I mean, I’ve been writing a column about city politics for well over a decade, getting all sorts of things wrong in the process, and not once - not once, has the city’s corporate communications office seen fit to write a news release explaining how I didn’t know the difference between capital and operating budgets.

And then this upstart Soknacki comes along, starts writing a column about city politics from the perspective of a former budget chief, and not more than a year into his stint, after filing this inocuous little column, this shows up in my in-box:

Media Advisory

August 22, 2007

Cutting capital budget will not solve 2008 operating budget shortfall

A column published in the August 17 edition of the York Guardian newspaper and other Toronto Community News publications by David Soknacki (“Apocalyptic visions for city”) incorrectly asserts that the proposed new Land Transfer Tax and Personal Vehicle Registration fee will be used to pay for capital budget expenditures.

Funding from the new revenue sources, if approved, will support City operations. The day-to-day operation of City services is paid for from the City’s operating budget - the money dedicated to salaries and operating expenses such as rent, fuel, electricity, equipment, etc. The City, like everyone else, must pay the increased costs of fuel and electricity and other services when these costs rise.

The projects cited by Mr. Soknacki were approved by City Council in 2007 as part of its capital budget deliberations, for which it has a five-year plan, also approved by Council. The City’s financial difficulties have to do with its operating budget * with a projected shortfall next year of $575 million. The City cannot, by law, run an operating budget deficit.

Capital funding, however, is much different. The City borrows money to pay for capital projects such as roads, bridges, buildings and other facilities with long-term funding requirements. Even if the projects cited by Mr. Soknacki were cancelled, this would not solve the City’s 2008 operating budget shortfall.

With respect to the City’s new garbage containers and 70 per cent waste diversion plan, property taxes will not bear those costs. Residents will begin paying for curbside collection directly next year, based on the size of garbage container they opt for.

The release goes on to say what a big city Toronto is, the way all the Toronto news releases these days do - but the damage is done. David Soknacki, who last term set just three Toronto budgets, got his own news release chiding him for not knowing the difference between capital and operating budgets. And I, who have been writing columns about far more than three city budgets for more than 10 years, did not.

I called the former Scarborough councillor immediately, so that he could gloat. To my disappointment, he did not.

“Why in heaven’s name they would do this is absolutely beyond me,”he said. “I thanked them for the increased visibility it gives me my ideas - it’s a great opportunity for me to go back to the editors of the paper and ask for more money because of the increased visibility of the column.”

Okay, he didn’t gloat much. The news release did send him back to the books (or at least the city’s own website) to check his numbers.

“I read the column twice,” he said. “I stand by what I say - but to be 100 per cent sure I am going to go back. I referred to a number of new projects that corporate communications advises are part of the ‘07 budget. I’m surprised because I said they were new items passed in the June council meeting, so I don’t understand how they can be in a budget that’s already passed. I will spend the time tonight to take a look at it. Other than that I was, um, surprised.”

Soknacki is not, of course, the first one of the fourth estate here at city hall to have enjoyed a corporate communications correction on the very political matter of city finances. He’s just the greenest.

So I’ll bide my time. David Soknacki, enjoy your correction.

If I play my cards right, I bet I can swing two or three before month’s end…