So disgusted with Sutcliffe pushing Landsdowne2.0 and Taggarts Tewin scam. These 2 projects amount to $1.2B when the city is bankrupt. Wjjy are we funding the richest families in town? $11B shortfall to fund much needed infrastructure repairs. But let’s give the Rich another $1.2B. Playing Watson’s games is disappointing.
FACT: from 2015 to 2019 the city did NOT do ANY "routine" inspection of condition of Lansdowne. In 2019 OSEG claimed in the media it was "crumbling". (OSEG was responsible to maintain the facility), Therefore it had to be replaced! (I have the Access to Information request as proof).
As Neil prepared financial documents that are irrefutable, I prepared a short list, sample of some non financial concerns. Many more are not listed:
1. Lack of ANY documentation (ie. an application for Official Plan and zoning changes) required for council to vote (supported by access to information documents),
2.Rushing the vote on this massive project causing legal and financial errors: 4 months start to until a vote was taken,
3. Massive changes made after public consultations. A "bait and switch" where a 30% change occurred after public consultation , 3 towers to 2, among other changes. This should have had further public consultations as do many other applications (see 1. above),
4. consultations were hidden by using online, limited/controlled public input, with no time to modify the project plan because of public feedback,
5. The sale/lease of Lansdowne land not carried out as required: a closed process on MERCS instead of "public" posting of the sale laid out in policy documents (another documented error),
6. No consideration or data on the option of repairing the asset to get the estimated 40 years life left in the structure,
7. The Mayor and staff incorrectly stated the condition of the Buildings, and urgency in meetings to vote,
8. staff intentionally withhold material evidence on the state of the condition of the buildings in a council meeting. There is no City data is on file, and this was not disclosed by staff when specifically asked (link to meeting video available),
9. Staff withholding a reply to a time sensitive question on the Sale/Lease process until after the process was "closed" (documentation available ),
10. Loss of green-space in an under-served urban zone - against The OP and Master park plan, without public consultations,
11. Intensification without a stated plan for increased city services (larger Community center, recreational facilities open to the public vs the smaller "private" Lansdowne),
12. Underground infrastructure (Water, sewer, hydro, gas) costs to add intensity not disclosed,
13. LEED status not considered Mandatory in a "Climate Emergency". The minimal LEED "silver" proposed in pre-voting council documents, was silently downgraded to the lowest "certified" level on the scale. (Memories of the promised "underground" parkade at the new hospital being quietly shifted to 4 stories above ground),
14. The National Park potential of the canal should restrict vehicle access on the QED, the official plan states this goal as well. Yet the Mayor is actively fighting against the new Official Plan, to increase vehicle use for commuting, and;
15. the city changes development requirements and its website information without any documented justification and archiving. For example: if Lansdowne does not meet a requirement and a complaint is made, they quietly change the requirements and documentation, making it retroactive, no records kept such as website dates on pages, form version numbers and archiving of webpages. (documentation available to prove this)
OSEG like Plasco and Tomlinson (east end dump) most likely promised the city they would get cash from these partnerships. The city was hosed in each and no smarter or else they benefit in some other way??????
Branding matters and calling anything "People's" brings to mind Soviet era kangaroo committees, or the mindless US TV programs like "The People's Court". If you want more support from the generation that recalls the fiasco that was the Soviet style of governance, take some time to come up with a more imaginative name for your movement. A brand that evokes the concept of the grass roots support that your movement is built on, without evoking the rhetoric of the 'not dead yet' Cold War. Why? Because branding matters and your current brand is a distraction from your efforts.
Having said that, I support your efforts to have the city perform an objective risk and benefit analysis of Lansdowne. Objective being the key term.
Objective as in examining the reports presented by EY and the city AG and providing detailed responses to what both those reports identify as flaws in the financial analysis.
Objective as in explaining how reducing the amount of greenspace and park lands in an inner urban transect is consistent with the section of the Official Plan that cites the inadequate amount of greenspace in that part of the city.
Objective being a critical element of government. Objective being a critical element that has been missing from municipal governance for more than a decade.
