link

link — Comments Off on Rob Ford’s schedule a closely held secret
04
May 11

Rob Ford’s schedule a closely held secret

The Globe & Mail’s Patrick White reports on the latest FOI-driven release of Rob Ford’s weekly schedule. It contains “three entirely blank pages in his weekly calendar.”

Ford’s often invisible, but not generally thought of as lazy, so what’s the deal?

White tells us:

A more likely explanation for the empty schedule is a quiet shift in the way Mr. Ford’s appointments are recorded.

In March, a release of the mayor’s schedule tracking his activity from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31 laid out an exhausting list of up to 14 appointments a day. That version of the calendar caused alarm in the mayor’s office after media outlets began investigating some of the people the mayor met, including developer Mario Cortellucci and businessman Jonathan Vrozos.

The mayor’s office has deliberately withheld names from subsequent calendar entries.

via Ford’s schedule reveals little activity – The Globe and Mail.

Respect for Taxpayers. As long as they don’t know what I’m doing and who I’m meeting with.

link — Comments Off on Ford endorses federal party that offers nothing for Toronto
29
Apr 11

Ford endorses federal party that offers nothing for Toronto

Natalie Alcoba reports the only-a-little-surprising news that Rob Ford will officially endorse Stephen Harper at a Conservative Party rally in Brampton tonight:

Adrienne Batra, the Mayor’s press secretary, confirmed that he will be introducing the prime minister at a rally in Brampton.

“It’s coming down to the wire in terms of the election and the Conservative platform and the message that Prime Minister Harper has been giving, lower taxes, is very important to the City of Toronto, particularly on the corporate tax side. We need to create jobs here and have a competitive tax environment,” said Ms. Batra.

via Mayor Rob Ford to endorse Harper | Posted Toronto | National Post.

Two points:

First, it is more than a little insane that a mayor who threatened to campaign against the provincial government, should they not give in to his stated demands for more money, is now publicly supporting a federal party that has little-to-nothing in their platform about urban issues.

Second, I think it’s somewhat telling that this endorsement is taking place on a Friday night, two days before the election, at a party event outside of Toronto. This is something that’s largely meant to fly under the general public’s radar, energize the Conservative base in the 905 — who, anecdotally, seem crazy for Rob Ford and the “stop the gravy train” stuff — and keep the Fords in the good graces of the Conservative Party.

link — Comments Off on On public housing: why vouchers aren’t a quick fix
28
Apr 11

On public housing: why vouchers aren’t a quick fix

In this month’s Toronto Life, Brian Topp looks into the fall-out from the TCHC scandal and takes a broad look at alternative delivery models for public housing. On the mayor’s favourite magical cure-all fix — rent vouchers — Topp writes:

Instead of integrating the poor into mixed-income areas, vouchers have had the effect of concentrating them into pockets of sometimes grossly substandard private housing owned by neglectful landlords—the same kind of ghettoization the vouchers were designed to put an end to. Policing abuses would require teams of well trained and managed overseers, but program administrators (like those running the TCH) are the principal targets of populist right-wingers these days—their jobs are the ones pro-privatization types are keen to eliminate.

via Why selling off Toronto’s public housing is a bad idea | From the Print Edition | torontolife.com.

Topp concludes with the suggestion that a decentralized model for Toronto public housing administration could be more effective than the current situation, where TCHC is “one of the biggest landlords of any kind in North America.” There’s a lot of merit to that.

It’s worth mentioning that this is likely the kind of analysis and debate that we could have had in the wake of the spending scandal had the mayor followed the process and let this proceed to the audit committee. Instead, those with first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the organization were forced to resign or were fired before they could be publicly questioned.

link — Comments Off on Citizen voices silenced at city hall
23
Apr 11

Citizen voices silenced at city hall

On Wednesday, the mayor’s executive committee voted to adopt a staff recommendation that would eliminate eleven active citizen committees and formally dissolve ten others whose work has been deemed to be ended. (The item still has to be approved by council.)

