[dt_toronto_geek]

What a waste of tax payers money. I use Jarvis and Sherbourne every day, just so that embarrassment of a mayor could get his way, he's spent millions to put separate cycling lanes on Sherbourne, not to mention inconveniencing everyone with the construction, which is still going on, all so he could remove the bike lanes on Jarvis so he could get his way, and tell cyclist they cant complain because he built them new lanes, what a moron! If he'd have just left the ones on Jarvis alone, it wouldn't have cost the tax payer one cent, but just to protect his over inflated ego, he's spent millions, this from Mr. End of the Gravytrain. I despise that SOB more and more every day, why hasn't he been fired yet?

Sherbourne St. needed a lot of work beyond regrading/repaving, the bike lane upgrades were a tiny fraction of the cost to what needed to be done on Sherbourne.

^ ^ ^
i dont think this is the right action.

The point was to draw media attention to the outrageous cost of removing much needed bike lanes ($1.31 million of waste to be exact) and turning Jarvis St. back into a five lane highway and one lane of on-street parking against the wishes of the local Councillor and without any community/BIA/NA consultation. The Sherbourne bike lanes are also supposed to be completed before the Jarvis lanes were scheduled to be removed, and they are not.

http://link.brightcove.com/services...4dnnHlkeNrGYvAJ0W5xQRYlG4&bctid=1967162450001

 

[Glen]

I'm sorry, I just can't get worked up about the difference between a 3.4% Miller increase and a 2.5% Ford increase. It's just petty, petulant politics. Compare to a Mississauga 9% hike, or even more in small townships.

The reference was to spending, not taxing. Miller's first budget was 6.65 billion in 2004. His last was 9.2 billion in 2010. Looking at tax increases misses the the fact that a large portion of operating expenses were paid for by using reserve funds.

 

[bobbob911]

The reference was to spending, not taxing. Miller's first budget was 6.65 billion in 2004. His last was 9.2 billion in 2010. Looking at tax increases misses the the fact that a large portion of operating expenses were paid for by using reserve funds.

The reference was to both spending and taxing. And now you have a legitimate gripe - the use of reserve or one-time funding to balance the books, which I agree was not good policy. It would have been better to increase property taxes to cover this average 4.7% budget increase over 7 years (to get from 6.65 to 9.2).

Then again, Ford completely raided the remaining funds to support an irresponsible flat budget his first year, so I'm not sure how you can point to him being any better in this respect!

 

[Glen]

Then again, Ford completely raided the remaining funds to support an irresponsible flat budget his first year, so I'm not sure how you can point to him being any better in this respect!

I didn't.

 

[diminutive]

Way too much attention gets spent on the individual characteristics of our Mayors and not enough on the institutional structures. The lack of municipal political parties, the parochial ward elections, the lack of strong executive powers and so forth are at the root of Toronto's awful Mayors. Our Mayors don't have clear responsibilities, they don't command majorities amongst council, they aren't required to have well developed platforms and so on.

It's almost like a weird dwarf version of the US President; there's no clear understanding of what a Mayor's job even is, so they get turned into a mini culture war over what the City ought to be.

Rob Ford may be fat and boorish, but there are tons of NDP MP/MPPs who are the same. The difference is that they stand on clear ideological platforms which allow debate to transcend their personal details. Ultimately you get people like McGuinty or Harper who, far as the electorate can tell, have no personality beyond their policies.

 

[ttk77]

Way too much attention gets spent on the individual characteristics of our Mayors and not enough on the institutional structures. The lack of municipal political parties, the parochial ward elections, the lack of strong executive powers and so forth are at the root of Toronto's awful Mayors. Our Mayors don't have clear responsibilities, they don't command majorities amongst council, they aren't required to have well developed platforms and so on.

It's almost like a weird dwarf version of the US President; there's no clear understanding of what a Mayor's job even is, so they get turned into a mini culture war over what the City ought to be.

Rob Ford may be fat and boorish, but there are tons of NDP MP/MPPs who are the same. The difference is that they stand on clear ideological platforms which allow debate to transcend their personal details. Ultimately you get people like McGuinty or Harper who, far as the electorate can tell, have no personality beyond their policies.

No way do I want party politics in our municipal government. I want my councillor to represent me, not a party line. Political parties are fine when they advocate for larger scale ideas that affect large groups across a nation or province, but the work of the municipal government is much more local and sometimes even individual. Changing the structure of our municipal governance may provide for some efficiencies, but it won't deal with what in my opinion are the two major factors here - the urban/suburban divide and the indifference people seem to have towards city hall unless something it does inconveniences them.

You are right in one respect though. Rob Ford, as awful as he is, is just a symptom of a much larger set of problems in Toronto politics.

 

[Lenser]

Put me down as another who loathes the idea of official party politics at the council level. There's already enough partisanship without it. We're saddled with all the dismaying, utterly annoying noise and grandstanding of left/right bickering at the provincial and federal level; I just don't see party politics as being some kind of holy grail in terms of civic tools to get the job of running Toronto done.

Totally agree with ttk77's line, I want my councillor to represent me, not a party line. There's enough knee-jerk jabbering as it is in council.

