27
May 11

Is Doug Ford good for Toronto?

One cover story at a time, The Grid’s Ed Keenan is writing what would be, if bound together, a very good book about the Rob Ford mayoralty. His latest looks past the mayor and discusses Councillor Doug Ford, a figure referred to by some — including, sometimes, me — as the man who’s really setting the agenda for this city.

As part of the feature, Keenan talked to a number of left-leaning councillors, who seemed relatively optimistic about Doug Ford’s presence at City Hall:

Both supporters and detractors of the Fords say that as Doug learns the ropes at City Hall, he may represent the best hope for a functional government. No one expects that he will suddenly turn his back on his right-wing ideology (“That’s his religion,” says Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker of Scarborough). But, as Carroll says, “If it turns out that he is a little more of an empath, he may go back to the mayor’s boardroom saying, ‘We need to listen to this person, whether our politics are aligned or not.’”

Beyond that, Vaughan has seen something else he considers promising in Doug’s approach. “Doug is more likely to see the merits of a good idea than his brother. His brother looks at the source of the idea instead of the merits of the argument. Rob is made into a better mayor with Doug’s presence here. The family made a wise decision to send a second son.”

via Doug Ford: Mr. Personality | The Grid TO.

I don’t think there’s any denying that having Doug at City Hall has helped Rob tremendously. Doug has kept the mayor’s once-famous temper in check. There’s even been the occasional compromise — though they’re rarer than they should be.

Still, though, I’m wondering if in the long-term Toronto would have been better off without Doug Ford. A free-wheeling, old-school Mayor Rob Ford would have made for a more explosive and chaotic council, but he also would have been more likely to burn himself out earlier. He could have been marginalized with a firm majority of council against him.

Without his brother, a second term for Mayor Rob Ford would have been challenging under the best of circumstances. With Doug around, another four years is far more plausible.

Good for Rob Ford but, I’d argue, bad for Toronto.

The thing that worries me most about Doug Ford is that he’s more calculating. He’s better equipped to work political angles, to court allies and to spin issues to fit what Councillor De Baeremaeker aptly calls his “religion” of right-wing ideology. His younger brother is much more of a what-you-see-is-what-you-get personality. Headstrong and sometimes destructive, but always pretty obvious.

Doug Ford is different. He can, and will, surprise us.


24
May 11

Ford’s friendless folly

The great-as-per-usual John Lorinc has a new piece on Spacing today, discussing the string of votes that went against the mayor at last week’s council meeting:

What’s the take-away? The Fords like to believe their electoral mandate – and subsequent polling results – magically translates into touchdowns at council. Not true, especially with a mayor whose diplomatic skills are roughly on par with those of a typical schoolyard bully.

The newbies, it seems, may not want to be manhandled all the time. But these results aren’t just about ineffective whipping and insufficient stroking. Those close losses for the brothers reveal, to me, that the mushy middle councillors, and even some of the mayor’s loyalists, are feeling a wee bit uncomfortable with the program.

via LORINC: Rob Ford’s Not-so-Excellent Week « Spacing Toronto.

When Ford was elected, there was a prevailing wisdom that said, given his large popular mandate, those who had previously opposed him on council would need to buckle down, extend a hand, and work with the new mayor.

Ford, too, expressed a willingness to work with council and, beyond the immediate political sphere, bring together Toronto residents. On election night, he took to the stage at the Toronto Congress Centre and declared “Tonight the city of Toronto is not divided. We are united.” Later, his brother, a newly elected councillor himself, told The National Post’s Natalie Alcoba that he did “not believe in this left- right scenario … because I believe every councillor has great ideas.”

The obvious move on both council’s left and right was to soothe tensions, find common ground, make some concessions, and — above all — compromise. The left has had its moments of partisanship — certain opposition councillors do have a tendency to grandstand and make every item sound like critical life-or-death business — but they have, in my estimation, made an effort to work within the structure and mandate of the new council. The night of the TCHC vote, for example, was nothing if not a serious of attempted compromises — let the elected reps stay; let the alternate elected reps stay; keep the appointed councillors on the board; etc. — all of which were summarily shot down until the mayor got his way.

Indeed, from the very first day of council, when Don Cherry took the podium and playfully insulted half the city’s population — after which, Ford told him his remarks were great –, the mayor has almost always refused to compromise. Eschewing a “big tent” scenario, his political tent has gotten smaller by the month, shedding allies and alienating community groups. And now he’s losing votes.


