Not Only Dishonest But It Also Seem Inept

Miller waited to cry wolf on budget crisis
April 18, 2007
Royson James

By now, Mayor David Miller should have enlisted 200,000 citizens in his righteous cause to get more money from the federal and provincial governments.

A mere 200 of them, cramming the executive committee meeting on the 2007 budget Monday, would have been ample evidence of discontent. In fact, 20 would have sufficed. One, even.

Alas, silence has greeted the fiscal crisis.

For, while many residents agree, we think, with the thrust of the message, our political leaders have failed to connect the city's impending fiscal danger with real, everyday life.

In short, most of us don't believe what we hear from city hall around budget time. And for good historical reasons. The message is too often muted, confusing and contradictory.

"The cupboard is bare. We've hit the wall!" trumpets loyal Councillor Joe Mihevc.

So, where's the spilt blood? Why are people not running screaming from city hall?

Most citizens understand this: If money is short, you restrict your spending. And if you are facing bankruptcy, you may even have to do without things you once considered essential.

The fundamental disconnect with Toronto's budget fight is there is little or no blood on the floor. Toronto has used every tool in the book to balance the budget – unsound drawings from reserves, borrowing, deferred maintenance – except making service cuts.

Miller rejects taking that step to satisfy those who think there's waste at city hall: "If you mean close libraries and swimming pools, I don't agree with that."

Admirable quality, that is. However, it allows Torontonians to go about their business feeling that the budget crisis can't be nearly as bad as some have said.

Erie County had a serious budget crisis. Layoff notices arrived in the mail. New York City had a budget crisis. The city couldn't meet payroll. Here, we've fixed the problems internally. Since 2004, Toronto politicians have drawn more than $1.3 billion from reserve funds to balance the budget. Effectively, they've hidden the problem.

Elections are supposed to help citizens come to grips with the fiscal temperature of a city and who might best manage the purse strings. This past election was no help.

Examine the election document that outlines Miller's vision for Toronto and you still wouldn't know – unless you are an insider – that Toronto is in a fiscal bind.

The document goes on for 18 pages. There are headings about making the city safer, greener, more livable, clean and beautiful, more creative and so on.

The mayor spends six pages on "the creative city." How much space is given to the city's fiscal crisis? If you count the self-congratulatory paragraphs and the fillers about a strong economy, you'll get three pages and a bit.

Concerns about the city's debt? No. Words about reserve funds near depletion? Not one. Hints of strong medicine should the current trend continue? None. Warnings of disaster? No.

Instead he sought "a strong mandate to champion a true New Deal for Canada's major cities," which includes a national transit strategy, a source of revenue "that grows with the economy," and a take-back of social service costs.

This flew under the radar of most voters. They didn't get it.

The mayor never stressed that the debt is spiralling out of control; that reserve funds are almost depleted; that if he didn't get money from the province this year, he would have to go to court to force payment; and, more importantly, that he would have to tax the living daylight out of residents, or watch services crumble.

He didn't want to go there.

Specifically, when asked about using revenue tools given by the province to tax alcohol, vehicle registration, impose road tolls, et cetera, he brushed aside the idea with a claim that the tools were no solution because city staff had calculated they would raise only about $50 million a year.

Well, no sooner was the election over than a full report came out outlining how hundreds of millions can be collected from those very same revenue tools.

It's clear that the city will have to, and should, use some or all of those tools. But considering the dodge the mayoral incumbent made, the clear campaign choice not to present this prospect to the people so they could examine it and vote, does Miller have a mandate to implement these new taxes?