 

[diminutive]

Changing the structure of our municipal governance may provide for some efficiencies, but it won't deal with what in my opinion are the two major factors here - the urban/suburban divide and the indifference people seem to have towards city hall unless something it does inconveniences them.

The urban/suburban divide is itself partly a problem of the lack of parties and direct ward elections. Since no councillor is expected to advance or adhere to a coherent platform for the City at large (let alone the urban region), their platforms are unendingly parochial. The system encourages downtown councillors to ignore the issues of the suburban voters, and encourages suburban councillors to ignore the issues of downtown voters.

I can understand why people are always leery of political parties, but they serve an important function in aggregating voter preferences and transcending individual politicians. Assuming we introduced parties, your councillor would still represent your ward, but on election day he/she would have to endorse a platform for the City as a whole. Not simply parochial issues like whether Parkdale has too many bars, or whether a particular condo is too tall.

P.S. am surprised soo many people are opposed to parties. Functioning political parties are a corner stone of democratic institutions. There is a reason why just about every major national and subnational legislature has a party system.

 

[diminutive]

Totally agree with ttk77's line, I want my councillor to represent me, not a party line. There's enough knee-jerk jabbering as it is in council.

They're not representing *you* though, they're representing whoever in their Ward yells loudest and hardest.

 

[bobbob911]

Not simply parochial issues like whether Parkdale has too many bars, or whether a particular condo is too tall.

Who would deal with these issues then? Someone needs to!

 

[ttk77]

The urban/suburban divide is itself partly a problem of the lack of parties and direct ward elections. Since no councillor is expected to advance or adhere to a coherent platform for the City at large (let alone the urban region), their platforms are unendingly parochial. The system encourages downtown councillors to ignore the issues of the suburban voters, and encourages suburban councillors to ignore the issues of downtown voters.

I can understand why people are always leery of political parties, but they serve an important function in aggregating voter preferences and transcending individual politicians. Assuming we introduced parties, your councillor would still represent your ward, but on election day he/she would have to endorse a platform for the City as a whole. Not simply parochial issues like whether Parkdale has too many bars, or whether a particular condo is too tall.

P.S. am surprised soo many people are opposed to parties. Functioning political parties are a corner stone of democratic institutions. There is a reason why just about every major national and subnational legislature has a party system.

Except that under a party system majority still rules. What happens when a suburban party get a majority and decides to spend their term in office gutting the core in favour of the suburbs. The councillors who represent these parties still don't need to represent the whole city. They need only represent the area that can get them their majority.

 

[ttk77]

They're not representing *you* though, they're representing whoever in their Ward yells loudest and hardest.

And here is where the second issue I mentioned with Toronto politics comes in. The majority is uninterested in how the city is run unless it inconveniences them. The problems with how things turn out are not the fault of the people yelling louder and harder, it's the fault of all the other people not yelling at all.

 

[diminutive]

Except that under a party system majority still rules. What happens when a suburban party get a majority and decides to spend their term in office gutting the core in favour of the suburbs. The councillors who represent these parties still don't need to represent the whole city. They need only represent the area that can get them their majority.

Yea, it's very possible a party system could be defined by an urban-suburban cleavage. The exact results would depend pretty heavily on the electoral system and such, so it's hard to give any concrete predictions of what would happen, but your scenario seems reasonable. (e.g. electing councillors at large would discourage a heavy urban-suburban cleavage...)

Anyways, assuming your scenario plays out, it would still be preferable. As long as no party (urban OR suburban) dominated election after election, you would get competition for swing wards and a resulting City-wide platform. Moreover, in Toronto, it's kind of unclear if you could get such clear suburban-urban splits. What the hell is a place like Willowdale? Or York South Weston? At the Federal and Provincial levels the 416 isn't very heterogenous, so I don't know why the gap would be soo gaping at the municipal level.

 

[canmark]

Football more important than court?

The trial began this week and is expected to run into next week. The case will likely take longer as the mayor is unavailable Wednesday and Thursday afternoons. Ford's high school football team has an important game Thursday at 2 p.m.

Sounded annoyed, Judge John Macdonald inquired several times why the court might need to adjourn Thursday afternoon — a time Ford was expected to take the stand.

“Why can't we sit tomorrow afternoon?” Macdonald asked. “I'm able to make accommodations if accommodations are necessary. Why can't we sit tomorrow?”

Tighe simply said the mayor was unavailable. The word “football” was never said.

 

[bobbob911]

And here is where the second issue I mentioned with Toronto politics comes in. The majority is uninterested in how the city is run unless it inconveniences them. The problems with how things turn out are not the fault of the people yelling louder and harder, it's the fault of all the other people not yelling at all.

Do you think Toronto is unique among all levels of government across every first world city/province/state/country in the world? Welcome to democracy

Anyways, is the complaint that Toronto's form of government prevents things from getting done? It seems to me both Miller and Lastman were able to accomplish quite a bit during their terms. Certainly, they were able to set an effective agenda. The government structure we have works when there is a competent, respected leader at the helm.