Four Meetings Paid For By Taxpayers

I believe once all four meetings are held the general consensus will be that before imposing new taxes on the citizens of Toronto the voters would expect city hall to clean up their act. Great Expectations with little chance of fulfillment.

Time to talk turkey and trim the fat
Voters owed truth on new-taxes issue
May 09, 2007
Royson James

Taxes may buy us civilization, as U.S. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, but rare is the citizen who petitions his government to impose new ways of picking his pocket – for the public good.

So, only arrogance would have prevented Toronto city officials from anticipating the rowdy response that greeted their proposal Monday night, the one that suggests hundreds of millions extra a year in new taxes on entertainment, sold property, parking, alcohol, tobacco, movies and car licences.

In the first of four public meetings to gauge public reaction, the public told the city where to stick its tax plan.

"Who wants more taxes?" failed council candidate Tony Dickins asked the gathering at Harbourfront. Apparently, one brave soul put up a hand. So vocal was the rejection that budget chair Shelley Carroll was left clinging to this: the anti-tax view wasn't unanimous because at her table was "a gentleman" who favoured using tools to address environmental issues.

A gentleman, indeed.

One likes to believe that, given the true picture of life in Toronto without higher taxes, citizens would opt, grudgingly or not, for higher levies – if only there was a clear and honest discussion of the matter. Sadly, the current campaign has been bungled.

The conditions are ripe and the groundwork has been laid for at least six years running. The case is solid. Many, many citizens understand that Toronto suffers from a fiscal imbalance of low revenues and too-high costs. Many urban thinkers and bankers and corporate CEOs and think-tanks and the board of trade back this concept and have lobbied our governments to give Toronto and our major cities new revenue-raising tools.

Property tax revenues are insufficient to pay for the high level of municipal services enjoyed and demanded by residents. And no amount of belt-tightening – as essential or symbolic or needed as that may be – will close the funding gap. This is the conclusion one draws from a detailed look at the city's budget.

Citizens cannot be expected to do that nitty-gritty work. They take their cues from the elected officials, from city staff and from the mayor. They watch for clues that reveal greater truths. And, too often, what they see makes liars of the advocates.

If, for example, the city is in desperate need of money, citizens expect to see resolute action to save every penny.

If Toronto robs reserves to pay for day-to-day expenses, they expect politicians would reduce office expenses, not continue spending a few million a year to maintain self-aggrandizement schemes and newsletters to curry favour with constituents.

If the mayor is going to cry poor, and cry he should, citizens expect he would not increase his own staff to 23 from 19 and adding meeting rooms at city hall to the tune of nearly $3 million.

If city council wants ratepayers to join in lobbying Queen's Park for a better deal, then council cannot hang on to perks like free rounds of golf at city-run golf courses. It looks bad, it sounds bad, it is bad.

If the mayor wants to lead Canadian cities on a campaign to snag one-sixth of the federal GST for municipal projects, he has to lead his own council. It's bad optics to launch a "One Cent Now" campaign without even taking it to city council. It's arrogance to sit smugly and urge other cities to do the same. It's stupidity to refuse to take it to your own council, even as other cities take up your call, and move on with the weight of their councils behind them.

If Toronto is near fiscal ruin, as the numbers suggest, why wasn't this a big talking point in last November's election?

Why, why, why, why, why?

Because the political handlers didn't want the mayor tarnished or left vulnerable by a volatile election issue. Because no one has the guts to outline the tough road ahead. Because no one wants to be bloodied politically.

Instead, we have an election, downplay the fiscal challenge, hide the extent of new taxes being contemplated, and the incumbent sails back into office – only to then surprise everyone with a tool box of new taxes.

Imagine the difference today if our mayor could stand up at the public meetings and say, "As you know, my mandate from the people is to put in a land transfer tax and that will give us two beautiful parks this year."

The next public meetings on the new taxes will be from 7 to 9 p.m. next Tuesday at Etobicoke Collegiate; May 17 at the North York central library; May 23 at Scarborough Civic Centre.

Royson James usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email: rjames@thestar.ca