WHY POLICE CHIEF BLAIR MUST RESIGN

Police Admit Deliberately Misleading Public On Expanded Security Fence Law

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-admit-deliberately-misleading-public-on-expanded-security-fence-law/article1622864/?cmpid=rss1

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair admits he willingly misinterpreted the so-called 'secret law' that was passed by the Ontario Liberal government cabinet to suit his own ends.

In doing so, in my view, he committed a knowingly willful act against civil liberties and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (*) and at the very least, brought disgrace upon himself and the entire Toronto Police Services he is charged to represent and administer. Chief Blair must resign or be forced from office by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The lawful rights of every citizen were taken away during the G20, as not only people near the security perimeter fence but also anywhere in Toronto were told they must show identification and submit to searches or be arrested. Indeed, there are numerous cases where arrests occurred and people were unlawfully detained by police. In many case, they were released without charge. Nonetheless, citizens had their civil liberty - guaranteed under constitutional law - taken away on the whim of a single man it seems.

No doubt the fallout from this will continue for days, weeks and months as the wrongly detained and arrested make their way through our slow court justice system, perhaps even to the Supreme Court. Many in authority will have much to answer for at all levels of government.

But until then, Chief Blair must resign or be removed from office. NOW !

(Sadly, Chief Blair has been an otherwise decent and effective police chief, and perhaps he is the 'scaepgoat' for the Ontario provincial government who seems to be running or cover from widespread public criticism)

( * ) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

freedom of conscience and religion;

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

freedom of peaceful assembly; and

freedom of association

LEGAL RIGHTS:

• Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure
• Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.sect.html

G20 Protests June 25-27, 2010

HOW THE G20 WAS HANDLED SHOULD BE AN ELECTION ISSUE

Three days of massive protests in Toronto, most peaceful, but marred by the actions of a relatively very few vandals and some questionable police tactics have highlighted Toronto in a way that probably everyone can agree was disturbing at the least. How things were handled should be a major election issue as it speaks to the very foundations of civil liberties and democracy in our city.

I personally attended a protest march on Friday June 25 because I believed the ONE BILLION DOLLAR cost of security was of an obscene order of magnitude, particulary given that we have pressing social problems of poverty, hunger and homelessness in our city and country. At the same time, we should all be wondering why the last summit in the USA cost $18 million (51 times less) in comparison. Did it really have to cost this much and was it worth it?http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100626/100626_cost_g20/20100626/?hub=CP24Home

Friday's demonstrations were peaceful and relatively uneventful, except for what appears to have been a denial of rights to the deaf man arrested for not hearing police orders http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/toronto/deaf-man-arrested-in-g20-protest-gets-bail/article1619559/ Police presence was massive, but restrained and orderly.

Saturday I did not attend protests, but had the opportunity to follow all of the actions via numerous blogs and live-feeds from both mainstream media and the wealth of citizen on the scene reporting. (the new 'social media' is amazing!) The actions of the small group of "Black Bloc" (self-professed anarchists who seem to hate any form of social order) hijacked the messages of the tens of thousands of protesters. Violence sells - "If It Bleeds It Leads" - and what most in our city, country and even internationally thought was 'Toronto is Burning' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32OW6cu4Ypk (Russia Today). Numerous downtown businesses were trashed, yet police did not respond to stop it, preferring instead to prevent protesters from getting to THE FENCE. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/825908--fortress-toronto-secrets-of-the-fence It seemed police tactics were to allow collateral damage to Toronto's streets to ensure the security zone around the dignitaries was protected at all costs. Incumbent City Councillor Adam Vaughan expected this http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/torontonians-try-to-make-sense-of-g20-vandalism/article1620860/

Sunday, police changed tactics, becoming much more aggressive at boxing in protesters and initiating arrests and violence. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/829581--police-tactics-too-tough-or-too-soft Peaceful, lawful protesters, passersby, tourists, media were forced into the net by herding police in riot gear. Tally? Over 600 arrests, much more than the infamous 1999 "Battle of Seattle" protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity Sunday in Toronto saw violence against citizens by police in contrast to violence against property by criminals on Saturday.

