Actually looking for efficiencies would be a good start. Perhaps Torontonians will actually get Councillors who will do that (and fewer that are steadfastly opposed to doing so)?
Court stops Doug Ford from changing council size!
- Thread starter Frankfooter
- Start date
No reasonable person wants to pay more tax until they are satisfied that the government is no longer wasting what is already collecting. Are you happy to pay more tax, no matter how it is being used?
We note that between your first statement and your question you entirely changed the premise.
Ask honestly.
Who is "we"? Are you and Anbarandy colleagues? I wasn't aware that TERB was a team sport.
My first sentence is an assertion about a class of people. My second sentences avoids the assumption that Anbarandy belongs to that class.
Where have you been through all these years of Ford and Tory led councils? What do you think they have been doing going thru line by line budget items throughout all these years? Where have you been through all of these years and years of cutting and cutting budget line items. Through all of these years of an ever expanding city, they have been cutting and cutting.
Where exactly do you live?
The good news is that this means that Ford does not need to abuse the Notwithstanding Clause to force this legislation. Now he simply has to abuse his own power to disrupt the election in progress.
Oh please, just about anyone could spend less than 10 minutes looking at the books of City Hall and identify some wasteful/unnecessary spending. Of course, that person would then face hysterical opposition to the cuts, regardless of what they were. Perhaps that can change now that there will be fewer fiefdoms. You couldn't name a single expenditure of the City that you consider to be wasteful? How about the court challenge to the reduction of Council, just for starters!
Wonder if the city will take the stay to the superior court until the nov appeal hearing.
You obviously have not and do not follow the City of Toronto budget process. A process which year after year had and has as it's goal to identify and implement efficiencies within every department and agency equal to 2% and greater. Throughout the Ford and Tory years this has been the reality.
Bud you know not what you speak of. WTF is a fiefdom? You speak like a foolish conspiracy theorist..
The Court of Appeal decision is along the same lines as my criticism:
[11] The application judge was understandably motivated by the fact that the
timing of Bill 5 changed the rules for the election mid-campaign, which he
perceived as being unfair to candidates and voters. However, unfairness alone
does not establish a Charter breach. The question for the courts is not whether Bill
5 is unfair but whether it is unconstitutional. On that crucial question, we have
concluded that there is a strong likelihood that application judge erred in law and
that the Attorney General’s appeal to this court will succeed.
Yes, you arguments were validated by the 3 member appeals court.
A stay is a stay, but not the end of the saga. Whether an appeal will be heard and/or succeed is still in question, but given the unanimous ruling a successful appeal is now much more difficult.
There are you happy now?
A foolish conspiracy theorist who called this legal case correctly! I'll leave the dictionary to help you with the meaning of fiefdom.
Here's 2 immediate cuts I would implement:
1. Zero funding for all parades/events that are organized and controlled by any organization other than the City. Almost all of these events have private/corporate sponsorship and there is no reason for the City to foot any part of the bill.
2. Cancellation of all projects to install further bike lanes. They are a waste of money. Not only are they poor planning, they cause as many accidents as they prevent.
Are you against these cuts?
I'll go two better than you.
1) An immediate cancellation of the plans to go ahead with the +$3.5billion one stop BDL exentsion.
2) An immediate cancellation of the $1billion plan to realign the east end of the Gardiner expressway.
Are you against saving +$4.5billion of taxpayer's money?
Now dems savings you can take to the bank and make your piddling lil' list as credible as the mythical War on The Car and choo-choo Gravy Train.
Says the guy who didn’t do any research and provided an emotionally driven response.
Notwithstanding that you failed to answer my question, I'll answer part of yours. Cancelling the subway project would be a valid savings if there was a better way to spend the money. Certainly addressing the shortfall of public transportation is a high priority. If you cancelled the subway, what would you spend the money on instead? I don't think that continuing to ignore the transit shortfall is an option.
