Article content continued

[np_storybar title=”Wallace on who should pay” link=””]

At the May 24 meeting of Toronto’s executive committee, Coun. David Shiner asked city manager Peter Wallace if he thought Toronto taxpayers could reasonably shoulder the burden of multibillion-dollar transit and public housing projects, as opposed to the province. Wallace’s response was as follows:

It is not my argument that they should be municipal responsibilities. That isn’t my argument. It is my argument that the kid who was born when those responsibilities were downloaded (from the province) is now in university. We have argued constantly, (under) two different regimes to the province, that it should be fixed. It has not been fixed.

…

We can make the argument and council can make the argument: no, we don’t want to invest in transit because the government of Ontario and Canada should invest in transit; no we do not want to invest in social housing because the government of Ontario and Canada should make that investment. That has been (city council’s) argument to date. My submission to you is that is no longer a responsible argument given the absolute fiduciary responsibility that we have on the basis of the taxpayers and ratepayers of this city. And I feel that very strongly. It is not a question of what should be. It is a question of what is.

[/np_storybar]

New city manager Peter Wallace’s report to council nicely laid out the state of play. Not only are property taxpayers not overburdened relative to those in neighbour municipalities; adjusted for inflation, their collective contribution to city coffers has fallen five per cent since 2010. And while efficiencies remain to be realized at City Hall — no one who interacts regularly with it can possibly claim otherwise — spending is well under control. In real dollars, per capita gross expenditures today are roughly four per cent lower than in 2010.