John Lorinc will return to his election coverage columns in two weeks. In the meantime, here is his column from the Summer 2010 issue of Spacing.
With Toronto’s sports franchises giving us little to talk about, it appears that our newest preoccupation is laying waste to every aspect of David Miller’s record as mayor. If the city seemed to project its hopes on him in 2003, Torontonians today appear intent on tarring Miller with all their frustrations, real and imagined.
Indeed, listening to the bellicose rhetoric of those seeking to replace him, an uninformed observer might conclude it’s been seven squandered years in Leftigrad. The faster we can undo the damage Miller has wrought, most of the mayoral candidates imply, the better.
But there are several major civic issues the candidates aren’t talking about. Here’s the reason: those rhetorical omissions, all quite deliberate, silently tell a tale of (mostly unacknowledged) political success.
Let’s look at four of the largest problems the city faced back in 2003: garbage, policing, corruption, and infrastructure. In all cases, Miller’s record has been strong enough to quiet potential successors (at least, so far).
GARBAGE
Though it seems like ancient history, Toronto’s waste management woes dominated council politics during the late 1990s and early 2000s as the City sought to replace the Keele Valley landfill. During the Mel Lastman years, Miller helped defeat the creepy scheme to ship Toronto’s trash to Adams Mine, but the backup plan — schlepping it all down to Michigan — morphed into an ugly international embarrassment for Miller after he became mayor.
During his watch, however, Toronto rolled out a city-wide green bin program, consolidated recycling programs, set ambitious diversion targets, extended service to some apartments, and acquired a large landfill site, quelling calls for costly incineration technologies. What’s more, council established a sensible waste management fee system that has snuck under the political radar. The telling detail is that not even Rob Ford has called for an end to the garbage fees.
POLICING
Where’s the tough-on-crime rhetoric from all the righties in this year’s campaign? Heading into the 2003 race, the city was ablaze with fear about shootings and controversy over Julian Fantino’s hard-ass approach (racial profiling, military-style gang busts, coded language). So when Miller, tagged by his critics as a bleeding heart, engineered Fantino’s ouster in 2005, many on the right predicted he’d pay dearly for the decision.
But the Bill Blair era has been notable for its lack of controversy [ Editor’s Note: this column was written pre-G20 summit ]. Blair’s approach — including community policing and recruitment of visible minorities — dovetails with Miller’s thinking. He silenced the Fantino fan club because Blair gets results. Miller’s council, in turn, anted up for more beat cops, while the Province has poured funds into a GTA-wide guns and gangs taskforce. So while the “summer of the gun” occurred on Miller’s watch, none of the candidates have run on a tough-on-crime agenda because the city is less violent now than it was in 2003.
CORRUPTION
Opposition to Miller has coalesced around his policies, not his cronies. The mayor’s critics have never found a convincing scandal on which to hang their hats. And while I’m not suggesting Miller doesn’t succumb to favouritism from time to time, the City during his tenure revamped its procurement policies in response to the Bellamy inquiry into the MFP computer leasing scandal. Miller’s council also introduced, albeit haltingly, a lobbyist registry, campaign finance rules, an ombud, and independent status for the auditor general.
These reforms aren’t on the electoral chopping block. In fact, one could argue that Ford exploited the attention surrounding these reforms to help fuel his own drive to reveal councillor expenses. Ironies aside, the City of Toronto has become a much more professionally managed organization under Miller, and the candidates know they’d be playing with fire if they proposed rolling back these changes.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The infrastructure backlog is a perennial backburner issue in municipal politics. But under Miller, the City has made a substantial dent in the problem by securing large new sources of revenue from the other orders of government. In 2004, 15% ($140 million) of the City’s $907 million capital budget came from Federal and Provincial grants. These contributions have now more than doubled, to 32% or $760 million within a $2.4 billion envelope. And that level of transfer is expected to hold steady for a decade, so the changes can be considered sustainable.
It helped that Miller’s term in office coincided with infrastructure-friendly regimes in Ottawa (even the Harper Conservatives have funded transit expansion) and Queen’s Park. But Miller, both on his own and through the big city mayor’s caucus, kept up the pressure, mostly without going ballistic.
As for water infrastructure, Miller persuaded council to fix that problem all by itself. A 9% annual hike to residential water rates is enabling billions in long-overdue repairs and improvements to aging pipes, storm sewers, and water treatment facilities. Over the next 20 years, that visionary strategy will lead to a clean waterfront, less basement flooding, and new wetlands to absorb storm water runoff.
