Good ol’ Frances Nunziata can still give a good quote.
At today’s community development and recreation committee meeting councillors Nunziata (York-South Weston), David Shiner (Willowdale), and Maria Augimeri (York Centre) walked out when they did not win a battle to discuss a motion to debate the closure of community centres (which starts this Monday).
Enter Nunziata: “We’re tired of being pushed around by dictators.†The rest of the details from the Toronto Star:
The committee meeting started normally enough but Councillor David Shiner, a vocal opponent of Mayor David Miller who’s running for the Conservatives in the riding of Willowdale in the Oct. 10 provincial election, tried to introduce a motion that community centres in the city not be closed on Mondays. City staff has recommended the closures, as well as library closings and other measures, as a way to deal with the city’s budget shortfall.
Staff told committee chair and council member Joe Mihevc that Shiner’s motion wasn’t in order. Shiner and others tried to challenge the chair, but Mihevc said there was no ruling for them to challenge. Shiner and Nunziata then walked out of the meeting, as did Councillor Maria Augimeri, which meant quorum was broken.
“You can’t stop this city,†Shiner yelled at Mihevc during the brief meeting. “Enough is enough is enough.â€
“You want to close down community centres,†Nunziata shouted.
Miller allies were quick to denounce the right-of-centre councillors.
“They know that had we gotten that tax vote through (a city council vote on new taxes for the city was deferred in July with the support of a group of right-wing and moderate councillors) we wouldn’t be in the position we are today to have to make those cuts,†said committee member and Miller ally Janet Davis.
“It’s ironic, because the right wing is always saying we ought to make cuts, and now they’re the great defenders? It’s a joke.â€
Trinity-Bellwoods Community Centre photo by Sean Bennell
24 comments
I was going to do up a post on this but Matt beat me to it. I’ll just add that the reason Shiner was shutdown was that, according a friend in the room, his motion went against the procedural bylaw (essentially the rules of Council), part of which state that the chair cannot be challenged for invoking the procedural bylaw.
The specific clause of the bylaw (page 69, section F) reads:
“If the Chair states or reads a rule from the procedures by-law, legislation, or another document of authority, the Chair has not made a ruling and no member may make a motion to appeal.”
So I would submit that Councillor Nunziata and her committee cohorts are the ones responsible for undermining democratic processes here. They may not like the position that they’ve put the City in but they should at least respect the rules that govern proceedings.
Shiner went on about cutbacks and reductions. Now that it’s in front of him, he bridles. But he’s also up for election in Willowdale riding.
So he now against the thing he campaigned on in the first place. And he has yet to survive election day.
Is it bad that I wish all three of these need a good kick in the nuts?
I wish somebody would kick them in the nuts. I’m so ashamed.
Yawn. Spacing’s bias on this issue turned me off so much that i stopped reading the blog for a few weeks. The first day i come back it’s the same old thing.
And I’m not the only one. I’ve talked to handfuls of people who are just as fed up and have had to tune out. It’s a shame because real urban design issues cross party lines and politics.
I don’t read the Sun, or the National Post because i don’t subscribe to their politics which they jam down your throat. And now i can’t read Spacing because i don’t subscribe to yours.
I love these strange comments, like from Lee here. How a few pretty neutral lines linking to a Toronto Star article, where councillors pretty much talk for themselves and provide the show, is “jamming something down his/her throat”, is funny. People reveal so much of themselves in these comments. A fine and entertaining way to start a monday morning!!!
It’s cool to be fed up.
Actually, Lee, since the bulk of the post is cribbed from the Star, it seems you’re sick of their bias.
Oh, and Adam…
“So I would submit that Councillor Nunziata and her committee cohorts are the ones responsible for undermining democratic processes here.”
The Councillors in question here are being really disingenuous, but still, on principle I don’t think I’d so eagerly conflate “democratic processes” with bureaucratic minutiae. There’s a line between organizing discussion and stifling it, and I’ve seen Council procedures cross, dig up and bury that line before.
Smitty, this is very much about democratic process and hardly “bureaucratic minutiae.”
If a budget measure were to be procedurally “in order” on the CDR agenda then it would result in a precident with some serious consequences. Basically, any committee would be able to do anything, whether within its terms of reference or not, so long as a majority of the committee believed in what was being proposed.
Further, Shiner, Augimeri and Nunziata attempted to use a “mob rules” strategy to try to overhaul the rules set forth by the 45-member City Council. On principle and in practice, that is entirely undemocratic and shouldn’t be tolerated. Thankfully the procedural bylaw was prepared for such an assualt and defended itself with section 27-88-F.
