[C-mac]

I voted for him, but I've given up on Councilor "Sankofa" Moise. This renaming is such a waste of money. Close to a million dollars? Put that towards emergency housing so we can clear the parks of encampments, or anything else that addresses real issues faced by Torontonians.

Totally. It's a complete joke. What I don't understand, I heard on the news they were saying it's not going to cost tax payers. If it's not going to cost tax payers, where's the money coming from?

 

[zang]

Totally. It's a complete joke. What I don't understand, I heard on the news they were saying it's not going to cost tax payers. If it's not going to cost tax payers, where's the money coming from?

The Downtown Yonge BIA perhaps?

 

[max]

The Downtown Yonge BIA perhaps?

So a smaller group of taxpayers?

 

[zang]

So a smaller group of taxpayers?

oh FFS.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

I was on the advisory committee to rename Yonge Dundas Square. Here’s where it all went wrong​

The renaming advisory committee did not complete its work, public consultation was cancelled, and the new name for the square bears no relation to Toronto’s history.

A final advisory committee meeting scheduled for Dec. 5 was held a week later on Dec. 12. We later learned that interventions were made by Mayor Olivia Chow and Councillor Chris Moise, who met with the co-chairs and city staff.

When the committee finally met, with Mayor Chow in attendance, its members were told that one name should go forward and for the square only; public consultations would be disruptive. When city council approved a notice of motion by Moise, its passage meant the committee was effectively disbanded without any community consultation being held on the shortlist.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...cle_aa5f64d0-33f1-11ef-abf2-abb98c8b4400.html

 

[Jonny5]

When the committee finally met, with Mayor Chow in attendance, its members were told that one name should go forward and for the square only​

I can't read the paywalled story, but this statement implied they were to rename more than the square, but that's at odds with the headline. Is there an explanation in the story what was the actual scope of this committee? Was it also the street itself?

 

[zang]

I can't read the paywalled story, but this statement implied they were to rename more than the square, but that's at odds with the headline. Is there an explanation in the story what was the actual scope of this committee? Was it also the street itself?

paywall-free:


No community input into renaming square

The headline posted here was misleading. And the preceding sentence was "We later learned that interventions were made by Mayor Olivia Chow and Coun. Chris Moise, who met with the cochairs and city staff. When the committee finally met, with Mayor Chow in attendance, its members were told that one name should go forward and for the square only; public consultations would be disruptive."

Honestly, the article comes across as someone annoyed with the fact that their choice for name wasn't chosen.

And in the end a point was made to remind people it was only the square to be renamed, not the street.

 

[DSC]

oh FFS.

Where do you think BIAs get most of their money from?

 

[zang]

Where do you think BIAs get most of their money from?

Levies on property taxes on affected properties–collected by the city and distributed to the BIA. Joe Smith out in Scarborough isn't paying into the Downtown Yonge BIA outside of shopping there. My point being that it's disingenuous to use "taxpayers" like it's any average Torontonian. Unless you have other information, if the BIA is paying for it, the BIA has agreed to it.

 

[DSC]

Levies on property taxes on affected properties–collected by the city and distributed to the BIA. Joe Smith out in Scarborough isn't paying into the Downtown Yonge BIA outside of shopping there. My point being that it's disingenuous to use "taxpayers" like it's any average Torontonian. Unless you have other information, if the BIA is paying for it, the BIA has agreed to it.

Neither of us have any idea if the Yonge BIA is paying for any name change, the point is that if it is general City tax revenue or BIA dollars it is (to some degree) 'taxpayers money'. Though BIAs impose levies they also get matching funds from the City for many of their activities. Frankly, the cost is, to me, NOT the main issue - I think renaming of things is generally a waste of effort, time & money - particularly if the renaming is because of questionable historical research and this is a case where explaining WHY a street (and town) in Toronto were named after someone who had little or no connection with our City would probably have been FAR more useful.

 

[zang]

Neither of us have any idea if the Yonge BIA is paying for any name change, the point is that if it is general City tax revenue or BIA dollars it is (to some degree) 'taxpayers money'. Though BIAs impose levies they also get matching funds from the City for many of their activities. Frankly, the cost is, to me, NOT the main issue - I think renaming of things is generally a waste of effort, time & money - particularly if the renaming is because of questionable historical research and this is a case where explaining WHY a street (and town) in Toronto were named after someone who had little or no connection with our City would probably have been FAR more useful.

Complaining about one singular aspect of "taxpayer spending" is virtue signalling, that is when it's flat out not pure dog whistle. Every square of toilet paper in a government facility is "taxpayer's money"; shared resources is kind of the point of the social compact and having cities.

I'm sure there were people at the time who complained that Governor's Road was renamed Dundas Street for no apparent or pressing reason. At the very least, maps needed to be redrawn and the people educated to the change (at a time when it was much harder to do so).

But the fact is, it's moot now. And regardless of whether one agrees with the history or not, it's still being done to honour victims of the slave trade.

 

[picard102]

Wild that we're in a place where one can agree or not with historical facts and that be the rationale for government waste.

 

[zang]

Wild that we're in a place where one can agree or not with historical facts and that be the rationale for government waste.

Funny that were in a place where one could presume historical studies are more fact than interpretation.

 

[picard102]

Funny that were in a place where one could presume historical studies are more fact than interpretation.

Agreed, especially the ones falsely accusing Dundas of being pro-slavery.

 

[toaster29]

Complaining about one singular aspect of "taxpayer spending" is virtue signalling, that is when it's flat out not pure dog whistle. Every square of toilet paper in a government facility is "taxpayer's money"; shared resources is kind of the point of the social compact and having cities.

I'm sure there were people at the time who complained that Governor's Road was renamed Dundas Street for no apparent or pressing reason. At the very least, maps needed to be redrawn and the people educated to the change (at a time when it was much harder to do so).

But the fact is, it's moot now. And regardless of whether one agrees with the history or not, it's still being done to honour victims of the slave trade.

Huh? It's very much human nature to pick singular aspects of taxpayer spending and discuss it - particularly in a forum dedicated to that. That is precisely what 99% of the posts in the Politics section of this forum are about. And it tends to be what elections are about, random wedge issues are what people vote on, which are singular aspects of "taxpayer spending" as you put it. Are you implying you either have to complain about every single dollar of taxpayer money spent, or choose not to criticize anything? This is such a bizarre reaction and post.