Archive for November, 2009
“The City’s billboard tax. Yet another tax we can’t afford” Who is this WE they speak of?
When I saw a billboard that said “The City’s billboard tax. Yet another tax we can’t afford.” I laughed. Honestly I did. Who is this ‘we’ who can’t afford a billboard tax? I personally favour a billboard tax to a property tax increase, a user fee increase, transit fare increase, water rate increase, vehicle registration tax, garbage fee, land transfer tax – you name it- of the ways City Hall has found to extract more money from Torontonians over the last three years. This seems pretty tame and targeted in a way that it isn’t going to hurt the average Torontonian the same way many tax increases do.
Generally speaking billboards bother me. Especially illuminated ones. Anyone who is shining a light at a sign at night to light up their advertisement is wasting a whole lot of electricity and is consciously making the decision that having their advertisement viewable in the evening is more valuable than energy conservation – something I think most people recognize as being important and support.
It costs like $15 000 a month plus about $3 000 to have the ad produced and installed so we’re talking about an $18 000 investment here. If someone is spending $18 000 seeking a captive audience, I’m sure paying an additional tax isn’t going to price too many people out of the market.
Consider that a full page ad in the Globe and Mail would run the same advertiser $53 000 for a day.
Ladies and Gentlemen – little violins are in order for outdoor advertisers.
The industry lobbyist, the “Out of Home Marketing Association of Canada” is clearly the ‘WE’ we’re supposed to feel for. Sorry guys, but I wonder how out of touch you’d have to be to try and convince the 2.6 million folks who call Toronto home that a billboard tax aimed at folks that annoy us with their marketing materials is somehow something those individuals are going to have to pay and can’t afford.
The sign should read “The City’s billboard tax. Council’s first attempt to shift some tax burden off of residents” because that’s what’s happening here even if the industry doesn’t like it.
OK – so the argument I missed here and really the only possible impact anyone could claim will impact a real person is the potential that this industry will lose business, dry up or die. None of that is going to happen for as long as those billboards continue to be in high traffic spots, someone is going to pay the tax and advertise.
Regardless – let’s just say there was the potential for an adverse economic impact here… who would it affect?
If you visit the citybillboardtax.ca under contribution they don’t state how many people they employ, instead they talk about how much revenue the industry has generated for itself in Toronto last year (about $65 million) and how much revenue was generated for the City (about $36 million). They also talk about ads as being nice and part of the cultural fabric etc.
This $36 million dollars worth of revenue to the City is stable in that Astral media – the guys who bring you most of your ads on city property – so things like garbage cans, bus shelters etc signed a 20 year agreement with the City for the privilege of building our ’street furniture’ and in exchange the City has a guaranteed stream of revenue raised off of these assets. The tax won’t change that, and even the OMAC isn’t suggesting it will. I guess they’re trying to say because the City is leasing them space essentially for one member’s ads they are doing their part as an industry?
The bottom line is these guys don’t have an argument better than ‘but we don’t wanna’ and I get that. Who wants to pass a tax on to their customers – the difference here however is their customers are generally large entities that will pay the tax because it’s still a clear win for them.
They are also running a really crappy campaign based on none of the fundamentals of a winning campaign. Like their product, it is lame, one way communication with no measurable effect or ability to engage interested parties.
I personally support the City finding ways to generate revenue that don’t involve milking existing individual and residential taxpayers and think ideas like the billboard tax are a far fairer approach from my perspective as a resident.
3 Comments »I Support a Ban on Corporate Donations in Politics
Corporations aren’t people. They don’t have the same rights. They represent a single interest – the financial well being of their shareholders. Representing the interests of shareholders isn’t necessarily a bad thing in itself. I do completely understand how capitalism works, but at the same time – corporate interests should not be able to buy their way into the political system.
I am glad Toronto City Council is going to consider a ban on corporate donations for the 2010 election and beyond. This won’t end the flow of corporate money into campaigns, as if one looks at the campaign returns of both David Miller and Karen Stintz as examples – you will find that these two ‘no corporate, no union donation’ types both took money from the CEOs of corporations with clear financial interests at the City level.