A couple of things:
I’m starting to become fustrated by what’s been going on as well. Perhaps the councillors should have known the direct results of their vote to defer the taxes, but even someone relatively informed like myself, I was a bit shocked by Miller’s iimmediate cutbacks(like closing my local library branch on Sundays and not getting any relief for my overcrowded, unreliable bus route). Members of the public were not particuarly well-informed, and for this, Miller has to share some of the blame, likely causing soft votes like Perruzza, Ashton and Augimeri to go the wrong way.
Secondly (and I mentioned this before the Word Press went down and ate my comment), I really wonder what’s been going on in Augimeri’s mind lately. In the next day’s Star, she said she regretted walking out, just as she changed her mind on the tax deferral. She’s a left-leaning politican as well, so seems a bit strange to walk out with right-leaning Nunziata and Shiner. Maybe she’s representing the fustration many Torontonians are feeling, or maybe there are more poltical motives. I’m not sure.
I know this sounds a bit trite, but I really hope that this madness will last only to October, the taxes are approved (Augimeri said she would vote the other way, some pressure must be made by the public to get others, like Perruzza to do the same), the library and rec centre hours restored, and the TTC put back on the rails with perhaps a 2008 fare increase to make sure service standards are at least maintained.
A Shiner motion to keep the community centres open in North York got passed at North York Community Council and will to to City Council in the September meeting.
Can anyone explain how we hold Mr. Miller and his allies responsible for wasting our money on a dozen absurd indulgences, and then cutting back programs which serve some of the most vulnerable citizens of this city? By my calculations, the money City Council pissed away on the abortive World’s Fair bid (the one that would have released six million tonnes of carbon dioxide) alone would have forestalled the closure of the city rec centers. Killing the Front Street Extension (remind me who wants that road again) would at least reassure us that city hall had its priorities straight. And while I don’t suffer any illusions that rolling back council salary increases and office renovations would save enough money to make tax increases unnecessary, it would show leadership.
And while I don’t suffer any illusions that rolling back council salary increases and office renovations would save enough money to make tax increases unnecessary, it would show leadership.
That’s inane. The definition of leadership does not include making reactionary, cheap symbolic gestures.
I think part of the frustration that councillors are feeling comes about by being blamed for not wanting to participate in only half a debate. When I go to a restaurant, if I am going to be picking up the all or part of the check, I expect to be able to read the menu.
These councillors are feeling the sting of their decision and are somehow spinning it like this was the mayor’s plan. Shiner, Nunziata et al were more interested in showing-up Miller than realizing the impact of their decisions. No matter your political bent, the numbers show that City Hall is being shut out from the money taxpayers in Toronto put into the system.
None will affect me since I’ve yet to buy a home and don’t own a car,. but I know niether will have much effect on the economy or most of the city’s residents. The Deferrers are the ones to blame for this situation — they handcuffed the city’s finances with their July vote and most of them participated in making sure Lastman was allowed to freeze property taxes. Thank you Ootes, Shiner, Nunziata, Minnan Wong for your short-sightedness 8 years ago and 2 months ago.
Leif, I would disagree. These councillors are being asked to feel the sting (politcal) of spending decision that they had little or no say in. If they are on record as supporting the city’s recent union contracts, fair wage policy, street car contract, land fill purchase, etc. and now do not wish to pay for them, then yes they would be hypocrites. I will reiterate, you cannot blame them for not wanting to pay for something that they did not want to spend. Remember, Mayor Miller campaigned on a platform of tax increases tied to inflation. The only way to accomplish that would be be matching expenditures. That is something he did not do. Yes there is the issue of downloading, but that has been a reality for nearly a decade and fairly constant. If they did not support the Mayor’s spending they should not support his taxing.
I wish it were that simple Glen. While you make a good point, you assume that councillors are making the *right* decision based on their ideology rather than the realities of the situation.
Also, those councillors voted for new taxing powers in the City of Toronto Act. The mayor campaigned that he would use them, and that *property taxes* would be kept in line with inflation, not taxes in general.
But the major point here is: where do you get the money to run the city? The mayor won an election on a number of modest city building initiatives and the population of this city is demanding more transit. Its all good for the councillors to say “I don’t support those purchases’ but when the mayor has a mandate to do it, and the public is clamouring for better service, do these councillors propose any other ideas? No. This situation is their making and they are the ones to blame. You can take swipes at Miller for not trying to build popular support for the new taxes, but they are much more fair and realistic than anything the opposition is proposing (which is nothing).
And this is coming from a die in the wool Liberal!
