (and there will be a shortfall) by raising residential taxes, which are lower here than in comparable jurisdictions. He has great faith in the intelligence of ordinary people, and in their ability to handle the truth about the economy. They’ll back higher residential taxes, he believes, if someone shows them why higher taxes are necessary.

Most importantly, he says, if Toronto wants a thriving economy, it has to stop driving away business with its high corporate taxes. The city’s commercial and industrial rate is double the residential rate, which, in Drummond’s view, makes no sense. The rates are also higher than those in the outer suburbs, which is why business headquarters and jobs are moving to places like Markham.

http://torontolife.ca/features/celebrity-economist/?pageno=3

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Drummond conveniently neglected that the balanced budgets at the Feds is achived through reduction of transfers to other levels of government - so in effect, it's shifting spending elsewhere and moving the deficit off their books. The very fact that most people didn't caught on to this speaks volumes about the so called great intelligence of ordinary people.

AoD

 

[allabootmatt]

I agree that the budgets have been balanced just barely, but that owes much more, in my opinion, to a structural revenue problem not of Miller's making. 7 cents on the tax dollar (I believe that's still the figure) for all of the services the City must deliver is plainly insufficient; under those circumstances it's prudent (as Miller has) to campaign loudly and repeatedly for a fairer deal.

In that context yes, the City should obviously do all it can to rein in costs and raise revenues itself, so far as reasonable. But on the whole the model is unsustainable--that's not the current administration's fault.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There is also the question of reigning in whose cost - considering the city is legally mandated to deliver services that are set forth by the province - and had to pay for it through their own revenue stream - and unlike the Feds and Prov - the city can't give that responsiblity to someone else constitutionally.

AoD

 

[Glen]

There is also the question of reigning in whose cost - considering the city is legally mandated to deliver services that are set forth by the province - and had to pay for it through their own revenue stream - and unlike the Feds and Prov - the city can't give that responsiblity to someone else constitutionally.

AoD

While the city cannot dictate what services it provides it does have some control over the cost. IIRC wages make up 70% of the city's budget which the city does have control over.

There is also reports showing that Toronto spends to much on 'non core' activities. See the Montreal Economics Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy info.

 

[lordmandeep]

Drummond conveniently neglected that the balanced budgets at the Feds is achived through reduction of transfers to other levels of government - so in effect, it's shifting spending elsewhere and moving the deficit off their books. The very fact that most people didn't caught on to this speaks volumes about the so called great intelligence of ordinary people.

however you fail to see if serious measures were not taken, the Federal govt would have been in a situation of bankruptcy eventually dragging all the provinces and the country down with it.


I agree it did cause harm, but imo with the circumstances it was the best option.

I think having sustainability in the long run is much more important then getting hurt in the short term.

I could not imagine what would have happened if we continued with the Mulroney like Budgets in Canada...


However I think the great mistake was once the federal Govt returned to surplus in the late 90's it should have started to fix the imbalance then.


if it was not for these measures, we would easily be in a situation like the US is in now.

 

[Yoshimura]

The way our current democracy is structured, I think the only two things I can do is vote and wallow away in cynicism...

My solution is that we should elect centrist leaders, who have some common sense. Smart government...

Bwa bwa bwa bwa!
I'm still the lone abolitionist here. Sooner or later i'll be joined another and then… ANOTHER!

 

[salmonz]

I am surprised (or not surpised) by the mention of 'smart government'. I think people are starting to wake from their zombie like state for the past few decades.

To put things into perspective, we don't need more government(s), we need a smarter and transparent government(s).

What are the problems we have now?
- Re-inventing wheel too many times in various levels of government. Wastes resources.
- People think the government is a single entity, but it's actually several. We all try to hold the 'government' accountable, but each government passes the buck to the next government. Because of this, accountability is hard to enforce.
- Budget problems. City, Province, and Federal governments typically contribute 1/3 each. What if one doesn't have the cash? No project.
- Political parties overshadow 'the right way' to manage growth, finances, services, etc.
- Not enough money. Why are we spending too much that we have nothing left over?
- No direct democracy by the people. A party gets into power by a slim majority, raises taxes, and then says "it's for the greater good, deal with it!". There's nothing the public can do to stop it.
- What should government ought to be doing? What should they not be doing? What are they doing? (Do the gap analysis!)

I wish someone could create a proposal that everyone could read about how to change our "government structure" and "daily government operations". We're in the 21st century. We have huge potential for being more leaner and more efficient at making government the true voice of the people and not voices of a few.

