Bye Bye Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
- Thread starter Scuba Steve
- Start date
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
I would agree that Toronto doesn't have a gravy problem, but there's more to it than a revenue problem. You can spend money on 'basic operations' and not have it be gravy, but still be wasted money. When you dig up a street three times in a year, that's wasted money. When you build streetcar platforms before you know the characteristics of the new cars, then have to rebuild a bunch of them, that's wasted money. MILLIONS in wasted money.
The city needs to take a good, hard look at whether what they are doing is a good use of the public's money. hey need to demand that the various departments co-ordinate their work, so that it isn't repeated time and again. They have to consider if things like streetcars are even a reasonable use of transit funding, going forward, given the problems inherent in their use. This is basic stuff, that no one bothers to question.
I would agree that Toronto doesn't have a gravy problem, but there's more to it than a revenue problem. You can spend money on 'basic operations' and not have it be gravy, but still be wasted money. When you dig up a street three times in a year, that's wasted money. When you build streetcar platforms before you know the characteristics of the new cars, then have to rebuild a bunch of them, that's wasted money. MILLIONS in wasted money.
The city needs to take a good, hard look at whether what they are doing is a good use of the public's money. hey need to demand that the various departments co-ordinate their work, so that it isn't repeated time and again. They have to consider if things like streetcars are even a reasonable use of transit funding, going forward, given the problems inherent in their use. This is basic stuff, that no one bothers to question.
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
After watching council meetings or following online I have to say we have a council problem in Toronto. So many councillors are ignorant to the issues they are debating and voting on. Too many councillors with a history with the other councillors and vendettas. Committee appointments are based on ideology not knowledge.
After watching council meetings or following online I have to say we have a council problem in Toronto. So many councillors are ignorant to the issues they are debating and voting on. Too many councillors with a history with the other councillors and vendettas. Committee appointments are based on ideology not knowledge.
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
I would say that the two votes that Ford wanted to change his nay for, last week, were precisely because he saw his political opponents voting for them. When you care more about who is voting for an issue, rather than the issue itself, then the process is definitely broken.
I would say that the two votes that Ford wanted to change his nay for, last week, were precisely because he saw his political opponents voting for them. When you care more about who is voting for an issue, rather than the issue itself, then the process is definitely broken.
Last edited:
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Not wake up the snoozing puppies from a slightly older part of the thread, but one key point that seems to have been missed is that the Criminal Code absolutely recognizes different classes of severity of offenses. Without addressing the "moral" issues which can be subjective (but which should still be totally relevant to someone's fitness for an office -- public or private sector), legal issues can be divided into three categories: summary, indictable or hybrid. Summary offenses are the least severe, indictable the most, and hybrid offering the choice to the Crown to pursue either type of charge.
Possession of small amounts of marijuana: Summary (Max Penalty: 6 mo / $1000 fine)
Possession of cocaine: Hybrid (Max Penalty: (7 years)
Driving while impaired: Hybrid (Max Penalty: 10 yrs)
Extortion: Indictable (Max Penalty: Life)
As Rob M. points out possession of marijuana is a special case morally speaking, and that is so even under law.
To argue that everyone breaks the law, that all law breaking is bad, therefore EVERYONE is just as bad? Well y'know to take the edge off some like to drive fast, others smoke a little crack, and still some others kill a few babies. To each his own ;-)
Not wake up the snoozing puppies from a slightly older part of the thread, but one key point that seems to have been missed is that the Criminal Code absolutely recognizes different classes of severity of offenses. Without addressing the "moral" issues which can be subjective (but which should still be totally relevant to someone's fitness for an office -- public or private sector), legal issues can be divided into three categories: summary, indictable or hybrid. Summary offenses are the least severe, indictable the most, and hybrid offering the choice to the Crown to pursue either type of charge.
Possession of small amounts of marijuana: Summary (Max Penalty: 6 mo / $1000 fine)
Possession of cocaine: Hybrid (Max Penalty: (7 years)
Driving while impaired: Hybrid (Max Penalty: 10 yrs)
Extortion: Indictable (Max Penalty: Life)
As Rob M. points out possession of marijuana is a special case morally speaking, and that is so even under law.
