City
Morning Brew: Entertainment District Homeless Shelter Costs, TTC Union Election, Queen's Park Disruptions, Food Bank Demand Way Up, Billboard Tax Debate, Canadian Tire Coin
Photo: "My Place in the City 2" by PDPhotography, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.
What's happening in the GTA (and sometimes beyond):
Remember the controversial homeless shelter that the city decided to build in the heart of the Entertainment District? It's set to open in March of 2010, but initial costs are ballooning (numbers are up to $250,000 per bed already) and operating costs have not even been determined or included. It seemed like a ridiculous endeavour in the first place, given the questionable location and insanely high development costs.
Is there enough non-confidence in TTC union boss Bob Kinnear to see him unseated by his sole challenger for re-election by the union's members? Cosimo Lacaria says that if elected, he'll issue an apology to both the union and the public - for the decision to strand them when the TTC went on strike late at night, without advanced notice last year.
Progressive Conservative MPPs Bill Murdoch and Randy Hillier continue to cause a ruckus at the provincial legislature at Queen's Park, in protest of the Liberals handling of the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). On Monday night they staged an all-night sit-in (how was the pizza, boys?), and yesterday they prompted a stall to Question Period. It may seem disruptive, but it could be far worse (see embedded video below):
Food bank use in Ontario is reaching staggering numbers. They're seeing an overall increase in demand of 19% over last year, one third of people using the food bank have jobs but can't afford living costs, and one on four food banks have had to reduce the amount of food going into each package delivered to the needy. Times are tough, so if you're doing well or can do with a little less, please give.
City Council is thick in debate over proposed bylaws related to taxation and governance of legal and illegal advertising billboards across Toronto. Some think we should increase taxes and crack down on offenders, while others believe that we're too strict already and should allow more "cutting edge" electronic signs. The vote was supposed to go down yesterday but has been postponed to today.
And Canadian Tire is reportedly set to introduce a $1 coin and announce a revamping of their long-standing customer loyalty program. Hopefully they do away with the silly $0.05 and $0.10 bills (or paper bills altogether) and adopt something more 21st century (like an electronically swiped rewards card). It'd be interesting to see how they'd implement the transition, because it's perhaps a model for how the TTC might do the same.


Discussion
32 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Though filled with nostalgia, it's not practical for me to have the wad of 10 cent bills I keep in my wallet.
Good lord I hope that's a typo.
Just 8.6 million? Right. She's so full of shit.
That media companies have dozens/hundreds of billboards and signs in illegal locations ain't anybody's fault but the media companies.
She should probably be more concerned about replacing the imminent lost revenue when the incompetent city finally enforces its own bylaws and forces the industry to remove these illegal signs. Increase your rates, dumbass.
TEN MILLION to build a shelter? TEN MILLION? Let's have a look at the contracts and who the contractors were and I'm sure we'll see everything is on the up and up.
What a f*cking joke.
I bet they are a proposing a sex offender rehab centre attached to a kindergarden right now.
If you take an average of, say $1000.00 a month, that's 250 rental units across the city that could be filled for the price of one bed at this shelter.
Meanwhile, our taxes go up and up to pay for this insanity.
Even more critical I think though is to fine illegal ads and posters, either the company promoted or the firm postering (or both).
Couldn't they have at least doubled their order? Maybe get a 10% discount?
Could they have applied some Canadian Tire money to offset the cost?
'Cause it should, for that price.
Seriously, you guys are right - why not buy 40 condos instead of 40 beds and throw in some food money for each one and voila, problem solved.
But no, them contractors have to get their "fair" share of that pie first... I seriously wanna know who got that contract and how.
Face it: it's their city. We just pay taxes here.
Bring back Fez Batik! ...on second thoughts maybe not.
Ridiculous!
Bring back Fez Batik! ...on second thoughts maybe not.
-----
No! Bring back Sante Fe!
With the electric toy train that ran on the track above the bar!
I am old.
I assume there was a compelling reason, why else would they now be throwing this much money into it just to make it inhabitable? Why don't they flip it after the improvements and open a larger shelter in in a better area?
Could they not have found a more cost-effective way to create new beds?
I'm so surprised you're so quick to defend the city on this - if the building was so old and neglected, to fix-up in a cost-effective manner, look elsewhere. If $5 million seems like a lot to purchase a plot of land for a homeless shelter, buy it in a less expensive part of town. This is what responsible people do, but apparently not our city council who think they live in a world with no budgetary restrictions and an unlimited money tap (i.e property taxpayers) to turn to when they consistently blow their budgets.
My entirely baseless speculation would be that they bought the property as a "long term" investment and since it was empty they might as well use it as a homeless shelter (makes sense to have the shelter where there's a high concentration of homeless people). From what I understand (I could be way off), Toronto's capital spending budget is relatively well funded since they can borrow and that it is the operating budget that they are running into a problematic deficit. I seem to remember that they aren't allowed to just shuffle funds around to cover the shortfall (hence raising taxes), but a TorStar article about how Mississauga was looking to sell their Hydro to raise funds has me wondering if cities might be allowed to sell assets (like this in a few years) to raise operating funds.
I'm not a fan of wasteful spending, but as anyone who's managed large scale projects know, things always go wrong; I'm sure they never intended to spend and addition $5 million in renovations costs. Given that the city bought a good that generally increases in value over time and that the site is now a good conditioned residential building, I can believe that the possibility of recouping the money in a future sale is there.
thats more management, they run the TTC!
I see Toronto is trying to catch up to Vancouver's $600,000 waterfront public housing units....
And I hope Kinnear gets ousted. Honestly, unless Sid Ryan or Bin Laden are running against him, we're guaranteed to have a better person in that position.
But for the city to recoup or profit from it, they have to sell it. Selling a homeless shelter would seem to negate the point of building it in the first place, unless some starry-eyed optimists think the problem of homelessness (which IS a problem) will be eradicated in this lifetime.
Why choose the most expensive property for these purposes? Would it not make more sense to do this on less costly property where you could actually help more people for the same investment?
Just a dumb waste by even dumber more wasteful decision makers.