News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     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 .
41 candidates! Any bets on how many are on the final ballot?

www.toronto.ca

2023 By-Election for Mayor: List of Certified Candidates & Third Party Advertisers

The following list contains website links provided by candidates and third party advertisers to the City Clerk. The City Clerk provides these links to the public strictly as a convenience to promote citizen involvement in the 2023 by-election for mayor. The Clerk does not operate or control any...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
 
Richard White said:
I can't see Gil signing up.

He likely knows he does not stand a chance in hell. He did at first until all the heavy hitters signed up. Now he has as much chance as Reginald Tull.
Click to expand...

He doesn't stand a chance in hell, and he's a little wacky, but, he has more good ideas than bad ones so I hope he runs to at least bring attention to them.
 
Wonder when the debates start and how many of the mayoralty candidates will attend? Can't see 41+, 43+, plus at any one debate.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Wonder when the debates start and how many of the mayoralty candidates will attend? Can't see 41+, 43+, plus at any one debate.
Click to expand...

I can see the main candidates with name recognition appearing.

  • Olivia Chow (if she runs)
  • Ana Bailao
  • Josh Matlow
  • Mark Saunders
  • Mitzie Hunter
  • Brad Bradford
I do not foresee Giorgio Mammolitti, Chloe Brown, Gil Penalosa (if he runs) or Chris Sky being invited to any debates. Nothing against them but they stand such a little chance I can't see them being invited.

That being said, I wonder if they will take a page from the federal election and use a certain vote threshold (or anticipated threshold based on polling) to determine who gets an invitation.
 
Northern Light said:
View attachment 468374
Click to expand...
Does he imagine spinning up a new department at the city level, on top of all the consultations and approvals would be any quicker than Housing Now has been, or is he just going to SmartTrack this and claim the existing work is his own plan?

If the city is going to become the developer, do we have the people power available to expedite these projects?
 
picard102 said:
Does he imagine spinning up a new department at the city level, on top of all the consultations and approvals would be any quicker than Housing Now has been
Click to expand...

That is what he's suggesting (a new agency); and he is advertising it would be faster........ which given that not one Housing Now site has broken ground in 5 years would not be a heroic achievement....... but I digress.

picard102 said:
If the city is going to become the developer, do we have the people power available to expedite these projects?
Click to expand...

I don't believe he is advocating the City be its own construction company or GC, but rather that it be the 'owner' and 'financier'.

Since the City's own CreateTO did much of the planning work on the Housing Now sites, yes, there are staff who can do that work, as there are inside TCHC and for that matter, some inside Toronto Planning.

Whether those staff are the right staff or can be shifted to this new agency is a different question. The City's Treasury staff are more than capable of handing the financing side, whether there are enough of them to do so.......... I would say not if the pipeline actually moved a worthwhile number of units......but there would be a lag before they had to staff up....
 
Northern Light said:
That is what he's suggesting (a new agency); and he is advertising it would be faster........ which given that not one Housing Now site has broken ground in 5 years would not be a heroic achievement....... but I digress.
Click to expand...
Is the Housing Now "progress" a symptom of the city not being the owner/financer? The one down the street from me seems to be taking forever, but a good portion of that time appeared to be dealing with NIMBY's, and then the pandemic. Does taking on that role actually speed things up?
 
picard102 said:
Is the Housing Now "progress" a symptom of the city not being the owner/financer? The one down the street from me seems to be taking forever, but a good portion of that time appeared to be dealing with NIMBY's, and then the pandemic. Does taking on that role actually speed things up?
Click to expand...

There isn't an easy answer to that.

The planning process was flawed, in a few ways, which I and @HousingNowTO have discussed.

Those aren't necessarily tied to who finances or is the ultimate owner of said housing.

That said, using, third-party financing has proved an issue here due both to rising interest rates in general and lack of cooperation from CMHC, the federal agency.

Would doing things in-house have made a difference? In a perfect world, a reduced financing cost, and potentially faster movement would have seen some shovels in the ground and maybe more affordable units.

On the other hand, that's a bit unknowable, as the same folks who managed a slow-rollout of the planning process might not have been overly expeditious in the execution phase either.
 
Last edited:
Yep, he is probably correct.
IMG_7625.jpeg
 
HousingNowTO said:
Day One assessment of Councillor Matlow's affordable-housing platform... (long-thread)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1645792151412801536
Click to expand...

Excellent review; and I think quite fair.

Offering some positivity towards stated objectives, and some of the means by which they might be obtained.
As well as lauding a certain measure of transparency in what can be achieved and how.

Equally, critiquing what one might reasonably describe as optimistic assumptions about contributions from other levels of government.....
and raising questions about some other assumptions, both clear and vague.

Right how you want to see it. Fair, but asking for further clarity and accountability.

If @HousingNowTO doesn't bring his full thread forward, I will some time tomorrow so the click-averse still get a full look at it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top