christiesplits
Senior Member
Biggest loser apart from Ford: The city clerk and Elections Toronto staff.
Hope they get overtime pay.
Hope they get overtime pay.
|
|
|
- Thread starter animatronic
- Start date
christiesplits
Senior Member
There are definitely some candidates, at least here in the east end, who are kicking tires this morning, having spent up to a month canvassing in the 'new' territory of their reconfigured ward, only for the wards to go back to the 47 ward model.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Every centrist news media poll favoured this outcome. But here's today's TorStun:
Should Toronto council be downsized?
Thank you for voting!
Yes 92.07% (7,463 votes)
No 7.93% (643 votes)
Total Votes: 8,106
Comments (19)Return To Poll
Without resorting to superlatives, let me just say that the concept of Rights and Freedoms is alien to Jackboots.
Miscreant
Senior Member
I'm extremely happy with this result. Bill 5 had a few insuperable problems:
1. Ford cited the 'inefficiency' of a 44/47 person council, and the 'efficiency' of a 25 person council, as one reason supporting Bill 5. But this is unpersuasive:
Well, either he's an idiot, since (1)-(3) are patently obvious to anyone who gives a moment's thought to this legislation. But I'm willing to be more charitable. (For the record I do think Ford is objectively rather low IQ. He's barely literate, as shown by his inability to use language with a modicum of grace.) It's that he is willfully ignorant, and this is because he's vindictive and petty.
This legislation has been revealed for exactly what it is, in other words.
A good day for democracy; a good day for the rule of law; a good day for reasonable people who can think through basic civic issues.
A bad day for Ford.
1. Ford cited the 'inefficiency' of a 44/47 person council, and the 'efficiency' of a 25 person council, as one reason supporting Bill 5. But this is unpersuasive:
a. It's arbitrary: there is no reason to believe that 25 is a magically efficient number of councilors. And if the argument is that whatever n number of councilors a city has, < n number of councilors would be more efficient, then why not 24? 23? 18?
Similarly, if the argument is that the number of councilors should match the number of provincial and federal representatives, as Ford seems to have stated, then this either (a) rests on a false analogy between municipal and provincial/federal levels or government, or (b) it should be applied to all municipal councils in Ontario on pain of arbitrariness, which Ford clearly didn't do.
b. It would prove too much: if the inefficiency of city hall is a function of the number of councilors it has, then the same reasoning should apply to all city councils in Ontario, especially ones in larger metro areas like Ottawa, Hamilton, London and Windsor. But Ford didn't target these municipalities with Bill 5, thus giving the strong impression, again, that this Bill arbitrarily targeted Toronto.
c. It's off-target: if we assume that municipal council is not optimally efficient--surely a fair assumption--then a question arises about possible explanations of this inefficiency. The following possibilities come to mind, aside from the number of councilors: i) not having a strong mayor system; ii) archaic constitutional facts limiting the autonomy of municipal government; iii) ineffective procedural rules in council sessions. But Ford gave no reason why he didn't seriously consider (i)-(iii), among many other possible explanations of this inefficiency (cf. 1b).
2. Ford cited cost savings as one reason for Bill 5. But this is also unpersuasive:Similarly, if the argument is that the number of councilors should match the number of provincial and federal representatives, as Ford seems to have stated, then this either (a) rests on a false analogy between municipal and provincial/federal levels or government, or (b) it should be applied to all municipal councils in Ontario on pain of arbitrariness, which Ford clearly didn't do.
b. It would prove too much: if the inefficiency of city hall is a function of the number of councilors it has, then the same reasoning should apply to all city councils in Ontario, especially ones in larger metro areas like Ottawa, Hamilton, London and Windsor. But Ford didn't target these municipalities with Bill 5, thus giving the strong impression, again, that this Bill arbitrarily targeted Toronto.
c. It's off-target: if we assume that municipal council is not optimally efficient--surely a fair assumption--then a question arises about possible explanations of this inefficiency. The following possibilities come to mind, aside from the number of councilors: i) not having a strong mayor system; ii) archaic constitutional facts limiting the autonomy of municipal government; iii) ineffective procedural rules in council sessions. But Ford gave no reason why he didn't seriously consider (i)-(iii), among many other possible explanations of this inefficiency (cf. 1b).
a. The 'cost savings' are dubious: with fewer councilors it is reasonable to assume that there will be more staff per councilor to handle the increased workload. It's an open question what the net savings/costs of these additional positions would be.
b. It's also arbitrary: as per 1b above, this either proves too much or too little. It proves too much if Ford agrees that the size of all city councils, or at least those representing large metro areas like Toronto, should be reduced to save money; it proves too little if Ford chooses--as he did--to apply this reasoning only to Toronto. The former position is too strong, which is presumably why he didn't take it; but the latter is so weak that it's revealed as arbitrary.
