Instigator / Pro
0
1483
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3946
This House, as the City of Toronto, supports implementation of participatory budgeting for community benefit funds (I.e. Section 37 Funds, Community Benefit Charges)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
tahaishot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1511
rating
5
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Section 37 funds and Community Benefit Charges refer to all money recouped by a Ward from developers when a development is approved over the existing height limit or density limit in that area. Consider it like a charge for breaking zoning/development rules. These funds are currently controlled by the city councilor who decides how they are allocated. This is not a debate about whether this method of receiving funds is good or bad, but how decision making for these funds should be made within a ward after they are recouped. Please note that this does not include Toronto Police, Fire, EMS or salaries for civil servants.
Round 1
Forfeited
I, as the City of Toronto, opposes the implementation of participatory budgeting for community benefit funds (I.e. Section 37 Funds, Community Benefit Charges).
There are several reasons why I believe that participatory budgeting is not the right approach for these funds.
First, participatory budgeting can be time-consuming and costly to implement. It requires extensive outreach and engagement with members of the community, as well as the development of complex voting systems and decision-making processes. This can divert resources away from other important priorities and initiatives, and may not be practical for smaller communities or those with limited resources.
Second, participatory budgeting can lead to inefficient and ineffective allocation of funds. In some cases, it may result in funding being directed towards projects that are popular but not necessarily the most important or impactful. This can create imbalances and inequities within the community, and may not align with the City's overall goals and priorities.
Third, participatory budgeting can create divisions and conflicts within the community. The decision-making process can be complex and contentious, with different groups and individuals competing for limited funds. This can create tension and polarization within the community, and may not foster a sense of cooperation and collaboration.
In conclusion, we believe that participatory budgeting is not the right approach for community benefit funds in the City of Toronto. Instead, we should focus on more effective and efficient ways to allocate these funds, such as through expert analysis and input from relevant stakeholders. This will ensure that the funds are used in a way that aligns with the City's goals and priorities, and that they have the greatest possible impact on our communities.
Round 2
Forfeited
My fellow members of the city council, I stand before you today in opposition to the implementation of participatory budgeting for our community benefit funds.
While I agree that involving the community in the decision-making process for how these funds are spent is a noble idea, I fear that it may not be the most practical or effective solution.
First and foremost, participatory budgeting can be a time-consuming and costly process. It requires significant resources and effort to engage with the community, collect their ideas and suggestions, and then evaluate and prioritize them. This could potentially divert funds and resources away from actually implementing the projects and initiatives that will benefit the community.
Furthermore, participatory budgeting may not necessarily lead to the best use of these funds. While the community may have good intentions, they may not have the expertise or knowledge to make informed decisions about complex and technical issues. This could result in the funds being used in a way that is not in the best interests of the community, or that does not align with the city's overall priorities and goals.
Additionally, participatory budgeting could potentially lead to a lack of accountability and transparency. With the community involved in the decision-making process, it may be difficult to hold elected officials accountable for how the funds are used. This could result in a lack of oversight and potentially even corruption.
For these reasons, I believe that it would be more practical and effective for the city to continue using a more traditional and centralized decision-making process for these community benefit funds. This would allow us to ensure that the funds are used in a way that is responsible, transparent, and in the best interests of the community.
Thank you.
While I agree that involving the community in the decision-making process for how these funds are spent is a noble idea, I fear that it may not be the most practical or effective solution.
First and foremost, participatory budgeting can be a time-consuming and costly process. It requires significant resources and effort to engage with the community, collect their ideas and suggestions, and then evaluate and prioritize them. This could potentially divert funds and resources away from actually implementing the projects and initiatives that will benefit the community.
Furthermore, participatory budgeting may not necessarily lead to the best use of these funds. While the community may have good intentions, they may not have the expertise or knowledge to make informed decisions about complex and technical issues. This could result in the funds being used in a way that is not in the best interests of the community, or that does not align with the city's overall priorities and goals.
Additionally, participatory budgeting could potentially lead to a lack of accountability and transparency. With the community involved in the decision-making process, it may be difficult to hold elected officials accountable for how the funds are used. This could result in a lack of oversight and potentially even corruption.
For these reasons, I believe that it would be more practical and effective for the city to continue using a more traditional and centralized decision-making process for these community benefit funds. This would allow us to ensure that the funds are used in a way that is responsible, transparent, and in the best interests of the community.
Thank you.
