The Budget Question and Answer Segment

So since this budget has been launched some people I run into have been asking me some general questions about it. It's easy to get details confused by hearing snippets in the news here and there, so if you need to catch up this question and answer segment with an imaginary Ford supporter is for you. 

So I heard about this budget and it doesn’t sound that bad. After all, with a few cuts the $774 million deficit is taken care of. That’s good right?

The $774 was never the real number, it was the opening budgetary pressure. As this Wellesely Institute chart shows, this opening pressure is similar to the number for each of the past five years. The difference is that the previous administration chose not to publicize the opening number because they didn’t want to alarm the public. This administration chose a different approach for strategic purposes.

From the Budget Committee via the Wellesley Institute Countdown to Zero Report

Well the Miller years used lots of scare tactics too, like threatening to mothball the Sheppard subway line.

OK, this ‘but Miller did it’ argument is pretty intellectually shallow. Weren’t those the tactics Ford decried in the campaign? Miller was wrong to use those tactics and so is Ford.  

But the point is, the Ford proposal balances the budget. We can all be proud of that.

I suppose. That’s a pretty low standard though; the city is legally required to balance its operating budget each year and has always done so.

OK, point taken. But the Mayor said he found $355 million in savings and efficiencies. That’s impressive.

It might be if it was true. The Mayor gets that number by adding up all his service cuts, layoffs, unfilled vacancies and projected budget adjustments. It’s the latter that is crucial. The ‘savings and efficiencies’- service cuts, really- total $88 million and the balance ($267 million) are adjustments to previous budget estimates.

That is, they aren’t real savings at all. They are either more accurate (downward) budget projections or service cuts.   

That sounds a bit different. But Ford inherited an awful mess and clearly he’s doing the best anyone can expect.

Rob Ford inherited a $346 million surplus from David Miller. As Edward Keenan explains nicely in this piece, Ford used the surplus last year to pass tax break goodies. He cancelled the $60 vehicle registration tax that generates $60 million, and froze property taxes and TTC fares. Since the latter two need to rise with inflation to have the same value, these were decreases in real terms. If those items rose with inflation and the VRT was kept, they would have generated $300 million over two budgets.

Not only that, but Ford is balancing this year’s budget with an extra $83 million leftover from last year’s surplus. What it adds up to is a healthy financial cushion that Miller had built up and Ford took advantage of in a one-time binge last year without planning for this year.

Put another way, Matt Elliott has a chart on the subject. Everyone likes pictures. 

Well at least Ford is making those necessary cuts that Miller was afraid to do. That takes courage and conviction.

Also keep in mind that thing about ‘no service cuts...guaranteed.’ To break that promise requires- how shall we say- moral flexibility. But further to the point, these cuts are not necessary. After inflation-level increases on property taxes and TTC fares the budget generates a $139 million surplus while the total cuts are $88 million. So Ford could keep his zero service cuts promise (aside from the Urban Affairs library) and still have a surplus to put in reserves.

OK, but Ford also promised to avoid touching those one time unsustainable surpluses to fund the city’s business, and that’s what he’s saying here.

It’s curious how he uses that argument to justify the service cuts he wants but neglected it when funding his tax cuts, isn’t it?

Oh, and in that same budget last year, Speaker Frances Nunziata was instructed by the Ford Team to forbid any mention of planning for this budget. So all of this ‘planning and prudence’ rhetoric is a bit rich.

Point taken. But the cuts aren’t all that bad. I mean earlier we were talking about closing libraries or bus routes full time and shutting down tons of wading pools, but it’s only a handful.

Ah yes, the ‘well this could have been worse’ argument, ably analyzed by Cityslikr over at his blog. First of all, I guess how bad the cuts are depends on who you are. If you’re a minimum wage worker who relies on the already crowded Dufferin and Finch buses you’ll be paying more for what will somehow be worse in time and crowding. That 'well this could have been worse' argument probably doesn't feel that great. Or if you live near one of those libraries that have 12 hours cut a week, that might be some quality time reading to your son or daughter that you lose. And while no libraries will be shut down like last year, 20,000 hours will be cut which is the equivalent to the 9 smallest libraries closing full-time. Not only that but there will be 150 fewer staff members compared to last year, a number that the chief librarian has referred to as unsafe for current programming levels. Or there’s the wheel trans service if you have dialysis, the wading and swimming pools, the nutrition programs that serve 14,049 kids, the drug prevention programs...

