Torontoist: How to immediately discredit your study about the decline of Toronto in one step

andrew

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:30:49 -0500

I used to work in market research, doing those dreary interviews by telephone. I am always suspicious of the results. I'd like to have more trust in COMPAS, the company that the Fraser Institute hired to conduct the poll that provided direction for the research of the paper. It just seems like they started with an innocuous question - is Toronto headed in the right or wrong direction? - and proceeded to simply hone in on their premise. "How concerned are you that Toronto is headed in the wrong direction?" "On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all concerned, and ten is very concerned, how would you rate your concern that Toronto is headed in the wrong direction based on the following issues..." Also, the FI report is very short. The section on head offices references a Beckstead and Brown study, contrasts it with a TD study, then winds up by cautioning for a need for further study. Funny enough, the bold box at the front page that draws a conclusion based on the authors' thesis about Head Office location does not reflect their caveat in the body. This is a cheap method of pulling data research towards a premise, rather than research data driving a premise. Is there going to be any updates to the study? I know its part of a series but it seems a little slim, to be honest. I'd like to read more.

David Topping

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:47:54 -0500

299 bloor call control refutes the study so we don't have to:Secondly is the assertion that Toronto’s median income has dropped below the national average and has increased at a slower rate than cities like Edmonton, Calgary, and Saskatoon. This is true, but the argument that it means Toronto is on decline is absurd. Those three centres are among the fastest growing in the nation and have faced unprecedented growth and inflationary pressures. Home and rental costs are through the roof and labour shortages are becoming a chronic problem. So when the free market is working in this environment, of course wages and salaries are going to increase at a much higher rate than a relatively stable market like Toronto and the GGH. Finally, the GGH continues to take on the greatest proportion of the country’s immigrants, which command lower wages than the general population, causing the median to skew lower than elsewhere as well.

EricSmith

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:45:28 -0500

Anyone who claims that Mike Harris ever tried to appease anyone is obviously trolling.

Mark Ostler

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:55:12 -0500

John Duncan: Many suburban municipalities are actually looking to hike their development charges by a significant percentage. While a steady stream of development occurs, the charges as they stand right now are not enough to cover the costs of providing municipal services to greenfield developments.

John Duncan

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:37:35 -0500

A clarification: In my second paragraph above, I meant to say that I think Toronto has the wrong tax mix at the moment and commercial rates should be lowered by some amount. Dang double-negatives.

John Duncan

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:35:17 -0500

I have some trouble with claims that Toronto's business property tax rate should be lowered to the current level in the outlying suburbs. That's not to say that I don't think Toronto's got the right mix right now, nor that the commercial rate shouldn't be lowered substantially. But Oakville, Vaughan, Mississauga and Markham are not good role models. The suburbs were able to offer commercial property tax rates as low as they do only because they had the constant flow of cash from development charges. With the greenfields running out, their financial mistakes are coming home to roost. Commercial tax rates out there are artificially low, and it is unsustainable. Constant double-digit residential tax increases are not reasonable and some day soon businesses are going to have to start carrying some of the load again. RealityCheck: In response to your comments about the Employment zoning issue in the portlands, you're ignoring reality. The suburban municipalities actually have a big problem with employment land conversions as well, but they've had the advantage of having lots of undeveloped land. When land was converted for big box use it didn't really matter as there was still several hundred hectares of land designated for employment use. That's not a luxury the City of Toronto has.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:24:36 -0500

the goggles: Your link doesn't work. (Toronto will eventually annex Mississauga and Oakville anyway, and you all know it.)

torontothegreat

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:59:34 -0500

Oh I understand metaphors David. Do you understand how to answer a question? No need to get your emotions all tied in a knot, it's just a question. You remind me of a comedian that has to explain all his jokes...

Mark Ostler

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:48:55 -0500

RealityCheck: Property taxes in Toronto are the lowest across the GTA by a wide, wide margin. I think it's safe to say at this point that we won't see a mass exodus to the suburbs if we raise property taxes. However, I don't agree with 0 commercial property tax rates. Perhaps if residential rates were raised, that would provide some wiggle room to lower commercial rates, but I don't think that anyone, homeowner or commercial entity, should get a free pass on property taxes. If they use city infrastructure/services, there should be some way in which the city can recoup some of the costs associated with that use. "a horribly socialist/maoist economy." "CCPA is still in denial about the fall of the USSR, just like Jack! Layton." Also, it's stuff like these quotes that almost made me dismiss your well-written points regarding property taxes and development. Our economy is so far from socialist or maoist and the out-of-left-field jab at the CCPA and Layton doesn't jive with the rest of what you wrote.