Obviously nothing can be done to stop CEOs from donating to campaigns, and I’m not necessarily saying a law should, but perhaps the lobbyist registry would be improved by adding a question ‘did any principle related to this project donate to the official being lobbied’ in addition to adding an ‘outcome’ section that shows whether the corporate entity lobbying got what they wanted out of government.
It wouldn’t be fair to say that those who take money from corporations are corrupt, or that those who donate are either – but the point is it builds a connection between the candidate and business interest that will factor into decision making – especially if the issue isn’t a live local issue and constituents aren’t expressing a strong position on the matter.
I honestly have less of a problem with union donations as unions represent people and their interests are clear and often debated in public anyways. They are being grouped into the ban, as they were in the federal ban on corporate and union donations brought in my Stephen Harper. Whether unions can donate isn’t a big deal for me, but I understand to a degree the desire to link them to corporate donations, even if it is only to make the whole thing ideologically neutral.
I hope that when City Council takes this up and that Councillors vote in the best interest of democracy, and not self interest. That being said, I don’t hold out hope that this is how this vote will be decided as many times these folks have voted out of self interest as it relates to election related matters where frankly they shouldn’t even be making the decision.
2 Comments »Bambi To Police – ‘Don’t Tase Me Bro’
I have to say watching the media, police, Toronto Zoo, and Toronto Animal Services reaction to a deer wandering downtown makes me oh so proud that I grew up along the Bluffs in the very natural community of Guildwood in Scarborough – a place where seeing a deer results in a smile and a heartwarming moment as one reflects on how lucky they are to live this close to nature, not a frantic call to 911 and a tasering.
Imagine answering ”what is the nature of your emergency Sir/Ma’am?” with this particular incident.
When I heard the Emergency Task Force was on the scene and had set up caution tape and a parameter around the resting deer, I was waiting for the crisis negotiator to come work out terms of surrender… Instead the police were waiting on backup from Toronto Animal Services and an ‘expert’ from the Zoo (hey, perhaps they could create an urban deer exhibit and stop fighting about pandas…)
Where was the army in all this? Had someone put in the call to Ottawa in case things got out of hand? I jest, naturally (no pun intended), but calling in someone from North America’s third largest zoo to consult on how to take down a resting doe is about as embarrassing as asking the army to shovel out bus shelters.
This is why the rest of the country thinks we’re idiots. A deer walks into downturn anywhere in Central Ontario… Is it news? Does a Zoo get involved?
I get that deers and downtown streets don’t mix. It sounds like the deer got that memo too. Between hydro fields, ravines, rivers, strips of parkland and rail lines, there are a number of options for how a deer could get in and out of the core from a wilderness area.
It just seems to me this whole thing turned into a gong show over something that folks who were using some common sense they could have fixed by guiding the deer to the rail lines – and out of the core. Heck, run it toward Guildwood and it can join the couple that appear in the bluffs and on the surrounding backyards and streets.
Instead the police, animal services and the Zoo turn it into an epic production that saw Bambi tranquilized, tasered, trapped, transported and presumably released somewhere.
It’s like they saw a deer and hauled out the contingency plan for a man eating bear an went to town.
Growing up in Guildwood I saw a lot of deer whether up on Hillcrest, in the intersection at Prince Phillip and Catalina or in Sylvan, South Marine or Guildwood Parks. I recall once as a kid, a friend and I tried to see how close we could get before it would run when we found one in a wooded portion of the Guild Inn grounds near Spencer Clark’s old office. I can tell you from that experience, deer run fast and away from the person behind them.
There are Deer Crossing signs on Morningside and Ellesmere, both busy, populated areas where a deer visit doesn’t result in the Emergency Task Force coming out.
The fact that the 2.5 million of us and over two hundred years of human inhabitants hasn’t driven away the wildlife is amazing.
I can tell you when I see a deer in my community in what is surely the prettiest part of Toronto I’ve never thought of phoning the police, the Zoo, Animal Services or felt what that deer in question really needed was a good tasering.
Downtown types should be appreciative the glass, steel and concrete community they’ve carved out hasn’t choked the life entirely out of the natural environment and come up with a better plan than shocking and drugging a mostly harmless (unless you’re in a car) animal.
4 Comments »
