pman
Senior Member
Right, the Jarvis bike lanes were killed by Denzil Minnan-Wong, a suburban Councillor with no connection to Jarvis and an antideluvian view of city planning.
|
|
|
- Thread starter salsa
- Start date
Rapparee
New Member
The structure begets the personnel and the personnel then entrench the structure. It's a downward spiral. I don't know which, among many, alternative governance structures would be most suitable for Toronto. There are many to pick from. What I do know, after witnessing this combination of arrogance and stupidity time and time again, is that parochial, ward based decision making is no way to build a large city. Politicians should be constrained to allocating and managing money made available to them. Things like infrastructure must be understood in city-wide terms and be based on evidence and analysis, and combine land use, economic development, housing policy, pedestrian safety, and a range of other factors that require long term, big picture thinking.
Toronto has a decades long pattern, regardless of the ideological composition of Council and the Mayor, that results in doing things (and in many cases not doing things , e.g. DRL) that no other city in the world its size does. I'm thinking here of a subway in the middle of a truncated expressway, Sheppard stubway, SSE, Gardiner Hybrid, SmartTrack, and $33 billion in unfunded projects, many of which arose in someone's head who then inflicted that scheme on the rest of us by virtue of holding public office. The common thread is that these "things" are always the result of intensely localized and parochial concerns, pandered to and in some cases created by local career politicians with no particular expertise in anything other than reminding us of their overdeveloped sense of self-importance.
Last edited:
Towered
Superstar
Imagine what Rob Ford would have done with a lot more power.
pman
Senior Member
Perfect analysis.
Northern Light
Superstar
Hmmm.
I think the challenge, for me, is that there is a value in local representation and in political accountability.
Too few Councillors can all but wipe out direct access between the public and the power structure and can blur accountability.
On the other hand, we can all agree that Councillors too often meddle in professional decision making, (as do Mayors) and can make a royal hash of things.
It should be said, that isn't the unique providence of municipal government. It clearly occurs at other levels too.
I'm trying to work through in my head how you put more transparency into the system and more power where it belongs, without removing democratic accountability.
How about this?
First, amend the appropriate legislation to make it an offense to provide any policy or work-flow direction to staff, except by explicit vote of council; or in a public mandate letter from the Mayor, published in real-time, where appropriate.
The idea being to eliminate wasted staff time on goofy ideas that would never pass muster w/council in the first place.
Second, Council may approve any staff recommendation by a majority vote, or may choose to do nothing by the same; but if council directly over-rides a staff recommendation in a way that involves 'action' or 'expenditure, there must be a 2/3 vote of council, and the Mayor must vote for the over-ride?
This would have the negative effect of stifling some good ideas, but should kill more of the bad ones.
Third, remove from council approval certain non-budgetary choices that fall clearly to issue of professional expertise.
Council doesn't approve the engineering drawings on a building, maybe they shouldn't approve them for a road.
Council would be limited to voting on the broad policy mandate and the budget available to carry it out, not project by project for most items.
Fourth, make large capital projects (pick a number) but let's say those over 1B in total value, subject to a 2/3 vote of council, plus the Mayor.
Lastly, change the voting formula for council, so that nothing passes a committee or council with out the majority of votes of those elected.
By which I mean, if you have an 8 -member committee, quorum is 5, you can theoretically pass an item 3-2.
I would modify the rule so that if you have an 8-member committee it requires 5 votes to pass anything, no matter how many show up.
Likewise an actual majority of council would have to approve items, not merely the plurality.
Thoughts?
pman
Senior Member
I think you’re saying that local representation and political accountability work in theory. But they don’t work in practice - not in Toronto. As long as Toronto Council makes budgets and lobbies higher-order governments for funding, we’re going to have more of the same, whatever procedural checks the Province might institute.
However, I admit that our political structure can never change, so the question becomes how to defang the Mayor and Council. One thing that might work is for the Province to copy Infrastructure Australia, and require funded projects to pass an objective, independent, public, data-driven assessment. God knows how a democracy managed to tear away the pork-barrel dispensary the from politicians, but the Australians did. Some information here:
http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/project-assessments.aspx
However, I admit that our political structure can never change, so the question becomes how to defang the Mayor and Council. One thing that might work is for the Province to copy Infrastructure Australia, and require funded projects to pass an objective, independent, public, data-driven assessment. God knows how a democracy managed to tear away the pork-barrel dispensary the from politicians, but the Australians did. Some information here:
http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/project-assessments.aspx
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
One man's stupidity isn't a reason to have or not have a certain system; every system has checks and balances. I could equally say, "Imagine if Michael Bloomberg had Rob Ford's power..." Then New York wouldn't have bike lanes and pedestrians plaza everywhere and cars would still drive through Times Square, for starters. I don't necessarily endorse a "strong mayor" system but, again, my main point is that Toronto inherited a certain structure when amalgamated and has not given serious consideration to what systems might work better. They spent the Miller years begging for cash and then got the City of Toronto Act (which, I would argue gives the city powers every Ontario muni should have) but the city has been hestitant to exploit it to its fullest.
