City
Rob Ford on the Core Services Review
For those who would have liked to attend today's executive committee meeting regarding the KPMG-suggested cuts to Toronto services, but weren't unable to get off work, the mayor's press secretary has distributed Rob Ford's opening comments from this morning.
The document has all the hallmarks of Ford's mayoralty — we need to trim expenses, respect taxpayers, and stop passing the buck — but it also backs off the idea that the KPMG reports in question are all about efficiencies. They're not. As Ford (or his press secretary puts it), the point of this part of Core Services Review is to determine which services are "must haves" and which are "nice to have."
One wonders why the mayor didn't frame the reports in this manner during his recent interview on CP24, but at least the description of the function the reports are meant to serve is being offered more accurately now. As for the role that today's meeting has — that is, the listening to taxpayers part — it remains to be seen to what degree that will factor into the decisions made regarding services.
Here's the full text.
—
Good Morning and welcome to the meeting to consider the Core Service Review of Programs that fall under the mandate of the Executive Committee.
Before we get started this morning, I'd like to thank my Standing Committee chairs who have already chaired seven meetings as part of this process - and all the Councillors on those committees who have already spent a good amount of time working through this process.
I'd like thank City staff for their hard work launching this process - and the hard work that has yet to come.
But, mostly, I'd like to thank the thousands of taxpayers who have sent emails to my office or participated in this process up to this point. This process is one of the biggest community consultations in Toronto history.
And, I'd also like to thank the hundreds of residents who are here this morning to be part of this process. We are here to listen to you.
This meeting is one part of a long process that involves many steps. This process is necessary for one simple reason.
For years, our city has spent more money than it brings in. Instead of fixing the problem, we've kept passing the buck to "next year." Well, next year has arrived. It's time we fixed the problem.
What we're doing with this core service review is the same thing every family in every household across the city does every day.
But it's something this city has never done - in fact, I don't know of any city in Canada that's ever done what we're doing.
Every year, we've added expense after expense to our budget. We've added some "must have" spending and a lot of "nice to have" spending. Now, we spend more than we can afford.
Public libraries. Child care. Seniors. Affordable Housing. Safe roads. Clean water. Clean air. Sewers that don't flood basements. Beaches safe for swimming. Parks ready to play in. Garbage collection. Ambulances. Fire services. Policing. Community Centres. Recreation programs. Public Health... the list goes on and on.
These are all important things. Are libraries more important than Child Care? Is policing more important than safe roads? You tell me.
That's why we're here today. To listen... so we can begin to set priorities.
If we are going to reduce spending... and ladies and gentlemen, we must reduce our spending... it only makes sense to take the time to figure out which things are "must haves" and which things are "nice to haves."
Because, it makes sense to look at "nice to haves" first.
That's what this process is about.
As a first step, we asked KPMG to look at the city's spending and report back on which spending items are "must haves" - things that are required by law or essential to the operation of the city. And, we asked them to report which spending items were "nice to haves."
They've completed that work and today's meeting is the last of a series of meetings where they report their findings.
I want to stress something that has been lost in the media coverage over the past two weeks. This is the beginning of the process. Not the end.
As of today, not a penny of spending has been changed in any budget.
All that has happened is that spending has been listed and put into categories for discussion.
We've started a great public debate about what is "must have" and what is "nice to have" - and that's exactly the point.
Today, we will hear what you have to say about what's important to you.
That information will go forward, with the KPMG report and a report from the City Manager, to the September special Executive meeting where we will begin to identify our priorities.
Those priorities - combined with a review of how to improve efficiency - plus a user fee review - will then go to council for decision as part of the 2012 budget process which will finish in January.
—
Photo by Noah Markus in the blogTO Flickr pool


Discussion
43 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Let's just hope that the representation at City Hall is a fair cross-section of the stakeholders of this city, and not just the usual suspects who have taken a sick day or who happen to have 6 weeks holidays every year or whose puppet masters have sent them to the meeting.
If we end up with the same folks who showed up at Miller's laughable 'round table' discussions, then we are just in for the same ol' same ol'.
Especially considering all the services city hall offers, including libraries.
Apparently even $5/month was too much, for the privilege to drive a car in this city of overcrowded streets.
The Fords have adopted the old "starve the beast" strategy, by cutting revenues and forcing service cuts to balance the budget, rather than consider the possibility of increasing revenues to do the same.
The deck is stacked already, and Ford is going to win this round... and we're all going to suffer as a result.
by dmrider via twitter edited by Toronto Star 1:41 PM
---------
only one threat i am surprised!
Our mothers and grandmothers are appalled by the decline in people's ability to do things without taking forever and then proceed to complain about how hard they work and how long they take to do things.
Have you ever considered that those who have vacation are just better at what they do than you are at what you do?
By the way, back in THEIR day hours were shorter and everything was closed on Sunday. Work ethic my ass.
How else can you explain his decisions on bike lanes, Transit City, the Sheppard extension, canceling the vehicle registration tax, last year's property-tax freeze, declaring the TTC an essential service and the BIG raise that he gave to the police?
So much of his rhetoric just rings hollow when you look at his actual "accomplishments" to-date. Some people in Toronto, I would imagine most in fact, are willing to share the pain, but it needs to be distributed fairly. And for the life of me, I don't understand this pathalogical aversion to paying taxes - especially from his base, the so-called "Ford Nation". I own a car, and had no problem paying the $60. The city needed it more than I do. And property taxes could have gone up 1-2% last year. The freeze just means that any subsequent increase will now invariably be much larger since he burned up the surplus that was left to him.
I just don't understand his rationale.
Also, complaints about "high" taxes, vacation, and unionization destroying cities/countries is entirely silly and its proven that it can work every day by Germany, a country whose economy is incredibly robust and is importing workers due to the low unemployment rate. They pay a VAT (HST) of 19%, have artificially and naturally high energy prices (they also have a green energy feed-in tariff), and at least 25% of the entire workforce is unionized. Too much of a hands off approach to governance is just as damaging as too much involvement, which is why I find the left-right arguments silly.
Thanks for the kind words, folks. I never mentioned unions. I never mentioned the Third Reich. Seems like certain assumptions are being made. There are two countries that I can think of that have mandatory voting, and both are very progressive: Brazil and Australia.
Shoot the messenger all you want, but even with the hyperbole and mud slinging at the last city election, we could barely muster 50% turn out. The majority have tuned out.
All I am saying is that the debate would certainly be more interesting, if not productive, if a healthy cross-section of the city were represented. In the past, it has been very one-sided. That is not the 'fault' of the left or the right, only that of an electorate that feels disenfranchised. It seems that the vocal 3% on polar opposite sides of the debate shout at each other, creating a cacophony that sounds like noise to everyone else.
This city is increasingly polarized. Would it not be nice to hear from the middle majority for a change?
Or do you enjoy listening to yourselves whine and gnash?
If they're disenfranchised or feel they're not being heard or they're ambivalent, then it's up to them to do something about it instead of somehow blaming it on the minority who <i>appear</i> to be monopolizing/polarizing the discussion by default and thereby constituting, in that phrase you never tire of using, 'the usual suspects'.
So far it appears that although there may be as many people in favour of cuts over increases in taxes or user fees as against, they haven't bothered to show up to the executive council meeting, even if only to express support for the mayor and certain councillors. Certainly the ambivalent/indifferent majority isn't showing up, which is just as well since their deputations wouldn't amount to much.
Yes, Brazil and Australia have mandatory voting and are both progressive in some ways ... some of the time, and not so much in some areas. I doubt there's a casual connection to mandatory voting. Judging by comments to articles printed on their news sites (O Dia, Folha de S. Paulo, Diário do Grande ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the Daily Telegraph, etc.), there isn't much difference between their 'vocal 3% vs middle majority' dichotomy and ours and there are some not especially progressive views on display as well.
So which governments of the 1930s and 1940s were you in fact thinking of?
All I hear from are idiots on the far right who scream "cut everything", and idiots on the far left who shout "don't cut anything".
dialogue of the deaf.
And the only forward-thinking parts of Australia are Melbourne (who regret making the mistake of privitizing transit) and Sydney, who hasn't seen anything new for years. The city has been still for many years.
They just legalized gay marriage a couple months back. Not bad for a Catholic country. After decades of dictatorial rule, the country is finally enjoying its second decade of calming prices, stable stock markets and an appreciating currency. There voter participation, forced or not, is much higher than Canada's. They have voted in social moderates with a hint of fiscal conservatism. Fairly decent recipe for such a large, volatile country.
By any measure, Australia is one of the most livable countries in the world. Their voter turnout is 95% for federal elections. Imagine that!
Fantomex - 'ignore the troll' comes to mind.
I could say the same about you sometimes, Gadfly.
They're trying to establish themselves as an innovator in the tech sector, but they're massively hampered by the fact that 80%+ of science graduates who could be powering corporate research end up being absorbed by inefficient government programs, thanks to a bureaucracy that is still huge.
I work with financial information from Brazil and the amount of reshuffling and restating and special arrangements is staggering. It's only a matter of time before Bacen has to tinker with the currency again and then corporate bookkeepers get to make up new rules to fudge the facts.