Who stole David Miller?
Cross-posted to Spacing Votes
When the Liberals used to rule Ottawa, astute political observers often pointed out that the Chretien/Martin crowd liked to campaign left and govern right. In this election, so far, it would seem that David Miller is attempting to reverse that formula, although the second part of the equation remains to be seen.
How else to explain the miserly promise he made yesterday — $13 million to Toronto’s 13 distressed neighbourhoods, spread over four years, plus some window dressing (youth business training, partnership initiatives, etc.). Do the math, and that works out to be $250,000 per distressed neighbourhood per year — a figure that represents a spending increase of a princely 0.2% of the city budget. How’s that for commitment? All those low-income, at-risk, gang-involved youth we’ve been talking about so earnestly these part three years — let’s pitch them what amounts to a rounding error and hope for the best. (Oh yes, and cops, too, but that comes out of another budget.)
Miller has been saying in his stump speeches lately that in his Toronto, “no one will be left behind.” But this line is not only eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” education reform slogan; it also has a distinctly hollow ring, given yesterday’s promise. Municipal spending alone won’t solve the problems in poor neighbourhoods, but it’s hard to imagine that what Miller intends to ante up will do much other than generate a few more summer jobs.
The miniscule sum seems intended to rebut Jane Pitfield’s accusations about Miller’s apparent profligacy, repeated yesterday when she released a package of fiscal control promises that seem lifted directly from John Tory’s 2003 election run and last week’s recycling pile. Miller has said in recent days that he is proud of being tagged the $1 billion man — Pitfield’s rimshot line about all the additional money in the city budget that came from Ottawa or the province — and he’s dead on about the fact that, as a long-time budget committee member, she has much to answer for about the city’s financial condition. But that bravaura disappears when it comes to actually spending the cash the city raises from its own taxpayers on the issues most of us deem to be vitally important.
Increasingly, the emerging image of Miller’s sense of his own role is that of the lobbyist-in-chief rather than chief magistrate. He’ll gladly pester the upper levels for all sorts of reforms — equalizating the business education tax, uploading social service costs, banning handguns, whatever. But don’t look to his administration to make politically tough decisions about raising taxes or finding new sources of money to finance local needs, from tearing down the Gardiner to building new community centres in hard-scrabble neighbourhoods in the inner suburbs.
And here’s the zinger: a mayor’s who’s long cast himself as a progressive figures he’ll get away with this kind of right-of-centre positioning because the downtown, left-leaning voters have nowhere else to go. Or do they?
photo by Sam Javanrouh