To argue that everyone breaks the law, that all law breaking is bad, therefore EVERYONE is just as bad? Well y'know to take the edge off some like to drive fast, others smoke a little crack, and still some others kill a few babies. To each his own ;-)
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
You make it all sound so simple.
According to Joe Panechetti, the city manager, average taxes on similar homes across the GTA are:
Mississauga: $4,059
Ajax: $4,548
Richmond Hill: $5,468
King: $8,054
Toronto: $3,274
I own a 3 story brick semi-detached home with finished basement, garage, very close to downtown, 2 minute walk to TTC bus and 20 minute walk to subway, 2 parks & 3 grocery stores within a 5 minute walk, great schools, etc etc etc with a conservative resale value higher than $700k and I pay $3500 / year in taxes.
What do you pay?
You make it all sound so simple.
According to Joe Panechetti, the city manager, average taxes on similar homes across the GTA are:
Mississauga: $4,059
Ajax: $4,548
Richmond Hill: $5,468
King: $8,054
Toronto: $3,274
I own a 3 story brick semi-detached home with finished basement, garage, very close to downtown, 2 minute walk to TTC bus and 20 minute walk to subway, 2 parks & 3 grocery stores within a 5 minute walk, great schools, etc etc etc with a conservative resale value higher than $700k and I pay $3500 / year in taxes.
What do you pay?
Dresden
Well-known member
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Thank you for this post.
This "plea for attention" had only served to leave a bad taste in people's mouths for Tamil people everywhere.
Thank you for this post.
This "plea for attention" had only served to leave a bad taste in people's mouths for Tamil people everywhere.
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Now I see what you are saying.
You want to pay less taxes on exactly the same size property and house? Easy. Move to the worst neighbourhood you can find.
Seriously, you have to compare apples to apples. If you want to examine the value-for-money of your tax dollars, you have to look at more than just the details of the physical real estate asset. For one, you have to consider the most important aspect of real estate: location. A 40x125 ft lot in my neighbourhood -- if it existed -- would cost a minimum of $1.25M which is well above the median house price in the city.
I won't launch into a massive discussion about all the factors that affect property tax, but David Hains to Torontoist.com does a pretty good job here:
http://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-property-taxes/
You say the numbers quoted by Pennechetti the city manager make no sense. Can you show some actual evidence that this is true? I suspect the city manager is an expert at real estate and taxation comparables. Can you refute it with facts? Here is the source of the article which quotes the figures I gave:
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...s_listen_up_toronto_youre_getting_a_deal.html
Now I see what you are saying.
You want to pay less taxes on exactly the same size property and house? Easy. Move to the worst neighbourhood you can find.
Seriously, you have to compare apples to apples. If you want to examine the value-for-money of your tax dollars, you have to look at more than just the details of the physical real estate asset. For one, you have to consider the most important aspect of real estate: location. A 40x125 ft lot in my neighbourhood -- if it existed -- would cost a minimum of $1.25M which is well above the median house price in the city.
I won't launch into a massive discussion about all the factors that affect property tax, but David Hains to Torontoist.com does a pretty good job here:
http://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-property-taxes/
You say the numbers quoted by Pennechetti the city manager make no sense. Can you show some actual evidence that this is true? I suspect the city manager is an expert at real estate and taxation comparables. Can you refute it with facts? Here is the source of the article which quotes the figures I gave:
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...s_listen_up_toronto_youre_getting_a_deal.html
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Then there's the issue of fixed and liquid assets. So you have a few extra dollars in your pocket in liquid assets. So what. The guy with a fixed asset, ie. a modest home that sits on property worth $1M in Toronto, sells it, moves to Arthur, and retires on the remaining proceeds from the sale.
Then there's the issue of fixed and liquid assets. So you have a few extra dollars in your pocket in liquid assets. So what. The guy with a fixed asset, ie. a modest home that sits on property worth $1M in Toronto, sells it, moves to Arthur, and retires on the remaining proceeds from the sale.
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
He actually projected savings for contracting out garbage several years into the future, when coming up with his numbers.
