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

feature — Comments Off on The Cover of QuAIA: Why is Rob Ford avoiding Pride events?
24
May 11

The Cover of QuAIA: Why is Rob Ford avoiding Pride events?

In a few hours, the city’s executive committee will discuss EX6.21, “Compliant with the City of Toronto’s Anti-Discriminaion Policy.” By definition, this item amounts to little more than a staff recommendation that the executive committee receive a city report “for information.” In practice, however, this items presents an opportunity for someone — likely Giorgio Mammoliti — to attempt to pull city funding for this year’s Pride event.

This all stems from the potential participation of the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid group. Though they’ve promised not to march in the parade this year, the Toronto Sun’s Don Peat reports that, for Mammoliti, that’s not good enough:

Mammoliti vowed that if the group takes part in Pride — and they’re is outrage — he will move to strip the city’s portion of funding.

“If the group shows up and people get upset in the city then it becomes a political decision on whether or not the funding should continue,” he added.

Ask if he’s worried he and Ford will be accused of being homophobic if they try to stop Pride funding, Mammoliti shrugged.

“It’s not about being homophobic, it’s about taking care of taxpayers’ dollars and where they should be going, they shouldn’t be going to help spread hatred,” he said.

via Pride funding controversy heats up | Home | Toronto Sun.

The whole thing is ridiculous, of course. Whatever your feelings on QuAIA and their message, the city doesn’t get to dictate a cultural group’s actions and associations simply because they feel like it. A $128,000 cultural grant isn’t much of a ransom when you consider the millions upon millions of economic activity the city would forfeit if Pride disappeared from the city’s event calendar.

The issue was dead the moment staff ruled that the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” didn’t violate the city’s anti-discrimination policy.

The far more interesting story in all of this is the mayor’s continued disregard for the city’s gay community. In addition to his checkered voting record at council, in recent weeks Ford has skipped two major Pride-related events. And before apologists pull out the argument that says the mayor is busy and can’t be expected to attend every event in this city, it must be pointed out that both these events took place at City Hall. A token appearance would have required the mayor only to make a short trip from his office.

The first snub was bad but somewhat forgivable. Taking place on a Monday evening, the “Proud of Toronto” ceremony was part of the International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia. There were no major meetings at City Hall that day, so it’s possible the mayor was tied up in another part of the city.

It’s the second snub, coming the day after, that’s less defensible. Taking place during the lunch break on the first day of last week’s City Council meeting, this short event saw the raising of a flag on the roof of City Hall by PFLAG — the Parents & Friends of Lesbians & Gays. The headline speaker was Brian Burke, the General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs and father of the late Brendan Burke.

The event seemed a natural fit for our mayor. Restrained, respectful, and tangentially related to a major sports team, it’s challenging to even come up with reasons why he wouldn’t make an appearance. Toronto is not a city with a large anti-gay voting bloc, and even for those social conservatives that do exist, where are they going to take their support? The mayor loses no political capital with his base by showing up, shaking hands, and posing for a quick photo.

Calling someone homophobic is a harsh accusation in this day and age, and probably too weighty for this set of circumstances. But the mayor’s actions — or lack thereof — have given the label far more plausibility than it should have. It’s time for the mayor to stop hiding behind the pretenses of the QuAIA controversy and make at least a token gesture to the queer community in this city.

A leisurely downtown stroll during Pride week would be a good place to start. But, oh, he says he might be busy that day.

link — Comments Off on The second city of the British Empire
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.

link — Comments Off on Berardinetti doing all she can to fly under the radar
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?

link — Comments Off on Rob Ford’s next target: Jarvis Street bike lanes?
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.

link — Comments Off on Burning bridges at Fort York
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.

link — Comments Off on The mayor’s bad day
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.

feature — Comments Off on VIDEO: Giorgio Mammoliti on Drag Queens
18
May 11

VIDEO: Giorgio Mammoliti on Drag Queens

During today’s council meeting, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti rose to speak on item EX5.3, the elimination of citizen advisory committees. After submitting a motion that would refer the item to the mayor’s office for independent consideration, Rob Ford’s self-professed “quarterback” was questioned by Councillor Gord Perks. And then this happened:

The drag queen visit in question happened last week, as part of the awareness campaign for the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, which was celebrated Monday with a ceremony at City Hall. Mammoliti did not attend.

feature — Comments Off on Why don’t Etobicoke residents recycle?
18
May 11

Why don’t Etobicoke residents recycle?

One of the more common arguments brought up at yesterday’s council meeting against the mayor’s plan to contract out garbage collection was the idea that, apples to apples, public service may be cheaper. Councillor Gord Perks illustrated this point with numbers pulled from a recent report by accountant Al Rosen — commissioned, it must be noted, by the union — that show that, when you factor in revenues from recyclable goods, the net cost per tonne in contracted-out Etobicoke is actually higher than the cost in publicly-serviced Scarborough.

From the report, the relevant table:

District 4 (Scarborough, publicly serviced) is the fairest comparison to District 1 (Etobicoke, privately serviced), as the other two district contain vast stretches of the old city. (20% of homes in Districts 2 and 3 are detached single family homes, versus almost 40% in the other two districts.)

Etobicoke residents recycle far less than their counterparts in Scarborough, sending approximately 0.32 tonnes/household to the recycling plant versus 0.40 tonnes/household in the east end of the city. The report speculates that this could be because of “lower program compliance by District 1 residents, lower diversion rates by the private contractor, or diversion by the contractor of valuable materials.”

I guess it’s possible that Etobicoke residents just suck at putting things in the blue bin, but that seems a little simplistic. More likely is that something is happening after the blue box hits the curb that is resulting in much lower reported diversion rates.

Maintaining and increasing these diversion rates isn’t just an issue for tree-hugging environmentalists — it’s also a matter of dollars and cents. If the mayor’s plan to contract out garbage collection were to result in the city’s diversion rates for recyclable goods falling to the level we currently see in Etobicoke, this whole thing would become an unmitigated financial disaster. On a cost per tonne basis, the city would lose money.

Thankfully, Councillor Josh Matlow successfully passed an amendment last night requiring that “diversion targets [of bidders] must meet or exceed current City standards and may not be reduced from the present targets. If the City increases diversion rates east of Yonge Street then a private firm will be required to also meet the increased diversion rates west of Yonge Street.”

The mayor, of course, voted against.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →