Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
Flush with the success of their campaign to publicly insult women and minorities, the Ontario government has taken the bold step of verbally abusing the entire City of Toronto. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty yesterday indicated he wasn't inclined to share any of the billions of dollars that the province sucks out of Toronto each year, blaming the looming fiscal crisis on the City's failure to use its shiny new tax powers, and by implication on Torontonians for not paying enough taxes. He then leapt into his solid gold Ferrari and raced off to his palace at Queen's Park.
The Canadian dollar rose to a 30-year high against the U.S. greenback yesterday, fueled by a 2.8% month over month rise in consumer spending. The numbers show that even with peak oil and climate change catastrophe just around the corner, we're still willing to get out there and buy more unnecessary crap. Go, Canada.
Much of Toronto's water and sewer system is apparently on the verge of collapse, which is disappointing news for the many city residents who enjoy indoor plumbing.
Still on the water beat, most city park drinking fountains are back in action after a two year initiative to ensure that the water provided is safe. Now thirsty Torontonians can stop drinking from from the water dishes sitting out front of pet stores.
Photo by Carrie Musgrave from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
ew.
Maybe they were out buying Energy Star stuff to replace their old, inefficient junk. Not that anyone has ever done that before.
It's possible that the numbers reflect conscientious citizens buying solar powered cars, storm windows, and shopping bags made from organic hemp. However, the data shows it's mostly SUVs, gas and Gucci handbags.
No surprise from McGuinty: Where else does Ontario get butt loads of cash from? Toronto feeds most of the rest of the province, there's no backup if he starts handing us back our money.
Plus the existing debt inherited from the Tories means Queen's Park really doesn't have the money.
"which could lead to watermain breaks, pot holes and flooded basements if nothing is done,"
Haven't we already had entire streets washed away because of this problem (Finch Ave last year)?
I love the photo in that 680news story. It looks like someone just went to the staff kitchen and took a picture of the cup being filled up.
If McGuinty doesn't want to give the city any more money he should provide funds directly to the TTC. Up until the mean old days of Mike Harris the province did this anyways. Pollitically it would allow McGuinty to save the day rather than appear to have given in to the cities demands.
i'm on ur sewer grate, reminding u of the circle of life.
Ugh, is a photo of a dead rat necessary for a morning post? This applies also with the dead fish floating in the water a few weeks back.
Of all the photos of mine that you decide to use, you had to choose my most disgusting one! ;) That was the first and only time I've ever seen a rat in Toronto and it looked like a murder scene, it was so bizarro (otherwise, I wouldn't have photographed a rat).
If the city needs more money to provide basic services, then the city needs to increase its revenue stream. The city of Toronto gained new powers of taxation just last year, so why don't they use them?
Toronto city councillors are banking on the fact that the upcoming provincial election will force the McGuinty government into a corner, with no other choice but to bail them out. This move would undoubtedly be popular, however it sets an untenable precedent. No government wants to be characterized as tax-raisers, hence Toronto city councillors are unwilling to make the difficult, but crucial decision to add new taxes (or increase existing ones), and instead are asking mommy and daddy to top up their allowance. It's pathetic.
In a way I am glad McGuinty made this statement. Hopefully it will be a good wakeup call to the irresponsible councilors that voted against the new tax bill. The tools were given to Toronto, as McGuinty said, to generate more revenue with creative means. Both the land transfer tax and car registration taxes were no brainers with minimal impact to the citizens of this city (who have some of the lowest property taxes in the GTA area). Council, showed last Monday, that it has no bawls.
All this said, I still think there is a need to fix numerous provincial downloads, however, McGuinty (and Tory) have a refreshing approach to not just promising lump sums as a knee jerk reaction to a political issue (that incidentally impacts, like 20 odd ridings).
Sorry if picture put anyone off their breakfast, but I felt it was, um, an important metaphor or something.
I also wanted to showcase Carrie's ability to turn the disgusting into art.
I won't repeat the numerous and obvious objections to the particular tax schemes as I have commented on them at length elsewhere.
Allow me to add, however, that if Toronto's primary gripe rests on the proposition that its residents pay far more tax to the Province and Feds then they receive in services (someone here always has the exact number handy), then the proposed solution - to increase the tax burden on residents of the city of Toronto - fails utterly in correcting the problem.
There are those of us of the view that, to the extent the city is chronically underfunded (which should be viewed with skepticism given our charlatan Mayor's propensity to spend outside his means on frivolity and his ideological resistance to cutting the city's wage bill, which is a collasal expense), it should be funded by the portion of tax that Toronto already pays, not any new taxes. On this view, no new taxes are justified and the Mayor's and Premier's solution to underfunding - the City of Toronto Act - is inadequate. New taxes simply continue to pattern whereby Toronto taxpayers receive below-average services from paying far above-average taxation, which, if you want a thriving economic centre and high quality civic life in Toronto, is completely unsustainable.
Also, McGuinty isn't "backing" Miller (as TorStar suggested). He is protecting his governments revenue stream. Hardly worth cheering, one would have thought.
(It is an open question whether the situation described above - sometimes termed the "fiscal imbalance" since it seemed to work in Quebec - is coherent. The very structure of federalism depends on the economic centre paying more tax than it receives in services in order to fund less economically successful regions.)
Anyone interested in so-called "green consumption" (RE: Chris Taylor's comment about "buying Energy Star stuff") should read this column, posted just yesterday.
In short? We can’t shop our way out of this problem.
Patrick: What GDP data are you looking at to determine the actual articles of consumption, and is there a qualitative difference (beyond normal margin of error) indicating that more “luxury” items are being consumed this month?