Ron, thanks for the comment. I agree that branding matters, but I don't think most people today associate "People's" with Soviet or communist propaganda. It's just too long ago, and the terminology has been repurposed since then.
But I do agree that it's a little bland, and would like to see something more evocative that signals grassroots. Suggestions are welcome and happy to pivot when we can come up with something better.
Ron your opinion please. A recent article in the National Post mentioned that there are 2 different accounting methods that municipalities, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, were listed, for the creation of the yearly budgets and the later auditing of the budget. PSAS accounting is used in the auditing which results in a rosier outcome than the method used to scare residents during the budget process. Toronto had a $1.3 billion surplus after the audit. Ron, do you have any knowledge if Ottawa uses this 2 system method?
ian, I lack the insights required to respond to your question regarding municipal accounting. External financial reporting, based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) used by for profit enterprises (my area of experience) differs profoundly from the GAAP used by governments (where I have no direct experience).
The key to understanding any 'flavour' of financial reporting (accounting) is to understand which transactions are 'cash based', which transactions are allocations and which ones are based on estimates. Cash based transactions are the least malleable - not immutably so, but less susceptible. Transactions that are based on allocations are subject to manipulation, as the quantum of the allocation is a function of the underlying assumptions. Transactions based on estimates are highly susceptible to manipulation, as the underlying assumptions drive the result. Think of the assumptions as being how much, over how long at what discount rate, spread over how wide an array of ledger accounts.
The challenge is that, absent an advanced knowledge of accounting, and specifically in the type of accounting (for profit vs. government), it is difficult to differentiate within the body of the financial statements transactions that are cash based vs. allocations vs. estimates.
A finance professor once opined, some four plus decades ago, words to the effect of "Give the same set of data to five talented accountants and they can easily produce ten defensible sets of results." The key is to understand what the objective is. Do you want to present a deficit to justify higher tax increases or a balanced budget, to demonstrate prudent financial stewardship? Once you know what you want to achieve, the next step is to choose the assumptions that drive the reports to support the desired result.
With that background, I am comfortable in saying that it comes as no surprise to me that one method of municipal accounting can produce results that are materially different than the results of a different set of accounting assumptions, even though the underlying data set is the same. It just depends on what the objectives of the preparer of the reports are.
Without knowing the who or why of the Toronto reports that you cite, I suspect that we are seeing the results of reports based on two materially different sets of objectives. One to support the 10%ish increase in the tax rate. The other to discredit the first.
Could we just spread this information via our own social media? I do not want to speak at a people’s meeting but I am prepared to share my own reasons for not wanting the city to spend money to support a private sports entertainment group to have fancier facilities with the excuse it would add more housing to the city’s stock (while destroying businesses in the immediate neighbourhood from long construction mess). Affordable rental housing vis the Carney modular housing plan, and public transit (bus-only lanes, not BRTs which will unnecessarily spend money we do not have.) Clearly there are wealthy people in this city. How to get them to share more of the tax burden? Not only property tax which can punish lower income people.
Unfortunately Mark is from GEN X. Good leader but like most GEN X. The record show they are good at spending $$ but not very good at fixing problems. That someone else problem, in a time when financially we come to our present reality. The end of a -2 decade old Gold Rush driven GDP. No longer sustainable & the $$ boys are doing what they do at tge end of every Gokd Rush. Take the disposable cash & run & the first words you hear . My job is to make $$ for a privileged few. The problems are someone else’s. Usually the government. Only the Gov track record throughout history. Is managing $$ not fixing complex problems. That always requires the young attached to innovators. That can think out side the box & do more good than damage. Showing the young how to collaborate & through history leave the$$ boys with one of two choice. Support change or be left behind. It called the “Tide of Change” it started after the 1989 economic down turn. The sustainable tools are now in the marketplace. In the hands of the young. They no longer really need the $$ boys. The only” ? “ now is how is the transition going to happen. Is being played out now.