I get it, I get it. And my heart bleeds for all these cuts, it really does, but shouldn’t a lot of those be the province’s responsibility? I mean, we’re just doing what’s right for Toronto.

Yeah, that’s a fair argument to make. Things like certain pools should be covered by the school board and social programs like shelters for the homeless should be funded by the province. That’s a debate worth having. For now, I’d feel more comfortable maintaining those programs while negotiating with the province. Our primary responsibility is to our citizens, not our budget.

I wouldn’t quite phrase it that way, but agree to disagree. But one thing that really gets me going is this property tax hike. And the TTC too. This is awful, and I can’t believe Ford broke his promise.

Not quite- Ford never promised no tax increases. As Dylan Reid explained a couple years ago in a must-read Spacing article, property taxes are only an increase in real terms when they go above the rate of inflation. And 2.5% is a reasonable estimate for the rate (in fact last year was an unusually high 2.9%). As for the TTC fare increase, between labour, fuel and infrastructure maintenance, the TTC’s budget increases above the rate of inflation each year and this really can’t be controlled. A 10 cent fare increase just maintains the inflation rate and if we wanted flat fares we would have to triple the proposed TTC cuts. It’s unfortunate that service has to be cut while enacting a fare increase, and that’s something that I strongly disagree with. Based on this Grid interview with the TTC’s Chris Upfold, I’m guessing some TTC brass do too. 

Well I support the Ford layoffs. I mean, that’s something that’s long overdue. We have more employees than at amalgamation and a lot of them are deadwood. Good riddance.

Any large bureaucracy- including the private sector- has de-motivated or underused employees that could move on. But make no mistake, these layoffs will have an impact on service. In particular, the Fire department is already running behind expected times by two minutes, street cleaning will be impacted although that was a campaign priority of Ford and parks will see a dramatic reduction. For more, read Matt Elliott’s post debunking the idea that the city has an out-of-control employee count across the board. 

Well according to Ford’s presentation 54% of the growth since amalgamation belongs to Police, EMS and Fire. So there’s redundancies there.

It’s a lot harder than it seems. The fire department has dangerously low levels, with fewer employed than at amalgamation. EMS has increased their headcount by 150 the past 13 years but their response times are poor. The overwhelming amount of this growth has come from the police department (the budget has almost doubled in this time period), which Ford proved unable to cut this year. It’s with good reason too; the province mandates a certain level of police officers and provides money for each position. With 85% of the budget tied up in labour costs, it’s impossible to make a dent in the budget without impacting the front lines. When Bill Blair said he would have to fire 1,000 officers (just under 20% of the force) to meet Ford’s arbitrary 10% target, he wasn’t kidding.   

OK, but at least Ford is doing what he can. He leads by example, cutting his own office budget and all those silly little perks councillors get.

That’s true, he has cut his office budget. But when we get down to this level, it’s really just symbolism. It’s nice to take a close and critical eye at each budget line but with an operating budget close to $10 billion cutting snacks for councillors is pretty meaningless.

OK wiseguy, what bright ideas do you have?

Well Jack Diamond of Diamond + Schmitt Architects has a nice column in the Globe arguing for re-zoning parking lots to encourage better planning and improving economic development. It’s something that would give more developers more flexibility, make land more valuable and discourage car dependence (which also means decreasing congestion).

Toronto has a much lower rate for development charges than other areas $9,000 compared to $29,000 in Oakville, for instance. This is due to how the provincial formula is calculated which I’m going to investigate in a future piece, mainly because I don't get it. But it sounds like there’s room to change it there.

Also, that deluxe leaf pickup and windrow clearing sounds suspiciously like gravy.

But mainly, we need to look at alternative revenue sources in conjunction with the province, ensure they upload the services they promised to and push hard on 50/50 subsidies for TTC operations like we used to have.

