According to the TPL's financials (http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/annual-report-2010/library-2010/financials.html#panel1) just over $6.7 million.
Is Rob Ford doing a good job?
- Thread starter avxl1003
- Start date
thats true and thats what the library should be doing. they should be fundraising for a large endowment fund
I think Adam Vaughn had a great point last night when he said "You can't have it both ways. You can't declare the TTC an essential service, and then cut that service."
Ford is a guy that can't connect the dots.
Toronto may have a spending problem. But the solution to that spending problem should be a long term solution, not a quick fix that includes a firesale of city assets and slashing of city services.
The solution should be things like the attrition of overly paid employees who, when replaced (if at all), are replaced by people who will make a more realistic wage (which reflects the equivalent private sector wages). This would likely save millions in the long term.
The solution should include a more realistic evaluation of services to be cut, not just an evaluation which determines which are NOT fundamental to running a bare bones city (general happiness of the "lower classes is probably worth the few dollars we each spend on them).
I'm okay with cutting services that make no sense, but he's cutting services because him and his rich pals don't consider them essential to running a city. I'm telling you that the blue night is very much essential to running a city. Clean parks for kids to play in are essential to running a city. A zoo for kids to go to and actually understand that the world is larger than what they see on a daily basis, is very much an essential part of the city.
If we need to pay a little more tax over the short term to get the long term savings then so be it. I pay off the maximum allowable amount of my mortgage each year. Sure, right now it sucks because I drive a shitty car and I can only afford to hobby once a month. But in 5 years time when I'm mortgage free and most other guys my age have 15 more years to go, I'll be laughing.
Ford is a guy that can't connect the dots.
Toronto may have a spending problem. But the solution to that spending problem should be a long term solution, not a quick fix that includes a firesale of city assets and slashing of city services.
The solution should be things like the attrition of overly paid employees who, when replaced (if at all), are replaced by people who will make a more realistic wage (which reflects the equivalent private sector wages). This would likely save millions in the long term.
The solution should include a more realistic evaluation of services to be cut, not just an evaluation which determines which are NOT fundamental to running a bare bones city (general happiness of the "lower classes is probably worth the few dollars we each spend on them).
I'm okay with cutting services that make no sense, but he's cutting services because him and his rich pals don't consider them essential to running a city. I'm telling you that the blue night is very much essential to running a city. Clean parks for kids to play in are essential to running a city. A zoo for kids to go to and actually understand that the world is larger than what they see on a daily basis, is very much an essential part of the city.
If we need to pay a little more tax over the short term to get the long term savings then so be it. I pay off the maximum allowable amount of my mortgage each year. Sure, right now it sucks because I drive a shitty car and I can only afford to hobby once a month. But in 5 years time when I'm mortgage free and most other guys my age have 15 more years to go, I'll be laughing.
How does raising taxes translate into long term savings?
You can't compare the city's operating budget to paying down a mortgage. They're two different things. However, you make an interesting point. You say in order to pay down your mortgage quicker you've had to make some sacrifices like drive a shitty car and only hobby once a month. This is because you only have so much income. Now say you want to drive a nice car and hobby once a week. Would it be fair to ask your neighbours to kick in a small amount each so you can afford to do so?
Something is going to have to give because the neighbours are tapped out.
We have, apparently, a huge shortfall. There are two ways of dealing with that shortfall in the short term. Raise taxes, or slash services. I, for one, would be more open to the idea of paying higher taxes in the short term, providing that there was a plan in place over the long term to reduce my taxes (eliminate truly unnecessary services after fair and accurate evaluations, and elimnate overly paid employees through attrition).
My example of my mortgage was only to illustrate the obvious (but often overlooked) point that sometimes you have have to pay more in the short term to realize long term savings. That said, you are right, it does draw a very poor comparison.
News flash, taxes rarely go down. Now let's remember what Miller did.
Since 2003, Miller grew the city’s operating budget by 44% or $2.8 billion, increased the city’s net debt by more than $1 billion and increased property taxes year-over-year, well beyond the rate of inflation. He also introduced a host of new taxes including: a plastic bag tax, garbage tax, car tax, billboard tax and land transfer tax. But I guess you're okay with that, and more.
You do know that the city can't run a deficit from year to year, so your solution is to not cut any programs and just raise taxes to cover the difference. Brilliant!
Rob Ford promised a subway for scarborough and he is not going to deliver. Instead they built another transportation route for downtown. I dont think he will be re-elected by many in scarborough come election time.
You're not getting it. In order to truly solve our tax problems you have to actually tackle the problems plaguing this city. However, tackling them is a long term job. Something most mayors (including this one) don't want to do because the end result is too far down the line.