So disgusted with Sutcliffe pushing Landsdowne2.0 and Taggarts Tewin scam. These 2 projects amount to $1.2B when the city is bankrupt. Wjjy are we funding the richest families in town? $11B shortfall to fund much needed infrastructure repairs. But let’s give the Rich another $1.2B. Playing Watson’s games is disappointing.
There are so many reasons we need a referendum:
FACT: from 2015 to 2019 the city did NOT do ANY "routine" inspection of condition of Lansdowne. In 2019 OSEG claimed in the media it was "crumbling". (OSEG was responsible to maintain the facility), Therefore it had to be replaced! (I have the Access to Information request as proof).
As Neil prepared financial documents that are irrefutable, I prepared a short list, sample of some non financial concerns. Many more are not listed:
1. Lack of ANY documentation (ie. an application for Official Plan and zoning changes) required for council to vote (supported by access to information documents),
2.Rushing the vote on this massive project causing legal and financial errors: 4 months start to until a vote was taken,
3. Massive changes made after public consultations. A "bait and switch" where a 30% change occurred after public consultation , 3 towers to 2, among other changes. This should have had further public consultations as do many other applications (see 1. above),
4. consultations were hidden by using online, limited/controlled public input, with no time to modify the project plan because of public feedback,
5. The sale/lease of Lansdowne land not carried out as required: a closed process on MERCS instead of "public" posting of the sale laid out in policy documents (another documented error),
6. No consideration or data on the option of repairing the asset to get the estimated 40 years life left in the structure,
7. The Mayor and staff incorrectly stated the condition of the Buildings, and urgency in meetings to vote,
8. staff intentionally withhold material evidence on the state of the condition of the buildings in a council meeting. There is no City data is on file, and this was not disclosed by staff when specifically asked (link to meeting video available),
9. Staff withholding a reply to a time sensitive question on the Sale/Lease process until after the process was "closed" (documentation available ),
10. Loss of green-space in an under-served urban zone - against The OP and Master park plan, without public consultations,
11. Intensification without a stated plan for increased city services (larger Community center, recreational facilities open to the public vs the smaller "private" Lansdowne),
12. Underground infrastructure (Water, sewer, hydro, gas) costs to add intensity not disclosed,
13. LEED status not considered Mandatory in a "Climate Emergency". The minimal LEED "silver" proposed in pre-voting council documents, was silently downgraded to the lowest "certified" level on the scale. (Memories of the promised "underground" parkade at the new hospital being quietly shifted to 4 stories above ground),
14. The National Park potential of the canal should restrict vehicle access on the QED, the official plan states this goal as well. Yet the Mayor is actively fighting against the new Official Plan, to increase vehicle use for commuting, and;
15. the city changes development requirements and its website information without any documented justification and archiving. For example: if Lansdowne does not meet a requirement and a complaint is made, they quietly change the requirements and documentation, making it retroactive, no records kept such as website dates on pages, form version numbers and archiving of webpages. (documentation available to prove this)
There are many more.
OSEG like Plasco and Tomlinson (east end dump) most likely promised the city they would get cash from these partnerships. The city was hosed in each and no smarter or else they benefit in some other way??????
How do I support having a referendum without having anything to add to the discussion at a people’s forum?
Branding matters and calling anything "People's" brings to mind Soviet era kangaroo committees, or the mindless US TV programs like "The People's Court". If you want more support from the generation that recalls the fiasco that was the Soviet style of governance, take some time to come up with a more imaginative name for your movement. A brand that evokes the concept of the grass roots support that your movement is built on, without evoking the rhetoric of the 'not dead yet' Cold War. Why? Because branding matters and your current brand is a distraction from your efforts.
Having said that, I support your efforts to have the city perform an objective risk and benefit analysis of Lansdowne. Objective being the key term.
Objective as in examining the reports presented by EY and the city AG and providing detailed responses to what both those reports identify as flaws in the financial analysis.
Objective as in explaining how reducing the amount of greenspace and park lands in an inner urban transect is consistent with the section of the Official Plan that cites the inadequate amount of greenspace in that part of the city.
Objective being a critical element of government. Objective being a critical element that has been missing from municipal governance for more than a decade.
