Status
Not open for further replies.
Because there's always a supply of 'disruptors' who believe that their ideas will revolutionize the world (and so their ideas must be implemented), and the tech world seems to foster this sort of savior complex.

Here's the thing, to me, I love that drive. I think you may not need an outsized ego to create positive change in the world, but it does tend to help. Its part and parcel of looking at the status quo and saying 'I can do this better'.

But, that needs to be balanced with transparency, accountability and a demonstrable fairness. An outsized ego doesn't' mean you are right, only that you think you are.

It also doesn't mean you are entitled to implement your ideas, or to profit off them at all. All of that should be subject to transparent negotiation with society at large (government and other stakeholders).

There are interesting ideas in their proposal (SWL) which need not be dismissed out of hand. But the way in which they have tried to affect their proposal can only be described as secretive/misleading and shy on critical details.

That, in combination with fairly unprecedented demands in regards to scale and form of payback and controversy around privacy and data........ lead me to believe we probably need to call this process to a halt.

I think there may something completely viable and interesting in the underlying ideas; and that a single proponent driving them carries certain advantages for government and society.

But at this point, this particular proponent has managed to tarnish their image by handling this process poorly.

I don't think they are fit to take it further forward at this time.
 
Here's the thing, to me, I love that drive. I think you may not need an outsized ego to create positive change in the world, but it does tend to help. Its part and parcel of looking at the status quo and saying 'I can do this better'.

But, that needs to be balanced with transparency, accountability and a demonstrable fairness. An outsized ego doesn't' mean you are right, only that you think you are.

It also doesn't mean you are entitled to implement your ideas, or to profit off them at all. All of that should be subject to transparent negotiation with society at large (government and other stakeholders).

There are interesting ideas in their proposal (SWL) which need not be dismissed out of hand. But the way in which they have tried to affect their proposal can only be described as secretive/misleading and shy on critical details.

That, in combination with fairly unprecedented demands in regards to scale and form of payback and controversy around privacy and data........ lead me to believe we probably need to call this process to a halt.

I think there may something completely viable and interesting in the underlying ideas; and that a single proponent driving them carries certain advantages for government and society.

But at this point, this particular proponent has managed to tarnish their image by handling this process poorly.

I don't think they are fit to take it further forward at this time.

I agree- it's nice to have a relentlessly optimistic drive, but that drive needs to be tempered with an understanding and consideration for context. Having someone waltz in from San Francisco and 'break/game' the system can drive local resentment and can disrupt that context in ways that can be negative (i.e. AirBnB, Amazon, Uber).

Moreso, the issue is that with city-building, the ideas must be tested first and implemented incrementally or else you're going to end up with another round of failed ideas/architecture, à la what the West already went through with Heroic Modernism. And anyways, wasn't it Le Corbusier who said that "Life is always right, and the architect is always wrong"?

Because let's face it, you can't plan for everchanging human behavior, and ideas have to account for a multitude of unplanned social, economic and technological circumstances. Transparency, incremental implementation and public involvement in experimentation is the key here, and I agree- Sidewalk is blowing it bad. They should have financed the first part of the development on their own to at least show that they're bringing something to the table and what they want to do is feasible. As of now, it looks like a shady land grab (Villiers West?) from the public perspective, or worse- the seeds of corporate feudalism.
 
Last edited:
There's a double twist to Amazon that's more than convoluted. Bezos is a conflicted man. He also owns the WashPost, like a cuddly little toy for him to play with, so he can wear his 'progressive liberal' suit to parties, meantime squeezing Amazon employees in conditions considered Third World.

But that's exactly the 'style' of the Googlios too, albeit Zuckerberg takes the cake for 'likes'.

Let the Blowback begin! It's going to be difficult. There's no shortage of zombies out there. Just read back some of the comments in this string to see how vacant their eyes are.

Third world conditions? You haven't traveled much! $15 per hour plus benefits is probably about what people should get used to unless they have a skill that makes them useful to employers. Pay attention in school folks, or start your business.
 
