Andre Maingscott July 17, 2007 at 12:12 p.m.

I was listening to CBC radio on my way to work today and I heard how the vote completely deteriorated for Miller. The key vote, whose name eludes me now, claims he was acting in the interest of his constituents, the city, and miller...in that order. That was why, he contended, he could not allow these new taxes to be introduced. What he was really saying was that he would pander to the guttural reaction of voters: taxes are bad. If he was really acting out of the interest of his constituents and his city he would have voted in favor of taxes, or would have at least contended that the city needs money to improve the general well being of the entire Toronto population. It seems like a callously partisan and short sighted statement. Let's be serious: this city needs money, and its politicians need to grow a pair.

Michael Vanner July 17, 2007 at 1:16 p.m.

The city doesn't need more money, it gets lots. It needs to look at how it spends the money it gets and not waste it foolishly on flights of fancy (like suing Porter Air).
Andre, if the politicians had a pair, they'd cut services that are extravagant, reign in the police budget (last I heard our biggest expenditure) and add user fees where appropriate. Sadly they don't have the kahunna's to face the facts, there is only one taxpayer.

Seegram Mountjoy July 17, 2007 at 1:29 p.m.

I hate to be a stickler, but the problem is not money...its money management. The vote reflected not a disinterest in the city, but a disaffection with the administration of money. It was a statement against Miller. You're not getting any more cash until you prove you can be fiscal and frugal. End of Story.

Matheo Herrmaing July 17, 2007 at 1:55 p.m.

Michael, the city is actually the one being sued by Porter Air.
Andre, while I agree with obvious need for money in this city, the land transfer tax was merely one option to generate money for the city. While some are better than others, there are certainly other plans to right the city's money problems, hence why the land transfer tax was decided in such a tight vote. I personally supported the tax, and I would support any initiatives that can generate money for the city in a non-destructive way. (Then again, I also don't have a problem with a casino within Toronto's municipal borders)
If there truly is a crisis brewing, then "grow a pair"(as it has been so eloquently mentioned) and make some decisions that some Torontonians will adamantly oppose.

Hank July 17, 2007 at 1:58 p.m.

Here is my question on this matter. I know the budget is drained right now and the city is in trouble...But, what exactly is the problem right now. Had the bill gone through, where would the money have gone? Now that it hasn't, is there going to be chaos in the streets, or is Mr. Joe Shmoe Toronto not going have the slightest clue there is a problem?

Adam July 17, 2007 at 2:24 p.m.

Mr. Vanner and Seegram, can you please point out to me exactly where the money hole is? Which programs should be cut? What's an "extravegant" service? (And, remember, cutting all the small things that Rob Ford harps on, like $70k in plant watering, added together come to a few million dollars, not $575 million or anything remotely close to it.)

And, before you yelp about the Porter lawsuit, the City had to pay for that as a result of the mayor following through on possibly the only mandate he explicitly had from voters in his first term (kill the bridge to the island airport). I don't think anyone could deny that Miller had those specific marching orders from the electorate.

The City is actually impeccably managed for a public corporation of such size. It's been declared as such by external auditors repeatedly, including provincial auditors when that government thought what you do.

The one place I'll agree with Vanner is the police budget. That budget has increased by a record amount under Miller and it rarely seems to get the scruitny that other areas of the city get because even the possibility of telling the police to be more efficient is met by critics who start with the "soft on crime" line.

But even trimming the police budget won't take care of the hole the City is in now.

So, Hank, the answer is yes, Joe Shmoe will realize there is a problem. He'll realize there's a problem when his taxes increase by, I'd guess, 6%-10% if the the City adopts the new taxes in October or up to 18% if they don't approve the taxes at all. On top of that, Joe Shmoe will also notice that core services like snow and leaf removal are cut where that exists, Library hours will be reduced, swimming pools closed, child care services reduced...Well just about anything that the City isn't contractually obligated to pay for or provide will see a reduction in service levels.

Carl Spanx July 17, 2007 at 2:29 p.m.

The point is everybody hates taxes. No matter the reason, a raise in tax or a new tax makes for a bitter public. In order to gain more support from Torontonians, David Miller needs to show us the fruits or potential fruits of our tax dollars! None of our public services are perfect, and many things need improvement - ie. our public transportation system. I think we are a public that has not seen obvious results from our tax dollars, and until we see some concrete improvements, we will always resist taxation and vilify those who implement it.

Now, I find the casino idea refreshing - "outside the box" if you will (something Hank might appreciate). While it ultimately promotes the deterioration of the family unit, mindless spending, and addiction, it would mean that Torontonians could benefit from the wasteful habits of gamblers! Better that money go into the hands of the people instead of corrupt Casino owners at Casino Rama!

I'm always one to promote an "extreme" alternative!

Now, I find the casino idea refreshing - "outside the box" if you will (something Hank might appreciate). While it ultimately promotes the deterioration of the family unit, mindless spending, and addiction, it would mean that Torontonians could benefit from the useless and wasteful habits of gamblers! Better that money go into the hands of the people instead of corrupt Casino owners at Casino Rama!

I'm always one to promote an "extreme" alternative!

GoestoCasinos July 17, 2007 at 2:45 p.m.

"It ultimately promotes the deterioration of the family unit, mindless spending, and addiction, it would mean that Torontonians could benefit from the useless and wasteful habits of gamblers" -Not appreciated. I have been gambling at casinos my whole life and I still have my act together.

Matheo Herrmaing July 17, 2007 at 3:07 p.m.

While I might not share the same enthusiasm for gambling that GoestoCasinos does, I also do my fair share of gambling. While there are definitely people who quite frankly, shouldn't be allowed near a casino, for others it is merely an entertainment venue, and one that could generate significant revenue for the city of Toronto.
The fact is that if Torontonians want to go gamble, they tend to drive for several hours to Niagara, or Rama. If Torontonians want to play high stakes poker, they go there or they go to the various underground card rooms around the city. While there would obviously be increase in the amount of Torontonians gambling should a casino be built, but the truth is, Torontonians are gambling and the city of Toronto should profit on it rather than taking the moral high ground from the distance.

Carl Spanx July 17, 2007 at 3:07 p.m.

Well, Mr. Casinos, you are a lucky guy. It is a real art to balance a lifetime of gambling with your family, necessary spending and your career. While I trust that your gambling lifestyle is completely healthy, you must acknowledge that it can become an unhealthy addiction for many!

I am personally overcoming a horrible addiction called "extremism". In my worst state, I was skipping work to go cliff diving and sky diving - sometimes both in the same day. I was in denial for years, Mr Casinos...

Either way, you can't deny that casinos promote gambling addictions - but this being said, it's a refreshing idea and I like it.

Chip Cardo July 17, 2007 at 3:11 p.m.

I find this entire conversation to be very offensive. The idea is atrocious. The government will stoop to a new level if they choose to profit from the innocent people who are consumed by gambling addictions in this city.

This is simply outrageous.

I know from personal experience that the luring and brightly lit claws of casinos can trap a person in and ruin their lives.

Terr-eco-orist July 17, 2007 at 3:16 p.m.

I think we should force drivers of SUVs should be forced to pay a high tax, and then we can forget about the land transfer tax!

Let's kill two hummers with one stone! The government can make it's well-needed money and force SUV drivers off the road to promote a healthy environment!

How is that for extreme Mr. Spanx?

Matheo Herrmaing July 17, 2007 at 3:39 p.m.

How exactly is it 'offensive' that we are discussing possibilities and means through which the city can get its hands on some much needed money, cardo?
Your post is an argument for the city to open a casino..."profit from the innocent people who are consumed by gambling addictions in this city." That means there are already people in the city with gambling addictions and a Toronto casino doesn't even exist. A Toronto casino will not only allow the city to profit from these people (rather than just allowing private clubs and Niagara to profit) and two, it will mean less population as people will have access to a local casino rather than having to drive their big cars 3 hours in order to gamble. Its profitable and environmentally friendly...

Hank July 17, 2007 at 3:50 p.m.

Terr-eco-orist, stay on topic please. We aren't discussing congestion taxing right now. And I am not exactly sure what kind of tax you are proposing in order to generate the almost half billion dollars that Miller was hoping to gain from the property sales tax, but it just wouldn't happen.
Furthermore, what about those drivers who purchased SUV before the tax, they would suddenly be faced with a massive tax to pay. While I respect your desire to go 'green', your idea is a little off base.

Andre Maingscott July 17, 2007 at 4:06 p.m.

Good to see some varying perspectives on the issue. I would contend that the moralist objection to Casino's has little bearing on policy making. If you were to look at divorce rates, foreclosure rates, child abuse, spousal abuse, or alcohol abuse over the past 10 years in and around the Casino Rama area or in and around Niagara you would see no correlation. And even if there were an increase, there would be no way to determine whether or not gambling was to blame. Now look what that casino did to the community, or look at how Niagara has turned the Golden Horseshoe into a veritable international tourism destination, and you will see that your argument is ill founded.

Andre Maingscott July 17, 2007 at 4:07 p.m.

People who have a propensity for risk taking and a propensity for addiction already exist in our community. If a casino comes into town, I will probably go with Matheo because he knows how to play poker and win some cash, but I am not about to put my mortgage (if I had one) on the table. What I am saying, is that it will not affect the scruples or common sense of the population at large. Politics is all about appeasement, so how about you tell every casino that comes into town that they donate 5% of their profits to CAMH (Center for Addiction and Mental Health) I am sure they wouldn't mind if they were granted access to the largest and wealthiest population in the country.

Carl Spanx July 17, 2007 at 4:25 p.m.

I agree with Andre - despite the horrible reality of gambling addictions, those with a problem will get to any casino - whether it's in northern Ontario or downtown toronto. We need to think of new ways to raise government funds as alternatives to taxation. This looks like a pretty interesting prospect!

And Terr-eco-ist, please stay on topic!

Andre Maingscott July 17, 2007 at 4:41 p.m.

A prohibition on gambling makes as much sense as a prohibition on alcohol. I'm not a libertarian, but these restrictions do little to curb detrimental behavior and by making them illegal we criminalize people whose only crime is dependency. Should states take a stance against these issues? Are governments the embodiment of our highest ideals or a means to protect the rights of individuals?

FilozzoferKing July 17, 2007 at 4:46 p.m.

Couldn't we argue that all drugs and all forms of sexual deviance should be legalized, provided that people's individual rights aren't vioated. But then couldn't we make that argument that alcohol abuse causes drunk driving, or that it leads to abuse in the family? But then, don't all things cause unintended effects? Doesn't air conditioning cause global warming? Don't people die on the highway without alcohol. Doesn't saturated fat cause heart disease? Should GM be sued? Should our farmers go out of business, should we all swelter in the July heat? What says you to that.

ChirpStar July 17, 2007 at 4:50 p.m.

And couldn't we say that by starting this blog and stimulating discussion, Mr Preville is causing me to develop carpal tunnel syndrome as I write this. Isn't that an unintended consequence? Maybe he should be held accountable? Give me a break.

Mark Dowling July 17, 2007 at 5:16 p.m.

hmm... I wonder how much would be saved in greenhouse gas emissions by diverting Torontonians from travelling to Lake Simcoe.

For me only a sales tax breaks the hold the property market has on the city and gives a direct correlation between the City bringing in business and *directly* benefiting from it. If Ontario raised PST to 9% then all municipalities could get a share of it directly from how much was collected in the municipality. No need to wait for Harper do anything - he knows cities won't vote for him no matter what.

Manhattan July 17, 2007 at 5:17 p.m.

This new land-transfer tax does not provide any sideline benefits. Take a look at the vehicle registration: drive a car, use the roads, pay more tax and (ideally, but granted, probably not in this case at first) the money goes to roads. Makes sense. How about taxes that provide some kind of other benefit, something that might change things a little. Like a gasoline tax that sends money into transit coffers. Tax people, but gain the added benefit of a few getting out of their cars and potentially cleaning up the air.
If we're going to tax people (and certainly anger them) why not get a couple of added benefits as well?

Philip Preville July 17, 2007 at 11:13 p.m.

There could be direct benefits from a land-transfer tax in terms of funding specific city services. The idea was for some of the land-transfer tax money to be dedicated to the city's planning department, whose woes I have chronicled at length (www.torontolife.com/features/bedevilled-...) and whose restored health would go a long way towards restoring the city's. The idea makes sense: land-transfer taxes to pay for land-use planning services.

And I think morality can and often does play a role in public policy -- it's the reason for the existence of the LCBO. Ask any coroner how they feel about casinos and they won't mince words about their detrimental effects. If you don't want to think of it in terms of morality, just think of it as something that kills people, then ask whether you want one in your neighbourhood.

Mark Dowling July 18, 2007 at 1 p.m.

Manhattan - the Mayor refused to commit to ringfencing the proceeds of the new tax for additional infrastructure projects. Therefore your motor tax was just as likely to bail out a Queen West theatre at 1.2 million (30 votes to 8 AFTER the taxes vote) as it was to repave a road.

Ahab July 18, 2007 at 3:12 p.m.

Come on...the LCBO exists because the province likes the money from non-taxes. It should be privatized/competed with just like gambling should.

What governments should do in this area is regulate the "sinful" entertainment to minimize harm. Like the no booze under 19 laws. Booze with higher alcohol content should be taxed at a higher rate (Senate report) and the most addictive froms of gambling should be banned. (poker machines)

Ultimately, the city will continue to be in a financial crisis until the Mayor is willing to stand up to the media-political fearmongering that has driven the city to 5% annual increases in police spending for the last decade or so.