Fordtopia: Year Two

[Archanfel]

So having more homeless people on the street (instead of tucked up in a shelter) is a positive in your world?

Good grief.

This is typical Fordite thinking, really. Can't see past the ends of their own nose, which they will only end up cutting off to spite their faces anyway.

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?

[Shwa]

This means bringing government organizations forward 50 years, from the bureaucratic militaristic organizational structures that dominated into the 1960s into the flatter structures that we have today.

Wasn't email supposed to make flatter structures? If email couldn't do you think Facebook and Twitter will?

New Media is involved because the web is married to the new modes of working in many ways. It's more interactive and participatory, and allows people to do things such as collect information directly from people using services, to work from home, and to operate more efficiently and with less oversight.

Teleworking isn't "New Media." And let's not forget the costs of replacing old systems, old infrastructure to keep up with the Jones. Kind of like the way they went gangbusters with eHealth.

The costs for feedback via the web are much lower, and you can cast a wider net. You can ask people who use services to directly comment about how they use them, what their needs are and so on. So these modes are more participatory and open.

Sure. Like the comments section after a Sun story on homelessness. The problem is, you have to sort out targets and ensure that the targets are the ones making the feedback. Hey, wasn't Canada Post supposed to provide an email address for every Canadian at one time?

They're more egalitarian because the hierarchy is reduced. You don't need 'supervisors' so much, nor is there as much prestige or responsibility in being higher on the food chain. Managers are more like first-among-equals.

I agree. But... the organization can be as flat as hell, but the gate and walls are still mighty vertical. It's damend if you do and damned if you don't.

Finally, these organizations are cheaper for many reasons. They require less specific skills, if the roles are organized properly. Roles can be eliminated entirely once they're automated. Does that mean layoffs, budget cuts and tax cuts ? Maybe. If that's what people want. It can also mean redirecting people into other services but the public should decide that: it's a separate question.

I agree again. "If that's what people want." But who determines that? A comment section on a City blog page? I recall reading a public survey on particular government service being offered. The choices were: face-to-face, telephone or Internet. I can't recall the exact numbers for the two former methods, but do remember that there was only 25% that preferred the Internet. Twenty-five percent. Of course, the department went with the Internet channel right? Cuz, sometimes ya gotta force people to be free.

Government departments are the domain of those involved, and those people increase the size and scope of their responsibility as time goes on. That's just how it works, there's no moralizing there. They do this by getting bigger budgets from the politicians who are their patrons. If they can convince the politician that something is required, then they can make it happen.

But outside of all of this, we have citizens demanding more services and lower costs. They put these demands on the revolving door holders of political office, whose only goal is to win the election. The public holds these people responsible rather than those who are in charge of government departments.

Maybe public service should be compulsory. Like military service in Sweden.

This structure worked really well for a long time, but a combination of factors have resulted in the public being disconnected (to varying degress) from the departments that serve them.

I would gather that the majority of the public service agrees with you, but are too wrung out by management to even have the time to respond in any sort of meaningful way.

This is a general description about my feelings about corporate structure in our age, and how we could do better. How to make that happen is an entirely different, and more difficult problem. I welcome your comments.

Therein lies the problem, of "corporate structure." There needs to be a new philosophy of public administration created since simply bringing in management consultants to lay down the latest jargon of the private, corporate world simply does not work. Low hanging fruit, as it is...

[Shwa]

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?

I don't. Could you be a little more clear please?

[Black Dog]

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?

Ah, so it all comes down to the real Fordite mantra: "Fuck you, I got mine."

[Archanfel]

I don't think they would like that, no, but for other reasons.

Private sector pay scales may be more, but they're also performance based and have different ways to manage benefits.

In any case, I'm starting to think that you believe front line workers are the problem. That would lead me to believe that you might actually have a prejudice after all.

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.

[Archanfel]

Ah, so it all comes down to the real Fordite mantra: "Fuck you, I got mine."

I would have no problem saying that to people who refuse to build a life for themselves no matter what, but I don't think there are a lot of those people in Toronto.

It's always amazes me that you people treat the homeless and under privileged as forever handicapped. I have full faith in every person's ability. My mantra is "I work hard to earn a life and if you work hard, you will get yours". I have no problem kicking my kids out of the house when they are 18, not because I don't love them, but because I have faith in them.

[Michael Hardner]

Wasn't email supposed to make flatter structures? If email couldn't do you think Facebook and Twitter will?

Email did make flatter structures for companies that could manage change properly.

I don't think Facebook and twitter should be used for business, except maybe online marketing.

Teleworking isn't "New Media." And let's not forget the costs of replacing old systems, old infrastructure to keep up with the Jones. Kind of like the way they went gangbusters with eHealth.

Why not ? It seems pretty new to me.

I don't know that old systems should be replaced as much as supplanted. And this isn't about systems so much anyway. You still need them for a lot of things.

eHealth was a great example of how not to do... anything...

Sure. Like the comments section after a Sun story on homelessness. The problem is, you have to sort out targets and ensure that the targets are the ones making the feedback. Hey, wasn't Canada Post supposed to provide an email address for every Canadian at one time?

