Archanfel

I don't think front line workers are the problem, just like I don't think corrupted government officials in some countries are the problem. The problem is always with the system, not with the individuals. Most individuals are lazy and greedy. That's human nature. It's up to the system to bring efficiency, both through higher productivity and lower costs. Therefore, my beef is not with public sector employees, it's with the public sector system. I have the same beef with a private monopoly since without fierce competition, even a private sector company would not be efficient.

Who said we would have more homeless people on the street? Bridle Path has no homeless shelter, yet it has no homeless people on the street. Sherborne and Dundas have several large homeless shelters and a lot of affordable housing, yet we see far more people wondering on the street. See a correlation there?

If public sector employees are so competitive, then I am sure they wouldn't have a problem with privatization since they would have got a raise in private sectors. And I am sure private sector companies would adopt public sector pay scales to save costs. Don't you think so?

They still win if they value the services being cut less than the taxes saved. Everybody has different priorities, I am guessing homeless shelters is not a priority for home owners paying thousands of dollars of taxes. In fact, I'd say closing the homeless shelter might improve the life of neighbouring home owners. I don't know any home buyers (including left wings ones) actively looking for a homeless shelter next door. Unless of course crime rates goes up, that remains to be seen.

Exactly what impact did it have, other than exposing it's the occupiers who are the 0.1%? Toronto has 2.5M people. How many people participated in the movement? Canada has 34M people, how many participated in the movement nation wide? .1% might have been generous. If that's HUGE, then the number of multi-millionaires in Canada are HUGE.

It's a good thing for tax payers, not so good for others.

Outside Toronto maybe? Living in Toronto is a privilege, not a right. You want to live in the one of most expensive cities in North America, you better work for it. There are many hard working taxpayers who can't afford to purchase a home in Toronto. And please spare us the talk on how homeless is not by choice. You reap what you sow. Government is not inefficient because it's bad, but because it's a government. Give me one example of an efficient democratic government. Government is a necessary evil, nothing more, nothing less. Last time I checked, public employees still enjoy defined benefit pension when most of the private companies moved to defined contribution to save costs. Is that a archaic view? Is that prejudice? Far less than what it would be if Miller was the major for the last year. Property tax in Toronto will go up by 2.5% over two years. That's lower than inflation. How many large cities can claim the same thing?

I think the easiest thing measure our fiscal house is to consider it as a household. Would banks lend you money when you spend more each year than you take in and your debts keep on growing? Not likely unless the banks know that you will have an limitless future income stream, which is of course the taxpayers for the city. Therefore, if you do not consider the taxpayers then our city is in great order. Worst case, we jack up property tax by 100% and we can easily balance the budget. Of course, it's never a question whether our fiscal house is in order, it's a question whether taxpayers are respected, which I'd say we were not.

Canada already has disability benefits, social welfare, OAS + GIS, universal health care. If people are still homeless despite all that, why should we care? As for mental illness, as ToadBrother said, there's no definition. Show me an abnormal CT of a baby whose mother didn't use alcohol, cigarettes or drugs during pregnancy, then I might have some sympathy. So the real question is not how should we save money, it should be why we are spending money at all. If it's purely a crime prevention scheme, then I am sure it can be done much cheaper. Toronto spends $800 million/year on social housing alone.

Just want to point out that the $6.5 billion will not come directly from taxpayers, but borrowed, which means the taxpayers will pay that plus interests in the future. We are already a very high carrying cost ($9.7B according to national post) on our massive debt($220B). That's $734.26 per person just to pay interests. Likely much higher per taxpayer. Also note that the 3.6% annual increases does not include inflation, which means the actual increase will be around 5.6%.

I highly doubt people care about this issue enough to elect a prime minister solely on it. On the other hand, the backlash would be significant.

My take is if you are against gun control, you should be against substance control. And vice versa. Yet most people seems to favor one, but not the other.

Doing something at a cost to a Canadian does not necessarily means that it's not what Canada needs. Don't tell me you don't shave or take showers because you worry about the cost to a particular cell. Having said that, I am not sure why Rob Ford even expressed an opinion on this as a mayoral candidate (or why we are even discussing this in the "Local Politics" forum). It's simply none of his business as a municipal politician. I wouldn't judge him based on his stance on immigration one way or the other, but I do think he got the classic foot in mouth syndrome.

I disagree with the OP. The law has to consider the consequences of a misjudgement. The consequence to the landlord is a couple of months of rents. The consequence to the tenant is a complete uproot of his/her life. Therefore, it's very reasonable that the rental law chose to error on the safe side. The landlord can always pursue civil lawsuit for any monetary damages. He/she can also demand greater background checks and bigger deposit. In fact, large corporations do credit checks before renting out an apartment. Of course, he/she can demand insurance. I don't see the point of having a law requiring all of those things.