We learned a lot on the campaign trail. What stood out was how few residents understood where the power lies in our municipal affairs. Many believe the big issue of the day is who will be Mayor. Will Smitherman be the man who will do what Miller promised or will Ford be the guy who finally gets the job done.
Who is Mayor is important but consider this. Regardless of who makes it to that position, and regardless of what happens to the functionality of Council, there will be many issues confronting Ward 16 constituents that will be decided by the councillor.
That's what happened on Orchard View and Duplex. It took from only May the 20th to July 18th for Karen Stintz to make up her mind and support a 20 storey building that will overwhelm the adjacent neighbourhoods. That wan't very long given all the deliberations communities deserve. The community met only once with the planner and that was only 5 days before he made his final decisions. All along, the local residents believed the councillor was opposed to a 17 storey plan and were taken completely by surprise when she supported a 20 storey plan!
Of course things had all been decided on long before that. That's how they get done under Karen Stintz. The same strategy was used on projects like the open space at Yonge and Eglinton and 1066 Avenue Road.
If you are comfortable in your lifestyle, the local councillor has all the power to change the view from where you live in a very short time. If the local councillor doesn't understand the Official Plan or the many policies designed to protect our neighbourhoods, matters can get a whole lot worse.
Look at what happened at 1249 Avenue Road.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Planning is important.
The large building behind this accident is 1066 Avenue Road.
Imagine what it will be like with snow and ice on it!
The local community isn't happy.
But, that didn't seem to matter to Councillor Stintz.
She wanted to show she could be Mayor.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Development dominates Ward 16 debate.
Development dominates Ward 16 debate
Orchard View and Duplex apartment building raises the ire of some candidates
By Shawn Star
October 20, 2010
Neighbourhoods: Hoggs Hollow, Allenby Ledbury Park / Cricket Club / Bedford Park / Caribou Park / Lytton Park / North Toronto
|
h
http://mytowncrier.ca/development-dominates-ward-16-debate.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Do Politicians Have A “Best Before” Date?
While it might seem odd to compare people and products, sometimes it's informative to do so.
Many products are stamped with a “best before” date. Using the product after the “best before” date has its risks. Knowing this, we abide by the date to ensure our safety and well being. Ask any parent and they will tell you they don’t give their children things that have gone beyond the “best before” date.
Seems like politicians, by and large, also have a “best before” date. There are exceptions of course and we don’t mean to lump all politicians into the same category.
In Toronto’s Ward 16 we have a history of checking the "best before" information on our elected representatives. For example, the current Councillor won in 2003 because her predecessor had reached her “best before” date. And, there's nothing predictable about the actual date of deterioration. Rather it is something that seems to be central to the person. Shortly after her first 3 year term, current Ward Councillor – Karen Stintz – had already passed her “best before” date.
When she was first elected in 2003 there were many supporters who were happy that she won and would bring a freshness to the Ward. In her first term she was open, willing to listen, willing to work with, and for, constituents. This continued for only a short time after her re-election in 2006. In 2007 there was a marked changed of attitude. Like someone leaving the bag of bread open, the councillor started becoming “crusty”. Despite massive objections, a huge, misplaced development won approval in the "Upper Avenue". The following year, the hugely-out-of-place development at 1066 Avenue Road (St James Bond UC) also met with her approval.
Many products are stamped with a “best before” date. Using the product after the “best before” date has its risks. Knowing this, we abide by the date to ensure our safety and well being. Ask any parent and they will tell you they don’t give their children things that have gone beyond the “best before” date.
Seems like politicians, by and large, also have a “best before” date. There are exceptions of course and we don’t mean to lump all politicians into the same category.
In Toronto’s Ward 16 we have a history of checking the "best before" information on our elected representatives. For example, the current Councillor won in 2003 because her predecessor had reached her “best before” date. And, there's nothing predictable about the actual date of deterioration. Rather it is something that seems to be central to the person. Shortly after her first 3 year term, current Ward Councillor – Karen Stintz – had already passed her “best before” date.
When she was first elected in 2003 there were many supporters who were happy that she won and would bring a freshness to the Ward. In her first term she was open, willing to listen, willing to work with, and for, constituents. This continued for only a short time after her re-election in 2006. In 2007 there was a marked changed of attitude. Like someone leaving the bag of bread open, the councillor started becoming “crusty”. Despite massive objections, a huge, misplaced development won approval in the "Upper Avenue". The following year, the hugely-out-of-place development at 1066 Avenue Road (St James Bond UC) also met with her approval.
Like eggs that had been kept too long, the air was starting to smell as the community sensed something was foul. Next, Riocan’s desire to close in the public open space on the north west corner of Yonge and Eglinton. While in 2004 Stintz was against such a proposal, she chose to support it now despite major push-back from the Community and many other areas of Toronto. With this, many in the Ward felt they had consumed something that was well past the “best before” date and were sickened by her turncoat attitude. Most recently, Karen Stintz reversed her support for the community and approved of an over-sized, misplaced building to be erected at Orchard View and Duplex.
