How councillors coalesced to defeat Mayor Rob Ford

[mentalfloss]

How councillors coalesced to defeat Mayor Rob Ford

In the days leading up to Tuesday’s budget finale, they beseeched each other to include their cherished services on a list that could be rescued in one dramatic vote.

The centre, left- and right-leaning councillors who coalesced into a force mighty enough to scuttle Mayor Rob Ford’s budget cuts often used a dramatic metaphor for the intense negotiations.

Each was walking up to a lifeboat and saying: “Save my child!” while others figured out how much the service would cost in terms of budget surplus dollars and ill-will that could cost them a majority in the Hail Mary vote.

“We kept saying if we put too many people in the lifeboat it will capsize,” said Councillor Shelley Carroll, the former budget chief who was among 23 to vote in favour of the surprise omnibus motion, swamping Ford’s 21 allies.

“Children” that didn’t make it into the boat, like Sarah Doucette’s fight to save the High Park Zoo, were put forward as separate, individual motions.

The mutiny started weeks ago, before Christmas, as centrist councillors and their frequent adversaries on the left separately plotted. About two weeks ago, rookie centrists including Josh Colle, Ana Bailão, Josh Matlow and Mary-Margaret McMahon reached out to their sometime adversaries.

Carroll and the others on the left, who had pooled their staff resources to create notes analyzing cuts to various departments, were receptive. Furious negotiations erupted through BlackBerry messages, shared online Google documents and meetings in and out of City Hall.

They reached right to conservatives and got a hearing from many and eventual support from two: Gloria Lindsay Luby, whose residents had given hear an earful about cuts, including mechanical leaf collection in her ward, and James Pasternak, a usual Ford ally worried about the budget’s impact on the poor.

“It was exactly how city hall should work — people coming together out of shared concerns for their city and figuring out, creatively, how we can make it better in a fiscally responsible way,” Matlow said.

Councillors communicated directly to each other, many sidelining their own staff to keep secret the delicate conversations on how to thwart cuts to pools, arenas, TTC service, homeless shelters, daycares and more.

At the same time, Ford’s staff was trolling the hallways of City Hall’s second floor, looking for votes for his proposed budget and trying to dismantle any consensus to dip into the $154 million surplus.

Those crafting the omnibus motion got a scare when a note was accidentally printed on purple paper. Councillor Doug Ford spotted opponents sharing the document during the budget committee wrapup and sounded the alarm because purple is reserved for confidential council documents.

They worked through the weekend, refining the numbers, counting the votes, and were confident Tuesday morning when Colle unleashed the motion to restore $15 million in spending.

But Ford allies tried all day to swing a vote or two their way and coalition members feared their majority had slipped away. Pasternak got frequent visits from Councillor Jaye Robinson and was summoned to a backstage meeting with Ford himself.

“I should have a StairMaster here to ward off all the stress,” Pasternak said with a chuckle, adding Ford “offered me very constructive encouragement” but, in the end, they agreed to disagree.

Coalition members whooped with joy at the 23-21 vote Tuesday evening, and the grins stayed put as council approved a further roughly $5 million in spending to prevent other cuts.

“This spirit of compromise,” Pasternak said, “is why Toronto is such a great city.”

How councillors coalesced to defeat Rob Ford

Edited January 18, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Black Dog]

It's important to keep in mind that the proposed cuts amounted to less than $20 million, which is less than 1% of the total budget, which means the items on the block were never going to make or break the city's overall fiscal situation.

Also worth pointing out is that many of Ford's cuts were neutered before they even got to council; the executive committee, stacked with Ford allies, rejected a number of cuts last week.

[Boges]

So putting $15 million from one-time surplus that was supposed to go towards debt to stave off cuts, that if that surplus doesn't exist next year the will be on the table again, counts as a huge win?

This is still the first year that Toronto actually spent less than the year before and garbage services east of Yonge have been outsourced.

This is like putting money tax return money that is supposed to go to paying off your mortgage towards financing a TV.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Boges

[Black Dog]

So putting $15 million from one-time surplus that was supposed to go towards debt to stave off cuts, that if that surplus doesn't exist next year the will be on the table again, counts as a huge win?

It counts as a win for the people who want to keep those services. And of course there will be an operating surplus next year.

This is still the first year that Toronto actually spent less than the year before and garbage services east of Yonge have been outsourced.

And?

This is like putting money tax return money that is supposed to go to paying off your mortgage towards financing a TV.

It's actually like using a portion of your tax return to pay off your debt and the rest to pay your phone bill.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

I also don't remember you bitching about Fordo plowing last year's budget surplus into the budget to pay for his tax cuts.

[Boges]

It counts as a win for the people who want to keep those services. And of course there will be an operating surplus next year.

Well then it's a win-win for both sides.

And?

And this means that Ford has achieved some of his goals, All with only a 2.5% increase in property taxes. People in Mississauga would probably kill for 2.5%

It's actually like using a portion of your tax return to pay off your debt and the rest to pay your phone bill.

If you need to dip into your tax return to pay your phone bill then you clearly have a spending problem.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Boges

[Black Dog]

Well then it's a win-win for both sides.

I think the public defeat and the perception that he's lost council overshadows whatever gains Ford made in the actual budget.

And this means that Ford has achieved some of his goals, All with only a 2.5% increase in property taxes. People in Mississauga would probably kill for 2.5%

See above. Ford can no longer be seen as driving the agenda.

If you need to dip into your tax return to pay your phone bill then you clearly have a spending problem.

It's a spending "problem" only if you consider providing services that the community values to be outside the scope of a city's responsibilities.

[Boges]

I think the public defeat and the perception that he's lost council overshadows whatever gains Ford made in the actual budget.

See above. Ford can no longer be seen as driving the agenda.

It's a spending "problem" only if you consider providing services that the community values to be outside the scope of a city's responsibilities.

That's a perception you and/or Star readers may have that already hate Ford. I doubt that's the public's perception.

The true test of Ford's public perception is how he and his allies handle the coming clash with the Public Service Unions.

[Black Dog]

That's a perception you and/or Star readers may have that already hate Ford. I doubt that's the public's perception.

Based on? Fact is, Ford blustered his way into this, saying it was going to be the most important budget...and he lost.

The true test of Ford's public perception is how he and his allies handle the coming clash with the Public Service Unions.

Spin away...

Edited January 18, 2012 by Black Dog

[Boges]

Spin away...

You're spinning as much as I am.

There were budget cuts just not as deep as Ford would have liked.

[Guest Peeves]

If Ford's program is defeated, (and it wasn't), then the city lost not Ford. He gains or loses nothing, the tax payer is the one that takes it in the neck. Actually I don't think Ford lost, he achieved cuts, he achieved a tighter budget with lower cost than previous year. The same topics will be justified or be up for review again next year.

[cybercoma]

So putting $15 million from one-time surplus that was supposed to go towards debt to stave off cuts, that if that surplus doesn't exist next year the will be on the table again, counts as a huge win?

This is still the first year that Toronto actually spent less than the year before and garbage services east of Yonge have been outsourced.

This is like putting money tax return money that is supposed to go to paying off your mortgage towards financing a TV.

Sure. If you consider libraries and breakfast programs for underprivileged children to be the same thing as spending on leisure activities.

[Boges]

Sure. If you consider libraries and breakfast programs for underprivileged children to be the same thing as spending on leisure activities.

Well I do consider both going to the Library and a Pool leisure activities actually.

[cybercoma]

If you need to dip into your tax return to pay your phone bill then you clearly have a spending problem.

If you were supposed to spend every cent of your income without going over, then no... you don't have a spending problem. In fact, it's quite easy to see how you would use your tax return to pay your phone bill. Edited January 18, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Well I do consider both going to the Library and a Pool leisure activities actually.

Some people actually get an education at the library, while the pool, as has already been mentioned to you, encourages children to live a healthier lifestyle and provides them with fundamental safety skills.

[Boges]

Some people actually get an education at the library, while the pool, as has already been mentioned to you, encourages children to live a healthier lifestyle and provides them with fundamental safety skills.

But they aren't essential public services like education, public safety and garbage removal.

As a student I went to Libraries to get better resources, but then again I didn't have internet. School's have libraries don't they?

Kids can get physical activities by playing street hockey or any number of outdoor activities that are free.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Boges

[Boges]

If you were supposed to spend every cent of your income without going over, then no... you don't have a spending problem. In fact, it's quite easy to see how you would use your tax return to pay your phone bill.

It's a case of fixed expenses and discretionary expenses.

There are things that the City needs to spend money on and they have to budget for it. Just like I budget for my cable bill, car payment, insurance, mortgage etc.

At the end of the year I hope I have some money left over. Shouldn't I put that towards paying down debt or towards retirement and not the expenses of next year?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Boges

[Scotty]

There is what you need, and what you want. Then there's what you can afford. Toronto will either learn to prune down it's 'wants' or go bankrupt, and I really don't care which.

[Black Dog]

But they aren't essential public services like education, public safety and garbage removal.

You could probably have a city that doesn't run anything but "essential public services."

It would probably be a pretty shitty place to live, though.

[Boges]

You could probably have a city that doesn't run anything but "essential public services."

Who's proposing such a thing?

[jacee]

But they aren't essential public services like education, public safety and garbage removal.

As a student I went to Libraries to get better resources, but then again I didn't have internet. School's have libraries don't they?

Kids can get physical activities by playing street hockey or any number of outdoor activities that are free.

He shouldn't be picking on children looking for cuts.

These are programs for inner city kids and famulies with few resources, designed to keep kids oof the streets an out of the crime that surrounds them, programs arising from past experience and known to be effective.

Any short term financial 'gain' is at long term expense ... ie, not smart.

What kids do when they're not in school is critical to our whole society too.

[cybercoma]

Of course he's picking on those with the least power: children and the poor. The guy is a jerk.

[jacee]

Well I do consider both going to the Library and a Pool leisure activities actually.

Beats kids stealing and selling weed in their leisure time though.

Every healthy community MUST have leisure time activities for every kid.

Ask the police.

[huh]

He shouldn't be picking on children looking for cuts.

These are programs for inner city kids and famulies with few resources, designed to keep kids oof the streets an out of the crime that surrounds them, programs arising from past experience and known to be effective.

Any short term financial 'gain' is at long term expense ... ie, not smart.

What kids do when they're not in school is critical to our whole society too.

Surely every activity and entitlement is essential and we must spend, spend, spend, until bankruptcy at which time there will be no spending for anyone, including on those things that are nesecary, but hey, you can always tax those of us with jobs even more, surely the time and effort we put into creating our livelihoods needs to be punished.

[jacee]

Surely every activity and entitlement is essential and we must spend, spend, spend, until bankruptcy at which time there will be no spending for anyone, including on those things that are nesecary, but hey, you can always tax those of us with jobs even more, surely the time and effort we put into creating our livelihoods needs to be punished.

Programs for kids are not frills. They are essential to minimize future costs and maximize human potential. It's clear to me that there are people who just do not comprehend that human services are more important than snowplows and garbage trucks and other mechanical toys.

And it's clear that those who don't understand are those who know nothing about human services and shouldn't be making decisions about children's programs because they do not respect children.