Third world conditions? You haven't traveled much! $15 per hour plus benefits is probably about what people should get used to unless they have a skill that makes them useful to employers.
I contest your figures, and just checked the Economist, Business Insider, FT et al for the latest stories on it. "Third World" may have been a dramatic claim, but certainly by law, the average Amazon worker in western nations would be below the minimum wage in more progressive jurisdictions.

I don't want this discussion to detract from the topic surmise....which I believe might be your intent. The more I read on Sidewalk from reputable sources, the more the term 'dirty tricks' comes to mind.

It's now obvious to me that they've purposely claimed 'unique methods' for this whole charade when in fact, it's just a gathering of others' excellent ideas from up to a generation ago being marketed to the gullible masses, and to many who should have known better. I'll claim the term "Wilful Misrepresentation' for now.

I'm assured that there's a lot more coming to press shortly on this saga. That's from persons in the int'l press. I just hope the local press, very slow to cotton on to this, dig out the local culprits. There's a lot more singing to come from the 'disaffected' who've quit Waterfront Toronto in disgust in the last while. I just hope they have a platform in the Cdn press.

Toronto could save a bundle by just sending away for plans to build their own Trojan Horse. Think of how beneficial that will be to the local economy keeping the money closer by screwing our own...

And lest my political stance be misread, I'm a Free Marketeer. But that's exactly the point, isn't it? There has been no open market discussion on this. Many of these 'unique and innovative ideas' have been proposed by other local and national planners and developers, only to be slapped down for it. Ah, but when the circus comes to town, those in estrus drop their standards, as well as clothing.
 
Last edited:
Because there's always a supply of 'disruptors' who believe that their ideas will revolutionize the world (and so their ideas must be implemented), and the tech world seems to foster this sort of savior complex.
Here's the thing, to me, I love that drive. I think you may not need an outsized ego to create positive change in the world, but it does tend to help. Its part and parcel of looking at the status quo and saying 'I can do this better'.

But, that needs to be balanced with transparency, accountability and a demonstrable fairness. An outsized ego doesn't' mean you are right, only that you think you are.
It also doesn't mean you are entitled to implement your ideas, or to profit off them at all. All of that should be subject to transparent negotiation with society at large (government and other stakeholders).
There are interesting ideas in their proposal (SWL) which need not be dismissed out of hand. But the way in which they have tried to affect their proposal can only be described as secretive/misleading and shy on critical details.

These are some excellent comments. I've had these quotes up on my task bar for hours, I'm concerned I'll inadvertently erase them, so I post them now without being ready to answer each one individually. I will say I'm astounded, even being sussed to this, as to how deep the Fifth Column has reached. Some (IIRC) "fifty lobbyists for QP alone" on this? Holy Moly...that's multiples more than the US gov't had for the USMCA negotiations in Ottawa.

I see all sorts of 'alarming' 'we had no idea' 'astounded' 'shock' and 'anger' comments coming out of all three levels of gov't on this. I'm dubious! How did this thing get this far with such an obvious profile on the inside of the halls of power?

(Edit to add):
Google’s detailed plans for a 350-acre development in the Port Lands came as a complete surprise, said politicians from across the city, the province and the country on Friday.

Yet lobbying records reveal Google’s sister company, Sidewalk Labs, has been communicating frequently with a wide swath of elected representatives and staff. And Sidewalk’s own records mention “weekly briefings” with all three levels of government.

We've only seen the tip of the fatberg on this so far...
Fatberg - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with a bracing drive for innovation per se. It's more about Alphabet's possibility of making off with a ridiculously sweet deal thanks to some cozy backroom dealings with Waterfront Toronto and whomever else is involved, and screw the rest of the city. They're already conspicuously lacking in transparency regarding what they want to do with the massive wealth of public data they are going to consume and render useful for private purposes - that alone is alarming enough to me that I am unwilling to extend them any kind of trusting olive branch.