Yeah - that sounds like a good idea in retrospect. Every Canadian should have an official email address for the government to send things to.

I agree. But... the organization can be as flat as hell, but the gate and walls are still mighty vertical. It's damend if you do and damned if you don't.

I don't understand this.

I agree again. "If that's what people want." But who determines that? A comment section on a City blog page? I recall reading a public survey on particular government service being offered. The choices were: face-to-face, telephone or Internet. I can't recall the exact numbers for the two former methods, but do remember that there was only 25% that preferred the Internet. Twenty-five percent. Of course, the department went with the Internet channel right?

Interesting story. They ignored the wishes of their key stakeholder group, and instead listening to somebody dictating to them that they had to cut costs. That doesn't sound like they were connected to their constituents but were responding to orders from above.

Therein lies the problem, of "corporate structure." There needs to be a new philosophy of public administration created since simply bringing in management consultants to lay down the latest jargon of the private, corporate world simply does not work. Low hanging fruit, as it is...

They don't do anybody favours by swooping in and out as they do. But at the same time, if the government is doing things like it's the 70s... and these consultants are in the 80s...

There is a lot of bad out there...

[Black Dog]

I would have no problem saying that to people who refuse to build a life for themselves no matter what, but I don't think there are a lot of those people in Toronto.

It's always amazes me that you people treat the homeless and under privileged as forever handicapped. I have full faith in every person's ability. My mantra is "I work hard to earn a life and if you work hard, you will get yours". I have no problem kicking my kids out of the house when they are 18, not because I don't love them, but because I have faith in them.

Gee that's swell. And I suppose if your kids were mentally ill, or drug addicted (or both) you'd show them the same "kindness"?

The notion that most people in extreme poverty choose that path, or that it's a sign of moral failure or weakness that can be overcome with enough gumption is an attitude best left in Dickensian England, so out of touch it is from the reality of today. Of course, even if we assume for a second that your view is reflective of the real world, I can't see how depriving people of desperately needed shelter is conducive to setting them on the path to becoming productive citizens.

Regardless, the homeless shelter thing is a bit overstated; back to the original point on property taxes, keeping said taxes at a level below the rate of inflation when it is the city's primary source of revenue is so self-evidently stupid that I can't imagine anyone seriously making the case for it as good fiscal policy in the long run. Starve the city long enough and soon enough the cracks will grow so big that even the people in Rosedale will start to see them.

[Shwa]

Most individuals are lazy and greedy. That's human nature.

Oh gawd, the quality of the poster is revealed!

FU social contract!

[Michael Hardner]

Oh gawd, the quality of the poster is revealed!

FU social contract!

Indeed, the natural bias of a rightish poster would include that world view, while a leftish one believes Twain: "There's no such thing as a bad boy."

Humans are a mix of both good and bad, complex but usually mundane and predictable.

[Shwa]

Email did make flatter structures for companies that could manage change properly.

I think that email only made for flatter structures for companies that touted email as a structure flattening medium. Then they wanted to sell you their email system. I jest. In terms of government and major corporations, I think the flattening effect of email was wishful thinking.

Why not ? It seems pretty new to me.

Because you are confusing terms.

I don't know that old systems should be replaced as much as supplanted. And this isn't about systems so much anyway. You still need them for a lot of things.

And the ultimate difference between "replaced" and "supplanted" is...? The problem is, the on-going costs to maintain and upgrade current infrastructure and electronic services while, at the same time, managing expectations fueled by the bright lights of the future. That is difficult in this day and age. That is, hard to set a benchmark. Which leads us to:

eHealth was a great example of how not to do... anything...

Exactly. But the scariest part is that eHealth wasn't designed by dummies and no-nothings, but by experts and professionals. Sure, this wouldn't be the first time a large public project has experienced difficulties. But eHealth wasn't put together by high school students in the lab, or wannabe hackers in the basement.

Yeah - that sounds like a good idea in retrospect. Every Canadian should have an official email address for the government to send things to.

Sure, but the point is that it didn't happen. Another notion dreamed up by qualified experts and professionals and advertised as the next big thing and then... crickets and tumbleweeds. Why is that? Who decides? What hasn't the structure flattened to allow more direction from, say, directors to the workers?

I don't understand this.

To access a service, the client has to inter-face with the system somehow. The system behind that interface can be as flat as a pancake, but the interface is still vertical. We haven't overcome this barrier yet, technologically or even sociall and I doubt we will in our lifetime. It is a nice goal, worthy of keeping in the public conscience at every turn. But in the day and age of fear mongering, those gates are going to be thick and tall for quite some time to come.

Interesting story. They ignored the wishes of their key stakeholder group, and instead listening to somebody dictating to them that they had to cut costs. That doesn't sound like they were connected to their constituents but were responding to orders from above.

But who informs those "from above?" Senior managers are not technical or demographic experts and generally only read the executive summary and then take advice from the qualified experts and professionals. So, really, who decides?

They don't do anybody favours by swooping in and out as they do. But at the same time, if the government is doing things like it's the 70s... and these consultants are in the 80s...

There is a lot of bad out there...