Leif,
While the most councillors did support the new taxing powers, it is a jump to imply that automatically means they support a higher overall tax burden. Property tax, as a capital tax is most regressive. I would argue that the sentiment that Mayor Miller worked at conveying during his campaign was that taxes were going to be in-line with inflation. While he did qualify his remarks by saying “property tax” at no time did he indicate that there would be such substantial new taxes (in lieu of).
I don’t necessarily disagree with the new taxes myself, I realize that it takes money to run the city. Torontonians are just accustomed to having others (the non residential base) pay for it.
Personally, I think that a lot of what has been happening in Toronto is a result of a misguided expectation that nonresidential property assessments would not be effected by higher taxes (you can see my blog for further information on this). Since the new Municipal Act came into effect the non residential base has been stagnant, expect for the years of tax freezes.
Excuse me? I understand the description of cuts to council salaries, and deferral of the redecorating of council offices, as “symbolic”. I can only say that politics involves symbols. But reactionary? In what sense? It seems to me that cutting the pay of the senior leadership of anything hardly qualifies as reactionary.
“If they did not support the Mayor’s spending they should not support his taxing.”
They’re members of Council. If they want to waste everyone’s time pretending that the taxes aren’t necessary, they should get jobs as doctrinaire pundits.
I’ve yet to see any evidence that spending has drastically increased under Miller’s regime. Anyone know? (haven’t the shortfalls happened every year since downloading?)
Andrew,
David Miller has an open letter on the city of Toronto’s site that shows an average increase in spending of 4% per year for the last 9(IIRC) years. During the same time and along with other Mayors, there has been average tax increases of 2.5%, on the residential base, and less on the already overtaxed non residential base. Average that out to about 1.5% over the same period. I would have liked to see a breakdown per year, as I would suspect that those under his watch would have higher than average increases.
I added some interesting stuff on on my blog.
Lets see what the 2007 Budget tells us (link).Have a look at page 17. It shows that between 2003 and 2006 provincially mandated programs have escalated in cost by 66 million dollars. Now turn to page 23. It shows that from 2003 to 2006 provincial funding increased by 95 million dollars, yet things are supposedly getting worse. We need and deserve a better explanation!
http://www.southofsteeles.blogspot.com/
You forgot to add the pension beneifts and welfare costs that were downloaded. They equal about $750 million. Provincial funding increased during those years because before that they were at absolute zero. And the city was raideing the reserves to make up the difference. If you look at the shortfall that is covered each year from 1999 to 2006 it is almost always equal to the downloading.
Look, this isn’t just about Toronto. Its happening all over the province — in Ottawa, Windsor, Hamilton, Kingston. All the mayors in these cities are saying, no matter their political stripe, that they cannot run a city without proper and consistent funding.
Everyone who opposes these taxes claims there is savings to be had. But under Lastman the same situation arose, except he had over $1-billion in reserves to raid. This was continued under Miller until they got the City of Toronto Act. Lastman tried for something like the CoTA but never got it cuz he was a boob. Miller cut the best deal offered, which is still weak.
The opposition to these taxes are the clowns who know the books (Ootes & co.) but are more interested in politicking than dealing with the reality. There would be ways to trim the budget, no doubt, but not enough to make up the shortfall and/or keep building the city.
We need to swallow our pride and get on with it. Maybe we get tax relief, but until then we have to live with this.
ali,
I am fairly certain that in the figures I quoted that they include pension and welfare expenses. These would fall under the the provincially mandated expenses/ cost shared programs.
“If you look at the shortfall that is covered each year from 1999 to 2006 it is almost always equal to the downloading.”
This is a point of contention. Again, looking at the city’s own budget papers. Lets compare the last budget of Mel Lastman with that of Miller’s 2006 budget.
In 2003, under Lastman, the cost of PM/CS programs was 660 million. Toronto received 10 million by Provincial loan repayment deferral, and one time funding of 64 million. Reserves were drawn down by 99 million.
In 2006, under Miller, the cost of PM/CS programs was 727 million. Toronto received 20 million by Provincial loan repayment deferral, and one time funding of 145 million. Reserves were drawn down by 160 million, and hydro reserves by 113 million.
By 2006 expenses for PM/CS programs increased by 66 million. Provincial grants and deferrals increased by 165 million and the raiding of reserves increased by 174 million. So, 66 – (165+174), according to the budget, Toronto is spending 273 million more today in operations (not capital). Excluding mandated and shared programs, than it did 2003.
That being said, I am not opposed to the new tax. What I am opposed to is the notion that downloading is the sole cause for the shortfall. It has removed from the debate the ability to question other sources that contribute.