Thursday’s Headlines

3 comments

1. Re A tale of two Torontos

   Since Edward Keenan is also a Spacing contributor I will post a response here.

   Yes, the Poverty by postal code connection looks valid. But what you missed is that poverty and income disparity is increasing, not decreasing. This is under a ‘progressive’ Mayor. Paying more taxes while things are getting worse, while having people as yourself insinuating that they are uneducated and therefore do not appreciate what has been done for them is the height of hypocrisy. Unlike the ‘urban sophisticate’ whom expects the government to decide whats best, most of these people are far more concerned with their day to day struggles.

   It should not be lost on anyone that initiatives proposed for priority neighbourhoods have one thing in common. They must involve the construction of a visible structure. The whole exercise is more about building legacy’s than improving lives. Between 1989 and 2004 ward 11 lost 22.5% of the its employment positions (twice that of ward 13), while the number of residents whom traveled outside the city for employment increased by 28%. Do you really expect them to be grateful for transit going across the city when they have to travel outside of it?

   For all your education it is shameful that you can overlook the simple logic of residents in these areas. As one of them said…
   “I want to know what you would do for us in this area, especially for our black men who are getting shot down in the street and no one is being held accountable for it. Also, I don’t want to hear nothing about no basketball, no football, no soccer. We have bright, intelligent young people.”

   What these areas need is employment opportunities, not new towers, basketball courts, LRTs or cafe lined boulevards.

2. Glen,

   let us be constructive here. I believe nobody, leftie or rightie, would object to more employment opportunities. What are your proposed solutions within the city’s power then?

   I know what is top on your list, lower commercial tax rate, which I agree to. The thing is, Ford’s policy seems to center on slash (or at least keep unchanged) residential tax, which would not help this cause, as he will need the tax dollars (not that Smitherman is better). Miller at least tried to do this, even though at baby steps. Any major shift from commercial tax burden to residential/personal tax is a kind of political suicide. Look at what happened with HST. How do you get around that reality?

   Reduce bureaucracy and red-taping? Sure, I do think a lot of well-intentioned city initiatives only result in extra layer of bureaucracy, and I do think Toronto in many ways are over-regulated. I hope Ford can make headway on this front.

   What else would you propose?

   However, don’t you see that transit, especially the ones on tracks, spurs investment (and employment opportunities) in adjacent area? As for the residents travelling out into 905 for employment, sure they will still drive their cars, but believe it or not, drive north-bound in the morning and south-bound in the afternoon are still way easier than the other way around. From traffic POV, increase in reverse commute is a good thing as it makes better use of under-utilized capacities.

3. Yu, the investment in transit is going to have a cost. As things currently are, tax ratios, this means means that these costs are going to be distributed in a very inequitable fashion. Every $1 paid by homeowners will add $3.32 to renters and $3.12 (band 1) to small commercial spaces. The upper bounds of a tolerable tax rate is set by homeowners regardless of the implications for other classes. They are the where the votes are. Regarding ‘Miller’s’ plan to reduce the ratios, that is nothing more than for optics. First off the plan was being formulated prior to him first being elected. Secondly, I have been told (you can take this a hearsay if you like), that the only reason he acted was that two very high profile employers were set to leave the city. I admit the ETBC has had some success. Mainly for class ‘A’ type offices. Very little else though.
   If anyone is interested they could do the following, gather some assessment data from a traditional retail strip in Toronto like Queen St, College, The Beach, Ossington, Kensington etc. Now take the assessment value and multiply it by
   3.5039019%(tax rate). Since most of these types of properties in the city are older, they do not pay the full tax level due to CVA capping. Every year they move 5% closer to the full amount. Now ask the any tenet how much they pay in rent and compare that to the full CVA tax amount. You will see that there is very little left over for the landlord. By 2017 they will be paying the full CVA tax amount. What should happen is that the value of these properties should decline to account for this. What prevents this from happening is the tax rate difference itself. The value of these properties is not in their current use. An income based approach to valuation would yield a value less than the cost of construction, These properties maintain a higher than warranted value because MPAC, supported by legislation, values these properties in a highest and best use manner. In Toronto, that means as residential.

   The city likes to maintain, as Joe Pantalone says, ‘we are cutting taxes for businesses’. No they are not. What they are doing is raising them slower than residential.

   The difference is not semantics. The current level makes such properties, in the words of Adam Vaughan, ‘unmarketable’ and ‘unviable’. Unless there is an absolute change in the burden, not ratios, all these areas in Toronto will become unviable. Accelerating there redevelopment to residential.

   Now seeing that residential development consumes far more in operating expenses than it generates in revenue, the city will be worse off. Homeowners, under the misconception of paying to much, will resits absorbing the burden of more operating deficits making the necessary shift difficult/impossible. So my solutions would be to move towards a single tax rate among all classes. Add in some banding at certain assessment values. This would make the development of the non residential assessment base attractive. The creation of such would not only produce revenue in excess of expenses (a net positive for the city), but also offer much needed employment opportunities in the vicinity of where people live.

   That is an investment.TC is not an investment because it does not address the other issues effect the type of development that will occur. cough* The Imperial Oil office building* cough