City gives developers a break
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF Toronto Sun
Last Updated: 18th October 2008, 3:35am
Toronto Mayor David Miller is proposing a freeze on development charges but going ahead with a planned 9% hike in water rates.
Miller said yesterday he's concerned about the impact of the U.S. credit crisis on the city's real estate construction sector so he wants to provide some relief on fees.
"If we don't get new development, that will put a significant (tax) burden on current single family homeowners," he said.
The proposed 9% water rate hike is needed at this time to fix an antiquated system, promote conservation and maintain jobs, he said.
JOB CREATION
"In a time of economic uncertainty, the city has a role to ensure that jobs are created and that we make the investments needed to support jobs," Miller said.
"The investments in our waste budget and in our water budget, in particular, create considerable numbers of construction jobs. The same thing with my proposal with respect to development charges (which) will help support that work and that intensification of our city."
But Miller pointed out a 9% water rate hike doesn't automatically mean a 9% increase in water bills.
Homeowners who want to save money can take steps to reduce consumption, he said.
"People have a choice," Miller said. "They can use less water, they can change the shower heads ... and we'll even give you a coupon to help you install a low-flow toilet so you can reduce the amount of water you use."
FOURTH HIKE
Next year's 9% water rate hike -- the fourth such increase in four years -- is part of a long-range plan to overhaul the city's aging water and sewer infrastructure, which is prone to flooding in some parts of Toronto.
"Homeowners can't afford being flooded ... they don't have insurance any more because their water infrastructure hasn't been renewed properly and in some places is inadequate," Miller said.
The mayor also did not rule out a property tax increase for next year, despite comments from Premier Dalton McGuinty that now is not the time to add any new financial burden to taxpayers.
"The city's in a different position ... from the province and the federal government -- they get more money every year," Miller said. "In fact, I think federal spending under Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper has gone up about 7% annually, more than the city."
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Which country gets dubious title of 'Next Iceland?'
Posted: October 17, 2008, 5:30 PM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Neil Hrab
Iceland has suffered considerable ignominy as the country worst-hit by the financial meltdown. But it is not alone. Already there is some competition for the dubious honour of being crowned the "next Iceland." That is, the country most likely to face an Iceland-style financial disaster, brought on by the global credit crisis? Unlike "America's Next Top Model," this is one reality show nobody wants to win.
According to U.S.-based Forbes, it might be Hungary. Hungary is facing severe economic difficulties due to a heavy national debt.
On the other hand, the Financial Times says fears about Hungary are overblown. The FT quotes analysts who think Turkey (among others) has a better shot at becoming the next Iceland, because it may buckle under the weight of too external borrowing.
The UK-based Independent cannot make up its mind on which country will become the next Iceland. It says that both Switzerland and Ukraine are facing enough financial trouble to qualify. The Swiss had to bail out one of their country's biggest banks this week, while the Ukrainians were offered an IMF aid package worth billions of dollars to help shore up their crumbling banking sector.
The Economist sees both Ukraine and Hungary as eligible for the non-coveted title of next Iceland.
London's Telegraph on October 8th warned people living Down Under that Australia was in danger of becoming the next Iceland, based on fears about the health of its banks. The Telegraph hasn't repeated the warning, however, so hopefully that means the Aussies are out of the running.
National Post
Neil Hrab is a former National Post editorial writer, who has also served as a communications advisor to the federal government.
Full Comment, Neil Hrab
Iceland has suffered considerable ignominy as the country worst-hit by the financial meltdown. But it is not alone. Already there is some competition for the dubious honour of being crowned the "next Iceland." That is, the country most likely to face an Iceland-style financial disaster, brought on by the global credit crisis? Unlike "America's Next Top Model," this is one reality show nobody wants to win.
According to U.S.-based Forbes, it might be Hungary. Hungary is facing severe economic difficulties due to a heavy national debt.
On the other hand, the Financial Times says fears about Hungary are overblown. The FT quotes analysts who think Turkey (among others) has a better shot at becoming the next Iceland, because it may buckle under the weight of too external borrowing.
The UK-based Independent cannot make up its mind on which country will become the next Iceland. It says that both Switzerland and Ukraine are facing enough financial trouble to qualify. The Swiss had to bail out one of their country's biggest banks this week, while the Ukrainians were offered an IMF aid package worth billions of dollars to help shore up their crumbling banking sector.
The Economist sees both Ukraine and Hungary as eligible for the non-coveted title of next Iceland.