Swooping in and out? Management consultants are a permanent workforce within all levels of government, moreso with the Federals and Provincials.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Shwa

[Archanfel]

Gee that's swell. And I suppose if your kids were mentally ill, or drug addicted (or both) you'd show them the same "kindness"?

The notion that most people in extreme poverty choose that path, or that it's a sign of moral failure or weakness that can be overcome with enough gumption is an attitude best left in Dickensian England, so out of touch it is from the reality of today. Of course, even if we assume for a second that your view is reflective of the real world, I can't see how depriving people of desperately needed shelter is conducive to setting them on the path to becoming productive citizens.

Regardless, the homeless shelter thing is a bit overstated; back to the original point on property taxes, keeping said taxes at a level below the rate of inflation when it is the city's primary source of revenue is so self-evidently stupid that I can't imagine anyone seriously making the case for it as good fiscal policy in the long run. Starve the city long enough and soon enough the cracks will grow so big that even the people in Rosedale will start to see them.

Unlike you, I have no prejudice against drugs. It's a personal choice. I advice my kids against it because its destructive nature, but it's ultimately their choices. I would not finance their habit, I would not allow it in my house, I would also not allow them to use it as an excuse to be less accomplished. If they are willing to work 10 times harder to finance both their life and their drug habit, kudos to them. I don't blame my kids (or other people) for their choices, I simply ask them to pay for them. Of course, I don't have THAT much faith in them, so I am still going to advice against it. Not because it's morally wrong, but because avoiding drugs makes life easier.

You sounded like drugs are being forced into people at gun point. How is that not their own choices? They chose a path of drug uses, they are responsible to dig themselves out of it. You reap what you sow. How many people did homeless shelters help turning into productive citizens? If there were so many, why should we pay for shelters rather than these "productive" citizens? The shelters should finance themselves by being productive, no?

Back to the budget, many hard working Canadians have been able to keep their spending below inflation, why can't the city of Toronto? The era of free spending is coming to an end, whether you like it or not. If you don't like what Ford had cut, come up with your own list. Torontonians are tired of ever raising taxes. If you got the extra money, be sure to donate them instead of blaming the government for not collecting them.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Archanfel

[Michael Hardner]

I think that email only made for flatter structures for companies that touted email as a structure flattening medium. Then they wanted to sell you their email system. I jest. In terms of government and major corporations, I think the flattening effect of email was wishful thinking.

You think so, but do you know so ? It seems to me that VPs have more access and knowledge of what is happening in their departments now versus 20 years ago.

Because you are confusing terms.

It takes two to make confusion.

And the ultimate difference between "replaced" and "supplanted" is...? The problem is, the on-going costs to maintain and upgrade current infrastructure and electronic services while, at the same time, managing expectations fueled by the bright lights of the future. That is difficult in this day and age. That is, hard to set a benchmark. Which leads us to:

It's hard, of course but your continuous blocking of the idea that change *will* eventually happen is frustrating. What will happen then ? The world will continue exactly as it is now ? A major new communications tool will have no effect and companies will operate exactly as they did in 1980 well into this century ?

Companies are making these changes right now. If you have no visibility into that, then your insight may be as useful as the person who in 1980 said a computer wouldn't change their job.

Exactly. But the scariest part is that eHealth wasn't designed by dummies and no-nothings, but by experts and professionals. Sure, this wouldn't be the first time a large public project has experienced difficulties. But eHealth wasn't put together by high school students in the lab, or wannabe hackers in the basement.

eHealth was spearheaded by political operatives and senior bureaucrats. All the whiz kids in the world won't save a project if the captain of the ship is a neanderthal.

And as to whether 'experts and professionals' are involved... of course everybody is called that. It doesn't mean that they're fit for the job, or that they will succeed. Nobody should have stars in their eyes when these folks walk in.

Their primary job is to listen and work with people, and if they don't do that then they will fail.

Sure, but the point is that it didn't happen. Another notion dreamed up by qualified experts and professionals and advertised as the next big thing and then... crickets and tumbleweeds. Why is that? Who decides? What hasn't the structure flattened to allow more direction from, say, directors to the workers?

Who decides is the right hand man of the deputy minister or head of crown corporation. Why hasn't the structure flattened ? Because government departments are the oldest, most inflexible, most resistant to change organizations we have.

To access a service, the client has to inter-face with the system somehow. The system behind that interface can be as flat as a pancake, but the interface is still vertical. We haven't overcome this barrier yet, technologically or even sociall and I doubt we will in our lifetime. It is a nice goal, worthy of keeping in the public conscience at every turn. But in the day and age of fear mongering, those gates are going to be thick and tall for quite some time to come.

The interface is vertical ? What does that mean ?

Excessive complexity and security cost more than their benefit, and they are forms of resistance that are dreamed up by those who don't want change - IT infrastructure and ass-covering senior bureaucrats who would spend millions in the hope that it would prevent a bad article in the Globe and Mail someday.

But who informs those "from above?" Senior managers are not technical or demographic experts and generally only read the executive summary and then take advice from the qualified experts and professionals. So, really, who decides?

Senior managers decide. If they want security, complexity and of course more staff then they will pay for that.