OK, so let me get this straight. Rob Ford inherited a massive surplus last year, spent it all on tax cuts while not allowing people to talk about next year, has another smaller surplus this year that would still cover all services but insists on not touching it this time while having service cuts or eliminating entire programs for the TTC, libraries, the arts, programs for children, youth, seniors, the homeless, people with AIDS and HIV, 2300 fewer city workers, less street cleaning and snow clearing and dramatically decreased budgets to all city departments except the police and planning?

Um, yeah.

Where can I learn more about the budget and how can I participate?

The city website is a great place to start. This has all of the documents you need to go through.  In particular, make your way through the analyst notes on the 2012 operating budget.  If you want to compare to previous years, just change the year in the address bar.

Also, go to the budget meetings on Wednesday and Thursday at City Hall. There should be lots of people there from 9:30 AM- 9:30 PM both days. Sign up here by Tuesday at 4:00 to make a deputation by e-mailing the address in the top right. If you do so, direct your remarks towards Chin Lee, Michelle Berardinetti, Frank Di Giorgio and John Parker. These are the more moderate councillors who are relatively open-minded.

Also, follow the #topoli hashtag on Twitter, Matt Elliott’s blog Ford For Toronto, Cityslikr’s All Fired Up in the Big Smoke blog, the Openfile, Torontoist and Spacing coverage and the reporters from the four dailies. There’s some other great blogs and columns out there, but I can’t list everything.

Also, e-mail or call your councillor- you can find out who they are here. Ask them questions, develop a more informed opinion, offer suggestions. (You can check out how they vote by looking at Matt Elliott's awesome scorecard here.)  In particular, speak with councillors' Executive Assistants. They can offer really good suggestions for what you can do and any one of them worth their salt should get back within 24 hours. If you want to speak on specific issues within the budget, they can point you in the right direction. 

For particular issues, some councillors are more helpful than others. A quick rundown:

General budget questions: Shelley Carroll and Gord Perks probably have the best understanding of the budget's intricacies on Council. Both answer Twitter questions regularly (@shelleycarroll and @gordperks) and are approachable and accessible at City Hall. 

Arts: Recently swing vote Gloria Lindsay Luby introduced a 20,000 strong arts petition at council and Jaye Robinson (@jayerobinson), another crucial swing vote, is also a supporter. Most any defense of arts programs for council votes needs them behind it. 

Wading Pools and Pools: Swing votes Josh Matlow (@joshmatlow) and James Pasternak (@jamespasternak) were both vocal in support of funding for TDSB pools as trustees, Matlow saying that confronting the issue motivated him to run for council. 

Children's Nutrition Programs, other programs for children: Janet Davis (@janet_davis) and Kristyn Wong-Tam (@kristynwongtam) are both on top of these issues, Davis in particular. Josh Matlow and Michelle Berardinetti (@councillorMB) are the point people defending the Toronto Youth Cabinet. 

Libraries: Libraries will probably have a lot of changes in their reductions between now and the final budget. For now, library board member Jaye Robinson will play a key role. She's a defender of libraries and also a supporter of increased corporate sponsorship. 

TTC: This impacts pretty much everyone, so it makes sense to focus on your region. If you live in North York, tell swing vote James Pasternak how you feel about the Finch bus whereas if you live in midtown contact swing vote Josh Colle to discuss the Eglinton service. If you need background, get in touch with opposition Councillor Joe Mihevc, who I'm sure would be happy to share his thoughts on the TTC and who to speak to. 

Layoffs: Ask your local councillor how this will impact services in the area and what strategies are being used to maintain service. 

With that, I hope you understand the budget slightly better.  


More questions? Criticisms? Leave a comment. 

Recap of October's Council Session

So the October Council session has come and gone and now all that is left is to talk about it until the next session. So why not get started on that with a recap:

Not actually true, but the shark looks comfy. Illustration by Brian Boutin (brianboutin.blogspot.com). You should hire him. 

Getting rid of waste

The big item was outsourcing garbage west of Yonge St, and it was a layup for Team Ford. The Mayor legitimately ran on this issue, had strong support from the public (61% in May), and little sympathy for unions from the 2009 municipal workers strike.

With that said, there was reason to vote against it as details were sparse and inconsistent. Matt Elliot has been covering this issue nicely and provides a good rundown here, the third point of which deserves particular attention (that since waste is paid for through rate-based budgeting, it won’t save money for the operating budget). Edward Keenan also delivers an excellent piece on looking at the price of everything and the value of nothing. He then complements that with another piece looking at how creative thinking which could be termed ‘gravy’ can sometime deliver enormous tangiblereturns.  