He actually projected savings for contracting out garbage several years into the future, when coming up with his numbers.
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
http://read.thestar.com/?origref=ht...big-holes-in-rob-ford-s-saved-1-billion-claim
http://read.thestar.com/?origref=ht...big-holes-in-rob-ford-s-saved-1-billion-claim
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Not to mention counting the $60 plate fee total/yr as savings when its lost revenue and didn't count the corresponding TTC increase of $60 a year on passes. Of course Ford also didn't include the money his cancelling a paid for Transit city plan cost in his figures.
Shady math at best. Even the city manager said that David Miller under the same formulas would have saved many hundreds of millions a year. lol That shows how shady the math is to get to a billion. Ford can claim sub $400 million in savings. Although most of them aren't gravy just cuts to TTC bus routes and city programs aimed at the less fortunate. Everyone should be so lucky to be born with a silver spoon.
Almost everything out of Ford's mouth is a lie. He chooses to lie even in the face of easy truthful answers. When presented with a question... make up a lie is the Fords way. Then his buffoon of a brother adds some more outrageous lies to the pile. They just can't tell the truth. Must have been how they were raised.
Not to mention counting the $60 plate fee total/yr as savings when its lost revenue and didn't count the corresponding TTC increase of $60 a year on passes. Of course Ford also didn't include the money his cancelling a paid for Transit city plan cost in his figures.
Shady math at best. Even the city manager said that David Miller under the same formulas would have saved many hundreds of millions a year. lol That shows how shady the math is to get to a billion. Ford can claim sub $400 million in savings. Although most of them aren't gravy just cuts to TTC bus routes and city programs aimed at the less fortunate. Everyone should be so lucky to be born with a silver spoon.
Almost everything out of Ford's mouth is a lie. He chooses to lie even in the face of easy truthful answers. When presented with a question... make up a lie is the Fords way. Then his buffoon of a brother adds some more outrageous lies to the pile. They just can't tell the truth. Must have been how they were raised.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
But there is a gravy train running at the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.
The worse part of that problem is that Rob Ford is supportive of it.
(my point: $30,000 raises is an example of this gravy train in action).
SOURCE: http://ombudstoronto.ca/sites/default/files/TCHC Final Report.pdf
Story # 1
Within weeks of his arrival, the CEO promoted his executive assistant to the newly created job of Executive Assistant (EA) to the CEO and Board Chair. This was done without holding a job competition or having a job description.
While other personnel performing similar functions remained at wage grades 4 or 5, the CEO increased the EA's salary to level 7, which is a management category. It is unclear how the EA came to be paid at that level. The Vice President of Human Resources guessed it was negotiated between the EA and the CEO, with an understanding she would take on additional responsibilities to the Board Chair.
In her new "management” position, the EA was not eligible for paid overtime. But the EA demanded, and the Vice President of HR agreed that she would not be considered “management” but rather an exempt employee, and as such would continue to be eligible for paid overtime.
The VP of Human Resources told my investigator that the CEO specifically directed his EA be paid at a management level 7 and continue receiving paid overtime. The VP told the CEO he was concerned about the difference in pay between the EA and other similarly situated employees.
The VP stated “… through accumulation of overtime pay, if [the EA] made it to the sunshine list, there would be hell to pay. We have managers who don’t make $100,000.” The VP said the CEO told him he was “prepared to deal with it.”
The CEO says it was his understanding that all management and exempt staff who are not on the executive leadership team are eligible to receive overtime pay, at time and a half, subject to their supervisor’s approval.
That is not correct.
Story # 2
An executive assistant for one of the City Councillors was looking for a new job and approached a recruitment firm for assistance. The firm contacted the CEO and informed him that the EA was looking for new opportunities. She had previously met the CEO during the course of her work.
With no job competition or posting of the job opportunity, the CEO created and gave her a new manager position.
While he acknowledged that TCH "absolutely" required that all open positions had to be advertised, the CEO stated he did not advertise for this position because, "t's my prerogative when I want to give that position to the best person with experience, internally or externally …"
The CEO promoted the manager less than six months later and appointed her to be a senior director with a raise of $30,000.
