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. 

Ford Math and Honesty

The refrain is said often from Team Ford: Toronto needs to take a real look at its numbers. It’s said so often that this is essentially the drumbeat of the administration.

So far, the most notable numbers to emerge are the $774 million deficit and 35% potential property tax hike. What’s particularly notable about these is how disingenuous and stretched they are.

To be sure, the $774 million number was at one point true. But Team Ford steadfastly refused to update it in the light of new information. Instead, they used the original assumption because it suited their purposes rather than reflecting the real change.

Likewise, the 35% property tax canard was conjured out of thin air. Calculated by dividing $774M by the expected revenue a 1% property tax generates ($22M), a 34% number is reached. Of course, it ignores any user fees, real savings and the land transfer tax among other things as John McGrath points out in the above link. So this number is not real either.

To give the benefit of the doubt, let’s say they knew these were fictional but were just using them as props to whip departments to generate real improvements. Sure, they may be playing games now, but that’s only because they want real results.

With that idea, let’s look at the police budget, of which the Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale has provided the best analysis.

The police budget last year was $930.4M, around 85% of that in salaries and benefits. Legitimately, Police Chief Bill Blair had some issues with reducing the department by 10% after a sizable salary increase the Mayor brags about (11.5% over four years).

Now, that police budget process is a long one. There’s a starting point in the spring and they decide on a number and then slowly it gets slightly less after a few proposals. But keep in mind that $930.4M number, the comparison for last year.

The starting point in 2012 was $979M, and through subsequent proposals was lowered to $969.7M, then $944.5M. It’s the latter that the Mayor most recently balked it and it was correctly characterized as a 1.6% budget increase over the $930M in spite of a call to reduce the budget by $93M from the starting point. Finally, the Chief came back with his last proposal, $936.3M. Now you may think this represents a slight increase over last year (0.63%), and you’d be right. 

Here’s how the numbers look:

But that’s not Ford Math. Because in spite of the police spending more money, they claim it’s a 4.6% cut. Ford ally and Police Services Board Member France Nunziata is quoted in Dale's piece as saying, “It’s a huge reduction.” So where do they get this 4.6% cut from? Well, they changed the assumptions because it suits them. Instead of comparing the police budget to last year’s, they compared it to the $979M starting request. Just a week ago this was not the basis for discussion. But now the police give us this work, changing the assumptions, and rather lazily so:

If $979M was the real starting point, why use $93M as the 10% reduction number?

Purely from the negotiating standpoint of reductions and leaving aside value, it would be akin to going to a car dealer and looking at a $20,000 car. You say you want 10% off, or $18,000. The dealer says they want 5% more, or $21,000. You settle for $20,120 because that’s a 4.6% cut from what he wanted, a real deal!

You can feel like you were a good negotiator and sell it to all your friends that way. But really, when you look at your bank account, the savings aren’t there.

Slightly different but related, Matt Elliott takes a good look at the bid process to outsource garbage collection west of Yonge St. The winning bid, Green For Life, sounds promising- it’s only $17M, which is more than $10M less than the previous cost. Matt has a great breakdown of all the numbers, but it begs the question: how is this possible?

GFL outbid their nearest competition by 15%, a huge number when you consider the margins of the business. Their bid also suggests they can collect waste 7.8% more efficiently per tonne than the private collector in Etobicoke, also an eyebrow-raiser. If it’s all true and it’s the same level of service, then that’s great. But are there hidden costs or liabilities? Until we see real results, there are some worthwhile questions to be asked.

Once upon a time, the core members of Team Ford derided the Miller administration for hiding numbers and costs and urged the city to have a real conversation about the budget numbers and value for services. 

You want to have an honest conversation about the budget? Great. But for that, honesty is needed. 

Rob Ford on not turning that dial

Following the results of a provincial election Rob Ford spoke with Metro Morning’s Matt Galloway this morning and insisted nothing had changed (Transcript from NOW here, CBC audio here).

In a way, Ford couldn’t say much. He couldn’t say that he really wanted Tim Hudak to win and dislikes that the balance of power is held by the New Democrats or that his relationship with Dalton McGuinty might now change. Instead, he fell back on his previous rhetoric, which is really the rhetoric of every radio interview he’s given for a year (see below for a word cloud of his topics).

He stuck with his $774 million number, insisted that cutting the $70 million vehicle registration tax was a savings to the city, that taxpayers wouldn’t be burdened with financing the Sheppard subway line and that the KPMG recommendations were efficiencies, not cuts.

So while the power dynamic at Queen’s Park has changed Ford’s rhetoric really hasn’t. To be fair, he mentioned TTC operating subsidies more in this interview than he has in the past but this was something Galloway specifically asked.

Savvy politicians are ones that are able to adapt to new and unique circumstances. They can read the changing situation, frame concerns into opportunities and use these skills to both govern and seek partnerships with others (other levels of government, businesses, community groups). Ford, however, is not one of these politicians.

Matt Galloway: Awesome Interviewer

As this interview and others shows, there’s little acknowledgement of the changes around him. He goes so far as to deny existing problems and his role in them, claiming that it’s factually incorrect that David Miller left him a surplus (he did).

All of this poses a problem for Toronto. The city is in a great place to have some real leverage at Queen’s Park. Negotiation of bills will be between a centrist and left-wing party that are both more predisposed to cities than the conservatives. Not only that, they’re parties that need to look to Toronto for electoral success; the Liberals to maintain their seats and the NDP for any future growth as the north and cities like Hamilton have as much representation as they’ll get. Bear in mind that when the NDP and Liberals last shared power federally, the “New Deal for Cities” was launched (and subsequently dismissed with the conservatives). In fact, it’s a project that Toronto-Centre MPP Glen Murray advocated before then as mayor of Winnipeg .

While there’s uncertainty as to what the new provincial alignment means for Toronto, that also means there’s opportunity. Will the NDP prioritize their promise to return TTC operating subsidies to 1990 levels? Will the Liberals say no to a restriction on TTC fare increases? How will they negotiate uploading? All of these questions are great chances for the mayor to work with the province, but they require the ability to seize opportunity, promote smart investment and facilitate negotiations. This is not the mayor’s strong suit and it’s not a place where Council can effectively work around him.

Later on in the interview Galloway changed gears and asked one of his trademark soft, personal questions that can yield insightful answers, “What do you love about Toronto”?

The mayor responded:

This is a great city. We’ve cleaned it up. There’s less graffiti than there was a year ago, it’s a cleaner city than there was a year ago.

He went on to say that the city has been cleaned up and connecting this to the idea of a ‘very, very prosperous year’ for the city (despite the supposed financial disaster).

The rhetoric is consistent, as Ford has always criticized graffiti. However, it’s unfortunate that Ford didn’t do something more with the moment. It was an opportunity presented by Galloway to say something more than the usual, to connect his personal experience of the city to a larger vision of what it can be. He could sell listeners on what that vision might be, get them to buy-in to the value of it like he will have to do with McGuinty and Howarth.

But he didn’t. He went with the talking points, the ones that got him elected, the same ones that have him at alarmingly low poll numbers. Without Ford’s style changing it’s unlikely Toronto will be able to realize the full potential of its new relationship with Queen’s Park.

Consistency can be admirable in a politician, but constancy is not. Sadly for Toronto, it’s a characteristic that inhibits capitalizing on opportunity and, in this case, limits a vision for the city to mere static.   

The Unfortunate Four Year Campaign

Over at Ford For Toronto, Matt Elliott has a typically good blog post in which he explores the limited effectiveness of the mayor’s office in messaging, strategy and governance. He writes:

But the people he needs to craft that message appear not to have the capacity to do so….If the mayor needs an example of why cutting staff or resources from a department might be a bad thing, he’s got one viewable from his own desk.