In the end, all of the middle councillors lined up behind the motion, but I think there’s a miscalculation of the downside. As Citslikr points out, the $11M savings from this motion should be a promise anchored to them going forward. 22 councillors successfully voted against receiving more information about the bid and a feasibility study was never done (read Josh Hind’s comment on Keenan’s first piece for more on bidding problems). Gloria Lindsay Luby even said, "why bother learning more, it'll pass anyway," essentially giving up on informed governance. 

My reading of this is that either service will suffer noticeably or the bid will not be able to be entirely fulfilled with the current amount of money. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Taking a bite out of animal cruelty

Next up was the vote to ban shark fin soup, of which I’ve posted some thoughts here. After a few hours of debate it overwhelminglypassed, 38-4. The dissent came from Rob Ford, Giorgio Mammoliti, David Shiner and Doug Holyday. Doug Ford and Denzil Minnan-Wong had wandered elsewhere during the vote. For Councillor Ford it’s interesting as he once claimed to be a vegetarian in a Josh Matlow article. Mind you, Matlow had been too trusting with Ford and when Keenan followed up it turned out that he just doesn’t eat cows. In the same article he also claimed him and Rob are 'big time social liberals'. 

Later in the evening Council voted to send Toronto Zoo’s remaining elephants to a sanctuary in California, the item carrying 31-4. Shiner and Holyday were the only ones principled enough to consistently make large grey animals unhappy (you can read more about the issue here, via David Topping).

Civic Appointments

This process hasn’t received too much attention but has been quite contentious. It’s hard to write too much about it as the details of what they’re discussing remain confidential. However, Ford supporters claim the opposition doesn’t know the details and are just trying to beat up on them for political reasons. The opposition claims Team Ford ignored the details of the process and are just trying to pass appointments for political reasons. Really, it’s hard to know where the truth lies in these matters although the indication at last Council meeting that there was essentially no diversity and no members carried over (at the time) was a strong indictment.

It’s one thing to have a limited opinion about the appointments watching the proceedings, but another when you’re a councillor who has heard both sides for hours. A key vote on the appointments came up on a Sarah Doucette motion to send it back to committee. The beeper system rang for votes to be punched in an there sat Jaye Robinson in the wings, avoiding the vote. The final result was a tie, and thus the motion failed.

Here’s the thing: this isn’t how it’s supposed to work. When you’re elected as a civic leader, you look at the arguments and research before you to make the best decision you can. If you are uncomfortable with the leadership and direction of the administration- and she was absent from the mayor’s 1-year anniversary press conference with all of his allies- then you stand up and say why. Or you stand up and justify your support.

She’s proven she can do it too, as she lead the way on the Port Lands and provided her reasoning for dissent.

But leadership isn’t a sometimes-thing. As a politician, it’s a defining characteristic of the role and remains one even if you feel like you might sink or swim.

Your City Council Guide for October 24-25

So it’s another City Council session today, surely to be marked by the usual diplomacy from Speaker Nunziata, graciousness from Councillor Peruzza and compassion from Councillor Mammoliti.

Beyond that, there will be some actual issues too. Here are some highlights and the supporting and dissenting arguments that may accompany them:

Photo by Doug Mo

Outsourcing Garbage West of Yonge

Oh, the Mayor’s featured item! Fancy! John Lorinc and Matt Elliot  have the best analyses of the issue so far. The groundwork for this was laid in April when Council voted on a request for quotations to outsource garbage in zone 2, the area west of Yonge St. Notably, Councillor Matlow successfully passed motions on environmental standards (70% diversion rates) and the savings required for bidders.

The supporting argument: This was a key issue in the Mayor’s platform that voters approved of. It saves the city money too- the Green for Life bid will only cost about $17M per year, more than $10M less than the current collection. They won’t be able to go on strike and we all know from 2009 this is important to Torontonians. Plus, it’s the lowest bid and we are legally encouraged to take that.  Key voice: Denzil Minnan-Wong.