London's Telegraph on October 8th warned people living Down Under that Australia was in danger of becoming the next Iceland, based on fears about the health of its banks. The Telegraph hasn't repeated the warning, however, so hopefully that means the Aussies are out of the running.
National Post
Neil Hrab is a former National Post editorial writer, who has also served as a communications advisor to the federal government.
Financial crisis: Moscow supermarket shelves increasingly empty in Soviet era reminder
Russian shoppers have been served an uncomfortable reminder of the Soviet era after finding shelves in some Moscow supermarkets empty, a further sign that the woes of the financial markets have begun to affect the mainstream economy.
By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
Last Updated: 10:11PM BST 16 Oct 2008
For a generation of Russians who queued daily in the snow for the most basic of staples, the symbolism of a bare supermarket shelf is so powerful that it could potentially destroy the reputation of Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, as saviour of the world's largest country.
The shortages are not yet widespread. Even so, goods have begun to vanish from dozens of Moscow supermarkets over the past fortnight.
At a branch of the supermarket chain Samokhval in southwestern Moscow, a handful of shoppers pushed their trolleys through empty rows of shelves that once groaned under the weight of imported wares.
The deep freezes hummed, although there was nothing to freeze. Only a row of baked beans, a few jars of olives and sealed cupboards filled with vodka and cheap wine interrupted the void.
Unlike in the dying days of the Soviet Union, when the madcap policies of a bankrupt ideology inflicted deprivation across the country, today's shortages are very much rooted in modern Russia's enthusiastic embrace of capitalism.
Samokhval, which has 60 outlets across the capital, is the victim of a credit crunch whose tentacles have spread to virtually all sectors of the Russian economy. With trust a commodity in short supply, distributors have been unwilling to refinance the chain's debts and have stopped supplying.
Similar problems have affected Mosmart, which has 58 outlets and is also suffering from empty shelves.
The breadlines are unlikely to reform any time soon -- most supermarkets seem to be operating almost as normal -- yet such shortages seem extraordinary in a city that revels in its reputation as the world's most expensive.
A consumer boom, built on runaway oil prices, has turned Russians into some of the world's most aggressive spenders.
Yet the global financial crisis and investor jitters over Russia's increasingly aggressive foreign policy and its propensity to intervene in the private sector at the whim of the Kremlin have led to share prices tumbling.
The Moscow stock exchange's main indices lost over nine percent yesterday, and have fallen over two-thirds since touching all-time highs in May.
So rapidly have events moved that many Russians are almost unaware of the meltdown. A government-ordered news blackout of the market's woes has helped perpetuate the ignorance, convincing many that it was only the West that was affected. Tabloids have run stories claiming that Britons are so short of cash they can no longer bury their dead.
Despite the shortages, shoppers at Samokhval seemed either unconcerned or fatalistic.
"Life gets better, it gets worse," said Yevgenia Krasovskaya, a doctor. "Difficult times are followed by good times. Even if there is a little less now, what difference does it make so long as the basics are there? We've been through much worse than in the past." But Samokhval's checkout girls were more pessimistic.
"We're worried," said Svetlana, who would not give her surname as her supervisor was lurking nearby. "The management tells us everything will be ok, but I don't believe it."
By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
Last Updated: 10:11PM BST 16 Oct 2008
For a generation of Russians who queued daily in the snow for the most basic of staples, the symbolism of a bare supermarket shelf is so powerful that it could potentially destroy the reputation of Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, as saviour of the world's largest country.
The shortages are not yet widespread. Even so, goods have begun to vanish from dozens of Moscow supermarkets over the past fortnight.
At a branch of the supermarket chain Samokhval in southwestern Moscow, a handful of shoppers pushed their trolleys through empty rows of shelves that once groaned under the weight of imported wares.
The deep freezes hummed, although there was nothing to freeze. Only a row of baked beans, a few jars of olives and sealed cupboards filled with vodka and cheap wine interrupted the void.
Unlike in the dying days of the Soviet Union, when the madcap policies of a bankrupt ideology inflicted deprivation across the country, today's shortages are very much rooted in modern Russia's enthusiastic embrace of capitalism.
Samokhval, which has 60 outlets across the capital, is the victim of a credit crunch whose tentacles have spread to virtually all sectors of the Russian economy. With trust a commodity in short supply, distributors have been unwilling to refinance the chain's debts and have stopped supplying.
