I recently did an interview with David Staples of the Edmonton Journal about my previous article where I argued for decentralizing infrastructure financing. He went on to write this article, in which he agrees that the best course would be for the Federal government to get out of the municipal infrastructure business.
On taxes infrastructure, set our cities free
Here is an article I wrote that appeared in the Edmonton Journal and the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal. I argue that the Federal and Provincial governments should get out of infrastructure financing, and in exchange give cities greater taxing powers.
The 30th Anniversary of the C-Train
I’ve spent a good chunk of the last few months working on a study of Calgary’s light rail transit (C-Train) system, which was released today by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. I’ve had a long standing interest in LRT systems, and spent the summer of 2009 working for the Cascade Policy Institute in Oregon, where we compiled massive amounts of data on their world renowned LRT system as part of an ongoing project. The data (including actual field research, which proponents of the system haven’t done–they rely on survey data), indicates that ridership is lower, and costs are far higher than proponents believe.
That first hand experience (which included riding the train every day), coupled with the empirical literature from light rail systems across North America, shattered my previous conviction that light rail transit can be an economical method of transit. For the record, I do believe that subways can be profitable in dense urban cores (even the badly managed TTC nearly breaks even), and buses already are profitable in many cases (especially inter-urban bus services, such as Greyhound and Megabus). Many proponents of LRT believe that it is a happy medium between subways and buses. If that were the case, it would be profitable. However, LRT combines the disadvantages of the two: it is slow, inflexible, and expensive. Numerous studies, in particular an authoritative study by the non-partisan United States Government Accountability Office, have demonstrated that on average, buses are a cheaper, faster, and more flexible than LRT for providing mass transit.
While I use many different metrics to demonstrate that the costs and benefits of LRT are wildly exaggerated, my favorite is that Calgary spends both the most on transit and the most on roads per-capita. Given that Calgary’s entire land use and transportation framework for the past several decades has been built around the C-Train, it is hard to call it anything but a failure. The City has cracked down on parking so aggressively to encourage people to ride the train that there are only 0.07 parking spaces per employee in the central business district. Because of this, Calgary is tied with New York for the highest parking prices on the continent. But many of those people who would otherwise have parked downtown instead park in the free parking spots provided at C-Train stations. Not only is free parking horribly inefficient, but this also emphasizes one of the major contradictions of the C-Train: it isn’t getting people out of their cars, and it isn’t helping to curb urban sprawl–two of its primary goals.
Unsurprisingly, those last two findings proved controversial, though not as controversial as my assertion that the C-Train fails to help the urban poor. A columnist for the Calgary Herald wrote an angry response to my Herald article that accompanied the story (though doesn’t seem to have read the study). She attempts to refute my arguments about urban sprawl, and the impact of the C-Train on the poor, while dismissing the study as “a cost-benefit analysis guaranteed to resonate with other right wingers who share the mantra of lower taxes above all else, including over the reality of everyday experience.” I’m not clear on when cost-benefit analysis became a right wing concept, but I’ll let that one go. I will, however, address her two criticisms in short order.
The idea that urban transit could worsen sprawl seems odd. The reason why it does so in Calgary is because the C-Train network is built on a hub and spoke model. What this means is that transit is concentrated on going from the outskirts, into the city center. Since LRT is so expensive, and since people need to be ‘collected’ by buses to get to LRT stations, the city has less resources to provide transit circling the core, or travelling east-west. And if you can’t provide good transit for people who aren’t living along LRT lines, and don’t work along one of the lines, people are just going to keep moving further out (hence the highest road costs in the nation). Here’s what Calgary Transit’s current planning manager has to say about the C-Train’s impact on sprawl:
“In one respect, it should allow Calgary to be a more compact city, but what it’s done is it’s actually allowed Calgary to continue to develop outward because it was so easy to get to the LRT and then get other places,” says Neil McKendrick, Calgary Transit’s current planning manager.”
While that comment is true for those who can afford to live by LRT stations (or to drive to them), it doesn’t apply to the city’s poorest. As it happens, LRT lines raise the cost of adjacent housing (though for proximate high end housing it lowers the value–hardly a concern for the poor)–by $1045 for every 100 feet closer to a rail station. This isn’t a terribly complicated concept. If you spend a massive amount of money on a form of transit that is considered to luxurious, the price of housing goes up. This is exacerbated by the fact that diverting transit resources to those areas makes transit there comparatively better, making it that much more desirable comparatively for people who intend to use transit at all–even as just an occasional amenity, say for going downtown on weekends. LRT is great for people who can afford to live by the stations, but not so much for anyone else.
