[zang]

Rob Ford and John Tory broke the city over many years, and yet Olivia Chow is supposed to fix all (with an antagonist provincial government) in 18 months?

(Yes, I'm being a bit hyperbolic using "broke")

Made broke through austerity and repeated insufficient revenue generation certainly applies.

 

[PL1]

Made broke through austerity and repeated insufficient revenue generation certainly applies.

Austerity, and perpetually kicking improvements down the road (which was related to austerity). My favourite example is how the city proudly trumpets on social media how many potholes they've filled, when this is really due to deferred maintenance projects

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

She could have adopted the strong mayor powers - she refused (when you know her opponents will gleefully do so), and in so doing refused to own the issues and suck the oxygen out of her opponents. That will come back to haunt her.

AoD

 

[zang]

She could have adopted the strong mayor powers - she refused (when you know her opponents will gleefully do so), and in so doing refused to own the issues and suck the oxygen out of her opponents. That will come back to haunt her.

AoD

Sadly, I think any left-leaning mayor who uses the powers will suddenly find themselves on the bad side of Doug Ford and his Clapping Seals in parliament, even moreso than has already happened. Doug offered those powers to Tory, not Chow.

Ford's legislative response hammer used against anything he dislikes has—I'm sure—had a chilling effect on Chow making any big moves. Incrementalism isn't going to work here though, and standing up vociferously to Ford is unfortunately, necessary. I know I've already said this, but Toronto really needs some positive intervention at the federal level, but it's quite obvious that Carney is closer to a Harper than a Layton.

 

[Northern Light]

She could have adopted the strong mayor powers - she refused (when you know her opponents will gleefully do so), and in so doing refused to own the issues and suck the oxygen out of her opponents. That will come back to haunt her.

AoD

I'm not convinced this is the case.

She hasn't lost many critical votes at Council.

The times she has, if you count votes, such as on the sixplex as-of-right, her opponents had the numbers to override her Mayor edicts.

Its tempting at times to push maximum change at maximum speed, but this can lead to maximum push back and a quick election loss.

 

[taal]

Here's a thought - not for this next election of course - but I wonder what would happen if Doug Ford ran ?

 

[txlseries4]

Incrementalism isn't going to work here though, and standing up vociferously to Ford is unfortunately, necessary.

I don’t see how this would work out well at all given an apathetic electorate and a system that allows the province to simply override municipalities or even dissolve them. Personally I want a mayor who will stand up and tell him go to hell, but I also believe he’d respond with enough of these pinko commies I’ll show you who’s the fuckin’ boss

 

[rbt]

Ford's legislative response hammer used against anything he dislikes has—I'm sure—had a chilling effect on Chow making any big moves. Incrementalism isn't going to work here though, and standing up vociferously to Ford is unfortunately, necessary.

This was built-in to the strong mayor powers legislation upfront. They can only be used on items that advance a small number of provincially provided goals.

I know I've already said this, but Toronto really needs some positive intervention at the federal level, but it's quite obvious that Carney is closer to a Harper than a Layton.

The federal government has zero authority in provincial matters, and cities are a department of the province. At best the federal government could take the same approach as health-care and leverage contract law by providing provinces with gobs of money with strings attached.

 

[txlseries4]

Meant to post this Saturday but got busy. Saw the headline of The Star's story ("A new poll shows why Olivia Chow might not get re-elected — despite her high approval numbers") and wanted to see what the poll actually said, and I think it tells a slightly different story, so below are the slides from questions specific to the mayor. 33% election support outlook when she won in 2023 with 37% doesn't seem that alarming. More than a year out from the election I doubt most of these numbers are anything to trust anyway

The poll: https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/toronto-city-poll-what-residents-think-about

"Q: To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the performance of the following:"

Approval/disapproval breakdown

"Q: If you were to vote for a mayor of Toronto tomorrow, who would you choose?"

 

[zang]

Meant to post this Saturday but got busy. Saw the headline of The Star's story ("A new poll shows why Olivia Chow might not get re-elected — despite her high approval numbers") and wanted to see what the poll actually said, and I think it tells a slightly different story, so below are the slides from questions specific to the mayor. 33% election support outlook when she won in 2023 with 37% doesn't seem that alarming. More than a year out from the election I doubt most of these numbers are anything to trust anyway

Basically Chow would win right now with a plurality, against a nebulous "some other candidate" and trouncing the previous mayor. All with only a difference from the previous election remarkably close to the poll's ±3.8% margin of error.

 

[zang]

This was built-in to the strong mayor powers legislation upfront. They can only be used on items that advance a small number of provincially provided goals.

Yes, but it's the interpretation of the province's goals that can come into play. Would building government-funded apartments for the homeless population count towards housing goals? Would building out ROWs for all streetcar lines count towards transport or infrastructure goals?

The federal government has zero authority in provincial matters, and cities are a department of the province. At best the federal government could take the same approach as health-care and leverage contract law by providing provinces with gobs of money with strings attached.

