# Rob Ford Must Go - Campaign to Impeach Mayor Ford



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I support this petition 



> His campaign was run on falsehoods, smoke and mirrors but the numbers are in and Rob Ford can't balance a budget without cutting services and significantly raising your taxes.
> 
> His policies will dismantle all of the very elements that make this city livable. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to dismantle bicycle lanes. Telling citizens to use 911 to report graffiti. And voting to cut funding for street festivals, community centres, promoting race relations, elderly person's centres, violence-prevention programs, community-based recreation and other programs. These are the very services that give this city a heart and soul.
> 
> Rob Ford is not my mayor. Now let's make it official.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

He might not be YOUR Mayor but he's definitely MINE. He's not perfect but he's trying to sort out the years of mess. Good luck to him!!


----------



## speed300km (Feb 4, 2005)

*The city will be unliveable if we keep living on credits.*

I support Rob Ford. :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

adagio said:


> He might not be YOUR Mayor but he's definitely MINE. He's not perfect but he's trying to sort out the years of mess. Good luck to him!!


funny enough the budget was balanced before, WITH those services.

Hard to understand how I will far less services, and pay lots more tax. This is good???

That to me is having been lied to. And I bet homeowners will see that soon enough if they don't already.


----------



## Flipstar (Nov 7, 2004)

Just don't cut the grass. You'll be fine.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Not my city but.... is there even a process to impeach a mayor?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

With this one, baiting a live trap with a cheeseburger will probably work.


----------



## Tech Elementz (Mar 15, 2011)

Wasn't the same method of saving money by Ford used by Chretien to remove Canada's debt?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Tech Elementz said:


> Wasn't the same method of saving money by Ford used by Chretien to remove Canada's debt?


hard to call it even similar, but the was a massive, massive debt left by the spending conservatives (who promised not to do so, sound familiar???) and they -had- to cut services to balance the budget. There's many debates on what services they cut, I don't agree with how they did it completely either.

But Rob Ford didn't take office with a massive debt. In fact, there was a surplus. But he has as I said, some multi billion dollar boondoggles to fund so he has to get the money from somewhere.

Rabid right wingers are frothing at the mouth because he's telling them he's cutting the gravy, and getting spending in order.

No he's not LOL...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I was just thinking the other day... back when Rob Ford was talking about getting rid of the gravy, I think I'd assumed he meant cutting council, not services.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It appears Toronto is not the only community to dislike their mayor:

St. Alberts untrusthworthy City Council members - Petition Online Canada


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I was just thinking the other day... back when Rob Ford was talking about getting rid of the gravy, I think I'd assumed he meant cutting council, not services.



it was framed as those spending councillors have to be reined in, cutting their office budgets!!!

People bought this hook line and sinker. Now he's after cutting the labour. Now, there's nothing wrong with some trimming if it can be found that there are some duplication etc., but only a fool would think that major cost savings would occur without drastic service cuts.

You just wait til you see what happens to downtown Toronto if Ford ever got his way in council. Hopefully the rest of the councillors continue to oppose him. I find it very interesting that even his own "henchmen" stood in his way on the recent funding votes.

Of course we're seeing the same stupidity from Ottawa now too.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think an impeachment petition at this point smacks of impatience and prematurity. I'm content to let the good mayor stumble on his sword, defeated by his own record of brash promises blown to kingdom come.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> it was framed as those spending councillors have to be reined in, cutting their office budgets!!!


Which I would agree with. Toronto has an unusually large council for a city of this size--it's an aftereffect of amalgamation. 

I agree that it's premature to try to impeach the Mayor. I don't like him, I didn't vote for him, but he hasn't done anything impeachment-worthy yet.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

It's funny seeing Rob Ford talk about cutting the gravy train.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Which I would agree with. Toronto has an unusually large council for a city of this size--it's an aftereffect of amalgamation.
> 
> I agree that it's premature to try to impeach the Mayor. I don't like him, I didn't vote for him, but he hasn't done anything impeachment-worthy yet.


true. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with trimming office budgets, reviewing expenses, as long as the process and costs for doing so doesn't approach or exceed the costs saved...

But Ford's campaign promised far more than this. AFter the 3rd or 4th year of having once again, cut more services, and raise taxes, people will begin to get the idea. And hopefully, there'll be a real candidate more than competent enough to fix the even bigger mess ford will leave than Miller ever did.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

adagio said:


> He might not be YOUR Mayor but he's definitely MINE. He's not perfect but he's trying to sort out the years of mess. Good luck to him!!


He's definitely not my Mayor. 

He was elected by the 905ers, not real Torontonians. I guess we can thank amalgamation for this gem of a Mayor.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it's time to realize Mike Harris's idea was brainless, and cast off the 905ers. Now. 
Let them hunt for gravy. They're likely better at it.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think it's time to realize Mike Harris's idea was brainless, and cast off the 905ers. Now.
> Let them hunt for gravy. They're likely better at it.


Agreed. What a headache it would be to get rid of them though...


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Maybe next time Torontonians will show up and vote and not let a moron like Ford into power. You would have thought Toronto would have learned from the Mel (Who is the WHO, call in the army) Lastman debacle. Ottawa went through four years of our clown equivalent named Larry O'Brien. We gave him the boot last fall and it came as a great relief.

You're going to have a hard time moving him out of office, but he's a big target and hard to miss. Good luck Toronto.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ah yes Larry O'brian. He was elected on pretty the exact same platform as ford. And that turned out pretty well eh?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

John Clay said:


> He's definitely not my Mayor.
> 
> He was elected by the 905ers, not real Torontonians. I guess we can thank amalgamation for this gem of a Mayor.


What is your definition of a "real" Torontonian? I wasn't aware those in the 905 area could vote for Toronto mayor? When did this change?

Those living in the core need to get over yourselves and perceived importance. Toronto, whether you like it or not, is much much more than the "core" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Reality bites sometimes.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

adagio said:


> What is your definition of a "real" Torontonian? I wasn't aware those in the 905 area could vote for Toronto mayor? When did this change?
> 
> Those living in the core need to get over yourselves and perceived importance. Toronto, whether you like it or not, is much much more than the "core" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Reality bites sometimes.


