News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Who gets your vote for Mayor of Toronto?

  • Ana Bailao

    Votes: 18 16.4%

  • Brad Bradford

    Votes: 3 2.7%

  • Olivia Chow

    Votes: 58 52.7%

  • Mitzie Hunter

    Votes: 2 1.8%

  • Josh Matlow

    Votes: 20 18.2%

  • Mark Saunders

    Votes: 4 3.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 4.5%
  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
W. K. Lis said:
Not so with the computer-illiterates.

Also "Forty-eight per cent of Canadian adults have inadequate literacy skills"—a significant increase from a decade ago (2002). From link.
Click to expand...
I actually looked it up and 86.1% of all Canadian households own a smartphone: https://reviewlution.ca/resources/cell-phone-statistics-canada/

I suspect in Toronto that number is even higher. Probably close to 90-95%.
I think turnout will be large and most of votes will be cast by QR code, but time will tell
 
DSC said:
Though we may both want a 'progressive' mayor (and Chow, Bailao and Matlow fit that general category), there is a real risk that with potential vote splitting and ca 50 candidates we will end up with someone like the ghastly Saunders (who ran the TPS very poorly) or Furey. Progressives need to look VERY carefully at the situation as election day gets closer, avoid splitting the vote and support ONE candidate. Who that is, I do not yet know but ...
Click to expand...

Definitely. Gotta be careful about it. If Saunders remains back further in the race that's one thing, but if he starts to become the default conservative option and grows beyond the low-10s in % that will completely change things. The variability in the polling is making it hard to get a sense of this now, especially with Bailao jumping from #2 in the 20s in some polls to well back at 10% like in this Forum poll and Saunders being higher than her. Its hard to get a sense of what's really going on.

If Saunders rises in Bailao falls that might help Chow even more if because of her lead and name recognition she becomes the default "not Saunders" option. I think Matlow, Hunter voters might start to peel away and go to Chow if there looks to be a threat of Saunders winning. Maybe even some Bailao voters go to Chow in that situation. If Bailao stays in contention (and that Forum poll is wrong) the situation would be very different without the same strategic anti-Saunders voting dynamic.
 
Last edited:
I was shocked to discover that unlike most provinces, Ontario prohibits prison inmates from voting in municipal elections, even though the Supreme Court ruled that such pointless disenfranchisement is unconstitutional at the provincial and federal levels.
 
I see that our potential strong Mayor, Mr Saunders, is in the news again. ( https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...o-officer-theft-confidential-report-says.html ) I accept that in large organizations there will always be some 'underlings' who screw up and 'the boss' can't be held accountable for all of them but this is yet another example of a police force that was badly managed when he was its Chief. He was clearly not a good manager in TPS, I strongly doubt he has learned much since he early retired!
 
Bayer said:
I was shocked to discover that unlike most provinces, Ontario prohibits prison inmates from voting in municipal elections, even though the Supreme Court ruled that such pointless disenfranchisement is unconstitutional at the provincial and federal levels.
Click to expand...

1) The prisoner isn't impacted by the local city council, despite the town being the primary residence of the prisoner. Garbage pickup, parades, street maintenance, snow clearing, slow-traffic-zones, and all the other things the municipality does don't really apply. If there was a vote for warden rather than mayor, that would be applicable to the prisoner.

2) The prison, in a few cases, has a larger population than the town the prison is located in.
 
Last edited:
mjl08 said:
Also, Brad Bradford commits to no tax increases.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1652696012039806976
Click to expand...
I really cannot understand people (like Bradford, appear to be reasonably sensible) who think they can keep pretending that all the changes they propose can be accomplished if taxes are not increased. The choice is more taxes or fewer services and they need to be 'encouraged' to say which it is and what they will cut if they are not going to increase taxes. (Yes, the idea of efficiencies' has been proven to be myth by many outside 'audits'.)
 
mjl08 said:
Ana Bailao's housing platform has been released.

New Initiatives in Ana's Housing Plan | Ana Bailão

Ana’s Housing Plan will put people first, build homes, and get City Hall moving to make life better and more affordable in Toronto.
anabailao.ca anabailao.ca
Click to expand...

Ana's platform below, with my comments:

1682958279293.png


No. 1 is good as far as it goes, but with roughly 12,000 people homeless on any given day, and heavy population growth, 1,000 units over 10 years will, at most, keep us status quo. The correct target is to replace the majority of the existing shelter system with a mixture of permanent affordable housing and modular units.

No. 2 is fine, as a way of getting people to accept help.

No. 3 is status quo and the wrong move in as much as the issues w/retention aren't really about wages, but about working conditions and shifting shelters to SRO and permanent affordable housing addresses that better.

No 4 is supportable if not particularly substantial in scope/scale.

No. 5 is meaningless. (The City's been trying this for years)


****

1682958514629.png

No. 1 is mostly status quo, its fine, but the rent bank is a clumsy, awkward way to address these issues.

No 2 is mouthful......I need to investigate the program further to comment intelligently.

No 3 is bad; insofar as all demolished unit are replaced, generally with far better units than those demolished, and renters can return to those new units as their old rates (inflation adjusted), I'm not sure why one would want to obstruct that.

No. 4 sounds like bureaucracy building and if its going to be handled by MLS, one should not waste the time or the money.

No. 5 is meaningless.

***

1682958750959.png


No 1 is meaningless twice over, its a very low target and the City has no means by which to achieve it.

No 2. is fine; but there needs to be a clear understanding that in awarding these sites, financing should be in place at the time of award so the project is ready to go. The absence of CMHC here is deafening.

No 3. is fine, modest but good

No. 4 is meaningless

No 5 is unclear

***

1682958945278.png


We do not need any more reports; there are no shortage of reports/updates/trackers; its what the reports say that's the problem (oops, we didn't do anything again)

Planning Reforms are already underway, with the multiplex, missing middle on pace to clear Council this month, further reforms are likely (planned) throughout the balance of the year regardless of who the mayor may be.

Three is meaningless.

****

Overall take, mostly meaningless, useless babble, and insufficient ambition and meaningful targets.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
No 2 is mouthful......I need to investigate the program further to comment intelligently.
Click to expand...

Seems like they are purposely obfuscating what the program is with that name. Even the cities page on it is full of jargon.

But it seems like it's to deal with hoarders.
"SPIDER is involved in situations involving the chronic hoarding of animals, possessions and refuse; multiple property standard and fire code violations; bed bug and other pest infestations."
 
rbt said:
1) The prisoner isn't impacted by the local city council, despite the town being the primary residence of the prisoner. Garbage pickup, parades, street maintenance, snow clearing, slow-traffic-zones, and all the other things the municipality does don't really apply. If there was a vote for warden rather than mayor, that would be applicable to the prisoner.

2) The prison, in a few cases, has a larger population than the town the prisoner is located in.
Click to expand...
The point is that no one should be deprived of the right to vote, not whether or not the city provides services that are useful for inmates. The situation inside correctional facilities is something else altogether.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top