Tuesday’s Headlines

18 comments

1. You missed this one in The Globe: Fare system, cleanliness top concerns of new TTC chair. Our new TTC chair, Karen Stintz, shows what an adroit politician she is by avoiding direct answers to pretty much all of the questions posed to her. One example:

   “How do you use the TTC?
   “I live near the subway line. I work near the subway line, so it’s easy for me to hop on the subway.”

   Um, yeah. But how much do you actually ride the subway?

   John Lorinc, I normally enjoy your writing, but you should be ashamed of this interview.

2. Considering the massive investment in time & resources Toronto progressives poured into Mike Layton’s campaign, his motion is really embarrassing. He’s just made himself appear hopelessly out of his depth.

   Yes, the Maclean’s article was ridiculous and offensive, but City Council is not the place to debate it. This is high-school student government stuff and it was a stupid, ill-considered motion in a time when progressives need to make a much better impression.

3. “Drivers would like to be rid of the vehicle tax”

   In other news, TTC users would like fares to be lower.

4. The article on Thunder Bay’s declaration that they are entitled to a subway order must go down really well in regions from St Catharines through to Oshawa where there are huge quantities of skilled labour laid off from auto lines who would rather not move to the back end of Lake Superior to find work.

   Were the LRT assembly line to be located in the 416 or 905 this would have created a voter constituency to keep LRT moving and realised revenue benefits for the regions installing said lines. Thunder Bay will get work from the Toronto Rocket order (including the Spadina Extension add on order) and GO trains aren’t going out of fashion, given the intent to expand to Kitchener and Niagara. If TB wants even more work they should lobby the Province to introduce a GO Train network in the Ottawa region.

5. Oh, also – what Paul said.

6. Argh – my first comment should have been “entitled to an LRT order”. More coffee needed stat!

7. Here is a good editorial………

   http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/906475–turning-ford-s-rhetoric-into-reality

   Jl might find this educational……..
   “Yet at the end of the year it is typically claimed that the budget is in balance or, as over the past two years, in surplus. There is rarely a complete reconciliation between the initial and final positions, but generally the answer is one-time funds from the provincial government, cost savings from particular events such as the 2009 city strike, higher-than-expected rates of returns on investments, raids on the reserve fund and paring of funding for future capital needs”

8. The thing with the Vehicle Registration Fee is that it is only in Toronto, and not the greater region. One can live just on the other side of the Rouge River or a side street north of Steeles (as I did for a period) and save themselves $60 per year.

   Because of the demographics of Toronto, this tax also unfairly affects lower income people who populate the inner suburbs. Most high income people in Toronto live in the inner city and have the best transit access and/or can afford the tax without issue. Middle income people and families have moved into the outer suburbs and beyond, thus are exempt from it. It is the lower income people who live in the inner suburbs which feel the blunt of it. They live in areas where transit access is poorer and auto/transportation costs eat into their incomes significantly more than those who are more well off.

   If this tax affected all those who live in the GTA or GGH, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Or even if they made exemptions based on income, fuel economy, or number of cars owned I would see no problem to it. As is however it is broken and needs significant retooling.

9. I’m an Asian Canadian and though this may not be the appropriate venue, I’d like to add that I appreciate Mike Layton’s motion.

10. Good Point Ben. Not surprising though. It is typical of the way in which this city operates. There is little concern on whom taxes and fees effect. The only time it becomes a consideration is when their propensity to vote is weighted. Recall during the mayoralty campaign, Pantalone, Smitherman and Mammoliti all proposed property tax breaks for seniors. Of course only seniors that owned a home. Despite the likelihood of a more needy senior living in an apartment, they were offered nothing.

11. A $5/month tax is not the breaking point for any individual or family who is in a position to own a car, and I wish people would stop pretending that it is a hugely punitive fee. Why is it that only transit users are expected to contribute to the public costs of the infrastructure that supports them?

    My impression is not that people are forced to buy a car because they live in the inner suburbs. Rather, they are able to choose to live in the inner suburbs because they have a car.

12. Paul’s comment… “A $5/month tax is not the breaking point for any individual or family who is in a position to own a car, and I wish people would stop pretending that it is a hugely punitive fee.”…

    Would agree with you… but would also add that it probably was one of the “breaking points” in the past municipal election for anyone seen to be carrying Miller’s mantle. A tax that is widely reviled and not seen as justified given what happens in adjoining jurisdictions/municipalities tends to have these sorts of consequences. In short, implementing it proved to be a very short sighted move.

13. I don’t disagree with your last point, Glen, but Smitherman did propose a 2% property tax break on multi-unit residential, which would have benefitted those more needy seniors (at least in theory… I’m unconvinced their rent would actually have gone down).

    To be honest, where’s the incentive (and statutory power) to really tailor fees? The use of market-value assessment for property taxes probably has a bigger effect on residents than any revenue policies City Hall pursues. Gentrification, development and speculation can dramatically change the assessed value of a property and therefore the tax levvied, despite no change in the cost of servicing a person’s house, apartment or business.

14. Paul, you might reconsider your opinion if you reconcile these…
    http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/council/cc051026/pofedp2rpt/cl001.pdf (page 50)

    Car Ownership and the Labor Market of Ethnic Minorities ”
    Abstract:
    We show how small initial wealth differences between low skilled black and white workers can generate large differences in their labor-market outcomes. This even occurs in the absence of a taste for discrimination against blacks or exogenous differences in the distance to jobs. Because of the initial wealth difference, blacks cannot afford cars while whites can. Car ownership allows whites to reach more jobs per unit of time and this gives them a better bargaining position. As a result, in equilibrium, blacks end up with both higher unemployment rates and lower wages than whites. Furthermore, it takes more time for blacks to reach their jobs even though they travel less miles. Those predictions are consistent with the data. Better access to capital markets or better public transportation will reduce the differences in labor market outcomes. ”

    Increase vehicle ownership to improve employment, report says (
    http://uniter.ca/view/1840 )

    Abstract: This study examines the role of car ownership m faclhtatmg employmenat mong
    recipients under the current weIfare-to-work law Because of a potential problem with
    simultaneity, the analyms uses an instrumental variable constructed from insurance premmms
    and population density for car ownership The data comes from a 1999-2000 survey of TANF
    reclplents in the Los Angeles metropohtana rea. The empmcaIr esults showa slgmficant
    independent contrabutlon of car ownership on employmenTt he presence of an observed
    ownership is assoclated with 12 percentage point increase m the odds of being employed
    Moreover, the results re&care that lowering insurance premmmbsy $100 can increase the odds
    of employment by 4 percentage points
    http://www.uctc.net/papers/540.pdf

15. Paul – the scale of the fee doesn’t matter. The question is – what was the point of the fee? If it was to punish car ownership, it succeeded. If it was to punish marginal car use, it failed, not least because it had no impact on the cars originating elsewhere in the GTA. As a transit commuter and weekend driver, I resent that the person who refuses to take transit at all pays the same fee.

16. The point of the fee was to raise revenue in one of the only ways available to the city. From a policy perspective, it can be linked to the fact that private automobile owners have a disproportionate impact on city infrastructure costs and should be contributing appropriately. Describing taxation as ‘punitive’ is simple libertarian crybaby stuff and not worthy of further comment.

17. Paul, would you care to provide where you are getting your cost figures from?

18. Paul’s comment…”Describing taxation as ‘punitive’ is simple libertarian crybaby stuff and not worthy of further comment.
    “…

    Nice to see that there is someone on this board to decide for people what is and isn’t worthy of further comment.