The conclusion? Well, Prime Minister Stephen Harper in an "I told you so" moment suggested that the violence justified the controversial (one billion dollars) cost of the G20: "I think it goes a long way to explaining why we have the kind of security costs around these summits that we do" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNkQwBas7Slcts-cUOIAJhnP9HdwD9GJVAD00 Yet, the truth is these summits could be held anywhere at temendously lower cost than a city like Toronto.

And just where are our local city politicians on the G20 issues and what's happened to our city?

• Mayor Miller blames the few thugs that caused all this
• Adam Giambrone to his credit seems to have worked hard to keep the TTC running
• Most mayoral candidates have blamed the criminals for all the violence
• Many incumbent councillors, like Shelley Carroll, seemed to ignore and laugh at the situation (she tweeted: "Protest can't stop consumerism at Yonge and Bloor, Off to Queen and Beav to watch Ghana Game!" at the same time violence was erupting on the streets)
• Following tweets of candidates for various levels of office, they pretty much all semed to be very far from the action doing social events. (Later many would condemn actions they never saw in person and only heard about from news reports)
• Most notable, Himy Syed, once candidate for city councillor ward 19 now running for mayor, was at the heart of the action Sunday night at Queen and Spadina to experience first hand questionable police tactics http://twitter.com/himysyed

I have to wonder if there will be any real inquiry into what befell our city this past weekend, whether we'll really know whether laws were followed and rights respected by both protesters and police, and whether candidates for political office will even see this as an issue before October elections. In my view, the G20 and how it was handled in Toronto deserves an inquiry and close scrutiny, with a view to ensuring Toronto never again gets such a black eye.

It should be an election issue discussed by all candidates.

*** UPDATE *** Any businesses who suffered damage can apply to the federal government for compensation according to this: http://g20.gc.ca/payments-on-an-ex-gratia-basis/

FRINGE CANDIDATES: WORTH IT OR NOT ?

Ward 18 Councillor Race Getting Crowded

Well, we are now at ELEVEN candidates to replace our failed councillor Adam Giambrone in ward 18 Davenport (*). For TDSB School Trustee, so far it looks like Maria Rodrigues will be acclaimed as the only candidate in that "race". The Mayoral race currentlyt has THIRTY candidates, with the mainstream media claiming only 6 of them are the "frontrunners".

* January = 2 candidates, February = 4, March = 5, April = 6, May = 9,
June = 11 candidates
(candidates have until September 10 to declare or withdraw from the race)

Is this really a good thing for local democracy?

There have been allegations in the past from certain community lobby groups and individuals that the "Fringe" candidates are a waste of time and not worth hearing from or being invited to debates. While holding events with a minute or more allotted to each candidate can prove logistically onerous and seemingly unworkable, much of this attitude is simply self-serving expressed political leanings from those that expect they might gain the most from certain individuals getting elected. Truth be told, each of those already committed followers would perefer to see only one candidate - their choice - getting the attention. Coronations or acclamations would be even better in their view.

Most city level elections boast the sad reality of the lowest voter turnout. Most voters will simply choose a name they have heard of before, often unaware of the stance that person has on the issues. Elections often tend to be popularity contests where cleverly crafted sound bytes and staged events draw attention to name recognition. Issues often take second place, with the inevitable result that nothing really changes much.

Another inevitable result is that citizens continue to be disappointed in the results and complain that "all politicians are the same", "why bother voting", my vote "makes no difference". Cynicism grows and democracy withers.

So - YES, FRINGE CANDIDATES ARE GOOD

FOR LOCAL DEMOCRACY
... at least in the initial stages of campaigning and public events like debates.
Example: See the substance of issues at: http://www.junctiontriangle.ca/node/719

Fringe candidates will often bring attention to the issues that "front-runners" won't for a multitude of reasons:

• Contentious issues are better left unmentioned or deflected, since taking a stand will mean dividing potential support
• Staying with outside the ward issues and speaking to what city-wide media see as "THE" issues means getting valuable press attention that supports name recognition. This means local issues are often ignored or left unaddressed.
• Front-runners often have ties to political parties and must show loyal allegiance to political philosophies, even if locally constituents hold another position, again, meaning potential loss of support
• Front runners have to worry that if they did get elected, past promises not kept would come back to haunt them and end their lucrative careers in the next election. It is better for them to be as non-specific as possible while still sound like they might support voters' views
• Those that have city hall experience, either as incumbents or staff to former incumbents, often have loyalties and allegiances to inner circle cliques whose positions again may be contrary to local ward voters.

