Monthly Archives: January 2012

The Politics Of Transit

Posted on by
6

If you’ve ever played one of those 3-D board games, like say, chess or Battleship, you can get a sense of what’s going on currently with public transit planning here in Toronto. Layers upon layers of intrigue and political jockeying where one seemingly unrelated move has serious ramifications on the machinations happening below. It sets the head a-spinning, and not necessarily in a good way.

Not to drive a wedge in the opposition now coalescing against Mayor Ford’s harebrained ‘Subways Only’ Transit – I mean, Transportation – Plan, and, oh yes, opposition is clearly coalescing. Last week, TTC Chair and Team Ford stalwart Karen Stintz openly mused about bringing the eastern portion of the Eglinton LRT back up from underground where the mayor had single-handedly banished it last year. She wasn’t the first one of the mayor’s gang to question the wisdom of burying it. Councillor John Parker had called the idea ‘goofy’ a few weeks back. But certainly Councillor Stintz as head of the TTC, her words carried significant weight. Enough certainly to draw Scarborough councillor Michael Thompson out of the woodwork as he expressed no particular drive to keep the Eglinton LRT buried.

Now the Chair was political enough to offer Mayor Ford a compromise of sorts, a facing saving out. She proposed that any money saved by keeping some of the Eglinton LRT at street level would be ploughed into building the mayor’s cherished Sheppard subway extension. But… but here’s where it gets murky, possibly operating on a second level. If the mayor were to take the money to build the subway, wouldn’t he be breaking one promise to keep another? He said there’d be no public money needed for Sheppard, and here he’d be taking public money.

A moot point perhaps, as the mayor seems categorically incapable of accepting compromise as was on display last week during the budget debate. Instead, the loyal members of his entourage went on the offensive. Mark Towhey, the mayor’s Policy Director proclaimed, “Residents don’t want trains running down the middle of the street.” Then Councillor Doug, the mayor’s brother, went full on bluster with the Toronto Sun. Forcing taxpayers onto streetcars or LRTs (Stalin style) relegated them to “second-class” citizenship. And apparently, according to the councillor, all that money that was diverted from other Transit City projects in order to bury the Eglinton LRT would somehow not be there if that decision was reversed. “There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow for $2 billion to fund something else.”

And where the mayor and his brother go, so goes the likes of Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, right?

Not so fast. This morning in the National Post Councillor Mammoliti is on record gently disputing Mayor Ford’s claim that everybody loves subways but not nearly as much as they hate streetcars. Read this last paragraph and tell me there isn’t an open revolt brewing within Team Ford’s ranks.

Councillor Mammoliti, who has pushed for a subway on Finch Avenue, says that if a forthcoming report on how to build the Sheppard line determines that private-sector funding will be hard to come by, then “we should be looking at improving what is there to begin with” on Finch. He favours a swift surface light rail line over a dedicated bus lane. As for what should happen on Eglinton, Mr. Mammoliti said that “during the election I didn’t hear anybody on the eastern side say they had some concerns with [surface light rail].”

If you’re counting at home, folks, that’s the TTC Chair, 2 members of the all-powerful Executive Committee and one staunch supporter of Mayor Ford openly and frankly challenging his Transportation City vision. It’s the kind of internal disarray proponents of a more sensible and feasible transit plan couldn’t be happier about. Alas, it’s also the kind of discord our ultimate political overlords at Queen’s Park can use to give them the appearance of having sound judgement and being above the fray.

“The city still doesn’t have its act together,” said Bob Chiarelli, the Minister of Transportation. “We have the chair of the TTC speculating about changes. We have some city councillors, we have the Mayor really not commenting on it. So, we need some clarity from the city.”

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGHH!

It’s this kind of multi-levelled, political gamesmanship that has stunted transit planning in this city for three decades now. If the province had remained resolute and kept to the already agreed upon Transit City plan last year, we wouldn’t have lost another 12 months or so chasing the mayor’s phantom transit vision. If the premier had called for a “formal proposal” from city council then to change course as he is right now to change back to the original plans (????), we might’ve had this discussion last year not now.

Instead, he capitulated in the face of the mayor’s self-proclaimed Ford Nation, signed on to the Memorandum of Understanding with the mayor, end-running city council, to use all the province’s money to bury the Eglinton LRT in what could only be seen for personal political reasons. Facing an election with, at the time, very dismal prospects, and a mayor of Toronto in his ascendancy, he chose to sacrifice the city’s transit future for his own political one. Unfortunately for the city, it wasn’t the first time such a thing has happened.