Unfortunately, for many, light rail transit has become a sacred cow. But if Calgary is ever going to have adequate rapid transit, the City will need to explore more cost effective options. Buses may not be trendy, but expanding BRT in Calgary would dramatically improve people’s mobility at a reasonable cost. Fortunately, the current Mayor has acknowledged that BRT will have to be part of the solution for making Calgary a transit friendly city. He also made the wise decision of de-prioritizing the southeast LRT extension (expected to cost $1.2-$1.8 billion). If the Mayor follows up on his promise to make BRT an integral part of Calgary Transit in the short term, the City will not only have far better transit, but it will have a chance to watch the LRT and BRT operating side by side so that the people can decide for themselves whether the the billion plus required to build the Southeast LRT is worthwhile. My bet is on BRT.
Instead of Earth Hour
Earth Hour is a great example of millions of how people can spontaneously cooperate to achieve a collective good. Unfortunately, while participants succeed in coaxing others to participate, the collective good they create is a fleeting sense of collective accomplishment. As for achieving the primary goal of the activists–reducing greenhouse gases–it completely misses the point. The most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to increase energy efficiency. Fortunately, nearly everyone has a vested interest in energy efficiency–saving money.
Does turning off the lights for an hour have a lasting impact on energy efficiency? Of course not. The real rational behind Earth Hour is to create support for legislation that they believe will reduce carbon emissions. In other words, Earth Hour is a bottom up attempt to use top down means to solve hundreds of billions of problems–namely the multitude of individual energy inefficient decisions each of us make every day. This approach is bound to fail. Declaring that carbon emissions shall be reduced doesn’t have an impact unless individuals and businesses do something to reduce their carbon emissions. Diktats have far less ability to change people’s behaviour than economic incentives, absent Draconian measures. In short, the best way to convince people to conserve energy is to show them that it will save them money.
So how could we leverage the co-operation of Earth Hour into an increased awareness of the individual benefits of energy conservation? I would suggest that rather than turning off the lights for an hour, the World Wildlife Foundation (organizers of the event) suggest that everyone make one improvement to their household energy efficiency during Earth Hour. This could range from replacing an old refrigerator (or at least purchasing one online during the hour) to installing an energy efficient light bulb, or installing new weatherstripping on a drafty window. Sure, it doesn’t have the visual impact of having large swaths of a city fall into darkness, but it would actually have a bigger long term impact. WWF could feature an energy efficiency calculator on their site, and participants could roughly calculate their energy consumption savings, and send them on to WWF to aggregate. This way participants would still get some of the sense of accomplishment that comes along with cloaking their city in darkness. Given that WWF believes energy efficiency to be the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this would seem like the perfect way for them to get their message across.
So here is the choice: self loathing deprivation, or a celebration of human accomplishment. Given the extremely negative message the first sends to people who aren’t hardcore environmentalists–that conservation requires inconvenience and sacrifice–the smart approach would be to send a positive message: energy efficiency saves you money. It lacks the feel good factor of sacrificing for the good of the planet, but at least it could have an actual impact. Like it or not, self interest almost always trumps self sacrifice. The goal should be to harness people’s self interest, rather than fighting against it.
Toronto: Three Cities in More than One Way
The issue of income disparity in Toronto has once again been brought into the public eye by a December 15th report by University of Toronto Professor David Hulchanski. The report, “The Three Cities Within Toronto,” points to a growing disparity in incomes between Downtown Toronto, the inner suburbs, and the outer suburbs of the city. The report demonstrates that between 1970 and 2005 the residents of the once prosperous outer suburbs have been losing ground compared to the now wealthy downtown core. The results for the inner suburbs have been mixed.
In 1970, 66% of city neighbourhoods were considered middle income. Only 15% were considered high or very high, and 19% were low or very low. In 2005, only 29% of neighbourhoods were considered middle income. The number of high or very high income neighbourhoods rose to 19%, while low and very low income neighbourhoods made up a staggering 54% of neighbourhoods.