I am inclined to think, but am not yet certain, that when the deadline for registering or withdrawing as a candidate passes (September 10), perhaps having so many candidates is NOT a good thing. There is always the possibility of vote-splitting, with results we have seen in the past where perhaps 20% or less of the voters decide who is chosen to represent them and the other 80% of the ward. Certainly not a clear mandate or vote of confidence!

Until we have a system of RANKED BALLOTS where people can clearly indicate their preferential order (first, second, etc) this problem won't be solved.

Until then, maybe ALL CANDIDATES should decide if they are in or out, if they have the support or not and if there is another candidates who would best represent their views on the local issues.

Still, until the final decide date, the more the "FRINGE" can contribute to healthy debate and brining up real local issues, the better it is for democracy in my view. Because...

DAVENPORT DESERVES BETTER !

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY : should be a main issue in this election.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/05/12/13919316.html

57 year old pedestrian hit by a van while crossing Dupont and Lansdowne.
He is the 24th pedestrian to be hurt this year and there have been fatalities as well.

Although Toronto has a Pedestrian Charter since 2002 (http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/walking/charter.htm) and has a Pedestrian Committee (http://www.toronto.ca/tpc/ ) it seems that the cycling groups have a stronger lobby at city hall and much of the decisions made about getting around in Toronto are centered on the car and transit.

Our city is growing much more dense: explosion of condominiums, multi-resident buildings compressed in areas with limited infrastructure - and we need to think about traffic gridlock as including innovations for ALL: pedestrians, cyclists, cars and public transit. A key element is also that we are an aging society and we need to think about our seniors and those with disabilities.

Let's Change Our Democracy ?

Better Ballots is a non-partisan movement that hopes to make Toronto elections more fair, relevant, participatory and effective. Sponsored by such groups as The Toronto City Summit Alliance, the Maytree Foundation, Fair Vote Toronto and Vote Toronto it is run by activist volunteers who seek a better way of choosing our municipal governments. Not that they expect to see changes for this October 25th's election, but rather that they hope to see changes for 2014.

I attended one of their town halls last Monday, April 26th at City Hall Council Chambers. About 200+ enthusiastic political geeks, many of them candidates and those just wanting to learn more about options were presented with 14 ideas to change the way we elect local representatives.

The Better Ballots website is at: http://www.betterballots.to/

An article about the gatherings is here: http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/cityhall/article/806120--city-hall-event-draws-focus-on-better-ballots

COST OF DEMOCRACY ?

WHAT ARE POLITICIANS REALLY WORTH ?

• City Councillor : $ 99,535 plus $ 21, 246 benefits = $ 120,781
• Mayor : $ 167,627 plus $ 30,941 benefits = $ 198,568
• School Trustee : $ 26,000 plus ?

+City councillors (44 of them) also get a $53,100 office expenses budget that they can pretty much do what they want with. http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/41555--giambrone-tops-list-of-city-councillors-for-travel-expenses

+ School trustee politician used to be considered a part time position, but in 2006 they voted themselves a raise from $5,000 to $26,000 a year (a 420% increase). Chair of the TDSB, Bruce Davis, earns $33,000 a year. There are now over a thousand people working for the TDSB earning over $100,000 a year. The TDSB is facing a $12 million shortfall in its budget. http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/04/06/13488561.html