The Board reviewed and approved this appointment in June 2013. The Chair agreed the Board should have asked questions about the process by which the person was promoted to the new position.
Story # 3
The day after he began his duties, the new CEO appointed then Director of Labour Relations to the position of interim Vice President, Human Resources, Officer of the Corporation. Not only was there no job posting or competition for this acting assignment, no resumes or applications were reviewed, no candidates were interviewed, and no reference checks were conducted.
When asked to explain his decision, the CEO replied “TCHC was in chaos ... I had to make sure that someone was protecting the interests of Human Resources … I needed staff, I didn’t have any staff – no one to trust – and I had to put people into positions so I could move the agency over.”
One month later, again without a job competition, the CEO made the acting assignment permanent and promoted the interim VP to the position of Vice President, Human Resources.
After the Chair of the Board of Directors (Board) told the CEO he was concerned about the circumstances under which the VP, Human Resources was hired, the CEO replied, “he needed [the incumbent], [who was] the best man [for the job]. He needed to put together a team...”
Story # 5
In his previous job with a different employer, the Vice President of Human Resources had worked with a lawyer at a law firm.
After reviewing applications that had come forward through the job call for a director of labour relations, the VP suggested to the lawyer that she consider applying for the job.
The VP said he had personally screened all the applications received to date (without interviews), and “was not impressed” with the applicants.
After being contacted by the VP of Human Resources, the lawyer provided him with a copy of her resume and following a meeting with him, she was offered the position.
But, instead of being the new director of labour relations, she became the Director of Labour Relations and Legal Counsel at her own request.
The responsibility to provide legal services was not part of the job description.
Only one candidate was interviewed for the job and that was the lawyer who got the job.
But there is a gravy train running at the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.
The worse part of that problem is that Rob Ford is supportive of it.
(my point: $30,000 raises is an example of this gravy train in action).
SOURCE: http://ombudstoronto.ca/sites/default/files/TCHC Final Report.pdf
Story # 1
Within weeks of his arrival, the CEO promoted his executive assistant to the newly created job of Executive Assistant (EA) to the CEO and Board Chair. This was done without holding a job competition or having a job description.
While other personnel performing similar functions remained at wage grades 4 or 5, the CEO increased the EA's salary to level 7, which is a management category. It is unclear how the EA came to be paid at that level. The Vice President of Human Resources guessed it was negotiated between the EA and the CEO, with an understanding she would take on additional responsibilities to the Board Chair.
In her new "management” position, the EA was not eligible for paid overtime. But the EA demanded, and the Vice President of HR agreed that she would not be considered “management” but rather an exempt employee, and as such would continue to be eligible for paid overtime.
The VP of Human Resources told my investigator that the CEO specifically directed his EA be paid at a management level 7 and continue receiving paid overtime. The VP told the CEO he was concerned about the difference in pay between the EA and other similarly situated employees.
The VP stated “… through accumulation of overtime pay, if [the EA] made it to the sunshine list, there would be hell to pay. We have managers who don’t make $100,000.” The VP said the CEO told him he was “prepared to deal with it.”
The CEO says it was his understanding that all management and exempt staff who are not on the executive leadership team are eligible to receive overtime pay, at time and a half, subject to their supervisor’s approval.
That is not correct.
Story # 2
An executive assistant for one of the City Councillors was looking for a new job and approached a recruitment firm for assistance. The firm contacted the CEO and informed him that the EA was looking for new opportunities. She had previously met the CEO during the course of her work.
With no job competition or posting of the job opportunity, the CEO created and gave her a new manager position.
While he acknowledged that TCH "absolutely" required that all open positions had to be advertised, the CEO stated he did not advertise for this position because, "t's my prerogative when I want to give that position to the best person with experience, internally or externally …"
The CEO promoted the manager less than six months later and appointed her to be a senior director with a raise of $30,000.
The Board reviewed and approved this appointment in June 2013. The Chair agreed the Board should have asked questions about the process by which the person was promoted to the new position.