Swooping in and out? Management consultants are a permanent workforce within all levels of government, moreso with the Federals and Provincials.

That's sad.

From our conversations, I get that not only is the current system unable to change but that people with knowledge of it can't ever see it getting better.

I think maybe that the government needs to end the current system. They should start new parallel departments staffed with 100% fresh blood, providing services in parallel, and then grow the new services as they downsize the old one.

[Archanfel]

Indeed, the natural bias of a rightish poster would include that world view, while a leftish one believes Twain: "There's no such thing as a bad boy."

Humans are a mix of both good and bad, complex but usually mundane and predictable.

When did I ever say being lazy and greedy is "bad"?

Both laziness and greed are the result of natural selection. You got one species chase every moving thing whereas another only moves when they are hungry, guess which species would survive? Laziness preserves energy unless necessary, greed accumulates energy faster. Both ensure the survival of the species. Being "bad" is not human nature, the result of millions of years of evolution is.

Of course, humans are social animals, which means the society needs to be efficient and productive. Nature did not erase laziness and greed from individual, rather human evolved into various form of organizations to motivate people and maintain social order.

[Shwa]

You think so, but do you know so ? It seems to me that VPs have more access and knowledge of what is happening in their departments now versus 20 years ago.

A VP knowing more is hardly an indication that the structures have flattened to any significant degree. In fact, I would say that they have become more complex and obtuse with more middle management in the structure. At least for government and a few major corporate bureaucracies.

It takes two to make confusion.

Of course not. You can be confused completely on your own. You don't need me to verify it, even if I point it out.

It's hard, of course but your continuous blocking of the idea that change *will* eventually happen is frustrating. What will happen then ? The world will continue exactly as it is now ? A major new communications tool will have no effect and companies will operate exactly as they did in 1980 well into this century ?

I am not blocking any idea that change will happen nor do I imply that the world will continue exactly as it is now. Don't mistake counterpoint for a worldview.

Companies are making these changes right now. If you have no visibility into that, then your insight may be as useful as the person who in 1980 said a computer wouldn't change their job.

Companies can make the change, but you are missing the forest for the trees. If companies make these changes, does that automatically mean that their results can be applied in the same way to public administration? That is, do you see business administration equating to public administration? Because companies, as a whole, absorb a heck of a lot more failure that the government simply cannot afford. (i.e. eHealth)

eHealth was spearheaded by political operatives and senior bureaucrats. All the whiz kids in the world won't save a project if the captain of the ship is a neanderthal.

OK, so let's say you are right with the "spearheaded" part. Then detail who actually did the design and implementation parts? You have articulate the problem to which I suggest a solution. Currently public administration is governed by political operatives and senior bureacrats, so every project is going to be spearheaded by them. What is required is a change in the basic philosophy of public administration. All you seem to argue for is change despite the structure. (which doesn't appear to be flattening to any significant degree)

And as to whether 'experts and professionals' are involved... of course everybody is called that. It doesn't mean that they're fit for the job, or that they will succeed. Nobody should have stars in their eyes when these folks walk in.

And thus generally that is true for any expert and professional, from any sector of society. So how does one get around that? You are saying that new media and technology should have an immediacy to the transformative effects. I am saying that with the current structures, not so fast.

Their primary job is to listen and work with people, and if they don't do that then they will fail.

Listen and work with what "people?" The neaderthal political operatives and senior bureacrats that are the project drivers and champions?

Who decides is the right hand man of the deputy minister or head of crown corporation. Why hasn't the structure flattened ? Because government departments are the oldest, most inflexible, most resistant to change organizations we have.

Right. So then: who should decide?

The interface is vertical ? What does that mean ?

The vertical interface is the gateway that stands between you and government information and services and you know it very well judging from the amount of time you spend complaining about it. In more familiar terms, think of Bell Canada's customer service.

Excessive complexity and security cost more than their benefit, and they are forms of resistance that are dreamed up by those who don't want change - IT infrastructure and ass-covering senior bureaucrats who would spend millions in the hope that it would prevent a bad article in the Globe and Mail someday.

That's right. The complexity, security requirements, qualifications, the "oldest, most inflexible, most resistant to change organizations we have" is all the result of the practical implications of the philosophy of public adminstration of the modern welfare state. If you want to see a scary scenario, juxtapose this philosophy on a global scale.

Senior managers decide. If they want security, complexity and of course more staff then they will pay for that.

Senior managers make decisions based on what though Michael?

That's sad.

From our conversations, I get that not only is the current system unable to change but that people with knowledge of it can't ever see it getting better.

I think maybe that the government needs to end the current system. They should start new parallel departments staffed with 100% fresh blood, providing services in parallel, and then grow the new services as they downsize the old one.

Sure, end the current system and slowly replace it in a concurrent and parallel system. And this new system will be designed by who? Based on what? Decided by whom? Paid for, by whom? I am sure you would heartily volunteer to take the role of benevolent dictator, but is that realistic?

[Black Dog]

Unlike you, I have no prejudice against drugs. It's a personal choice.

Don't be daft. It's far more complicated than that (of course, stating that I have an issue with drugs shows your ignorance; best do your homework, noob.)

I advice my kids against it because its destructive nature, but it's ultimately their choices. I would not finance their habit, I would not allow it in my house, I would also not allow them to use it as an excuse to be less accomplished. If they are willing to work 10 times harder to finance both their life and their drug habit, kudos to them. I don't blame my kids (or other people) for their choices, I simply ask them to pay for them. Of course, I don't have THAT much faith in them, so I am still going to advice against it. Not because it's morally wrong, but because avoiding drugs makes life easier.

And the point sails by you untouched, never to be seen again.

You sounded like drugs are being forced into people at gun point. How is that not their own choices? They chose a path of drug uses, they are responsible to dig themselves out of it. You reap what you sow.

There's a whole host of issues that go along with drug use. Poverty, crime, drugs and mental illness are all interlinked; it's much more complex than "reap what you sow" (though I can see how that would appeal to the average right winger's thirst for simple solutions to complex issues that can be summed up in three-word slogans.)

How many people did homeless shelters help turning into productive citizens? If there were so many, why should we pay for shelters rather than these "productive" citizens? The shelters should finance themselves by being productive, no?

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I assume this being obtuse thing is an act, yeah? Because you're coming off much like a 18 year old dork who just discovered Ayn Rand and was like, whoah.

Back to the budget, many hard working Canadians have been able to keep their spending below inflation, why can't the city of Toronto?

You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be comparing the needs of an average household with the requirements of a city of more than $2.5 million people. Because that would be stupid.

The era of free spending is coming to an end, whether you like it or not.

The era of free spending never even began in the first place. It's a construct.

If you don't like what Ford had cut, come up with your own list.

How about this: increase property taxes by 5%, bringing it closer in line with inflation and compensating for last year's misguided rate freeze. That would bring in at least $114 million dollars, or approximately half of the budget gap.

Torontonians are tired of ever raising taxes.

Of course they are. They are also tired of crumbling roads and crowded subways. But you know what? You can't have it both ways.

If you got the extra money, be sure to donate them instead of blaming the government for not collecting them.

[Archanfel]

Don't be daft. It's far more complicated than that (of course, stating that I have an issue with drugs shows your ignorance; best do your homework, noob.)

And the point sails by you untouched, never to be seen again.

There's a whole host of issues that go along with drug use. Poverty, crime, drugs and mental illness are all interlinked; it's much more complex than "reap what you sow" (though I can see how that would appeal to the average right winger's thirst for simple solutions to complex issues that can be summed up in three-word slogans.)

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I assume this being obtuse thing is an act, yeah? Because you're coming off much like a 18 year old dork who just discovered Ayn Rand and was like, whoah.

You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be comparing the needs of an average household with the requirements of a city of more than $2.5 million people. Because that would be stupid.

The era of free spending never even began in the first place. It's a construct.

How about this: increase property taxes by 5%, bringing it closer in line with inflation and compensating for last year's misguided rate freeze. That would bring in at least $114 million dollars, or approximately half of the budget gap.

Of course they are. They are also tired of crumbling roads and crowded subways. But you know what? You can't have it both ways.

I never said poverty, crimes and drugs are not linked, and I never said it's simple. Nothing is simple in life. Life throws things at you, me and everybody. You are here posting an an internet forum, guess what, you are probably luckier than 90% of the world's population. A person can't control fate. What a person can control is to make whatever choices presented to him and stand by those choices. Yes, poverty may cause a person to be depressed, or associate with the wrong people. However, nobody can force you to use drugs, it's your own choice. There are drug dealers who never use drugs and they don't allow their kids to use drugs. If you made the choice to use drugs, then don't blame society for your choices.

I am not going to say much about mental illness. If somebody is sick enough, he should be in a hospital. If not, then live with it like everybody else. Nobody's gene is perfect. I would give them some leeway to blame their parents though since some parents are simply not responsible. Just don't blame me or society at large.

And no matter how complex a city is, it can not live beyond its means in the long term just like any household. Raise taxes or reduce spending, simple as that, you advocate the former and I advocate the later. I don't see how is your solution more complex than mine. The only difference is you believe it's the government's job to make the choices for people, that the government can spend people's money more wisely than themselves, I believe while that's true in some very rare cases, the downfall of communism proved you wrong. Oddly enough, liberalism is all about individual choices, so I dare to say I am far more liberal than you are. Communism has nothing to do with liberalism. Both communism and conservatism believe people can't make choices and a higher authority knows better. They simply have different definition of "better" and "higher authority".

And how can you guarantee that with a 5% tax raise, the road is going to get any better. After 8 years of Miller's high taxes, did the roads get any better? Did the roads get worse over the last year? If we shift some money from affordable housing to road maintenance, why can't we have it both ways? Are you saying that homeless people will actively dig holes on the road?

ps. I am not the one throwing insults and name calling around, so you might want to consider your own words before calling others immature.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Archanfel

[Michael Hardner]

A VP knowing more is hardly an indication that the structures have flattened to any significant degree. In fact, I would say that they have become more complex and obtuse with more middle management in the structure. At least for government and a few major corporate bureaucracies.

The last sentence here is key. Banks and government are notorious for overcrowding middle management ranks.

Of course not. You can be confused completely on your own. You don't need me to verify it, even if I point it out.

Then let's just define email as being part of new media and move on.

I am not blocking any idea that change will happen nor do I imply that the world will continue exactly as it is now. Don't mistake counterpoint for a worldview.

You don't seem to think that the way that the world is going will eventually affect government operations, though. Your posts follow the tone "but.. what about this ? and that ?"

There have already been lots of changes over the past 30 years that people thought couldn't happen, and there will be more.

Companies can make the change, but you are missing the forest for the trees. If companies make these changes, does that automatically mean that their results can be applied in the same way to public administration? That is, do you see business administration equating to public administration? Because companies, as a whole, absorb a heck of a lot more failure that the government simply cannot afford. (i.e. eHealth)

What are the reasons why the results can't be applied ? The reasons that I'm reading from you seem to be mostly about culture, which is always changing. Yes, there are differences in the areas of privacy for example, but companies also have to deal with those constraints.

The big difference is the number of players and stakeholders involved. In project management, stakeholder identification happens early on and bad stakeholder identification often results in failure.

OK, so let's say you are right with the "spearheaded" part. Then detail who actually did the design and implementation parts? You have articulate the problem to which I suggest a solution. Currently public administration is governed by political operatives and senior bureacrats, so every project is going to be spearheaded by them. What is required is a change in the basic philosophy of public administration. All you seem to argue for is change despite the structure. (which doesn't appear to be flattening to any significant degree)

Again, the administration by political operatives is a cultural problem and I have identified that as a major problem. I don't argue for change despite the structure, I argue for change in the structure.

Here's an example where I did this just below:

Interesting story. They ignored the wishes of their key stakeholder group, and instead listening to somebody dictating to them that they had to cut costs. That doesn't sound like they were connected to their constituents but were responding to orders from above.

They were responding to orders from above, as I said. This is the core of the problem. Services are not directed to their stakeholders as much as they should be, and are directed upwards in the hierarchy more than they should be.

And thus generally that is true for any expert and professional, from any sector of society. So how does one get around that? You are saying that new media and technology should have an immediacy to the transformative effects. I am saying that with the current structures, not so fast.

So maybe we're on the same page after all.

The person in your example ignored the wishes of the stakeholders, and implemented a web-based system because their boss told them to. Slay the king, as I said below.

Listen and work with what "people?" The neaderthal political operatives and senior bureacrats that are the project drivers and champions?

Well, although I am saying we need to change the structure, ultimately change needs a driver or a sponsor. The key will be getting sponsors who do not interfere with change for their own reasons.

What "people" ? Stakeholders. Those who do the front-line work, those who use services, and those who pay. Also those who administer in an operations sense, and those who make policy but their roles should be regarded as supporting roles.

Administrators provide for an environment in which objectives can be reached, and policy makers work to make the objectives easier to reach in the policy framework.

Right. So then: who should decide?

The head honcho, sponsor, deputy Dawg or whomever will always be there, but they need to be accountable to their stakeholders - primarily those using services, the general public and workers.

The vertical interface is the gateway that stands between you and government information and services and you know it very well judging from the amount of time you spend complaining about it. In more familiar terms, think of Bell Canada's customer service.

This part of the discussion came from a quote from you:

I agree. But... the organization can be as flat as hell, but the gate and walls are still mighty vertical.

So customer service is vertical ? Still not getting this.

I say that services need to take the general public - apart from service users - into account which means communicating costs, service levels and activities.

That's right. The complexity, security requirements, qualifications, the "oldest, most inflexible, most resistant to change organizations we have" is all the result of the practical implications of the philosophy of public adminstration of the modern welfare state. If you want to see a scary scenario, juxtapose this philosophy on a global scale.

Does the philosophy of public administration necessarily include putting your boss' needs above those whom you serve, as in the web-based service scenario you provided ? I don't see how.

Senior managers make decisions based on what though Michael?

Their boss' objectives, I suspect.

Sure, end the current system and slowly replace it in a concurrent and parallel system. And this new system will be designed by who? Based on what? Decided by whom? Paid for, by whom? I am sure you would heartily volunteer to take the role of benevolent dictator, but is that realistic?

Designed by a new team - fresh blood - based on interviews with the existing workers, decided by consensus, and paid for by taxpayers as an investment in improving services and reducing costs.

Benevolent dictators sounds like what we have today: I'm sure the decision in your scenario had the best intentions, but they felt they knew best... just like a benevolent dictator.

[Black Dog]

I never said poverty, crimes and drugs are not linked, and I never said it's simple. Nothing is simple in life. Life throws things at you, me and everybody. You are here posting an an internet forum, guess what, you are probably luckier than 90% of the world's population. A person can't control fate. What a person can control is to make whatever choices presented to him and stand by those choices. Yes, poverty may cause a person to be depressed, or associate with the wrong people. However, nobody can force you to use drugs, it's your own choice. There are drug dealers who never use drugs and they don't allow their kids to use drugs. If you made the choice to use drugs, then don't blame society for your choices.

You understand that man is not a rational actor who always makes choices with a clear understanding of the consequences, right? You must also understand that all choices happen within the context of the individuals' circumstances.

I am not going to say much about mental illness. If somebody is sick enough, he should be in a hospital. If not, then live with it like everybody else. Nobody's gene is perfect. I would give them some leeway to blame their parents though since some parents are simply not responsible. Just don't blame me or society at large.

Where is this "blame" thing coming from? It's about assisting people when they are at their most vulnerable, not assigning blame or moralizing. Stay focused here.

And no matter how complex a city is, it can not live beyond its means in the long term just like any household. Raise taxes or reduce spending, simple as that, you advocate the former and I advocate the later. I don't see how is your solution more complex than mine.

I never said mine was more complex. Mine just makes more sense.

The only difference is you believe it's the government's job to make the choices for people, that the government can spend people's money more wisely than themselves, I believe while that's true in some very rare cases, the downfall of communism proved you wrong. Oddly enough, liberalism is all about individual choices, so I dare to say I am far more liberal than you are. Communism has nothing to do with liberalism. Both communism and conservatism believe people can't make choices and a higher authority knows better. They simply have different definition of "better" and "higher authority".

Strawman. And irrelevant.

And how can you guarantee that with a 5% tax raise, the road is going to get any better. After 8 years of Miller's high taxes, did the roads get any better?

There's no guarantee a tax hike will ensure everything gets fixed. But I can guarantee (and not Rob Ford Guarantee) that things will get worse if taxes don't go up. Why? Because there's not enough "gravy" to make up the difference.

Did the roads get worse over the last year?

They always do.

If we shift some money from affordable housing to road maintenance, why can't we have it both ways? Are you saying that homeless people will actively dig holes on the road?

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[Archanfel]

You understand that man is not a rational actor who always makes choices with a clear understanding of the consequences, right? You must also understand that all choices happen within the context of the individuals' circumstances.

Where is this "blame" thing coming from? It's about assisting people when they are at their most vulnerable, not assigning blame or moralizing. Stay focused here.

I never said mine was more complex. Mine just makes more sense.

Strawman. And irrelevant.

There's no guarantee a tax hike will ensure everything gets fixed. But I can guarantee (and not Rob Ford Guarantee) that things will get worse if taxes don't go up. Why? Because there's not enough "gravy" to make up the difference.

They always do.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Since you have nothing to support your claims (you still haven't produced any evidence that homeless shelters make homeless people into productive citizens or closing shelters would make crimes worse), I am not sure how can you back your guarantee of (things will get worse)? What things? I didn't give any weight to Rob Ford's "guarantees" and why should I believe your guarantee when you are not even specific on what you are guaranteeing? Why should I be willing to pay more taxes for your baseless guarantees?

If you had guaranteed that life will get harder for the homeless, maybe I would have believed you. Then again, I would gladly pay lower taxes for that.

Tell you what, if you really believe the city should raise property taxes, go tell the home owners, collect the 2.5% extra from whoever you convinced to open a private homeless shelter or fix the road or fix whatever things you think will get worse. Let us know how that works out. So far you are doing a terrible job selling your high tax idea to me.

BTW, David Miller would have argued that your plan is too right wing. What do you mean by 2.5% increase per year? David Miller stayed with 3% for a while until his union friends became unsatisfied, so it went up to 3.8% and he added a whole buckets of new taxes after that. And, he implemented a bunch of service cuts anyway. Are you sure you are not a conservative for charging only 5% over two years? How can you even face the poor union members and homeless people? If Rob Ford has done anything that is to make 5% over two years sound reasonable to people like you. After 4 years, even left wing politicians would not dare raise property taxes above the inflation again whereas 4 years ago, we could only dream about 2.5% property tax increases.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Archanfel

[Black Dog]

Since you have nothing to support your claims (you still haven't produced any evidence that homeless shelters make homeless people into productive citizens or closing shelters would make crimes worse)

Given I made neither of those claims, I'm not sure what tree you're barking up.

I am not sure how can you back your guarantee of (things will get worse)? What things? I didn't give any weight to Rob Ford's "guarantees" and why should I believe your guarantee when you are not even specific on what you are guaranteeing? Why should I be willing to pay more taxes for your baseless guarantees?

As for specific things getting worse, that's easy: feast your eyes.

If you had guaranteed that life will get harder for the homeless, maybe I would have believed you. Then again, I would gladly pay lower taxes for that.

Of course you would. We know what you are.

Tell you what, if you really believe the city should raise property taxes, go tell the home owners, collect the 2.5% extra from whoever you convinced to open a private homeless shelter or fix the road or fix whatever things you think will get worse. Let us know how that works out. So far you are doing a terrible job selling your high tax idea to me.

I'm not selling it to you since you don't really have any power and frankly, I couldn't care less if you're "sold".