The city is spending $50,000 on a consultant's study to determine whether city politicians should make more or less money after the October 25, 2010 election. This automatic review was set by council in 2006 to try to defuse extreme public anger over the 8.6% plus an annual 2.2% January 1st 'cost of living' (inflation) raise they awarded themselves. Basically, a comparison of politician salaries in 12 Canadian cities is done and Toronto's compensation is set at the 75th percentile. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontocouncil/article/798023--consultant-asks-councillors-should-you-make-more-or-less-money

Comparisons are often made to other jurisdictions, like Mississauga where long-serving Mayor McCallion earns $ 185,835 while Mississauga councillors make $ 130,095 . In Vaughan, many councillors make over $100,00. The provincially mandated 'Sunshine List'* shows that many TTC union operators and Police make over $100,000. (One TTC operator made over $165,000, but that included a lot of overtime; a total of 724 TTC employees made the list).

*http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/03/31/417138.aspx

Political Election Spin: As happened in previous election years, incumbent politicians and many challengers make promises that they will not accept a pay raise, either returning it to the city coffers or donating to a charity of their choice.

THE REALITY: In a $ 9.2 BILLION city budget, the compensation for all politicians amounts to less than one per cent. About 70% of the operating budget goes to TTC, Social Services, Police, Fire, Ambulance and Health. So it could be argued that the cost of democracy is small compared to the overall cost of running the city. As well, a single councillor currently represents about 50,000 constituents. Prior to the forced amalgamation of the city by Mike Harris, there used to be two councillors per ward - a kind of junior and senior councillor. There was also much more duplication of services as there were several cities within what is now the GTA.

MY POSITION ON THIS :

• $100,000 a year is enough for a city councillor and $200,000 is appropriate for the leadership position of Mayor who has much more complex a position.
• $ 50,000 office expense budgets are appropriate only if they are strictly controlled. That includes a fair market rental payment for a constituency office that should be placed in an easily accessible central area within a ward. (Perhaps it could be city owned property and cost would be an administrative one within city budgets? Perhaps it could be a permanent placement that is not up to the individual who could decide to favour one spot in the ward over others for political reasons?) It would include at most three staff (or a number to be determined so as to ensure equal city-wide representation on a constituent per capita basis ?). I would prohibit individual councillors from using office expenses to curry voting favour by selecting charitable/community endeavours as worthy of a slefish 'grant' and would instead install a system whereby a lottery grant or points system would be made available in each ward.
• COMMITTEE CHAIRS : Should be selected by council as a whole and not just by the Mayor or his executive. Reason? We want chairs who will forward a collaborative not competitive approach to committee and council work. No additional compensation should be awarded. In particular, the extremely important position of TTC CHAIR should be a separate elected position, much like what happens in the USA with Sheriff or judges. The TTC needs someone who is skilled in urban transportation and available to devote 100% of time to this without penalizing ward constituents.
• NUMBER OF POLITICIANS: It is ridiculous in my view to advocate cutting our poolitical representation further. True, effective democracy is messy and costs both in dollars, time and effort. We need a new way to ensure citizen engagement ! Many of the ideas being put forward by the Better Ballots group are worthy of discussion and debate: http://www.betterballots.to/index.htm http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=169227078603

Bike Lanes, Complete Streets, War on the Car and Transit City

BICYCLE LANES : City council is to vote on bicycle lanes for the very busy car speedway of University Avenue (and this after all the arguements over bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street)... http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=2926872 and it appears to be a hot issue in the mayoral race, with some lining up against bike lanes (Rossi), some dithering about it (Smitherman) and some in favour (Pantalone, Ford). All the media spin seems to repeatedly flog the phrase "War on the Car", as if this is an us versus them situation. Many of us have seen the nearly useless 'bike sharrows' on Lansdowne Avenue which are just painted reminders for drivers to watch for cyclists, while doing little to ensure traffic safety. *** Update: Council passed the proposal, calling it a "tipping point" because there was little public opposition: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/04/20/proposal-for-bike-lanes-on-university-avenue-passes-first-hurdle.aspx