We are in dire need of reopening the constitution. The notwithstanding clause is being abused like crazy these days, and our major cities have become the economic heart of their respective provinces with dwindling power and representation. I know we're afraid it'll give Quebec an out, but they're going to head in that direction whether we appease them in the constitution or not.

 

[picard102]

We are in dire need of reopening the constitution. The notwithstanding clause is being abused like crazy these days, and our major cities have become the economic heart of their respective provinces with dwindling power and representation. I know we're afraid it'll give Quebec an out, but they're going to head in that direction whether we appease them in the constitution or not.

No one wants to reopen it because it would only get worse. No province is going to give up the notwithstanding clause, and they have even less reason release control of cities.

 

[rbt]

Yes, but it's the interpretation of the province's goals that can come into play. Would building government-funded apartments for the homeless population count towards housing goals?

Yes, the province has been very specific on that point. If council voted to turn a proposed housing site into a park instead [using 3rd party donated funds], the mayor could veto that and the province would support the mayor.

Government-funded apartments are a budget item and the mayor needs support of council for construction.

Would building out ROWs for all streetcar lines count towards transport or infrastructure goals?

Yes, but you'll find the powers don't actually help here. The strong mayor veto only applies to non-budget related items and damn near anything to do with roadways is a budget item. Even adding or removing a single parking space impacts the budget, as does expanding or reducing CafeTO.

Massive debt and infrastructure backlogs prevent this type of thing, not the province. Ford would almost certainly step-in to require the city preserve the same number of vehicle lanes; they've shown zero objections to roadway widening which create space for a ROW (see Finch and Hurontario for ROWs Ford funded).

We are in dire need of reopening the constitution. The notwithstanding clause is being abused like crazy these days, and our major cities have become the economic heart of their respective provinces with dwindling power and representation. I know we're afraid it'll give Quebec an out, but they're going to head in that direction whether we appease them in the constitution or not.

Not sure how reopening the constitution helps; a province of Greater Toronto would almost immediately elect Ford as premier. A province only of Municipality of Toronto would have massive struggle to make changes without getting crushed by the 905 region. Corporate tax revenue seems like it would be a savior until you realize federal Equalization still applies and the remaining not-Toronto would be a substantial recipient; and now has zero incentive to assist with GO or public housing or TTC repairs. There's also a non-trivial chance someone like Ford, Tory, or Lastman would be Premier of a 416-only province too in addition to those constraints.


What has been working is encouraging the 905 to urbanize and experience similar challenges as 416. Suddenly they vote differently. A Harris style "Down with Cities" candidate isn't electable in Ontario today.

 

[Richard White]

First let me say, I'm with @PL1 above. I don't think Olivia has been given a fair chance overall as this point. Yes, she has disappointed on a couple of files, that's pretty much a given for any mayor though, especially one with high expectations.

Now, that doesn't get her a free pass; and she needs to show material progress before, but especially during the upcoming budget. But I think any read that she's been a disaster is just out to lunch.

Personally, I do think that Olivia could be doing better but that is also because there were lofty expectations for her.

I always say, the issue is not with the leader but with the people underneath them. In politics, the leader is only one vote however the people under them make the decisions.

Having said that, some members of council are inept and only win by virtue of being the incumbent. The constituents in their wards may not know better and vote them in. What we need are term limits to bring fresh air into things.

Stephen Holday, Frances Nunziata, Paula Fletcher among others have been there far too long and have gummed up the works in some cases. Paula Fletcher from my understanding went so far as to veto the expansion of the Broadview station loop in order to save a couple parking spots.

Olivia is not entirely to blame for our current situation but her vision is not helping much either.

 

[Northern Light]

Having said that, some members of council are inept and only win by virtue of being the incumbent. The constituents in their wards may not know better and vote them in. What we need are term limits to bring fresh air into things.

Stephen Holday, Frances Nunziata, Paula Fletcher among others have been there far too long and have gummed up the works in some cases. Paula Fletcher from my understanding went so far as to veto the expansion of the Broadview station loop in order to save a couple parking spots.

This part I'm content to agree with; I'm not a huge fan of narrow term limits (one or two) because I think there's value in institutional memory and allowing people to democratically re-elect someone they think is doing a good job makes sense to me.

However, people that have near lifetime sinecures are overstaying. There's a point where its inherently undemocratic to have one, un-ending point of view dominating public discourse.

The exact time limit isn't something that definitive in my mind, but with 4 year terms, I think a 4-term limit would be more than fair. At some point you need to share the stage.

All three councillors you mention were probably past their best-before date the day they were elected, but regardless are in dire need of being replaced today.

I would add to that, Councillors Mantas, Bradford, Perruzza, Colle, Crisanti, Burnside, Pasternak, Thompson and although new, Kandavel as well. I think Councillor Myers is well intended, but he's been a pretty big disappointment at TTC.