The news isn’t all bad. After all, the downtown core is now one of the most desirable places to live in North America, and many of the formerly low income neighbourhoods have gentrified, or are in the process of doing so. However, many of the city’s traditional suburbs have been decimated. The former cities of Etobicoke and Scarborough used to be middle class. Not so much anymore.
In real dollar terms, even the majority of the very low income areas have become wealthier. The trouble with poverty statistics is that they focus on relative poverty, rather than absolute poverty. This means that if Etobicoke’s average income doubled tomorrow, the downtown core would all of a sudden be considered poor. This is a major limitation. Toronto isn’t exactly turning into a Canadian Detroit.
The report rightly points to the need for greater mobility in the outer suburbs. Given that the most lucrative jobs are typically downtown, many young professionals and recent graduates living outside of the core need to be able to get downtown cheaply and quickly in order to build their careers. Where the report goes wrong is that it recommends stricter land use regulations, stronger rent controls, and the revival of the flawed Transit City plan that Mayor Ford vigorously campaigned against in the recent election.
It is easy for academics to blame a lack of social welfare spending, or suburbanization for the problem. The real problem is the loss of local policy making power resulting from amalgamation. For the most part, the areas losing ground the fastest are the formerly middle class suburbs amalgamated into the city. In contrast the “exurbs” just outside of city boundaries have thrived. This is no coincidence. The real takeaway from this study is that the suburbs have different needs than the central core. By attempting to accommodate the needs of both, the megacity has benefitted neither. Short of de-amalgamation, the only hope for the city is to substantially decentralize policy making. No amount of spending can make up for the loss of local autonomy.
Policies have different effects in different types of cities. Take the treatment of automobiles. It might make sense to discourage automobile usage in downtown Toronto, but the benefits of doing so in Vaughan or Pickering would be questionable at best. Similarly, mandating that every commercial establishment have a public washroom probably makes sense as a public health measure in downtown, where public urination is an issue, but not so much in suburban Markham, or Richmond Hill.
Making sensible regulations for a small, relatively homogenous area isn’t all that difficult. Applying these regulations to a large, demographically diverse area can help some areas and hurt others. It’s not that regulations need to be a zero sum game. People in Etobicoke wouldn’t be affected if, say, maximum parking allotments were tightened in the downtown core. They would be affected if they were tightened throughout the entire megacity. Similarly, increasing maximum parking allotments might hurt the core and help the suburbs. The current one size fits all approach sometimes benefits the core and sometimes benefits the suburbs, but ever both.
Perhaps more important than city wide regulations is the centralization of taxing power. Since the merger, the city now sets tax rates across the entire megacity. This also allows the city to control the ratio of residential to non-residential taxes. The city of Toronto has the highest ratio of non-residential to residential taxes in Ontario. This means that businesses carry a higher share of the tax load in the city than anywhere else in the province. The combination of tax and regulatory policies in the city have lead the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses to rank Toronto as the second least business friendly city in Canada. On a scale of 1-100, Toronto came in at 33, slightly ahead of Vancouver’s 31. Meanwhile, the rest of the (Greater Toronto Area) GTA is near the top, at 61. Neighbouring Oshawa took the top spot in Ontario with 69.
Now the share of non-residential to residential taxes in Toronto may actually make sense downtown. The core is home to the third biggest financial sector in North America. These jobs are heavily concentrated in the downtown core.
Downtown Toronto isn’t competing with low tax Vaughan or Barrie for these jobs. They are competing with high tax cities like New York and Chicago. This means that employment in the core is not as easily chased off by taxes and regulations than in the suburbs. But in industries like wholesale and manufacturing, which are far more important outside of the core, employment can easily relocate to Barrie, Mississauga, Oshawa, and so forth. Indeed, jobs have been leaving the city since before the recession hit.
Since 2004 Downtown and North York have prospered but the rest of the city has lost jobs. This should make the results of the Professor Hulchanski’s report unsurprising. The financial sector isn’t enough to keep the entire city employed or lift wages in the city-controlled suburban rings. As a a result despite the thriving financial sector, Toronto was dead last in the GTA in terms of median incomes.
To turn this around, the city must decentralize decision making power so the suburban communities can come up with their own economic development strategies. No matter how much the city improves transit to the outer suburbs, they will not be able to significantly increase median incomes without creating more jobs. The financial sector will continue to grow, but many of jobs created in this sector require specialized training, and thus go to people from outside of the city. This doesn’t do much for former manufacturing workers in Scarborough and Etobicoke. Growth of the financial sector combined with the dispearance of blue collar jobs together guarantee continuing income disparities in the city.
Below is previously published data from Professor Hulchanski that highlights how badly blue collar sections of the city have been hit.
Fundamentally, a strong focus on financial and other so-called “creative class” jobs will do little for these areas. The above map was created by Richard Florida’s Martin Prosperity Institute. It shows that most creative class jobs are clustered around the subway, but this doesn’t mean that expanding rail transit will expand creative class employment. Building a light rail line through a neighbourhood doesn’t suddenly transform the residents into artists and physicians. It may attract more artists and physicians, but this could actually hurt local residents by driving up rent and property values without creating jobs for them. Below is a map of educational attainment by ward. The darker the colour, the higher the number of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
The real problem is that a focus on elite jobs creates exactly the kind of bifurcation that progressive complain about. Given that city wide business policies are tailored towards creative class type occupations, it is unlikely that price sensitive manufacturers will find any reason to locate within city boundaries, rather than setting up shop in Mississauga or Barrie.
Indeed, for all the temptation by urbanists to point to Toronto’s suburban ring as an example of the decline of suburbia, the peripheral suburban areas outside of city limits have been booming. Here is a map of growth in the GTA between 2001-2006. While Toronto grew modestly, suburban cities Milton, Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Ajax, and Whitby all grew by at least 20%. Even Oshawa, which was hit hard by the decline of the auto sector, has managed to survive, and indeed maintained a higher median income than Toronto during this period. Regional rival Mississauga eclipsed Toronto’s growth rate, and emerging regional player Barrie grew by over 20%.
In short, despite its strong financial core, Toronto is losing its standing as the go-to destination in the GTA. And it could get worse. Mississauga is working hard to lure financial services and advanced manufacturing jobs from Toronto. Several other cities, such as Guelph and Waterloo are actually competing for the very creative types that Toronto’s policies are tailored to attract. Other cities, such as Barrie are working hard to cannibalize what is left of Toronto’s manufacturing and distribution sectors. Were it not for amalgamation, Etobicoke or Scarborough could just as easily have undertaken a similar strategy to attract blue collar jobs.
The Three Cities report identifies serious regional disparities in Toronto. Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide much insight into how to fix the problem. Expanding transit options will only go so far towards this. Building more light rail may raise median incomes by attracting wealthier people to these neighbourhoods. Ironically, this will only widen the income gap. The real challenge is finding out how to create opportunities for blue collar jobs in suburban Toronto. Unfortunately, amalgamation has imposed one size fits all policies that may work downtown, but utterly fail in the suburbs and continue to drive people to the periphery outside the city limits. Ironically, the very policies that seek to halt “sprawl” may well end up exacerbating it.
Toronto Skyline photo by Smaku
Steve Lafleur is a public policy analyst and political consultant based out of Calgary, Alberta. For more detail, see his blog.
The news isn’t all bad. After all, the downtown core is now one of the most desirable places to live in North America, and many of the formerly low income neighbourhoods have gentrified, or are in the process of doing so. However, many of the city’s traditional suburbs have been decimated. The former cities of Etobicoke and Scarborough used to be middle class. Not so much anymore.
In real dollar terms, even the majority of the very low income areas have become wealthier. The trouble with poverty statistics is that they focus on relative poverty, rather than absolute poverty. This means that if Etobicoke’s average income doubled tomorrow, the downtown core would all of a sudden be considered poor. This is a major limitation. Toronto isn’t exactly turning into a Canadian Detroit.
The report rightly points to the need for greater mobility in the outer suburbs. Given that the most lucrative jobs are typically downtown, many young professionals and recent graduates living outside of the core need to be able to get downtown cheaply and quickly in order to build their careers. Where the report goes wrong is that it recommends stricter land use regulations, stronger rent controls, and the revival of the flawed Transit City plan that Mayor Ford vigorously campaigned against in the recent election.