I love the renderings I'm seeing, it's more about the price Alphabet would have us pay for foisting their vision onto Toronto's waterfront. Beware of glittering gifts and rosy, breathless and hopelessly vague promises, I say. They are not proposing to do this project out of some deep and abiding love the city or its inhabitants - it is, rather, a new means of generating serious revenue for private gain and a grand experiment in seeing how far they can push the envelope and how complacently compliant a dazed and confused host city can be.

I would love it if Sidewalk/Google/Alphabet would do some honest work to convince me in serving up a vision decidedly less cynical.
 
Cross-posted from the Lower Don Lands string:

Macleans has an excellent opinion piece up, with lots of links and local reference, and details not reported in TorStar, Cdn Press or Globe:
Cracks in the Sidewalk
David Skok: What started as an innovation partnership built on data now seems like an old-fashioned land deal that puts taxpayers on the hook

by David Skok
Feb 15, 2019


David Skok is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Logic
Toronto sidewalks are a mess.
A series of storms this February have left them impassible for pedestrians, strollers and wheelchairs—signs of a metropolis bursting at the seams without the money to pay for basic snow-removal services.
Enter the appeal of a different Sidewalk, the one proposed as a smart-city development on Toronto’s waterfront by tech giant Alphabet. When Sidewalk Toronto—the joint partnership between all three levels of government and Sidewalk Labs, Google’s sister company—was announced in October 2017, it was billed as a chance to showcase Toronto’s innovative spirit to the world, a reclamation project for abandoned land and a way to generate some revenue for a city that desperately needs it.
Making that case just became a lot tougher. This week, the company’s long-awaited business plan was leaked to the Toronto Star and the National Observer.
The plan contained some exciting and bold proposals: expanding the city’s light-rail transit, reiterating the company’s ambitions for tall-timber buildings, adding affordable housing. But, as it wrote in its plan, Sidewalk Labs also wants a share of property taxes, development fees and the increased value of the land as a result of the development.
What started as an innovation partnership built on data now seems like an old-fashioned land deal that puts taxpayers on the hook.
Many were already concerned about the data-privacy elements of the project and Sidewalk Labs had taken steps to alleviate some of that criticism. But, a land deal was always going to be a harder sell to residents.
It’s one thing to hand over your data, something that we’ve become accustomed to doing. It’s another thing entirely to hand over your land.
If the Sidewalk project turns into a conversation about land transfers and property-tax revenues, it could force a restart of the bidding process, introduce more firms into the debate and call into question how Sidewalk arrived on Lake Ontario’s shores in the first place.
First, the initial Request-for-Proposals (RFP) for the land—issued in a compressed timeline by Waterfront Toronto, the agency in charge—was for an innovation partner, not a traditional development partner. Had it been a land transaction, there’s a strong argument to be made that other bidders would have made stronger pitches.
Some critics—including Jim Balsillie, former Research in Motion (now BlackBerry) co-CEO—have made calls to hit the reset button.
Second, Sidewalk Labs CEO Dan Doctoroff suggested that only Alphabet could invest the resources needed to get the project off the ground, telling the Star that “this land is stubbornly resistant to development.” Given that the federal, provincial and municipal governments are spending a combined $2.5 billion for flood protection in the area, that implication doesn’t hold water—pardon the pun.
And, as The Logic reported earlier this month, leading developer Mattamy Homes has quietly approached the provincial government with an alternative “all-Canadian” proposal for the Quayside land, bringing together some of our homegrown tech firms to build the “smart” component of the city.
Third, while the land on offer was just 12 acres on the Quayside, the leaked business plan had Sidewalk Labs calling for 350 acres.
“We don’t think that 12 acres on Quayside has the scale to actually have the impact on affordability and economic opportunity and transit that everyone aspires to,” Doctoroff told the Star.
If you didn’t think that 12 acres was enough, why did you set up shop in the first place?
From the initial agreement to internal documents that The Logic’s Amanda Roth reported on last summer, it seems to have been an open secret between the government and Sidewalk that more land was in play than what was publicly disclosed. [...continues...]
Sidewalk Labs: An old-fashioned land deal that puts taxpayers on the hook?
David Skok: What started as an innovation partnership built on data now seems like something altogether different—and more cynical
www.macleans.ca
www.macleans.ca

