24
Aug 11

Toronto: “I am not one of the usual suspects,” says Christopher Salmond

Beginning at 9:30 a.m. and extending through to the next morning, the City of Toronto’s Executive Committee — led by Mayor Rob Ford — heard more than one hundred and fifty deputations from a diverse group of citizens. In a sincere bid to ensure that the passion, insight and creativity displayed over the course of that epic meeting is not forgotten, Ford For Toronto will be posting a deputation video every weekday for the month of August.

Deputant: Christopher Salmond

Occupation: He’s a 70-year-old crossing guard who works in East York.

Political History: None noted, though he is a former City of Toronto employee, working as the Managing Director of the East York General Radio Emergency Service.

Scheduled Speaker No.: 86; Actual Speaker No.: 108

Note: Stay until the end, when Christopher reveals that he sometimes wishes he had a rocket-propelled grenade to use against drivers who run through his crossing. To which one councillor chimes in: “that’d be a real war on the car.”


23
Aug 11

Toronto Spoke: “Stop pitting the suburbs and downtown against each other,” says Michael Binetti

Beginning at 9:30 a.m. and extending through to the next morning, the City of Toronto’s Executive Committee — led by Mayor Rob Ford — heard more than one hundred and fifty deputations from a diverse group of citizens. In a sincere bid to ensure that the passion, insight and creativity displayed over the course of that epic meeting is not forgotten, Ford For Toronto will be posting a deputation video every weekday for the month of August.

Deputant: Michael Binetti

Occupation: Recent graduate of the Ryerson University School of Urban & Regional planning

Political History: A Scarborough resident, he was vocal in his opposition to the round of cuts to bus service we saw this past winter.

Scheduled Speaker No.: 58; Actual Speaker No.: 55

Note: Binetti does a great job both using sarcasm and pointing out some serious errors in the KPMG report relating to transit.


22
Aug 11

Layton

The Grid’s Edward Keenan:

People will say—I know they are already are saying—that he was a man who was in politics “for the right reasons.” Unlike many, I think that is true of most polticians, however effective they may or may not be, and no matter how distracted they may become. But the interesting thing about Layton is that the wrong reasons appear not to have ever occurred to him. He coupled that with boundless energy and an inability to see anything as impossible or to interpret anything as a setback.

Contra Yeats, he was a man of great conviction who was full of passionate intensity. Our country, his party and our politics are lessened by his loss.

Long may the spirit of his relentless smile live on.

via Jack Layton: may his spirit smile on | The Grid TO.

Jack Layton died today. It sucks.

I feel dumb. Knowing I’d be off at a meeting all day and away from the computer, I scheduled a few posts  to run automatically on this blog. When I heard the Layton news on the 501 streetcar this morning, I had no time to alter or reschedule those posts. So, as planned last night, they went up over the course of the day.

I feel, as the guy who both writes and edits and promotes this blog, that the ideal thing to do would have been to postpone those posts, to spend the day linking to articles about Jack Layton, to try to — on this terrible occasion — find a way to celebrate his life and his contribution to Toronto and to Canada.

I regret the error.

Still, though, I suppose there are worse ways to honour the man than with political arguments. Calling out a conservative bluff, championing community activism and involvement and working toward a fair, dignified strategy to eliminate poverty — these are some of the things that Jack Layton stood up for. Their subjects typify just a few of the political battles he fought and a measure of the legacy he leaves.

The memory of this sad day will soon fade and what we’ll be left with is that legacy. A legacy that informs all of us who have passion for where we live. And while Layton is tinged with the colours of the party that he led and took so far — and could have taken farther — what he leaves us is not a spirit of partisanship or ideology. Instead, it’s about a driving desire to make the places we live in better than they are now. It’s about building collaborative and vibrant places where all things are possible to all peoples and creating cities and countries that continuously improve. That always endure. That last.

Toronto was lucky to have Jack Layton as a resident, a leader and a champion. His work in this city and for this city continues to impact us every day. Let’s hold onto all he gave us, and let it guide us forward. Toward something better. Something that lasts.


22
Aug 11

…Only Outlaws Will Have Panhandles: How The Sun got it wrong on poverty & panhandling

Produced for a 2008 study, this map shows the major panhandling locations downtown. The larger balloons indicate the presence of three or more panhandlers.