Elliott argues that the difficulty his office has had in governance is largely self-inflicted from a lack of staffing, and I’d agree. To that I’d add something else, and that’s the modality of campaigning versus governing.

For starters, I think it’s safe to say that Ford is better at campaigning than governing. Ford was particularly effective at getting people to buy into abstract ideas like “the gravy train”, “the size and cost of government” and “respect for taxpayers”. However, when in governance those abstract concepts must become specific. When you ask someone ‘do you support reducing the size and cost of government’ you’ll get a different answer than asking ‘do you support eliminating 2000 daycare spaces, reducing affordable housing and library hours’. When in a campaign format, you can stick to the larger ideas and themes to create a narrative. When governing, the questions become re-framed.

Ford’s Core Service Review has retained the trappings of a campaign out of necessity. Simply put, as the CUPE 79 poll showed, the proposed cuts aren’t popular and to pass them they need to be kept in abstract terms.

On the floor of council and in media addresses Ford still uses the same stump speech he used on the campaign, invoking the ‘mess of the previous regime’, ‘the out of control spending problem’ and ‘unfair Toronto land transfer tax’. While this is enough to satisfy the demands of campaigning, it is not enough for governing. The most damning thing is Team Ford boxed themselves into this corner through their conduct of the Core Service Review.

The gambit for the Core Service Review was to not commit to anything until necessary. This leaves all options on the table to see what could viably be cut from a political perspective.

The problem is that this engages all constituencies. Whereas previous issues (the TCHC board, outsourcing garbage collection, Jarvis bike lanes) only engaged small, individual constituencies, the Core Service Review impacts everyone. Naturally, these groups and the media demanded more specifics and the results weren’t good.

If you’re going to insist on waging a campaign on cutting city services, you have to convince people you’re doing it in a mindful, thorough and prudent manner. This was not the case. Sticking to the abstraction of ideology, Team Ford pursued cuts without understanding the impact of revenue or how citizen’s value those services.

Moreover, they reveled in this process. This was seen most clearly in Doug Ford’s initial assault on the Toronto Public Library system. A well used and respected resource, the TPL is often referred to as the ‘crown jewel’ of the city. Yet Ford went about criticizing the number of libraries (and falsely bemoaning the number of Tim Horton’s) and engaging in a ridiculous war of words with Margaret Atwood. He even suggested a library in his own ward was unneeded.

If the libraries could be attacked then any service, no matter how well respected or run, was under threat. The mayor, his council allies and staff failed to sell the public on the idea they conducted their due process with an open mind, understood the concerns of critics and articulated their message through an acknowledgment that these are difficult decisions that must be made.

Everyone is still on high alert. It’s seen in children being brought to council last Thursday to highlight the need for affordable childcare to the various organizing groups coordinating people at City Hall today. The proposals are still vague- when the motion to eliminate the lowest performing museums comes up, no one knows which museums those are. No one knows what the ‘where possible’ in the motion to reduce paid duty police officers means. No one knows how much money each recommendation would save, although taken altogether it might be $30 million (or 0.3% of the budget).

The failure of the Core Service Review- which Mayor Ford referred to today as an ‘excellent exercise’- is an indictment of governance.

By not changing the mode of operation through an understanding of changing context and needs Team Ford has guaranteed itself and Toronto self-inflicted wounds. Governance is more than rhetoric, it’s the real stuff of getting things done. It’s hard work through relationship management, smart policy and leadership.

Today we see the consequences of an administration that governs with the forethought, policy abstraction and combativeness of a campaign. These consequences are severe: a city at odds with itself, distrustful of its institutions and anxiously lurching from crisis to crisis.

My Second Favourite Vote From Yesterday's Council Meeting

The logical thing to write about today would be the landmark Waterfront defeat of Ford’s agenda but since I’ve already written my first thoughts I’ll move on to my second favourite vote of the day. Before getting to what that is, some context is needed.

There are some regular criticisms of City Council’s left that are agreed to by many: they have no solutions, only want to pick fights and revel in opposition. Doug Ford alluded to some of these criticisms when he called in to Josh Matlow’s radio show last Sunday, “I get bullied by Adam Vaughan, Janet Davis and Gord Perks,” he said. “Rob could come out and say he had the cure for cancer and the left would come out criticizing him”. Matlow somewhat agreed, saying there are some individuals that wouldn’t agree with the mayor no matter what he did.

Matlow’s response is an important distinction. ‘The left’ is not a monolithic voting bloc that thinks the same way (as with the right wing of council). Adam Vaughan is not Shelley Carroll and she is not Mike Layton. Council is filled with very different personalities and one of these that diverge from the Ford caricature of the left is Kristyn Wong-Tam.

Toronto Life/JoeyS4B

Rookie councillor Wong-Tam (read more about her in this excellent Toronto Standard profile ) has acquitted herself as one of the hardest-working councillors and through that has offered workable solutions. She has put together proposals in conjunction with the local BIA to revitalize Yonge and Dundas north to Gerard and was working on a plan to develop Jarvis into a cultural corridor before the bike lanes were unceremoniously cancelled.

It is the latter case where Wong-Tam was first undermined by Denzil Minnan-Wong. The chair of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, Minnan-Wong spearheaded the removal of the Jarvis bike lanes that was done without notice to local councillor Wong-Tam or community consultation.

Two weeks ago it happened again. Minnan-Wong, once again without notice to Wong-Tam, put forward a proposal to study the Yonge-Dundas pedestrian scramble. She stated she was okay with the idea of looking at it (even though it means it’s clearly under threat) but was again frustrated with ulterior motives and the lack of notice to her (giving notice to the local councillor is considered proper etiquette). Minnan-Wong responded in an interview with the Toronto Star that described him as dismissively saying with a smile, “A-gain? Poor Kristyn.” and on Metro Morning argued that Wong-Tam’s objections were disingenuous.

Which brings us to yesterday’s council meeting. As with the Jarvis bike lanes, Minnan-Wong was scheduled to speak last and introduced a last minute amendment (this time to consult with the TTC, but not riders). In his speech, he referred to Dundas St.:      

 “There’s been a lot of discussion about the process and how notice is required and notice has to be given and somehow councillors’ rights have been abridged or sacrificed. I can tell you, they have not. No rule has been broken, no member has raised an objection, I have not received any complaints from the integrity commissioner…. One member of council has been complaining that they were somehow injured or the community not notified, but I can tell you, quite frankly, it is not my job to do the work of other councillors for them.”

Minnan-Wong goes on to argue that accommodations were available if they were asked for. If she- he then stopped himself to say 'they'- had requested to specially speak at committee, he would have allowed it. Until the rules change, everything was proper.

Wong-Tam spoke on a point of privilege to point out that the report at the committee level did not touch her ward and the suggestion that she should have been there out of interest is disingenuous. She objected to Minnan-Wong suggesting that she isn’t doing her job to which Minnan-Wong said that ‘I never said that’. John Parker, acting as speaker, agreed because no particular councillor was mentioned by name.

Which bring us to my second favourite vote of the day. After Wong-Tam lost a challenge to the speaker’s ruling there was a vote to extend Minnan-Wong’s speaking time.

Here’s how it went (apologies for the blurry screencap):

In spite of Minnan-Wong’s personal attack, the procedural shenanigans he has pulled, and the lack of courtesy he has shown, Wong-Tam chose to extend his time. No one would have batted an eye if she chose to vote against it but instead she decided to rise above it.

It’s a really small thing, but that’s why it’s worth mentioning. These acts of courtesy don’t really go noticed but they are what collectively ensure civility and integrity in our discourse. They defy the stereotype that casts aspersions on certain ‘types’ of councillors and they’re things that Denzil Minnan-Wong could hopefully appreciate. 


