[W. K. Lis]

There are still councillors who think they live in the country and don't need sidewalks.

And NOTHING should change.

 

[Bradley Libralesso]

There are still councillors who think they live in the country and don't need sidewalks.

And NOTHING should change.

Lol I remember once I was walking to some park near downsview and the sidewalk had big chunks of concrete missing that were later seen on the grass beside the sidewalk. Literally looked like someone had bombed the sidewalks.

But you are right, too many councillors believe in that small town country mentality. They are completely oblivious to how a city should be designed and run.

 

[DSC]

But you are right, too many councillors believe in that small town country mentality. They are completely oblivious to how a city should be designed and run.

Though I agree with you it is worth remembering that all parts of the City are NOT the same and what works in Etobicoke will not work Downtown. That is what the Complete Streets Guidelines tried to do but if it takes a couple of additional 'models' then ....

 

[Bradley Libralesso]

Though I agree with you it is worth remembering that all parts of the City are NOT the same and what works in Etobicoke will not work Downtown. That is what the Complete Streets Guidelines tried to do but if it takes a couple of additional 'models' then ....

That is true, the city is very different from end to end. But do you think that the design of certain areas like Etobicoke, Scarborough and low density areas throughout the city (there are many), are beneficial to the city as a whole? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm legitimately interested in these ideas of urban planning.

In my opinion, I understand that people in this city do like that suburb feel; however, just because they like it doesn't mean it is a good thing. The book Geography of Nowhere does a great job of summing up the negative impacts of suburbs, but from my own viewpoint the use of land is the worst part. Cities are made to be dense, so that it can limit the amount of areas a government needs to provide services to. The more sprawl, the more cost to the government and the shittier our services become.

This leads into traffic, a pretty obvious problem when large tracks of land are only zoned for houses, people need cars to get everywhere. More organic zoning bylaws like in East Asia, allow for business and residential to intermingle and creates less car traffic. Not only that, it cheapens he price to open a business, as there is more space available to do it in.

Thirdly, and specific to the GTA, suburbs take up a lot of the usable farm land in Ontario. Brampton used to be filled with farms, now it's subdivisions. Getting rid of those farms creates less jobs and overall hurts our cultural scene. Many of the top michillen starred restaurants used local farms for their food. Not to mention the prominence of farm markets in cities like Mexico City, which also creates a thriving food scene and a lively city. By pushing our farms to outside the GTA, we make it that much harder to achieve those things. If we had built up instead of out, we may have been able to preserve farmland that was really close to the city.

 

[pman]

Though I agree with you it is worth remembering that all parts of the City are NOT the same and what works in Etobicoke will not work Downtown. That is what the Complete Streets Guidelines tried to do but if it takes a couple of additional 'models' then ....

All the more reason to deamalgamate: the gap between the core and the suburbs is too great. Why should we be incapable of making any progress on our public realm in the old City because we're yoked to a bunch of suburbs whose councillors don't even like sidewalks? Or bike lanes. Or streetcars. Or basing transit decisions on data and analysis, as Councillor Matlow's failed motion would have required.

 

[DSC]

All the more reason to deamalgamate: the gap between the core and the suburbs is too great. Why should we be incapable of making any progress on our public realm in the old City because we're yoked to a bunch of suburbs whose councillors don't even like sidewalks? Or bike lanes. Or streetcars. Or basing transit decisions on data and analysis, as Councillor Matlow's failed motion would have required.

I doubt that de-amalgamation will ever happen BUT it should be possible to greatly increase the powers of the Community Councils and THAT would allow the (very different) suburbs to differ from 'downtown".

 

[Bradley Libralesso]

All the more reason to deamalgamate: the gap between the core and the suburbs is too great. Why should we be incapable of making any progress on our public realm in the old City because we're yoked to a bunch of suburbs whose councillors don't even like sidewalks? Or bike lanes. Or streetcars. Or basing transit decisions on data and analysis, as Councillor Matlow's failed motion would have required.