Real Torontonian = the old city of Toronto, pre-amalgamation. 905ers being a figure of speech for anyone living in the amalgamated areas that will never be part of the real Toronto.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

adagio said:


> What is your definition of a "real" Torontonian? I wasn't aware those in the 905 area could vote for Toronto mayor? When did this change?
> 
> Those living in the core need to get over yourselves and perceived importance. Toronto, whether you like it or not, is much much more than the "core" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Reality bites sometimes.


get over ourselves as in screw you we'll take all the gravy money plus raise the crap out of your taxes slash all your services so we can spend billions and billions somewhere else?

Yeah. We'll "get over ourselves" alright.

I would be for a mayor who understands the north, -and- the core. Right now we have a mayor who is good for some regions above the core, and hasn't the first clue how to deal with the core.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

*2010 election vote map*










I didn't vote for Fordo and it is pretty clear who did. Those that commute +1 hour and don't live anywhere near where they work. 

This is not a sustainable political arrangement at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Surprisingly, however, even in those areas where Smitherman reigned, a sizable number voted for Ford. 

A guy like Miller who sucked the city dry to feed the core will be missed--by those living downtown. Voters elsewhere just happened to get wise to that act.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> I didn't vote for Fordo and it is pretty clear who did. *Those that commute +1 hour and don't live anywhere near where they work.*
> 
> This is not a sustainable political arrangement at all.


You think so? How do you know this? Do you honestly believe all those who live downtown work there and all those outside the core also work downtown? How presumptuous. I invite you to my condo one early morning to watch the traffic jam LEAVING the city every morning. The truth is traffic is bad in both directions. Many "core" dwellers work in Etobicoke, Scarborough and beyond. The "burbs" dwellers are just as likely to work close to home as well as the far reaches, and yes downtown. 

Toronto is not the only city in the world to grow larger through some kind of amalgamation. It's a done deal many years ago. Sounds like some folks have never come to grips with the situation. For years the former 'burbs have been neglected but now they have a voice. Thank goodness.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Who did district #28 vote for, in that this district is in white?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

adagio said:


> You think so? How do you know this? Do you honestly believe all those who live downtown work there and all those outside the core also work downtown? How presumptuous. I invite you to my condo one early morning to watch the traffic jam LEAVING the city every morning. The truth is traffic is bad in both directions. Many "core" dwellers work in Etobicoke, Scarborough and beyond. The "burbs" dwellers are just as likely to work close to home as well as the far reaches, and yes downtown.
> 
> Toronto is not the only city in the world to grow larger through some kind of amalgamation. It's a done deal many years ago. Sounds like some folks have never come to grips with the situation. For years the former 'burbs have been neglected but now they have a voice. Thank goodness.


what you seem incapable of understanding, is the solution isn't electing a moron for a mayor who then neglects the downtown core.

A mayor who is competent enough to represent *both* is required. 

Rob Ford isn't competent enough to represent the downtown, whatsoever. Even his own supporters are not supporting his stupidity now.

The election map shows the downtown knows this only too well. Neglecting the downtown core will have some pretty serious effects.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Who did district #28 vote for, in that this district is in white?


not sure perhaps Pantalone, the 3rd runnerup?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Who did district #28 vote for, in that this district is in white?


That's actually the lake, It's supposed to represent Wards island and Toronto Centre
That map couldn't get the number 28 on top of it, It's that small, Notice the pointer lines.



> Toronto Islands
> The Toronto Islands are a chain of small island s in the city of Toronto , Canada ...
> The islands are part of Toronto Ward 28 Toronto Centre— ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Lawrence said:


> That's actually the lake, It's supposed to represent Wards island and Toronto Centre
> That map couldn't get the number 28 on top of it, It's that small, Notice the pointer lines.


Merci for the info, Dave. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

adagio said:


> You think so? How do you know this? Do you honestly believe all those who live downtown work there and all those outside the core also work downtown? How presumptuous. I invite you to my condo one early morning to watch the traffic jam LEAVING the city every morning. The truth is traffic is bad in both directions. Many "core" dwellers work in Etobicoke, Scarborough and beyond. The "burbs" dwellers are just as likely to work close to home as well as the far reaches, and yes downtown.


Yep, I live in the core and commute to North York. The DVP is much more fun going the wrong way, though to adagio's point, the Gardiner is ugly in both directions at rush hour. 

There is a big cultural divide between the suburbs and the urban core, in that programs that are valuable to one are of less value to the other. Frankly, when I lived in the 'burbs, I had no clue about 90% of the things that happen in the core, which is kind of a shame because there's a lot of cool stuff.

I do think something like better transit would bridge this cultural divide, since if it were easy and convenient for the cities that formerly made up Metro to go to Toronto proper, there would be a better appreciation of the spending that's done here.... because frankly, a good chunk of the of the spending goes to support things are needed, wanted or appreciated more by the core. Frankly, I think those things are necessary to keep the city alive and vital but I *live* in the core and benefit from it. 

I can easily see why suburban dwellers don't want to spend money on festivals that they've never heard of or don't attend because it's ridiculous to get to downtown where they are held, why they don't want to spend money on TTC services that don't serve them, why they don't see a need for bike lanes they are unlikely to use, for various community services that don't actually service the communities they live in.... you know, there are no homeless people in Don Mills; services to help the homeless aren't exactly top of mind to most people living there. But there are roads, there are sidewalks, there are schools, there are some parks, there is property crime, there is a need for snow clearing, garbage pickup, etc. And when taxes go up, the budget gets tighter and the news starts reporting wasteful spending... the stuff you actually need and use every day gets a priority over things that would be nice.

Honestly, I think the downtown core sometimes has its head up its ass thinking that people outside the core should concern itself with things they don't use. They don't. Ask my dad about bike lanes and he'll wonder who is so crazy to regularly commute via bike. Ask my ex-in laws (from Scarborough) about festivals downtown and they can name Taste of the Danforth and that's about it. 

