Thanks for this, Neil -- all pertinent questions. I confess that the creation of this working group for transit had passed me by. A year later, is there any sign of progress on this? It sure is given a full plate.
I do demur a bit on your comment about the transit levy. It is always carved because not everyone pays it. I could be wrong, but I suspect that all these previous "one number" promises always referred to only the city-wide portion of the tax bill as well. (Other carve-outs are for police, fire, garbage and conservation authorities.)
That does not diminish the critique that the Mayor's aggressive focus on the transit levy as "in question" is deceptive, as if it would not be legitimate to ask whether the $120M deficit could possibly be addressed by shifting priorities in other parts of the Budget (roads, for example).
No progress yet on the transit working group. I suspect they’ll have to say something as part of this budget.
Correct that there are specific levies, but can you remember a time when any of those levies were increased by more than the headline number?
Referring only to the citywide levy for the headline number would be a level of nuance that almost no taxpayer in this town would understand. Plus, the city just dumps them all together when it talks about the new resources available.
Thanks for this, Neil -- all pertinent questions. I confess that the creation of this working group for transit had passed me by. A year later, is there any sign of progress on this? It sure is given a full plate.
I do demur a bit on your comment about the transit levy. It is always carved because not everyone pays it. I could be wrong, but I suspect that all these previous "one number" promises always referred to only the city-wide portion of the tax bill as well. (Other carve-outs are for police, fire, garbage and conservation authorities.)
That does not diminish the critique that the Mayor's aggressive focus on the transit levy as "in question" is deceptive, as if it would not be legitimate to ask whether the $120M deficit could possibly be addressed by shifting priorities in other parts of the Budget (roads, for example).
No progress yet on the transit working group. I suspect they’ll have to say something as part of this budget.
Correct that there are specific levies, but can you remember a time when any of those levies were increased by more than the headline number?
Referring only to the citywide levy for the headline number would be a level of nuance that almost no taxpayer in this town would understand. Plus, the city just dumps them all together when it talks about the new resources available.
Very concerning budget. Thankyou.
Sandra