The Logic, linked in the above, is a subscription article, cover article stating the gist is here:
Mattamy Homes might submit second proposal for Quayside smart city project: report
ce8dc2dc9ff26c086fa98b0adab4b138


By Shruti Shekar@shruti_shekar
FEB 6, 2019
1:43 PM EST

Mattamy Homes might submit second proposal for Quayside smart city project: report
A leading real estate developer in Toronto is reportedly preparing a new development proposal to construct the smart city Quayside, which would be located on Toronto’s waterfront.
mobilesyrup.com
mobilesyrup.com
 
I guess Mattamy is trying to make themselves look like saviours after they were caught donating to an alt-right political group. Morons.
 
I guess Mattamy is trying to make themselves look like saviours after they were caught donating to an alt-right political group. Morons.
There's a shared connection with OMERS in there as well as with Sidewalk, And OMERS are Oxford.
Oxford Properties - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Properties
Owner, OMERS. Number of employees. 2,000+. Website, www.oxfordproperties.com. OxfordProperties, established in 1960, is a global real estate owner, investor, developer and ...

There's going to have to be a lot of light shone on the Port Lands to see what's scurrying through the cracks. "Cleaning up" the place was always going to be a challenge. The Port Lands have a sordid history to maintain on sneaky developer transactions.

Edit to Add: Alluding to 'associations' demands some reference, so at a minimum, here's one to what I claim above:
The build-out of the site is likely to involve other partners. Sidewalk has already begun discussions with developers Great Gulf and Dream and a consortium called 3C, which together own approximately 20 acres adjacent to the Quayside site. Beyond that, "We are open to all sorts of partnerships," Mr. Serifman said.

The agency gave serious consideration to a second bid that includes experienced real-estate developers. "There may be an opportunity, in time, to bring in some of the members of the other bid," Mr. Fleissig said.

Mr. Fleissig and Waterfront Toronto staff would not comment on the identity of the other shortlisted bidders; however, The Globe and Mail has learned the consortium includes OMERS Ventures, Manulife Financial Corp. and Mattamy Homes, among other partners.

The word 'convoluted' comes to mind....

Addendum: Digging further on this, instead of things becoming clearer in the way one would hope, it becomes clearer to the dark side.

Example: (Some retrospect)
Howard Solomon
@howarditwc
Published: October 25th, 2018
[...]
That wasn’t good enough for Cavoukian, who had insisted to Sidewalk for a year that all Quayside data has to be anonymized the second it is collected. That way the data doesn’t need user consent to be collected.

”When the meeting finished I just felt I had no choice but to resign,” she said in an interview, “because this isn’t something you can say ‘Some people can de-identify, others can’t. Identifiable data is a treasure trove. Everybody wants that.

“I felt I had to resign because I had to make a statement. And it’s not just Sidewalk Labs. This is Waterfront Toronto. I have said to them, ‘You have to lay down the law. You are the guys who are going to be hiring Sidewalk Labs, allowing other parties to join in. You have to lay down the law that all personal data has to be de-identified at source, full stop.”

However, Chantal Bernier, Waterfront Toronto’s privacy advisor, who herself is an expert in the field, says Sidewalk Labs’ statement may have come from a question it didn’t understand. She was listening in to the meeting by teleconference.

“I took it as … there was a misunderstanding,” Bernier, former interim privacy commission of Canada, now with the Dentons Canada LLP law firm in Ottawa, said in an interview. “I think what Sidewalk Labs was saying was, ‘We can’t take responsibility for anybody else who wants to independently come in [with their own data]. The other interpretation is if Sidewalk Labs did provide sub-contractors access [to its data] they would be, by Canadian law, accountable for how those suppliers protect privacy.

