![](\"http:\/\/farm1.static.flickr.com\/78\/153367674_e4c0c4cf12.jpg?v=0\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Last updated: 12:25AM, Tuesday, October 23.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Today Toronto City Council will be debating and voting on a land transfer tax and vehicle registration fee. The debate promises to be a spirited one and given what’s on the line, it’s safe to say that there will be plenty of fireworks to see.<\/p>\n I encourage people to go down to City Hall in person to see Council at work but for those who have daytime obligations, you can also follow along online<\/a>.<\/p>\n I’ll also provide updates throughout the day in this space.<\/p>\n With yellow scarves draped around their necks, supporters of the taxes started the morning with a 150 person strong rally outside the doors of City Hall. Toronto Environmental Allicance’s Katrina Miller and the Labour Council’s John Cartwright emceed, with Mayor David Miller addressing the crowd.<\/p>\n Soon after City Council got underway,\u00a0councillors decided\u00a0to extend their hours indefinitely so the tax measures can be dealt with today.<\/p>\n Around 10AM, the Mayor rose to kick-off the debate on the taxes, saying that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153it’s incumbent on us to do our part\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6It’s time for this city to move forward.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n 10:55AM<\/strong> – Rob Ford gets up to question Miller.<\/p>\n Ford: Don’t you think this is going to paralyze the real estate market in Toronto?<\/p>\n Miller: Uh, no. No. (Pause.) No.<\/p>\n 11:30<\/strong> – Giorgio Mammoliti, questioning Miller, trying to ask if anyone has suggested a viable alternative to taxes.<\/p>\n Mammoliti: Has anyone told you where to go?<\/p>\n (Council Chamber erupts in laughter)<\/p>\n Miller: I’m not sure I should say.<\/p>\n 12:30PM <\/strong>– At the lunch break, Council has finished questioning the Mayor and about a quarter of councillors have questioned City staff. When Council resumes at 2PM, questions of staff will continue. I would expect that by 3:30PM the debate will begin with each councillor having up to 7 minutes to speak and move motions. However, keep in mind that if a councillor moves a motion he or she can be asked questions of clarification on the motion for up to 3 minutes by any councillor who wishes. If opponents to the tax feel like grandstanding (and if history means anything they will), this debate could easily go past 10PM.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2:05 <\/strong>– As councillors slowly file into the chamber for the afternoon portion of the meeting, real estate agents and progressive folk are racing up the elevators hoping to claim the majority of the seats in the chamber.<\/p>\n Contest:<\/strong> One gold star to the person who can identify how we know the picture for this post was snapped during the last term of Council.<\/p>\n 2:45 <\/strong>– We have a winner. Sean Marshall gets the gold star. Gay Cowbourne is a relic of the 2003-2006 term. If she had decided to run again, Miller would likely have his taxes already.<\/p>\n Apparently the progressives on Council have no questions for staff so, after Doug Holyday rose on a point of privilege to ask that no one call the question before all members wishing to speak have done so, Denzil Minnan-Wong started the line of speakers. Michael Walker followed with a series of motions, including a deferral until after plebiscite on the taxes can be conducted and, if the taxes do pass, a sunset clause of 2010 so they can be reviewed at that time.<\/p>\n 2:50<\/strong> – Councillors will now have up to 2 minutes to speak on the deferral motion. If it passes (and I highly, highly doubt it will) then the debate is over for now, again.<\/p>\n 2:53<\/strong> – Surprisingly, no one wanted to speak to the deferral so the motion was voted on and defeated, 14-27. Ootes has now moved that if the taxes pass, property taxes be limited to the rate of inflation (presumably CPI). I think this motion is out of order since the property tax rate isn’t before Council at this meeting (Walker had a motion on councillor salaries that was ruled out of order for that same reason. I expect several other rulings from the Speaker for the same reason.)<\/p>\n 3:05<\/strong> – Unsurprisingly, Ootes’s tax motion is ruled out of order.<\/p>\n Mihevc now has the floor as the first progressive to speak. He uses his time to list off the good things that the mushy middle and centre-right have done with taxpayer dollars (Milczyn and the NPS revitalization; Grimes and BMO Field; Nunziata and the York community centre, etc.) Joe really is one of the best examples of political leadership out there and a class act all the way.<\/p>\n 3:25<\/strong> – Suzanne Hall, the first swing vote, gets up to speak. She claims her deferral was a success, no matter the outcome of the election because of the LTT compromise that was reached. Although she still doesn’t like the tax and acknowledges the significant number of people who contacted to her in opposition to it, Hall sees it as the lesser of two evils (the other being property tax hikes). She also believes that good public services (like LRT in the burbs) will increase property values more than a LTT could diminish them. Although she ran out of time, it was clear Hall’s going to vote in favour of the LTT.<\/p>\n Hall also moved a motion to delay the implementation of a VRT until the province agrees to administer the collection of the tax. She feels this will ensure a new section of bureaucracy isn’t created to administer the City’s levy. I don’t think this is a bad motion, though the devil is in the details so unless it’s amended later (it sounds like that’s what Perks will do that) it could unwittingly delay implementation of the VRT more than necessary.<\/p>\n 3:40<\/strong> – Mammoliti delivers a zinger to Walker, saying that the vetern councillor, known for fighting for tenant rights (Kay Gardiner’s influence), is now enlisted in the fight for millionaires’ rights.<\/p>\n 3:47<\/strong> – Rob Ford says cutting councillor perks is like taking milk from a baby — all they do is cry. So he wants to take milk away from babies? I don’t agree with the vast, vast, vast majority of Fords proposed cuts but I don’t think they’re quite as vital as milk for a baby.<\/p>\n Ford also wants to know why councillors have more staff in their office than he and Doug Holyday. That punchline writes itself.<\/p>\n Speaker Bussin to Ford: “When referring to other members of council, you use the proper title. And when you talk about the mayor, it’s Mayor Miller. Do you understand?”<\/p>\n 4:00<\/strong> – Jenkins keeps going on about development charges. I don’t know the finest details on the development charge issue but I do that while there is room to increase the amount we charge, there isn’t so much room as to believe it could solve our financial problem or even come close to it (I think City staff said we could get $25 million more per year.) It can also only be applied to certain capital costs. I wish he would see that his fight for higher development charges (one I support) is only a small piece of the larger puzzel.<\/p>\n 4:05<\/strong> – Doug Holyday on the LTT: “This is a sin tax but there is no sin.” (Karen Stintz might learn something about packaging her speeches to Council from Holyday.)<\/p>\n Holyday continued to thank CUPE, the firefighters and all the other union staff “who took time out of their busy schedule to be with us here today.”<\/p>\n 4:10<\/strong> – Raymond Cho asks us to think of the City as a tree. He starts to talk about branches and rotting and roots but then the metaphor gets confused and lost. I think I understand what he was saying but I’m still not sure how he gets elected when he can’t string together a coherent sentence (and it has nothing to do with english not being his first language. There are lots of people who are capable of expressing themselves very articulately with much less command of the language than Cho.) Frank Di Giorgio is also guilty of mind boggling speeches that leave everyone in the Council Chamber scratching their head.<\/p>\n 4:15<\/strong> – Chin Lee claims that 4% of people will pay for 120% of the services. Whaaaaaaaa?!?<\/p>\n 4:20<\/strong> – Maybe I should look for work as a soothsayer. On cue (and I can’t see the speakers list), Frank Di Giorgio gives a typically scattered speech about…Well maybe he and Councillor Cho are just more enlightened that I am.<\/p>\n Thankfully, at the very end of his speech, Di Giorgio specifies that he will be supporting the taxes (we already knew that.)<\/p>\n 4:25<\/strong> – Michael Thompson gets up with his bid to give a mayoral-like speech. He starts off with what most of the right-wingers have, which is pointing out that a small portion of the population will pay so it’s an unfair tax. Well how often are they buying? If they’re land speculators then I have no sympathy. Most people buy a couple times in a life time. So we all take turns shouldering the burden and those who can’t afford to buy will see a small — negligible — impact in their rents.<\/p>\n Then Thompson lets this one go: “This will hurt seniors who are selling homes to finance retirement.” Uh, Councillor, have you seen the alternatives? This is the best way to protect them.<\/p>\n After that Thompson went on about how we need to ensure efficiency, especially in the grants program…I don’t think he’s seen the dozens of pages that grant-seeking organizations have to fill out. There’s a great deal of scrutiny, so much so that some organizations struggle because they don’t have the resources to complete the City’s administrative requirements.<\/p>\n 4:35<\/strong> – Frances Nunziata is especially feisty today. It’s nice to see some passion in people who rarely show it (Case Ootes also put some effort into his address.)<\/p>\n 4:40<\/strong> – Del Grande takes a cheap shot at staff, saying they haven’t distributed his motions that he gave to the Clerk at 2PM. Seconds later it’s realized the motions have been distributed. Del Grande refuses to apologize to the Clerk. Seems his name wasn’t on the speakers list either. How many people can he blame in one 7 minute speech? I’ll notify Guinness when he’s through.<\/p>\n 4:50<\/strong> – Del Grande introduces a litany of motions: Exempting cars from the VRT that are less than three years old, exempting seniors and people with disabilities from VRT, exempting bequeathed homes to family members from LTT*, that LTT and VRT be frozen until 2010 and not changed unless residents approve in a referendum, same with any new revenue tools and taxing inter-city rail and buses at 1,000 per rail car\/bus*.