24
May 11

Having achieved his vision for Toronto, Ford looks to abolish ‘bag tax’

The Toronto Sun’s Don Peat reports that Ford is mulling over getting rid of the mandatory five cent fee for plastic bags:

“I think we’re going to deal with that but again there was more important things to do,” he said. “Obviously, contracting out garbage and everything we’ve done in the first six months, I think, and again I can’t say for sure, I think we’ll get around to it this year.

“I’ll try, I can’t guarantee it, but we’ll try to get rid of that five-cent bag tax.”

via Ford targets bag tax | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun.

There’s something almost endearing about this. The mayor feels, six months into his term, that he’s coming to the end of his mayoral to-do list. His vision achieved, he’ll turn to the “small stuff” like the Jarvis Street bike lanes and the five cent fee on plastic bags.

And after that? Well, I guess there’s still the land transfer tax and the fair wage policy. And, if there’s still time: Moving marathons to parks, replacing streetcars with buses, eliminating 22 city council seats, and getting us that NFL team.

But first: removing the so-called bag tax. Priorities.


24
May 11

The second city of the British Empire

Last week, council voted against moving forward with construction of a $22 million pedestrian and cycling bridge, that would have spanned the rail tracks near Fort York. Speaking on the item, Councillor David Shiner remarked that the mere commemoration of the War of 1812 — the city will mark the 200th anniversary of the war next year — was not sufficient reason to build this piece of infrastructure, which would have provided the kind of architectural flourish on our waterfront that helps to define cities.

Also in the news last week? A story about an item coming before the Executive Committee today, that would see the city assume control of management of Casa Loma. For 75 years, the urban castle has been in the hands of the Kiwanis Club. With attendance levels dwindling, the city must now determine new strategies for the facility.

Taking these two items — and others — and putting them side by side, the Toronto Star’s Brett Popplewell wrote an absolutely vicious, satirical screed on Sunday, cutting to the heart of our current political divide. A divide that pits those who believe in a grand, urban vision for Toronto against those that believe we must put off any notion of city building until we reach some arbitrary point of popular satisfaction with the city’s finances:

But for the odd occasion when tree-hugging architectural lovers have stood before the bulldozers to protect things like Old City Hall or Union Station (as they did in the 1970s) this city has generally chosen to either demolish its history or neglect it.

Yet now we struggle, [General Manager for Economic Development & Culture Michael] Williams says. Struggle over who’s going to pay for the footbridge to Old Fort York. Struggle over who’s going to pay to sandblast the graffiti off the bricks inside Casa Loma.

And for what?

So the children can enjoy Old Fort York? It’s a grassy knoll with a few cannons on display.

And Casa Loma? It’s a drafty old relic, but one Hazell and others recognize as a symbol. A symbol of a town whose citizens once dared to dream that Toronto might actually stand as the second city of the British Empire.

What could they have possibly been thinking.

via Why are we trying to save Casa Loma when we could just tear it down? – thestar.com.

So good. See also this reddit thread, where someone takes the headline a little too seriously.


24
May 11

Berardinetti doing all she can to fly under the radar

One of the opposition’s many victories at council last week came on Thursday, when councillors voted 18 to 17 to use ultraviolet light technology at the Ashbridges Bay treatment plant. Staff had recommended the city use the same chlorine process they use at other treatment facilities which, plainly, sucks for the environment.

Though Giorgio Mammoliti gave the item his trademark thumbs down, it still passed narrowly. Helped along by the ten councillors who were absent at the time of the vote — six of whom would, presumably, have sided with the mayor and Mammoliti’s thumb –, the deciding vote came from a somewhat unlikely source.

The Toronto Sun’s Don Peat:

While Ford and his loyalists tried to sway the vote, a member of his own executive committee, Councillor Michelle Berardinetti, cast the deciding vote for the costlier option.

Berardinetti told the Sun Friday she felt the UV technology made sense.

“Is it a notch up? I think that it is,” she said.

But knowing now that she was the deciding vote, Berardinetti, a budget committee member, said she probably would have voted differently.

via City opts for costlier, cleaner way to treat water | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun. [Emphasis added.]

First: What kind of politician admits to the media that their vote on an important environmental measure would have been different, had said politician known the measure was actually going to pass?

Second: I hope the residents of Ward 35 are proud of their councillor, who stands by her principles but only when she’s pretty sure her vote won’t make a difference.

Third, and confidential to Berardinetti: From what we’ve seen, we rather like your principles. I understand that the politician calculations you’re making hinge on a number of things — the mayor’s huge support among your constituents, your husband’s electoral future, and the committee seats you’ve been given by the mayor’s office — but why even hold the office if not to stand up for what you believe in?


