News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

The cities- upper or lower tier, are powerless to stop the province. All these motions do is generate talk but we have a PC majority and until the MPPs and the party policies are swayed, this will continue.

The next provincial election will be the main vote on this project. All these oppositions are just background noise.

I am almost certain this project will remain on the PC's agenda for the 2022 election but hey, who knows.
 
DirectionNorth said:
Think about it. If cities in the GTA are starting to pass motions against this highway, that probably says something about the popularity of the highway. Mississauga, Vaughan, and Toronto all oppose it.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Brampton also oppose (they want their grand urban boulevard/traffic gutter instead, right)?
 
Haljackey said:
The cities- upper or lower tier, are powerless to stop the province. All these motions do is generate talk but we have a PC majority and until the MPPs and the party policies are swayed, this will continue.

The next provincial election will be the main vote on this project. All these oppositions are just background noise.

I am almost certain this project will remain on the PC's agenda for the 2022 election but hey, who knows.
Click to expand...
I'm sort of doubtful this will happen given the construction schedule.

The EA isn't supposed to be completed until 2022, and even then I don't believe MTO plans to move to build it right away.

Even if we presume the PCs will opt to fund it immediately, and that they get another 4 year majority, MTO will be lucky to get the construction contract signed by 2026.
 
ADRM said:
Except that it really, really does -- call me crazy but I think people in Toronto care about things like housing affordability, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of urban sprawl, waste of their tax dollars, and so on.

It is flatly excellent news that an array of municipalities that stand to be directly negatively impacted by this mess of a proposal have stood up and called out the massive folly of it.
Click to expand...
I would prefer if they dealt with their own business. They deferred their agenda to April last night because they didn't have enough time. They need to focus on those things where they can affect change. They can call Doug Ford on their own time.

Toronto care about things like housing affordability, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of urban sprawl, waste of their tax dollars, and so on. >>> Let them focus on those things within the Toronto borders where they don't do enough regarding these issues.
 
TorPronto said:
I would prefer if they dealt with their own business. They deferred their agenda to April last night because they didn't have enough time. They need to focus on those things where they can affect change. They can call Doug Ford on their own time.

Toronto care about things like housing affordability, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of urban sprawl, waste of their tax dollars, and so on. >>> Let them focus on those things within the Toronto borders where they don't do enough regarding these issues.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Fully all of those elements carry impacts within the confines of the City of Toronto proper.

You think Toronto wouldn't suffer if Pearson closed just because it's in Mississauga? That's just now how things work.
 
ADRM said:
Except that it really, really does -- call me crazy but I think people in Toronto care about things like housing affordability, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of urban sprawl, waste of their tax dollars, and so on.
Click to expand...
This city's inability to address housing in a meaningful way has been a direct contributor to urban sprawl. If Toronto/Torontonians really cared about all that, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to protect single family homes at all costs, to the point that it's almost impossible to build even a little duplex or triplex. Taking a worthless grandstanding vote against a highway outside the city is easy. To actually get to work on enacting some sensible planning reform, requires a bit more effort.
 
ADRM said:
You are missing the point. Fully all of those elements carry impacts within the confines of the City of Toronto proper.

You think Toronto wouldn't suffer if Pearson closed just because it's in Mississauga? That's just now how things work.
Click to expand...
I understand the point. What I'm saying is they decide to take a stance on something that they have no control over. They can lobby behind the scenes instead of taking up council time with this. They didn't have enough time and deferred agenda items to April. The agenda items, what they are supposed to focused on, that need to completed first. Torontonians need the councilors to work through their agenda items which affect Torontonians directly. It's a statement of focus on what you have control over.
This was simply grandstanding. They say don't build the 413 while rebuilding the Gardner east.
 
salsa said:
This city's inability to address housing in a meaningful way has been a direct contributor to urban sprawl. If Toronto/Torontonians really cared about all that, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to protect single family homes at all costs, to the point that it's almost impossible to build even a little duplex or triplex. Taking a worthless grandstanding vote against a highway outside the city is easy. To actually get to work on enacting some sensible planning reform, requires a bit more effort.
Click to expand...
It's purely virtue signaling. If they really opposed the highway, they would be opening up the yellowbelt.
 
afransen said:
It's purely virtue signaling. If they really opposed the highway, they would be opening up the yellowbelt.
Click to expand...
The problem is that people don't go "We don't like urban sprawl - instead we should build houses in this location". They just go "we don't like urban sprawl! ban it!". Then the next day complain about how expensive it is to buy real estate an how young people today can't afford a detached home any more.
 
TorPronto said:
I understand the point. What I'm saying is they decide to take a stance on something that they have no control over. They can lobby behind the scenes instead of taking up council time with this. They didn't have enough time and deferred agenda items to April. The agenda items, what they are supposed to focused on, that need to completed first. Torontonians need the councilors to work through their agenda items which affect Torontonians directly. It's a statement of focus on what you have control over.
This was simply grandstanding. They say don't build the 413 while rebuilding the Gardner east.
Click to expand...
The council vote was effectively lobbying.

Further, I don't believe the City has the mechanism to "lobby" the province on a matter without a council vote in the first place. How would the City's representatives claim that this is the stance of the City, when the municipal government hasn't even expressed that opinion via a vote?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top