Spending smart at City Hall

Justin Van Dette.

It’s budget season again and obviously we’re going to be hearing a bit of the recycled excuses on why the budget is so challenging. We’ll be hearing the blame game, about who did what many years ago, and why the city can't cut anymore. Personally I'm getting a little tired of the words "previous administration" that we hear from time to time especially when the current ones at City Hall and Queen’s Park have been in power since 2003.

What amazed me is how all of a sudden all of this new money – about $100 million taxpayer dollars - was found in an almost "hocus pocus" magical way -- almost the kind of thing you would read about in a fairy-tale. Toronto Star columnist Royson James called it “political theatre” and it was simply just that.

I agree with Toronto mayoral candidate George Smitherman who added that these kinds of “tricks are for kids.”

We hear it over and over again from many inside the twin towers at the corner of Bay and Queen; how difficult it is to find any savings. We’re reminded that the City isn’t running a deficit but what we are running is a “structural deficit” which involves the spending of precious dollars that we simply don't have and looking to the taxpayer and asking them to pay more and fund more pet projects.

Many of these tax increases year after year have been above the rate of inflation, and as the famous John Smith recently told the Budget Committee, the tax increases are taking their toll on taxpayers who simply can't afford to pay more.

Some have talked about a “hiring freeze” but we still have job postings on the City website. Not much of a freeze that I can see.

Non-unionized employees are told to take a freeze but the elected council and unionized staff are getting wage increases. No fairness or demonstration of fiscal restraint there. In fact, when council had a motion from Councillor Case Ootes calling for a freeze last year, which would have demonstrated strong, symbolic leadership before going into important negotiations with the city’s unions, council chose not to take that position.

The bicycle lane budget is another area that I would revisit and think twice about devoting all those dollars. Did those approved and expensive changes on Jarvis really need to happen especially since the next arterial road to the east, Sherbourne, already has a bicycle lane. The amount of spending has me concerned. And of course we heard just this week that a movement is afoot to bring a 24 km bikeway on Bloor-Danforth.

To me, it’s all over-spending, especially when we don’t have two nickels to rub together and when the city has next to nothing in the reserves to deal with increased unemployment and welfare claimants.

I would rather see those funds allocated for the city’s bicycle plan directed to the backlog of road and sewer repairs that we have in our city, and apparently the backlog amounts to multimillions of dollars. Too bad we can’t go back and revisit the bicycle racks that were installed on all of those buses. I ride transit every single day, and being brutally honest, I think I’ve only seen three or four bikes on those racks since they first got installed.

Some reading this might think that I’m anti-bicycle, which I’m not. To me, it all comes down to investing in core and very important municipal services. The comedian at the recent Ireland Fund Lunch talked about how the Mayor cleaned his office and found $100 million. Seriously though, it makes me wonder how many more savings can be found at City Hall.

About Justin VanDette

Comments

[Sonny Yeung]

The City is budgeting for city services like child care, police etc. As for John Smith who was on the John Tory radio show; he has 6 kids and in fact can afford the 2.9% property tax increase equal to $70...

As for the reserves, out of the $100 million; $75 million will be allocated to the reserves for the next council. Lastly, I replied to your right wing ilk about the source of the unexpected surplus...
http://thestar.blogs.com/yourcitymycity/2010/03/100m-in-found-money.html#comments

[Transity Cyclist]

Hi Justin,

Interesting piece you've written. In regards to another recent article about the Bloor-Danforth Bike Lanes, unfortunately, many people continue to hold the mentality that bicycles and bike infrastructure are simply impediments to general traffic. The validity of this mentality depends on how general traffic is defined: is general traffic the movement of private automobile, or is it the movement of people and goods? I would hope it's the latter. What also deeply offends me is the statement: "Bicycle lanes are expected to leave only one lane of traffic in each direction". This statement implies that bicycles are not traffic, or are not human beings with destinations.

To suggest that bicycles be welcomed only on trails and secondary routes, as you've put it, ignores the fact that cyclists, like motorists and transit passengers, have very important destinations to go to along Bloor-Danforth (or any corridor), and have errands to run too. It is the city's job to allow citizens to run their businesses and errands in total safety, no matter what mode they choose.

In fact, I believe that Toronto should be doing the exact opposite of shunning cyclists off to secondary streets. The thriving businesses are the ones who rely on a pedestrian/transit/cycling base, not a private-automobile base.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=174243
Maximising the proportion of people outside of cars and onto feet and bicycles also maximises the exposure of storefronts and businesses to potential customers. What kind of business exposure would we be sacrificing if we were to continue to discourage people from cycling along the corridor?

It is also a common misconception that the fifth lane on Jarvis is being removed because of bike lanes. This misinformation can potentially spark more hatred and animosity towards cyclists. Please know that the fifth lane is being removed whether there will be bike lanes or not. The original plan was to improve the pedestrian/streetscape of Jarvis Street by either: a) widening the sidewalks b) adding a median or c) adding bike lanes.

While there will no doubt be less space for the private automobile once bike lanes are introduced, there will also be a modal shift from the private automobile to the bicycle with the added perception of bicycle-friendly conditions. If the bike lane proves popular, the overall capacity of the roadway is increased, not decreased.

In that case, should we be holding back on any transit infrastructure upgrades, since transit-lanes take space away from cars? The automobile would certainly feel an inconvenience, but the non-automobile users would certainly benefit. It is certainly not city policy to hold back any project that would be of any inconvenience to motorists.

How much would it cost to continue Toronto's over-dependence on cars? How much does congestion cost us each year? How much does it cost us to maintain our highways and roads due to overuse? And how much would it cost us to install a bit of infrastructure to facilitate the modal shift badly needed in Toronto? How much money would we save from the reduced wear-and-tear as a result?

[Transity Cyclist]

And other important infrastructure, such as sewers and roadways, already have their funding from the federal stimulus package. To take money away already earmarked for alternative transportation projects (bike lanes, TTC) to give to sewers and roadways would be excess for sewers and roadways, and would starve alternative transportation (just as important).