18
May 11

Rob Ford’s next target: Jarvis Street bike lanes?

The Toronto Sun’s Don Peat reports that Public Works Chair Denzil Minnan-Wong is looking at removing the bike lanes on Jarvis Street:

Public works chairman Denzil Minnan-Wong said he thinks there is an appetite on council to revisit the controversial bike lanes.

“I’ve heard from many councillors that they would like to revisit this issue,” Minnan-Wong said.

He is proposing a separated bike lane plan in the downtown core but the network doesn’t call for such lanes on Jarvis St. because it is a primary north-south route.

via Jarvis St. bike lanes will be re-examined | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun.

For the record, the Jarvis street lanes were a low-cost item. Despite rapturous concerns that they would lead to traffic chaos, they’ve caused minimal delays. Aside from a lingering desire to give the finger to their political opponents, there is no reason for Minnan-Wong, Ford or any member of council to support this change.

And yet here we are.

The cycling community, including the Toronto Cyclists Union, has generally been supportive of Minnan-Wong’s plan for a network of four protected bike lanes downtown. This news should give them pause.


18
May 11

Burning bridges at Fort York

The Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale:

Despite the support of developers, history buffs and hundreds of local residents, Councillor Mike Layton’s effort to save the Fort York pedestrian and cyclist bridge was rejected by council Wednesday.

City staff will now try to find a lower-cost alternative to the $23 million bridge that had been scheduled for completion in 2012, the bicentennial of the War of 1812. But a different bridge could not be built until 2015, and Layton said he considers the project dead.

via Fort York bridge dead, councillor says – thestar.com.

So it’s dead. They killed it, following a 22-23 vote. (It wasn’t as close as it might seem — a two-thirds majority was required to save the item.) It was obvious that, despite near-heroic efforts, Councillor Mike Layton wouldn’t be able to command the votes after Councillor Michelle Berardinetti twittered the following:

[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/CouncillorMB/status/70698817103728640″]

Berardinetti, along with Councillor Jaye Robinson, has served as a good indicator of the strength of the mayor’s whip on any given item. With her on side, it was clear that this was going to come down to the same old left-versus-right divide.

Very disappointing, and not a good sign at all for those of us who value the innovative and ambitious work going on across the city’s waterfront.


18
May 11

The mayor’s bad day

At The Grid, Edward Keenan writes a great summary of yesterday’s garbage vote. Most media outlets ran with the “big victory for Ford” story today, but I’m more and more convinced that it was a very bad day for Rob Ford and his allies:

By day’s end, the mayor’s main item passed, yes, by a large majority. But the effect of the amendments, in my opinion, is that it will make it very difficult for staff to craft a bid request conforming to council’s demands that will also stand up to a lawsuit. (And note: if the city is tied up in litigation with potential or wannabe bidders, they will likely be unable to award a contract—though, of course I’m not a lawyer…)

They also place some unattractive restrictions on the contract for potential contractors, and ensure that the whole thing has to come back to council for another fight later (if and when a winning bid is identified), and the bid has to bring with it actual numbers that show that the contract will save as much money and be as environmentally sound as Ford and staff have claimed it will be. The result of that possible vote is very much an open question.

via The Grid TO | Rob Ford gets trashed.

Royson James has a decent summary as well: “The vote, coming just six months into the mayor’s term, shows he may have to compromise more than he imagined. This was supposed to be the easiest service to privatize, and yet it took so much effort.”

The bottom line: the changes Ford will need to make — be they cuts, or privatization, or sales of assets — to successfully balance the coming budget will be far more contentious than what was debated on Tuesday.


16
May 11

The Fort York Bridge: it’s now or never

At Spacing, Luca De Franco has an interview with activist Richard Douglas, who’s been working to save the proposed pedestrian/cycling bridge that would span the rail tracks near Fort York.

The mayor and his allies have presented their opposition to the bridge as simple fiscal prudence. The bridge is over-budget, they say, so we must study cheaper alternatives. The reality is a bit more complicated, as Douglas explains. If we don’t build this thing on the planned schedule, it’s essentially never going to happen:

The returning of the Fort York Bridge project to Committee at Council effectively eliminates this project. The situation becomes even more time-sensitive when you consider that Metrolinx has provided a small window of opportunity to build this bridge.  Once that window closes, surrounding communities and the City of Toronto will have lost out on a tremendous opportunity.

via Headspace: The Fort York Pedestrian Cycle Bridge « Spacing Toronto.

A commenter to the article also shares an automatic response sent to him by Councillor Mike Del Grande, received after he emailed the Budget Chief regarding the bridge:

I now have too many e-mail messages to read each and every one. So my answer will be automatic. Bridge yes but not at any cost. But… does not carry the day. This kind of thinking has caused a great financial problem for the City. We spend more than we bring in and I have to find $774 million.

Post Script- Sat May 14th I visited the area. This bridge will cost 22 + the opportunity to gain 25 million from proper usage of the site. So it will really cost 47 million at the end of the day. Sorry, that is very poor use of limited funds the City has. I also noted that there were a total of 2 people in City park and a few people in the dog park and on the other side of King there was one person. Does not strike me as demand usage, at least not for today.

In addition there is concern about City land which if the bridge is built in a certain fashion will increase the value of City Lands by millions and this cannot be ignored. An overage of 4+ million and other planning considerations does not justify the just spending because it is a nice bridge. What I am more open to is how about a special levy on all those properties to pay for the overage?

I added some paragraph breaks for clarity. Also added some emphasis.

Councillor Del Grande recounts visiting the area where the bridge will be built on Saturday, May 14, which was not a particular nice Saturday in Toronto. At best it was overcast and drizzling. Regardless, he feels observing the area for a brief window on an unpleasant day is enough to declare that there is no “demand usage.”

As Richard Douglas puts it in a follow-up comment to the article on Spacing, “Aside from the poor weather conditions and the muddy, water logged parking lot as deterents did he really expect to see citizens standing at the roped off opening of the parking lots waiting for the bridge to be built?”

If this is the way Del Grande is going to judge the necessity of infrastructure projects, I’d hope he’ll soon pay a visit to Sheppard Avenue to gauge the need for a multi-billion dollar subway project.

Councillor Mike Layton has put a motion on the agenda for this week’s City Council meeting that would, if passed, essentially reverse the earlier decision by the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee to kill the project. It will require a two-thirds majority, which I initially dismissed as an impossible requirement. Layton has been working really hard to get the votes, however.


13
May 11

Campaign audit: What’s Ford thinking?

John Lorinc for the Globe & Mail:

Toronto council’s compliance audit committee today unanimously voted to order a full audit of Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign expenses in response to accusations by Toronto residents Max Reed and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler that provincial elections laws were breached.

In their requests for a compliance audit, they alleged that Mr. Ford may have exceeded his spending limits and relied on unorthodox funding arrangements, which saw the Ford family’s holding company pay over $77,000 in campaign expenses.

via Full audit of Ford’s campaign expenses ordered – The Globe and Mail.

I previously indicated that this story wasn’t really doing much for me, but it’s been getting more interesting. Publicly, Ford and his press secretary Adrienne Batra have indicated that they’re happy to see an audit go forward. But Ford’s lawyer’s tact today was different.

The Toronto Star’s David Rider:

Tom Barlow, a lawyer representing Ford, argued strenuously against the need for such a probe, repeatedly noting that Ford has until September to file additional campaign information, and it will erase any concerns.

“The answers are in the second phase” of filing, Barlow told the panel. He later said Ford will consider going to the courts to try to get the panel’s ruling overturned.

via Audit ordered into Mayor Ford’s campaign financing – thestar.com.

That argument would seem to be the legal equivalent of telling your landlord that your rent cheque is in the mail.

It seems to me that Ford should simply submit to the compliance audit. If it’s found that his campaign violated the rules — and it seems plausible that they did — I don’t think he’d lose much face in admitting a mistake and accepting the penalty. It’s still very unlikely he’d get removed from office over this kind of thing.

So why the tough talk today and the spectre of a court challenge? Either the campaign is hiding something or Ford is doing that thing where he denies all wrongdoing until presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Fun coincidence of the day: at the same time Ford’s lawyer was talking about a court challenge over this issue, the City Clerk was apparently ceding to political pressure to not appeal an earlier judgment that called for a by-election in Ward 9. Set for July 25, the race will likely pit incumbent and Ford opponent Maria Augimeri against Rob Ford’s pal Gus Cusimano.

While losing Augimeri would be a blow to council’s left, it wouldn’t be a do-or-die situation. The balance of power at this point is firmly controlled by council’s middle, regardless of how things stand in Ward 9.

Still, I’d ask Ward 9 voters to consider that this race will likely be between a multi-decade veteran of council who has demonstrated an ability to fight for her Ward’s needs versus a candidate who has expressed a desire to always vote with the mayor.