Archives

link — Comments Off on Is Doug Ford good for Toronto?
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.

link — Comments Off on Ford’s friendless folly
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.

link — Comments Off on Private sector waterfront development is short-sighted, says private sector
09
May 11

Private sector waterfront development is short-sighted, says private sector

This weekend saw architect Jack Diamond take to the Globe & Mail to absolutely tear into recent comments made by Doug and Rob Ford, wherein they referred to Waterfront Toronto as a boondoggle:

To call such wise public-sector investment a boondoggle is, at best, to exhibit a profound lack of understanding of the role that government should play. At worst, it is a result of the myopia caused by an ideological disease. It demonstrates a total lack of appreciation of the different roles that should be performed by government and the private sector. That the two can operate to mutual advantage is the ethos of Canada at its best. To act contrary to that precept is to diminish our political patrimony. To complete an often incompletely quoted aphorism – history repeats itself if we don’t learn from it.

via Ford’s short-sighted vision of Toronto’s waterfront – The Globe and Mail.

Damn. Remember, too, that Diamond works primarily with private sector developers. He very much is the private sector.

Still, though, I’m sure there’s someone out there in the private sector — someone who probably doesn’t use as many big, complicated words — who shares the dream of turning a heritage generating station into a football stadium.

feature — Comments Off on What does the Mayor want from the Federal Government?
06
May 11

What does the Mayor want from the Federal Government?

So the federal election happened. I’m over it. Municipal politics are way more fun and important anyway. How interesting can a government chamber be when you always know how everyone is going to vote?

But before we can move on, we’ve got to acknowledge the Ford Nation, and whatever impact it is they had in Monday night’s outcome.

Here’s what Doug Ford, presumably speaking for his brother, had to say about the results:

“What is good for Toronto is good for Canada,” Ford said Tuesday, adding that for the first time in a long time, Toronto will have a say in the federal government.

“We have a friendly voice in Ottawa right now,” he said. “We never had a voice in Ottawa for a number of years…we have numerous strong voices now to represent us in Toronto and Ottawa knows we are going to be a strong voice coming from Toronto now.

“It’s always nice to be able to pick up the phone and have a direct line to Ottawa, day in and day out.”

via Election good for Toronto, Councillor Ford says | Decision 2011 | News | Toronto Sun.

Okay — but what is it that the Ford Brothers want from the federal government? The line in the endorsement was about the Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure fund, but that at most represents a $300 million dollar commitment and isn’t going to be anything close to the magic bullet the city needs to actually make this Sheppard subway extension happen.

So what is it? What should the federal government do for Toronto? Ford had a laundry list of demands for the provincial government earlier this year. And other mayors across Canada have certainly made it clear they need more direct funding for infrastructure.

But so far Toronto’s mayor hasn’t asked the prime minister for much more than a handshake. He voted against sending a letter to the federal government that would condemn cuts to immigration services in Toronto, something that negatively impacts thousands of people, including many who supported Ford. At the last council meeting, the mayor was one of a group of five councillors to vote against asking the federal government to provide support to businesses who suffered damage or lost business during the G20 weekend.

If the mayor is so sure that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to be good for Toronto, he needs to define what “good for Toronto” is. It has to be more than token support for a P3 subway line and the meagre funding the city gets from the gas tax.

We’re facing an 800 million dollar hole in our operating budget next year and our combined capital budget requirement for transit and other infrastructure over the next decade totals into the tens of billions of dollars. Surely the federal government — who receive more than 50 cents of every tax dollar you pay — can do something about that.

Wouldn’t that be good for Toronto?

link — Comments Off on What has Waterfront Toronto done for us anyway?
06
May 11

What has Waterfront Toronto done for us anyway?

Last week, John Lorinc interviewed David Crombie about Toronto’s Waterfront, in the wake of all the stupid debate we’ve heard over the last month.. Here’s what the former mayor had to say:

When I hear people say they’re impatient about development on the waterfront, I don’t want to be unkind, but they are people who don’t go there. If you start at Mimico Creek and go straight across to Victoria Park and the Bluffers, the change is enormous. No, I’m not impatient with it. I’m impatient with those whose impatience is going to rush us to judgment.

It’s going now. Does it need to be done better? Anything can be done better. But, boy, this is a ship that is going. Want to improve it? Do that. But don’t blow it up.

via Crombie still sees magic in Toronto’s waterfront – The Globe and Mail.