All these important and far-ranging fixes — not to mention other biggies, such as Transit City, the advocacy for a City of Toronto Act, public space improvements, and the new revenue streams — hoovered up Miller’s reserves of political capital, and that’s just the point. After all, leadership means making unpopular yet necessary choices. So ask yourself this: which of his potential successors would be prepared to sacrifice personal ambition to achieve these kinds of public goods?
27 comments
Come on Miller, why don’t you just stay another 4 years… just until Adam Vaughn or Shelley Carrol is ready. The current crowd will just undo all the good you’ve done.
John, I mostly agree with you. Miller has done a lot of good things for the city, and used his political capital for that. However, I think the biggest mistake he made was in last year’s strike, where he really used up his capital and got a lousy result. Had he held on to his initial hardline position against the union, he would have remained the next mayor, there wouldn’t be a real contest this year. Unfortunately now, as Hume said, his legacy adds up to two words, “Rob Ford”. What a waste.
Except for RF, mayoralty candidates have ignored the main bone of contention with TO Council. There is much harm done, and much swept under the carpet, as councillors go through their motions.
Ford mostly acknowledges the wasteful spending but all of the shenanigans are ignored by the others. Why is that? Ford knows first hand but there are others who know what’s been going on too. Maybe they like the culture they have created? And, because we all don’t show up for Council at the same time they have just been getting away with it.
I like it that RF is focused. He may well be poor at articulation but many TO residents who have had the misfortune of needing help from a rogue councillor or City Staff know what I’m getting at. It’s what RF refers to when he talks about “customer service”.
I would expect the kind of accomplishments John Lorinc has praised from every Council. Well done Mr. Miller, but why didn’t you use that broom you had above your head? I might be wrong but, did you run for election on all those issues?
Peter and Mr Ford are both wrong — there is not a spending problem at city hall; rather it’s a combination of inadequate funding from the province and feds, and the City over-estimating the transfer revenues from those governing bodies.
Until someone starts talking about that, Toronto voters will be duped into thinking there is a spending problem at council. Which governments are in serious deficits? Which governments are spending billions of money on propping up a motor manufacturing company? Which governments are handing down tax hikes they never promised when we voted for them (HST, anyone)?
Miller clearly stated what he would do if re-elected in 2006. 58% of Torontonians voted for him. What Ford has captured is those who believe in “kicking the bums out” instead of voting in politicians with ideas, solutions, and respect for their fellow councillors and citizens. Mr Ford has never shown any of these traits, which is why he’ll be looking for a job on Oct. 26th.
Mr. Miller has not been perfect, but he is clearly done good for this city despite the challenges Toronto faces.
It’s good to have some appreciation for the myriad of pressing issues that confront council and the mayor, and some empathy for not being able to get everything done.
But there are some blindp spots – like not doing enough of the right things for bikes, and missing opportunities like the Bloor /Yorkvile reconstruction that is failing to provide that needed space for bike lanes.
I’m not always so dogmatic to insist that it’s only bike lanes for bike safety, but that part of wide Bloor was the #1 spot for bike lanes in 1992, and the current project wastes the needed space for easy bike lanes in the .8M between the new curb and the new planters.
There’s the privatization of process too – Miller and Council acquiesced in skipping an EA – and how hard is it to figger out that if a tipping point into a Class B EA is $2.2M, then where does a $25-now-$30M project fit? The A+ realm of the overnight repainting of Jarvis St.?
So sure, we could and should redo the curb areas to provide that extra meter to make the roadwidth 15M, but the biggest fault for this travesty is with the current crop of councillors, and a pbbt to Mr. Kyle Rae too.
And Council’s also delayed doing a mere study of a Bloor/Danforth bikeway even though it’s arguably the cheapest way of expanding the subway. How? If we had safe, near-free biking parallel to the subway, odds are good that many would opt to bike, and that would cut into crush crowdings.
The legacy of Mr. Miller and crowd is far more of contributory neglect in the death of Al Sheppard than making a linked network of safe cycling routes.
Lisa,
to flatly deny that Toronto has a spending problem does not help promoting the progressive agenda at all. It is clear that the city mismanaged various projects resulting in cost-overrun (St. Claire ROW), it is also clear that sometime the city bureaucracy verges on absurdity (what about the Toronto-a-la-cart?), the idea to end union-monopoly of city contracts also resonate with many Torontonians. So just to reject any idea of better managing the city’s spending simply drive more people into Ford’s camp. To acknowledge there is a spending problem and be ready to tackle it is not contradictory with the continuing investment into the city’s improvement. Any candidate who demonstrates that he or she is ready to tackle spending issue, and at the same time will keep advancing the urban agenda should be able to attract a lot of voters. Rob Ford only gets traction by solely focusing on cutting because nobody else has shown the voters that there is a better alternative.
