[syn]

Depending on the definition of sad. If "sad" means Toronto will not be a leader in the world or less progressive, then I think the results will be "sad". However, I wouldn't shed any tear over that.

In the best case scenario, I think Toronto will have a leaner and meaner government, less progressive, more of a utilitarianism attitude, probably less fun. Culture and arts will suffer, but not necessarily hurt tourism. I am hoping TTC work will continue, but that's a maybe. Bike lanes may not be extended, which is unfortunate. And we will of course have strikes.

Of course, it's quite possible that we will have a hang council and nothing gets done. That's fine with me, but may not sit so well with the rest of the population.

How can that possibly be 'fine'?

 

[grey]

If it takes a poorly written article from a social rag to give you 'insight' into why Ford was voted in.. then you are the one that's out of touch.

"Voters in the Ford wards are also significantly likelier to have dropped out of high school and less likely to have completed university."
Perhaps the writer is one of those drop outs?

Many Ford voters don't think he's the best person for Mayor, but out of the crop that they had to pick from, Ford was the lesser of two evils.


Toronto will be fine, and they will find a more centrist mayor come next election.

Yikes, js97! Who shat in your cornflakes? You sound like you could use a great big hug!

Just so we're clear, I didn't accuse anyone of being out of touch. Sentence structure aside (it's EYE -- what did you expect?), he's made some great points that are of interest to this discussion. This was not an alarmist article by any means, so your reassurance that "Toronto will be fine" is unnecessary.

I eagerly await your apology!

 

[archanfel]

I wasn't referring to continued growth in an economic sense, but an overall sense. A city is a lot more than just a place where people live and get their garbage collected.

If you're views are common among Ford supporters I really do fear for this city over the next few years.

In many other ways we consider the city much more than just that.

Ah, you see, that's exact what I pointed out before the election. There are some people who love Toronto whereas for other people Toronto is nothing more than a place to live and work in. The later group won the election for Ford.

Sadly Ford hasn't even been able to outline how he'll save all this money; his numbers simply don't add up.

Neither does anybody else's number. It's not about the number, it's about the altitude.

 

[archanfel]

Yikes, js97! Who shat in your cornflakes? You sound like you could use a great big hug!

Just so we're clear, I didn't accuse anyone of being out of touch. Sentence structure aside (it's EYE -- what did you expect?), he's made some great points that are of interest to this discussion. This was not an alarmist article by any means, so your reassurance that "Toronto will be fine" is unnecessary.

I eagerly await your apology!

It's not alarmist by any mean, it's simply another article painting Ford supporters as uneducated, unsophisticated brutes. It's just people finally realized that immigrants support Ford and start to call them uneducated and unsophisticated too. Of course, even he acknowledge that Regent Park mostly voted for Smitherman and Bridle Path mostly voted for Ford. I don't see an explanation for that.

 

[Tewder]

It's not alarmist by any mean, it's simply another article painting Ford supporters as uneducated, unsophisticated brutes. It's just people finally realized that immigrants support Ford and start to call them uneducated and unsophisticated too. Of course, even he acknowledge that Regent Park mostly voted for Smitherman and Bridle Path mostly voted for Ford. I don't see an explanation for that.

You criticize the stereotypes, but turn to ones of your own yourself:

Ah, you see, that's exact what I pointed out before the election. There are some people who love Toronto whereas for other people Toronto is nothing more than a place to live and work in. The later group won the election for Ford.

I don't believe that the people who voted for Ford are as easily definable as maybe you do. There may in fact be people who love Toronto and would like there to be vision, but want to see more control of spending and waste, and who want to shake up an establishment that wasn't achieving much in terms of 'vision' anyway. Crazy, I know.

I can't believe how partisan and vitriolic the discourse around here has become. I can only imagine that those who are so deflated have not been observers of and participants in politics for very long.

 

[archanfel]

You criticize the stereotypes, but turn to ones of your own yourself:

I don't believe that the people who voted for Ford are as easily definable as maybe you do. There may in fact be people who love Toronto and would like there to be vision, but want to see more control of spending and waste, and who want to shake up an establishment that wasn't achieving much in terms of 'vision' anyway. Crazy, I know.

I can't believe how partisan and vitriolic the discourse around here has become. I can only imagine that those who are so deflated have not been observers of and participants in politics for very long.

No, you are right, it's never a clear cut. I was simply pointing out the two extreme views and the vast majority of people are somewhere in between.

 

[PinkLucy]

I can't believe how partisan and vitriolic the discourse around here has become. I can only imagine that those who are so deflated have not been observers of and participants in politics for very long.

I've despaired of the electorate for years.

 

[Tewder]

LOL, yes that's sort of my point.... and somehow we all survive.

 

[grey]

It's not alarmist by any mean, it's simply another article painting Ford supporters as uneducated, unsophisticated brutes. It's just people finally realized that immigrants support Ford and start to call them uneducated and unsophisticated too. Of course, even he acknowledge that Regent Park mostly voted for Smitherman and Bridle Path mostly voted for Ford. I don't see an explanation for that.

