[44 North]

Why on earth would we want an NFL team?

Setting aside my genuine dislike of their rather dull game.............

Its a very short season w/a smattering of home games, maybe 8 regular season dates per year.

Given the cost of a stadium, infrastructure to serve it, cost of a team etc. it is profoundly wasteful and offers a negative ROI for a City in this day and age.

It is certainly no justification for keeping, let alone expanding an expressway.

Not saying I or Toronto wants an nfl team. And yeah the roi is generally terrible, but they do make a few people wealthy and can have regional public support. Are you aware we have a new gov't in charge that made it a very clear point post-election that they have no qualms over-riding Toronto.

To this day Godfrey wants something *big* near the waterfront, he helped bring us skydome, and even the 80s wanted an nfl team; Tannenbaum tried to bring an nfl team not that long ago; Doug Ford mused about nfl teams almost immediately after becoming a city councillor and clearly had some form of backing with that vision for waterfront control. Point is I wouldn't rule anything out at this point. Gardiner debate reopening, possible extension SE to a key point in the largely unplanned area S of Lake Shore/E of Broadview...honestly seems in the realm of possible and wouldn't rule it out so easily.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

That looks rather straight-forwardly factual to me.

If you would like to dispute the assertions in the above I would be interested in your facts.

I mean I was being a bit facetious with the whole opinion column thing. however I don;t consider that a very good piece of investigative journalism and read more like a hit piece. Just looking at the one quote that was pulled out of the article the entire article. What is an "alt-right slur? What campaign purposely spread fake news? And is that really the best summary you could make of Kinsella's political views?

And there was quote in the article literally accusing Tory of being "afraid of being a one term mayor" Isn't not wanting to lose a common thing that every politician wants? It is spun as a negative in this article.

 

[Videodrome]

One of Goldy's supporters tried to crash the debate...

 

[bobbob911]

All of the project options, including retention were costed over the same life cycle. (50 years)

There is nothing intrinsically unreasonable about that choice. Its meant to capture how much would be invested in the initial build or rebuild then what it would cost to maintain and operate until it needs replacement again.

Sorry, I misspoke -its actually a *100 year* costing, and yes its patently ridiculous. Nobody can predict with any accuracy the maintenance costs associated with a rebuild that far out (try to imagine the year 2100!).

The *standard* in most construction projects is 30 year, not 100 year. 100 year was chosen simply to exaggerate the total bill.

 

[steveintoronto]

Even if Keesmaat did win and gained council support for removal, couldn't that be completely overridden by the PCs?

The answer is Yes. But that answer indicates just how absurd the whole concept of 'democratic representation' is to the present Cons. These are the very same Cons deriding centralized control, and all for local control...until it doesn't suit their agenda.

The elevated section in dispute is coming down either way. The question is whether the replacement is also elevated or not?

 

[adma]

Faith Goldy will never win in a Liberal city like Toronto anyways.

However, if you want true democracy you have to let extremists like her into the democratic process as well.
If you shut her out, then where do you start drawing the line?? Do we shut out the communist party as well??

Note, though, that there's a difference btw/ letting "extremists like her" into the democratic process, and letting them into the *debate* process. And it's not just about their being a nuisance; it's also a matter of logistics.

Let's remember that a debate over seniors issues has already been axed because of a demand that all 35 mayoral candidates participate. And Goldy's just one among 35.

 

[BurlOak]

Note, though, that there's a difference btw/ letting "extremists like her" into the democratic process, and letting them into the *debate* process. And it's not just about their being a nuisance; it's also a matter of logistics.

Let's remember that a debate over seniors issues has already been axed because of a demand that all 35 mayoral candidates participate. And Goldy's just one among 35.

If this was true - we would only have 2 people in the debates.

If you want more than 2 - the 3rd has to be Faith Goldy. I don't think there has been a poll that shows a 3rd place candidate that is not Faith.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

This is why we use a cut-off criteria.

If a candidate isn't polling at 5% then they don't need to be in the debate.

 

[PinkLucy]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_mayoral_election,_2018#Opinion_polls

 

[adma]

View attachment 159083
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_mayoral_election,_2018#Opinion_polls

And not just 2 vs 1%: 1.5 vs 1.3 and 1.1%.
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/tory-still-leading-transit-is-now-front-of-mind-for-torontonians/

 

[44 North]

This is why we use a cut-off criteria.

If a candidate isn't polling at 5% then they don't need to be in the debate.

hm, I dunno. What if it's a situation where someone polls at 96%. They're going to stand at a podium by themselves? Should Tooker Gomberg, a cycling advocate, not been able to have debated in 2000. Or Enza a transgender person. Lastman swept the floor with them either way, but for fringe candidates they did well. So perhaps it should be a three-way debate between Tory, Keesmaat, and Goldy. Awkward as it will be... Though I'm sure Tory and Keesmaat's people have ultimate shutdowns written-up for this very situation.

 

[adma]

hm, I dunno. What if it's a situation where someone polls at 96%. They're going to stand at a podium by themselves? Should Tooker Gomberg, a cycling advocate, not been able to have debated in 2000. Or Enza a transgender person. Lastman swept the floor with them either way, but for fringe candidates they did well. So perhaps it should be a three-way debate between Tory, Keesmaat, and Goldy. Awkward as it will be... Though I'm sure Tory and Keesmaat's people have ultimate shutdowns written-up for this very situation.

Except that it takes other things to "make" an election, including pollsters. And as you can see, the inclusion of two other "fringe" candidates in a polling question really has a way of denting Goldy's nominal third-place bragging rights--I mean, when you have 1.5% vs the 1.3% and 1.1% of two others, what makes *you* more worthy than those two others?

 

[PinkLucy]

Well, Climenhaga and Gebressellassi were both invited to participate in the arts and culture debate that was televised on Global. But as has been mentioned before, it's up to the organizers to invite whomever they wish. So if an organizer chooses not to invite someone who has used hate speech, that's their call.

Most of the debates are small events. There are a ridiculous number of them.

 

[animatronic]

The least unfair model is a runoff debate. If there are 2 front runners and a peleton of 3-5 chasers, have a preliminary debate with just the second tier. The “winner” by some subjective measure then gets invited to the big table.

 

[Fresco]

This is why we use a cut-off criteria.

If a candidate isn't polling at 5% then they don't need to be in the debate.

Is that the law or your own personal opinion?

I know nothing about the official debate rules, so sorry if thats a stupid question