It's a Catch-22 as to whether the system allows for a "worse" council. There are still a lot of parochial, pre-amalgation people, for example, and something as simple (and legal!) as ranked ballots would cut out a lot of the dead weight too. There's lots of ideas but it should be obvious, after watching Ford- and Tory-led councils, that they're not looking out for the "greater good" of the city (at least IMHO).
the irony is that I think they are defanged. There is literally nothing Toronto can do the province cannot overrule. The province could have stomped the Scarborough subway debate and they could give or take "Smart Track" stations and they can amalgamate the city with the entire 905 and call it "Palookaville," if they want. Politically, they're not going to really do these things but Toronto is always on a leash, legally speaking. The end of the OMB is another example of the province effectively allowing Toronto to hoist itself on its own petard. The province legalized ranked ballots, that's on Toronto too. The province is providing cycling money and giving Toronto the ability to have a vehicle registration tax and do all sorts of things that council CHOOSES not to do.
pman
Senior Member
True, the Province can overrule anything Council does. But the existence of hyper-parochial councillors, on a Council dominated by a suburban majority that more or less functions as an aggrieved, know-nothing bloc on transit, pretty much guarantees considerable municipal drum banging for nonsensical proposals. Once a particular insanity develops local momentum, it’s hard for the Province to push back. SSE is a perfect example.
I certainly agree that simply uploading responsibility to the Province wouldn’t be a panacea. Political interference in new ML stations, along with Sorbara’s successful advocacy for the Spadina extension into vacant fields show the Province can’t be trusted either. But provincial uploading combined with a statutory requirement that all projects pass a transparent, open, data-based, independent assessment has the potential to work as well here as it does in Sydney.
Perhaps there are other models that would work, too. There are many cities outside North America that do infrastructure and public realm successfully - I mention Sydney because it’s the better alternative I know. But I think we can all agree after half a century of monumental planning mistakes, in the things we built and the things we didn’t build, that Toronto’s infrastructure planning is catastrophically broken. This was as true under Metro as it has been post-amalgamation. Tinkering isn’t going to fix anything. The whole governance structure has to be blown up. Or more likely not, in which case we’re all fucked, even the good folks of Scarborough.
I certainly agree that simply uploading responsibility to the Province wouldn’t be a panacea. Political interference in new ML stations, along with Sorbara’s successful advocacy for the Spadina extension into vacant fields show the Province can’t be trusted either. But provincial uploading combined with a statutory requirement that all projects pass a transparent, open, data-based, independent assessment has the potential to work as well here as it does in Sydney.
Perhaps there are other models that would work, too. There are many cities outside North America that do infrastructure and public realm successfully - I mention Sydney because it’s the better alternative I know. But I think we can all agree after half a century of monumental planning mistakes, in the things we built and the things we didn’t build, that Toronto’s infrastructure planning is catastrophically broken. This was as true under Metro as it has been post-amalgamation. Tinkering isn’t going to fix anything. The whole governance structure has to be blown up. Or more likely not, in which case we’re all fucked, even the good folks of Scarborough.
amnesiajune
Senior Member
I feel like a lot of the complaints are just about democratic governments in general. The inner suburbs are more than two thirds of the city's population, so why shouldn't they have a majority of the seats on city council? And if we're just going to blindly defer to "experts", what's the point of having a democratic government at all? And what do we do when the "experts" come up with something monumentally stupid?
Gord Perks had some good Twitter comments this week, where he basically said that no, we shouldn't have blind faith in experts and politicians are supposed to interfere with experts when they feel that they're wrong. At some point it just becomes an issue of value differences, and neither side is wrong - they just don't agree on what the city's priorities should be.
Gord Perks had some good Twitter comments this week, where he basically said that no, we shouldn't have blind faith in experts and politicians are supposed to interfere with experts when they feel that they're wrong. At some point it just becomes an issue of value differences, and neither side is wrong - they just don't agree on what the city's priorities should be.
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/03/03/pedestrian-struck-in-scarborough-dies-in-hospital.html
14 dead pedestrians since the beginning of the year. Those on council who refuse to design streets for anything other than vehicle use need to be held morally responsible for these deaths.
14 dead pedestrians since the beginning of the year. Those on council who refuse to design streets for anything other than vehicle use need to be held morally responsible for these deaths.
pman
Senior Member
It’s a fair point about democracy. But why should “Toronto” be what it is today? What’s democratic about aggregating the inner core with radically different suburbs in one political entity? Why aren’t Brampton, Mississauga and Pickering also part on Toronto? For that matter, the amalgamated city was imposed on us by the Harris government over the wishes of the people involved -hardly democratic. Finally, as Harris demonstrated, under our democracy the elected government has the right to do whatever it wants to municipalities. I want the elected elected provincial government to assert its rights and fix the mess Council has made, and that doesn’t strike me as opposing democracy.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Acknowledging we're getting off topic, "Democracy" is not one thing. We are in a representative democracy where we "entrust" people to make decisions and, yes, that doesn't mean they have to listen to what the "experts" say but it's equally valid to ask why we pay hundreds of experts millions of dollars and then ignore their advice? Why hire Jen Keesmaat and Andy Byford and force them to do things they believe are 100% the wrong choices for the future of the city?