“I have a feeling they didn’t understand that was the question put to them. I think they may have thought the question was, ‘Well, what about anybody else [collecting data]?’ and they said, ‘We don’t know what anybody else would do.’ But if it is part of the Quayside project and it is part of the digital platform Sidewalk Labs provides, then there is a supply chain that absolutely comes under privacy law, creating a continuum of obligation of privacy protection, from the contractor through the suppliers.”

*Editor’s note — In response to this story, Cavoukian commented on Twitter that she wants Waterfront Toronto to require that all parties involved in the project de-identify personally identifiable information a the source.
[...]

It's only fair to read the whole article! There are some real issues to re-evaluate in light of the blundering statements the last few days from Sidewalk, but it's going to be essential to allow Cavoukian her due yet again. There's every indication that she had it right the first time. And WT have as much to answer to as Sidewalk does. Possibly more, they're there to ostensibly 'protect' the Public's interests.

I guess Mattamy is trying to make themselves look like saviours after they were caught donating to an alt-right political group.
I'll address that indirectly, I'm looking for loose ends and inconsistencies, and the incestuous process the Public is asked to trust...

From my link above, continues:
[...]
Meanwhile, Cavoukian will meet next week with Kristina Verner, Waterfront Toronto’s vice-president of innovation.

Asked if Cavoukian’s resignation will have an impact on Quayside’s reputation, Bernier said no. The goal of the project is to embed data privacy in the community, she said.

Cavoukian’s resignation comes after the departure by Waterfront Toronto board member Julie Di Lorenzo, who complained Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs don’t communicate enough with the public, and digital strategy advisors Saadia Mufaffar and John Ruffolo.

“The most recent roundtable in August displayed a blatant disregard for resident concerns about data and digital infrastructure,” Mufaffar, an entrepreneur, was quoted as saying. “Time was spent instead talking about buildings made out of wood and the width of one-way streets, things no one has contested or expressed material concern for in this entire process.”

At the time of his departure Ruffolo was CEO of OMERS Ventures, the venture division of one of Canada’s largest pension funds. He was quoted as saying he left over the confidentiality agreement he and members of the advisory committee were asked to sign.
No comment on that right now. I'm sure much more inquiring minds are onto this than I am.

Speaking of the movie industry in the Port Lands...they've got the screenplay for a real 'Who-Dunnit' on their doorstep. Canadian Content Plus...'The Sidewalk Killers of Quayside'
 
Last edited:
I guess Mattamy is trying to make themselves look like saviours after they were caught donating to an alt-right political group. Morons.
It is also very timely, considering they are VERY good friends of Doug Ford....
 
It is also very timely, considering they are VERY good friends of Doug Ford....
In an attempt at neutrality (lol...kinda difficult when things are so bizarre) I'm not going to add any further comment, but will add to the reference:
Ontario Proud’s Election Advertising Was Mostly Funded By Developers
Nearly all the funds received by the "grassroots" group came from several large corporate donors
ARTICLE
BY GRAEME GORDON & JONATHAN GOLDSBIE
DECEMBER 11, 2018
Third-party advertiser Ontario Proud, which describes itself as a “grassroots” operation, received over half a million dollars in donations during the spring provincial election — 89.6 per cent of it from corporations.
Filings submitted to Elections Ontario on Friday show that the top donors to the Facebook-centric conservative advocacy group were Toronto-based housing developer Mattamy Homes, at $100,000; anti-union contractors association Merit Ontario, at $50,000; Nashville Developments, also at $50,000; Opportunities Asia Ltd. at $30,000; and Shiplake Properties Limited at $25,000. Seventeen other companies, mostly related to housing development, donated $10,000 apiece. Of the corporate donations received by Ontario Proud, at least 89.7 per cent came from companies involved in the development and construction industries.
The filings are published in full at bottom.
[...]

Above org has an agenda, so here's the CBC's take:
Corporations fuelled Ontario Proud's pro-PC election spending
Social Sharing
 
I contest your figures, and just checked the Economist, Business Insider, FT et al for the latest stories on it. "Third World" may have been a dramatic claim, but certainly by law, the average Amazon worker in western nations would be below the minimum wage in more progressive jurisdictions.
Sorry I need to correct your misleading comment. Amazon raised its minimum wage to $15. Previously it also had bonuses and stock incentives. And comparing average wages in multiple countries to wages in specific higher minimum wage countries makes no sense. The comparison needs to be country by country to be valid. A simple search suffices, no need to twist the data.
 
