Toronto Star columnist declares Calgary a co-belligerent!

[Beltliner]

In related news: Statue of Elvis found on Mars by Batboy!

For your consideration this morning, folks, is a piece from The Toronto Star's urban affairs columnist, Christopher Hume. Buried amongst the wails and lamentations for a megacity hard done by is a comparison with the infrastructure situation in Calgary:

Same fight for Calgary, Toronto

Jul 26, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume

Toronto's battles with the provincial and federal governments continue unabated, but in the meantime the war to stop civic decline has reached a critical point.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has made it clear he's in the enemy camp, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is blissfully unaware that the fighting has started.

So far, it seems the odds are stacked against the city, but it's important to understand, this is happening right across Canada.

What has become apparent in the last decade is that Canada is a country with a reality problem. We are a nation divided; instead of trying fruitlessly to save Afghanistan, we should focus on the federation.

Toronto's woes are well known: the TTC must cut back, raise fares, or both. Cost of basic services such as water will increase. Even the untouchable police may be required to tighten their well-padded belts.

Sadly, local civic leaders are anything but. Listening to the nonsense spouted by councillors such as Denzil Minnan-Wong and Rob Ford, one can only cringe.

Similarly, the talk about the province "bailing out" Toronto is cringeworthy. There's no bailout here, only a need for Queen's Park to abide by its own rules and treat the city fairly and intelligently.

Lest anyone think we are alone in dealing with a premier who is years behind the times in his understanding of the world, consider the case of Calgary, the largest city in Canada's richest province, Alberta. It is also the place where Mayor David Bronconnier has been engaged in a pitched battle with the Ed Stelmach Conservative government for months.

The issues are instantly familiar: inadequate funding, Tory downloading and broken provincial promises. This in a province where the Heritage Fund has just hit $16.6 billion, the largest amount in its 31-year history.

Is it any wonder the decades-old Tory dynasty in Alberta is threatened for the first time in recent memory? Indeed, Ralph Klein's old seat in Calgary went Liberal in the provincial election last month. The defeat was widely viewed as a rebuke of the Tories for their failure to deal with that city's needs.

Torontonians know all about provincial indifference. But having thrown out Ontario's Tories, they are stuck with a Liberal regime that has done little to undo damage inflicted by its predecessors.

In the meantime, Queen's Park is busy fighting its own battle with Ottawa over the "fiscal imbalance." How ironic that the McGuinty Liberals should complain about federal practices that resembles nothing so much as their own. Do unto others as they would do unto you.

"We are not in the same dire financial straights [sic!] as Toronto," says Calgary finance manager Mansur Kanji. "But the city is not getting its fair share from the province. The province has the responsibility to invest and help us build the civic infrastructure. It's been hard to accommodate the kind of growth that is happening here now. The people of Calgary really support the mayor on this issue."

One thing McGuinty did get right, however, was that Toronto councillors will have to make some "hard decisions." The fact is property taxes must be increased. There's no way around this, despite the posturing at city hall.

Of course this terrifies municipal politicians, most of whom care less about the city than their tiny part of it. Worse still, many, especially those from places such as Etobicoke and Scarborough, have yet to grasp that amalgamation made them part of Toronto nearly a decade ago.

Time moves slowly here; is it any wonder we're falling behind?

[Wooster]

How long will the real fiscal imbalance persist? Perhaps it is time to make large municipalities a third order of government.

[Doug]

The only thing in common between Calgary and Toronto in terms of municipal finances is grandstanding mayors.

Also, at $1.5B, Calgary has the second highest per capita debt of the large cities.

I was in favor of municipalities being a third order of government until I lived in the US. Down there municipalities waste huge amounts of resources competing with one another. Having municipalities subservient to the Province is much mroe desirable. The real problem is still that the Federal government collects tax revenue far in excess of the limited value that it provides.

[MalcolmTucker]

We could always go to unitary government with locally elected advisory councils, to advise an appointee or minister of the central government. Then we would only pay tax to one level of government, and there couldn't be a fiscal imbalance, since there would only be one government.

[Edmonchuck]

Originally Posted by Doug

The only thing in common between Calgary and Toronto in terms of municipal finances is grandstanding mayors.

Also, at $1.5B, Calgary has the second highest per capita debt of the large cities.

I was in favor of municipalities being a third order of government until I lived in the US. Down there municipalities waste huge amounts of resources competing with one another. Having municipalities subservient to the Province is much mroe desirable. The real problem is still that the Federal government collects tax revenue far in excess of the limited value that it provides.

amen Doug...

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Edmonchuck

amen Doug...

I knew another former Puget Sound resident would be in agreement.

[Mr Man]

I keep hearing about Toronto's fiscal troubles in the media. The city is actually very rich. It's just other levels of government (including other provinces by ways of equalization) use it as an ATM, almost as much as Alberta's cities. Yet some choose to ignore this fact and instead blame Alberta, possibly because of jealousy.

I've always said the equalization concept is a tax on economic growth and subsidization of inefficiency. But whenever I bring this opinion up, it's immediately dismissed by some, and then I'm the centre of personal attacks.

As is evident in the article, Christopher Hume represents a small minority of an anti-Alberta mindset that exists in Toronto. Instead of asking the question of why Canada's richest city is in a perpetual budget crisis, they constantly hear about Alberta's huge surpluses. And then possibly because of jealousy, and start to attack the region. The hilarious thing is, Alberta's cities suffer from the same financial woes as Toronto, just not as harshly.

This is a simplistic example, but the concept remains true:

In the past, a strong American dollar allowed Ontario to take advantage of it's proximity to the major consumption centres of the United States, and the manufacturing sector soared. While low energy prices hindered Alberta's full potential.
Today, strong energy prices has allowed Alberta to take advantage of it's geography. The oil & gas industry is soaring. But on the other hand, a strong Canadian dollar has killed Ontario manufactures that have relied soley on a weak dollar for exports.

In my humble opinion, these normal economic cycles can be positive. Most believe oil is not going to be around forever. Now is the best time to invest the revenues into something that will pay dividends and will help diversify Alberta's economy.
Ontario manufacturers can take advantage of the strong Canadian dollar and use it to buy new equipment, which use less energy and will create better efficiencies. Plus the cost benefit if the Canadian dollar falls from its recent highs.

But nope, when faced with a economic problem, instead of actually thinking then writing about the true causes of a problem, how to solve it or how the current perceived negative situation can be made into a positive... it's easier to rant without thinking and blame the current economic leader.

[Daver]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

We could always go to unitary government with locally elected advisory councils, to advise an appointee or minister of the central government. Then we would only pay tax to one level of government, and there couldn't be a fiscal imbalance, since there would only be one government.

What!...Are you a communist?