Dear Mayor Ford,
You invited Torontonians on Friday to let you know how they feel about the proposals arising from the Core Service Review. Here are some thoughts, for your consideration.
Let’s start with some principles upon which to base the discussion.
1. I am more than happy to acknowledge that some of the residents of this city value services that I personally use less frequently — for example, the care and maintenance of large arterials and the city’s two highways. I would ask you, in turn, to resist the temptation to dismiss your critics as members of special interest groups. Let’s agree that the city consists of many different perspectives.
2. I expect council to manage its infrastructure as would the CFO of a private corporation, i.e., maintaining hard assets rather than deferring repairs; and recognizing that borrowing as a means of amortizing the cost of the upkeep of physical assets (e.g., rolling stock) is an investment, not a cost.
3. I am happy to engage in a debate about outsourcing, but as a taxpayer, I want to be assured of a key detail: with every outsourcing proposal, the private proponents must demonstrate that any administrative or process savings (i) exceed the premium they will charge in order to meet their profit margins; and (ii) don’t result in poorer service or unsafe working conditions.
4. I would like us to differentiate between waste (“gravy”) and services that you consider to be extraneous. Again, I invite you to consider (1) above.
5. I ask that all decisions be based on facts rather than impressions.
6. I expect you to implement budget cuts that are commensurate with this year’s financial pressures instead of deliberately over-shooting the target. I am well aware that you promised to eliminate the land transfer tax during the election, but this, as far as I know, is not yet a position adopted by council. If council votes to eliminate $250 million in annual revenues, then we can have a subsequent discussion about further savings. But let’s not confuse one with the other in the context of the core service review.
7. As a homeowner and a professional who earns a comfortable living, I do not want to benefit from budget cuts that will negatively affect the 50% of the city’s residents who are tenants, as well as low-income families and individuals.
8. If we intend to expand user fees on the principle of cost recovery, then let’s not forget that the City’s road network represents a costly service to drivers, and should be priced accordingly.
As I reviewed the KPMG core service review proposals, I can certainly say, in the spirit of compromise, that some of the ideas struck me as valid. Yes, let’s sell the Toronto Zoo. The city doesn’t need to own the CNE, and should ask an agency like Waterfront Toronto to come up with a self-financing redevelopment plan.
Subject to (3) above, I am prepared to consider outsourcing back-office administrative functions (bill processing, etc.), custodial services and the 311 call centre. And I would be interested to see what kind of savings could be had from combining fire and EMS, on the proviso that safety isn’t compromised.
Lastly, there are many not-for-profit nursing home operators associated with ethno-cultural organizations or other charities, and I would be interested in the City investigating the transfer the long-term care homes to these entities. I draw the line at private retirement home/LTC chains.
On the subject of City-subsidized daycare services, my philosophy of government is that social services be funded through a progressive tax base. If you embark on a serious effort to obtain an agreement with Queen’s Park and Ottawa to upload daycare costs, and can deliver such a result, I would support that shift in responsibilities, but with the proviso that the City freeze its service levels until such time as an agreement is in place. Let’s not play chicken with tens of thousands of low-income families and their children.
In terms of no-go zones, I would not endorse the sale of operations that generate net revenues for the city, even if they are relatively small. Such a move seems like cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Also, I do not want council, in my name, to turn its back on the priority neighbourhoods. Investment in those communities, especially through services for young people, is incredibly important for the future health of the city as a whole.
I do not support closing reducing Toronto’s public health services or closing library branches. The city’s library network is recognized internationally and patronized locally. I don’t see any sense in crippling it. Finally, I can not support reducing transit service. The city’s congestion is, as you’ve said on many occasions, a big problem. But reducing transit, or allowing the service to deteriorate, makes congestion an even bigger problem. Let’s say it plainly: if you cut back on transit funding, you will be exacerbating the war on the car.
These are some of my suggestions, and I hope you see in them an attempt at finding some middle ground. I encourage you to adopt the same approach, and wish you well in your deliberations.
Photo by Benson Kua
22 comments
There’s a lot of sense here, but I’d be astonished if Mayor Ford’s response was anything other than:
“Cool story, bro!”