Right on, Liisa! Ford is basically a tea-partier, all crank and no vision (and do I want a mayor whose wife calls the cops to their home on a domestic dispute?!?). Miller is the opposite, an avuncular sort who has a vision for the city. John, don’t forget the Tower Renewal Initiative and Green Roof program. I’m not sure to what extent he is responsible for cultural initiatives like Nuit Blanche and LuminaTO but under Miller the city has definitely flourished culturally.
Yu, you are dead wrong. I think you have your heart in the right place, but not the facts. Just because ending union contracts might resonate with Torontonians doesn’t make it right. What has to be debated in how we get the funds and where they are spent.
You are just falling for the bullsh*t that Ford and Rossi, etc have been espousing. St Clair ROW over-runs are not bankrupting the city. Yes, millions are wasted, and I’ll never defend that. But do you know WHY it went over budget? Because the utility companies decided to get in the game late and bury the hydro wire, or fix the capacity for fibre-optic cables. It’s because natural gas companies wanted to get their pipes in the sidewalks while it was torn up. Those things the City has no control over (Did you know that telecoms and utility companies DO NOT need to tell or pay back the city when they are tearing up the road? Guess who gave them this leeway? The Feds! It wasn’t until this spring that this situation was rectified)
But for residents to just point out the City has over-runs is silly. The Feds and Province have much more serious issues about spending than the city. Even the neo-con Howe Institute acknowledges this. The city’s budget increases by 3 or 4% (I’m unsure of exact number at moment). The Feds and Province are in the double digits.
When the City can only determine how to spend 25% of its own budget — the other 75% is pre-determined by the the other governments — there is not much room to wiggle. The real debate is WHERE that money is spent, not how much. Toronto’s budget increases by far less than the other 2 governments yet they have much more say in how they spend their money.
John, I thouroughly agree with you. People tend to focus on the bad things, and forget the good, focus on the short-term and ignore the long-term. Miller has done a lot of focusing on the long-term, with social and fiscal benefits the city won’t reap until long after he has left office. Like gradually bringing commercial tax rates in line with our neighbouring municipalities – a project that will take decades because we can’t afford a drastic rate cut – but in the long run it will bring more business back into Toronto. Like focusing on 13 priority neighbourhoods, where a relatively small amount spent on youth facilities and programs will save a bundle in policing, public health and social services over the long run. Or re-developing derilect brownfields, which will generate new tax revenues, as well as keeping the city compact thus making more efficient use of existing city services. Like setting up a project management office to coordinate all the players when there is major street construction so that the St. Clair fiasco won’t be repeated. I think in the coming decades we’ll look back at Miller as the benchmark we measure new mayers by.
Sorry, that’s mayors, not mayers!
I agree with LIISA. Toronto is significantly underfunded. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and we’re constantly playing catch-up.
LIISA,
I don’t disagree that the city is short-changed by upper-government. But let us face the reality, as much as we can whine, we cannot count on a better deal to come from above (Miller did a lot of that, with little to show). So the city government has to be ready to play with the hand it is dealt with. Not that we should stop whining, just be prepared all our whining is going to be in vain, which is highly likely. Also I don’t understand the kind of insistence that the city has done nothing wrong and cannot do anything better. Even the St. Claire project was not mis-managed, really? I am not going to argue with you about the details, as there is comprehensive report out there. I think this kind of altitude is extremely counter-productive. It basically says that if a voter wants a progressive urban agenda, he/she must elect a mayor who does the business exactly the same way as Miller did. There is no compromise, no middle ground. This is a big part of what is driving a lot of people to Ford’s camp.
Yu: please read my comment thoroughly. I never said St Clair was managed well. I will never defend wasted millions. But having watchd how the ROW unfolded you cannot ignore the role utilities played in the delays — if the City has no control over how utility and telecoms abuse our roads and sidewalks than we cannot place 100% of the blame on the City/TTC.
Secondly, using the term “whining” is more counter-productive than me pointing out the reality of the situation. To demand that Torontonians should get back some of the $3-billion we throw to the province in taxes while only getting $2-billion is not “whining.” To demand that the province pay its fair of transit subsidies to the level they once did — you know, when the TTC was regarded as a standard-bearer of public transit in North American — is not “whining”.
Lastly, you make assumptions that I think we need a Miller copy-cat. Nowhere did I say that — what I want is a debate amongst candidates that deals with the TRUTH of our budget concerns instead making BS up to get elected on an imaginary rage focused on over-spending. Its an issue of under-funding. And until a candidate says this Toronto voters are being misled completely.