Similar problems have affected Mosmart, which has 58 outlets and is also suffering from empty shelves.
The breadlines are unlikely to reform any time soon -- most supermarkets seem to be operating almost as normal -- yet such shortages seem extraordinary in a city that revels in its reputation as the world's most expensive.
A consumer boom, built on runaway oil prices, has turned Russians into some of the world's most aggressive spenders.
Yet the global financial crisis and investor jitters over Russia's increasingly aggressive foreign policy and its propensity to intervene in the private sector at the whim of the Kremlin have led to share prices tumbling.
The Moscow stock exchange's main indices lost over nine percent yesterday, and have fallen over two-thirds since touching all-time highs in May.
So rapidly have events moved that many Russians are almost unaware of the meltdown. A government-ordered news blackout of the market's woes has helped perpetuate the ignorance, convincing many that it was only the West that was affected. Tabloids have run stories claiming that Britons are so short of cash they can no longer bury their dead.
Despite the shortages, shoppers at Samokhval seemed either unconcerned or fatalistic.
"Life gets better, it gets worse," said Yevgenia Krasovskaya, a doctor. "Difficult times are followed by good times. Even if there is a little less now, what difference does it make so long as the basics are there? We've been through much worse than in the past." But Samokhval's checkout girls were more pessimistic.
"We're worried," said Svetlana, who would not give her surname as her supervisor was lurking nearby. "The management tells us everything will be ok, but I don't believe it."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A different philosophy on weapons in school
By MOIRA MACDONALD
Last Updated: 16th October 2008, 3:58am
When it comes to Canada and the U.S., we're so close, yet so far apart. And I don't mean the excitement factor in our respective elections.
A few weeks ago the Ontario Principals Council issued a press release proclaiming, "School Principals Support Calls for Ban on Handguns," particularly calls from Toronto Mayor David Miller and Ontario's Liberal government.
The release said although a handgun ban alone would not make schools safe, "we feel it is important to support any measure possible to decrease the injuries and deaths that handguns cause."
A few weeks before, a story crossed my desk out of Harrold, Texas. Harrold, population 320, sits near the northern Texan border with Oklahoma. Its small, lone school has 110 students from kindergarten to Grade 12.
The school has security cameras and an automatic door lockdown system. The Associated Press story was headlined, "Back to School Includes Weapons."
This wasn't a story of kids toting a personal arsenal to school. This was about a policy allowing teachers to pack some heat along with their lesson plans.
In Harrold, teachers are hand-picked to bring concealed weapons to school as a security measure, and undergo specialized crisis intervention training to boot. Students, though, are expelled if they bring weapons to school.
You can imagine what Harrold superintendent David Thweatt would make of our local handgun ban call: "When you outlaw guns in a certain area, the only people who follow that are law-abiding citizens, and everybody else ignores it," Thweatt said in the New York Times.
The superintendent said the policy was well-researched and approved to prevent a Columbine-like shooting at the school, which is isolated and hard to get to for law enforcement but also exposed to whatever criminal elements may be coming down a nearby major highway.
It's those sorts of schools -- the kind no one would suspect as being at risk -- that are most vulnerable, Thweatt told me.
"Our people just don't want their children to be fish in a bowl," he told the Times.
Rattlesnakes and local wild pigs can also be a threat, he told me.
Here at home, we actually have kids getting shot in school and the biggest thing we hear about what to do is to ban legal handguns; in Harrold, it's teacher's packing a punch -- and the local sheriff is stymied when a reporter asks him when the last murder was. The worst thing that ever seems to happen there is petty thefts.
I doubt most parents around here want teachers bearing arms in the name of school security. But the constant call for a ban on legally held handguns is a whining, broken record that, at best, is only a partial solution to a major problem. At worst, it could turn the illegal gun trade into a growth market.
BAN WON'T ELIMINATE DEMAND
History shows bans never eliminate demand; they just create a whole new criminal subculture and a market beyond official controls.
The well-meaning OPC did not do much research into the details of how a handgun ban would work or what guns are actually being used to carry out crimes -- its members just want to make schools safer.
In fact, Ontario government figures show about 70% of guns seized in crimes here were illegally smuggled from the U.S.
You can ban guns all you want, but if you don't stop them at the border you're only stopping a third of the crime.
More than targeting legal gun owners, what's probably motivating the OPC the most is its hope to get wider support for its own call to institute minimum standards of supervision for students when they're at school but out of class.