John, thanks for this reasoned and reasonable posting. A followup to your point re: investments in rolling stock. The other day in The Star Joe Mihevc was quoted to the effect that the Fords are gearing up for an attack on plans for renewal of the streetcar system. This has, oddly, received no followup in the press. Is your comment related to this possibility, and if so is it something rumblings have begun about at City Hall? Thanks, M
Also: is it possible to upload road maintenance to the Province? They maintain a lot of roads, after all. Maybe the city should get out of the roads, business–or at least the highways business.
Thanks John for writing this letter. I do agree with most of your points.
I do want to raise issue with one of your statements
“Subject to (3) above, I am prepared to consider outsourcing back-office administrative functions (bill processing, etc.), custodial services and the 311 call centre.”
We need to be cautious about who these services are being outsourced to. Currently, with these services run out of the city and by current residents of the city of Toronto, or the near vicinity, their living costs, expenses, property taxes, etc. are being spent in Toronto and Ontario. Outsourcing these services, especially 311, could become a situation where the money is just flowing out of the city/province or even country.
If you can dissuade me of my concerns, I’d be happy to hear otherwise.
A very thoughtful letter to the Mayors Ford and it’s a pity they are unlikely to pay any attention to it. I certainly agree that there are some services that could be outsourced (old-age homes and day-care centres being among them) and this should be investigated IF quality and service are maintainted or improved and the end-cost to taxpayers is reduced.
I would add that I do not think Toronto’s property taxes are out of line; of course I would like to pay less but I want to live in a City I can be proud of and which looks after and provides services to those who need help.
I applaud your remarks on transit funding and your suggestion about looking at road pricing. We need more and better (not less and worse) public transit and if the way to get it is to restrict (or charge) cars then that’s fine with me.
On the land transfer tax; when it was introduced those who opposed it said it would cripple the property market; hardly what happened and the vehicle tax was $60 (about the cost of filling up once!) The City can’t rely on property tax income and needs other sources, it was crazy to repeal the vehicle tax and crazier still to still talk of abolishing the land transfer tax. If the City willingly gives up on income why should other levels of government offer us a penny?
Letter, prepared to be ignored.
Excellent and rational approach John. It would be great advice for the mayor if this were not a rapacious “starve the beast” exercise to reduce the tax base and the range of services the City provides. I don’t agree with outsourcing the 311 call centre or custodial services unless they comply with the Fair Wage policies. And I would not agree to selling off the Toronto Zoo unless the buyer promises to reinstall the monorail.
I would be okay with road tolls on the 401, the DVP (N of the 401) , the 400 (N of the 407) and the QEW (W of the Humber) provided the revenues are kept public and are invested in public transit.
Keep up the good work John!
“I would not endorse the sale of operations that generate net revenues for the city, even if they are relatively small.”
According to City Staff, the share of the tax roll payable on debt charges is 11.5% this year rising to 15% by 2015. City of Toronto 10 year bonds are estimated at 5% next year by City Finance Staff. If the enterprises concerned can’t substantially approach that return and there is no compelling case that the City must operate a given enterprise whether at a profit or a loss, then the City is running such businesses for the profit of bondholders.
That said, I would not like to see *on-street* parking privatised. That seems to me a recipe for lawsuits when the city wants to do roadworks, change the amount of parking or add transit on a given street.
There are a few things that I would like to see privatised and allow the market to set prices.
Let’s sell off the City’s car-only highways; the Gardiner Expressway, Don Valley Parkway and Allen Road. Let the new owners charge market rates for tolls. Let’s end the gravy train for car drivers and replace their subsidies at the public trough with market-based tolls.
You ask that all decisions be based on facts rather than impressions?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ford says that payroll makes up 80% of the City’s budget, and that everyone knows that in the private sector it should be 20%, max. OMG gravy alert hyperventilate call Sue-Ann Levy!
Except that the numbers are 48% for Toronto and anywhere from 30-40% to 75-85% for the ideal. Oh. So no need to hyperventilate then?
Terrific letter. Is there any way to get this posted on the Toronto Sun website (maybe in an exchange with Spacing)?
First Mark> Ignored by mayor perhaps — but there is still a mushy middle who make take a thoughtful approach. Really, really, holding out for that….
It’s a good point Kevin — what has got drivers up in arms in the last dozen plus years more than the 407?
That mushy middle needs a political, not a logical, reason to listen. I agree with all of John’s points and sentiments, but it’s all irrelevant ’cause we’re playing a different political game right now. Namely, if in power then do what you feel and cover your ears. If out of power, throw any and all crazy accusations with no grounds until something sticks, then repeat it and embellish no matter how insane it starts to sound.
Figure out how to write something that will make the human-on-the-street call them baby-killers or nazis or something heinous and then they’ll all listen and do exactly like you suggest. There’s no room for sense or reasoned argument in city hall these days and those in opposition to the current direction need to recognize this won’t be won by convincing them you’re willing to compromise, that’ll only get them to push harder.
Or maybe I’m just having a bad morning. 😀
Something I found interesting is Rob Ford’s comments about the Toronto Police Service, following his comments on labour.
They’re a city agency that does spend more than 80% of its budget on wages and benefits. They’re also the single biggest draw on property tax–the TTC has a bigger budget, but most of it is paid for through fares. And as the City-wide average for budget spent on wages is 48% (although maybe that number excludes employees of ABCs?), the implication is that most City-run programs and services actually spend drastically less than 48% on labour costs.
Yet despite being one of the relatively few that meet his criteria for gravy, they’re the one group that, rightly or wrongly, Rob Ford has decided is off-limits for cuts.
A very well-written and well-reasoned piece, although, as one of the comments above suggests, it’s unlikely to find a receptive audience in the mayor’s office. While the spirit of compromise and collaboration is admirable, it’s not much help when the other side doesn’t even know the meaning of the words.
In light of this, the “mushy middle” needs to be called out. In this context, playing both sides simply ends up enabling the most partisan, fact-challenged and vindictive administration in recent civic history.
John, it’s uncany, but your position matches mine practically to a letter. Believing in the civic good does not mean being a spend thrift. Tommy Douglas brought medi-care to Saskatchewan, and he eliminated the provincial debt at the same time.
Perversely speaking, I’m wondering if the Fords would use the Core Services Review against itself, i.e. by deferring instead to some notion of the majority of Toronto taxpayers who are too busy working hard and earning their keep to fill out a Core Services Review survey…
John, this piece looks great, but you’re not speaking to the audience that needs to hear you. Hamutal Dotan sees it:
http://torontoist.com/2011/07/ford_thing.php
First, simplify your language. Erudite loquacious perambulations don’t make sound bites and are hard to read.
Second, don’t bother talking to the Fords – they don’t care what you think.
Last, think of your allies – voters in ‘mushy middle’ councillors’ wards. Talking about “I think” “I want” “I agree” only works if your allies care about you.
@Antony — thanks for the advice, but I write only on my own behalf and am not interested in forging alliances, just fostering debate.
Regarding the proposed principle that decisions coming out of the Core Service Review should be based on “facts” not impressions, I would say that “facts” alone don’t dictate any particular outcome. The other key ingredient in decisions is VALUES. And it’s the differences in values among the different players that is providing much of the schism in this whole exercise. Values are critical to the discussion and any decision-making that will come out of the Review (and accompanying exercises). Efforts to clarify them are important. (Both Ford and his detractors have done a poor job of doing this.) But we should also appreciate how contentious they are. In other words, the principles being proposed as the basis for the discussion are themselves up for discussion. Bottom line… let’s talk about facts… but let’s not be afraid to speak about values.
John,
Thank you for this intelligent response John. I think your reasoning is sound and correct on all points. I will say however, that from the perspective of someone like myself, and likely from yours as well, having witnessed so many negotiations, stalls, battles, surrenders and rejections over so many years, my gut sense is becoming more and more aligned with what Jacob has suggested. It honestly appears in this world that we are bending to a breaking point, and that some form of actual revolution will be the tipping point. A scary thought and a process that could see the collapse of society as we know it. Speaking like this I realize how ‘far-fetched’ this must seem, but when you look at the levels of greed and corruption within society’s ranks, and particularly its highest economic ranks, anger and even outrage are only a motion away now. Paradigm shifts in society are always perceived as a ‘shock of realization’…….but are they? One could see this coming for years now. Anyway, I shall hold steadfast to teachings of equanimity, and hope that I am wrong. MD