Maybe I'll start on this tonight and post it on this forum when it's ready.

 

[Whoaccio]

I'd be interested in the Holland solution: nationally appointed mayors who rule as head bureaucrats as opposed to eunuch politicians. Democracy is great and all, but low-turnout municipal elections are usually parochial and weak. The goal stops becoming who can build the biggest coalition and just turns into securing highly motivated segments of the electorate. Normally via NIMBYism. (Bridge to the YTZ...).

Also, putting the appointment in the hands of the PMO could force otherwise uninterested PMs into taking stances on urban issues. If, each and every term, the PM was legally required to take a stance on something like muni. infrastructure or property taxes it would increase voter clarity. Having a mayor who would, presumably, be friendly with the PM could actually be a good thing. We wouldn't get pointless campaigns (one cent now, hand gun bans) which have no chance in succeeding and are done simply to win political points. It might also draw a higher quality of bureaucrat. Municipal politics has a lame promotion tree (Schoolboard-> City Council -> Exec Committee -> Mayor) which seems to institutionalize pettiness. Federales would have Cabinet experience and/or higher legislative achievements.

 

[afransen]

I'd be interested in the Holland solution: nationally appointed mayors who rule as head bureaucrats as opposed to eunuch politicians. Democracy is great and all, but low-turnout municipal elections are usually parochial and weak. The goal stops becoming who can build the biggest coalition and just turns into securing highly motivated segments of the electorate. Normally via NIMBYism. (Bridge to the YTZ...).

Also, putting the appointment in the hands of the PMO could force otherwise uninterested PMs into taking stances on urban issues. If, each and every term, the PM was legally required to take a stance on something like muni. infrastructure or property taxes it would increase voter clarity. Having a mayor who would, presumably, be friendly with the PM could actually be a good thing. We wouldn't get pointless campaigns (one cent now, hand gun bans) which have no chance in succeeding and are done simply to win political points. It might also draw a higher quality of bureaucrat. Municipal politics has a lame promotion tree (Schoolboard-> City Council -> Exec Committee -> Mayor) which seems to institutionalize pettiness. Federales would have Cabinet experience and/or higher legislative achievements.

It more or less couldn't be the PM making the appointments, without rewriting the constitution. It would be up to premiers.

 

[urbanfan89]

I'd be interested in the Holland solution: nationally appointed mayors who rule as head bureaucrats as opposed to eunuch politicians. Democracy is great and all, but low-turnout municipal elections are usually parochial and weak. The goal stops becoming who can build the biggest coalition and just turns into securing highly motivated segments of the electorate. Normally via NIMBYism. (Bridge to the YTZ...).

Also, putting the appointment in the hands of the PMO could force otherwise uninterested PMs into taking stances on urban issues. If, each and every term, the PM was legally required to take a stance on something like muni. infrastructure or property taxes it would increase voter clarity. Having a mayor who would, presumably, be friendly with the PM could actually be a good thing. We wouldn't get pointless campaigns (one cent now, hand gun bans) which have no chance in succeeding and are done simply to win political points. It might also draw a higher quality of bureaucrat. Municipal politics has a lame promotion tree (Schoolboard-> City Council -> Exec Committee -> Mayor) which seems to institutionalize pettiness. Federales would have Cabinet experience and/or higher legislative achievements.

Come on here: do you want Stephen Harper putting an incompetent crony like Lisa Raitt at City Hall? This proposal is similar to the process used in the People's Republic of China, where even there municipal politicians are often at odds with the Central Committee (see the infighting in Shanghai in 2005-06).

Perhaps the solution lies in increasing voter turnout (maybe allow a $100 tax credit for those who vote?). In the case of large metropolises like Toronto, perhaps we need a Greater Toronto Authority with component cities similar to the Greater London Authority and its boroughs.

 

[Whoaccio]

Come on here: do you want Stephen Harper putting an incompetent crony like Lisa Raitt at City Hall? This proposal is similar to the process used in the People's Republic of China, where even there municipal politicians are often at odds with the Central Committee (see the infighting in Shanghai in 2005-06).

Personally no, but I don't like David Miller either. My point being even if I don't like this one case, the process itself is fair. Maybe if Harper appointed idiotic cronies then its just another reason to vote him out of office.

As afransen said though the Constitution would all but prohibit this. Legally though Ontario should be able to do whatever it wants.