3. Ford reasoned that fewer politicians would equate to better political representation. This is unpersuasive:b. It's also arbitrary: as per 1b above, this either proves too much or too little. It proves too much if Ford agrees that the size of all city councils, or at least those representing large metro areas like Toronto, should be reduced to save money; it proves too little if Ford chooses--as he did--to apply this reasoning only to Toronto. The former position is too strong, which is presumably why he didn't take it; but the latter is so weak that it's revealed as arbitrary.
a. Higher ratio problem: with fewer councilors the ratio of councilor per citizen increases. It's patently unclear how increasing this ratio amounts to better political representation.
b. Again, it's arbitrary: assume for argument that increasing this ratio does amount to better political representation. Ford is then again caught back in an arbitrariness trap: why not apply this to all municipalities in Ontario, or at least those representing larger metro areas? Surely all Ontarians deserve the same quality of political representation...no?
Now let's play a little game of inference to the best explanation: given (1)-(3), what's the best explanation of Ford's motivation for passing Bill 5?b. Again, it's arbitrary: assume for argument that increasing this ratio does amount to better political representation. Ford is then again caught back in an arbitrariness trap: why not apply this to all municipalities in Ontario, or at least those representing larger metro areas? Surely all Ontarians deserve the same quality of political representation...no?
Well, either he's an idiot, since (1)-(3) are patently obvious to anyone who gives a moment's thought to this legislation. But I'm willing to be more charitable. (For the record I do think Ford is objectively rather low IQ. He's barely literate, as shown by his inability to use language with a modicum of grace.) It's that he is willfully ignorant, and this is because he's vindictive and petty.
This legislation has been revealed for exactly what it is, in other words.
A good day for democracy; a good day for the rule of law; a good day for reasonable people who can think through basic civic issues.
A bad day for Ford.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I was just considering this at length, albeit without the written decision before me. I have doubts! Why? Because Grownups might finally have a say in QP Offices to the effect of: "If you think you got hammered hard this time, next time it will be fatal". Appeal and higher court Justices tend to be even more proactive on Constitutional issues.
If they appeal...lol...great. Bring it on! Trudeau Sr will be a happy man in his grave.
vic
Senior Member
Ana Bailao's campaign office is on St. Clair Ave., firmly in Cesar Palacio's Ward 17 area. I guess she'll have to move it back south.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Not a Constitutional issue. Canada has been noted internationally for the last two generations as having one of the most progressive and pro-active higher court systems, especially the SCC, in the world.
I get tired of many Cdns thinking how "we're the best in this, we're the best in that"...where this nation does lead the world is in higher jurisprudence. And a pinnacle was reached in the separation issue. The SCC *made law* where it wasn't written, only implied. And the vast majority of Cdns with an awareness of the issue agree.
That pro-activism slowed in recent years, thank you very much Stephen Harper et al, but it looks like the flames have come back to life. Thank you very much Doug Ford...just not the way he intended...the Moron.
And whither Caroline? Has Daddy called you to chew you out yet?
steveintoronto
Superstar
They asked the wrong question. It was about process, not about whether or not council should be downsized. Perhaps it should, but an arbitrary decision during an election period was the issue.
Miscreant
Senior Member
I can agree that the process was problematic. But I think that the substance of the legislation is also really problematic.
animatronic
Senior Member
Downtown provincial ridings have more population than outer ridings, and as more condos get built the disparity will become worse.
It's not gerrymandering in the traditional sense, but with Scarborough and Etobicoke being more conservative-friendly this does give the outer regions more relative power.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It is - but that's within the powers of the province. The process is the main FUBAR here - and that willingness to run roughshod deserves a spanking.
So now they will have to go back to the legislature to redo this. Nothing say efficiency like not covering your bases and have to spend public resources for the mistakes.
AoD
Last edited:
King of Kensington
Senior Member
A great ruling. Not only does it call out the meddling in elections, but also says that the council cuts prevent "effective representation."
DSC
Superstar
The PROCESS was clearly wrong/unfair and the court decision is a well-written argument on that issue. In para 70 the judge notes: "Here, there is no evidence that any other options or approaches were considered or that any consultation ever took place. It appears that Bill 5 was hurriedly enacted to take effect in the middle of the City’s election without much thought at all, more out of pique than principle."
Of course it is clear that the Province can change the size of Council or make other changes in how the City is run but the point really is that any changes need CAREFUL thought and that they be made on principle than on pique! I can see valid arguments for having a 25 Ward Council but only if other parts of the City 'machine' are also addressed. (e.g. the role of community councils, staffing for new councillors, number of committees etc etc). Just changing number of Councillors is only part of a massive re-think (the visible part of the iceberg) and I bet we@ UT will spend the next few years working on it and arguing for and against the various options and alternatives.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
The best part of Miscreant's post.
The push back against Doug Ford is actually happening a bit faster and more decisively than it did for Rob when he was trying to upturn everything in Toronto during his first few months. It took the city a couple of years to effectively neutralize him.
It should be pretty clear now that Drug is in over his head and that Ontario (and Canada for that matter) is not TrumpAmerica (at least, not yet). The grown ups in Ford's caucus might be pretty displeased with Thug if he takes another swing and goes 0 and 3 in his first few months.
Obviously Drug is no Mike Harris and this current gang of reactionaries couldn't put together a decent club sandwich, let alone change the direction of the province as the previous PC gang did. This is what happens when a party already in crisis picks a hopelessly unqualified leader three or so months before they have to form an actual government.
Last edited: