![\"\"](\"http:\/\/farm3.static.flickr.com\/2583\/3956770748_a11bb4e474_z.jpg?zz=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacingmedia.com\/uploads\/toronto\/feature-lorinc.gif\")
<\/p>\n
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.<\/em><\/p>\n With Toronto\u2019s sports franchises giving us little to talk about, it appears that our newest preoccupation is laying waste to every aspect of David Miller\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Indeed, listening to the bellicose rhetoric of those seeking to replace him, an uninformed observer might conclude it\u2019s been seven squandered years in Leftigrad. The faster we can undo the damage Miller has wrought, most of the mayoral candidates imply, the better.<\/p>\n But there are several major civic issues the candidates aren\u2019t talking about. Here\u2019s the reason: those rhetorical omissions, all quite deliberate, silently tell a tale of (mostly unacknowledged) political success.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at four of the largest problems the city faced back in 2003: garbage, policing, corruption, and infrastructure. In all cases, Miller\u2019s record has been strong enough to quiet potential successors (at least, so far).<\/p>\n GARBAGE<\/strong> <\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n POLICING<\/strong> But the Bill Blair era has been notable for its lack of controversy [ Editor’s Note:<\/strong> this column was written pre-G20 summit<\/em> ]. Blair\u2019s approach \u2014 including community policing and recruitment of visible minorities \u2014 dovetails with Miller\u2019s thinking. He silenced the Fantino fan club because Blair gets results. Miller\u2019s 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 \u201csummer of the gun\u201d occurred on Miller\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n CORRUPTION<\/strong> These reforms aren\u2019t 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\u2019d be playing with fire if they proposed rolling back these changes.<\/p>\n INFRASTRUCTURE<\/strong> 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\u2019s Park. But Miller, both on his own and through the big city mayor\u2019s caucus, kept up the pressure, mostly without going ballistic.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n All these important and far-ranging fixes \u2014 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 \u2014 hoovered up Miller\u2019s reserves of political capital, and that\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacingmedia.com\/uploads\/images\/line-grey-1pixel-600wide.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/p>\n
\nThough it seems like ancient history, Toronto\u2019s 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\u2019s trash to Adams Mine, but the backup plan \u2014 schlepping it all down to Michigan \u2014 morphed into an ugly international embarrassment for Miller after he became mayor.<\/p>\n
\nWhere\u2019s the tough-on-crime rhetoric from all the righties in this year\u2019s campaign? Heading into the 2003 race, the city was ablaze with fear about shootings and controversy over Julian Fantino\u2019s hard-ass approach (racial profiling, military-style gang busts, coded language). So when Miller, tagged by his critics as a bleeding heart, engineered Fantino\u2019s ouster in 2005, many on the right predicted he\u2019d pay dearly for the decision.<\/p>\n
\nOpposition to Miller has coalesced around his policies, not his cronies. The mayor\u2019s critics have never found a convincing scandal on which to hang their hats. And while I\u2019m not suggesting Miller doesn\u2019t 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\u2019s council also introduced, albeit haltingly, a lobbyist registry, campaign finance rules, an ombud, and independent status for the auditor general.<\/p>\n
\nThe 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\u2019s $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.<\/p>\n