LIISA,
that point has been made repeatedly by Miller (rightfully so), but it did not seem to impress Toronto voters too much. Now just suppose we have a candidate whose platform is that we are going to demand a new/better deal from province and fed, and with the extra money we will build a wonderful Toronto. Pit him or her against Rob Ford, who will win the election? I will vote for the former, but I will bet my money on later.
Sorry Yu, but you put much more faith in gut reactions over the facts. Miller point didn’t “seem to impress voters too much?” What do you call 58% of the vote in 2006?
I’m not trying to defend Miller as much as you twist it that way; I clearly state that the debate needs to be an honest one where the facts are laid bare. Currently, even Joey Pants isn’t pushing this because he’ll just be called a Millerite so and so. Or he doesn’t care about winning the election (seems to be the case).
If you agree that the city is under-funded, get rid of your defeatist attitude and ask the candidates why they do not talk about this topic or do not believe it. In most cases they will concede it, but no one, including Ford and Smitherman, want to tackle this because 1.) it goes against Ford’s iron-clad belief TOians are over taxed (he should read a 905ers tax bill); and 2) Smitherman would have to acknowledge his role in not standing up for Torontonians while in cabinet.
Instead of having the candidates tell us what the problems are — mostly filled with spin and answers of how great they are — we need to understand the problems first and then challenge the candidates to meet those problems. But we are lazy and need to be spoon-fed info, it seems. We may end up with the most intellectually laziest of mayors which will set us back worse than Mike Harris or Bob Rae.
History will play as the great equalizer when it comes to determining if Miller was a good mayor or not. I’m not a fan of him, but as this article does point out many of the things he did right.
Some things I disagreed with:
– Banning shooting ranges
– Vehicle Registration Fee
– Position on Gardiner Expressway
– Implementation of Jarvis bike lanes
– Stop spacing of Transit City
In the long term we will see whether Miller was a good or not.
Some things I definitely agreed with:
– Banning shooting ranges
– Vehicle Registration Fee
– Position on Gardiner Expressway
– Implementation of Jarvis bike lanes
– Stop spacing of Transit City
Regarding Miller’s program to reduce taxes on commercial properties. Yes there is a program in place. No, at the end of it Toronto’s commercial tax rates will not be even with the surrounding municipalities. The ETBC program concludes with a tax rate that 2.5 that of residential. That is still too high! Especially when Toronto’s residential taxes are set to soar 48% in the next four years.
What the city did was take Toronto’s extremely low residential rate in 2005 and multiply it by 2.5. This gave a mill rate that was approximately equal to the 905 average, in 2005.
While some new office towers have been developed or proposed, which demonstrates that the projected rate is palatable for them, there is indication that the rate remains much too high for non class ‘A’ development.
The Mid-rise symposium has suggested having no taxes on ground floor commercial space. A few properties on Queen St. West were given tax rebates so as to make them viable.
By 2015, when capping protection expires, the full effect of Toronto’s high taxes on non residential properties will be evident by the boarded up windows lining Toronto’s streets.
Re: City Spending
In 2004 Mississauga/Peel (combined both upper and lower tiers) spent $3,848.29 per household. In Toronto spending was $8,422 per household. The average household in Mississauga/Peel paid $500 more per year in property tax for $ 4,573.71 less in services.
While Toronto residents pay considerably less property tax than those in the 905 region, they also get far more in provincial transfers. On average they receive at least $1058 per person more than those in the 905.
You have to be careful when talking about transfers from other governments because many of these are earmarked for specific services. Toronto has more extensive transit than any of the 905s, and we do get some (but nowhere near enough) funding from other governments for it. Various social assistance programs in Toronto are much more extensive than elsewhere, and Toronto is, in effect, subsidising the 905 in the sense that we provide more services per capita because our “per capita” has a different demographic.
When comparing budgets, it’s also important to remember that Toronto reports a consolidated budget including all of its agencies like the TTC, and the gross cost of the TTC ($1.4-billion in 2010) shows up as part of the grant total. It is partly offset by the farebox and other revenues of over $900-million. This operation has no equivalent anywhere in the 905.
John, you ask ………. After all, leadership means making unpopular yet necessary choices. So ask yourself this: which of his potential successors would be prepared to sacrifice personal ambition to achieve these kinds of public goods?