This was the one that 'broke the camel's back'. Many more residents now believed she too had consumed something that was past its “best before” date. She stands staunchly on her decision to change her opinion and now supports a development that is outside the “growth area” and outside the City’s “Official Plan”. This has left many feeling betrayed, disappointed and solidifying the commonly held view that she is well beyond her “best before” date.
Friday, October 15, 2010
If I was to be a politician.
If I was to be a politician …
Have you ever asked yourself that question? If not, sometime you should and maybe, just maybe, you should think that one through before you go to vote this October 25th. I have asked that question to friends and colleagues over the last while and what emerged was very interesting.
Most people I asked based their response on their own experiences. Since politicians at the Federal and Provincial levels are somewhat removed and distant, people seem to relate more (if at all) to their City Councillor. In Toronto’s Ward 16, we have a large number of residents who tend to live here for a long time. If they move, they do their best to move within the Ward.
So, for the past 7 years we have had just 1 Councillor. Before that we had 1 that was around for 15 years. That's a small sample - 2 councillors in 22 years. However, some who are actively engaged in City issues have seen how other councillor act, behave and interact with their constituents.
The sceptics' view is that all politicians are, shall we say, less than trustworthy and follow the interests of big business, developers and other large organizations. This has given rise to the notion that the local folk living in the Ward have a diminished influence on important issues. Others have the feeling that politicians adopt a certain type of “attitude”. Some call it “arrogance”, some call it “holier than thou” and others refer to it as “self-serving”. Whatever it is called, it too nurtures a feeling of disconnect on important issues.
This last sense of impotence is the one that folks seem to resent most. They feel a councillor is elected to serve the electorate. It is they who put the person in office. In turn residents feel the councillor should support the Ward and in the larger view, the City.
So, asking oneself … “If I was to be a politician …?”
Most people therefore would say they wanted to be a councillor to serve those who voted.
To serve their constituents.
To stand up for all residents.
To inform and promote programs and developments (changes in traffic patterns), that would enhance the quality of life for the people in the Ward, and the City.
To be honest and up-front with people.
To be clear about their position on any given issue.
To uphold City policies and guidelines.
To arrive at a position based on open, informed and fair dialogue.
To have the courage and conviction to change their own position if, through open, informed and fair dialogue, other points of view make sense.
To not be intransigent.
To be an active listener and to consider the best advice of residents.
Have you ever asked yourself that question? If not, sometime you should and maybe, just maybe, you should think that one through before you go to vote this October 25th. I have asked that question to friends and colleagues over the last while and what emerged was very interesting.
Most people I asked based their response on their own experiences. Since politicians at the Federal and Provincial levels are somewhat removed and distant, people seem to relate more (if at all) to their City Councillor. In Toronto’s Ward 16, we have a large number of residents who tend to live here for a long time. If they move, they do their best to move within the Ward.
So, for the past 7 years we have had just 1 Councillor. Before that we had 1 that was around for 15 years. That's a small sample - 2 councillors in 22 years. However, some who are actively engaged in City issues have seen how other councillor act, behave and interact with their constituents.
The sceptics' view is that all politicians are, shall we say, less than trustworthy and follow the interests of big business, developers and other large organizations. This has given rise to the notion that the local folk living in the Ward have a diminished influence on important issues. Others have the feeling that politicians adopt a certain type of “attitude”. Some call it “arrogance”, some call it “holier than thou” and others refer to it as “self-serving”. Whatever it is called, it too nurtures a feeling of disconnect on important issues.
This last sense of impotence is the one that folks seem to resent most. They feel a councillor is elected to serve the electorate. It is they who put the person in office. In turn residents feel the councillor should support the Ward and in the larger view, the City.
So, asking oneself … “If I was to be a politician …?”
Most people therefore would say they wanted to be a councillor to serve those who voted.
To serve their constituents.
To stand up for all residents.
To inform and promote programs and developments (changes in traffic patterns), that would enhance the quality of life for the people in the Ward, and the City.
To be honest and up-front with people.
To be clear about their position on any given issue.
To uphold City policies and guidelines.
To arrive at a position based on open, informed and fair dialogue.
To have the courage and conviction to change their own position if, through open, informed and fair dialogue, other points of view make sense.
To not be intransigent.
To be an active listener and to consider the best advice of residents.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Revitalising and refocusing Toronto.
George Smitherman has issued a statement on the revitalising and refocusing of Toronto, should he become Mayor.
its2big sent the following comments to John Sewell.
1) We need to refocus City Hall so that local issues can be addressed more efficiently and effectively.
