It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Race for Mayor in Toronto: Dealing With "Deadbeat Governments"

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:50 AM
When the plan to revitalize the Toronto waterfront (The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative, TWRI) was first put forward, in connection with Toronto's bid to host the 2008 Olympic Games, the city pledged to pay one third of the cost of the project (33.3%), with the other thirds to be paid for by the provincial and federal governments, one third (33.3%), each.

On October 20, 2000, the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto each announced a commitment of $500 million to fund the TWRI.

In another thread, Toronto's Race for Mayor: John Tory, the George Costanza of Toronto Politics, we learned that though Toronto undertook to pay 33.3% of the costs to revitalize the Toronto waterfront, we, the City of Toronto, only received 5.7% of the increase in taxes which flowed from the waterfront revitalization.

Accordingly, the three governments have spent, to date, $1.26 billion and the study estimates that this direct investment on public lands generated impacts as follows: $3.2 billion of Canadian economic output, 16,200 full time years of employment and $622 million of tax revenues to government ($348 million to federal, $237 million to provincial, and $36 million to municipal).

The above linked document tells us that the Government of Canada has in fact disbursed its complete obligation of 500 million dollars.

The Government of Canada has therefore already recouped 348 (taxes received) / 500 (expenses incurred) X 100 (to obtain a percentage value) = 69.6% of its costs for the project.

I don't have actual expense figures for the Government of Ontario or the City of Toronto.

I don't know how much money each of those entities has spent, so far. For the purposes of the following calculations, I am going to divide the total amount spent so far, 1.26 billion dollars (minus the amount spent by the federal government (500 million dollars)), equally between the other branches of government.

1.26 billion - .5 billion = .76 billion / 2 = .38 billion or 380 million dollars.

Thus, the Government of Ontario is assumed to have spent .38 billion, or 380 million dollars to date, to revitalize the Toronto waterfront.

The Government of Ontario has therefore already recouped 237 (taxes received) / 380 (expenses incurred) X 100 (to obtain a percentage value) = 62.4% of its costs for the project.

Following the same procedure for the City of Toronto, we find that the city has recouped only 36 (taxes received) / 380 (expenses incurred) X 100 (to obtain percentage value) = 9.5% of its costs for the project.

The City of Toronto could hardly be said to be on an equal footing with its other two "partners", despite having undertaken to pay 33.3% of the costs of the project. No business person would enter into a partnership on such an unequal basis, unless maybe they had been given given "an offer they couldn't refuse" by the mafia.

Getting 5.7% of the returns on on an investment, after putting up 33.3% of the costs, is getting taken for a ride.

Why are we being taken for a ride? We are being taken for a ride because the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada are trying to balance their budgets. They are in effect downloading provincial and federal debt to us, the citizens of Toronto.

John Tory, or any other official of this city who makes partnership deals with the federal and provincial governments for infrastructure development, where the city pays 33.3% of the costs and only receives 5.7% of the returns, is, in my opinion, not faithfully representing the interests of Torontonians.

Unfortunately, these infrastructure "partnerships" are only a part of the whole picture. In the case of the Province of Ontario even more money is being channeled away from the municipalities by downloading the costs of services, to Toronto and other cities.

It is perfectly obvious what is going on. The overall goal is to balance the provincial budget.

One of the important means being employed is to eliminate services paid for by the provincial government or to download them, meaning get municipalites, like Toronto, to pay the costs of these services, costs formerly paid for by the provincial government.

After 2009–10, annual increases in program spending declined sharply — from 12.0 per cent in the depth of the recession, when strong stimulus and supports were needed, to 4.5 per cent and then 0.9 per cent in 2011–12, and the past year saw the first decline in more than a decade.

In the same document the Government of Ontario claims the national championship in downloading the costs of public services to municipalities.

The government of Ontario already spends less per resident delivering public services than any other province, and is working internally to achieve even greater cost effectiveness while continuing to offer quality, timely service. Reflecting measures to improve efficiency, Ontario’s per capita program spending in 2012–13 was $8,311, which was the lowest among the provinces.

I get it. Paying to service debt is "money spent for nothing". The province and the feds have a point. I just think they are going too far. When they lose $247 million dollars off the books, without a trace at the time of the G8/G20, or spend $500 thousand dollars for two rocks for Sugar Beach, or $1.1 billion to do a job Philadelphia did for $12 million. When they spend money on F-35s or join the Americans in Libya, helping indirectly to create the current mess in Iraq, and then want money to fix that problem, its just too much.