But blowing it up might solve our short-term budget problems!

To add to that, a poster on the Urban Toronto forums (EnviroTO) put together a quick list of all the projects recently completed or currently under development projects undertaken by Waterfront Toronto:

Completed
– Flood prevention landform that allows development on most of the land to occur is complete.
– Sewer system through West Don Lands complete.
– HtO Park complete.
– Port Union Waterfront Park complete.
– Marilyn Bell Park and Western Beaches Watercourse complete.
– Mimico Waterfront Park Phase I complete.
– Sherbourne Common south complete.
– Waterfront Edge at Harbourfront complete.
– Three wave decks complete.
– Sugar Beach complete.
– Corus Quay complete.
– Cherry Beach renovation complete.

Under Development
– Union Station second platform project under construction.
– George Brown college under construction.
– Canada Square under construction.
– Bayside Development contract signed.
– Parkside Development contract signed.
– Queens Quay LRT and street makeover EA complete.
– Cherry LRT EA complete.
– West Don Lands neighbourhood study and EA complete.
– River City Development contract signed.
– Pan Am Games development in advanced planning.
– Don River Park under construction.
– Underpass Park design complete.
– Keating Channel precinct plan complete.
– Mouth of Don design competition and EA complete.
– Lake Ontario Park master plan complete.

via Waterfront: East Bayfront – Sherbourne Common & Sugar Beach | UrbanToronto.ca.

All this and Doug Ford still calls it “the biggest boondoggle the feds, the province and the city has ever done.” Go figure.

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.

feature — Comments Off on The mayor wants to sell the waterfront
17
Apr 11

The mayor wants to sell the waterfront

[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/DenzilMW/status/59215129186795520″]

On Friday, in a scrum following another community clean-up photo op, the mayor confirmed that the city was looking at pulling out of Waterfront Toronto. “I have a problem with the money we’re spending and the results we’re getting from them,” he said.

Here’s the short version of what I believe is going on with this story: there is an attempt to ignite a debate about the speed and relative quality of Waterfront Toronto projects. The hope is that this debate will inspire a populist desire for reform which will, in turn, lead to an opportunity to sell off city-owned assets and use the proceeds to balance the city’s operating budget.

How else to explain the all-out assault we’ve seen toward Waterfront Toronto this week from the mayor, his brother, and their assorted hangers-on? Why did Denzil Minnan-Wong take to his Twitter account (seen above) to publicly bash communications staff at Waterfront Toronto for having the gall to defend their work?

The narrative we’re starting to see here is actually very similar to the one that marked the TCHC story: demonize an agency as wasteful, whip up populist support for reform — without actually conducting an investigation or working through the necessary processes — and, finally, enact policy that makes it easier to sell-off or privatize things.

The difference, of course, is that the TCHC narrative began with an actual scandal.

Doug Ford’s conversation with the Globe & Mail’s Marcus Gee about his “vision” for the waterfront is worth reading, as it’s completely off-the-wall ridiculous:

Doug Ford has a vision: a football stadium on the waterfront. He says the NFL stadium might be built on the site of the abandoned Hearn generating plant in the underdeveloped Portlands.

The stadium would be the anchor for a massive redevelopment of the Portlands that would “turn this dump site into a wow factor.” It would include dramatically designed residential buildings and high-end retailers such as Macy’s department store. A monorail elevated transit system would link it to downtown.

via Doug Ford sees stadium in waterfront’s future – The Globe and Mail.

He also proposes a giant Ferris wheel. Because how better to define our city on the world stage than to steal that thing that London has?

Any discussion of the relative quality or progress of Waterfront Toronto’s projects only serves to distract from the real intent. If the Fords wanted to put their own stamp on the future of these projects, they would have at least attempted to meet with Waterfront Toronto. To talk about their issues with timeline and scope. Instead, Rob Ford has missed every meeting the agency has held.

Worse, the conversations we’ve had this week have spooked the private sector developers who are involved.

The big not-so-secret about development in areas currently controlled by Waterfront Toronto is that these are former industrial sites, in many cases built on landfill. The soil is contaminated. Flooding is hugely problematic. Engineering and construction work are challenging in the best of cases.

Without public sector involvement and support, the private sector is not going to build the kinds of things we’d like to see in these areas.