The dissenting argument: The competing bids weren’t looked at in detail and GFL’s was taken simply because it was the lowest. There has not been a feasibility study conducted on their numbers, and they don’t seem to add up. How can GFL outbid its nearest competitor by 15%, a huge difference? How can they claim to be 8% more efficient per tonne compared to the private company that takes care of Etobicoke, a less complicated area? How come when you average out the total cost over seven years without inflation it comes to much more than $17M per year? How come they use a high inflation number per year? For a large contract, we know very little. This requires further study to make a prudent decision. Key Voices: Various.

Banning Shark Fin Soup  

Shark fin soup is considered a Chinese delicacy and served on special occasions such as weddings and banquets. It’s a status symbol of sorts and has a big impact, having been named as a chief reason for the declining shark population worldwide.

The supporting argument: Moral leadership starts with sacrifices and as a city that cares about its impact around the world and setting an example for others, Toronto can lead the way. It’s an opportunity to do the right thing, as the devastating impact that barbaric shark finning has on ecosystems around the world is profound.

California has shown it’s possible and we have to be a leader for Canada. It’s not necessarily easy being early on an issue, but it’s not necessarily easy to be right. Key voice: Kristyn Wong-Tam.

The dissenting argument: There’s a lot of information we don’t know. There’s a good chance a lawsuit will follow, so what’s the legal liability going to be like for the city? What’s the impact on Chinese restaurateurs in the city? In a bad economy, will they lose significant business to the surrounding area? Plus, it’s not up to the government to dictate the norms of Chinese culture. Key voice: Doug Holyday.

Status of  Citizen Committees

Remember when Team Ford announced it was scrapping the citizen committees of volunteer advisors? Maybe not, because it happened back in April. It came to Council in May and with some amendments was sent back to the Mayor. The Mayor’s office was tasked with delivering a report on the committees, essentially to justify their elimination. The report was supposed to come back in July but didn’t. Today there will be an update on the status of this report. 

The supporting argument (to eliminate): We need to look at all aspects of how we manage costs and efficiency, and these committees are a waste of staff time, which is limited and costly. We can do outreach through the Internet and other resources. Additionally, some of these committees are way past the time when they were useful. Key voice: Giorgio Mammoliti

The dissenting argument: The mayor campaigned on open and transparent government that engages in real community consultation. These are good promises, and these are good committees. They provide meaningful channels to connect City Hall to passionate, everyday experts in communities around the city. These people provide the civic energy and fresh ideas that makes our city more livable and vibrant for it. Key voice: Sarah Doucette.

Update: Rob Ford's office responded to Sarah Doucette by letter and Council will consider this issue in full in February. 

Increase the Fine on Illegal Parking During Rush Hour

Josh Matlow’s motion seeks to increase the fine from $60 to $500 for illegally parking during rush hour to make a delivery or grab a cup of coffee. The current law isn’t really enforced and the motivation is that by increasing the fine and making it more visible people will comply.

The supporting argument: Delivery companies’ rights don’t trump commuters rights. We’ve all been in the situation where two lanes are traffice are reduced to one because of one selfish person going in to grab coffee for five minutes. We need to improve congestion for everyone, and part of that is improving the behaviour of the few people who currently flout the law. Key voice: Josh Matlow.

The dissenting argument: The existing law is sufficient, it just needs to be enforced more often and with some common sense. Furthermore, we can’t be targeting small businesses who need to make their deliveries. They’re the ones that support the community with jobs and services and going out of our way to make things more difficult for them makes it more difficult for everyone. Key voice: Doug Ford.   

Make EMS an Essential Service

A lot of people might be surprised that this is not currently an essential service. EMS has a limited right to strike, where 25% of its workers can strike at any given time.

The supporting argument: EMS workers save lives around Toronto every day and are essential to protecting the welfare and well-being of the city. During the municipal workers strike, the response time for EMS dropped by 50 seconds per call. This is critical time for critical situations. If the TTC is an essential service, then so too is EMS. Key voice: Gloria Lindsay Luby.

The dissenting argument: While EMS workers are invaluable and important, making them an essential service is tough for a city in austerity mode. Key voices: Unknown.

Continuation of Civic Appointments

This topic was fairly contentious last time with accusations and aspersions being frequently cast. The city is continuing the process of appointing individuals to various boards This is done in the early stages of each Council term.

