[typezed]

By all means state them. Avoid wishy-washy statements like "Changing the culture at city hall". I can only think of four direct and current effects (ie actual ways that Toronto residents have been affected) of the Ford Mayoralty:

- Cancelled Bag Tax
- Cancelled VRT
- Cancelled Jarvis Bike Lanes
- Private garbage collection for 50% of the city

His administration was able to secure a new contract without a strike. This was a big score for Ford, but may have been more Holyday's work. I also think it mostly reflects poorly on the unions, who pushed a Mayor sympathetic to their cause into a strike, seriously damaging his reputation, and caved when faced with someone who is willing to burn government to the ground to prove his point. Good reason for future candidates, even those on the left, to be very toughlove with the unions during the campaign.

 

[bobbob911]

His administration was able to secure a new contract without a strike. This was a big score for Ford, but may have been more Holyday's work. I also think it mostly reflects poorly on the unions, who pushed a Mayor sympathetic to their cause into a strike, seriously damaging his reputation, and caved when faced with someone who is willing to burn government to the ground to prove his point. Good reason for future candidates, even those on the left, to be very toughlove with the unions during the campaign.

My point is - how has that affected taxpayers (or non-taxpaying citizens) of Toronto? The answer is that it really hasn't, because the cost savings are just pissing in the wind of the Toronto budget. If Ford had really been able to "Save a Billion", the effects would be substantial and noticable. The reality is he has saved a few tens of millions, and I really can't get even the least bit excited about it.

As for the event itself (the contract negotiation), you can give some credit to Ford - Miller would not have been able to extract such concessions as quickly. But you also have to credit the economic context - if we weren't in a recession at the time Ford would not have been able to extract those concessions either.

 

[typezed]

2)I agree he was probably useful in getting the Fed cash as quickly as it came.

This is probably true, but does nothing to demonstrate Ford's effectiveness. If true it's because the Finance Minister was buddies with Ford Sr., and a family friend. Amazing that federal funding for transit in the country's largest city could be so dependent on an old boys' network.

 

[bobbob911]

This is probably true, but does nothing to demonstrate Ford's effectiveness. If true it's because the Finance Minister was buddies with Ford Sr., and a family friend. Amazing that federal funding for transit in the country's largest city could be so dependent on an old boys' network.

All agreed 100%

 

[TinyTiny]

Personally, I don't care what politicians do in their down time. As long as he doesn't have an addiction that seriously effects the performance of his job, I really could care less if he smokes crack on occasion. Many politicians are involved with hard drugs or even suffer from addictions - its just that most of them are more clever than Ford at covering their tracks.

UGH. This "I don't care if he smokes crack" argument drives me CRAZY.

You, and everyone else, should care.

1) Crack cocaine is an incredibly powerful stimulant. This guy, given his weight problem and very very likely hypertension issue (show me one picture where his face isn't as red as a baboon's ass) is one random hit on a crack pipe away from being a bloated corpse. If you care about his job as mayor and believe he is doing it well, then you should care if he's putting his life in danger every time he uses crack. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

2) "smokes crack on occasion" - not exactly easy to do, it's one of the most addictive drugs on the planet. Susceptibility to addiction is different for every person of course, some people can use 'on occasion' without becoming addicts, but certainly not everyone. And I would bet that Ford has an addictive personality (he's clearly addicted to overeating). If Ford is (or becomes) an addict, you don't think it would effect his job performance? His thought process, attention to detail, reasoning abilities? I've known addicts before and some of these people were literally out of their minds when they were using regularly. As it is, he's basically already a no-show mayor given that his whereabouts are only accounted for about 50% of the time.

3) Doing hard drugs will inevitably eventually put the user in the position where he/she is interacting with sketchy/shady/criminal elements. We've already seen this to be true with Ford, given the picture, video, wiretaps, and numerous other situations related to projects Traveler and Brazen 2. Do you really think it's no big deal if he ends up beholden to a criminal element? Do you really think it's not a big deal if the MAYOR of your city puts himself in a position where he can be extorted or influenced by criminals? What if that element has ties to organized crime/construction industry/garbage industry/corruption in the police force/prostitution, etc, etc. Do you want your mayor in a position of weakness when dealing with these institutions?

4) The bottom line is that crack cocaine possession is illegal. So if you don't mind that the mayor is using it, then you either think 1) it should be legal, or 2) you think that the mayor should not be held to the rule of law. So where do you draw the line on what illegal activities are acceptable for the mayor's office? Is it ok for him to take bribes too? Participate in prostitution? Is it OK for your mayor to send out goons to physically intimidate people he doesn't like? Which laws apply to him and which don't? Just wondering...

 

[PinkLucy]

Bravo TinyTiny. Welcome

 

[SFO]

UGH. This "I don't care if he smokes crack" argument drives me CRAZY.