On a day when Kumbaya was ironically sung by councillors Wong-Tam quietly embraced the spirit. 


It’s not quite the same as beating a monorail-megamall-ferris wheel, but it’s worth celebrating. 

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.

Political Implications for Ford's Sinking Port Lands Vision

For better or worse, you likely won't see this on the Port Lands

In advance of Wednesday's City Council vote a 'consensus' has been reached on the motion to hand over control of the Port Lands from Waterfront Toronto to the Toronto Port Lands Company to be sold to developers. 


The Toronto Star's David Rider has more reporting here and CodeBlueTO co-founder Laurence Lui has a brief summary here. 


The consensus promises an 'accelerated' timeline with Waterfront Toronto in the lead and 'more co-operation' with TPLC. I put 'accelerated' and 'more co-operation' in quotes because it remains to be seen what concrete actions these refer to and how they will be enforced. 


Apparently a range of councillors from opposition to centrists to Ford allies worked on the consensus and must be pretty tired after yesterday's 19 hour meeting. Which councillors took the lead in developing the motion will likely come out in due time and they'll get some hard-earned political points. 


While details about the consensus (note, not a 'compromise') are sparse, it's never to early to speculate on the political ramifications. 


Ford loses here and loses big. When details emerge it will be interesting to hear the level of involvement the mayor's office had in building the consensus although my guess is that it's low to negligible. 


Both Rob and Doug shot themselves in the foot on this item and shot themselves many times. They made this a flashy, high visibility issue which drew attention to themselves and the lack of transparency that brought them to this point. The megamall-monorail-ferris wheel plan alternately looked like a flight of fancy on the back of a napkin or a series of backroom, opaque steps. Either way confirmed the worst public suspicions of their governance style. 


Moreover, as Goldsbie said on Josh Matlow's radio show The City, the Fords have seemed to lose control of the narrative. Even after the disastrous launch of the Ford Waterfront Vision, they had a series of miscues in trying to sell their pitch. 


The Mayor had his absurd Fordian line that trees may be nice but they don't employ people. His office also slammed Waterfront Toronto CEO John Campbell for rather harmlessly explaining why he doesn't have private developers line up, that his organization legally, "cannot do deals behind closed doors". There was an official complaint about Doug Ford meeting with Westfield without it going in the lobbyist registry. Then there was Doug cancelling on Matlow's show- allegedly to get Matlow's vote on the issue- and then calling in to, among other things, dismiss noted planner Ken Greenberg for being married to Adam Vaughan's executive assistant (he's not) and complain that Janet Davis bullies him.


The 'consensus-builders' look all the better by contrast. From the vocal left to centrists like Matlow, who took an early and forceful stand on the issue, they come out on the winning end of history. It's particularly good for individuals like Jaye Robinson, Michelle Berardinetti and Karen Stintz, Ford allies who showed a willingness to say no. 


More than any individual political capital won from this issue- and yes, this article ignores the huge benefit of keeping the better Waterfront Toronto plan- is the demonstration that a broad coalition of councillors is workable at City Hall. 


The breadth of this consensus will likely not be a regular occurrence, but at the very least it indicates there's a willingness to work beyond the mayor when needed on key issues. This should embolden all councillors to say no and force the mayor's office to either consult more broadly and openly with council or risk having the mayor further marginalized. 


While it's a nice victory- one that will probably be remembered next election when people say, 'Hey, remember that crazy monorail-megamall thing?'- it's not over yet. According to Marcus Gee, Doug Ford has expressed an interest in a Board of Directors seat with Waterfront Toronto. It's conceivable they'll try this again in a different way. 


The lesson to be learned from all of this is that skepticism of the administration is good, the governance style of the mayor's office is publicly and internally seen as bad and in the absence of change a broad coalition is an achievable better way.