In almost all those cases, I would argue that, in mostly small ways, those various cuts will make the city incrementally worse. And having established that this is a conversation about wants rather than needs, the question is: Do I want to pay something more than I do now—$2 a week? $5 a week?—in order to prevent that incremental worsening from happening? Will my city be a better place if I have $2 a week in my pocket to spend however I choose? Or will it be a better place if the city takes that $2 from me and offers unlimited community access to public pools and libraries, keeps pools and wading pools from closing, continues to operate things like the High Park Zoo, continues to provide all the public health programs and arts and community grants it does now, and continues to shelter all the homeless mental health patient senior citizens it does now?
—
The Grid TO | Two key questions we’re not hearing from City Hall
One of the best articles I’ve seen so far on the budget debate.
