Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Urban Planner: November 23, 2009
Remember Giorgio Mammoliti? The guy who, according to previous Newsstands, names streets after people who contribute to his campaigns, traps cats and says that gays make bad parents, and is now running for mayor with a platform of red-light districts and casinos? Well, now he wants to shut down a bunch of Toronto spas! Sheesh, Giorgio, didn't you read in the Sun today that Torontonians are 4% more stressed than everyone else? Don't you think we could use a little "me time"? Wait...whut? What kind of spas, you say? Oh. Never mind...
Speaking of previously mentioned items in Newsstand (as in twice), you're probably now well in the know about the fact that the TDSB is eyeing the possibility of a publicly funded all-boys' school. But did you know that an all-girls' school is now potentially in the works (besides the one mentioned by one of our Newsstand commenters?) Perhaps not...unless you happen to follow Chris Spence on Twitter, that is. "Soon we'll be launching the Girls Only initiative. Stay tuned for more information!" was the tweet that started tongues wagging at the TDSB but, after Spence mentioned to the Sun that it was a definite possibility, things just got crazy all up in here. "I understand the director and TDSB PR department want to galvanize public support," said trustee Josh Matlow, "but I more importantly believe that opinions people make should be informed." Oh, yes he did. And how did Spence respond? "I think part of it was just getting caught up in the moment of all the interest around the boys and I wanted to say to people that we haven't forgotten the girls, as some have suggested," he replied. Hm. Mayhaps he was all fired up by talking to Torontoist/Globe readers last Thursday? Discuss.
It seems odd, though, that they're thinking of all kinds of new schools when thirty-seven are already on the chopping block. Wait...The city's not made of money? Here's another fun fact: did you know that, by law, Toronto cannot operate with a deficit? It's true! That's why the city is cutting 10% off the budget over the next two years. This roughly translates to $343 million, and includes such perks as potential hikes in user fees, hiring freezes, and possible layoffs. Youppi! Unfortunately, the bitchiest comment we've heard so far from the councillors is Joe Mihevc's relatively benign “We're up against the wall now,” but worry not, kids...in a few hours, they'll be in need of some juice and a nap, and that's when the real fun will begin...
Finally, here's a full-on sentence of pure Newsstand goodness: Don't drink poisoned Toronto water and talk on your cellphone while driving on your way to get your H1N1 shot, or you'll end up as another volunteer at the Science Centre (in a dead and inside-out way). Really. Don't. It's not a good idea. Have a...Monday!
This article originally said that "the city is cutting 10% off the budget for next year"; in fact, the City has to cut that percentage over the next two years.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Councillor Mihevc, you've been up against that wall for over 10 years. The difference this time is that the Province is not willing to bail you out anymore.
Lori: That is 10% of the "net operating budget". The total budget for the city exceeds $8 billion. Sounds like Council is trying to make it look like they are making deep cuts, when in reality the cuts are around 4% of the total budget.
Correction to Newsstand: It's not a 10% cut in 2010, it's a 5% cut in each of 2010 and 2011.
Vincent: What's left to cut in the operating budget that isn't services? And consider that municipal inflation means that a 4% cut from 2009 to 2010 is more like a 7% or 8% cut.
The article linked in the line "10% off the budget" links to a Globe article that states:
"The City of Toronto aims to cut 10 per cent – or $343-million – from its net operating budget over the next two years, the clearest indication yet of the deep and painful financial crisis facing Canada's largest city, The Globe and Mail has learned."
Yes, but that you link to an article that has the right facts doesn't mean you can write something with incorrect facts. Read what you wrote:
That's why the city is cutting 10% off the budget for next year. (Emphasis added.)
When the Globe says "next two years," it is referring to 2010 and 2011, not just 2010. Funny thing that number two.
Also, there's this quote from the same Globe article you reference:
"...departments and agencies have been asked for “sustainable and permanent” cuts that would shrink their 2010 budget by 5 per cent compared with this year, with another 5-per-cent drop in 2011."
You're right, Green Sulfur—it was our (honest) mistake. I've appended a correction above.
Thanks, I'm sure it was an honest mistake but Lori quoting back what the Globe wrote was snarky enough to warrant a snarkier response.