Ron, thanks for the comment. I agree that branding matters, but I don't think most people today associate "People's" with Soviet or communist propaganda. It's just too long ago, and the terminology has been repurposed since then.
But I do agree that it's a little bland, and would like to see something more evocative that signals grassroots. Suggestions are welcome and happy to pivot when we can come up with something better.
Ron your opinion please. A recent article in the National Post mentioned that there are 2 different accounting methods that municipalities, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, were listed, for the creation of the yearly budgets and the later auditing of the budget. PSAS accounting is used in the auditing which results in a rosier outcome than the method used to scare residents during the budget process. Toronto had a $1.3 billion surplus after the audit. Ron, do you have any knowledge if Ottawa uses this 2 system method?
ian, I lack the insights required to respond to your question regarding municipal accounting. External financial reporting, based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) used by for profit enterprises (my area of experience) differs profoundly from the GAAP used by governments (where I have no direct experience).
The key to understanding any 'flavour' of financial reporting (accounting) is to understand which transactions are 'cash based', which transactions are allocations and which ones are based on estimates. Cash based transactions are the least malleable - not immutably so, but less susceptible. Transactions that are based on allocations are subject to manipulation, as the quantum of the allocation is a function of the underlying assumptions. Transactions based on estimates are highly susceptible to manipulation, as the underlying assumptions drive the result. Think of the assumptions as being how much, over how long at what discount rate, spread over how wide an array of ledger accounts.
The challenge is that, absent an advanced knowledge of accounting, and specifically in the type of accounting (for profit vs. government), it is difficult to differentiate within the body of the financial statements transactions that are cash based vs. allocations vs. estimates.
A finance professor once opined, some four plus decades ago, words to the effect of "Give the same set of data to five talented accountants and they can easily produce ten defensible sets of results." The key is to understand what the objective is. Do you want to present a deficit to justify higher tax increases or a balanced budget, to demonstrate prudent financial stewardship? Once you know what you want to achieve, the next step is to choose the assumptions that drive the reports to support the desired result.
With that background, I am comfortable in saying that it comes as no surprise to me that one method of municipal accounting can produce results that are materially different than the results of a different set of accounting assumptions, even though the underlying data set is the same. It just depends on what the objectives of the preparer of the reports are.
Without knowing the who or why of the Toronto reports that you cite, I suspect that we are seeing the results of reports based on two materially different sets of objectives. One to support the 10%ish increase in the tax rate. The other to discredit the first.
Could we just spread this information via our own social media? I do not want to speak at a people’s meeting but I am prepared to share my own reasons for not wanting the city to spend money to support a private sports entertainment group to have fancier facilities with the excuse it would add more housing to the city’s stock (while destroying businesses in the immediate neighbourhood from long construction mess). Affordable rental housing vis the Carney modular housing plan, and public transit (bus-only lanes, not BRTs which will unnecessarily spend money we do not have.) Clearly there are wealthy people in this city. How to get them to share more of the tax burden? Not only property tax which can punish lower income people.
https://urbanomicsblog.wordpress.com/?s=Lansdowne&submit=Search
Not a fan of the city
Unfortunately Mark is from GEN X. Good leader but like most GEN X. The record show they are good at spending $$ but not very good at fixing problems. That someone else problem, in a time when financially we come to our present reality. The end of a -2 decade old Gold Rush driven GDP. No longer sustainable & the $$ boys are doing what they do at tge end of every Gokd Rush. Take the disposable cash & run & the first words you hear . My job is to make $$ for a privileged few. The problems are someone else’s. Usually the government. Only the Gov track record throughout history. Is managing $$ not fixing complex problems. That always requires the young attached to innovators. That can think out side the box & do more good than damage. Showing the young how to collaborate & through history leave the$$ boys with one of two choice. Support change or be left behind. It called the “Tide of Change” it started after the 1989 economic down turn. The sustainable tools are now in the marketplace. In the hands of the young. They no longer really need the $$ boys. The only” ? “ now is how is the transition going to happen. Is being played out now.