Rob Ford's idea is another quick fix.. He saved us all 60 bucks a year, and is proposing to cut how many services just to break even? What does he do next year when the cost of living goes up for all the overpaid schmucks? I got news for you.. It'll either be raise taxes, or cut more services... Brilliant plan.
Why? Tell us more about this moral imperative of yours. Shouldn't Rob'n'Dug be covering their shortfall the same way? How about the car companies that we saved from bankruptcy without demanding their overpaid incompetent managers comp the millions of less well-off who bailed them out without demanding they cut their multimillion dollar paycheques? Shouldn't they be "…fundraising for a large endowment fund" to keep society healthy, let alone solvent?
Ya don't suppose any of them ever benefited from free neighbourhood public libraries do ya? Are they rushing to say, "Thank you taxpayers" by funding public goods they for the folks they were so grateful to take money from?
There ain't no crying in baseball, and there ain't no shoulds in running governments beyond the civil and human rights we all have. After that it's what you want and what you'll pay for. Unfortunately our current City government can't hear all the folks saying, "we've been paying for that for years and we'll pay more to keep it if we have to."
Because they've been suckered into their own minority 'should': "We should get government for nothing, and if that means no government at all… good"
Math =/= Accounting. I guess knowing the difference isn't a big deal in the world of warcraft.
I would prefer that my children not visit the "Coca-Cola Eastern Lowland Gorilla" exhibit.
I would also prefer that my zoo not simply hold only the "cheaply maintained" animals for us to look at.
I would like the exhibits to be grand and animal friendly, rather than cheap and cost effective.
I would like the zoo keepers to be the best that money can by, rather than the cheapest.
I would like fair ticket prices, as well as reasonable parking rates.
None of these would happen in a privately operated zoo. They would need to turn a profit, and would do it at any cost. They would do the least amount they can get away with, and charge the most they could get away with. That's the way a business is run, and I don't think it's a good model for zoos.
it reminds me of th 407.
I used to drive on it regularly for 5.5 years. I sure remember how significant of a difference there was in winter time on the 407 vs the QEW in terms of snow removal, (especially at night).... I once spent 4 hours on the unplowed 407 trying to get home during a snow storm... but I sure did pay a lot more to use the 407 than the rates were prior to it being sold off....
I have had a yearly membership there since I was a kid. Yes, I'm well aware it isn't what it used to be. More merchant stands in places than I would like to see, as well as various corporate sponsors that should really be left out.
BUT I MAINTAIN!!! It would be far worse if it was forced to turn a profit large enough for investors to stay interested.
When I was about eight.
I actively dislike going to the zoo. So what? I also don't use public libraries. If that's the yardstick we are going to use to determine what to spend money on, then you should know that I don't own a car, I live downtown and don't see the need for any roads to be cleared of snow during the winter.
On another note - the zoo is likely a tourist attraction. Does anyone have any idea how much indirect revenue the zoo generates for Toronto?
You want all sorts of stuff, but you don't want to pay for it. Sort of like those teabaggers who bitch about taxes and then turn around and say the government should keep its hands off their medicare.
Hey I want hot chicks to suck my dick and I would like to pay a fair price, which I define as 10 bucks. I guess the government should pay for that also.
I want a 16 oz steak but also want fair prices for that also like say a $1.50.
I like the world you live in, I'd be able to continue abusing my local library [and the local library is my bitch] guilt free.
Which is very different than saying that there is "gravy" or "fat" to be cut in the Library. It turns out New York's costs 36% more to run than ours does, and since New York is a bigger city that sounds about right to me.
I know that our city union employees are overpaid, and THAT is where the fat likely is, not in the services provided, or the jobs being done, but in the pay and benefits packets. However Rob Ford has already locked several unions in to pay rises and has given no indication that he's willing to go after a pay reduction for the unionized work force. Realistically speaking you would have to fight tooth and nail to get even a 10% salary concession from the union, and it would have to be something that phases in over time. Ford either lied when he said he could fix the budget by finding "gravy", or he is actually stupid enough that he believed his own bullshit.
Ford has to face the ACTUAL problems facing the city and stop with the lame bullshit about gravy. There are two problems and everybody knows what they are:
#1 - The unions are overpaid
#2 - The city is trying to fund things like welfare out of property tax
Someone has to take on the unions over their pay packets, and someone has to take on the Province over the city's inappropriate funding model. Ford is doing neither, and until he does, or someone does, Toronto will continue to have this problem. It cannot REALLY be solved by slashing programs until there is nothing left to slash--it actually has to get solved, directly.
the idea that the city manager put forth was to have someone else run the zoo not to close it.