Seriously, man -- how can you make that statement with a straight face?
From Reuters:
Sales were helped by sturdy automobile sales and a boost to retailers in Quebec from a pay equity settlement with public service workers, Statscan said.
Of course this means Gucci all around.
Overall sales growth in May was the biggest since December 1997 as receipts climbed in seven of the eight retail sectors.The biggest gains were in the automotive sector with a 4 percent rise, the building and outdoor home supplies stores with a 6 percent jump and clothing and accessory stores with a 4.6 percent increase.
So some evidence for auto, but not type.
Chris - I'm talking about things that are unnecessary, not luxurious (although they could be both). A 5th pair of running shoes or a riding lawnmover aren't luxurious by our standards, but they are also rarely necessary.
I don't have specific numbers on what each individual Canadian bought last month, however, the biggest jumps in were new cars and gas, followed in the retail sector by home building supplies and clothing. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aydqKPQlLwZM&refer=canada)
Moreover, the biggest increase in car sales has been in light trucks and SUVs. Go figure. (http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=41727)
I really don't understand what you are trying to say. If you're claiming that the bulk of this frenetic shopping is necessary and environmentally friendly, take a look at the numbers. How many Nikes are sold every day vs recyled pairs of jeans? How many SUVs vs used hybrids? How much locally grown organic lettuce vs strawberries from New Zealand or California?
I don't get what data you are basing your opinion on. Actually I don't even get what your opinion is.
The release from Statistics Canada offers good insight but does not allow to make a reliable claim on whether it is "luxury" or "green" or whatever items that Canadians are buying:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070724/d070724a.htm
One can infer some things (about increases in car sales) but it's speculation until we can get more granular data.
Okay, let me spell it out for you.
It's possible that the numbers reflect conscientious citizens buying solar powered cars, storm windows, and shopping bags made from organic hemp. However, the data shows it's mostly SUVs, gas and Gucci handbags.
No, I'm afraid that's not what the numbers reflect. The numbers merely indicate that cars, food and general merchandise (in that order) are either 1) expensive or 2) the things Canadians buy most often. Gas comes in at #4 in terms of total retail sales. Hands up anyone who is surprised to learn that expensive things like cars and frequently-bought things like food also, not coincidentally, generate the highest retail dollar numbers.
The numbers further indicate that the largest percentage increases in spending come from used autos and recreational vehicles (8.4%); home centres and hardware stores (6.4%) and clothes (5.9%). What the Reuters and Bloomberg folks leave out is that as a percentage of overall consumer spending, autos + parts + gas is only 35% of Canadians' consumer spending. The majority of things we buy are something other than automobiles (and fuel for same), and the increase is marginal at best.
If you used to spend 30 bucks a month on shawarmas, and this month you increase your spending by 3.4% and blow 31.02 bucks instead, does that mean your shawarma habit is excessive and out of control? Because that's the margin of increase we're talking about here.
Now factor in the well-known seasonal auto retail cycle -- car sales spike through spring-summer-fall, and fall off precipitously in winter months. Suddenly that increase in car sales looks a lot more like normal statistical activity and not a precipitious increase in spending. It's three percent, for crying out loud.
Carrie: A dead rat is kinda gross to see at breakfast, but that's the best photograph of a dead rat I've ever seen.
I'm very fond of rodents. Seeing a dead rodent hurts me.
I can't believe this photo is on the site. I tolerated the roaches, I tolerated the worms, but this...
Carrie, I'm not trashing yout photography skills, but that image is revolting.
What the fuck is wrong with you, Torontoist? Do you get off to dead babies too?
I agree that the picture is uncalled for. Just tasteless.
There's nothing wrong with the picture. Animals die. Death is a reality.
Geez, it's not like I killed it! I shot it because when we came upon it, it totally looked like a crime scene. All that was missing was the tape roping it off. It was a very unique situation...otherwise I wouldn't have photographed it. If you look at my photostream, you'll know that this type of photo isn't my specialty. ;)
There's nothing wrong with the picture. Animals die. Death is a reality.
So more reality shots of torture, ritual killings, rapes etc.? Its reality, so nothing wrong with that.
"So more reality shots of torture, ritual killings, rapes etc.? Its reality, so nothing wrong with that."
If you can't distinguish between a dead rat on a sewer grate and a ritual torture/rape/murder, you may want to consider therapy.
(No animals were harmed during the creation of this blog post)
Uh, are we comparing a dead rat ... possibly hit by an unwitting driver, or picked off by a cat, we don't know AT ALL ... to malicious, violent actions like torture, murder, and RAPE? There, we're definitely talking about deliberate physical and psychological debasement, while with the rat, we MIGHT be talking about accidental roadkill. Or a predator-prey situation. Or a fall from a great height. No one knows, not even Carrie.
I'm all for kindness to animals, but that's the kind of rhetoric that just shows how messed up some people's opinions are.
We leave all the images of human bodies covered in tarps and photos of bloodstained sidewalks to the rest of the media. ;-)
Carrie, don't pay attention to people complaining - photography MUST capture both the beauty and the ugliness of the world. It's a great shot, sad in my eyes because a life ended... thank you.
I think the issue was with the suggestion by t-rek that reality justifies using a photo. No suggestion was made by the poster to actually include the other listed topics.
And I took issue with the notion that death is too ugly to be seen, that showing it is "unnecessary". One guest even compared it to "getting off on dead babies". I was criticising this kneejerk aversion to signs of death, not trying to justify showing any and all photos.
R.I.P. Remy the rat!
Now who's going to cook my food? :(