Is it realistic to expect any mayoralty candidate to be able to answer that? The LTT, VRT, increased water rates, etc., were never mentioned by David Miller when he was campaigning. All we got was a promise to keep property tax hikes in line with inflation. City spending has been increasing at a far faster rate than inflation though, so there had to be additional revenue sources. You should also be more forthcoming about the use of reserves to fund the operating budget. This allowed Mayor Miller and council to spend in excess of revenue growth. In the future, that will have to be reversed. Leaving the future mayor with job of increasing revenue (taxes) more than expenditures.
Steve, the $1,058 per person funding gap was for social services, not transit. We discussed this on your site before ( http://stevemunro.ca/?p=3567). The data is from the United-Way of Peel ( http://www.unitedwaypeel.org/pics/2008/gap_dec_08.pdf ) .
As to provincial support for the TTC, yes Toronto by nature of having the most extensive PT network, will require provincial support for it. On the other hand Toronto also gets a major benefit from it. The CBD (and its tax revenues) could not exist without PT. The property tax revenue from that goes to Toronto (and the the province iva the BET).
This statement is utterly false though …….. “Various social assistance programs in Toronto are much more extensive than elsewhere, and Toronto is, in effect, subsidising the 905 in the sense that we provide more services per capita because our “per capita” has a different demographic.” That does not reconcile. On average Toronto’s residential taxes do not cover the costs of the most basic of services, Fire, Police, Ambulance, Libraries, Parks, transportation (not inc TTC), etc.. There is no revenue left to subsidise anything. As I said on your site Yes, by nature of having so many Hospitals serving as the referral recipients, Toronto needs more money for this (which they get). Nearly half of the University Health Networks clients come from the 905 region.
On the other hand, the surrounding GTA is clamouring for hospitals of their own, fully funded by the province like Toronto’s were. Complaining about 905ers using Toronto’s public transit and roads, subsidised by Torontonians, while the location of such services are located in Toronto is hypocritical. If Toronto is incurring extra costs, which is not the same as extra costs being occurred inside Toronto, then why are they not reflected in tax burdens? Yes these programs are being delivered in Toronto. They are not being paid for by Toronto though. If the province closed the funding gap, the 905 municipalities would be able to increase program spending. It is not a demographic issue, it is a finance issue.
Glen,
you do have a point to make, but it is not necessary to deny the other side of the story to make your point. It is NOT a demographic issue, really? How many homeless people, people with mental disability, people on social assistance, refugee claimants etc., live outside of 416 area? Can they really survive en mass out in 905? I am sure more hospitals will be appreciated in 905. But suppose the province agrees to transfer more money to 905 to built shelters, social housing, mental health institutes in 905, do you think the proud suburban home-owners will appreciate it?
Before we get too teary-eyed about Toronto Water’s fee hikes, let’s remember that 9% a year for 20 years means water rates at the end of the period will be 5.6 times their starting level. For that matter, I looked up my old property tax records and found that since 1993, my property taxes have increased at an 8% annual rate when I adjust for the relative values of the two houses I have owned over that period. I work in the private sector and face a lot of uncertainty regarding my income, and whether I’ll even be employed at all. I simply can’t afford continual municipal tax and fee increases hugely in excess of inflation. I’d like a city government that made some minimal effort to match its spending to the ability of its taxpayers to ante up. Maybe that means exploring using private contractors, maybe it means curtailing some services. But the last regime refused to even consider more efficient ways to run the place. Which is why I don’t remember the Miller years all that fondly and why I’m going to vote for whichever of Ford or Rossi has the best chance of winning.
Yu,
There are two issues here. Where these services are located and whom pays for them. Yes Toronto has the majority of these services are in Toronto but the costs are not paid for by Toronto residents (via Municipal taxes and fees).
Regarding the plight of immigrants to Toronto, compared to the 905 region (see Poverty by postal code and the TCF reports) is that the real difference in economic outcomes is more (most) closely related to opportunity. In many ways I find it offencive when politicians promote programs that make them look sympathetic while at the same time ignoring issues affecting their (immigrants) financial well being. If you follow long term migration patterns within the GTA you will see that the predominate trend is that the inner suburbs have become a staging point. Newcomers can find cheap housing (much cheaper than equivalent 905 homes both for renting and purchasing), and good settlement support. Once (if) acclimated, they tend to move out of the city to the areas in which offer more opportunity. The increasing diversity of the 905 regions make it more attractive as well.
An interesting look at the issue was reproduced at UrbanToronto ( http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?3586-Star-Immigration-in-905-Series )
PMan – water was too cheap before, unfortunately. Every time a sinkhole causes your commute to be delayed, thank Lastman and his predecessors who underinvested.
Yu,
This paper might e of interest to you and our discussion.
http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/CJRS/bin/get.cgi?directory=Spring97/isin/&filename=isin.html