The Globe & Mail’s Patrick White explains the opposition to the move, and quotes deputy mayor Doug Holyday’s rationale for cutting these committees:

Opponents portray the move as an attempt to blockade one of the few avenues unelected Torontonians have to influence municipal policy while the mayor’s allies see it as making good on election promises to streamline government.

“It’s a simple way of reducing bureaucracy,” said deputy mayor Doug Holyday. “There are many, many other ways for people to be heard at city hall without these committees.”

via Ford’s committee criticized for vote to cancel citizen panels – The Globe and Mail.

It should be noted that Doug Holyday pointed out the “many, many other ways for people to be heard at city hall” on the very same day that the executive committee reshuffled their agenda, forcing those who had come to city hall to speak against the elimination of city committees to wait for more than seven hours before getting an opportunity to depute.

And when the citizens in attendance did get a chance to speak, others in attendance reported that the councillors on the executive committee seemed uninterested in what they had to say.

Here’s how Daren “cityslikr” Foster at All Fired Up In the Big Smoke described the scene:

The reception most of the speakers received was perfunctory at best. The members of the Executive Committee asked few questions, most of their attention turned to making sure enough of them were present to maintain a quorum. I don’t believe Councillors Mammoliti (probably off figuring ways to defund Pride) or Shiner were ever in the room during deputations.

Councillor Kelly left early and Councillor Thompson, when he was present, spent most of it away from his chair talking to members of the press and the mayor’s staff. Citizen democracy wasn’t foremost in their minds.

via Citizens Not Wanted – All Fired Up In The Big Smoke.

To recap: Councillors argue that citizen committees are no longer necessary because citizens can speak directly to councillors via committee deputations and other mechanisms. Then those same councillors ignore the citizens who take the time to come to share their opinions.

link — Comments Off on No Waterfront Gravy
18
Apr 11

No Waterfront Gravy

John Lorinc has done a hell of a job staying on top of the Waterfront Toronto story since the mayor and his pals started their assault last week. His latest column at Spacing serves as an incredibly well-researched defence for the agency and its work:

The remarkable point about all this back channel maneuvering is that the target of their opprobrium, Waterfront Toronto, has been scrupulously, and sometimes frustratingly, transparent about the way it has gone about its business.

They consult relentlessly, follow regulatory procedures to the letter, expose their plans to extensive public and professional scrutiny, and rely on a meticulous approach to procurement, which is how they’ve attracted, in the past three years, developers with very deep pockets, including Houston-based Hines, one of the world’s largest real estate firms, with $23 billion in property assets.

Despite the mayor’s wearying rhetoric about sole-sourcing and respect for taxpayers, the brothers’ boundless contempt for public process and transparency continues to astonish, and stands in stark contrast to the way WT operates.

via LORINC: Let’s Play Ball with the Waterfront (Again)! « Spacing Toronto.

So well said.

link — Comments Off on Pride and Prejudice and Revisionist History
18
Apr 11

Pride and Prejudice and Revisionist History

Since last week’s announcement from Queers Against Israeli Apartment stating that they would not march in this year’s Pride parade, some have advanced the idea that we shouldn’t trust QuAIA or Pride because they pulled a tricky bait-and-switch last year, where Pride temporarily banned the controversial group, accepted the city’s money, then unbanned QuAIA and allowed them into the parade.

The National Post’s Matt Gurney is guilty of doing this an incredible THREE times over the course of the last week: here, here, and finally here.

Even the mayor is mistaken about the nature of the motion council adopted last year, as reported in My Town Crier by Kris Scheuer.

If the organization doesn’t participate, then Ford said that Pride Toronto can still get a city grant of about $125,000.

“Last year council agreed if they don’t (participate), they (Pride) will get their money after the parade. That’s what we agreed on,” the mayor said at an April 15 media scrum. “If (Queers Against Israeli Apartheid) does march in the parade (Pride) won’t get their money.”

via Funding fracas – TownNEWS – MyTownCrier.ca – the online home of Toronto’s Town Crier Group of Community Newspapers.

For the record, there is no such agreement in place. There never was. Council has never even considered a motion that would specifically ban QuAIA from the parade.

