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.

As the next chart shows, the property taxes collected by the City are not keeping up with the growth of the budget.

Source: City of Toronto budgets; Inflation data from StatsCan.

There certainly appears to be a "structural deficit", the question is: raise taxes, or cut services? (Why not both?)

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 Your politics have proven to be outdated and ineffective for the 21st century's new challenges and demographics.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.

Yes, you are the party of Laurier, Mackenzie King, Pearson, and Trudeau. But the past will not help us now. The ability to look forward, to change, to adapt, to progress - these are the most Liberal of values - and yet the party is trapped in its own traditions and locked in a circle of nostalgia. The party elites (or what remains of them) still seem more bent on returning to power than on genuine change and new ideas.

The Party has failed to capture the modern dialectic tension between the Rich and the Average; between the New Wealth and the Old Money; between the public sector and the private sector; between the young and the old; between the New Canadians and the Old Establishment. Modern politics are being fought along these lines while the Liberal Party watches on the sidelines reminiscing about its role in nationalism, the constitution, and the powers of government.

Where the Conservatives and the New Democrats have picked up on these social cues and evolved with the rest of the country, the Liberals are perpetually stuck in the late-1990s. Chretien, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff, and Rae - these are all names of the Establishment from generations past. Not one of them was born after 1955. Where the others have found youth and vigour, the Liberal Party has returned time and again to the same old, same old.

Though I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party, I have heard more convincing pitches to join both the Left and the Right. As a student and an immigrant, the New Democrats seem far more welcoming and friendly. As an aspiring professional and a sometimes politically active citizen, the Conservatives seem far better organized and unified.

Why, in the midst of these past years of constant politicking have I not even seen one single Liberal Party event/rally/organization on my university campus, the largest in Canada? It is not as if my friends and peers are allergic to Liberal policies - that would be a different story. On the contrary, most people I know are more willing to be centrists than leftists or rightists. And yet, it seems the political bickering and indecisiveness at the top has trickled down to the bottom, leaving the Liberal youth without a voice.

Where the young Conservatives and New Democrats are vocal and passionate, the young Liberals are silent and disorganized. It is as if the youth - the future of our party - are afraid to admit their allegiances because of the perceived failures and corruptions of the party elite. In the process, our ideas and our policies have been lost in a constant struggle against a slipping reputation.

It is time to reinvigorate the youth, and bring on the new generation. It is time to pull the Party's collective head out of the sand and catch up to 2012 - or the future of the Liberal Party of Canada may soon cease to be.

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.

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.