BTW, David Miller would have argued that your plan is too right wing. What do you mean by 2.5% increase per year? David Miller stayed with 3% for a while until his union friends became unsatisfied, so it went up to 3.8% and he added a whole buckets of new taxes after that. And, he implemented a bunch of service cuts anyway. Are you sure you are not a conservative for charging only 5% over two years? How can you even face the poor union members and homeless people? If Rob Ford has done anything that is to make 5% over two years sound reasonable to people like you. After 4 years, even left wing politicians would not dare raise property taxes above the inflation again whereas 4 years ago, we could only dream about 2.5% property tax increases.

Calgary mayor seeks 5% tax hike And he probably won't get it because it's too low. If right wing Calgary can recognize what needs to be done (paying for services) talking Toronto into it when many are already seeing Ford as a huge mistake (pun intended) should be, well, gravy.

Anyway, my 5% was a mere suggestion prompted by your claim that people against Ford's cuts don't have any alternative plans. Ut's pretty comical for you to try and turn it into a big "gotcha" moment.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Black Dog

[guyser]

Tell you what, if you really believe the city should raise property taxes, go tell the home owners, collect the 2.5%

Most knowledgeable homeowners in Toronto know they pay too little.

The variance in rates around the GTA is a true eye opener.

Toronto needs to raise the prop tax a minimum fo 2.5 points. .....next year another point.

[Archanfel]

Given I made neither of those claims, I'm not sure what tree you're barking up.

As for specific things getting worse, that's easy: feast your eyes.

Of course you would. We know what you are.

I'm not selling it to you since you don't really have any power and frankly, I couldn't care less if you're "sold".

Calgary mayor seeks 5% tax hike And he probably won't get it because it's too low. If right wing Calgary can recognize what needs to be done (paying for services) talking Toronto into it when many are already seeing Ford as a huge mistake (pun intended) should be, well, gravy.

Anyway, my 5% was a mere suggestion prompted by your claim that people against Ford's cuts don't have any alternative plans. Ut's pretty comical for you to try and turn it into a big "gotcha" moment.

What am I suppose to feast my eyes on? A bloated spending bill that has to be reined in? The 2.5% looks very pretty to me. Unfortunately for you, I have a vote and the people of Toronto made their voice heard loud and clear. No more high taxes, no more runaway spending. Rob Ford is not perfect, but what's the alternative? You can't even come up with an well thought alternative plan, merely a "suggest" that you yourself refuse to stand behind. Am I suppose to base on my vote on that? Sorry buddy. I guess you will have to live with Rob Ford for another three years and weep over your precious "services" whereas I got to keep my tax dollars. Three years later, who knows. The only thing for certain is I am not going to vote for a "mere suggestion".

Most knowledgeable homeowners in Toronto know they pay too little.

The variance in rates around the GTA is a true eye opener.

Toronto needs to raise the prop tax a minimum fo 2.5 points. .....next year another point.

Then you wouldn't have any problem collecting the money from "most knowledgeable home owners" ? I think not. Yes, people want services, but not if it's means more taxes, especially since a lot of the spending do not benefit home owners. The rest of the GTA is another story. House prices are cheaper and population density is lower. Home owners in Toronto still pay more in absolute term.

Toronto is raising the property tax 2.5%. Next year is likely to be another 2.5% or whatever the inflation is. Unfortunately, with all the provincial laws protecting a large portion of Toronto's spending and Rob Ford's weird obsession with the police, I doubt another point will cut it. I will take the 2.5% and the vehicle tax saving while I can get it.

p.s. here is a far better image to feast your eyes on.

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/42/86/f9d7077c4b0c8e26fe329cdf4aca.jpg

Edited December 1, 2011 by Archanfel

[Black Dog]

What am I suppose to feast my eyes on? A bloated spending bill that has to be reined in?

Define 'bloated". You can't bitch about "runaway spending" etc when you have no idea about what the proper level of spending should be. Despite all the claims of "waste" at city hall, the gravy train was empty the whole time, which is why we're at the point of cutting services.

Unfortunately for you, I have a vote and the people of Toronto made their voice heard loud and clear. No more high taxes, no more runaway spending. Rob Ford is not perfect, but what's the alternative?

A syphilitic chimpanzee would be more likely to have a clue than your man Fordo.

You can't even come up with an well thought alternative plan, merely a "suggest" that you yourself refuse to stand behind.

I'm not sure you understand the medium in which you are posting. Here's a hint: it's not a campaign website and no one is running for anything.

Am I suppose to base on my vote on that? Sorry buddy. I guess you will have to live with Rob Ford for another three years and weep over your precious "services" whereas I got to keep my tax dollars. Three years later, who knows. The only thing for certain is I am not going to vote for a "mere suggestion".

It's funny how no matter what veneer of intellectualism Fordites adopt, behind the facade it's nothing to do with good public policy, just ideology and their own selfishness.

Yes, people want services, but not if it's means more taxes, especially since a lot of the spending do not benefit home owners.

Care to provide some evidence of this?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Black Dog

[guyser]

Then you wouldn't have any problem collecting the money from "most knowledgeable home owners" ? I think not.

I have no idea why this is the fallback answer . Pretty silly response.

Toronto is raising the property tax 2.5%. Next year is likely to be another 2.5% or whatever the inflation is. http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/42/86/f9d7077c4b0c8e26fe329cdf4aca.jpg

know all about that.