COMPLETE STREETS : This is yet another friendly buzz word being bandied about lately (like "Transit City"). What it means is that city planning should design our roadways in such a way that they are safe, attractive, comfortable and provide access to all types of users: bicycles, motorists, pedestrians and public transit users. The idea is that all people can move around the city, no matter what their age, ability or disability. (For more background on this, see: http://www.completestreets.org/ or http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-utsp-casestudy-cs72e-completestreets-812.htm )

War on the Car? No - I don't believe that it is that simple. Those claims, usually aimed at the very busy bicyclist (often equates 'leftist') lobby at city hall by people and politicians from the outskirts of the city (ie. not downtown, core Toronto) are made by people who want to preserve their status quo. That is, they want to keep driving single occupant vehicles through traffic gridlock into and out of the city and not be hindered by obstacles like cyclists. It is a very selfish view and completely ignores the fact that we are on a track to kill ourselves and the planet with pollution. However, I do concede that many are diverted to using their cars because of poor public transit and poor design of out city access roadways. Yet fuel is added to the fire by some cyclists who overtly antagonize drivers by their behaviours on the road. This is an unecessary conflict situation that is not helped by people polarizing the debate and hurling insults at each other.

TRANSIT CITY : This is a proposal by the outgoing Mayor Miller administration to build 8 new LRT (Light Rail Transit) lines to areas not now being served by high volume transit (ie subways). The plan is to extend capacity and more frequent service to outlying areas to the east (Scarborough), north (Finch west), south (waterfront) and west (airport). Since subways are terrifically expensive, using electricly powered vehicles is the next best step to attaining service goals. The 8 lines are: Eglinton crosstown, Jane north, Finch west, Waterfront west, Don Mills north, Sheppard east, Scarborough Rapid Transit (a kind of north-east line), and Scarborough-Malvern. Full details can be found here: http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects_and_initiatives/Transit_city/index.jsp

MY PROPOSAL: CITY OF THE FUTURE

Given the perfect storm of traffic gridlock, under-funded public transit, growing population, increasing density and diversity, climate change and a competitive global economy, Toronto needs to dream bigger. We need to collectively collaborate on planning for a unique city of the future where all the complex needs of a densely packed urban environment are met. This would include:

1. PUBLIC TRANSIT : Robust, fully accessible and 'first choice'. Customer service driven, reliable, frequent and comfortable. This requires very low fares to start with an eventual intent on making public transit completely free to use for the rider. Interconnectivity with all modes of transport is a must: rail, subway, streetcar, bus, cycling, airport, etc. Public transit must reach out to the entire GTA and beyond. Since it is a massive undertaking, it should be administered by an independent regional authority and (eventually) 100% funded from property, business, sales, gas taxes and road tolls. This is ESSENTIAL! ***Update: Someone else thinking about this http://thestar.blogs.com/yourcitymycity/transit/
2. Road Tolls. A sensibly defined defined inner city core needs to charge road tolls to discourage automobile use and reduce traffic gridlock and pollution.
3. Downsize Transport. Prohibit large transport trailer trucks from entering a defined inner city core. Instead, they would have to use smaller sized trucks for goods transport within the core. This requires a radical rethink of how we move goods across country and into the city. I propose advocating significant rail and ship transport to move goods into satellite stations around the city. From there, the smaller truck vehicles would move goods within the city. Such vehicles would be exempt from road tolls.
4. Parking : We must stop the practice of parking being allowed on every street. Streets are meant to be used in motion. People will still need a place to store their vehicles, so underground parking or, second choice of above ground parking structures needs to be favoured. There will be those with physical disabilities who need transport, but this should be the duty of a robust public transit system.
5. Multiple Use Roads : As in the opening photo of this blog, we need a "Street of the Future" where there is separated access for pedestrians, cyclists, cars/trucks, public transit. Planting trees, bushes, hedges would contribute to beauty. reducing pollution and safety. More benches, rest stops and water fountains for the traveller and those with disabilities or the elderly would help make roadways truly livable.

Emphasis on COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. We cannot trust any one group to design our living space of the future. Lobby groups, politicians, urban planners, engineers, city bureaucracies, special interest groups all have their own agendas. We need to come together to plan a better city now, because...

DAVENPORT DESERVES BETTER !