I Am Glad To See Sue-Ann I Are Not Pissing In The Wind

Miller is a liability
April 24, 2007

Miller calls city finances `challenging'

April 21.

No matter what or whom he blames for the looming "challenges" (read, bankruptcy) for Toronto, Mayor David Miller is clearly not taking responsibility himself. Nor has he appropriately shared critical financial and other information with duly elected city councillors.

From his ludicrous city hall office renovations costing millions of dollars while Toronto is financially exsanguinating, to making a surreptitious $220.3 million landfill deal without properly consulting city council, the mayor does as he pleases, how he pleases, and may now find himself on a short trajectory to fiscal and political oblivion. His trendy Nuit Blanche is really a bête noire. It will no doubt badly affect tourism and the concomitant inflow of future dollars to Toronto. It has replaced the popular daytime street festivals that were far more family-oriented and gave a wholesome spirit of community to the city.

The incredibly bad financial prognosis for our city has gone unheeded but is certainly nothing new. Councillor Karen Stintz has warned time and again that the city wasn't keeping its own house in order, and she's obviously been correct. In regard to the proposed $7.8 billion operating budget that requires higher property taxes and a last-ditch effort transferring $384 million from reserve funds just to balance the budget, just how deeply can Miller be thinking about the future of our fair city?

While it's clear that Stintz was polite, but quite correct, in saying that the city is not in a sustainable situation, the bigger picture is that we're very likely not in a sustainable position with Miller at the helm.

Bob Warren, Toronto

City must get its own house in order
April 24, 2007

City about to go broke, staff say

April 20.

This article presents numerous examples of unpleasant possibilities regarding cuts or the complete elimination of specific city services. It documents assessments of Toronto's budget dilemma by the two groups most able to influence its outcome and perhaps, more importantly, the two groups most responsible for devising a workable solution: the elected councillors and senior members of the city's bureaucracy. This problem seems to be so serious that the bureaucrats are suggesting that the city could be bankrupt by this time next year.

While one group is elected and the other is hired based on specific commercial knowledge and experience, there are striking similarities between the two that should be the cause of serious concern for businesses large and small, ratepayers and, indeed, all Torontonians.

Both of these senior-level groups agree that the budget problem and its solution are the responsibility of authorities other than themselves. They both agree that the province alone is to blame.

The bureaucrats have said that only quick and drastic action from Queen's Park can avert massive service cuts, while the mayor recently told the Toronto Board of Trade that the only thing wrong with the city's management is the province's unwillingness to pay its fair share of social services.

The most current audited financial reports of the city indicate that both groups agreed to finance the city's annual operating shortfalls with increases in long-term debt. This amounted to $220 million in 2004, and $302 million in 2005.

This is the same as a homeowner asking his banker to increase his mortgage to pay for that portion of his heat, hydro and food that his take-home salary couldn't support. Most homeowners recognize that this is an unsustainable course of action, and yet our highly paid elected officials and bureaucrats have followed this path for a number of years.

Toronto's councillors and its senior bureaucrats continue to jointly support a single solution to address the city's "pending" $600 million operating shortfall. They seem to have agreed to continue to negotiate with the province to secure the funds necessary to cover the operating shortfalls. Regardless of whether the province or the city is at fault, the mayor and senior bureaucrats continue to pursue this comfortable and uncontroversial approach. The mayor and council are untouchable for another four years, and it's a good bet that senior bureaucrats will be the last to depart in the event of service cuts.

It's time that the real leaders stepped forward and supported tough, unpopular decisions as a necessary responsibility in earning the money they are being paid.

Russell Gordon Oliver, Toronto