Reading the copious reports that KPMG has prepared for the city as part of the ongoing Core Services Review exercise, I was struck by how often the city’s services scored as “higher than standard,” when the consultants compared them with other municipalities. The report writers suggest the city could reduce the quality of those higher-than-standard services to standard or less-than-standard in order to save money. That makes me wonder: Why should Torontonians accept less-than-standard services from city hall? Haven’t various magazines, think-tanks and evaluative study groups around the world identified Toronto as one of the better cities in the world in which to live? Shouldn’t we strive, within the limits of our finances, to ensure we remain one of the best? What will it mean for our competitiveness if we wilfully downgrade the services we provide? +Toronto stood ninth overall in the the USA and Canada Green City Index. The Economist Intelligence Unit analyzes the environmental sustainability of 27 major metropolitan areas in nine categories. + The 2011 Corporate Knights Sustainable Cities survey ranked Toronto Canada’s most sustainable large city out of 17. + Australian innovation consultants, 2thinknow, ranked Toronto twelfth among the top cities to live, work and play for the innovation economy in its Top 100 Index. + The fourth annual Cities of Opportunity report, from Price Waterhouse Coopers and the Partnership for New York City, listed Toronto second overall and second in finance, intellectual capital and innovation, health, safety and security among 26 world capitals of finance, commerce and culture. + In its first American Cities of the Future 2011/12 report, fDiIntelligence, a division of the Financial Times, awarded Toronto seven top-10 rankings. + In the March 2011 Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI 9), Toronto tied with Syndey for tenth place and is among the top three in North America. The report evaluated the competitiveness of 75 financial centres worldwide. + The Economist Intelligence Unit identified Toronto fourth in the world in 2011 for liveability out of 140 cities worldwide. + In a global study, Aon Consulting’s People Risk Index found that Toronto has the lowest risk to recruit, employ and relocate employees. + PriceWaterHouseCoopers’ Cities of Opportunity study looked at the emerging picture of city life in 2010 in 21 capitals of business, finance and culture worldwide. Toronto led in city liveability and worked well for business, too, offering strength, good value and, in 2010, building more skyscrapers than any city except Tokyo. Toronto was also one of the top four cities with the most economic clout in the same study, having a major stock exchange, and home to leading global companies’ headquarters and continually attracting foreign investments as a means of creating jobs. + KPMG’s 2010 Competitive Alternatives study found that Toronto offers one of the most cost-effective business and investment climates in the world. The study measured 26 business cost components, including labour costs, facility costs, transportation costs, utility costs and income taxes in 10 countries and more than 100 cities. (Yes, KPMG, the very consultants the city hired for the core service review.) + The 2010 Mercer Quality of Living survey ranked Toronto 16 out of 50 cities worldwide. + Toronto was top among Canada’s big cities in Corporate Knights’ fourth annual Sustainable Cities report. + Toronto ranked as the fourth most prosperous city in the Toronto Board of Trade’s April 2010 report among the world’s 23 urban regions across a total of 34 indicators. The world gives Toronto kudos for its success in improving the environment, yet the core service review targets those same environmental initiatives as being expendable in the our drive to reduce costs. These accolades, along with the city’s high standard of living, is what helps attract more investors, which translates into more jobs for Torontonians, more commerce for local businesses–and more people paying taxes, thus easing the burden for all taxpayers. If the mayor and council reduce or eliminate the services KPMG has identified, will Toronto still receive the world’s praise? More importantly, why should we now accept second or third best, instead of excellent, service, when we supposedly live in one of the best cities in the world?