I don't want my tax money being thrown around like that. If Toronto pays 33.3% on infrastructure, Toronto should get much more than 5.7% of the taxes realized as a result of the project.

Too much rip-off is enough.

We need a mayor who will negotiate better deals than that. If we are only getting 5.7% out of a "partnered" infrastructure project, it would make sense to limit our participation in the costs of such projects to much less than 33.3%, wouldn't it Mr. Tory?

edit on 15-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:36 PM
I hear your frustration . I still say that because Toronto is a corporation they need to create profits for someone .

A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees, shareholders,[1] and members, and may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not-for-profit. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration. Registered corporations have legal personality and are owned by shareholders[2][3] whose liability is limited to their investment. Shareholders do not typically actively manage a corporation; shareholders instead elect or appoint a board of directors to control the corporation in a fiduciary capacity So under law a Corporation is a legal fiction and so are you if you have a birth certificate created by a Corporation ie Canada or what ever Province that created it .Its a scam created by the Law Society that we are not a member of but who creates laws that they then impose on the citizens of said Corporations .They use a language called legalize and it's in the language that keeps us from not knowing what is really happening while they steal money from us . well it's actually their money that they create out of nothing and steal our labor .All with our consent .
Too really get a handle on the scam you have to check out Rob Menards vids .
a reply to: ipsedixit

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:51 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I'm not really interested in the "Freeman" movement.

Any time one talks about spending and taxing in government, one works one's way to the roots of the problems of society, but I'm focusing, on a more superficial level, on the current race for Mayor in Toronto and trying to get some traction on this particular issue.

I'm not alone in my concerns. They are shared by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. This issue of "deadbeat governments" (federal and provincial) is coming over the horizon and will become a public issue soon. It should be one in this election in Toronto.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:29 PM
Rob Ford hid behind the eight ball for years...

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:23 PM

I'm not really interested in the "Freeman" movement.
I wasn't suggesting joining but studying what Manard has discovered within the law .What you decide to do with the info is totally up to you , but it may help you in bringing to light the crap going on behind the scenes and actually help you to know where to look . a reply to: ipsedixit

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:19 PM
a reply to: thesmokingman

I'm seeing Ford more in perspective now. He was caught in a bind. He knew the city needed more money so he tried to get it by cutting costs. I don't think he wanted to make waves for the feds, so he tried to solve this problem by going after the "entitled" culture at City Hall and cutting even more services where he could.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities wants a different style of taxation, but the bottom line remains the same, as far as I'm concerned. We've already paid the taxes. Give us our money back. Just find a way to do it.

A first step in that direction would be to say "adios" to American globalism. Canada is ideally situated, among America's allies, to demand a rethink of that stance. We should do it. There is nothing in it for us. In the long run, there is nothing in it for America either.

We need to get back to the basics of minding our own business in this world. We don't need another quixotic attempt to take over the world. It's a very expensive waste of time.

edit on 15-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:47 PM

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

. . . but it may help you in bringing to light the crap going on behind the scenes and actually help you to know where to look .

I may get around to that, but in the meantime I'm just dealing with tax issues in play already in our society. Churchill said that politics was the art of the skillful wielding of a blunt instrument. In an election one has to stay close to the surface in dealing with issues. The Toronto media, for example, on the subject of Rob Ford's personality, is so superficial that it is almost airborne. But that kind of superficiality is effective.
edit on 15-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 10:49 PM
Local politicians, including Doug Ford, are groping their way toward the money pile controlled by the federal government.

Ford slammed the proposal put forward by Anne Golden’s Transit Panel to either sphase in a 10-cent gas tax increase to fund transit or raise it by five cents a litre, hike corporate taxes by 0.5% and boost the HST by 0.5%.

“Oh my goodness, it is going to kill us,” Ford said Thursday. “It is not fair to the taxpayers and we’ll be fighting it all the way.”

“They put these fancy task forces together and it is a no-brainer, all they do is raise taxes, raise gas taxes, it is unacceptable.”

Ford encouraged the provincial government to “find efficiencies.”

“There is a bloated government at the province and as far as we’re concerned there is waste here at City Hall and there is waste in the federal government,” he said.

He's right. Paying to send Canadian servicemen and equipment to Iraq to further the American globalist agenda is a complete waste of time and more importantly, MONEY.

TTC CEO Andy Byford said he’s “agnostic about where the money comes from.”

“The TTC does need more funding, it needs sustainable funding — we are the third largest transit network in North America and we have by far the lowest subsidy,” Byford said.