The supporting argument: These are qualified individuals who want to contribute to the city. The committee has went through a very thorough process to vet candidates, using much of their summer to do so. The opposition is trying to make this a political issue and in the process is undermining the candidates and discouraging future candidates from participating next time. Key voices: Michael Thompson, James Pasternak.

The dissenting argument: The proper process was not followed. The city has a mandate to include minority voices to represent the makeup of the city. Judging by the numbers so far, this has not been the case. Instead, individuals seen to be politically friendly have been appointed to key positions despite having little to no experience in the area. Additionally, there’s a lack of continuation from previous board members to help train newcomers and ease any transition pains. This is a straightforward task and it is stunning that it has been botched like it has. Key voices: Adam Vaughan, Gord Perks.  

Endorsing Peaceful Occupy Toronto Protests

In the past little while the Occupy protests have taken root in cities around the world, including downtown Toronto. It’s been going for over a week now and has been peaceful thus far.

The supporting argument: The Occupy movement is largely about giving a voice back to the majority of people who feel underrepresented. This is an ethic that should resonate at City Hall, where we all pledge to do our best to look out for every constituent and make sure they are fairly treated. Additionally, the peacefulness that has characterized the Toronto protest is to be commended. Key Voice: Gord Perks.

The dissenting argument: While it’s great that people feel passionate enough to voice their opinion, it’s not up to City Hall to lend credibility to one group or another. They have to do that on their own merits, and we’re confident that citizens can judge the protests for themselves. Key Voices: Various?

Other issues: Pepsi License Agreement for city vending machines, TCHC provincial tax amendment, Carbon Credit Policy Revenues, Licensing of Household Movers

Snapshot of a Council in Flux

Peter Power / GLOBE AND MAIL

Tuesday featured a rash of Council votes on the Core Service Review which cumulatively cut (or set the stage to cut) about $27.6 million in annual spending. The merits of these cuts have been discussed fairly extensively and will continue to be so, but yesterday’s votes provide a detailed snapshot of the political state of Council.

Looking at yesterday’s votes that state can best be described as murky. I know, not the most satisfying conclusion to draw, but let’s look at the evidence.

Matt Elliott did his thing again and tallied all of the motions yesterday in this Google Spreadsheet, which I urge you to check out. I think he’ll also have some analysis at his site later on, so just keep on punching F5 there.  

First, a quick summary. Team Ford lost 11 votes, and some in dramatic fashion (39-6 on comparing how other municipalities have responded to downloading, 37-8 on reporting on full list of revenue options at budget launch). Others were much closer- half of the opposition wins had 23-25 votes (23 are needed for a majority). Some of these votes will only have a small impact on the process but others- particularly the vote to not privatize the Toronto Parking Authority- quietly have a big impact.

More importantly, seven of the mayor’s whipped votes lost. This suggests that the mayor’s once firm grip on councillors is slowly growing weaker on individual issues. It’s very difficult to regain that strength—once councillors have a sense of independence it’s hard to bring them back in the fold. Council even overruled Speaker Frances Nunziata three times over the course of the two day session.  

Looking at which councillors broke from the mayor’s agenda can give us an idea of what’s to come. Chief among these councillors is Etobicoke’s Gloria Lindsay Luby, who is perhaps most famous for being referred to by then-councillor Rob Ford as a ‘waste of skin’. Going into this Council debate she had an 87.5% Ford rating on important Council votes. Of the 11 votes Ford lost Tuesday, she only voted with him on one. Executive committee member Jaye Robinson voted against Ford whipped votes eight times and North York conservative James Pasternak did so seven times.

There were good signs for Ford though. TTC Chair Karen Stintz, who not too long ago appeared to be on the outs with Team Ford, voted with the Mayor on whipped votes all but two times. Granted, one of those times was on the Toronto Parking Authority, but she has been a good soldier for the team lately.

Despite the ‘wins’ by the left, most items were cut. All told, $27.6 million out of $30 million or so was cut. From a Ford perspective, this is a win. Yet there were around $100 million in cuts on the table just a few weeks ago, most of which will wind up being deferred into bureaucratic black holes. Put another way, the budget cuts from Tuesday represent a $30 car registration fee or 0.3% of the overall budget, or $10 from every Toronto resident.