The venerable Toronto Sun is on the warpath. Their enemy is — and has been for more than a week now — the act of panhandling. First, they declared the practice one of the three things Mayor Rob Ford must deal with this year, along with eliminating the nickel charge for plastic bags and slapping a licence on cyclists. They then followed that up with almost a dozen articles and columns calling for an immediate and effective end to panhandling. Their preferred method? New laws. Policing. Cracking down.

All this comes despite a complete absence of statistical support and the fact that the city’s hired consultants — you remember them: they said we should consider cutting everything — actually advocate providing more resources to the homelessness program implemented under former mayor David Miller.

As if millions of voices suddenly cried out

No other newspaper in the city is as effective at marshalling their writers around one singular cause. The Sun brought out a parade of reporters and columnists to give their two cents on the matter, with no one deviating from the editorial line. Joe Warmington declared panhandling a “scourge” and did some back-of-the-envelope math showing that, apparently, some panhandlers in Toronto earn more than $40,000 per year. “Robbers,” he called them, hiding behind politicians who “love the homeless and use them as pawns to advance a socialist agenda.”

The parade went on: Sue-Ann Levy declared that it’s “time for action on panhandlers” and quoted a resident who claimed that “shopping on Queen Street in the Beach is like running the gauntlet in a ghetto” due to an onslaught of panhandlers. Ian Robertson had a story about beggars and their “tricks”, making the whole thing sound a bit Tolkienish. Terry Davidson was actually given an assignment to go out and panhandle himself for a while, and report back on what it’s like.

A Thursday editorial was most emphatic: “Solving this crisis begins with making it illegal to live on our streets, period. No excuses.” The same editorial, bizarrely, goes on to advocate treatment programs for homeless people but also seems to condemn the thought of spending more money on such programs.

It’s an impressive display of uniformity, but what’s most notably is what’s missing from all the invective and calls for a law-and-order approach is the answer to two questions:

  1. Has there been a documented increase in the number of panhandlers or homeless people in the last few years?
  2. Has there been a documented increase in the number of complaints about panhandlers from residents or businesses?

You’d think answering these questions is where journalists would start, but the Toronto Sun — maybe in the interest of efficiency — simply skipped the statistic-gathering step and barrelled onward.

Which is too bad, actually, because the City actually put together a rather comprehensive study on panhandling in 2008. It’s well-worth reading, and includes useful things like facts and numbers. (They also produced a map, as above.)

For example: per the study, most panhandlers make about $20 to $25 per day, or about $3.57 an hour. Eighty percent of panhandlers surveyed indicated that they would like to quit panhandling. The biggest barrier they face, according to more than three-quarters of respondents, is a lack of permanent housing. (Contrary to a popular stereotype, the study finds no real evidence for a class of panhandler that is either employed or employable and has permanent private housing.)

But wait, there’s more: business operators in the downtown study area “did not believe the police were the best response” to panhandling. More generally, the report noted that police blitzes of panhandlers in other urban areas “does not seem to necessarily impact panhandling behaviour on a City wide level, though they may curtail the activity in a particular area for a period of time.”

The study was part of a pilot project that saw city social workers — under the Streets to Homes banner — connect with panhandlers. The workers identified more than 100 panhandlers who had access to some form of housing and provided them links to community agencies and other services so they could collect provincial benefits, establish a treatment program for addiction or mental illness, and find employment and/or improved housing.

And I know, this all sounds like silly bleeding-heart liberal stuff that just coddles people and doesn’t produce results, but the numbers are there: after a mere twelve week pilot, more than two-thirds of the panhandlers involved in the program were no longer panhandling. You can read some case studies as part of Appendix C of the report.

Social services programs are the only way to effectively address any panhandling problem, because panhandling is — almost always — a symptom of poverty. We cannot make poverty illegal, nor can we make it disappear. We have to deal with it.

The Gravy Question

But isn’t Toronto’s “Streets to Homes” program just part of the big, ineffective gravy train? Isn’t this just useless bureaucracy? I don’t think so. Since it launched in 2005, Streets to Homes has found permanent housing for more than 3,000 people who were previously living on the streets. Most remain housed for more than a year, which is a substantive achievement when you consider the issues — addiction; mental illness; disability — that lead to poverty and homelessness in the first place.

But, hell, don’t take my word for it. Let’s look to KPMG, who recently put together a big fat whale of a study that essentially put all of the city’s social and cultural services on the table as potential cuts. All, that is, except for Streets to Homes. In fact, on page 48 of their report to the Community Development & Recreation Committee, KPMG actually advocates providing more resources for that program.

It is, as far as I can tell, the only place these consultants have put forth a consideration for more program spending to reduce other service costs.

Panhandling and — more critically — poverty are major issues facing our city, but all the data seems to indicate that Toronto does have an effective strategy in place that could, given more resources, continue to limit the number of people living on the street. It’s unfortunate that the Toronto Sun seems to have missed that and has instead run headline after headline trying to get us to join the cause for police action on homelessness.

We shouldn’t listen. No matter how much they beg.

The KPMG consideration on Streets to Homes

The KPMG consideration on Streets to Homes


22
Aug 11

Toronto Spoke: “I was hoping you’d be better, but you’re worse,” says Dave Meslin

Beginning at 9:30 a.m. and extending through to the next morning, the City of Toronto’s Executive Committee — led by Mayor Rob Ford — heard more than one hundred and fifty deputations from a diverse group of citizens. In a sincere bid to ensure that the passion, insight and creativity displayed over the course of that epic meeting is not forgotten, Ford For Toronto will be posting a deputation video every weekday for the month of August.

Deputant: Dave Meslin (website, twitter)

Occupation: He’s involved in so much stuff I’m not even going to try to make a list.

Political History: He’s a veteran of the municipal politics scene, with a long history of supporting cycling issues. His current major push is for voting reform. Meslin made a sincere effort to work collaboratively with the Ford administration after the election. The move earned him some level of derision from other left-leaning types across the city.

Scheduled Speaker No.: 264; Actual Speaker No.: 151

Note: Pay close attention to 4:45, a sequence of events in which Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday interjects to make a (joking?) reference to former mayor David Miler, calling him a dictator. Rob Ford chuckles and begins to say something about the election, then ignores Councillor Adam Vaughan’s request to stop the timer. He then cuts things off.


22
Aug 11

29 year council veteran Holyday expresses total ignorance on critical budget matters

The Toronto Star’s David Rider, in an article discussing the shrinking possibility that Mayor Rob Ford will be able to eliminate the land transfer tax during this term of office:

Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday said he can’t imagine the tax disappearing next year and wouldn’t speculate on when it will be scrapped, adding, “that money has already worked its way into the system to pay for spending increases and new employees.

“Who knew during the election we were $774 million in the hole? I didn’t know.”

The gap between spending and revenue at the start of the budget cycle in 2010, Miller’s last year in office, was $443 million. In 2009 it was $679 million.

via Toronto News: Ford mum on vow to scrap land sales tax, as budget shortfall looms – thestar.com. [Emphasis added.]

Rider’s being a good reporter, so he only hints at what I’ll just say outright: either Holyday is admitting that he hasn’t read a city budget document in years or he is being completely disingenuous with his claim that this year’s budget gap is a surprise.

For David Miller’s last budget, the opening pressure was actually $821 million, larger than this year’s shortfall. It only got down to $443 million after cost cutting, user fee hikes and other measures. Holyday was there. He read the budget. Opening pressures in the same ballpark have been dealt with by council essentially every year since amalgamation. Holyday was there for every single one of them.

Beyond that, the deputy mayor is seemingly making the claim that the city’s financial problems were not a known quantity during an election campaign that was largely fought-and-won over the issue of the city’s financial problems.

Ridiculous.


19
Aug 11

Toronto Spoke: “Trying to defend impossible campaign promises is getting kind of lame,” rhymes Brian Cauley

Beginning at 9:30 a.m. and extending through to the next morning, the City of Toronto’s Executive Committee — led by Mayor Rob Ford — heard more than one hundred and fifty deputations from a diverse group of citizens. In a sincere bid to ensure that the passion, insight and creativity displayed over the course of that epic meeting is not forgotten, Ford For Toronto will be posting a deputation video every weekday for the month of August.

Deputant: Brian Cauley (website, twitter)

Occupation: Audio producer at Soundframe

Political History: None noted.

Scheduled Speaker No.: 175; Actual Speaker No.: 124

Note: Yes, this deputation rhymes.


18
Aug 11

Toronto Spoke: “I couldn’t just stand by and watch the city get dismantled,” says Amy Casipullai

Beginning at 9:30 a.m. and extending through to the next morning, the City of Toronto’s Executive Committee — led by Mayor Rob Ford — heard more than one hundred and fifty deputations from a diverse group of citizens. In a sincere bid to ensure that the passion, insight and creativity displayed over the course of that epic meeting is not forgotten, Ford For Toronto will be posting a deputation video every weekday for the month of August.

Deputant: Amy Casipullai

Occupation: Senior Policy & Communication Coordinator at the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants

Political History: Her occupation is political-ish, I suppose, though it’s worth noting that OCASI does not receive money under Toronto’s Community Partnership & Investment Program

Scheduled Speaker No.: 152; Actual Speaker No.: 114

Note: I love the way Amy ends with “I don’t think we can let you do that.” Nicely delivered.


18
Aug 11

Ford administration demonstrates total incompetence with transit file

Mayor Rob Ford has proven himself almost entirely incompetent when it comes to transit policy and planning.

That’s the only conclusion I can come to after learning the details behind the mayor’s meeting with Premier Dalton McGuinty. Early speculation had it that the meeting — held early yesterday morning — would be about potential uploading and cost-sharing strategies to mitigate the city’s 2012 operating shortfall, but that actually ended up as seemingly only a small part of the agenda. The real dominating topic, at least according to media reports, seemed to be the mayor’s plan to expand the Sheppard Subway west to Downsview and east to Scarborough Town Centre. While Ford had expressed nothing but confidence throughout his first eight months in office that he would be able to build the extension solely with funds from the private sector, it became clear today — when the mayor asked for some $650 million in provincial funds for the project — that that confidence has been shaken.

Here’s the National Post’s Natalie Alcoba:

Mayor Rob Ford insists his prized Sheppard subway extension will be built, but he needs the provincial government to put up $650-million sooner, rather than later, to help make it happen.

Mr. Ford issued his plea to “accelerate” provincial funding in order to nail down money from Ottawa during a closed-door meeting with Premier Dalton McGuinty on Wednesday, before he goes into full provincial campaign mode.

This is not the first time Mr. Ford has acknowledged that government money is required to tunnel under Sheppard. But his demand of the province betrays a more urgent tone, with critics noting that the private sector won’t jump on board a major transit project until the public sector is committed.

via Ford pushes McGuinty for subway funding | National Post.

The only way to read this is as a tacit admission that the Sheppard subway plan, as it’s been explained to us for months now, is a total pipe dream. Private companies are not going to roll the dice on a low-ridership transit line with limited opportunities for residential and commercial development when the public sector won’t sit at the table with them. The Sheppard Subway deal, as pitched by Gordon Chong and the rest of Toronto Transit Infrastructure Limited, is a high-risk, low-reward affair, and they’re trying to sell it in the face of a world economy that is fraught with peril and bad news stories.

That the plan isn’t workable isn’t a surprise. But yesterday’s events, which all add up to a public indication that the mayor might actually be wrong about something, are definitely interesting. Rob Ford is not one to readily admit his own mistakes.

How Rob Ford might cost the Toronto more than $300 million in committed transit funding

The numbers behind Ford’s request to McGuinty tell a fascinating story of their own. In 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and McGuinty emerged from a streetcar at a TTC maintenance shop and announced joint funding for the Sheppard East LRT, which was to be the first line constructed under former mayor David Miller’s Transit City plan. That line was to cost about $950 million, with the province kicking in about two-thirds of that figure, leaving the federal government to pick up the rest of the tab.

When McGuinty agreed to roll over all Transit City funds into the new transit plan announced last March, the province’s portion of the Sheppard funding got moved over to the now all-underground Eglinton LRT. It would now appear that the mayor’s office made an oversight with the remaining federal funds — which total more than $300 million — and they now risk losing them.

In short, the federal funds for Sheppard will expire if they’re not used by 2014. They seemingly can’t be moved over to projects. And the kicker: now that the province is providing no money for any transit project on Sheppard — ostensibly at the mayor’s own request — the agreement between the federal government and the city may be rendered entirely invalid. Without the province’s share of the cost, the federal money won’t flow without a new deal.