Andy, where do you think all money, repeat, all money comes from for transit? It comes from our taxes. We've paid it, many times over in Toronto, but government, especially the federal government has prioritized infrastructure in this city below feeding the American ego, and paying off political backers by doing such things as buying two giant rocks, in Quebec, for $500,000.

Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly says,

. . . the revenue base should be as broad as possible.

“One that is shared by as many people or as many businesses as possible to keep the load as light as possible on as many people as possible,” Kelly said.

That's taxes folks, more taxes.

He acknowledged there is a “popular feeling” that enough savings could be found in all three levels of government to fund transit.

“That’s not an unreasonable perspective but it is one that hasn’t been explored and I wouldn’t want to rely on that as a full source of funding or the majority source of funding,” Kelly said.

Norm wants to keep buying rocks for $500,000 and spend lots of money on American delusional crackpot thinking overseas, rather than insisting that the federal government stop being a deadbeat dad to Toronto.

John Tory is not quoted in this article but, like the captain of the Titanic, he just wants to "stay the course", pay our 33.3% of the costs and get our guts pulled out in return.

Olivia is not clueless, she's just pretending to be clueless.

Edit: This post is at least two paragraphs shorter than it would have been had it included all the vitriol and invective edited out. I didn't want to slime the reader unnecessarily. You're welcome.
edit on 15-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:42 AM
In case you thought it could be possible to hold politicians accountable , think again

"Accounting firms have been universally declining to endorse cost estimates being used by New Brunswick political parties in their election platforms, instead appearing to suggest voters take what they are being promised with a grain of salt.

That's not what Finance Minister Blaine Higgs had hoped when he introduced legislation last spring to force political parties to honestly cost their election promises.

The province's Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act required a price tag for each commitment and then the submission of those numbers to an accounting firm for review.

"We want accounting firms to be part of that," Higgs told reporters last May. "We want an accounting firm to present it as 'the assumptions are real - it's credible'."

But accounting firms have declined to endorse anything put in front of them by any party during the election, offering no guidance to voters on which promises make financial sense and which are political fantasy.

Deloitte LLP has reviewed over 50 campaign promises submitted to it by Progressive Conservatives but declared none "credible" as Higgs had envisaged.
a reply to: ipsedixit

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:32 AM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

You can't hold them accountable, except by voting them out, and that is much more complicated than it sounds. The idea of having promises assessed by some independent accounting body is a good one though.

That should be the job of the serious press. The online press is much more serious than the print media in that sense because the print media is likely to defend the indefensible on the basis of historical political affiliations between political parties and the financial interests that own the press.

The Toronto Star, except for one "opinion piece" that was derisive toward John Tory's financing plan for transit expansion, has been very warm and cuddly toward that candidate but have already run their first character assassination piece on Doug Ford today, accusing him in a classic Toronto Star double whammy slur, of having the third worst attendance record on city council.

His attendance record, in the Star's view is poor (whammy one) and it is only the third worst (whammy two). He can't even excel at being a truant in their opinion.

They conveniently forget that neither John Tory nor Olivia Chow attended any council meetings in the last four years and that if attendance at council meetings over the last four years was a requirement to be mayor, then neither of those persons meets the standard, although to be fair to Olivia, she has been a city councilor in the past. Tory was an unsuccessful leader of the provincial Conservative Party, so he's got credentials as well.

I must say that I am suspicious of their statistics but I can't be bothered checking them.

Pierre Trudeau actually defeated Robert Stanfield by lampooning the Conservative leader's idea for "wage and price controls" during a financial crisis, and then, when elected, stole the idea and implemented it himself. Rene Levesque regarded Trudeau as a hooligan rich kid forever hunting for a good slap in the face. That was one of his slapping moments in my opinion.

Canadians lapped it up. The public will always have a soft spot in its heart for a slick liar.

All's fair in love war and politics. People who are serious can only think for themselves, communicate their thoughts however they can, like on ATS for example, and hope for the best.

edit on 16-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:01 AM
One thing is sure though, Toronto should never shorten its ten month mayoralty election campaign.

It's like a good mini-series on TV. With the exception of the US presidential campaign, there is nothing like it in electoral politics, for thrills and spills. Anything can happen in ten months. Even a complete tabula rasa like Olivia Chow can learn things about the city and get up to speed in time for election day. (It's a joke Olivia.)

Toronto's election for Mayor is awesome entertainment. Rob Ford should go into the city's hall of fame for the last eight and a half months alone.

Talk about drama.
edit on 16-9-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)


log in