Toronto’s first core service review is out; on the menu: cuts, cuts and more cuts
When he was running for office in 2010, Mayor Rob Ford repeatedly assured voters that he could deliver his budget promises to the city’s taxpayers through increased efficiencies and not through service cuts. Take, for example, one of the good mayor’s favourite lines on the campaign trail: “We don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem.” Then, again, just days before the election, he told the Toronto Star that he guaranteed services would not be cut. But this morning the city unveiled the first of several core service reviews, and the long and the short of it is that apparently by efficiencies, Ford really meant cuts.
Today’s report, from consultants at KPMG, suggests many, many things that the city budget should trim or cut outright, but here’s a list some of the key areas we’ll be keeping our eye on:
• Fluoride in the water: The report suggests that the city could save money by stopping the fluoridation of the city’s water supply. This will make the anti-fluoride crowd that were at so many debates last year, and maybe the most cynical of dentists, very happy, but we can’t help but wonder if yellow is really going to catch on as the new dental fashion.
• Green bins: The KPMG report states repeatedly that Toronto’s targets for keeping garbage out of landfills are too high to be practical—but glass, paper and plastic recycling (in the blue bin program) are legally required in Ontario. Presumably, then, the green bin program, which is more expensive, is being targeted here.
• Bike lanes: We thought that in axing the Jarvis Street bike lanes, council’s appetite for making city streets less bike-friendly would be satisfied. Apparently, we were wrong. According to today’s report, bike lanes are one of the few opportunities in the budget for “high” savings (meaning potential savings of 20 per cent or more). We’ll be waiting with bated breath to see what exactly that means for Denzil Minnan-Wong’s new bike plan.
Obviously, there’s much, much more in the report—we’ll also be looking to see if suburban residents finally have to start shovelling their own sidewalks—but the overarching story is pretty much what we expected: the vast majority of services the city delivers show little potential for cost savings. This isn’t a surprise, so we suspect it’ll mostly be ignored. For now, we’re looking forward to the unholy political firestorm that’s about to descend on city council, as even Ford’s allies start to ponder whether they’ll want to run for re-election as the people who gave their voters’ kids more cavities.
![](http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://torontolife.com/city/core-services-review/&title=Toronto’s first core service review is out; on the menu: cuts, cuts and more cuts&picture=https://torontolife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/budget-cuts-looming.jpg&description=[caption id="attachment_79362" align="alignleft" width="400" caption="Services cuts loom over city hall (Image: Benson Kua)"][/caption]
When he was running for office in 2010, Mayor Rob Ford repeatedly assured voters that he could deliver his budget promises to the city’s taxpayers through increased efficiencies and not through service cuts. Take, for example, one of the good mayor’s favourite lines on the campaign trail: “We don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem.” Then, again, just days before the election, he told the Toronto Star that he guaranteed services would not be cut. But this morning the city unveiled the first of several core service reviews, and the long and the short of it is that apparently by efficiencies, Ford really meant cuts.
Today’s report, from consultants at KPMG, suggests many, many things that the city budget should trim or cut outright, but here’s a list some of the key areas we’ll be keeping our eye on:
• Fluoride in the water: The report suggests that the city could save money by stopping the fluoridation of the city’s water supply. This will make the anti-fluoride crowd that were at so many debates last year, and maybe the most cynical of dentists, very happy, but we can’t help but wonder if yellow is really going to catch on as the new dental fashion.
• Green bins: The KPMG report states repeatedly that Toronto’s targets for keeping garbage out of landfills are too high to be practical—but glass, paper and plastic recycling (in the blue bin program) are legally required in Ontario. Presumably, then, the green bin program, which is more expensive, is being targeted here.
• Bike lanes: We thought that in axing the Jarvis Street bike lanes, council’s appetite for making city streets less bike-friendly would be satisfied. Apparently, we were wrong. According to today’s report, bike lanes are one of the few opportunities in the budget for “high” savings (meaning potential savings of 20 per cent or more). We’ll be waiting with bated breath to see what exactly that means for Denzil Minnan-Wong’s new bike plan.
Obviously, there’s much, much more in the report—we’ll also be looking to see if suburban residents finally have to start shovelling their own sidewalks—but the overarching story is pretty much what we expected: the vast majority of services the city delivers show little potential for cost savings. This isn’t a surprise, so we suspect it’ll mostly be ignored. For now, we’re looking forward to the unholy political firestorm that’s about to descend on city council, as even Ford’s allies start to ponder whether they’ll want to run for re-election as the people who gave their voters’ kids more cavities.
• PWIC Core Services Review [Toronto.ca]){kind=link}
Many large studies show fluoridation is totally ineffective in improving tooth decay. THe World Health Organization studied 16 countries and showed fluoride is of no value.
Fluoridation causes cancer, brittle bones, etc., (see http://www.fluoridealert.org).
Of course fluoridation should be rejected. It is an absolutely waste of tax money. I am a Civil Engineer, so I am very familiar with community water systems.
People drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group. If you doubt any of this, check with your water department.
That would be comparable to taking 1 gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
Can you think of a more wasteful government program? Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical.
No surprise the only “fat” he could find was himself. If he had any integrity, he’d cut himself and leave everything else in place.
Denzil Minnan-Wong doesn’t have an original idea in his head. This is the same man who feels that his elderly constituents are more physically able to strap a leaf blower on their back than they are to use a rake.
These cuts will do little to reduce the city budget. I would love to see an itemized list of where my 13K (no, that’s not a typo) goes every year.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/montreal/story.html?id=bc24e0d4-5c45-4f39-9764-335f157e9756
p.s. Fluoridation costs $1.9 million a year, this report cost $3 million.
“Yellow” has nothing at all to do with stopping the highly questionable scheme of mass-medication via water fluoridation. It is always interesting to see that those promoting fluoride never record any research facts, and always assume that daily doses of drinking and bathing in fluoride will somehow make their teeth white, free of cavities, but will not affect any other part of their body, including their brains.