Raw Data: Toronto Budget and Revenues
The Star recently ran an article reporting that the City of Toronto is due to run a surplus far in excess of $139 million. Councillor Joe Mihevc has accused the Ford administration of manipulating the budget numbers to justify his service cuts, while Mayor Ford still stands by his message that the City should cut its dependence on unpredictable revenue sources. Amidst some conflicting numbers, it is useful to note that the City of Toronto receives most of its revenue from property taxes, as that is one of the only legally available means of taxation for Ontario municipalities.
It turns out that while there have been some increases in property tax revenue over the past decade, it has barely kept up with inflation. Conversely, the expenditure of the City has increased dramatically, especially during David Miller's term as mayor, to its current $9.2+ billion. The chart below, adjusted for inflation (2010 dollars), shows how much the operating budget of the City has increased, while property tax revenues have been essentially constant.
A 2012 Message to the Liberal Party of Canada
Dear Liberal Party of Canada,
It is time for you to let go of the past. It is time for real change. Your politics have proven to be outdated and ineffective for the 21st century's new challenges and demographics. Your ideas are stale, your politicians aging. Your plans are vague and your future uncertain.
The Conservatives have fought back from the brink of death by re-inventing their politics and strategies. Some might say their tactics are distasteful or even despicable, and we might never agree with their methods. But we cannot deny that they have been successful by playing on the politics of division, and espousing messages of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
The New Democrats had been written off as perpetual also-rans, and now they hold the keys to Stornoway. They managed to expand their core from a coalition of rural farmers and the urban labour movement into one full of youth and minorities, right into the heart of "Liberal Territory". They evolved to rise to the challenge of 21st century politics.
What Separates Engineers from Politicians?
This piece was written as a reflection for the ESC202 Praxis IV course.
Much has been said about the difference between politicians and engineers. This is a debate that has gone on for ages. Why do Engineers not engage in public debates? Is it because engineers do not know about public policy?
When I sit around my engineering peers, and discuss politics, I often get noncommittal responses and shrugs of indifference. There are never any heated debates about politics, and never any emotionally charged tirades about one’s favourite political party. Engineers do not seem to be interested in public policy.
Mostly, this is because engineers don’t connect to politicians. They feel like politicians don’t make a difference. Like talking to a less intelligent friend, engineers find discussions with politicians useless – they spend much of their time explaining technical concepts without getting much progress. By the time an engineer figures out a way to get the politician to understand the technical details, the politician has long since lost interest.
Their goals, of course, are also different. Despite the public claim that politicians are supposed to serve “the people”, there are countless instances where special interest groups and lobbyists manage to sway politicians to a direction away from the majority view. These political battles create endless red tape – the kind of bureaucracy that engineers despise. Such an efficient workplace would instantly turn off an engineer.
Engineers find public policy important, but do not have time to deal with the implementation of the policies. The fundamental difference between engineers and politicians working on public policy is the time scale. Politicians, by nature of their job, think only in terms of years. Promises on public policy often happen in 5?year election cycles, and then get pushed aside when they are actually in office. Meanwhile, engineers and scientists have to deal with technology that changes on a constant basis – for example the tech sector progresses in maybe 6?month cycles, much faster than the politicians. By the time public policy is able to get past all the red tape, the science world has already leaped eons ahead.
So why bother with public policy? Politicians will always be playing catch?up anyway. There isn’t much reason to explain technical concepts to politicians and have to wait for them to accept technological progress. Perhaps the whole concept should just be scrapped: instead, let scientists and engineers do whatever they want to advance the field of science and technology, and let the public reap the benefits directly, without going through the government.
Engineers in the Public Eye
This piece was written as a reflection for the ESC202 Praxis IV course.
It is true that engineers have an understated and sometimes negative public image. Much of the public does not understand what it is that engineers do, or what engineers stand for. The public perception of engineering is that of a profession occupied by nerdy folks who spend their days tinkering with gadgets. In the media, engineers are never mentioned. In schools, where science and math are taught, there is little to no mention of engineering. "Engineering" is never taught as a subject at the elementary and secondary levels of education. There are famous scientists and mathematicians that every schoolkid can name, but not one famous engineer is ever remembered.
The question is, should engineers remain behind the scenes? On the one hand, engineers do indeed have to deal with many technical details which the public knows little of (and likely does not need to know). On the other hand, engineers have a moral obligation to serve the public interest. Building a bridge over a deep valley, while a feat of modern technology to be sure, is no feat of engineering unless it truly satisfies a societal need.
Often, though, engineers feel estranged from their surroundings by a blissfully ignorant public. At the recent Engineering Society meeting regarding the proposal to separate from the University of Toronto Students' Union, many engineering students voiced their opinions on university culture. Many students felt that it was necessary to separate from UTSU simply because they do not understand "us". We are misunderstood and portrayed as rebels, often isolated by the rest of the university. It was said that UTSU rarely acknowledged our needs, and treated us with little respect.
While it was not my intention at first to join this particular debate, I have since developed an opinion opposing that of the Engineering Society's. In my view, it is a waste of financial and human resources to isolate ourselves further from the rest of the university. It is exactly this kind of view that demonstrates a lack of holistic thinking that engineers ought to possess. While this students' quarrel is not in itself a symptom of the engineering profession at large, it should still be noted that engineers should be embracing, not rejecting, the public. Our attitudes towards the rest of the world need to be fostered at an early stage in our professional development, beginning at the university level.
Engineers, of course, have good reason to be intimidated by public consultation. Faced with equations and schematics, we have no problems getting our hands "dirty". But when confronted by politicians with agendas to push and lobbyists with special interests (just the kinds of people most likely to show their faces at a public consultation), we feel uncomfortable and out of place. Like a partial differential equation, many of society's complex problems cannot be solved using tried-and-true formulas. Engineers often have no background in the sociological or economic issues that underscore most of the situations they deal with. This lack of understanding leads to public distrust, making engineers seem to society as aloof.
Regardless of opinion, we live in a democratic society - and public consultations are one of the many checks and balances needed to make everything fair. For the public, these consultations are one of very few opportunities to talk to engineers. For the engineers, these may be a necessary "evil" of the occupation.