But… but… again, this is where it gets murky. I don’t credit Premier McGuinty with many things but his political acumen isn’t one that I question. Perhaps, he knew that if he forced the transit issue to a vote at city council last year, Mayor Ford may well have won the day. Transit City would truly have been buried for good along with the Eglinton LRT. By making nice and surviving last October’s election while exposing the ethereal foundations of Ford Nation while at it, he kept Transit City alive. The honeymoon now over, Mayor Ford faces a rejuvenated city council and very vocal, well-organized opposition to his transit plans.

Wheels within wheels. What should be a fairly straight-forward how to build a better transit system for the city situation is anything but. Perhaps the most aggravating aspect of it is that those who rely on public transit here the most aren’t the ones contributing to the decisions. It’s left in the hands of those who view it in terms of little more than their personal and political gain.

— head spinningly submitted by Cityslikr

Joe Stalin Indeed

Posted on by
1

“These people are all two steps left of Joe Stalin”.

Seriously? That’s how the mayor of a major metropolitan city referred to councillors who didn’t vote for him? He said it out loud, on the radio?

Now, I get that Mayor Ford was simply blowing a dog whistle to his supporters who may’ve been hearing stories that their dear leader was losing his ironclad grip on city council. Bully boy politicians can never appear weak and be diminished in the eyes of their baying, rabid following. Whenever the mayor is in need of bolstering his image among the faithful, he inevitably turns to John Oakley and talk radio for a good fluffing.

But consider the circumstances that led to yesterday’s interview.

Yes, the mayor lost some key votes last week that mayors just shouldn’t be losing on such a crucial matter as the budget. A handful of councillors that usually could be counted on to back Mayor Ford when the chips were down didn’t. The optics looked bad. Perhaps for the first time in his tenure as mayor, Ford lost control of the agenda by losing control of the narrative.

A blow certainly but hardly a fatal one. The budget that passed was a Mayor Rob Ford budget through and through, chock full of cuts, reductions and spending decreases. He got what was ultimately the talking point he wanted. For the first time in the history of mankind, the city of Toronto is spending less this year than it did the previous year.

To use a football analogy, because the mayor loves his football, I was going to say that Team Ford had to settle for a field goal but in reality, they scored a touchdown and missed the extra point. Not because of a blocked or flubbed kick but because they decided to run it in for two points and were stopped at the goal line.

Now, a reasonable and responsible politician would’ve looked at that, polished it up a bit and began trumpeting it as a triumph. Hey, folks. We got most of what we wanted. We’re changing the culture down at City Hall. That’s how democracy works.

Instead, Mayor Ford went back on the offensive, trying to vilify all those who dared defy him. No consensus builder, he. You’re either with the mayor or you’re against him. My way or the highway.

In fact, his blather leading up to the Stalin reference was even more revealing. “You either vote one way or the other down there [City Hall]. You’re either on the right side with Conservatives and Liberals or on the left side with the NDP”.

Such a stark, black and white worldview is the mark of the far right wing. There is no middle ground with them. Dissent, disagreement is treachery. Compromise means defeat.

Mayor Ford is incapable of being gracious even in victory. Imagine the monstrous nastiness awaiting us once he’s really and truly defeated and sidelined. A politician that cannot accept the occasional setback and learn from it is not a politician comfortable with democracy. Total victory is not possible, nor desirable, in politics.

At least it isn’t in non-totalitarian political systems.

Joe Stalin, Mayor Ford?

Pot? Let me introduce you to kettle.

— Back in the USSRly submitted by Cityslikr

Debtor Consequences

Posted on by
1

Yes, since you were asking, I have been conspicuously absent here at All Fired Up in the Big Smoke for the last couple months. In fact, I’ve steadfastly attempted to keep the whole Toronto politics scene at a safe distance. My doctor felt it might’ve been the source of a rash I developed over the past couple years or so. There may be some merit in that diagnosis since both the itching and scarlet redness have noticeably lessened with my withdrawal from the fray.

I step back in at this point, emboldened certainly by the prescribed ointment that I’m using but also to ask a question. I want to know all about this magical land fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks have been waxing on about locally, federally, internationally. A place where governments roam free of deficits and debt while sprinkling loving specks of social services and infrastructure upon their thankful population. Let’s call this place Debtfreetopia or, the Republic of DFT for short.

How exactly does Debtfreetopia do it, I wonder. The theory, as I understand it, goes something like this: unshackled by the deadening burden of interest payments, Debtfreetopia can spend more on all the nice to haves that people seem to want. So beautifully simple and straight forward it’s difficult to understand why not only governments but businesses and households wouldn’t follow such a model. Don’t spend what you don’t have, right?

So save and scrimp and collect all your pennies until you can pay in full for that dream house you’ve had your eye on for 43 years. Car troubles? That old clunker way past its prime? Well, I guess you’re going to have to take the bus until you’ve saved the necessary funds to buy yourself a new vehicle. Finished high school and can’t afford university? Wait until you can, say 30 years down the road. You’ll appreciate it more then. And I’m sure Donald Trump is paying cash and carry building his new downtown tower.

That’s how all successful businesses and entrepreneurs function, am I right? Only build, develop, create those things successful businesses and entrepreneurs build, develop and create with money tucked away in high interest bank accounts, safes and under mattresses. Whatever you do never borrow or go into debt. That is the end of all things good and human. Just like that idiot Polonius told his son shortly before seeking protection from a sword wielding sociopath behind some drapes.

Remember that big meltdown in 2008? Leading up to it, everyone, and I mean everyone, warned all those financial firms not to over-leverage themselves and make bets on risky mortgages. And by ‘everyone’, of course, I mean almost no one. You gotta spend money to make money. (Better yet. You gotta spend other people’s money to make money.) Isn’t that the investment banker warrior battle cry?

To hear the shrill wails coming from Team Ford during the 2012 budget debate over the past few months, one would have to assume that the city of Toronto is as up to its eyes in debt and junk investments as Wall Street was. Tune in even for the briefest of moments and you were sure to hear the words ‘Greece’ and ‘Italy’ intoned in the most ominous, there-but-for-the-grace-of-god, cautionary of manners. If we don’t rein this in, folks, we’re going find ourselves shit out of luck on some Mediterranean beach with only cheap wine and squid to survive. The humanity. The humanity.

So I checked the books when the budget was finalized last week to try and understand the depth of the problem. The $400+ million on debt services charges that the city will be paying seemed awfully big, bordering almost on the out-of-control. If push came to shove, I certainly couldn’t find that amount of money to service my debts. At least not this year. How could a city of 2.5 million mes [pl. me] come up with such a daunting figure?

I got on the blower with Cityslikr and asked how he could be so recklessly cavalier mocking people who were alarmed by such a large amount of money. “Four hundred million dollars, you asshole!” I screamed into the phone at him. “Do you know how many wading pools that would keep open?! How many library books it would buy? That’s more than half of the $700 million of unfunded liability owing on the order of new streetcars! Think of the children! The children, Cityslikr. The children.”

It was at that point of time when my attention was directed toward the other number on the page beside the $419.4 million. “See that?” Cityslikr asked. “Read that number out.” Truth be told, I’m not comfortable with the concept of percentages. Straight up numbers, I prefer. The bigger, the better to scare myself with. Percentages are too nebulous.

“4.5%.”

“Yeah? So what about it?”

“That’s the percentage of the nearly $9.4 billion the city will spend this year that it’s forking out to service the debt.”

Desperate to get back to whole numbers, I tried to brush the statement aside. “Exactly. Over four hundred million dollars we could be spen—“

“How much do you spend on your mortgage a year?” Cityslikr interrupted. “That investment loan you took out just before the market crashed? Imagine all the poor bastards out there paying credit card interest and car loans. Most of us would be deliriously happy to be paying under 5% a year to service our personal debt.”

Well sure, of course. If that’s the way you choose to look at it. It’s so easy to get waylaid by big numbers. Damn, those deficit hawks are good. Just when you think you’ve figured out all their ploys and schemes.

Debtfreetopia is a mythical land of make-believe. Just another ruse to reduce the role of government. Debt has to be manageable, of course. Ideally it ebbs and flows with the economy. Up during bad times, back down in good.

This isn’t a call to, how did the mayor’s brother phrase it last week, spend like drunken sailors. But to demonize debt as some sort of weakness of character, a nefarious government plot intended to ensnare us all, that is not the kind of person, frankly, I want in control of the public purse strings. The clearly don’t understand how economies function.

— by the numbersly submitted by Urban Sophisticat