It seems likely that between the three levels of government, something will be worked out and the federal contribution for transit expansion won’t be lost. But that this administration has even put themselves in a position where we risk losing that money is demonstrative of their continued inability to effectively manage the transit file.

It’s worth noting, as always, that the Sheppard East LRT would have opened before the next municipal election, improving the daily commute for thousands of Scarborough residents and providing the basis for a network of light rail transit lines across suburban Toronto.

No talk of uploading for TTC operating?

Notably not part of today’s conversation between McGuinty and Ford, according to media reports: the potential uploading of a portion of the TTC’s annual operating costs. Ford’s silence on the issue is conspicuous, especially in light of an item, passed 41-1 with the mayor in favour at the July council meeting, calling for a reinstatement of the previous “fair share” funding agreement for transit, which saw the province pick up half the cost of the TTC’s annual operating budget.

Actual analysis of the City of Toronto’s budget from the mid-1990s until now reveals that the downloading of TTC operating costs onto the city — a ‘gift’ from Mike Harris — correlates with the beginning of Toronto’s budget problems. A return to a 50/50 agreement with the province would wipe out almost all of the so-called structural deficit facing the city.

But why would the mayor want that?


17
Aug 11

You always seemed so sure / that one day we’d be fighting / a suburban war

Philip Preville’s got an article in this month’s Toronto Life (alas, not yet online) that advances the premise that moving out of the city and into the suburbs — or the exurbs, or small town Ontario, or whatever you want to call it — is a totally awesome thing to do.

This has caused quite a bit of reaction. My pal John Michael McGrath has a nice summary of viewpoints over at TorontoLife.com. (Which is a site that I, in the interest of full disclosure, also sometimes contribute to.) I’ll add to that pile this just-published piece by Holly Bacchus, which is interesting if only because it’s the only thing I’ve read so far that actually defends Preville’s thesis.

I don’t want to waste keyboard taps reiterating points others have made so well, but I will add two things to the discussion.

The first is simple: arguing about the relative merits of suburban and urban living is mostly just a giant waste of time. You might as well debate whether it’s better to live in Switzerland or New Zealand. Where people choose to make their homes is such an intensely personal, expensive and permanent decision that of course the natural response to any criticism is passionate defence.

That spirit of defensiveness and spirited rationalization runs through Preville’s piece. And I get why: his family has just uprooted from one place to another, shifting a half-million dollars around in the process. It’s natural to want to feel good — to feel justified; to feel centred; to feel home — after such a move, and so you get the kinds of emotional declarations Preville applies both to himself and to his interview subjects: they’re happier now; they’re better people now; they appreciate life so much more.

What I’m saying, I guess, is that there’s an inherent inclination to want to feel good about your own sense of place, especially when you’ve made things permanent through the signing-of-mortgage papers and the having-of-children. The alternative is to be a miserable person filled with regret, and most of us tend to tend to shy away from that.

The second thing, and I think this is what intrigued me and also disappointed me about the Toronto Life piece: there is a really good article still to be written about the significant financial hurdles associated with middle-income people with kids buying homes and establishing affordable lives in the downtown core. Preville’s feature, tied up with platitudes and anecdotes, isn’t it.

Here’s what I want to hear more about: We are quietly facing a mounting situation — primarily in the Old City of Toronto but it extends outwards as well — where freehold houses, even in so-called up-and-coming neighbourhoods, are priced too high for your average dual-income couple. At the same time, almost all of the new residential units that have come onto the market over the last decade are one-bedroom or one-bedroom-plus-den units in condominiums. The result is a potential “housing gap” for people with growing families who want more space for their kids but can’t afford the exorbitant prices for semi-detached homes in urban neighbourhoods.

As others have noted, Councillor Adam Vaughan has been working to address this in his ward with a push for more three-bedroom condo units. He’s faced resistance from developers due to a simple problem of economics: developers can make more money off smaller units. That’s where the demand is.

I’m not sure what the solution to the issue is, but I’m very much interested in knowing more. An old-fashioned suburban-versus-urban war-of-words is great fun to follow, but there’s more substance in these details. How can we make urban living work for everyone who wants it?