Two items came before council last year related to this issue, both moved by Giorgio Mammoliti. First, he attempted to ensure that Pride Toronto enforced the City of Toronto’s anti-discrimination policy if it wanted to continue to receive city funds. When that got punted to the executive committee and then ruled redundant after Pride announced they would tighten review standards for parade participants, Mammoliti later moved a second motion that made Pride’s funding contingent on their being compliant with the city’s anti-discrimination policy — the city would only deliver funds after the parade. This passed 36-1.

This is why the news last week that staff had ruled that the phrase ‘Israel Apartheid’ did not violate the anti-discrimination policy was so important. It makes the motion irrelevant, at least as far as QuAIA goes. Without adopting a new motion that explicitly bans QuAIA, Council has no grounds to deny Pride funding this year, even if the group does march.

link — Comments Off on City Hall Secrecy
18
Apr 11

City Hall Secrecy

The Toronto Sun’s Don Peat reports on a funny exchange between Gord Perks and city staff after he and Shelley Carroll were ejected from a media briefing relating to today’s garbage announcement. Apparently councillors were allowed to send a staffer, but were not permitted to attend themselves:

[City spokesperson Jackie] DeSouza and [general manger of Solid Waste Services Geoff] Rathbone then went to talk privately. When they came back, DeSouza said if Perks stayed, they would have to call off the briefing.

“It’s not fair that we told other councillors that they can’t come,” she said.

Perks agreed, partly.

“No, you’re right, it’s not fair you told councillors that they can’t come,” he said.

via Councillors booted from garbage briefing | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun.

It’s a weird situation — shouldn’t councillors be briefed before the media?

link — Comments Off on New expense rules: “Harmonious community” no more
13
Apr 11

New expense rules: “Harmonious community” no more

Doug Holyday’s new guidelines for councillor expenses were revealed today as part of the agenda for the upcoming executive committee meeting, which means we got a lot of silly articles like this one, from the Toronto Sun’s Don Peat:

Spend that office budget now if you’ve got it, councillors.

Deputy mayor Doug Holyday’s new rules aimed at tightening up city council office budgets were unveiled Wednesday and will go to executive committee next week.

If the rules were in effect last year, Councillor Raymond Cho wouldn’t have been able to buy a chainsaw, Councillor Joe Mihevc couldn’t have popped for a popcorn machine and several councillors wouldn’t have been allowed to rent bouncy castles for community events.

via Squeeze put on councillors’ office budgets | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun.

The worst part about this kind of reporting — and every media outlet is guilty of this — is that it reports the what and not the why. With few exceptions, councillors didn’t spend their office budget on random things just for the hell of it. Raymond Cho spent $60 on an electric chainsaw as part of a community clean-up day in his ward. Popcorn machines and bouncy castles were rented as contributions to community events.

If you want to ask questions about this kind of stuff, the question shouldn’t be “Was Joe Mihevc right to pay for a popcorn machine with his office budget?” but rather “Should councillors support community events with their office budget?” That’s the issue before us. The specific purchases are largely irrelevant. (But, sure, sometimes funny.)

For the most part, Holyday’s proposed changes seem to make sense. I don’t expect council to fight this too hard, though we’ll see a few amendments. The concern with any kind of reform like this is that it will handcuff councillors, removing all discretion. Not only does this risk stifling potentially innovative practices, it also means bad councillors have less rope to hang themselves with. Sometimes we need to let incumbents screw up so voters have good reason to vote them out of office.

Final note on this, as I think it’s slightly telling: the current policy lists five items under ‘purpose’ —  these are the major areas in which councillors are directed to spend their office budget — but in Holyday’s revised policy there are only four items. Removed from the list is a directive that councillors use these dollars to “enhance and promote a harmonious community in their wards.”

That kind of thing is, I guess, no longer part of the job description.

Attached to Holyday’s agenda item is a side-by-side comparison of the current policy versus the proposed new one.

link — Comments Off on Listening to people by shutting down citizen committees
13
Apr 11

Listening to people by shutting down citizen committees

At the mayor’s request, the city manager has compiled a list of eleven citizen advisory committees to be eliminated for this council term. This will be debated at the next executive committee meeting before it goes to council for approval.