I think the main problem here is we did not have high quality knowledgeable people representing the city. That, rather than any evil intent in googles part is the issue here.
 
I think the main problem here is we did not have high quality knowledgeable people representing the city. That, rather than any evil intent in googles part is the issue here.

Thank you for this common sense comment!!

Google recruits their employees from the same gene pool that we all swim in. They are not inherently evil and conspiring thieves. They have a plan, that obviously requires more work to make sense.

No business will invest in the staff and effort that Sidewalk Labs has done if the ultimate deal that must be constructed doesn’t make sense for the other side. That is common “business” sense.

I’m throwing Alphabet a bone here. They’ve created a lot of public opposition to their plans. If there is no merit to their ideas then Sidewalk labs will be shuttered.
 
Sorry I need to correct your misleading comment. Amazon raised its minimum wage to $15. Previously it also had bonuses and stock incentives. And comparing average wages in multiple countries to wages in specific higher minimum wage countries makes no sense. The comparison needs to be country by country to be valid. A simple search suffices, no need to twist the data.
The raise was taken into consideration by those sources.
Here's your simple search:
Unfulfillment centresWhat Amazon does to wages
Is the world’s largest online retailer underpaying its employees?

Print edition | United States
Jan 20th 2018
A simple search suffices, no need to twist the data.
Then feel absolutely free to do so.
we did not have high quality knowledgeable people representing the city

The City is best represented of the three levels of gov't. Define "high quality knowledgeable people". It's not even the people, it's the process. It hardly ever sees the light of day. It's representation by committee for the most part, and the public is thrown scraps of information and accountability when the hierarchy thinks them deserving. The 'non-disclosure agreement' is very convenient for some to just happily skip along with the Trojan horse as it's wheeled in.

Minnan-Wong's warnings were unheeded by most, because most didn't like the messenger, and so disregarded the message. Apparently he's been proven exactly right.

WashPost, August last year:
By Brian Barth
August 8, 2018
The fight against Google’s smart city

[...]
At a Toronto City Council meeting in January, Wylie delivered a deputation asking local officials to take steps to “ensure that the data and data infrastructure of this project are the property of the city of Toronto and its residents.” She also demanded greater transparency around the project as a whole.

When the Quayside project was announced last year, the terms of the contract between the company and Waterfront Toronto, a government-created agency that has partnered with Sidewalk to develop Quayside, were not made public. This was because they included “commercially sensitive provisions,” reporters were told at the time. (Neither Sidewalk Labs nor Waterfront Toronto accommodated interview requests for this article.)

City councilor Denzil Minnan-Wong, the only elected official on the Waterfront Toronto board of directors (and thus privy to the contract), has urged his fellow councilors to intervene. “I know enough about the agreement that I think you would like to know more about the agreement,” he said.

Since the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal blew open in March, Sidewalk’s critics — a motley coalition of Canadian academics, privacy activists, business leaders and bureaucrats — have begun to control the conversation about Quayside.

Wylie has become the movement’s de facto leader. The ad hoc campaign that started in her living room last fall has taken her from closed-door meetings on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to a fellowship at a think tank established by one of the co-creators of BlackBerry, who called Wylie “a hero.” Her pithy blog posts aim to keep Sidewalk’s “boil-the-ocean hubris,” as she puts it, in check, while the company’s representatives go about the city preaching the virtues of their plan. “New drum to bang from here on out: no,” she wrote in one post.
[...]

The warnings were clearly written in Spacing, Torontoist (while it was still extant) and other 'alternative' publications out of Toronto. Minnan-Wong's comments have been printed in the UK Guardian, Financial Times, NYTimes and other international publications. Toronto's established main-stream press was very late to the game.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top