It's possible we may not need to deamalgamate. Although it would be helpful in pushing urban issues through, it is possible that through consistent change in the core it can slowly overtake the more suburban areas and make them urban. Look at Tokyo, the city has a total of near 9,000 sq feet (Toronto is less than 2,000) and there is not an inch that doesn't feel urban even in the suburbs. because even in the core of the city, there are still many areas that feel suburban. You take one turn off a main road and you are walking through 45 minutes of houses. While I like houses as much as the next Torontonian, but if you look at a zoning map of Toronto the bylaws have reserved 90% of the available land to houses or those 3 story apartment buildings. While this is mostly true of the outer core, even places in the inner core are zoned like this, and it is not really viable in a city that grows by 100,000 people a year. In my opinion we need to work slowly from the core outwards to change the state of places like Etobicoke and Scarborough, because we can't get rid of them now that we have them.

 

[Palma]

and it is not really viable in a city that grows by 100,000 people a year. In my opinion we need to work slowly from the core outwards to change the state of places like Etobicoke and Scarborough, because we can't get rid of them now that we have them.

The city of toronto does not grow by 100,000 every year. The latest stats shows 100,000+ in the last 5 years meaning 20,000 per year. The 100,000 a year is wrong and it keeps being circulated as if the truth.

 

[Bradley Libralesso]

The city of toronto does not grow by 100,000 every year. The latest stats shows 100,000+ in the last 5 years meaning 20,000 per year. The 100,000 a year is wrong and it keeps being circulated as if the truth.

You are right the growth of the city from 2011-2016 is 20,000 a year. Most people when they quote this number are going off the GTA population rise predictions given by the government of Ontario shown here: by http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/#s2

Anyways even 20,000 is a large number number per year as it is, let alone if it does jump to 100,000 like the government is predicting. Say a condo holds 1000 people in it, that's an average of 20 condos a year that need to be built. We probably build that much per year in the GTA maybe a few less some years and a few more in others. Now if it does go to 100,000 a year like predictions, we are going to be falling behind. That will just be a mess if it does go up, and given their reasons for the prediction I don't really see why it wouldn't go up; and we will be terribly unprepared on many fronts.

 

[salsa]

Another round of Scarborough subway debate returns to city hall today. This thread will get real busy. Here's an appetizer:

 

[salsa]

What a day. So to recap,


Neethan Shan

• The subway would save his residents an hour off round-trip commute times, which is not based at all in fact or evidence from staff

Glenn De Baeremaeker

• Took issue with this being called a one-stop subway extension.
• Read a list of subway stations that will be less busy than one proposed for STC. "Should they be closed?"
• We shouldn't listen to urban planners, because previous urban planners bungled the design of STC
• "Rosedale subway station. You know, where all the rich white people live"
• On staff cost estimates: "if anything, they're highballing the project numbers"
• Vaughan is getting a subway so Scarborough should
• Daily ridership would be 62,000 at STC (actual number from staff is 30,800)
• Called out councillor Carroll for voting against subway, thus not wanting transit for Scarborough

Pasternak

• It's "snarky" for people to refer to SSE as a "one-stop subway"
• "No one calls the work at Union Station a zero-stop subway"
• "Does anyone need a business case before building a hospital or a clean-water source?"

Perruzza

• Used to support the subway, now opposes it
• It "basically breaks the bank" on available funds for Scarborough transit, then mentioned that he supports extending the Sheppard subway. So much for that argument.

Crawford

• Asked if deputant is aware that city planners have recommended SSE as best option (no they didn't)

Shiner

• Subway will make STC the "jewel" of east Toronto

Lee

• Supports the subway
• [insert illiterate babble here] which I do not wish to repeat

Nunziata

• Eglinton Crosstown costs way more than subway that was cancelled (they're totally different projects)
• Opposition to subway has "nothing to do with the cost, they're just opposed to the Scarborough subway"
• Opponents want to cancel it and do nothing in its place

John Tory

• Accused critics of using methods like poisons tipped umbrellas and exploding cigars to stop the SSE
• On ridership potential: "It's not as if there's going to be sort of tumble-weed rolling down the platform"
• "It's time to say to Scarborough you are included in One Toronto." Return of campaign slogans.
• Wants the private sector to pay for the bus terminal
• Asked Scarborough resident to speculate how much time the subway will save him
• Reporter later asked why he would ask residents to speculate on travel time savings despite what city staff say and have reported
• His response: he will not discount belief of residents that they might save 20-25 minutes, says their "lived experience" part of the "evidence"

 

[Bradley Libralesso]

My personal favourite.

• We shouldn't listen to urban planners, because previous urban planners bungled the design of STC

 

[Towered]

What a day. So to recap,


Neethan Shan

• The subway would save his residents an hour off round-trip commute times, which is not based at all in fact or evidence from staff

Glenn De Baeremaeker

• Took issue with this being called a one-stop subway extension.
• Read a list of subway stations that will be less busy than one proposed for STC. "Should they be closed?"
• We shouldn't listen to urban planners, because previous urban planners bungled the design of STC
• "Rosedale subway station. You know, where all the rich white people live"
• On staff cost estimates: "if anything, they're highballing the project numbers"
• Vaughan is getting a subway so Scarborough should
• Daily ridership would be 62,000 at STC (actual number from staff is 30,800)
• Called out councillor Carroll for voting against subway, thus not wanting transit for Scarborough

Pasternak

• It's "snarky" for people to refer to SSE as a "one-stop subway"
• "No one calls the work at Union Station a zero-stop subway"
• "Does anyone need a business case before building a hospital or a clean-water source?"

Perruzza

• Used to support the subway, now opposes it
• It "basically breaks the bank" on available funds for Scarborough transit, then mentioned that he supports extending the Sheppard subway. So much for that argument.

Crawford

• Asked if deputant is aware that city planners have recommended SSE as best option (no they didn't)

Shiner

• Subway will make STC the "jewel" of east Toronto

Lee

• Supports the subway
• [insert illiterate babble here] which I do not wish to repeat

Nunziata

• Eglinton Crosstown costs way more than subway that was cancelled (they're totally different projects)
• Opposition to subway has "nothing to do with the cost, they're just opposed to the Scarborough subway"
• Opponents want to cancel it and do nothing in its place

John Tory

• Accused critics of using methods like poisons tipped umbrellas and exploding cigars to stop the SSE
• On ridership potential: "It's not as if there's going to be sort of tumble-weed rolling down the platform"
• "It's time to say to Scarborough you are included in One Toronto." Return of campaign slogans.
• Wants the private sector to pay for the bus terminal
• Asked Scarborough resident to speculate how much time the subway will save him
• Reporter later asked why he would ask residents to speculate on travel time savings despite what city staff say and have reported
• His response: he will not discount belief of residents that they might save 20-25 minutes, says their "lived experience" part of the "evidence"

And these are the people running our city. It's exactly this kind of consistent stupidity and self-serving dishonesty that are causing me to increasingly disengage from politics.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Scarborough Centre Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker may need to have a muzzle put on him sometimes. From link:

Toronto dog collar ban barks up the wrong tree, dog lovers say

The bylaw bans choke collars and choke chains (also known as slip collars), pronged collars and “any similar device.”

Toronto dog lovers are divided after a controversial new bylaw banning some dog collars kicked in this month.

The bylaw bans anyone from using choke collars and choke chains (also known as slip collars), pronged collars and “any similar device” on dogs. Police dogs and martingale collars are both exempt from the bylaw.

What began as a city staff recommendation to ban the use of such collars for tethering was expanded into a blanket ban that city council unanimously accepted. It’s a move that took many dog trainers, owners and dog organizations by surprise.

Jennifer Legere, a Toronto dog trainer, says the banned collars are key when it comes to keeping some dogs, their owners and the public safe.

“They are able to stop a powerful, determined dog (who) can overpower its owner. With this, it gives you the leverage that you need,” she said. “It is an effective tool, despite what it looks like. It doesn’t matter. The dog doesn’t care what it looks like.”

Sitting in a park with her terrier, Hamlet, Legere explains how the collars work.

The choke chain, which Legere calls “a loaded word,” opting to call it a “slip chain” instead, works by tightening when a dog tries to get ahead of its owner. Similarly, the prongs in the pronged collar push against the dog when it gets out of control.

“(Dogs) respond very well when they’re used properly.”

Not everyone agrees.

Scarborough Centre Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker was one of 33 councillors who unanimously voted in favour of the bylaw.

“I’ve formed my opinion based on what experts have told me,” he said. “I think that certainly pronged collars and choke collars are actually very painful and very inhumane, so I simply think that’s not a way we should be treating animals in 2017.”

De Baeremaeker acknowledged he’s received concerns from dog trainers, but said there are other collars they can use, including the martingale collar.

“It’s my opinion that if you can’t control a large animal you shouldn’t buy a large animal,” said De Baeremaeker.

“Dogs come from the size of a teacup to the size of a small pony so if you’re not able to handle a really large dog you shouldn’t buy a really large dog.”​

That’s not always the case, though, says Legere.

“Imagine an arthritic person. Imagine a person with limited mobility, pain, limited strength or limited balance with a large powerful breed. Or somebody who has an injury . . . the strongest man can be made weak, but your dog still needs to walk, your dog still needs exercise and stimulation . . .

“If this ban persists, there are going to be more frustrated dogs that can’t get walks. Dogs aren’t people. Dogs are dogs and if people can’t control them because their tools are taken away, you can connect the dots.”

Not every dog owner has used these types of collars responsibly, however. Late last year, a Toronto woman pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after her dog was found with prongs from a training collar embedded in his neck after he grew and the collar wasn’t changed.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wouldn’t comment on the ban and whether it was the right decision for Toronto, but said it doesn’t “encourage the use of any device that could put an animal in distress.”

“We support positive reinforcement training and suggest pet owners consider consulting a trainer for assistance if they are having trouble with their dog pulling on the leash,” said Melissa Kosowan, senior communications manager for the OSPCA.

Advocates for the collars say any tool can be misused, and suggest a compromise could be to require dog owners to take a class before being permitted to use them.

The Canadian Kennel Club was “surprised” by the ban, said Naomi Kane, the club’s chair of the Responsible Dog Ownership Committee, adding it is reaching out to the city to try to resolve the issue. The choke-chain ban, which club members use in dog shows, will affect shows held in Toronto.

“We’ve got a lot of very upset dog owners saying, ‘We’re not dog abusers, we’re not doing anything terrible.’ Our dogs are really well cared for and loved and respected. I think this is the problem with people that don’t understand. They’re trying to do a good thing, I understand that. But I don’t think they understand dogs or what these collars really are.”

Beyond dog shows, the collars are an essential tool for keeping people’s precious pooches under control, Kane says.

“It’s all well and good to say everything should be positive, but dogs sometimes have their own ideas and we live in a very urban society and we do need to control them. I am not an advocate in any way for hurting dogs or causing them distress.”

Dog owners caught using the banned collars risk being ticketed and would face an as yet undetermined fine.

 

[Bradley Libralesso]

Scarborough Centre Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker may need to have a muzzle put on him sometimes. From link:

Toronto dog collar ban barks up the wrong tree, dog lovers say

The bylaw bans choke collars and choke chains (also known as slip collars), pronged collars and “any similar device.”

Scarborough Centre Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker was one of 33 councillors who unanimously voted in favour of the bylaw.

“I’ve formed my opinion based on what experts have told me,” he said. “I think that certainly pronged collars and choke collars are actually very painful and very inhumane, so I simply think that’s not a way we should be treating animals in 2017.”

De Baeremaeker acknowledged he’s received concerns from dog trainers, but said there are other collars they can use, including the martingale collar.

“It’s my opinion that if you can’t control a large animal you shouldn’t buy a large animal,” said De Baeremaeker.

“Dogs come from the size of a teacup to the size of a small pony so if you’re not able to handle a really large dog you shouldn’t buy a really large dog.”​

City councillors. Toronto's answer to a question no one asked.