What we need as a Mayor is someone who can bridge this cultural divide. It's really, really easy to slash services to cut costs. It's also really, really easy to spend money on everything. What's difficult is to find ways to understand, from all perspectives, what makes this city terrific, preserve and encourage that, whilst simultaneously making the overall system more cost-efficient.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Sonal, as complete a comment as I have ever read. But a Mayor to bridge the gap will never happen until the cities stop acting like stay at home kids and take some responsibility for their actions and put in controls to reign in the spending. It's not just Toronto it is all cities, although Toronto seems to have this air of entitlement which drives other Mayors crazy with resentment. I'm a simple person, so I ask simple questions to look for answers to complex questions. Take the TTC.... yes I know it is capital intensive, but ask your self this question, with the volume riding it daily, and the price of the thing, where does the money go? They've had the same subway for most of my 61 years, where did the money go? Are street cars really efficient., as opposed to dedicated bus roads ( I said roads not routes ). I ask in this day and age of the internet, telephone, media, do we really need as many councillors, and what of the costs of the TDSB.........


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> I'm a simple person, so I ask simple questions to look for answers to complex questions. Take the TTC.... yes I know it is capital intensive, but ask your self this question, with the volume riding it daily, and the price of the thing, where does the money go? They've had the same subway for most of my 61 years, where did the money go? Are street cars really efficient., as opposed to dedicated bus roads ( I said roads not routes ). I ask in this day and age of the internet, telephone, media, do we really need as many councillors, and what of the costs of the TDSB.........


I absolutely believe that there are many, many areas in the services that the city provides that can be made much more cost-efficient. I don't for one second believe that the TTC operates efficiently, and I think it will take a great deal of independent analysis to get to the bottom of where the money is going, and (the bigger question) how much of that is wasteful. I think we need to look at other transit systems and how they operate and get some better ideas about what their strengths are and how we could make them happen here. But I absolutely think that Toronto needs a much more comprehensive transit system than it has in order to link the city together cohesively.

My brother and a good friend of mine are transit geeks, and could debate the pluses and minuses of streetcars vs bus roads more effectively than I could, complete with examples and research. I don't know if streetcars are efficient compared to dedicated bus roads especially when you factor in the change to the overall city transportation plan and its urban plan to implement this. It's a complex problem for sure. 

As for councillors, we don't need so many. Toronto has close to the same number of councillors as New York City, a city that is over 6 times its size. Los Angeles, a city that is not much bigger than Toronto, has 15. This isn't an issue about "in this day and age, we have so many other ways to communicate" but very simply that when the cities amalgamated, the only positions they eliminated were that of the other 5 mayors. We're still saddled with the city councillors and (I think) the metro councillors.... and amalgamation was supposed to reduce all this duplication. 

I know nothing about TDSB and how it operates.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

this all goes back to what a bone-headed move amalgamation was. We can thank Mike Harris for that blunder. It didn't save the city any money and made municipal affairs worse for the electorate.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good point about lessening our number of councillors, Sonal. Alas, it's not going to go down very well with those presently in power, so we can expect that little measure of sanity to be stalled at every turn.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> this all goes back to what a bone-headed move amalgamation was. We can thank Mike Harris for that blunder. It didn't save the city any money and made municipal affairs worse for the electorate.


it's sort of the way with the right and their proposed cost cutting measures. It rarely does, they end up spending far more, and when it's a disaster, blame the left. As max says, rinse and repeat.

Wasting money has nothing to do with left or right. It's just a big scam to get everyone so polarized as to argue amongst ourselves and make excuses for whichever side you favor.

Unfortunately, here's plenty of light heads to believe the chants of spend your money wisely to support them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Unfortunately, here's plenty of light heads to believe the chants of spend your money wisely to support them.


So shut your gob if it's just the same old song, no matter who you vote for.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So shut your gob if it's just the same old song, no matter who you vote for.


whoa. Such anger. :baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yup. Your pearls of wisdom cut like diamonds.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Good point about lessening our number of councillors, Sonal. Alas, it's not going to go down very well with those presently in power, so we can expect that little measure of sanity to be stalled at every turn.


I don't know many people who would vote themselves out of a job... and the first person who proposes eliminating everyone's job in council will immediately lose the support of everyone else and not be able to do anything. 

So I don't think it's an issue of those who are presently in power, so much as this is a pipe dream that has very little practical chance of coming to pass.

You'd need someone with sufficient clout to get council on their side, but who doesn't need that clout for anything...


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

This thread is hilarious! Miller left Toronto in a disaster state. Ford wouldn't he my first choice as a mayor, but there was no one else running who was willing to step up to the plate and fix things.

Miller fulfilled his promise to create more jobs "in Toronto" by creating more city jobs, and how did he pay for it? Tax! Double TO LTT and double TO car tax... And he still left the city in debt.

I have no particlar love of Lastman, but, we had good services and money in the bank. Now we have less services, more city employees and owe money... someone has to fix it!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> This thread is hilarious! Miller left Toronto in a disaster state. Ford wouldn't he my first choice as a mayor, but there was no one else running who was willing to step up to the plate and fix things.
> 
> Miller fulfilled his promise to create more jobs "in Toronto" by creating more city jobs, and how did he pay for it? Tax! Double TO LTT and double TO car tax... And he still left the city in debt.
> 
> I have no particlar love of Lastman, but, we had good services and money in the bank. Now we have less services, more city employees and owe money... someone has to fix it!


he didn't leave the city in debt, he left a surplus.

And ford can only deliver the promise of cutting any taxes by drastically slashing services. He promised he can cut taxes without slashing services, which Torontonians in general, don't want (except for the handful like macfury who doesn't give a crap about anyone else it seems)

And he has to fund his grand multibillion dollar subway to nowhere plans.

That's stepping up to the plate?

LOL


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I would love to see Ford take on the task of cutting down council, because I think he's just about bullheaded enough to do it. 

Then, once that's been successfully decimated, someone else can come in and tidy up the mess.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It would take far too much brain power than ford could muster to make that happen without complete meltdown.

The trouble is, everyone knows ford is an idiot, so he has little in the way of support. His supporters on council have already started deserting him. Not a good sign.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> he didn't leave the city in debt, he left a surplus.


Toronto's debt grew astronomically under Miller, to just over $4.4 billion in his last year in office--$721 million in 2010 alone. Some surplus.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

If you were paying attention, you'd know it was in reference to the budget. But you like to play games to excuse total incompetence just because someone says their going to cut taxes. You'll fall for that one each and every time.

I suppose Lastman's total negligence and deference to someone else wouldn't have had anything to do with that either.

So ford's plan is to cut taxes, and spend more. Sounds rather familiar...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> If you were paying attention, you'd know it was in reference to the budget.


Yep. Miller increased the deficit by racking up an additional $721 million in 2010--and because it didn't show up in the current account column, you called it a surplus. 



groovetube said:


> So ford's plan is to cut taxes, and spend more. Sounds rather familiar...


No. Ford's plan is to increase taxes below the rate of inflation while eliminating waste.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yep. Miller increased the deficit by racking up an additional $721 million in 2010--and because it didn't show up in the current account column, you called it a surplus.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ford's plan is to increase taxes below the rate of inflation while eliminating waste.


You seem to need to play games in order to excuse liars who told you they'll be better with your money.

You'd believe anyone, as long as they say the magic words, cut taxes, stop the gravy train, stop them lefties, whatever. It doesn't seem to matter whether they actually -do- any of those things, because somehow, it makes you feel rather empowered to stand up and say, I, macfury am a libertarian! And I believe in this! These crooks see you coming a mile away, because they know full well there are plenty out there just waiting for someone to fulfil this need.

So, whether a budgetary surplus, city debt, you'll go on the offensive to show your crook is indeed the chosen one! Oh my god! He's gonna cut taxes and show them lefties!

Your saviour has arrived. Go to him. Cherish him. But keep that wallet under lock and key though.

Just in case.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You seem to need to play games in order to excuse liars who told you they'll be better with your money.


What games? Check the Toronto budget figures. 



groovetube said:


> You'd believe anyone, as long as they say the magic words, cut taxes, stop the gravy train, stop them lefties, whatever. It doesn't seem to matter whether they actually -do- any of those things, because somehow, it makes you feel rather empowered to stand up and say, I, macfury am a libertarian! And I believe in this! These crooks see you coming a mile away, because they know full well there are plenty out there just waiting for someone to fulfil this need.


My wallet has already gotten a little heavier under Ford--under Miller's disastrous reign of error it got lighter and lighter--never mind that he larded the core with programs and freebies. 

I'll take Ford, thanks.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

All public institutions run with operating debt: hospitals, school boards, airports, municipalities. Along as the debt can be serviced (balanced and maybe paid off surplus) then the finances are healthy. 

Just like most conservatives, Ford will spend money towards ideological targets with no base in financial prudence.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> All public institutions run with operating debt: hospitals, school boards, airports, municipalities. Along as the debt can be serviced (balanced and maybe paid off surplus) then the finances are healthy.


Almost all do. Whether the debt is stable--or rising sharply as it did under Miller--is the important factor.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> All public institutions run with operating debt: hospitals, school boards, airports, municipalities. Along as the debt can be serviced (balanced and maybe paid off surplus) then the finances are healthy.
> 
> Just like most conservatives, Ford will spend money towards ideological targets with no base in financial prudence.


this sin't something macfury is capable of comprehending.

He like many wen for the shiny ball of the vehicle registration tax.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> this sin't something macfury is capable of comprehending.
> 
> He like many wen for the shiny ball of the vehicle registration tax.


Fresh word salad for breakfast.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

when you get nailed to the wall macfury this is something you trot out.

sorry pal, but you fell for the same line a lot of people did. Just wear it...:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> when you get nailed to the wall macfury this is something you trot out.
> 
> sorry pal, but you fell for the same line a lot of people did. Just wear it...:lmao:


Again, wear _what_? The manufactured "crisis" promoted by people who had a vested interest in receiving Miller's largesse? 

I expected a first year tax freeze and got it. I expected an end to the vehicle registration tax and got it. I expected future municipal tax increase at or below the rate of inflation --not the "core rate of inflation." Ford is on track.

This is a disaster to the hair shirt crew on the left who keep scratching their "shiny balls" in public, not to me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Again, wear _what_? The manufactured "crisis" promoted by people who had a vested interest in receiving Miller's largesse?
> 
> I expected a first year tax freeze and got it. I expected an end to the vehicle registration tax and got it. I expected future municipal tax increase at or below the rate of inflation --not the "core rate of inflation." Ford is on track.
> 
> This is a disaster to the hair shirt crew on the left who keep scratching their "shiny balls" in public, not to me.


-that-, is what you voted for? To save 60 bucks? Really? 

Property taxes will rise regardless of who you vote for. It's just that Ford made it sound to everyone that he'd cut taxes and we wouldn't lose any services.

He lied.

As far as a "manufactured crisis".... look no further than the shrieking right like yourself. Ford made it up, lied, and you fell for it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the shrieking in your last post needs a bigger point size.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Single-family residential taxes in the city of Toronto are low. It's the commercial and multi-res property taxes that are insanely high.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Single-family residential taxes in the city of Toronto are low. It's the commercial and multi-res property taxes that are insanely high.


Residents should pay a head tax, not property tax.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think the shrieking in your last post needs a bigger point size.


Well I wasn't the one going hog wild on "CUT THE GRAVY TRAAAAIIINNN!!", the invention of some great incredible crisis, since you liked bringing that up.

A whole lot of suckin and blowin over the $60 vehicle reg tax!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Residents should pay a head tax, not property tax.


Interesting idea. What's the logic behind this? I'm curious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Interesting idea. What's the logic behind this? I'm curious.


Because the share of services consumed by any particular family/person has no basis in the value of property, even relative to other properties. If your condominium unit has suddenly found itself in an up-and coming neighbourhood, why should your property tax rise relative to others? If it's your primary residence, you can't take advantage of that in any way without selling and moving. Likewise, your consumption of city service hasn't risen.

The notion, for example, that property somehow represents a length of road, or a length of water pipe or sewer is disingenuous--what if the property has little frontage, but is very deep?

Even the notion of weighing single-family residential municipal taxes differently from those in multi-person buildings is a really odd concept. 

I would propose charging a head tax for all people living in the city, and only moving to a second tier of property taxes for those who have more than one property within the city.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Even the notion of weighing single-family residential municipal taxes differently from those in multi-person buildings is a really odd concept.


It gets even stranger in that if you have 6 or fewer units, you are still a "single-family home" and get taxed at a very low rate, whereas you add a 7th unit and you are suddenly multi-res and it gets about 3 times more expensive. 

Head tax is an interesting idea, and there is a reasonable logic to it. Not finding many examples of where it worked out well, though.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Not to mention how that would be even managed. Can you imagine the beauracracy required for that?

Odd someone so against taxes would even suggest such a thing.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Not to mention how that would be even managed. Can you imagine the beauracracy required for that?
> 
> Odd someone so against taxes would even suggest such a thing.


My first thought was, how the heck would you collect that from tenants?

MacFury's not against taxes. He's against a) excessive tax, b) taxes that penalize the wealthy, and c) taxes that fund programs that he does not benefit from, or that encourage irresponsible behaviour.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> My first thought was, how the heck would you collect that from tenants?
> 
> MacFury's not against taxes. He's against a) excessive tax, b) taxes that penalize the wealthy, and c) taxes that fund programs that he does not benefit from, or that encourage irresponsible behaviour.


Just off of the top of my head... simple enough I think, landlords pay the tax based on the number of occupants that they report for a residence and add it to their tenants/occupants rent paid over a 12 month period. The tenant is provide a receipt for the tax from the landlord based on the number of occupants. If the tenant disagrees with the number of occupants the tenant reports the complaint to a city rep who investigates the situation and find out who if anyone is lying.

It is indeed an interesting idea that could be explored.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Simple enough I think, landlords pay the tax and add it to their tenants rent paid over a 12 month period. The tenant is provide a receipt for the tax from the landlord based on the number of occupants. If the tenant disagrees with the number of occupants the landlord reports the complaint to a city rep who investigates the situation and find out who if anyone is lying.


You assume good tenants. (And good landlords for that matter.)

What happens when the tenant does a midnight move? 

What about tenants who sublease their apartment which changes the number of occupants, and who do so without informing the landlord? (Very common in student housing.)

What about roommates who move in and out?

If a tenant is in arrears, who gets the money first, the landlord or the government? If the tenant does not pay their tax burden, is the government going to give that money back, or make the landlord responsible for collecting the tax from the tenant?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> My first thought was, how the heck would you collect that from tenants?
> 
> MacFury's not against taxes. He's against a) excessive tax, b) taxes that penalize the wealthy, and c) taxes that fund programs that he does not benefit from, or that encourage irresponsible behaviour.


yes but who decides this? A recent look at council showed Ford standing against every single one of the program grants. And council rubber stamping all of them. At the end of the day, there needs to be some sanity. Macfury supports the kind of eyes closed yelling "NOPE" at everything without any thinking sort of mentality, while asserting the only other option is letting the leftists run rampant. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is the option of sanity. The city clearly benefits from great programs and funding them, but that doesn't mean all should be simply rubber stamped without some scrutiny. Denying things based on ideology serves no one.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Denying things based on ideology serves no one.


Same with approving things based on ideology.

As I said, it's easy to cut and it's easy to spend. It's not easy to decide what programs help the city and its residents overall and fund them in a way that keeps the budget balanced.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> You assume good tenants. (And good landlords for that matter.)
> 
> What happens when the tenant does a midnight move?
> 
> ...


Yes I know there is plenty of room for "cheating" in the off the top of my head suggestion...

But it is an interesting idea that if properly sussed out could possibly make for a more equitable municipal tax bill. Just thinking out loud not really trying to come up with any definitive solutions... 

Brainstorming is what we call it in the buiz I am in... just tossing out ideas and sees what sticks... If anywhere, a forum like this could be the place to do it as there is nothing to be lost or gained, so long as people are willing to check their egos at the door... but this is indeed difficult for some.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I know you were brainstorming, but some of the issues I brought up are among the reasons this idea did not work for Thatcher.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Community_Charge


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Same with approving things based on ideology.
> 
> As I said, it's easy to cut and it's easy to spend. It's not easy to decide what programs help the city and its residents overall and fund them in a way that keeps the budget balanced.


I don't disagree. Ideology should have zero to do with it.

A perfect example is the resistance to harm reduction in drug use. Even though it has saved lives, those opposed to this sort of thing because they're afraid of possibly condoning drug use get in the way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe it would make more sense to locate the people through the income tax system, using the previous year's residential address as the community to which their head tax would be going. Landlords would be responsible for collecting a minimum of one head tax per unit they owned, worked into the rent.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I know you were brainstorming, but some of the issues I brought up are among the reasons this idea did not work for Thatcher.
> 
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Community_Charge


Thanks for the link... an interesting read... it seems they didn't brainstorm enough before legislation and implementation....

I think the current system in Canadian municipalities is based on convenience for the municipality rather than any concern for equality what-so-ever... 

Tenants or not, why should I pay more property tax just because the value of my property has increased? Do I use any more municipal services because of that increase? Almost certainly not... was the increase in my home value in part due to an investment that I made in the renovation/restoration/cost of upkeep of my property? Most likely so... so why should I pay for that investment *again* through an increase in my property tax? It is patently unwarranted and the system needs to be amended because as it is now it vastly favours the municipality at the expense of the property owner.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I believe it would make more sense to locate the people through the income tax system, using the previous year's residential address as the community to which their head tax would be going. Landlords would be responsible for collecting a minimum of one head tax per unit they owned, worked into the rent.


And how does the shortfall get made up for families living in rental units? 

I wonder... could they collect it using the income tax system? 

Having landlords collect a tax from tenants on behalf of the city just sounds like bad news to me... unless the City of Toronto was willing to give landlords additional powers that are contrary to the Provincial Act that would allow for greater enforcement for collecting arrears and taxes. That of course, would lead to a lot of ugly legal wrangling...



screature said:


> Tenants or not, why should I pay more property tax just because the value of my property has increased? Do I use any more municipal services because of that increase? Almost certainly not... was the increase in my home value in part due to an investment that I made in the renovation/restoration/cost of upkeep of my property? Most likely so... so why should I pay for that investment *again* through an increase in my property tax? It is patently unwarranted and the system needs to be amended because as it is now it vastly favours the municipality at the expense of the property owner.


Well, certainly in recent years in the City of Toronto, those increases have a lot more to do with rise in the market value, and not much to do with improvements.... it's the desirability of owning property in Toronto that increases the value.

This was some time ago, but I remember the value of my house went up 25% in the 3 years I owned it... and we didn't do a thing to it. In the 6 years since then, houses in same area have only gone up since then, regardless of improvements.

You could possibly make an argument that the desirability of living in Toronto, as realized by increases in property values, are in part a reflection of policies and programs by the municipality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> And how does the shortfall get made up for families living in rental units?
> 
> I wonder... could they collect it using the income tax system?
> 
> Having landlords collect a tax from tenants on behalf of the city just sounds like bad news to me... unless the City of Toronto was willing to give landlords additional powers that are contrary to the Provincial Act that would allow for greater enforcement for collecting arrears and taxes. That of course, would lead to a lot of ugly legal wrangling...


You already do it when you collect their rent--which is why I suggest that landlords would be responsible for collecting one head tax per unit, much as they do now. You would send them a receipt for that, just as you send them a receipt for their rent.

Likewise, the first head tax for single family residences could be collected by the city on a per-address basis. 

Any additional amounts for additional people per address could be collected by the federal government. You already indicate a city of residence on your income tax form, so that would be straightforward as well.

People already get far more then they contribute by simply cramming into a single address. Any fraud about where they live certainly couldn't amount to more than that loss of revenue correctly.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hmmm. This scheme kinda reminds me of some other ones cooked up to go together with other taxes to snag more dollars out of families pockets. I know! Let's call it the "harmonized tax"!!!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You already do it when you collect their rent--which is why I suggest that landlords would be responsible for collecting one head tax per unit, much as they do now. You would send them a receipt for that, just as you send them a receipt for their rent.


Even for vacant units? I don't already do it, however. The property taxes are not owed by the tenant, but by me. If there is no one living in the building, I still owe the property taxes. Under a head tax scheme, if no one is living in a unit (say, because it's under renovation, it's in poor shape because the landlord is a deadbeat, it was not rented back to back, or the landlord chooses not to rent it out for some other reason) then there should be no taxes paid on that unit.

It makes no sense for the landlord to be made responsible for taxes owed by the tenant. If it's not my bill, why should I pay it? Why should I chase someone else down to pay their taxes, particularly if I am so legally limited in my recourse for nonpayment of rent? If I have so much difficulty in making problem tenants pay their rent in full and on time, why would I chase them down for money that's not even mine?

If you are collecting the balance through the income tax system, why not collect the whole thing through the income tax system and leave landlords out of it?

To collect it with rent would be legally problematic, as there are limits on how much rent can be increased per year, and these limits are set by the province--should the municipality want to increase rent beyond that, it would be an unlawful increase. As rental increases have been very low in recent years, that would be problematic for the City if they wanted to raise revenues through raising taxes.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Head tax, Kind reminds me of the Chinese Head tax that the government was paying back,
Are you sure you want to go there?, Didn't this also cause a public outcry in Scotland?

I'd be more inclined to charge a "Shadow Tax",
Just think of all the tax that could be collected from tall buildings in the downtown area.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Lawrence said:


> Head tax, Kind reminds me of the Chinese Head tax that the government was paying back,
> Are you sure you want to go there?, Didn't this also cause a public outcry in Scotland?
> 
> I'd be more inclined to charge a "Shadow Tax",
> Just think of all the tax that could be collected from tall buildings in the downtown area.


Head taxes in the past (aside from Thatcher's version) targeted specific groups, usually by race. Oh, wait, John of Gaunt's head tax was relatively fair as well--every non-beggar over the age of 14 paid it, but it got very high and it was funding the 100 Years War... lead to a revolt.

But in any case, they already charge a Shadow Tax. The call it the commercial property tax. It's very high.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> Head tax, Kind reminds me of the Chinese Head tax that the government was paying back,
> Are you sure you want to go there?, Didn't this also cause a public outcry in Scotland?
> 
> I'd be more inclined to charge a "Shadow Tax",
> Just think of all the tax that could be collected from tall buildings in the downtown area.





Sonal said:


> Head taxes in the past (aside from Thatcher's version) targeted specific groups, usually by race. Oh, wait, John of Gaunt's head tax was relatively fair as well--every non-beggar over the age of 14 paid it, but it got very high and it was funding the 100 Years War... lead to a revolt.
> 
> But in any case, they already charge a Shadow Tax. The call it the commercial property tax. It's very high.


Yes the phrase "head tax" does have a bad rep (appropriately so) associated with it... so let's call it an "occupants tax" so we can all get along.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm still curious as to why macfury would want to introduce a monster bureaucratic and expensive nightmare simply to try and fleece lower income people of more tax money. 

What benefit really is there?

As for property taxes, besides the ones I pay on my house, my lease on my commercial space for business has me covering property tax increases, so there's already 'trickle down' setup.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I'm still curious as to why macfury would want to *introduce a monster bureaucratic and expensive nightmare simply to try and fleece lower income people of more tax money. *
> 
> What benefit really is there?
> 
> As for property taxes, besides the ones I pay on my house, my lease on my commercial space for business has me covering property tax increases, so there's already 'trickle down' setup.


