Monday, September 27, 2010

CITY RESPONSIVENESS IN EMERGENCIES

What St. Jamestown Teaches Us - and the Questions It Raises

Last Friday's (Sept 24) 6-alarm fire at 200 Wellesley Street, the Toronto Community Housing complex of St. Jamestown, has left over 1,200 people homeless. (Some say the figure is inaccurate and that as many as 1,700 lived there) Many of those are frail, senior citizens, disabled, suffering from mental illness or at least suffering the low income life of poverty. City emergency crews in the form of fire response and paramedics were on the scene quickly and had a very difficult time putting a fire out in an apartment bedroom on the 24th floor, rumoured to have been made worse by a hoarding individual who lived there. (Hoarding is a kind of addiction, often suffered by those on low income who gather goods others might consider trash and fill up their living spaces with the false comfort of consumerism).

HOWEVER - our city's overall response in such situations is lacking. Some have labelled the situation 'Toronto's Katrina' (in reference to mass flooding and poor official response to needy residents) - perhaps over-exaggerated, but it does put it in perspective. Displaced residents are being shuffled about in a patchwork of temporary housing and other supports, with much of the support coming from the community and not city hall.

For more background on this situation see: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/866678--dimanno-city-scrambles-as-victims-of-st-james-town-fire-remain-homeless

  1. Where was our Mayor in such a significant tragedy and disaster? Providing leadership, comfort and reassurance was needed.
  2. Why was there not an efficient, coordinated response? We are a city of several millions, much of us living in densely packed vertical towers.
  3. Why was Toronto Community Housing (owned by the city) not proactive and prepared for such an eventuality? Fire officials say the 1968 building was up to code for that time, so had no sprinklers.So why was TCHC not active in taking measures to reduce the risk of fire there? Were there fire drills? Where was the plan for what has happened?
  4. Why don't we know the exact number of people living there? 1200 or 1700?
  5. Why does our city not have a master disaster plan that works?

I recall the problems the city had many years back when the 'Tent City' that had sprung up for the homeless by the lake was shut down. There was much chaos in trying to find places to put people the bulldozers had removed.

There is no excuse for our city not to be prepared for such situations. Services all over the city are disconnected and have their own 'mandate' or 'priorities' and are not properly coordinated. Toronto City Hall needs a PLAN to be ready for this in future. Surprises and disasters can happen anywhere, anytime and we must be ready... because...

PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER !

Note: On Twitter the hastag #wellesleyfire has gathered comments and information. Mayoral candidate HiMY SYeD is organizing a fundraiser for this Thursday, September 30 - 519 Church Community Centre - 7:00pm to 9:00pm. Volunteers needed.


Sunday, September 26, 2010

PUBLIC ASSETS? PUBLIC SAY !

TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT? School Boards, City, Province Not On the Same Page


We keep hearing this election that our city is in financial trouble... or not.
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem... or not.
We have assets that the city should sell to get revenue... or not.

It's a confusing situation with extreme ideas being thrown out by desperate candidates wanting to make the news with the latest outrageous statements, at least in the race for mayor.
"Here's my great idea... yes it costs... but we'll just sell..(fill in the blank..Toronto Hydro, etc)."

What it does show is how truth gets distorted by personal persepective and the immediate and short term needs of those who might govern us. No one it seems is taking the longer view and realizing that the status quo in how we are governed needs to change to meet our far future needs.

Take the example of closing schools - like West Toronto, right across from where I live.

We have one taxpayer whose money goes to providing them - buildings, land, maintenance, staffing, etc. Yet who is in control? The Province ultimately, because education is a provincial responsibility. The Province allows for a democratically elected local ward government in the form of School Trustees who make up a board of control. That board is required by law to balance budgets and if it gets out of line, the Province can step in (and has) and does what it wants. Then we have the City, also under the control of the Province with seperate elected Councillors and Mayor. The Province has a lighter touch with city government, but still has the control and can punish or reward cities for meeting their agendas (just look at Transit funding issues).

In the real, physical world we still have the one taxpayer who finances the acquisition of land and infrastructure - like West Toronto. Yet, we have THREE governing bodies with an interest in the decisions that affect that single physical thing.

The Province wants to balance its budget and to get a good return on that thing.
The Scool Board wants to maximize use of schools, balance budgets and that means selling that thing.
The City wants to ensure that there is sufficient community space for increasing population densities and that means trying ti gain control of that thing.

THREE governments with different agendas competing for control of one thing.
... kind of like three hands in the one taxpayer's pocket in a way, isn't it?

Schools are unique. They are geographically and strategically placed in our communities so they are at the core of local neighbourhoods. They are built in such a way that they usually have significant green space surrounding a large, accessible structure that can accomodate large numbers of people. Often they are easily areached by public transit or are in walking distance to large residential areas. They are natural 'Community Hubs' as was the topic of a Social Planning conference that I attended just this past Friday.

Schools are extremely valuable assets that we must not misuse or dispose of without a tremendous amount of forethought - the kind that looks DECADES into the future and not just the next budget.

Despite the complexities of competing government powers and short term demands of budgets, we MUST save our schools for the children and communities of the future. All that is required is political will to change what we need to to make this happen. We owe it to our collective future.... because ...

DAVENPORT DESERVES BETTER !





Saturday, September 25, 2010

TRANSIT: AN ELECTION CORE ISSUE

"A DIZZYING ARRAY OF PROPOSALS" :

is how an excellent Inside Toronto editorial puts it: http://www.insidetorontovotes.ca/2010/09/editorial-putting-transit-debate-into-proper-perspective/

In the 40+ Mayoral debates (40 more to come?), and the ongoing media coverage of that top level position, as well as some of the local councillor races, TRANSIT/TTC is always a top issue.

In our ward 18, it boils down to just two local things, in my view:

1. SERVICE: The Better Way is not as better as it used to be, for one main cause:
Heavy traffic/gridlock: Despite incumbent councillor Giambrone's claims of "traffic calming" and providing residential streets that are safe for cyclists and pedestrians, we still see our roads as "freeways for people outside the ward" (as candidate Frank de Jong put it so well at the first debate). This ongoing situation not only pollutes our environment, it dramatically slows and interferes with public transit. Inconsistent service - short turning streetcars, construction delays messing with schedules and routes and generally poor customer service is what people experience. I saw somewhere that 46% of us rely on transit to get to and from work, a pretty high percentage that shows ward 18 needs good transit.

2. COST: Given that one third of our ward lives on incomes of less that $30,000 a year and that there are many low incomers with far less, the $3 per ride fee is an impediment for many. If we want to free up our roads, get people out of their cars, encourage healthy cycling and allow citizens to connect with the rest of Toronto - we need an AFFORDABLE TTC. (It is strange that the TTC has opened the door to reduced monthly TTC passes for students in only certain post-secondary education, yet does nothing for those on low income, disabled. Value and devalue citizens, I guess?)

The whole transit debate from the high level view - the city-wide and regional view - is something that the next Mayor, the full city council , the province and the federal government need to be involved in, not to mention expert urban planners and highly skilled transit gurus. Truly a 'dizzying array' or participants.

In another story in The Villager, it puts things in perspective: http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/cityhall/article/877083--transit-city-remains-a-go Transit City is still a go; light rail along Sheppard by 2014; on Finch by 2019; along Eglinton by 2020; with a Scarborough Rapid Transit line by 2020. Things are proceeding, and all the noise we hear from mayoral candidates is just that. Nothing else approved or properly costed out.

In my view, candidates at local council levels should indicate their support generally of transit plans, but not be too specific. We need to remember that what is decided upon will be with us for decades and will involve a high cost, both in taxpayer dollars and construction disruption. Let's let the intelligent decisions evolve in the right forum. Subways or Light Rail? Underground freeways? Scrapping streetcars? This are big city-wide complicated issues that require rational debate after all the information is in. I get frustrated with the mayoral candidates who just throw numbers out without facts being checked. This is a bandwagon I don't want to jump on - and part of what makes it so hard for me to pick a mayor I would vote for.

IDEA: If we are really going to talk vision, how about researching and planning now for FREE TRANSIT within 25 years?

We need informed decisions, not desperate planning.... because...


DAVENPORT DESERVES BETTER !
* Update: TTC Chair Adam Giambrone back on YouTube video - this time its his TTC Chair video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1emO_zZTHAk
Report at: http://www.movingtransitforward.ca/ Lots of big plans without funding, it seems.






Friday, September 24, 2010

Ana Bailao Leads By Following?

Ana Bailao Jumps on Platform Bandwagons - AFTER THE FACT

1. Dundas West BIA PARKING Issue:

See Open file story "Bailao Wants More Parking for Ward 18" http://tinyurl.com/2dv3fdk

In my recollection, the taking away of parking from the Dundas West BIA happened a LONG time ago and has been a hot issue since. It was raised at the very first candidates' debate in the ward on May 18, when that BIA acknowledged that they had supported incumbent councillor Adam Giambrone but (like so many of us) had lost faith in him over time. Answering a question about what candidates would do about it if elected, Ana dodged the question, only saying that she knew they had lost 42% of their parking, that businesses had lost money and that it was difficult for people to stop and pickup cakes because they get tiocketed.

Why didn't Ana take the position then that she espouses now? Opening her campaign office in that area, with this Sept 18 announcement smacks of OPPORTUNISM in my view.

(To be fair, most candidates waffled a little on the question, Ken Wood (me) stated that the immediate solution is for the city to compensate businesses for the disruption; Kevin Beaulieu said we shouldn't punish streetcar riders; Hema Vyas agreed consultation was lacking; Kirk Russell said grants, a street festival, sidewalk improvements would help - but at least Kirk committed to restoring Dundas parking - put it on his website long ago.)

2. "Better Transit for your $3" issue:

Got the (hmmm... Hema Vyas' campaign colour?) - YELLOW - flyer proclaiming Ana will improve transit and give 'the best service'.

In it, Ana promises no more St. Clair boondoggles...push for federal/provincial fair share funding...go with the PRESTO fare system (of course! Ana IS a Liberal!)...Bring back street parking on Dundas...bike lanes...electric trains...environment friendly vehicles... In short - everything everybody's been saying for a long, long time. Kind of like motherhood and apple pie now, isn't it?

Well I guess Ana's feeling safe that she's the frontrunner now and will only risk committing to things everyone else has already. Doesn't that tell the voters how she will stand up for us in city council? Act only when others have already agreed?

I don't really know Ana personally, and I am left with relying on many of the same past experiences. A party loyalist who acts after the fact, and joins the herd rather than leads.

EVery time I tyhink of Ana the phrase 'Ana the Opportunist' comes to mind.

Voters: please choose wisely. ONE VOTE, ONE FUTURE.
Make sure its the future you want..... because....


Davenport Deserves Better !

Thursday, September 23, 2010

It's the ARTS stupid!

When Artists Attack ...

I knew this was coming. A year and a half ago I was at City Hall making a deputation about animal/pet bylaws with about 100+ other people making deputations. At least 90 per cent of the deputants were a well-organized city-wide lobby group demanding that the city fund the arts with substantial grants.

My plea was for the city to reconsider its tax grab of demanding licences for cats, since my analysis based on city information showed that the taxes raised would just about cover the cost of bylaw officers enforcing the licencing bylaw, with no money actually going to help the terrible ongoing stray/abandoned pet overpopulation crisis. Essentially, the city was raising money to build a bigger bureaucracy. I can recall being frustrated with city resistance to dropping a tax grab and suggested the city not hire more pet cops and 'give the money to the starving artists instead' since at least it would do some real good. (applause and laughter)

http://artsvotetoronto.ca/report-card/ surveyed all candidates for election with a heavily biased survey that seemed somewhat extortionary to me. "I am an Artist. I Vote" is the slogan. It was clear that the arts community would brook no disagreement that the arts demand more funding and fashioned individual questions in such a way that anyone who wanted to be in power better say the right things - or else.

And so the tweets and announcements begin with acquiescing candidates toeing the line...

"Thrilled to receive 4/4 stars from ArtsVote #ward18 benefits from large community of working artists" - Kevin Beaulieu (NDP Executive Assistant to incumbent Adam Giambrone - endorsed by community activist/artist Dyan Marie, incumbent councillors Adam Giambrone, Gord Perks, Adam Vaughan)

Also getting 4 stars were:

  1. Ana Bailao (Liberal/Mario Silva's former Executive Assistant)
  2. Hema Vyas (self-proclaimed independent and Culturelink guru)
  3. Frank de Jong (Green Party environmentalist)

Not completing the survey for ward 18 were: Doug Carroll, Abdirazak Elmi, Nha Le, Joe MacDonald, Mohammed Muhit, Kirk Russell, Joanna Telitniak.

Perhaps I should have done the 'smart political game thing' and said what voters wanted to hear or just not even responded to the survey (as it seems most candidates chose). But I have a different standard: I believe in answering all surveys and questions, taking the risk that honesty is what voters really want to hear. I've long been tired of hearing spin-doctored politically correct vagueness from politicians, and vow that I won't do that.

My score? Not surprisingly: ONE star - which I hasten to point out is because the individual questions were pretty much all or nothing answers.

I am still not convinced (but willing to be) that taxpayer money en masse to artists helps anyone except the artists themseves. I admit to being not as informed as I'd like on this issue, as I am in favour of meaningful community grants to local groups that demonstrably improve the quality of life in our ward. A previous idea I posted about the use of councillor office budgets (current status: councillors can give taxpayer money to vote-friendly groups as they choose):

* Lets transfer money from Councillor office budgets to a city run local grants budget that everyone can apply to. It could be a simple lottery or a well thought out procedure where points are used to award grants where neighbourhoods would see the most 'bang for the buck' and would be fair to everyone.

Another site where the Arts debate is being held: http://www.junctiontriangle.ca/node/441#comment-2362

MAYORAL ARTS DEBATE will be held Wednesday, September 29 from 6-9pm at the Art Gallery of Ontario Baillie Court 317 Dundas Street West. Moderator: John Tory with the "Major Mayoral Candidates"... congratulations to the organizers for trying to include one of the other 36 candidates! Over 4,000 people voted and (so far *) chose Keith Cole over James di Fiore and HiMY SYeD.

* Note: Highlighting the questionable veracity of online polling, the ArtsVote site says there was some funny business going on with the survey responses so a second round of voting will happen on Friday September 24 from 4-8pm.

Sadly, I regret not being able to attend this as Rogers Cable 10 has scheduled their live ward candidates debate for us that same time. One question I hope gets asked is this:

How do you see the arts contributing to real solutions for poverty-hunger-homelessness in our city, and please refrain from telling us how this helps the 'starving artists' ?
* Update: Ontario provincial government coughs up additional $27 million over next 3 years to non-profit groups as operating funds... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/09/24/ontario-arts-funding.html
Interesting reader comments on this.... with hydro going up why spend $ on arts...why should govts be allowed to spend $ on charities - if art is not good enough to support itself why is my money being taken to do so...why are arts more important than helping low income people or seniors...this is the type of investment you don't get a return on..."sugar coated welfare for artists" - you can see the anger out there. Arts lobby need to answer these questions.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

HOW CANDIDATES SELL THEMSELVES

Differences in Candidates - How to spot the marketing

Anyone wonder what works for candidates who play the "political game" well?
How do different candidates - essentially different people - with different experiences, skills, education, and agendas accentuate the positive and hide what could be negative?

It's not just that the twelve candidates running for your city councillor in ward 18 ARE different, it is how they show that difference that will help them get elected - or not - that tells you the voter who they really are.

My take on the standard presentations of candidates, which all answer the basic voter question: WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR YOU ?

1. I AM SMART: This is the candidate who over and over and over pummels the voter with essentially a long resume that lists all the degrees, certifications, courses and accreditations they may have. Tries to equate 'book smarts' with 'street smarts'.

2. I AM EXPERIENCED: This is the candidate who fashions their pitch to show that they have essentially already done the job or more. Piecing together a career job history that tries to demonstrate that they have essentially all the necessary skills to be in the elected position, even if they haven't been.

3. I AM POPULAR : This is the candidate who lists all the people who already like them and think they are 'Number One'. The endorsements prominently show glowing testimonials, photos and testimonials from important people, or people whom you should think are important. Such people may be from elsewhere in the city or from specific small lobby groups, and not local, but that shouldn't matter, because after all they are important.

4. I AM POWERFUL : A variation on the 'I Am Popular", this tactic tries to show that the candidate is already well-connected with a network of powerful friends and/or has some kind of 'insider edge'. This might be the candidate who claims to have the ear or affection of backroom kingmakers or movers and shakers in the bureaucracy. A favourite of incumbents who say "I know how to get things done".

5. I AM REAL : This is the candidate that tries to present themselves as being genuine, the 'real deal, plainspoken and straightforward, 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get'. Often speaks of gut reaction, honest responses, has character, integrity, not your 'usual politician'.

Different voters will be attracted to the different emphasis candidates place on these top five claims. Who wins on election day will depend on what the voters want, as always. 'Voters always get the government they deserve'

Please be an informed voters and weigh carefully all your choices, because....

DAVENPORT DESERVES BETTER !

Sunday, September 19, 2010

COMPARISON SHOPPING - HOW VOTERS DO IT

So how DO voters choose their votes?

With so many choices in many wards and for mayor, just how do voters compare them and pick the one they want? Exactly what process can a voter use to come to a selection?

An Inside Toronto article by Tim Foran, 'Too Many Candidates Spoil the Ballot' http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/elections/article/875289--too-many-candidates-spoil-the-ballot got me thinking about this. Paraphrasing some of the points here: Some people only register but don't actually campaign or have an intention to get elected; there are an average of 4 names per school trustee ballot in wards across the city in ward 18... 4 people registered at the last moment to challenge Maria Rodrugues for TDSB); races for councillor and mayor tend to get more cluttered; races at the local level don't get much mainstream media coverage, leaving voters uninformed: "There'll be a lot of guessing and stabbing in the dark", so says Nelson Wiseman, professor of political science at the University of Toronto.)

As something of a political geek, I've followed many elections, been involved in some as a volunteer campaigner, and had the extraordinary opportunity to work in elections at all levels as a Poll Clerk, Deputy Returning Officer, and some other senior positions. As an election officer, I've even had people asking me who they should vote for! (Can't do that - absolute neutrality is a job requirement for that day).


My take on how voters typically select their vote, and especially for this election:

1. Getting Even: "Keeping fear alive, as Stephen Colbert puts it means stoking voters' worst instincts: Politicians are corrupt,. They waste your money. They don't listen. They don't care" (Christopher Hume, urban issues reporter in The Star: http://tinyurl.com/278t3jq ). There are many articles detailing how angry voters are with incumbents. Mad about too many taxes, user fees, mishandled garbage strike, suburbia anger against downtown and their perception they are forgetoon and their taxes go elsewhere... hence Rob Ford's popularity. Despite the fact whoever they vote for will impact their lives, many Torontonians just want to express ANGER...yet, I agree with former mayor David Crombie... "anger is a very bad emotion to build a city on..." It will be interesting to see if anger fuels voter turnout - last election in this ward saw only 35% of eligible voters actually doing so.

2. Name Recognition: Nelson Wiseman said: "They (ignorant or confused voters) will normally select a name they recognise..." It may be ONLY that with no knowledge of who the candidate really is. They may even have just seen an election sign or remember a campaign flyer or even some reference in news stories (good or bad doesn't matter). This is why (until this weird year) incumbents have always had a great advantage. This is why those that can afford it deluge people with snazzy multi-colour brochures, offer free hot dogs at community events and try to be seen everywhere and identified with every cause, culture or concern. If you have the money, you can buy the recognition. (That said, there are those who earn it with their deeds, not their pocketbook).

3. AFFINITY: Humans are still tribal. We are attracted to those who are - or seem to be - like us. Nelson Wiseman also goes on to say (about confused or ignorant voters), that " ... they will go for a name that triggers something more positive in them, such as they might think the ethnicity (of a candidate) is the same as theirs." Many voters will guess that certain sounding name might be strong or reliable or friendly or kind.... or whatever they wished they had for their political respresentative. Voters who guess like this do themselves a dissrevice, as it means they are not informed about the issues or options or substance of candidates. I would include in this category Partisan Party Labels : many voters will just choose the party label, usually Liberal or NDP in this ward. (I can remember in previous elections, the husband telling the wife, "They said we need to pick the Liberal... which one is that?"

4. BANDWAGON : Everyone want to be seen as making the right choices, or at the very least, sharing blame for bad choices. If the polls tell you 'everyone else is going to choose this'... a last resort is to make that choice and hope to hell everyone else was right. Remember mothers telling kids things like 'So, if everyone else is going to jump off a bridge, does that measn you should too?' That's what polls do for us. I personally believe polls are bad for democracy and there should be a law forbidding them for at least three weeks before voting day. Polls are usfel for candidates to gauge the effectiveness of their getting the message out, but are not good when they are allowed to influence voters.

5. ONE ISSUE VOTER: Many voters will have that one burning issue that is all they care about... my garbage is still not being picked up...they took away my parking...we do/don't want community gardens...all I care about is too much crime... etc. Maybe they heard candidate X doesn't/didn't care and candidate Y promises to put things back the way they were and candidate Z wants to hear more but is open to doing what they want. So the decision of who gets the power (for the HUNDREDS of other issues that will come up for years) is made on one small snippet of time and concern. Maybe the voter wins what they want on that one issue, but next election will he/she be upset about other things that happened?... and do it all again.

6. INFORMED VOTER : Best choice in my view. Reads/watches all the news, goes to candidate debates and asks tough questions, looks at all campaigns and literature with a critical, analytic eye, actually meets the candidate and looks him/her in the eye, judges that CHARACTER and integrity and honesty is more important than where they may be on few issues. Thinks ahead, looks for vision and ideas and flexibility.

7. NON-VOTER : Worst choice in my view. A voter who comforts himself/herself that 'all politicians are crooks' and pats themselves on the back whenever something goes wrong later, saying 'Well, I didn't vote for THAT one!"... actually YOU DID ! By ducking your civic duty to help run this city... your city... you permitted that screwup to get in. It is common knowledge amongst experienced campaigners that it is not about getting the most votes out of the whole pie - it is about getting your votes out and not the competition's.... and relying on the angry, uninformed, unengaged voter to not mess things up by participating - or by punishing your incumbent-related opponent by not voting.

We need INFORMED VOTERS this election more than ever..... because

Davenport Deserves Better !