That call, believe it or not, has proven to be politically contentious, because it could mean more demands on teachers.
Unfortunately that call is harder to wrap people's heads around than a handgun ban. Too bad. Because only complex remedies have any hope of truly hitting the target.
Last Updated: 16th October 2008, 3:58am
When it comes to Canada and the U.S., we're so close, yet so far apart. And I don't mean the excitement factor in our respective elections.
A few weeks ago the Ontario Principals Council issued a press release proclaiming, "School Principals Support Calls for Ban on Handguns," particularly calls from Toronto Mayor David Miller and Ontario's Liberal government.
The release said although a handgun ban alone would not make schools safe, "we feel it is important to support any measure possible to decrease the injuries and deaths that handguns cause."
A few weeks before, a story crossed my desk out of Harrold, Texas. Harrold, population 320, sits near the northern Texan border with Oklahoma. Its small, lone school has 110 students from kindergarten to Grade 12.
The school has security cameras and an automatic door lockdown system. The Associated Press story was headlined, "Back to School Includes Weapons."
This wasn't a story of kids toting a personal arsenal to school. This was about a policy allowing teachers to pack some heat along with their lesson plans.
In Harrold, teachers are hand-picked to bring concealed weapons to school as a security measure, and undergo specialized crisis intervention training to boot. Students, though, are expelled if they bring weapons to school.
You can imagine what Harrold superintendent David Thweatt would make of our local handgun ban call: "When you outlaw guns in a certain area, the only people who follow that are law-abiding citizens, and everybody else ignores it," Thweatt said in the New York Times.
The superintendent said the policy was well-researched and approved to prevent a Columbine-like shooting at the school, which is isolated and hard to get to for law enforcement but also exposed to whatever criminal elements may be coming down a nearby major highway.
It's those sorts of schools -- the kind no one would suspect as being at risk -- that are most vulnerable, Thweatt told me.
"Our people just don't want their children to be fish in a bowl," he told the Times.
Rattlesnakes and local wild pigs can also be a threat, he told me.
Here at home, we actually have kids getting shot in school and the biggest thing we hear about what to do is to ban legal handguns; in Harrold, it's teacher's packing a punch -- and the local sheriff is stymied when a reporter asks him when the last murder was. The worst thing that ever seems to happen there is petty thefts.
I doubt most parents around here want teachers bearing arms in the name of school security. But the constant call for a ban on legally held handguns is a whining, broken record that, at best, is only a partial solution to a major problem. At worst, it could turn the illegal gun trade into a growth market.
BAN WON'T ELIMINATE DEMAND
History shows bans never eliminate demand; they just create a whole new criminal subculture and a market beyond official controls.
The well-meaning OPC did not do much research into the details of how a handgun ban would work or what guns are actually being used to carry out crimes -- its members just want to make schools safer.
In fact, Ontario government figures show about 70% of guns seized in crimes here were illegally smuggled from the U.S.
You can ban guns all you want, but if you don't stop them at the border you're only stopping a third of the crime.
More than targeting legal gun owners, what's probably motivating the OPC the most is its hope to get wider support for its own call to institute minimum standards of supervision for students when they're at school but out of class.
That call, believe it or not, has proven to be politically contentious, because it could mean more demands on teachers.
Unfortunately that call is harder to wrap people's heads around than a handgun ban. Too bad. Because only complex remedies have any hope of truly hitting the target.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Same ol' Liberal hacks won't help with city's needs
T.O. voters reject change
By SUE-ANN LEVY
Last Updated: 15th October 2008, 10:28am
If there's one thing for certain, the 2.6 million citizens of this city made few, if any, gains in last night's federal election.
In fact, I'm betting the decision by voters to "play it safe" and return a Conservative minority to Ottawa -- as investors around the world reel from an economic meltdown and plummeting stock prices -- will not bode well for the financially needy Toronto.
For one thing, our tax-and-spend Mayor David Miller has a rocky if not non-existent relationship with the tax-cutting Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They simply do not see eye to eye when it comes to fiscal philosophies. Miller has done nothing to improve that relationship or to instill confidence in the federal Conservatives.
In fact, it was just a week ago that the mayor mused he may have to raise property taxes by 4% next year to balance the books -- even after imposing new land transfer, vehicle ownership and garbage taxes. That poorly timed statement, I'm supposing, did nothing to enhance Miller's fortunes in Ottawa.
LEMMINGS SHUT DOOR
But it gets worse. The lemmings who have yet again shut out the Conservatives in all 22 Toronto ridings have ensured the city will not have even a single voice to make a case for Toronto in the PC caucus, let alone at the cabinet table.
It's beyond me why this city's voters would return the same tired Liberal hacks -- who have not done a darn thing to promote Toronto's huge infrastructure needs -- to Parliament Hill. But I'm guessing fear of change was a strong incentive.
Still believe me, if a recession does indeed spread from the U.S. to Canada, the minority Parliament will be focused on the country's economy, not on the needs of a city that forever has difficulty balancing its books and is constantly crying for more cash.
There's no doubt, Toronto's needs are tremendous, but perhaps not as huge as the expectations of our socialist mayor.
About the only request he's made of the feds that won't cost millions of dollars -- at least I don't think it will -- is to ban handguns in Canada.
That said, Miller and his socialist lackeys have made no bones that they expect the feds to contribute a significant portion of their $13.7-billion Transit City plan, their $355 million in new LRT lines on the waterfront and $674 million in other transit plans.
The mayor hasn't given up his attempt to exact one cent of the federal GST either, even after Harper lowered the GST by two points and returned the money to citizens. These days Miller insists it is a national campaign (now that several big city mayors have signed on), although $132,049 of city money has been spent promoting it.
In a Sept. 25 letter to all party leaders -- about the only pitch Miller made during the entire campaign -- he also talked of an "urgent need" for $469 million a year for 10 years (a portion of which should come from the feds) to create thousands of units of (what I call) unaffordable housing.
Fat chance that will happen. In fact, in a report to the city's community services committee tomorrow, the city's homeless officials say the current federal homelessness funding runs out next March 31 with future funding "uncertain."
It is so uncertain, says the report, that the city may have to draw $2.9 million from the social housing stabilization reserve fund to keep homeless projects alive until next June 30.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told me in an exclusive interview last summer the one cent of the GST campaign is a non-starter -- that his government is firmly committed to lowering taxes. I highly doubt -- with an economic downturn looming -- that the Conservative stance has changed on that front.
As for transit funding, city CFO Cam Weldon told me yesterday that the city can expect to get about $169 million from the feds next year -- gas tax funding which has become "permanent." Some $622 million will also come to Toronto over the long haul for the York subway extension, not to mention the $90 million it was rebated in 2008, he said.
ECONOMY IN TATTERS
I'll bet that will be it, particularly with the economy in tatters.
Nevertheless, the mayor was talking a good game last night, seemingly oblivious to the world's economic woes.
He told me the opposition parties -- Liberals, the NDP, Bloc and the Green Party -- all committed "very significantly" to investing in infrastructure, in public transit and in housing.
"I would expect that this Parliament would honour the spirit of those commitments and would invest significantly in infrastructure in cities, particularly in public transit," he said.
The mayor insisted one needs to "invest in public infrastructure" during an economic downturn to create jobs.
"When the economy is softening ... that's exactly the time to do it," Miller said, adding that "sustained permanent investment" that grows with the economy (that is a portion of the GST) was also a commitment of most of the opposition parties.
But Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong says there has to be a "fundamental change" in attitude by the mayor and the way he approaches the federal Conservatives.
"When he doesn't get a handout, he throws a tantrum," Minnan-Wong said. "This is his opportunity to turn the page and start a new, co-operative relationship."
Nevertheless, the perception is that Toronto doesn't spend the money it gets from other levels wisely, is totally controlled by highly paid union forces and imposes more and more taxes to feed its spending habits, Minnan-Wong said.
'BUNCH OF WHINERS'
"That would make any government reluctant to give more money to the city of Toronto," he said.
Councillor Mike Del Gran -de agreed that the prevailing attitude is that Toronto always "cries and whines" and doesn't balance its books.
"The perception is that we're a bunch of whiners," he said. "The environment here (at City Hall) won't change until people wake up that Toronto (politicians) have an insatiable appetite to spend."
By SUE-ANN LEVY
Last Updated: 15th October 2008, 10:28am
If there's one thing for certain, the 2.6 million citizens of this city made few, if any, gains in last night's federal election.
In fact, I'm betting the decision by voters to "play it safe" and return a Conservative minority to Ottawa -- as investors around the world reel from an economic meltdown and plummeting stock prices -- will not bode well for the financially needy Toronto.
For one thing, our tax-and-spend Mayor David Miller has a rocky if not non-existent relationship with the tax-cutting Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They simply do not see eye to eye when it comes to fiscal philosophies. Miller has done nothing to improve that relationship or to instill confidence in the federal Conservatives.
In fact, it was just a week ago that the mayor mused he may have to raise property taxes by 4% next year to balance the books -- even after imposing new land transfer, vehicle ownership and garbage taxes. That poorly timed statement, I'm supposing, did nothing to enhance Miller's fortunes in Ottawa.
LEMMINGS SHUT DOOR
But it gets worse. The lemmings who have yet again shut out the Conservatives in all 22 Toronto ridings have ensured the city will not have even a single voice to make a case for Toronto in the PC caucus, let alone at the cabinet table.
It's beyond me why this city's voters would return the same tired Liberal hacks -- who have not done a darn thing to promote Toronto's huge infrastructure needs -- to Parliament Hill. But I'm guessing fear of change was a strong incentive.
Still believe me, if a recession does indeed spread from the U.S. to Canada, the minority Parliament will be focused on the country's economy, not on the needs of a city that forever has difficulty balancing its books and is constantly crying for more cash.
There's no doubt, Toronto's needs are tremendous, but perhaps not as huge as the expectations of our socialist mayor.
About the only request he's made of the feds that won't cost millions of dollars -- at least I don't think it will -- is to ban handguns in Canada.
That said, Miller and his socialist lackeys have made no bones that they expect the feds to contribute a significant portion of their $13.7-billion Transit City plan, their $355 million in new LRT lines on the waterfront and $674 million in other transit plans.
The mayor hasn't given up his attempt to exact one cent of the federal GST either, even after Harper lowered the GST by two points and returned the money to citizens. These days Miller insists it is a national campaign (now that several big city mayors have signed on), although $132,049 of city money has been spent promoting it.
In a Sept. 25 letter to all party leaders -- about the only pitch Miller made during the entire campaign -- he also talked of an "urgent need" for $469 million a year for 10 years (a portion of which should come from the feds) to create thousands of units of (what I call) unaffordable housing.
Fat chance that will happen. In fact, in a report to the city's community services committee tomorrow, the city's homeless officials say the current federal homelessness funding runs out next March 31 with future funding "uncertain."
It is so uncertain, says the report, that the city may have to draw $2.9 million from the social housing stabilization reserve fund to keep homeless projects alive until next June 30.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told me in an exclusive interview last summer the one cent of the GST campaign is a non-starter -- that his government is firmly committed to lowering taxes. I highly doubt -- with an economic downturn looming -- that the Conservative stance has changed on that front.
As for transit funding, city CFO Cam Weldon told me yesterday that the city can expect to get about $169 million from the feds next year -- gas tax funding which has become "permanent." Some $622 million will also come to Toronto over the long haul for the York subway extension, not to mention the $90 million it was rebated in 2008, he said.
ECONOMY IN TATTERS
I'll bet that will be it, particularly with the economy in tatters.
Nevertheless, the mayor was talking a good game last night, seemingly oblivious to the world's economic woes.
He told me the opposition parties -- Liberals, the NDP, Bloc and the Green Party -- all committed "very significantly" to investing in infrastructure, in public transit and in housing.
"I would expect that this Parliament would honour the spirit of those commitments and would invest significantly in infrastructure in cities, particularly in public transit," he said.
The mayor insisted one needs to "invest in public infrastructure" during an economic downturn to create jobs.
"When the economy is softening ... that's exactly the time to do it," Miller said, adding that "sustained permanent investment" that grows with the economy (that is a portion of the GST) was also a commitment of most of the opposition parties.
But Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong says there has to be a "fundamental change" in attitude by the mayor and the way he approaches the federal Conservatives.
"When he doesn't get a handout, he throws a tantrum," Minnan-Wong said. "This is his opportunity to turn the page and start a new, co-operative relationship."
Nevertheless, the perception is that Toronto doesn't spend the money it gets from other levels wisely, is totally controlled by highly paid union forces and imposes more and more taxes to feed its spending habits, Minnan-Wong said.
'BUNCH OF WHINERS'
"That would make any government reluctant to give more money to the city of Toronto," he said.
Councillor Mike Del Gran -de agreed that the prevailing attitude is that Toronto always "cries and whines" and doesn't balance its books.
"The perception is that we're a bunch of whiners," he said. "The environment here (at City Hall) won't change until people wake up that Toronto (politicians) have an insatiable appetite to spend."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)