Jump to content


Photo

How councillors coalesced to defeat Mayor Rob Ford


65 replies to this topic

#1 mentalfloss

mentalfloss

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 580 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 06:37 AM

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 by mentalfloss, 18 January 2012 - 06:39 AM.


#2 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,523 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 January 2012 - 07:22 AM

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.
America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#3 Boges

Boges

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,077 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 07:25 AM

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 by Boges, 18 January 2012 - 07:32 AM.


#4 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,523 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 January 2012 - 07:55 AM

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 by Black Dog, 18 January 2012 - 07:56 AM.

America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#5 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,523 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 January 2012 - 07:58 AM

I also don't remember you bitching about Fordo plowing last year's budget surplus into the budget to pay for his tax cuts.
America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#6 Boges

Boges

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,077 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:11 AM

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 by Boges, 18 January 2012 - 08:12 AM.


#7 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,523 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:21 AM

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.
America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#8 Boges

Boges

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,077 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:34 AM

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.

#9 Black Dog

Black Dog

    Critical of Saudi Arabia

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,523 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:37 AM

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 by Black Dog, 18 January 2012 - 08:40 AM.

America...."the world’s largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell

#10 Boges

Boges

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,077 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:44 AM

Spin away...


You're spinning as much as I am.

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

#11 Peeves

Peeves

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,365 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:00 AM

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.

"It would be a laugh to be someone like
Peeves, causing mayhem and not bothering."


-- J.K. Rowling


#12 cybercoma

cybercoma

    Posthuman Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:A Few Acres of Snow

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:23 AM

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.

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free and civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

Thomas Jefferson


#13 Boges

Boges

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,077 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:25 AM

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.

#14 cybercoma

cybercoma

    Posthuman Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:A Few Acres of Snow

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:25 AM

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 by cybercoma, 18 January 2012 - 10:26 AM.

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free and civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

Thomas Jefferson


#15 cybercoma

cybercoma

    Posthuman Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,143 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:A Few Acres of Snow

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:29 AM

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.

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free and civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

Thomas Jefferson




Reply to this topic