To recap: Last month, Mayor Ford’s executive committee voted to discuss transit funding only after hearing how Metrolinx wanted to proceed. Many councillors correctly rejected this out of hand, feeling instead that it behooved the city to choose how it would tax those who live within its limits to pay for new transit initiatives. Basically, the province is giving us a plan and the money, and asking for input. As city manager Joe Pennachetti put it: “It’s incumbent to say no to certain tools and yes to others. Or they may choose tools you don’t like.” Getting transit funding on the agenda at council was an achievement, but it was supposed to be a precursor to even more successes.
Before the meeting, I was hanging with some city hall commentators and it was suggested that we might see a watershed moment in council. Perhaps those councillors planning on a mayoral run might step up and take charge on this file. Perhaps their allies might be revealed. It would be a day to remember, we mused.
Well, it was a curious day - and that's about it.
There was a loose, distracted feeling in the chambers. People all over were making jokes, laughing, jeering. On Tuesday, Speaker Nunziata threatened to kick people out of the gallery if the noise continued, so observers waved – get this – jazz hands to silently cheer on certain councillors. (This happened a few times over the course of the Tuesday and Wednesday sessions.) But despite the gesture, yesterday’s meeting was loud and Nunziata had to, yet again, quiet everyone down like a headmistress. During times like this I look over at the school children – who often travel to city hall to see civics in action as part of the curriculum – and I wonder if they don’t feel like they never left the classroom. Even Ford – who could most certainly be crowned the class clown – kept darting in and out as if he was a student roaming the halls during a prolonged bathroom break.
I don’t mind using up my word count to describe the sideshow aspects of Wednesday’s meeting because there wasn’t much else. Also, to treat an article with more respect than councillors show the items on the agenda feels somehow inappropriate. When they did talk about transit, it was a conversation between two parties who would never overlap if represented in a Venn diagram.
The Scarborough councillors suggested that getting taxpayers to fund transit expansion was an affront. Councillor Ford called it a blank cheque we’re handing to the province. Councillor Bailao argued that taxing $860 a household when there’s $6 billion lost in the economy to gridlock every year constitutes respect for the taxpayer, especially when a survey found 92 per cent of citizens are willing to pay more taxes if the money is used explicitly and solely for expanded transit.
Many Scarborough councillors expressed a desire for a subway expansion, but only if it went to - you guessed it - Scarborough. They also don’t oppose taxes in theory – only when they feel they’re being short-changed in the process. The councillors pushed on for this, even though the meeting’s agenda was to hammer out which revenue tools the city would recommend to the province, not what to do with them.
Here’s a good moment to clarify something that may sway the vote: The “Downtown Relief Line” is a poorly-chosen name because not only does it make councillors outside of the downtown core feel ignored, but also because the line is about connecting people to the core who don’t live there. The people who live downtown already have a subway line – it’s called the subway. But not only is density increasing on these lines, the lines are extending north, increasing ridership along the same track. Clearly, the system needs a relief point, but if the line was named after where it’s going to instead of the one version of its intended purpose, it may be more palatable to councillors who feel excluded. And not just out of branding, but it’d be a more precise label, a much better reason. Credit to Desmond Cole at Torontoist for putting this idea in my mind.
Anyway, among Metrolinx’s (the province’s) proposed revenue tools (taxes), a parking levy was most popular among those surveyed. But, curiously, corporate tax options weren’t on the list. Councillor Davis asked why, and Pennachetti answered, unconvincingly: “When we weighed pros and cons, we decided it wasn’t the way to go.” (Davis noted there was no analysis in the report.) Councillor Perks followed up this line, asking why, according to Pennachetti’s own definition of progressive tax, none of his measures met that standard. “In retrospect, we shouldn’t have dropped it,” he replied.
By this time, many councillors were gone, and those who remained looked bored. In the end, the meeting wasn’t only useless but it didn’t even finish. Debates continue today, ensuring nothing will probably get done, again. Another day, another – well, you know.
Original Article
Source: torontostandard.com
Author: Jeff Halperin
No comments:
Post a Comment