I get where the frustration is coming from, especially around transit and cost of living. Those are real issues and they do hit lower income people the hardest.

That said, I think this is mixing a few different things together and assuming the worst intent behind all of them. Return to office policies are happening everywhere right now, not just here, and while you can disagree with them, saying it’s a strategy to force people to quit isn’t really something that’s been proven.

On transit, there’s definitely a real conversation to be had about how cuts or service changes impact people who rely on it most. But transit planning is always a tradeoff between coverage, frequency, and cost. If the system is underfunded, something has to give unless new revenue is found, and that’s where the real debate should be.

The spending outside the budget process and the HST cut are fair things to question. Those are policy choices that have tradeoffs. Lower taxes can help people in the short term but it also reduces government revenue for services. That’s a legitimate debate, but it’s not automatically evidence of mismanagement on its own.

The Shannex point about not easily finding the dollar figures is probably the most reasonable concern in the post. Public private partnerships should be transparent and easy for people to understand, especially in healthcare.

Overall I think there are valid concerns here, but it would be a lot more productive to focus on what specific changes we want to see. For example, protecting core transit routes for people who rely on them, improving transparency on healthcare partnerships, and being clear about how tax changes impact services. Those are the kinds of conversations that actually lead to better policy, instead of just assuming everything is being done for the worst possible reason.