Anyone who looks at the history of these sites knows as much. In the 1980s, the provincial government had a plan to take the land they owned in the West Don Lands — a very similar area to the Port Lands — and build an affordable housing neighbourhood modelled after the successful one in the St. Lawrence area. They called it Ataratiri, because vowels are great. The money required to clean up the area never materialized. The Bob Rae government put the land up for sale to the private sector. (For about 30 million — a far cry from the hundreds of millions we’ve heard the private sector would pay.) No buyers materialized; no one wanted to take on the responsibility of cleaning up the land and making it developable.

In 1997, the Mike Harris government got desperate and did find a buyer. Without any consultation, negotiations began to sell the land to a developer who would use it for a horse racing track. Only after a wave of opposition was this sale halted.

This is the kind of thing the private sector is willing to do if we sell this land on the open market: build cheap, achievable projects that can turn a quick profit. We can help them do that, or we can continue on the sensible track we’re on, which is already beginning to pay dividends. Using public investment to make these lands more appropriate for neighbourhood development and working with the private sector to design and build world-class projects will see a return on investment that could define this city for decades to come.

The alternative, I suppose, is to go with the private sector and bet it all on the horses.

You can read this 2006 story from The Bulletin for a decent summation of the history of the West Don Lands and the provincial government’s attempt to sell the land to the private sector. Resident Cynthia Wilkey was one of the leaders in opposing the development, and it was her message to the Corktown Residents Google Group that partly inspired me to research and write this story.

feature — Comments Off on One Ford silent on election issues as other canvasses for Tories
12
Apr 11

One Ford silent on election issues as other canvasses for Tories

The mayor actually spoke to reporters on Friday. About issues beyond graffiti removal! He didn’t say much, but I thought his response on the federal election question was interesting:

He continued to stay away from the federal election. He is not endorsing any party, but will help out Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty, a long-time family friend. Asked what parties could do to woo Toronto voters, Mr. Ford was reticent. “I’m not going to pass the buck. I’m responsible for our city and I’m not going to blame the provincial or federal government. Whatever they can do, whatever they think is the appropriate measure, I appreciate it.”

via Ford takes questions on Gordon Chong, councillor expenses | Posted Toronto | National Post.

He’s not going to blame the provincial government. But just over a month ago he did blame the provincial government. He asked them for more money for city programs. Then he threatened to unleash ‘Ford Nation’ if they didn’t give him what he wanted. Does he not remember that?

To be fair, he has been very consistent in giving the federal government a pass when it comes to city issues. He voted against condemning federal cuts to immigration services. He’s remained silent despite this current election atmosphere being a great time for municipal leaders to make their case for urban issues. And today he voted against receiving Adam Vaughan’s motion that the city ask the federal government to clarify compensation rules for shop owners who suffered damage during the G20 summit last summer.

While Ford isn’t getting actively involved in the election, his brother is. Both Nick Kouvalis and Rocco Rossi tweeted about Doug Ford canvassing for the Conservative Party in Toronto ridings this past weekend.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with councillors supporting and campaigning for federal and provincial candidates, but Doug Ford’s incredibly close relationship with the mayor’s office works to betray his younger brother’s attempt to remain neutral.

feature — Comments Off on Public housing isn’t just about dollars and cents
07
Apr 11

Public housing isn’t just about dollars and cents

One more quick hit on the TCHC story from this week: The Star’s Robyn Doolittle scored a nice win when she reported Monday that a 79-year-old widow would be displaced by Case Ootes’ move to sell-off housing. This got the attention of the ombudsman’s office — who doesn’t get along well with this administration —  and the widow’s house was saved.

During the controversy, voice-of-the-mayor Doug Ford said this, as reported by Natalie Alcoba:

“Nothing is fair. It’s not fair to the taxpayers that she’s living in a million home, too. I feel sorry for her, my heart goes out to her, but I could take that million dollars and build four other homes and house four other families,” said Councillor Ford.

via TCHC could net $13M from 22-house sale | Posted Toronto | National Post.

This is a variation of a conservative argument that’s been making the rounds today. See also Sue-Ann Levy’s column “Sell! Sell! Sell!” where she ever-so-cautiously tiptoes around the idea of selling housing.

Three things to keep in mind in response to this:

First, it is somewhat challenging and will only get more so to find a single family home in good condition anywhere in Toronto that isn’t valued at more than half a million dollars. Some terribly designed real estate website tells me that the current average price of a detached home in the 416 is $719,843. Semi-detached is $533,039.