In fact, it doesn't. He highlights these contrasts in the article (Regent Park/Cabbagetown versus Bridle Path/Malvern). If you actually read it, I think you'll find it a lot more thoughtful and less offensive that you assume. No extreme views are presented.

 

[archanfel]

In fact, it doesn't. He highlights these contrasts in the article (Regent Park/Cabbagetown versus Bridle Path/Malvern). If you actually read it, I think you'll find it a lot more thoughtful and less offensive that you assume. No extreme views are presented.

Didn't I say that "even he acknowledge that Regent Park mostly voted for Smitherman and Bridle Path mostly voted for Ford. I don't see an explanation for that."?

 

[fouronesix]

Didn't I say that "even he acknowledge that Regent Park mostly voted for Smitherman and Bridle Path mostly voted for Ford. I don't see an explanation for that."?

The article says that Regent Park and Rosedale both voted for Smitherman, whereas the Bridle Path and Lawerence Heights voted for Ford. The point he was trying to make is that in areas of the city where average income levels are more mixed by geographic proximity, people generally voted for Smitherman, in the obverse, people generally voted for Ford. You can argue, I think validly, that Rosedale and Regent Park are just as mixed as Bridle Path and Lawrence Heights, which is to say not at all. But, if you look at the map produced in the "Three Cities Report" on income polarization in Toronto, there is some correlation between cities two and three and Ford votes, and city one and Smitherman votes. I think the point made in the EYE article that people in the inner suburbs didn't perceive the Miller Mayorality as providing funding outside of downtown may ring true in that, according to the Three Cities Report, the inner suburbs are the places most in need of investment.

Three Cities: http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/.../CUCSRB41_Hulchanski_Three_Cities_Toronto.pdf

 

[js97]

The article says that Regent Park and Rosedale both voted for Smitherman, whereas the Bridle Path and Lawerence Heights voted for Ford. The point he was trying to make is that in areas of the city where average income levels are more mixed by geographic proximity, people generally voted for Smitherman, in the obverse, people generally voted for Ford. You can argue, I think validly, that Rosedale and Regent Park are just as mixed as Bridle Path and Lawrence Heights, which is to say not at all. But, if you look at the map produced in the "Three Cities Report" on income polarization in Toronto, there is some correlation between cities two and three and Ford votes, and city one and Smitherman votes. I think the point made in the EYE article that people in the inner suburbs didn't perceive the Miller Mayorality as providing funding outside of downtown may ring true in that, according to the Three Cities Report, the inner suburbs are the places most in need of investment.

Three Cities: http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/.../CUCSRB41_Hulchanski_Three_Cities_Toronto.pdf

Great argument, but major flaw:

Smitherman won Rosedale and Regent because it's home base, his old provincial riding. Nothing more. Just like Rob Ford cleaned hous in his old ward of Etobicoke North, where there are plenty of Million dollar homes but also, plenty of government housing like that in Rexdale projects.


There is a segment of population that is too self-absorbed in their ideas that they can't accept that Rob Ford was voted in by the general public that reside in Toronto. They might not think he's the best candidate, but it's the lesser of two evils.

The same group that's trumpted 'diversity our strength' and acceptance throughout the election is now the same group that is attempmting to dissect, divide, and catagorise the Rob Ford voting block.
News for you guys, the Rob Ford voting block are Torontonians, their your neighbours, their downtowners (30% of the vote in Trinity-Spadina and Toronto Danforth. More votes than Pantalone except in ward 19).


p.s one argument can be made is the the higher level of home ownership, the more likely they voted Ford. So in this case, I would say it's the renters that are out of touch with city hall, not Torontonians in General.

Perhaps we should start slaping a Toronto Tax on Rent.

 

[grey]

The article acknowledges that, too. It's an attempt to open a constructive dialogue, rather than the knee-jerk divisive commentary we're seeing everywhere.

It's not necessary to attempt to dissect and divide the voting blocs. It's plainly visible in the geographic and demographic statistics, and nobody's being criticized for that. A large, distinct group of voters are unsatisfied with the mayor, and that's entirely the mayor's fault.

 

[adma]

Didn't I say that "even he acknowledge that Regent Park mostly voted for Smitherman and Bridle Path mostly voted for Ford. I don't see an explanation for that."?

Why did you quote your own mush-mouthed grammar ("even he acknowledge"?!?)? Along with other oddities from you like "Bank of American", it seems at times like English isn't your first language...

 

[Hairy Yeti Poo Balls]

Why did you quote your own mush-mouthed grammar ("even he acknowledge"?!?)? Along with other oddities from you like "Bank of American", it seems at times like English isn't your first language...

So he left out a 'd' in acknowledged. You understood what he was stating. Why concern yourself with something so trivial? Speaking of bad grammar, you seem to end a lot of sentences with those three dots.