This will save no money. The manager’s report is clear that there are “no financial implications” to the move . In an interview with the Toronto Star’s Amy Dempsey and Paul Moloney, Doug Holyday justified shutting down these groups by saying it will save staff time.

At Spacing, Dylan Reid, co-chair of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee — one of the groups pegged for elimination by the report — tells us why this is a bad idea:

Citizens spent a lot of time and effort getting these committees established in the first place, and have spent a ton of time and effort making them work. Many survived amalgamation and successive mayoral regimes. It is a huge waste to simply cast away that accumulated work without thought.

Toronto’s tradition of active citizenship is one of its key assets. It makes sense to harness that resource, not ignore it.

via City seeks to eliminate citizens’ advisory committees « Spacing Toronto.

This move simply does not gel with the mayor’s promise to be responsive and attentive to the needs of citizens. (Or, in his vernacular, ‘taxpayers.’) This administration continues to express a growing antipathy toward Toronto residents who are passionate enough about issues that they organize and involve themselves in the political process.

link — Comments Off on The budget knives come out for waterfront development
12
Apr 11

The budget knives come out for waterfront development

Natalie Alcoba and Peter Kuitenbrouwer, in what I have to imagine is a story being pushed by someone  at City Hall:

Frustration with the pace and pricey bureaucracy of redeveloping Toronto’s port lands has got Mayor Rob Ford’s administration wondering if the city can sell off some of its own parcels separate from the agency that has been guiding transformation on the lake shore.

The federal, Ontario and city governments created Waterfront Toronto in 2001 as the “master planner and lead developer” on 52 hectares of prime real estate that had historically been the domain of industry. Of that land, Toronto owns 56%, the Toronto Port Authority 24%, and 20% is in the hands of the private sector.

via Waterfront Toronto is moving too slowly: critics | Posted Toronto | National Post.

Selling off parcels of land — removing them from the purview of Waterfront Toronto — is an insane suggestion, likely driven by a need to find saleable assets that can help bring down next year’s budget gap. While progress on the waterfront is not visible to those who don’t, you know, visit the waterfront, those who have actually gone down to look at the progress have to acknowledge that significant headway has been made.

Simply selling off land to the private sector without following an integrated plan for development will lead to the same mistakes that were made with the central and western waterfront — soulless condo towers with no neighbourhood feel.

In an interview with the Globe & Mail’s Lisa Rochon this weekend, architect Moshe Safdie was asked about the mistakes Toronto made with its initial waterfront development. He said:  “Back in the 1980s, Toronto’s waterfront was developed intensely and generated extraordinary taxes but it wasn’t invested into infrastructure that could make a difference.”

Someone in the mayor’s office must have only read as far as “extraordinary taxes” before stopping.

Damn near the entire cast of characters is quoted in the Post article. Peter Milczyn posits that selling off city-owned land will help to “accelerate” the project. Through magic. Denzil Minnan-Wong rages about “squandered money on consultants” and “sole-sourced” arrangements and projects. Which seems like a hell of an accusation to make unless you’ve got evidence to back it up.

Doug Holyday, meanwhile, is mad because too many of the planners who work on the project make more than $100,000 per year. Because if there’s one place you want to cheap out on talent, it’s the planning and execution of billion-dollar waterfront redevelopment. Just hire a bunch of students to do it!

Even the mayor’s press secretary, Adrienne Batra, piles on, showing just how big a target they’ve made these projects. “I think there is certainly a good opportunity for development in the area, and absolutely we want to see the private sector involved,” she says, presumably ignoring that private sector companies are already involved at many levels, including planning, architecture and construction.

The article notes that despite asking to retain a seat on the Waterfront Toronto board, Ford has skipped every meeting. During the election, Ford told the Post editorial board that the city could not afford to spend any money on Waterfront development.

This reads like the first shot in a concentrated attempt to vilify an organization before gutting their support and funding. Disgusting and sad.

 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →