Our best (and worst) run cities

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Which cities provide the best services per taxpayer’s buck? Canada’s first ever study of municipal effectiveness finds some surprises.

by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:40pm - 6 Comments

On the other hand, there are those gaps. Some of the data we do have may be open to challenge: 89 per cent of Toronto’s roads are in good condition? And a number of other standard indicators remain on our wish list, especially in the effectiveness department: for example, the percentage of council meetings with all councillors present. Police response times to emergencies. Number of days it takes to fix a pothole. We hope to include some of these in future instalments.

But in a way, it shouldn’t be up to us. For that matter, it shouldn’t be up to the cities, each releasing different bits of data as it sees fit. These are the sorts of basic indicators that all cities should be providing their citizens, as a matter of course. Though Canada is hardly alone for sparseness in the data we collect and publish on city governments, we are far behind countries like New Zealand or the United Kingdom, where reporting is mandatory across a broad range of categories.

Should other provinces follow Ontario’s lead? Is there a role for the federal government in setting compatible standards of reporting? Let the debate—and the bragging, complaining, and explaining away—begin.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

    The forest: great report, looking forward to future installments!
    The trees: 89% of Toronto's roads are in great condition is totally reasonable. Toronto has a LOT of roads!

  • Jane

    Thanks for bringing such a clear and "implementable" template of accountability and clarity for "city performance." I trust it will be put to use immediately across all our cities – prompting them to work more effectively, by holding those in charge of our cities, accountable. Perhaps, this in turn will attract better quality people to run for office….leading us to increased voter turn out, due to the clarity of what's working and what's not, and who's behind it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Now, let your suggestions be implemented.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/dilip dilip

    Surrey and Burnaby are essentially suburbs of Vancouver. I'm a bit surprised that Toronto's suburbs weren't included. I would have loved to see how well (Mississauga) and poorly (I'm guessing Vaughn) would have fared.

    • Ian

      What good Missisauga can do? It's just an ugly conglomerate of plazas, parking lots and subdivisions.
      When you need culture, you go elsewhere. You do not spend money, because you don't have any requests for anything besides beer, chips and trash TV.

  • Ian

    It's a very strange report. Each category lacks it's main objective: Crime does not indicate the crime levels, only police cost; Transit doesn't have the covarage or frequency of service; environment does not include parks and public lands.
    And now try to compare Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver to any place in Sask. by concerts, festivals, theatre and others. It takes LOTS of money, but it builds great cities.
    With all the objections we, Torontonians have to our mayor with his spending habbits, come the elections he will easily beat anyone who would threaten to take our culture away to save money.

  • Larry Stewart

    If there were some way to measure decision making I'm sure Ottawa would come in dead last. It's been a total embarrassment in the past few years to see how long it takes council to make a decision on anything and what's even worse, how many times those "decisions" are reversed, cancelled, re-visited, re-surveyed, re-assessed…

    In short, council and it's numerous useless committees can only make decisions on social engineering the residents to death.

    Hey, if you can't make a decision on what matters most, then pick things of little consequence to trumpet as success.

From Macleans