Story # 3
The day after he began his duties, the new CEO appointed then Director of Labour Relations to the position of interim Vice President, Human Resources, Officer of the Corporation. Not only was there no job posting or competition for this acting assignment, no resumes or applications were reviewed, no candidates were interviewed, and no reference checks were conducted.
When asked to explain his decision, the CEO replied “TCHC was in chaos ... I had to make sure that someone was protecting the interests of Human Resources … I needed staff, I didn’t have any staff – no one to trust – and I had to put people into positions so I could move the agency over.”
One month later, again without a job competition, the CEO made the acting assignment permanent and promoted the interim VP to the position of Vice President, Human Resources.
After the Chair of the Board of Directors (Board) told the CEO he was concerned about the circumstances under which the VP, Human Resources was hired, the CEO replied, “he needed [the incumbent], [who was] the best man [for the job]. He needed to put together a team...”
Story # 5
In his previous job with a different employer, the Vice President of Human Resources had worked with a lawyer at a law firm.
After reviewing applications that had come forward through the job call for a director of labour relations, the VP suggested to the lawyer that she consider applying for the job.
The VP said he had personally screened all the applications received to date (without interviews), and “was not impressed” with the applicants.
After being contacted by the VP of Human Resources, the lawyer provided him with a copy of her resume and following a meeting with him, she was offered the position.
But, instead of being the new director of labour relations, she became the Director of Labour Relations and Legal Counsel at her own request.
The responsibility to provide legal services was not part of the job description.
Only one candidate was interviewed for the job and that was the lawyer who got the job.
Last edited:
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Paying people a significant amount of money for their jobs isn't something that really phases me much. As the saying goes if you want the best people, you have to pay for the best people. From this point of view it's not gravy. What it is, however, is a clear demonstration that certain people in city government think that they are above the rules. The rules are in place to eliminate, or at least minimize, the appearance of favouritism and to foster responsible government. Elected officials aren't dukes nor kings, ruling over their little fiefdoms. If they aren't, then appointees DEFINITELY aren't.
This isn't a demonstration of the Gravy Train. It's a demonstration of just how little such people truly think of those who pay their salaries. The money is incidental.
Paying people a significant amount of money for their jobs isn't something that really phases me much. As the saying goes if you want the best people, you have to pay for the best people. From this point of view it's not gravy. What it is, however, is a clear demonstration that certain people in city government think that they are above the rules. The rules are in place to eliminate, or at least minimize, the appearance of favouritism and to foster responsible government. Elected officials aren't dukes nor kings, ruling over their little fiefdoms. If they aren't, then appointees DEFINITELY aren't.
This isn't a demonstration of the Gravy Train. It's a demonstration of just how little such people truly think of those who pay their salaries. The money is incidental.
How would they know these people are the best people???? It's a cliche or cop out used all the time .... For every overpaid government / city official there's probably someone who would take a lot less money and do a better job. Overpaid people care less how they do because they are not worried to lose their job because of severance fatty package etc. the list is incredibly long .... E-health, Ornge, Every single hospital CEO in Ontario, all Hydro CEOs and management, Panam games management ........ all the same excuse how they had no choice, but to hire and overpay. Many of them fired because it was too much even for the hiring hand which only underscores what I have said in the beginning. They simply thought wrong.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Re: BY By Tommy boy Ford kicked out!!
Rob, obviously you didn't read the report.
Anyway, I was recently at the head office of the Toronto Community Housing on Yonge St. for a meeting.
Well, it wan't a meeting, just between you and me, it was a job interview for this opportunity.
Believe me, there was no "best people" philosophy involved in the process at all - they want to pay at little as possible. Also, saying that the HR staff is inept would be too kind of a word, they are unable to answer basic questions...
Rob, obviously you didn't read the report.
Anyway, I was recently at the head office of the Toronto Community Housing on Yonge St. for a meeting.
Well, it wan't a meeting, just between you and me, it was a job interview for this opportunity.
Believe me, there was no "best people" philosophy involved in the process at all - they want to pay at little as possible. Also, saying that the HR staff is inept would be too kind of a word, they are unable to answer basic questions...