It’s hard to argue that cutting $27.6 million from the budget is what is going to ensure structural sustainability. Every little bit helps, but it comes at a price in terms of both livability for Torontonians and politically for Team Ford. After all, it’s a hard sell to say you’re thoughtfully looking out for the welfare of Torontonians when you’re cutting the Hardship Fund that subsidizes medicine for low-income seniors and cutting the Christmas bureau that coordinates donated gifts for needy children.

This was not the gravy you were looking for. Unfortunately for Ford, the choices only get harder from here as they'll impact a wider variety of people.

As Council goes through an uncertain period with alignment and policies in flux the question will be who can best frame those decisions. Did the Mayor and his allies get 90% of his their cuts or 27% of them? Did Team Ford make the tough decisions to balance the budget or are they making the easy choices on the backs of the poor and marginalized? Was the Mayor’s team able to win an impressive number of votes (40 of 52) or lose an impressive amount (it’s unusual to lose 12 votes in a day)?

Granted, it will be tough for Ford to frame the debate in a positive light when he’s talking about tough cuts. Doing so would be impressive, especially considering the fact that he’s used the same rhetoric since he started to run for mayor. An updated narrative is needed as councillors and constituents demand more about how these cuts will impact their lives.  

Just like the budget, the optics and direction of council is in an indeterminate position. The challenge for both sides is to best frame those choices as new information arises so people can buy into their vision of the city. 

The Port Lands Timeline

From an out of nowhere Waterfront proposal to a midnight consensus the Port Lands has taken a lot of twists and turns in the quick month since it became an issue. In the interest of looking back and preserving those details, here is a timeline of how it happened:

August 25: Waterfront activists hear rumours that there will be imminent action on the Port Lands. 


August 26: At 4:15 on Friday, Port Lands item EX 9.6 is announced on the city website for the next Executive Committee meeting. 


August 27-28: On the weekend, speculation mounts as to what the Ford plans for the Port Lands are. Initial guesses include an NFL stadium at the RL Hearn site. 


August 29: After the weekend, the daily newspapers pay more attention to the Waterfront issue and it's generally not positive.


August 30: In an effort to gain public support Doug Ford is sent to pitch his vision to the media. With only rumours surrounding it earlier, he takes to Metro Morning, Newstalk 1010, AM640, CP24 and CTV to articulate his plan for a Ferris wheel, monorail and mega-mall. 


Predictably, Twitter reacts negatively. Laurence Lui (@larrylarry) starts the hashtag #CodeBlueTO to organization opposition. It will be the name of a quickly mobilized group of activists organized to support the current Waterfront vision.   


August 31: Doug Ford refers to his backroom meetings with developers as 'backroom vision'.


September 1: Torontoist contributor and Animaniacs enthusiast Jaime Woo creates a video to dispute Doug Ford's claim in his Metro Morning interview that aside from the Eaton's Centre there is nowhere to shop downtown (and thus a mega-mall is needed). 


September 2: John Tory and Julia Deans of Civic Action release a letter urging community consultation and cooperation with Waterfront Toronto. 


September 5: A formal complaint is lodged with the integrity commissioner over Doug Ford meeting with Australian mall developer Westfield without them registering as a lobbyist. 


September 6: The day of the Executive Committee meeting where architect Eric Kuehne's video and PowerPoint presentation is given (see eye candy designs here). There is strong opposition in the room, including critical deputations from former Chief City Planner Paul Bedford, waterfront activist and lawyer Cindy Wilkey and waterfront academics Gene Desfor and Jennefer Laidley.   


During the lunch break Councillor Adam Vaughan organizes an impromptu informational media session with Waterfront Toronto's John Campbell, Mark Wilson and Wilkey. 


The executive unanimously approves the motion to be sent to council, but executive Councillor Jaye Robinson is noticeably absent from the room at the time of the vote. 

Eric Kuehne's Ford Vision

September 7: After being critical at the executive committee and on Twitter, centrist councillor and critical vote Josh Matlow indicates in an online letter he will not be supporting the Ford vision. 


September 8: Mayor Ford gives a classic quote, that trees in the Port Lands are nice but a mega-mall is better because, "That tree can't employ anybody".


September 9: Waterfront Toronto officials indicate to the Globe that the Ford vision might cost $270 million more than the current plan. 


September 12: Ivor Tossell writes a very good piece for the Toronto Standard comparing Doug Ford to an 1860s prospector.


September 14: A very bad poll comes out that puts Ford's approval rating at 42% following the waterfront vision and KPMG cuts being in the news. 


Also today, The mayor's chief of staff, Amir Remtulla, writes a letter accusing Waterfront Toronto CEO John Campbell of a 'serious breach'. This is in response to a question about the pace of development and that he has to turn away offers because, "We cannot do deals behind closed doors". 

September 15: Jaye Robinson becomes the first member of the Executive Committee to defect over the Port Lands. Later in the evening TTC chair Karen Stintz posts a letter to constituents indicating the same thing as well as executive councillor Michelle Berardinetti. Deputy Speaker John Parker will later join them while executive councillor Peter Milczyn sends out a 1300 word e-mail to constituents explaining that he will support the mayor's vision but encourages compromise and cooperation.    


Also today, Richard Florida, Richard Sommer, Paul Bedford, Eric Miller and other leading Toronto academics, planners, architects, engineers and thinkers hold a press conference and release a letter to strongly criticize the Ford vision for the waterfront. 


CodeBlueTO also releases a comprehensive reality check and announces that they have reached their goal of 2,500 signatures. They would go on to collect 7000. 


September 16: A massive poll of 13,000 is commissioned by CUPE 79 that shows only 27% of voters would vote for Rob Ford tomorrow. The poll is ostensibly about the KPMG cuts but is further proof of Ford's declining popularity. 


September 18: Doug Ford had cancelled his guest spot on Josh Matlow's weekly radio show a few days earlier and Goldsbie teased on Twitter that Matlow would have story to share related to it on-air before 2:00. Matlow then related an exchange that while Ford had cancelled on his show he would do it the following week if he voted 'yes' on the Ford Port Land vision. Saying that he didn't do horse-trading, Ford allegedly responded that 'everyone has their price'. 


Minutes later Ford angrily calls into the show to correct what he feels are inaccuracies. He then inaccurately says that planner Ken Greenberg is married to Adam Vaughan's executive assistant and claims he feels bullied by Janet Davis. The whole thing is alternately bizarre and amazing (last five minutes of Sept 18, part one and first half of part two). 


Sensing that they have the political leverage, CodeBlueTO releases a 'no compromise' message to councillors, Waterfront Toronto and TPLC. They insist on the approved Lower Don Lands vision for river naturalization, Waterfront Toronto as the lead agency and to use the existing environmental assessments and research while recognizing the need for some sort of deal. All of these priorities will be realized in the final deal.  


September 19: While most eyes are on the marathon KPMG core service review Executive Committee meeting, John Lorinc writes an excellent Spacing article on the case to be made for measured compromise on the waterfront as Waterfront Toronto will still have to work with the mayor if the Ford vision loses on the 21st. 


September 20: Late in the day, word breaks that a 'consensus' agreement has been reached. The consensus is worked on until midnight and seems to have heavy involvement from councillors Fletcher and McConnell (whose wards include the Port Lands) and executive members Milczyn and Thompson.  


The consensus defers all governance 'enhancements' proposed for TPLC from the Ford vision and requires further financial and environmental assessment to be done with increased city coordination and a report to be completed for May or June. It also calls for an 'accelerated' timeline but avoids specifications. 


CodeBlueTO holds a public event "Behind Closed Doors" to raise awareness for the issue. They deliver their petition to City Hall and Pam McConnell and Paula Fletcher sing "Behind Closed Doors". In their three week campaign CodeBlue's website received 20,000 hits. 


September 21: The consensus agreement unanimously passes. Councillors and citizens in the audience cheer each other. The mayor goes up to his brother, shakes his hand and has a short conversation with him. 

The scene after the consensus vote with Rob talking to Doug and the crowd cheering.
Photo credit: A Goldsbie production

Correction (10:00 AM Sept. 22): An earlier version of this post incorrectly had the name 'Jamie Woo' rather than the correct and updated 'Jaime Woo'. I regret the error and thanks to Geoff Gilmour-Taylor for pointing it out.