It is easy for academics to blame a lack of social welfare spending, or suburbanization for the problem. The real problem is the loss of local policy making power resulting from amalgamation. For the most part, the areas losing ground the fastest are the formerly middle class suburbs amalgamated into the city. In contrast the “exurbs” just outside of city boundaries have thrived. This is no coincidence. The real takeaway from this study is that the suburbs have different needs than the central core. By attempting to accommodate the needs of both, the megacity has benefitted neither. Short of de-amalgamation, the only hope for the city is to substantially decentralize policy making. No amount of spending can make up for the loss of local autonomy.
Policies have different effects in different types of cities. Take the treatment of automobiles. It might make sense to discourage automobile usage in downtown Toronto, but the benefits of doing so in Vaughan or Pickering would be questionable at best. Similarly, mandating that every commercial establishment have a public washroom probably makes sense as a public health measure in downtown, where public urination is an issue, but not so much in suburban Markham, or Richmond Hill.
Making sensible regulations for a small, relatively homogenous area isn’t all that difficult. Applying these regulations to a large, demographically diverse area can help some areas and hurt others. It’s not that regulations need to be a zero sum game. People in Etobicoke wouldn’t be affected if, say, maximum parking allotments were tightened in the downtown core. They would be affected if they were tightened throughout the entire megacity. Similarly, increasing maximum parking allotments might hurt the core and help the suburbs. The current one size fits all approach sometimes benefits the core and sometimes benefits the suburbs, but ever both.
Perhaps more important than city wide regulations is the centralization of taxing power. Since the merger, the city now sets tax rates across the entire megacity. This also allows the city to control the ratio of residential to non-residential taxes. The city of Toronto has the highest ratio of non-residential to residential taxes in Ontario. This means that businesses carry a higher share of the tax load in the city than anywhere else in the province. The combination of tax and regulatory policies in the city have lead the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses to rank Toronto as the second least business friendly city in Canada. On a scale of 1-100, Toronto came in at 33, slightly ahead of Vancouver’s 31. Meanwhile, the rest of the (Greater Toronto Area) GTA is near the top, at 61. Neighbouring Oshawa took the top spot in Ontario with 69.
|
GTA Area Cities by CFIB Entrepreneurial Cities Policy Score |
|||
|
Rank (Ontario) |
City |
Score |
Driving Distance to Yonge and Bloor |
|
1 |
Oshawa |
69 |
0:45 |
|
6 |
GTA (Excluding Toronto) |
61 |
|
|
Mississauga |
61 |
0:27 |
|
|
Brampton |
61 |
0:41 |
|
|
Richmond Hill |
61 |
0:32 |
|
|
Markham |
61 |
0:32 |
|
|
Vaughan |
61 |
0:32 |
|
|
16 |
Hamilton |
55 |
0:58 |
|
19 |
Guelph |
54 |
1:15 |
|
24 |
Barrie |
52 |
1:16 |
|
27 |
Brantford |
51 |
1:20 |
|
30 |
Kitchener |
48 |
1:23 |
|
33 |
Toronto |
33 |
|
|
Etobicoke |
33 |
0:20 |
|
|
Scarborough |
33 |
0:21 |
|
Downtown Toronto isn’t competing with low tax Vaughan or Barrie for these jobs. They are competing with high tax cities like New York and Chicago. This means that employment in the core is not as easily chased off by taxes and regulations than in the suburbs. But in industries like wholesale and manufacturing, which are far more important outside of the core, employment can easily relocate to Barrie, Mississauga, Oshawa, and so forth. Indeed, jobs have been leaving the city since before the recession hit.
Since 2004 Downtown and North York have prospered but the rest of the city has lost jobs. This should make the results of the Professor Hulchanski’s report unsurprising. The financial sector isn’t enough to keep the entire city employed or lift wages in the city-controlled suburban rings. As a a result despite the thriving financial sector, Toronto was dead last in the GTA in terms of median incomes.
To turn this around, the city must decentralize decision making power so the suburban communities can come up with their own economic development strategies. No matter how much the city improves transit to the outer suburbs, they will not be able to significantly increase median incomes without creating more jobs. The financial sector will continue to grow, but many of jobs created in this sector require specialized training, and thus go to people from outside of the city. This doesn’t do much for former manufacturing workers in Scarborough and Etobicoke. Growth of the financial sector combined with the dispearance of blue collar jobs together guarantee continuing income disparities in the city.
Below is previously published data from Professor Hulchanski that highlights how badly blue collar sections of the city have been hit.
Fundamentally, a strong focus on financial and other so-called “creative class” jobs will do little for these areas. The above map was created by Richard Florida’s Martin Prosperity Institute. It shows that most creative class jobs are clustered around the subway, but this doesn’t mean that expanding rail transit will expand creative class employment. Building a light rail line through a neighbourhood doesn’t suddenly transform the residents into artists and physicians. It may attract more artists and physicians, but this could actually hurt local residents by driving up rent and property values without creating jobs for them. Below is a map of educational attainment by ward. The darker the colour, the higher the number of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
The real problem is that a focus on elite jobs creates exactly the kind of bifurcation that progressive complain about. Given that city wide business policies are tailored towards creative class type occupations, it is unlikely that price sensitive manufacturers will find any reason to locate within city boundaries, rather than setting up shop in Mississauga or Barrie.
Indeed, for all the temptation by urbanists to point to Toronto’s suburban ring as an example of the decline of suburbia, the peripheral suburban areas outside of city limits have been booming. Here is a map of growth in the GTA between 2001-2006. While Toronto grew modestly, suburban cities Milton, Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Ajax, and Whitby all grew by at least 20%. Even Oshawa, which was hit hard by the decline of the auto sector, has managed to survive, and indeed maintained a higher median income than Toronto during this period. Regional rival Mississauga eclipsed Toronto’s growth rate, and emerging regional player Barrie grew by over 20%.
In short, despite its strong financial core, Toronto is losing its standing as the go-to destination in the GTA. And it could get worse. Mississauga is working hard to lure financial services and advanced manufacturing jobs from Toronto. Several other cities, such as Guelph and Waterloo are actually competing for the very creative types that Toronto’s policies are tailored to attract. Other cities, such as Barrie are working hard to cannibalize what is left of Toronto’s manufacturing and distribution sectors. Were it not for amalgamation, Etobicoke or Scarborough could just as easily have undertaken a similar strategy to attract blue collar jobs.
The Three Cities report identifies serious regional disparities in Toronto. Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide much insight into how to fix the problem. Expanding transit options will only go so far towards this. Building more light rail may raise median incomes by attracting wealthier people to these neighbourhoods. Ironically, this will only widen the income gap. The real challenge is finding out how to create opportunities for blue collar jobs in suburban Toronto. Unfortunately, amalgamation has imposed one size fits all policies that may work downtown, but utterly fail in the suburbs and continue to drive people to the periphery outside the city limits. Ironically, the very policies that seek to halt “sprawl” may well end up exacerbating it.
Toronto Skyline photo by Smaku
Steve Lafleur is a public policy analyst and political consultant based out of Calgary, Alberta. For more detail, see his blog.
How Your Worldview Shapes Your Politics
In all of my time around ideologues of every stripe imaginable, I’ve noticed strong correlations between people’s attitudes, and their politics. Some are obvious, such as how anarchists are very optimistic about society, yet pessimistic about government. Some are a little less intuitive, such as how negative neo-conservatives tend to be about both government and society in general. This is just a rough diagram I put together, but I’d be interested to hear what you think. Does this diagram correctly identify you?
Commissioner Leonard Steps Up Portland’s War on Fun
Originally featured at NewGeography.
Portland is known primarily as a cool city, where people spend their 20s happily working in the service sector, drinking craft beer, eating organic food, and exploring a variety of unconventional lifestyle options. In short, Portland is weird. That’s not just an observation: it’s the city’s marketing strategy. Keep Portland Weird is a pretty common bumper sticker in the city (believe it or not, there are cars in Portland). Yet despite the non-conformist attitude of Portlanders, the municipal government seems bent on destroying everything fun about the city.
The first attack, which I documented in Reason Magazine, is on craft beer, the city’s primary cultural export. The city attempted to increase the tax on beer producers several fold, though the motion was soundly defeated. It was the only time I’ve ever seen hippies handing out anti-tax fliers in bars on Friday nights. This was followed up by an EPA mandated tampering of the water supply, which may or may not reduce the quality of the world beer capital’s unparalleled beer.
The second attack is on street vendors. Portland has some of the most liberal rules regarding street vendors. You can find anything from Mexican to Thai food in the nearly 600 Portland street carts. This is one of the things that make the city charming. Street vendors add to the street life of the city. Yet this summer, a story about a little girl having her unlicensed lemonade stand shut down drew international attention. Now City Commissioner Randy Leonard is openly discussing a city wide crackdown on food vendors. The complaint? Many of them are guilty of attaching unlicensed appendages such as awnings and decks.
Where are the complaints originating from? You guessed it: local restaurants. They claim that street vendors are providing unfair competition, since they don’t have to provide restrooms, be wheelchair accessible, and so forth. This has so alarmed the Commissioner that he’s instructed building inspectors to assign top priority to inspecting street vendors. Ironically, this debate completely ignores the most legitimate question: are street vendors actually hurting anyone? Is their safety record worse than local restaurants? Are they blocking off public sidewalks? The answer to the first question isn’t clear, since the inspection reports aren’t reported in the same way they are for restaurants. Having said that, the health inspectors would shut them down if there were egregious violations. The second question is easier. They aren’t unduly encroaching on sidewalks. If anything, they’re providing sidewalk dwellers shelter from the rain with their unlicensed awnings.
Quirky things like world class craft beer and street vendors are what make Portland interesting. If the city is going to market itself as a destination for the creative class, it is going to have to stop cracking down on the very things that attract these people in the first place. After all, they sure aren’t moving to Portland because of the local economy.
Toronto Election Highlights Failure of Amalgamation
Originally featured at New Geography
In my pre-election piece on the Toronto election, I discussed the city’s lingering malaise. It developed slowly but its roots can be traced to the 1998 amalgamation that swallowed up five suburban municipalities. This led to a six folds expansion of city boundaries and a tripling the population base. This amalgamation was initiated by the province of Ontario as a cost saving measure and faced major local opposition. Citizens and politicians were concerned that the benefits of the alleged efficiency saving would be outweighed by the negative impact of losing local decision making powers. The recent Toronto municipal election bore out this concern.
In the October 25th election, Torontonians were presented with two dramatically different visions. The first vision was presented by former Liberal Ontario cabinet minister George Smitherman. A self-described progressive, Smitherman appealed mainly to voters in the downtown core of Old Toronto. He stood for issues such as improved bicycle lanes, renewal of the downtown waterfront, and improving social housing conditions. The second version was presented by maverick councilor Rob Ford, who represented a ward in the former City of Etobicoke. Ford’s message was simple: it’s time to stop the “gravy train” at City Hall. While he had elaborate platforms on many issues, cutting waste at City Hall was his ubiquitous message.
“Redneck” Calgary Elects Liberal Muslim Academic Mayor: World Doesn’t End
Originally featured at NewGeography
Calgary municipal politics rarely makes news outside of the city. Going into this year’s municipal election, I had reason to believe this would change. I came to Calgary to manage the campaign of the runner up from the last election. He is a Muslim (specifically Ishmaili), and an outsider to the political establishment. People told me there’s no way someone like that could be elected in Calgary. I’m happy to say that they were proven wrong. Unfortunately, I had nothing to do with this.
My former candidate is a colorful guy. He had lived in Calgary for less than five years before running for mayor the first time around. His odds were pretty steep. Mayor Dave Bronconnier had garnered over 80% of the vote in the previous election. His closest rival had just over 5%. My candidate spent over a million dollars of his own money to run a viable campaign against the two term incumbent. He finished that election with a quarter of the votes. Internal polling suggested he had a serious chance, until false allegations concerning his past business dealings in Kenya derailed his candidacy.
He is also a strong believer that Calgary’s redneck image is outdated. Calgarian values are old fashioned in many ways, many of them good. There is no major Canadian city where people are as supportive of free-enterprise as Calgary. Think of it as Houston North. The economy is largely driven by the oil and gas money, and it is perceived as being a very socially conservative, predominately white city. This perception is out of date. Nearly a quarter of Calgarians are members of visible minority groups, and the city elected Canada’s first Muslim Member of Parliament. My candidate mocked this perception. One of his ice breakers with skeptics of his candidacy was to tell them that “redneck Calgary is ready to elect a brown, bald guy from Kenya” as Mayor. It turns out he was right about the “brown” part.
