The Relevance of Toronto's New Governmental Structure for the 21st Century
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The Ontario Conservative government of 1995 to 2003 made a number of major changes in the way that municipalities were governed and financed. Some municipalities were forced to amalgamate despite the opposition of their residents. The government also redistributed the responsibilities of the province and the municipalities through the Local Service Realignment Program (LSR). This program is referred to as downloading. The previous P.Q. government of Quebec merged the adjacent municipalities of Montreal, Quebec City and Longueuil into three large cities on January 1, 2002, despite the objections of the residents in local referenda. In June 2004, referenda were held in many of the amalgamated cities, and several voted to demerge. This paper is concerned with two questions. The first is whether megacities are less costly to operate than many small municipalities in a large urban area. The recent amalgamations of Toronto and of the cities in Quebec are used to examine this question. The second question is concerned with the impact of downloading on the municipalities. Because downloading did not take place in Quebec, the experience of the City of Toronto is used to examine this question. Combining amalgamation and downloading has produced an untenable financial situation for the new city of Toronto. The city is not financially self-sufficient. The province currently restricts the city to the property tax and to user fees for additional revenue. Other revenue sources are needed to help the city meet its financial requirements. The lack of funds, other than borrowing, to maintain and add to its infrastructure, means that the city's infrastructure is deteriorating and that borrowing costs will place an additional future burden on the city's operating costs. The inability to maintain and add to the city's and the Greater Toronto Area's (GTA) infrastructure will increase urban sprawl and place additional costs on the city and on the GTA's businesses and residents. ********** The 1995 to 2003 Ontario Conservative government made a number of major changes in the way that municipalities were governed and financed. Some municipalities were forced to amalgamate despite the opposition of the residents. The government also redistributed the responsibilities of the province and the municipalities through the Local Service Realignment Program (LSR). This program is referred to as downloading. Other major changes included the use of market value for property tax assessment and the transfer of education funding to the province from the local school boards. The previous P.Q. government of Quebec merged the adjacent municipalities of Montreal, Quebec City and Longueuil into three large cities on January 1, 2002. This was also pursued despite the objections of the residents in local referendums. This paper is concerned with two questions about the changes. The first is whether megacities are less costly to operate than many small municipalities in a large urban area. The recent amalgamations of Toronto and of the cities in Quebec are used to examine this question. Since the Toronto amalgamation occurred in 1998, the new city is still adjusting to the change, and only preliminary conclusions can be drawn at this time. This comment also applies to the cities in Quebec since they were merged in 2002. The second question is concerned with the impact of downloading on the municipalities. Because downloading did not take place in Quebec, the experience of the City of Toronto is used to examine this question) The Organization of Local Government Municipalities, their residents, the provincial governments and academics have been concerned with the costs and benefits of a megacity compared with many small and diverse municipalities within a large metropolitan area. Local governments can take different forms. In British Columbia and Alberta, the Municipal Acts give residents the right to incorporate, dissolve and amalgamate municipal governments. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».