I’ve lost my passion for covering the City budget. Partly the clinical depression, I think, but also—it just never changes. There’s only so many times you can write another fucking “after the City Manager warns Council they can no longer ‘kick the can down the road’ for another year, Council votes to kick the can down the road” piece. It’s all too predictable. Continue reading Not Another Fucking Budget Overview
You often hear very tiresome people saying “I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative” as if it meant anything. In reality neither “social” nor “fiscal” issues are useful in telling left from right—especially not at City Hall, where “fiscal conservatives” have consistently championed pouring billions of dollars into an ever-shrinking subway plan. And saying that a “real progressive” wouldn’t be racist or sexist is as laughable as saying that “real Christians” aren’t homophobic, “real feminists” aren’t transphobic, etc., as well-intended as it is.
Nevertheless, I do think there is a way to meaningfully distinguish right- and left-wing politics. This is the framework I use when I talk about the political spectrum at City Hall. (That is, when I’m not talking in D&D terms.) Continue reading Sidebar: Right Vs. Left
After a few months on summer break, City Council committees start meeting again this week. Including my favourite one, Budget Committee! Here’s a quick read-through of the agenda, adapted from Twitter. Mostly because my soul recoils at the thought of using pictures of text instead of actual text.
I’m back, bitches! On a site where I can say “bitches”! I’ll try not to go overboard. Here’s everything worth caring about on this month’s City Council agenda. Watch the livestream or follow my tweets.
First, it reinforces the idea that parks are “extra”, not something that the City itself should invest in. It makes the creation of new parks (and the resources allotted to them) dependent on the whims of wealthy donors and not solid urban planning principles. It’s unpleasantly reminiscent of local improvement charges, i. e. rich homeowners paying to spruce up their own neighbourhood.
I’m afraid this will continue to marginalize places that aren’t tourist hotspots, scenic landscapes, or up-and-coming neighbourhoods. Not every park can be as exciting as the Don Valley or Rail Deck Park or whatever they’re calling Under Gardiner. Not every park has to be. Parks shouldn’t just be attractions people visit on special occasions, like the zoo. They should also be a part of everyday life.
Green space is an urban amenity as essential as libraries and clean water. Aside from parks’ importance for health and the environment, they are valuable in their own right as public space. They’re places where you can loiter, sleep, relax, exercise, cool down, picnic, socialize, drink covertly, collect beer cans…all without having to buy anything. For many city dwellers, parks are our backyards.
Public-services-as-philanthropy leaves less glamorous needs by the wayside. Currently playground equipment is only replaced every 30 years (up from 60). Not to mention other things than parks, as Danny Brown notes on Twitter. No one is donating to reduce the TTC or TCHC SOGR backlog.
The whole thing is part of a larger trend towards valuing public services only insofar as they make money. Financial worth may seem more tangible, but it is not the only kind of worth. There are many things—public transit, parks, and more—whose value can’t be measured in dollars. They should not have to turn a profit. People freaking love parks and libraries. It should be possible to fund them sustainably, by increasing the City’s main source of revenue—property taxes—instead of relying on occasional windfalls.
In this pared-down vision of city government, services that cannot pay for themselves must be shuffled off to beneficient private donors, corporations, charities, or non-profits. It’s not because these things would be better off in someone else’s hands. It’s just an attempt to make it Someone Else’s Problem. “Screw you, I got mine.”
It’s a small, mean, insular way of thinking and I hate it. Enough said.
Refined from Twitter. Thanks to Ed Keenan for the shout-out!
As City staff gear up for the 2017 budget process, the mayor has declared that an above-inflation property tax revenue increase is off the table. Council has also successfully pushed off introducing any new revenue tools until next year. What does that mean for the budget? We read the City Manager’s latest report so you don’t have to.
For years, the City of Toronto has been deliberately taking in less revenue while expanding infrastructure and services. Forget the “efficiency” bullshit—this has largely been made possible through unsustainable and unreliable funding sources. In this new report, top City bureaucrats warn City Council that they can’t postpone tough decisions any more.
Here’s the full report. It’s like 40 pages. Are you gonna read it? Hell, no! So here’s the gist.
I’ve been writing about the budget so long. Please help. I want to go home ;_; Continue reading Linkdump: All My 2016 Municipal Budget Writing
This post first appeared on Torontoist.com in February 2016. It is very out of date and is republished here for historical purposes.
I won’t call them revenue tools. I think that’s a misnomer. We have to have more taxes or fees to offset the cost of government.
—John Campbell (Ward 4, Etobicoke Centre)
John Campbell is right. A “revenue tool” is just any way the City can bring in more money. Using “revenue tool” may circumvent that knee-jerk response people get when you say “taxes”. The difference is that John Campbell thinks taxes and fees are inherently a bad thing, and others don’t. Welcome to the plight of the Toronto Revenue Tools Debate.
City Council returns after its summer break, and there’s a lot to cover on the agenda. Read about Toronto’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis; taxi clusterfuck; Gardiner clusterfuck; new shelter standards; and more. Did I miss something? Let me know. Continue reading The Cheat Sheet: September 30 City Council