That sounds great but the last time this happened things got worse. Right now we have 4 Community Councils that bring motions that have been "debated". In our case, that's just not true. Decisions on agenda items are decided before the meetings start. It's how councillors have crafted a way of dealing with many issues they don't know anything about (a development) or which are remote from their constituency.
2) At the same time we need to ensure that our city is capable of addressing the regional issues and is able to focus on those issues.
This doesn't resonate with us at its2big.
3) We need more transparency in decision-making, budgeting and the spending of money.
Agreed, especially in decision-making. The budget thing gets all fired-up once a year and then gets forgotten for the rest of it. Let's hope spending isn't covered-off by reference to some bullshit rules either. For example, Karen Stintz spent $4,500 on private speech lessons to further her political ambitions and when challenged said, "it was approved", end of story.
4) We need to be more creative in using the tools available to us to facilitate development not only in our downtown but across the City, to ensure that all City neighbourhoods have equal access to good neighbourhood facilities and services, jobs and housing choices.
I'm sure Mr. Bedford is disappointed with the implementation of his New Official Plan. The last 2 councils have made a good job of punching holes it it already. So much so that we might need another "Newer Official Plan" soon. (And, we don't mean the 5 year review that is upon it next year.) Development is the area where the greatest corruption has occurred. As Adam Vaughan said about Karen Stintz's approach to development, “a corruption of planning principles. I’ve never seen anything more unprincipled.”
Let's hope the next Mayor of Toronto can finally get the job done and tell him to not bother with David Miller's broom. We have a better one here called - www.its2big.ca.
its2big sent the following comments to John Sewell.
1) We need to refocus City Hall so that local issues can be addressed more efficiently and effectively.
That sounds great but the last time this happened things got worse. Right now we have 4 Community Councils that bring motions that have been "debated". In our case, that's just not true. Decisions on agenda items are decided before the meetings start. It's how councillors have crafted a way of dealing with many issues they don't know anything about (a development) or which are remote from their constituency.
2) At the same time we need to ensure that our city is capable of addressing the regional issues and is able to focus on those issues.
This doesn't resonate with us at its2big.
3) We need more transparency in decision-making, budgeting and the spending of money.
Agreed, especially in decision-making. The budget thing gets all fired-up once a year and then gets forgotten for the rest of it. Let's hope spending isn't covered-off by reference to some bullshit rules either. For example, Karen Stintz spent $4,500 on private speech lessons to further her political ambitions and when challenged said, "it was approved", end of story.
4) We need to be more creative in using the tools available to us to facilitate development not only in our downtown but across the City, to ensure that all City neighbourhoods have equal access to good neighbourhood facilities and services, jobs and housing choices.
I'm sure Mr. Bedford is disappointed with the implementation of his New Official Plan. The last 2 councils have made a good job of punching holes it it already. So much so that we might need another "Newer Official Plan" soon. (And, we don't mean the 5 year review that is upon it next year.) Development is the area where the greatest corruption has occurred. As Adam Vaughan said about Karen Stintz's approach to development, “a corruption of planning principles. I’ve never seen anything more unprincipled.”
Let's hope the next Mayor of Toronto can finally get the job done and tell him to not bother with David Miller's broom. We have a better one here called - www.its2big.ca.
A Parcel of Rogues.
SUCH A PARCEL OF ROGUES T'WAS THAT ORGANIZATION!
Farewell to Ward 16 fame
Farewell our old glory
Farewell even to the name
So famed in municipal story
Now Stintz runs over the Official Plan
And Tall Buildings tower over the horizion
To mark where Miller’s province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in an organization!
What force or guile could not subdue
Through many troubled stages
Is wrought now by an elected few
For parties, suits and speeches.
A councillor’s arrogance we disdained
Secure in honest condemnation;
But developer’s funds have been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in one organization!
If only we had seen the day
That blind ambition could sell us,
My cool head would remain
With Sewell and loyal Jacobs!
But with Mills in Ward 16, till the last hour
I will make this declaration :-
'We were bought and sold for developer’s gold'-
T'WAS SUCH A PARCEL OF ROGUES IN THAT ORGANIZATION!
What was Karen Stintz thinking?
The TTC subway doesn't work. Our sewers are bursting. The water supply is leaking. We're out of open space. Our roads are gridlocked. Summer smog, winter choke. Yet, willy-nilly we stuff more condos into our neighbourhoods. Where's that plan taking us?
There should be no plan but the Official Plan.
Some readers may see parallels in this poem to the Council of the past 7 years with it’s ‘Political Elites’ handing Toronto over to the greed of developers. Through a sense of entitlement, a corruption of planning principles, we've become a 'condo-nation'. All at the expense of the ideals in Toronto’s Official Plan.
The "corruption" at City Hall is best exemplified by the practice of "ward politics". It has to stop, we must raise the level of integrity in decision-making on Council.
Development is good, over-sized development is not!
Development is good, over-sized development is not!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)