If we want to promote mixed-income neighbourhoods and avoid lurching toward an all-Starbucks gentrification across the Old City of Toronto, we’re necessarily going to have to devote some potentially valuable property to low-income housing. This isn’t a big deal: we also devote potentially valuable property to all kinds of social services, like transit facilities and highway off-ramps and fire stations.

Second, the argument that we can house more people for less money if we sell-off single family homes seems to creep toward mid-century thinking that saw efficient housing built vertically as blocks of towers, clustered together in concentrated areas. This was a less-than-succesful strategy.

Third, and not directed at any one thing, the idea that you might be able to ‘motivate’ a person out of poverty by making their life suck just a little bit more doesn’t seem to hold true. Just saying.

link — Comments Off on As Toronto looks to privatize everything “not nailed down…”
04
Apr 11

As Toronto looks to privatize everything “not nailed down…”

Earlier this year, the Toronto Sun’s Sue-Ann Levy quoted Doug Ford on privatization: “We’re going to be outsourcing everything that is not nailed down.” These days, this is what amounts to strategy at City Hall.

We need to elevate the discussion.

The New York Times has a “Room For Debate” feature on their opinion page today. It starts off by noting that New York City recently saved 41 million dollars by in-sourcing their technology services:

Stephen Goldsmith, the deputy mayor of New York, recently said that its time to get rid of costly private contractors and have city employees handle more of the citys technology services. Mr. Goldsmith, known as “the prince of privatization” when he was mayor of Indianapolis in the 1990s, said he found $41 million in immediate savings by taking the work of the citys data center and wireless network back in-house.

via Is Privatization a Bad Deal for Cities and States? – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.

What follows is a variety of points from a variety of people, most of which seemingly add up to this: privatization isn’t magic, can cost more and deliver worse service, and we in Toronto need to look at these things cautiously. (On the flip side, there’s a column by the Reason Foundation’s Leonard Gilroy, parts of which match up verbatim with the Ford Nation script.)

I’m going to excerpt a few items from the feature, as I’m pretty sure this kind of thing will come in handy over the next year. Plus I’m not sure when this feature will get swallowed by a paywall of doom.

Mildred Warner, professor at Cornell University, who has been tracking the issue of privatization-versus-public-delivery through the International City County Management Association (ICMA) surveys:

I.C.M.A. also tracks the reasons why local governments bring back in-house previously privatized work. The reasons are problems with service quality (61 percent), lack of cost savings (52 percent), improvements in public delivery (34 percent), problems with monitoring (17 percent) and political support to bring the work back in house (17 percent). It turns out citizens prefer local services to be locally controlled and publicly delivered.

Rigorous quantitative analysis of every published study from around the world of water delivery and garbage collection (the two most commonly privatized services at the local government level) finds no statistical support for cost savings under privatization.

via The Pendulum Swings Again – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.

Nicole Gelinas, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal:

In general, too, whenever cities and states sell or lease a big asset to the private sector to reap some short-term cash to cover budget deficits, as Chicago did with its parking meters, taxpayers get a bad deal. Bidders know when a government is desperate for money. They stand ready to enable government officials to enter into decades-long contracts, which only magnifies the effect of any mistakes in calculating potential profits and costs.

via Not a Cure for Incompetence – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.

Elliott Sclar, professor of Urban Planning at Columbia:

We would do far better if we started with the recognition that the public sector is a highly complex and socially vital operation staffed by hundreds of thousands of highly trained professionals. Like all organizations, public ones require competent management and continuing investments in improving operating capacity. Utopian schemes to contract away these problems through privatization efforts is a form of magical thinking, which leaves taxpayers to pay for the mistakes.

via When Ideology Drives Decisions – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.

Steve Tadelia, professor of economics at Berkeley:

Politicians like simple messages. Conservatives like to say that “privatization provides good services at low costs,” while many liberals will claim that “privatization reduces quality and costs jobs.” Both can be right or wrong, depending on the particulars of the service involved. The trouble is that political agendas seldom align with the cost-benefit analysis required for good privatization policy decisions. The tough part is strategically choosing the right projects and services for privatization that have a good chance of avoiding outsourcing’s pitfalls.

via Corporations Make the Same Mistakes – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.

But, really, why even stop to think about this stuff? Let’s just plow through and get it done. Damn the torpedoes: let’s see everything not nailed down get screwed.

Hat tip to greenleaf on the Urban Toronto forums for bringing this to my attention.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →