INTEREST GROUPS & INFRASTRUCTURE

by CEECEE LU for Urbane Magazine
FROM VOL I: Issue 1, Spring 2010

Illustration by ALEX BERIAULT

For some residents, the developments which greet a Toronto in the new year induce anticipation but reflection as well. The ongoing mayoral races and newly amended Operating and Capital budget have given rise for contemplation as to what should and can be improved for the city. A look at the evolution of Toronto throughout the past decade reveals a city, once a Canadian beacon of finance, culture, and entertainment, is now receding into a faded shell of its former self. A deteriorating economy, festering unemployment, and corroded infrastructure are all elements of the slow decay now found within the once flourishing urban landscape.

The accumulation of unfortunate situations mean bad news for a fragile budget neck deep in shortages and shortfalls—figures which ranged from $450 to $500 million for 2009. Though difficult to obtain an exact quote, city statements and media reports are projecting ones of near $500 million for 2011 as well. With these numbers in mind, the sentiments of media reports, public opinion polls, and everyday discussions reveal an overwhelming opinion that since the new millennium, wasteful operations and reckless spending are part and parcel of an administrative disease. Toronto is unable to regulate its spending behaviour to match its ability to raise profits. In an ‘09 financial report of the city, the Chief Financial Officer notes that the operating costs of the city are beginning to far overreach its main source of revenue, namely property taxes. It is a rise that the CFO attributes to the growing “unique and diverse needs” of Toronto. However, as the annual budget is revealed near the start of each year, there is often a sinking feeling that some operations and some special interest group consistently receives preferential treatment over the needs and necessities of other city concerns.

Consequently, some necessary responsibilities such as infrastructure projects are often funded externally—accumulating debt for the city—or entirely sidestepped. A crumbling infrastructure, though rarely making front page, is a city cancer nonetheless. Adopting an “out of sight, out of mind” doctrine, it still is essential and everlasting yet often overlooked by the mainstream media and general public. A paper from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities states that Canada on a whole requires $123-billion to just restore the state of its roads, bridges, and other networks. The structures within Toronto, which constitute a noteworthy portion of that sum, have many buildings, piping, and roads which are well over half a century old, many well exceeding their life cycle. The well-being of these components all decrease breakage and repair time, improving the movement of goods, services and ideas within a city, which stimulates the economy and ultimately keeps the conditions of more notorious topics of concern—crime, poverty, unemployment—in check. Experts and city councillors generally agree that the infrastructure within the city will soon reach a critical point.

In February ‘10, Mayor Miller and his office presented the mandatory balanced budget, its details heralded as “a tremendous achievement.” Unfortunately, affixed to the budget were tax hikes and increased user fees, surplus from previous years, and reserve drains—revenue aids viewed as unfavourable and unnecessary for the general public. In any case, greater income had been preceded by greater spending needs, roughly $500 million more, though cost of living had increased less than one percent. As the government increasingly draws from the personal and commercial wealth of Toronto residents and businesses, incentive for spending, investment, and risk-taking decreases, stunting long-term economic growth and recovery. Businesses within the downtown core are paying nearly double in property taxes than other areas of the GTA; however, their property taxes continue to rise each year. The suburban areas thrive while the urban areas weaken. As numbers are offered exposing the contrast between the commercial vigour of Toronto and other Canadian cities, metropolitan Toronto grows more and more akin to the runt of the litter. Though the financial condition of the municipal budget cannot afford the luxury of increased spending, they are ones which the mayor asserted were necessary for operation of services provided by the city. Among these services are the ones provided by special interest groups—whether issue-based or trade unions. The initially presented balanced budget is not the final version, but as the annual budget is presented and debated near the start of each year, meetings are oftentimes public and further attended by various representatives of the numerous issue-based interest groups which exist within the city. The group of spokespeople hail from a diverse background ranging from arts and culture to tourism to environmentalists. Yet, all have one thing in common—a shared goal to present a case compelling enough to sway city councillors to mould budget policies in favour of their cause. Though the impact of these groups are limited, there have been complaints of favouritism, particularly towards environmental causes—worthy, but ultimately futile in addressing the most pressing concerns of the city.

Though issue-based interest groups may not have momentous effects, there is a similar pattern of preference in more weighty organizations, in particular those of Toronto unions and their influence upon municipal operations and policies. At this time, the mention of trade unions may bring memories of the, potentially hazardous, 2009 garbage strike initiated because generously-waged union workers demanded the benefit of banking sick days from the city. There are other, more constant sources of influence working to sway legislation and budget. One such group in particular, demands and receives more attention than most others. The unionized TTC behemoth has been eating away at the Toronto budget for years, except this year, the province will not be providing aid; however, an increased 8.2% increase in financial backing is planned anyhow. This increase translates into increased fares for riders, increased extraction from property-tax revenue, and increased endeavours to convince the premiers that all these privileges and thus, provincial money are necessary for the service. Provincial aid has been trumpeted as the be all and end all to Toronto deficit issues. A lot of effort has been put into trying to invoke guilt among the premiers. All the while a reduction in TTC ridership has been projected by the city. No amount of financial aid for a costly operation with stagnant growth can solve any issues. Similarly, the police union is distributed the largest portion of municipal funding than any other public service and continue to receive increases in funding as well as an expanding force. Supporters assert that crime rates have been consistently falling over the years, though that is wholly in line with a pattern found in urban-centres across the nation. Thus, in light of the genuine importance of their services, these interest groups become a necessary evil of sorts when coupled with their select privileges and demands.

Consequently, as increases occur in certain specific divisions, infrastructure projects and other departments are faced with cutbacks and massive layoffs, not to mention hiked taxes, fares, and fees for residents. However, there is little doubt that the imbalance for the Toronto budget will continue to grow if the same mistakes are made over and over again. The systemic misplacement of budget funding do not find a solution in the raising of property taxes and user fees nor in accusing the provincial government of neglecting its parental responsibilities. As the mayoral races continue, many will look to a figure who can accomplish an economical operation of the city budget required to provide the long-term benefits Toronto needs, rather than perpetual one-off strategies and blind favouritism.