<\/p>\n *indicates that the motions were ruled out of order.<\/p>\n 4:55<\/strong> – Milczyn, another swing vote, gets up to support the VRT and oppose LTT. Although I disagree with him, Milczyn is at least being thoughtful about his approach in saying that while he doesn’t want to inflict horrendous pain on residents through shutting community centres and eliminating grants all together, he isn’t convinced that the City has done enough.<\/p>\n 5:50<\/strong> – Augimeri speaks: She says she is part of the collective problem for not seeing the fiscal future. “We shouldn’t have done what we did.” The City of Toronto Act is a noose from McGuinty “here, go hang yourself.”<\/p>\n “I was being pulled every which way on this.” She is extremely resentful of how the City handled the election and will not support the VRT because it seems “unholy” to tax people in their cars. However, she will support the LTT because there is no other choice.<\/p>\n 5:59<\/strong> – Earlier, Filion also came around to LTT side. He worked out a deal to have the LTT reduced if 50% of $700 million in uploading is done. That, to him, was enough of a compromise to go back to his residents. With Filion and Augimeri on board, the majority grows.<\/p>\n 6:09<\/strong> – Vaughan moves motion to increase the VRT to $109, consistent with the Metropass and that it increase with the price of a Metropass in the future.<\/p>\n 6:25<\/strong> – Carroll gets up to speak. “Some are here to protect their commissions, some to protect their mayoralty bid and others to protect their partisan leaders.” (Angry real estate agents start to mumble loudly)<\/p>\n “Can I have the floor?” (Shouts from across the room) “No!!”<\/p>\n “If you vote against these programs tonight I hope you will look the children in the eye and tell them you’re increasing the fees for recreation programs.” And that’s the end of the debate. Council has decided to take the vote instead of going to dinner on the request of Mayor Miller.<\/p>\n 6:36<\/strong> – Voting on attached motions to tax legislation begins.<\/p>\n 6:39 <\/strong>– Walker’s motion to receive (kill the item) loses 16-29. That’s a big majority.<\/span><\/p>\n 6:44 <\/strong>– Del Grande’s sunset clause with requirement for a referendum goes down 14-31. Guess some fiscally responsible councillors don’t like wasting money on unnecessary referenda.<\/p>\n 6:45<\/strong> – Miller’s motion of compromises passes 29-16. It looks like the final vote on LTT will be 29-16 (to take place around 7pm). VRT may be tighter, in the range of 27-18.<\/p>\n 6:50<\/strong> – A host of motions by Walker and Del Grande are ruled redundant or lose by wide margins. It’s hard typing and keeping track of all the motions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6:59<\/strong> – Getting closer to unanimity on a vote to exempt properties that are woth $2 or less — 43-2.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 7:03<\/strong> – Voting on land transfer tax starts. Passes 26-19.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 7:05<\/strong> – Personal vehicle registration tax passes 25-20.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 7:07-7:08<\/strong> – People in chambers give 1 minute ovation when taxes announced as passed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 7:09<\/strong> – Council adjourns for 30 minutes.<\/p>\n 7:12<\/strong> – Miller can be heard off-camera answering questions from reporters on the Rogers feed (but we can not hear the interviewers’ questions. He speaks about the need to preserve social services, thanks citizens (particularly those in the audience) for their support, and touches upon the difficulties for next year’s budget.<\/p>\n 7:50<\/strong> – Council goes on to more typical points of business, including a debate on a proposed low-density housing development in a ravine greenbelt space in Mammoliti’s ward.<\/p>\n 12:25AM<\/strong> – Some final thoughts that will eventually make it into a post of its own: Miller succeeded politically. He got enough votes to continue to be a stronger mayor. I think he’s learned some lessons about how to manage a group of 45 people with independent interests. Filion was an important vote to have on side because he’s a suburban councillor who is respected by his colleagues. However, Miller took a significant risk by supporting Filion’s motion — it could come back to haunt him if he succeeds in getting provincial uploading or a cent of the sales tax. Augimeri and Perruzza really tested my confidence and my patience but thankfully they got it right in the end. I’m glad that they were able to see the bigger picture; it’s better for them, better for their communities and better for our city. Because the compromise reduced the amount of revenue the City will receive from the taxes, Miller is going to be in a very difficult position come operating budget time. Unless another level of government steps in, service cuts and\/or a large property tax increase are not out of the question. Miller and Carroll will have to handle this budget expertly because their political hides will most certainly be on the line. So long as Miller has learned from this experience, I’m confident they’ll come through with a budget Torontonians can support.<\/p>\n Photo courtesy <\/em>HiMY SYeD<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"