I ended up leaving that campaign early. We had different visions for the campaign, and the candidate always wins that argument. He wound up pulling out of the race the day before the election officially got underway. I harbored suspicions that the only reason he came in second the last time was that he happened to be the only guy willing to spend a million bucks to run against a popular incumbent. Had he not run, the two term incumbent would have walked to another landslide victory. Some people were angry with the incumbent, and he was the other name on the ballot they recognized.
My faith that a member of a visible minority group could be elected Mayor of Calgary dwindled. But in the last few weeks of the campaign, something odd began happening in the polls. A man by the name of Naheed Nenshi started to poll at 20%. Few people took his candidacy seriously before this. His numbers began to climb into the 30% range in the final week. I started making long shot bets with friends that Nenshi would win, but I didn’t really expect it to happen. Surely the polling was wrong. Redneck Calgary couldn’t possibly elect a Liberal Muslim academic as Mayor.
The polling actually was wrong. Since many young people only have cell phones, they are underrepresented in polls. It turns out that the polls massively underestimated Nenshi’s support. He didn’t just sneak by. Turnout was an astonishing 53%–shattering records for the last 3 decades—and he grabbed 40% of the votes. This was supposed to be a two way race between fiscal hawk alderman Ric McIver, and popular news anchor Barb Higgins. Elections don’t always turn out as they’re scripted by the pundits.
The fact that we’ve actually elected a Muslim Mayor has lead to a serious rethink of Calgary’s redneck reputation. Pundits claim that this represents a shift in the city’s attitude towards immigrants. I disagree. Like its American energy town counterpart Houston, it’s an open, opportunity-oriented city. People don’t care if you’re white, brown, or from Saskatchewan. Calgary is a magnet for entrepreneurial people. It is a city that was built on people from all over the world seeking opportunities. One fifth of Calgarians are immigrants.
“Go west, young man” is not a mantra that was exclusively adopted by white Protestant men. Nenshi was born and raised in Calgary, but his mayoralty would not have been possible if it weren’t for the hospitable Calgarian attitude.
Frankly, he’ll probably do an alright job. Nenshi has an impressive business background, and his knowledge of urban public policy and municipal government is extensive. He’s more of a market liberal, than the dogmatic leftist that his critics painted him as. He wants more public amenities, but understands fiscal prudence and the need for efficient regulations.
No matter how much his critics called him a socialist, Nenshi was the candidate who was able to convince voters that he knew how to provide the necessary services without breaking the bank. Voters wanted a clear vision of the city’s future, and that’s what Nenshi provided. People knew what they were voting for. Frontrunner Ric McIver offered slightly lower tax increases, combined with major spending initiatives. We’ve all seen what happens when politicians promise tax cuts without a plan to reduce spending. This isn’t a vision, so much as a recipe for disappointment.
Calgarians wanted to elect a Mayor who would clean up City Hall. Nenshi offered that, and people didn’t care what God he worships (or doesn’t). Calgarians didn’t vote for a Muslim mayor any more than they voted for a Protestant Mayor the last election. They voted for the guy they thought would get things done. That’s the Calgarian attitude.
Unintended Consequences of Oil Drilling Regulations
Here is a link to a great article from Shawn Regan at the Property and Environment Research Center on how government regulations are effecting oil exploration. Rather than protecting the environment, it turns out that heavy handed regulations–driven by NIMBYs–are leading us to look for oil in all the wrong places.
The world isn’t running out of oil, yet governments have essentially forced oil companies into offshore drilling. The US government has designated 80% of oil rich offshore land, and 60% of equivalent on shore land of limits to drilling. Combine this with a liability cap for oil spills, and offshore drilling all of a sudden makes plenty of sense for drillers. Michael Greenstone of the Brookings Institute summed up the situation pefectly: “The cap effectively subsidizes drilling and substandard safety investments in the very locations where the damages from spills would be greatest.”
@kalimkassam I'm intrigued. I'll need to have a look. Thanks for the head's up.
@JoelWWood @SusanLazaruk Sorry. Meant in US, where there are very identifiable neighbourhoods where the rule of law has broken down.
.@Steve_Lafleur it's Buckley's memoir about his own mayoral race in New York. The article that mentions it http://t.co/yvkwEInp