YES. Thank you for articulating exactly what I think about all the cretins trying to claim that THE MAYOR OF TORONTO SMOKING CRACK is no big deal. The fact that this argument even exists perfectly frames the utterly absurd place we've gotten to, thanks to Rob Ford's lowering of the bar to depths unknown. How the hell did we get here, and why are so many people trying to convince themselves that it's OK if we stay here?

 

[syn]

My point is - how has that affected taxpayers (or non-taxpaying citizens) of Toronto? The answer is that it really hasn't, because the cost savings are just pissing in the wind of the Toronto budget. If Ford had really been able to "Save a Billion", the effects would be substantial and noticable. The reality is he has saved a few tens of millions, and I really can't get even the least bit excited about it.

As for the event itself (the contract negotiation), you can give some credit to Ford - Miller would not have been able to extract such concessions as quickly. But you also have to credit the economic context - if we weren't in a recession at the time Ford would not have been able to extract those concessions either.

Even that's arguable as his 'savings' have been offset by increased taxes/user fees in other areas.

Regarding the unions, he should get credit for things getting taken care of quickly. However, the Unions were in really no position for a fight and came to the table with concessions in tow. In exchange they did receive decent raises; it's not as though he made them cave.

 

[TinyTiny]

I edited the part about coke addicts getting their fix from peelers to make it clear I meant adult entertainment places in general. Not one specific establishment.

One store near there sells pirated DVDs too.

pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does 'peeler' mean? I'm assuming you mean strippers but I also gather it can be used to describe a crooked cop. Just looking for clarification.

 

[tariqata]

3) Doing hard drugs will inevitably eventually put the user in the position where he/she is interacting with sketchy/shady/criminal elements. We've already seen this to be true with Ford, given the picture, video, wiretaps, and numerous other situations related to projects Traveler and Brazen 2. Do you really think it's no big deal if he ends up beholden to a criminal element? Do you really think it's not a big deal if the MAYOR of your city puts himself in a position where he can be extorted or influenced by criminals? What if that element has ties to organized crime/construction industry/garbage industry/corruption in the police force/prostitution, etc, etc. Do you want your mayor in a position of weakness when dealing with these institutions?

This point is really crucial. Even if I'm unconvinced that keeping hard drugs illegal is the most effective way to reduce the harm of addiction, I'm really, really uncomfortable with civic leaders who involve themselves, even peripherally, with the criminal elements that distribute them right now, and Rob Ford sure seems to be doing that.

 

[dforthandbview]

I couldn't find any quotes but was there ever a time when Rob or Doug, possibly as candidates, made anti-drug and anti-gang comments? If so, it would be rather hypocritical if they did so while at the same time actively doing business with dealers/gang members and engaging personally in the drug trade.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Personally, I don't care what politicians do in their down time. As long as he doesn't have an addiction that seriously effects the performance of his job, I really could care less if he smokes crack on occasion

.

But since his job performance is so over-the-top cartoonishly horrendous, you should be rejecting him strictly on that basis. There's no need to look at his effed up extra curricular activities/private life, or his effed up family or their effed up acquaintances.

 

[typezed]

Even that's arguable as his 'savings' have been offset by increased taxes/user fees in other areas.

Regarding the unions, he should get credit for things getting taken care of quickly. However, the Unions were in really no position for a fight and came to the table with concessions in tow. In exchange they did receive decent raises; it's not as though he made them cave.

Labor costs are a significant part of the cost of government. Whether it's real or a perception that these costs are out of control, many voters feel they need to be contained. By coming to a quick settlement without major new costs Ford can say he turned the direction here that will lead to savings now and in the future. Seems to me that the settlement is something he can honestly claim credit for. It is probably true that the union burnt many of their bridges during the fight with Miller. And any victory here needs to be offset against his giving away the store to the Police. He probably did so because in his four-downs-and-ten world the men of the hero professions are to be ennobled, and he has no language to dismiss and degrade their work in the same manner he would do with the work of others in the public sector.

 

[Canuck]

These are (some) of the ones he hasn't:

Extending the Sheppard Subway
Eglinton Subway
Eliminating land transfer tax
Lowering taxes overall (he just raised our taxes)
Lowering spending at City Hall (spending is higher than ever before)
Cutting the size of council
Cutting the debt (again, he just raised it to a ridiculous amount)
Hiring more police
More bike lanes
Private investment in transit
Cutting the "gravy". The Mayor's own report showed that the "gravy train" was nonsense. \
Not cutting any services.

I have a lot of problems with this list, in particular that Ford never promised several of those things. As well, several of your claims are completely misleading.

...

CowboyLogic, do you agree Ford promised everything I've indicated above? If not, which specific ones do you believe he didn't promise?

 

[Adaax]

pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does 'peeler' mean? I'm assuming you mean strippers but I also gather it can be used to describe a crooked cop. Just looking for clarification.

Pretty sure he means strip clubs, as in a "peeler joint" and such. Not an uncommon term, I don't think, though you don't hear it every day.