Citizen Consultation? What An Oxymoron

Especially when it comes from the mouths of Comrade Miller and his puppets......sorry Tovarich but a lot of people are seeing you for what you are......

Are fees a fait accompli?
Consulting residents on new taxes is fine, as long as the city plans to listen to their many complaints
May 10, 2007

Who wants the city to hike taxes?
May 8.

The article about the city's consultations on new "revenue tools" (i.e., new taxes) detailed how the meeting almost went off the rails.

I noted that many of the vocal attendees work for and/or represent dedicated anti-tax advocacy groups. And while these groups don't speak for me, they do have a point.

From the outset of the meeting, the city should have had someone – preferably a politician – set the context, background and take questions. Also, with about 100 people at this week's consultation and with four consultations planned in total, the city will have met with 400 people out of a population approaching 3 million.

But the real problem, which perhaps explains why no one wanted to lead the consultation, is that beyond wanting more of our money and, now, having the power to demand it, the city doesn't think it has to explain much else. That's what irks me. What the city hasn't articulated and ought to is that apart from the financial crunch, what is the policy rationale for these fee hikes? Will any of these fees help to achieve any other desirable public-policy objectives?

I can see the rationale behind new parking surcharges or road tolls, if the objective is to reduce traffic. I could support new tobacco taxes if the objective was to reduce smoking, improve public-health outcomes or reduce the pollution caused by smokers.

But what is the rationale for a new entertainment tax or an increase in the land-transfer tax?

What the city should have learned from the first consultation is that with the power to tax comes the responsibility to tax transparently, fairly and with an appropriate purpose and goals.

Mitchell Toker, Toronto

I believe the most important question to pose to the City of Toronto is: How exactly does the city spend all of its money? Yes, I understand that this question has been posed on numerous occasions, but the answer has always been skirted. Open forums are only useful when the tools are given for commentary.

In this matter, the tools would be an open public audit conducted by a third-party accounting firm, which would deliver an operating statement and summary trial balance to taxpayers. This would be published in the newspaper or would be made accessible online for all to see, research and then ask the important questions.

Further reports would be required to get the entire picture, but this would be a sound starting position.

When one reflects on Mississauga and the work that has been done by Mayor Hazel McCallion and her team, one wonders how the city manages to conduct itself in a professional, business-like fashion. Mississauga is a fairly smooth-running city and, compared to Toronto, is in a much better financial position.

Julie Pieckenhagen, Toronto

It's obvious that neither city budget chief Shelley Carroll nor chief financial officer Joe Pennachetti actually want to listen to what Torontonians are telling them. Carroll herself was quoted in the article as saying that while city council wants to hear from taxpayers, the city will have to introduce some new taxes regardless. Mayor David Miller and his inner circle of councillors, including Carroll, have effectively decreed that they are not interested in looking inwards for savings.

It's a shame Carroll couldn't even get through one public consultation meeting without letting the cat out of the bag. She and Miller don't care what we think. They have the power and they have the means, and now they have four years for us to forget what they're doing.

Tony Dickins, Toronto

Meters to get hungrier?

May 4.

If I were a politician, I would do everything I could to discourage people from driving into the city, including raising parking-meter fees, because of the deleterious effect of automobiles. We can't breathe because the air is contaminated from car exhaust, we can't enjoy tranquility either indoors or outdoors because of the constant din of traffic, and we can't walk or cycle without fear of being hit by a car. Efforts by politicians to limit car use is definitely something I support.

Donna-Marie Batty, Toronto