David Topping

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:57:50 -0500

"Wouldn't the bully be the best 'expert' on bullying?" Not if you understood metaphors, no.

torontothegreat

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:46:33 -0500

>you certainly don't invite him back as a consultant on anti-bullying. Why is that? Wouldn't the bully be the best 'expert' on bullying? Your (lack of) logic continues to astound me... Thanks for not leaving me wanting...

the goggles do nothing

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:23:09 -0500

How about this: United Way

tyrannosaurus_rek

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:51:28 -0500

"Pretty much everyone agrees that Toronto is declining." So you should have no problem posting sources from the center and left supporting that.

Vootie

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:27:09 -0500

I'm sure that someone somewhere believes that Mike Harris undertook his investigations using the proper scientific method. A clean slate, no preconceived notions, analyse the data, read what experts on all sides have to say about it, weigh the pros & cons, then come up with---exactly what he would have said had he spent that time playing golf, which is probably what he did. Mike Harris, like Ronald Reagan before him and George Bush after, lacks a thing called curiosity. A conservative apparatchik, during his reign, told me that the right prefers leaders like that. They have no self-doubts, no inner what-ifs, are not likely to look over the fence and wonder whether the neighbour has a better way of mowing the lawn (she/we had both been drinking, or I'm sure she'd have never spilled this secret). So he buggered the teachers, buggered the city of Toronto, fired a ton of nurses, eventually making the left stronger and stronger, and his brand of Toryism unsellable in Ontario. It's a mistake for the Fraser Institute to put his name onto the study, because it damages their cause.

x_the_x

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:05:08 -0500

21, both the Fraser Institute and CCPA are "empircal", in that they use data to buttress their political points. Both design and undertake their empirical studies to get the results they want, which is why they are not reliable. Journos quote these studies principally because they are lazy and beholden to experts since their work is supposed to be objective. A fact backed up with a number or a study, no matter how ridiculous the premise, lends it credence (there is the anecdote of the professor who designed a study to determine what ac/dc album led to best working conditions, and was quoted widely in the media who didn't take the study as the feint that it was). Papers realize they are passing off highly suspicious studies as rigorous social science, which is why they preface their discussions with the riders of "conservative think tank" before FI or "an Ottawa-based think tank with a left-leaning orientation" before CCPA. The problem being that the stat takes on a life of its own separate and apart from its author, and gets repeated ad nauseum throughtout the media. Maclean's had a good piece today about serial misuse of poverty statistics in the city of Toronto by the Toronto Star (though this appears to be the innumeracy and/or sloppy reviewing of a study, rather than the phenomenon I refer to above). In any event, I resent them both for doing great disservice to the public perception of economics, creating the impression that it is a rhetorical tool which serves political opinion and not an empircal discipline. As a result we have episodes like Hillary Clinton's where she dismisses the (unanimous) policy prescriptions of economists on her proposed gas rebate as effectively politically-driven prescriptions that don't correspond with the views of the "everyman".

Farkshinsoup

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:31:13 -0500

Reality Check said: "Our teachers knew it, and knew that we loathed them for their immaturity, but the militant ones are always the ones that aren't actually involved in their job or their students." That's one pretty wiiiiide generalization there. I'm sorry, what study of militant teachers are you quoting from? I always love this representation of the poor, caring teachers who are oppressed by the big, evil union. While it is true that unions, in their pursuit of collective rights, can often be at odds with individual excellence, it's also true that the alternative, i.e. public schools staffed by non-union teachers, would be a far worse scenario. All of those wonderful, hard working teachers would be driven out of the public system and into the private because they would have crappy pay and unreasonable expectations placed on them by their employers. But then, that is exactly what conservative critics of teacher's unions want in the first place, since most of them have the means to by pass the public system, and resent having to contribute to it to support those who must use it.

RealityCheck

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:51:19 -0500

Pretty much everyone agrees that Toronto is declining. The whole thing about the city zoning for employment lands is your first hint. Cities on the way up don't have to try to preserve land for employment purposes, they manage growth, maybe deal with the location of noxious industries, but jobs come in the door. Then there's the widespread consensus about needing to switch the city's tax base from commercial properties to residential. All those huge corporate centers in Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham, etc exist thanks to Toronto City Council (whether supposedly right-wing or left-wing) exploiting the hell out of the corporate base on the assumption that they had nowhere else to go. Oops. Toronto has been following NYC's policies of the 70s and has gotten similar results - only the most critical jobs are sited in the core, while everything else goes into the suburbs. NYC has White Plains, Stamford, Englewood Cliffs, etc. Toronto's core business is threatened by Oakville, Caledon, and King City, just as Manhattan is threatened by Greenwich. The great thing about Toronto is that there is exit available, so bad policies are shown to be bad. It's taken a rather long time for this to come to fruition, but it is there. Ottawa doesn't have exit available, and options in Calgary and Edmonton are limited (you're not likely to have EnCana open a huge office in Okotoks). Pre-almagamation Ottawa looks rather like current Toronto, though the main downtown business in Ottawa isn't overly worried about costs. Private sector growth in Ottawa is focused on Kanata and some parts of Nepean (think Oakville and Mississauga, respectively), while the core has fairly poor demographics. There are other items that are right-wing vs left-wing (Smart Centres, gun ranges, policing, service delivery....) but setting residential tax rates to Oakville equivalents (or higher) has the (not so vocal) support of all thinking people. The question is whether commercial rates should be Oakville level, or 0. I prefer 0, but Oakville/Brampton equivalent is a decent mid term goal. As to Mike Harris... he was a failure as premier because he tried to appease people who were going to hate him no matter what. If union opposition is already at 11, you don't back down, you accelerate. But unfortunately we still have public service unions, the LCBO, government interference in intercity buses, and a horribly socialist/maoist economy. I went through many, many teachers strikes. It was all the narcissism of Baby Boomer unions feathering their nests and protecting incompetents and the lazy. One year we had a huge protest as or HS teachers went work to rule - hundreds of kids went to the board meeting and slammed the teachers for their capriciousness and self absorption. It was our 3rd job action in 5 years, and was followed a year and a bit later by the province wide strike. All those strikes did was harm vulnerable kids and get even more indefensible contracts for useless teachers. Our teachers knew it, and knew that we loathed them for their immaturity, but the militant ones are always the ones that aren't actually involved in their job or their students. Comparing Fraser to CCPA is ridiculous - Fraser is empirical and relies on things that are actually true. CCPA is still in denial about the fall of the USSR, just like Jack! Layton.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:51:50 -0500

Why is it only scary conservatives with obvious political agendas are saying Ontario is in decline? Somone post a couple sources that don't ultimately lead to a rightwing think tank or frustrated conservative politician.

n0wak

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:03:24 -0500

Do I think Toronto is declining? Wouldn't that be using my "own point of view to speak for everyone"? No, you'd be using your own point of view... rather than saying "we" and "everyone" felt a particular way about Harris. Not "everyone" did. You sure did. And for what it's worth, I do feel that Toronto, and Ontario as a whole, is in decline. For a number of reasons. It's why I'm GTFO.

jonnyr00

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:56:38 -0500

Mike Harris is trying to protect his own legacy, which, considering how unbelieveably shabby his legacy is either speaks to a blinding narcissicsm (likely) or, wilful ignorance of the consensus view about downloading, and the rest of it. If he had a clear sense of how he and his policies have been received, he'd be studiously avoiding anything resembling the public spotlight, forever.

qoop

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:42:57 -0500

someone call someone else a nazi already so we can get this over with

David Topping

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:09:56 -0500

Pay no attention to matty. He rarely hits above the belt. At least PickleToes occasionally has a point.

x_the_x

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:56:09 -0500

I trust a report out of the Fraser Institute as much as I trust a report out of, say, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Yes, both groups pepper their reports with facts, figures and data which is irrefutable, but those facts, etc. are only quoted in service of an ideological crusade. If the facts don't support the ideological point being made, they aren't used or the report isn't written. Its politics disguised as social science.

wardnikoff

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:40:31 -0500

Oh, Pickeltoes! The whole "Left Wing vs. Right Wing" thing is so 2005.... Its fairly easy to form opionions when you see everything in black and white. However, its great to have a indefatigable "anti-liberal" troll on these boards to stoke the fires....

bbpsi

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:22:29 -0500

"Get to the point! Really, I think you need writing lessons. " Now thats pretty below the belt and hardly necessary, don't you think?

matty

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:10:05 -0500

I think that David Topping's need to clarify his writing over and over again speaks to his inabilit to "get to the point". Get to the point! Really, I think you need writing lessons.

David Topping

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:51:10 -0500

I realize I didn't link to the report itself anywhere. The PDF is here, the press release here. Do I think Toronto is declining? Wouldn't that be using my "own point of view to speak for everyone"? I disagree with you wholeheartedly, n0wak, that Torontoist is negative to a fault, or that criticism of aspects of the city that deserve criticism is tantamount to negativity. Torontoist will not be a site where every article agrees that everything about the city is just super-great and gosh why change a thing? There's plenty great about this city, and there's plenty wrong with it, too. There's plenty we can fix. One thing I know for sure is that I don't want Mike Harris to have any part in it. "Discredit" was the wrong word to use, though; "undermine" is perhaps a better choice. The report would be worth paying attention to, perhaps, but I'm skeptical to trust a report coming from an admittedly biased organization that has seen fit to give Mike Harris the role of co-author and talking head. You don't invite the bully back to the schoolyard ten years later, and you certainly don't invite him back as a consultant on anti-bullying.

n0wak

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:22:58 -0500

a speech to a group of schoolkids and school teachers in 1998, when by that point he'd pretty effectively fucked everyone in the SkyDome over, a fact which a lot of kids knew See, you're using your own point of view to speak for everyone again. As far as I'm concerned, and many of the people I knew then would agree, my high school years were fucked over by the teachers' unions. But that isn't the point. The point is, then, do you agree that the city is in decline? Because if you do, the whole post is pointless; and if you don't, well, there's a hell of a lot of negativity about Toronto coming out of these here html pages.

Jonathan Goldsbie

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:06:37 -0500

Time to haul this one back out.

the goggles do nothing

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:01:11 -0500

Assuming you had no idea who authored the report, is the data presented in the survey and from the census correct or not (any of it, some of it...)? Isn't that what people who care about the city should look at? Is anyone going to argue that any of this is incorrect: Among Canadian cities, Edmonton posted the highest growth in median income at 26 per cent followed by Saskatoon and Calgary at 21 and 20 per cent, respectively, the study said. "A key marker of a city's economic health is the income level of its residents. Since 2000, Toronto has lagged behind the Canadian average," Harris added. The study also argues that Toronto is "bleeding management occupations." Additionally, Toronto is the only city among those studied that recorded a loss of business, finance and administration occupations. The report says that loss stands in sharp contrast to the 9.3 per cent increase in this area across Canada and 9.6 per cent increase in cities other than Toronto.

David Topping

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:33:27 -0500

My point is not that the media shouldn't be allowed to report the findings (or that it's a conspiracy, come on), but that, if the findings are so obviously slanted, what's the point of reporting them at all? When I was a kid I went to see Nelson Mandela speak at the SkyDome, with thousands of other schoolkids. We knew Mike Harris would give an introductory speech to Mandela—again, a speech to a group of schoolkids and school teachers in 1998, when by that point he'd pretty effectively fucked everyone in the SkyDome over, a fact which a lot of kids knew—and me and a few other kids in the class asked our teacher if we were allowed to boo him. My teacher told us all that if we really wanted to make a statement, we shouldn't boo him, we should just stay absolutely quiet and act like we were ignoring him. That's what I wish everyone would do with Mike Harris now that he has minimal power and even less credibility.

spacejack

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:15:43 -0500

Yeah careful, don't go to the Fraser Intstitute. You wouldn't want any bad thoughts to enter your head. The fact that the media is talking about a Fraser Institute study is obviously a conspiracy of some kind. It's not like they've ever done that before.

PickleToes

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:50:17 -0500

Paul: Nobody expects such an explicitly liberal person like yourself to make even remotely favourable remarks about the conclusions of a conservative individual or think tank, espescially since those perceived economic troubles are blamed upon the socialist policies which you would see perpetuated. Seeing Harris' report leaves open minded individuals stunned that what little economic growth did occur in the GTA occurred despite the debilitating effect that Miller and McGuinty's left wing idiocy are having on industry and commerce.

rocketeer

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:33:58 -0500

To PickleToes credit, maybe 'discredit' is the wrong word. Perhaps it should read: "How to immediately make people not give a crap about your study on the decline of Toronto in one step regardless of its accuracy."

David Topping

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:33:05 -0500

Then why is the media treating it like it's worth even a second glance? http://www.thestar.com/article/449218 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/06/25/hall-monitor-toronto-a-city-in-decline.aspx http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080625.wcomanning25/BNStory/specialComment/

Paul Kishimoto

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:24:05 -0500

Oh, come on. Even under Wikipedia's "Neutral Point Of View" the Fraser Institute is a "conservative and right-libertarian think tank." No one actually expects a conservative ex-premier to make even remotely favourable remarks about a city with a leftist mayor in a liberal-governed province, especially if that involves stepping on his own perceived legacy. Seeing Harris' name only reminds people that any success the city's had in the past five years has been despite the downloading and other garbage he presided over.

PickleToes

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:59:17 -0500

How to immediately discredit your interpretation of another's study about the decline of Toronto in one easy step 1. Ad Hominem attacks on the author.