(Partial answer: you can do that, but then they'll leave and you'll have no choice but to hire people who know less, because actual "experts" won't want to work somewhere where their expertise is devalued or consistently ignored/waste. Then you'll lose at the OMB, have a dysfunctional transportation system and otherwise become a failed city over the long term.)
Any political territory is ultimately an abstract concept - as I've said elsewhere, I think the debate over the Yonge and Vaughan subway extensions would have been quite different if "Toronto" went up to Highway 7 instead of Steeles, but it doesn't. The current borders have existed since the 1950s and Metro Toronto shows there is plenty of commonality within that area to build upon. As pman points out, a bit rhetorically perhaps, there are are also common issues now shared with surrounding municipalities that have, for better or worse, other political entities controlling them.
I think it's generally good the province does not step in. I sometimes personally wish they had on the Scarborough subway but when you see how they stomped out Tory's road toll proposal I think it's obvious that our municipalities generally need more autonomy, not less. I think people who, particularly in the Ford era, thought the city needed to de-amalgamate entirely missed the point. We need to think bigger, not smaller.
But we also need to elect politicians capable of doing that instead of sticking their heads up their proverbial butts. Democracy is messy (why, just look to the country to the south!) but, as pman also rightly points out, most of Toronto is suburban and its as incumbent on downtown residents to suck it up and acknowledge that as it is for suburban councillors to think of a bigger picture than what's in their own wards.
I don't even think it's a progressive/conservative argument (though, in a way, it is) but - to circle back on topic - it's clear there are people on council who don't understand how the city has changed and is changing. Yonge Street 2018 is not Yonge Street 1988 and the timidity about putting bikes lanes here is embarrassing when you look at what Michael Bloomberg did in New York. Yeah, it'll make driving there slower. And so what, is the point.
(Partial answer: you can do that, but then they'll leave and you'll have no choice but to hire people who know less, because actual "experts" won't want to work somewhere where their expertise is devalued or consistently ignored/waste. Then you'll lose at the OMB, have a dysfunctional transportation system and otherwise become a failed city over the long term.)
Any political territory is ultimately an abstract concept - as I've said elsewhere, I think the debate over the Yonge and Vaughan subway extensions would have been quite different if "Toronto" went up to Highway 7 instead of Steeles, but it doesn't. The current borders have existed since the 1950s and Metro Toronto shows there is plenty of commonality within that area to build upon. As pman points out, a bit rhetorically perhaps, there are are also common issues now shared with surrounding municipalities that have, for better or worse, other political entities controlling them.
I think it's generally good the province does not step in. I sometimes personally wish they had on the Scarborough subway but when you see how they stomped out Tory's road toll proposal I think it's obvious that our municipalities generally need more autonomy, not less. I think people who, particularly in the Ford era, thought the city needed to de-amalgamate entirely missed the point. We need to think bigger, not smaller.
But we also need to elect politicians capable of doing that instead of sticking their heads up their proverbial butts. Democracy is messy (why, just look to the country to the south!) but, as pman also rightly points out, most of Toronto is suburban and its as incumbent on downtown residents to suck it up and acknowledge that as it is for suburban councillors to think of a bigger picture than what's in their own wards.
I don't even think it's a progressive/conservative argument (though, in a way, it is) but - to circle back on topic - it's clear there are people on council who don't understand how the city has changed and is changing. Yonge Street 2018 is not Yonge Street 1988 and the timidity about putting bikes lanes here is embarrassing when you look at what Michael Bloomberg did in New York. Yeah, it'll make driving there slower. And so what, is the point.
11th
Senior Member
To complicate the matter:
Thinking a bigger picture than what's in their wards
- Support bike lanes on Yonge because it will make NYCC a destination for the region
- Support keeping Yonge as 6-lanes because the road serves more than a local function
Ward-centric thinking
- Support bike lanes on Yonge because it will also reduce number of traffic lanes and thus makes for a quieter street for locals to enjoy
- Support keeping Yonge as 6-lanes to keep traffic away from the primarily residential ring roads, and to avoid a 1-2 minute increase in traffic time (according to a report)
Who's "right" and who's "wrong"?
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
You can re-design a street to make it more pedestrian or cyclist-friendly but you will always have drivers who will not drive according the road layout and make it feel unsafe. I live in a neighbourhood where several of the streets bend, yet several drivers do 50-60 km and treat the neighbourhood like it is a Formula One course.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Just have to look at the NO STOPPING signs in front of school, which are ignored by parents dropping off or picking up their kids. The NO STOPPING is for everyone else.