An equally valid question could be why do think MF is suggesting any such thing?

A couple here at, least it seems, are wiling to discuss the idea without any presuppositions and see where it goes...

You don't know how much or little bureaucracy would be involved and there could always be built into such an idea tax credits for low income individuals so that those who are the most in need would not pay as much.

The potential benefit could be that as a home owner I don't have to pay twice for making an investment into the betterment of my property and neighbourhood by bettering my property as the way the current system works when receiving *zero *additional municipal services.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

But we're going from taxing properties, to taxing every individual. I would think this would bloat the costs to administer such a thing. How is the rate determined for each individual, according to income? How many sq feet their living space is? Flat rate?

Somehow, having seen many tax schemes in my lifetime, I'm going to have to say this sounds like a real mess to me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> But we're going from taxing properties, to taxing every individual. I would think this would bloat the costs to administer such a thing. How is the rate determined for each individual, according to income? How many sq feet their living space is? Flat rate?
> 
> Somehow, having seen many tax schemes in my lifetime, I'm going to have to say this *sounds like a real mess to me*.


To me the current system is a mess so I am interested in sussing out alternatives... if for nothing else other than an intellectual exercise...


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Condo owners really get nailed under the current taxation system. We pay as much for our small footprint as many single family homes. It's even worse for those living downtown where values are sky high. 

I'm curious about the idea of an occupant tax but somehow I don't think it would work. Sonal has done an excellent job explaining from a landlord's POV. As much as it is a nice idea, and a fairer system IMO, it would be a nightmare to administer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

adagio said:


> Condo owners really get nailed under the current taxation system. We pay as much for our small footprint as many single family homes. It's even worse for those living downtown where values are sky high.
> 
> I'm curious about the idea of an occupant tax but somehow I don't think it would work. Sonal has done an excellent job explaining from a landlord's POV. As much as it is a nice idea, and a fairer system IMO, *it would be a nightmare to administer*.


Could be... maybe not... lets talk about it. Lots of smart minds here... maybe time for a new thread?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Rob Ford campaigned on a ideology without detailing how he would accomplish his platform. To me, this is pandering. We can gauge the results in the fullness of time, but if he wants credibility he needs to provide a comprehensive strategy. 

Avoiding debates and interviews adds little to his credibility.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Avoiding debates and interviews tells me he's afraid. He and his brother have tightly managed their media relations to the point of paranoia. Not unlike Mr. Harper, for that matter.

At least they know that when they go off-script, they go off the rails.... but that's not entirely comforting.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Rob Ford campaigned on a ideology without detailing how he would accomplish his platform. To me, this is pandering. We can gauge the results in the fullness of time, but if he wants credibility he needs to provide a comprehensive strategy.
> 
> Avoiding debates and interviews adds little to his credibility.


there's no question Ford's plan exists on napkins, and drunken rants at a roadhouse.

It'll take a smart, ballsey mayor to really lead in Toronto without neglecting the core, or surrounding areas.

As far as exploring other alternatives to tax schemes, sure. You wouldn't get much an argument from me that taxes from federal down is a mess.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

groovetube said:


> It'll take a smart, ballsey mayor to really lead in Toronto without neglecting the core, or surrounding areas.


There was no one on the election ballot with those credentials or platform.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

No there wasn't.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> There was no one on the election ballot with those credentials or platform.


there wasn't an ideal candidate, but that doesn't mean people should've voted for the idiot of the bunch.

this should be posted in every rob ford thread just to remind everyone just how unqualified he is (caution - language) :





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

i-rui said:


> there wasn't an ideal candidate, but that doesn't mean people should've voted for the idiot of the bunch.
> 
> this should be posted in every rob ford thread just to remind everyone just how unqualified he is (caution - language) :
> 
> ...


Ford's always good for a laugh. He's an idiotic **** too


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There's method to the current approach. Ford is genuinely sowing chaos among his opponents. Saying too much at this point will stop them from attacking each other and focus on him instead.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's an assessment that's exceedingly kind to Ford. Keeping his mouth shut is not a bad strategy in and of itself, but the man is also loathe to talk to the press unless he feels they're in his camp already. This seems to be an old problem with pols which, in modern times, is crippling political process and short-changing the public. Ford is just the latest guy who wants to control the spin - and if he can't, he'll throw a tantrum or sulk in a corner - or let his handlers whisk him away so that he can fulminate and lick his wounds behind closed doors.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> That's an assessment that's exceedingly kind to Ford. Keeping his mouth shut is not a bad strategy in and of itself, but the man is also loathe to talk to the press unless he feels they're in his camp already. This seems to be an old problem with pols which, in modern times, is crippling political process and short-changing the public. Ford is just the latest guy who wants to control the spin - and if he can't, he'll throw a tantrum or sulk in a corner - or let his handlers whisk him away so that he can fulminate and lick his wounds behind closed doors.


I suspect he'll be out in front of the press shortly, but only after the initial dirty work has been done.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I suspect he will continue to be stage-managed by his handlers for minimum exposure to spontaneous public discourse - whether or not he's ultimately judged "successful" by the majority of Torontonians.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

It's really unfair to call Ford an idiot and rail and scream about how stupid it was that people voted for him. Virtually everyone I know who lives (by choice) outside of the urban core was pro-Ford. Even with his latest shenanigans, they aren't exactly kicking themselves over voting him in. Most people I know who live in the core (or who really want to) think he's a buffoon at best and can't understand why anyone would vote for him. The fact is, the Ford message--whether it happens in reality or not--hit home for a lot of voters, particularly outside of the core, and frankly that's a lot more voters.

I think it's pretty clear: outside the core, they are less concerned about social programs, policies and events that do not affect them so directly, and more concerned about things like property crime, roads and getting value for their tax dollar. 

The next person who wants to take on the task of being Mayor should take notice.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I think it's pretty clear: outside the core, they are less concerned about social programs, policies and events that do not affect them so directly, and more concerned about things like property crime, roads and getting value for their tax dollar.
> 
> The next person who wants to take on the task of being Mayor should take notice.


Time for a divorce. The 'burbs can keep the cottage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with Sonal. All of this name-calling, not only of the mayor, but of voters as well, simply because the current mayor is not beholden primarily to downtown? Calls for impeachment a scant few months into the term, simply because pet programs may be targeted for cost reduction? 

It's not as if those wards that overall supported Smitherman didn't also rack up a lot of votes for Ford.

Amalgamation occurred a longgggg time ago. Time to give that issue a rest as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> There's method to the current approach. Ford is genuinely sowing chaos among his opponents. Saying too much at this point will stop them from attacking each other and focus on him instead.


oh please. It appears to me there is no chaos, other than the ford brothers sounding and looking more like fools as we go.

By the looks of the latest votes, it looks like the fords are losing even their supporters, and the whole council is galvanizing.



Macfury said:


> I agree with Sonal. All of this name-calling, not only of the mayor, but of voters as well, simply because the current mayor is not beholden primarily to downtown? Calls for impeachment a scant few months into the term, simply because pet programs may be targeted for cost reduction?
> 
> It's not as if those wards that overall supported Smitherman didn't also rack up a lot of votes for Ford.
> 
> Amalgamation occurred a longgggg time ago. Time to give that issue a rest as well.


Why do ford supporters alway dumb it down to either or? Why is it soooo difficult to understand that voters in all regions want someone smart enough not to be beholden to any region?

I suppose that's really too much to ask....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Why do ford supporters alway dumb it down to either or? Why is it soooo difficult to understand that voters in all regions want someone smart enough not to be beholden to any region?


Simply because, when Miller was mayor, the downtown core didn't give a rat's ass that he wasn't paying attention to "all regions." There wasn't any interest in such a concept.

This sudden call to lavish equal attention on all parts of the city started with the election of Ford and the perception of downtown residents that they were no longer being coddled.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Not so, if Miller ran again he would have lost the election.

And no it isn't "equal attention".

Nice try though.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

As long as Rob Ford is who he is, the name calling and bashing will continue. People can't help it, they're just callin' 'em as they see them.

He is his own worst enemy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Amalgamation occurred a longgggg time ago. Time to give that issue a rest as well.


I would if it was working or if it was what is was promised to be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Not so, if Miller ran again he would have lost the election.


Right--because he was pork barreler who lavished too much attention on downtown at the expense of the rest of the city. However, this was not a problem for downtown residents. They were not calling for Miller's ouster.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Right--because he was pork barreler who lavished too much attention on downtown at the expense of the rest of the city. However, this was not a problem for downtown residents. They were not calling for Miller's ouster.


apparently you missed the part where he would have lost the election.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> As long as Rob Ford is who he is, the name calling and bashing will continue. People can't help it, they're just callin' 'em as they see them.
> 
> He is his own worst enemy.


yeah I saw his equally moron brother ranting about the "leftists".

Perhaps he and don cherry should just getta room. Macfury could referee.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Right--because he was pork barreler who lavished too much attention on downtown at the expense of the rest of the city. However, this was not a problem for downtown residents. They were not calling for Miller's ouster.


Disagree... nobody liked Miller, not even in downtown.

Joey Pants wasn't doing so well, but the nail in his coffin was when Miller endorsed him. No one wanted more of the same Miller-esque mayoralty.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sonal said:


> disagree... Nobody liked miller, not even in downtown.
> 
> Joey pants wasn't doing so well, but the nail in his coffin was when miller endorsed him. No one wanted more of the same miller-esque mayoralty.


+1


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Time for a divorce. The 'burbs can keep the cottage.


Okay, well let's put that on the long list of totally unrealistic things to wish for and carry on with what we've got, shall we?

It's not like this is the first time in history that downtown and the 'burbs merged together in the City of Toronto. A lot of those cute little place names: Yorkville, Parkdale, Agincourt, etc. were once villages in their own right. And this doesn't just happen here. If history is any predictor, amalgamations as the cities grow is inevitable.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Okay, well let's put that on the long list of totally unrealistic things to wish for and carry on with what we've got, shall we?


Well then what we've got is a city divided and an oafish blowhard of a mayor driving the wedge in further.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Actually, I knew a fair number of people who liked Miller.... I saw them all the time on Facebook. I think it was because they were creative types and saw Miller as a friend to culture. I could see it in a sort of broad, shallow way, but like many downtown I simply thought that his time was done - he had his kick at the can and it had proved to be underwhelming. The man was a good speaker and passionate but that's as far as it went. He couldn't get people on side to realize much of anything.

Agreed that it's bad blood to talk about Ford voters being idiots. That said, if I had a dollar for every time I read a general slam at lefties in here I'd be rich. Forums - what can you do? That's what happens in netland: People forever telling other people not to do what they themselves routinely do.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I liked Miller for much of those reasons, but his time was indeed done. The problem is, we haven't had a real candidate competent enough to be this city's mayor truly step up yet. 

And I'm not holding my breath for one in the next election either.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Amalgamation is a mess, for sure... but Sonal is right; cities routinely swallow outlying villages as they expand. Even in the GTA, where density is increasing and vertical growth is obvious (a slew of mid and high-rise towers going up in Mississauga, Toronto's west end and certainly downtown itself), the separation between city and edge cities is more attitudinal than physical. It's one big interconnected system. You'll likely never get rid of territorial and historical separations, and that's fine - let's call them _neighbourhoods_ and leave it at that.

For visitors to the COTU, it looks to be one contiguous sprawl - place names like Oakville, Unionville, Cooksville, Leslieville, Leaside, the Beach, Vaughn - merely refer to places all in the same big pot. The problem is regulating and governing it in a manner which reflects that interconnectedness.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Mayor red face is being taken to task for his previous statements. The authour of this article normally has a conservative bent to him too.

No revenue? No problem. Right, Mayor Ford? - The Globe and Mail


----------

