Are taxes evil? Not so much.

Here I thought we were making so much progress. As the Ford brothers flail about trying to make their Sheppard subway proposal work, they inadvertently started an important conversation about taxation and revenue sources to invest in the city. When you have Norm Kelly talking about a sales tax and Rob Ford endorsing parking levies for the city, you've made legitimate progress in the conversation. 


Now, the Sheppard subway extension still won't happen for any number of reasons (funding, density and zoning among them) but at least we're going in the direction of talking about building infrastructure with the attached risk sacrifice applied to it. The Grid's Edward Keenan makes this explicit in this piece, where he shows what his family share of the various Sheppard subway plans would be: 

Put another way, the family capital cost for Ford's proposal is the equivalent of paying the VRT for 100 years. 

 This is the basis for a conversation about the value of a proposal and how much one is willing to contribute. To be fair, it's only the beginning of a conversation as it only looks at individual costs and not collective benefits, but it's a place to start thinking.


This, on the other hand, is not: 

 "We're against all taxes. All taxes are evil as far as I'm concerned." -Doug Ford on paying for the Sheppard extension

Whereas Keenan is willing to discuss the amount of taxation needed in real terms (and implicitly concludes it doesn't make much sense for him or his family) Ford rules out a conversation altogether. 


He uses loaded and emotional language to do so, calling taxes 'evil'. As Joe Mihevc said in this piece I did for The Grid, you can't begin to negotiate with something you think is evil. 


But there's a deeper thread here. Ford's sentiment speaks to a view of government that it can do nothing right and says that the social contract is only about individual freedoms and not collective responsibilities. 


We have shorthand sayings for these complex thoughts- Oliver Wendell Holmes's "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" and Genesis' "I am my brother's keeper" come to mind. These sayings aren't fully fleshed out, but they capture the ethos that to belong to or to build something larger one must contribute to something larger than oneself. Without that underlying principle, there's no point in engaging with the likes of Edward Keenan or a conversation on civic discourse or policymaking in general. 


This is about more than just a subway or Doug's childish refusal to pay for something he wants (echoed by the Toronto Sun and real estate developers). The Doug Ford principle reduces citizens to islands where they struggle to defend themselves. 


And curiously, it's where the Ford administration finds itself politically. With an inability to make sacrifices and build bridges to collective interests, Team Ford is stuck playing in its own sandbox, kicking sand at those who pass by.

The Macleans-Rob Ford Story: A Media Criticism

This week Macleans has an issue out and it features none other than Toronto’s mayor on the cover. Accompanied by the headline “Crushed”, the image features Ford’s face squeezed. The subtitle reads, “His enemies roused,his brother a liability, Canada’stoughest mayor comes undone.”

The Toronto Star’s City Hall reporter Daniel Dale covered a few inaccuracies in some tweets, including what he felt was a misleading cover, a misrepresentation of how Doug Ford is handled and how the Toronto Star gets its information.

With that said, it’s a fairly interesting piece and not as sensationalist as it could be based on its title.

The article, written by Nicholas Kohler, is most interesting for the rhetorical techniques it uses to frame its narrative. This isn’t to say that rhetorical techniques are necessarily a bad thing; they’re needed to tell a story of any kind. However, the techniques used can inform the reader as to the depth, accuracy and dependencies of a particular argument or narrative.

So with that in mind, let’s look at the article.

The online version begins with “Rob Ford can’t fight city hall: His enemies roused, his brother a liability, Canada’s toughest mayor comes undone.” It’s unlikely this was Kohler writing the headline, but it’s worth taking a look at the assumptions it primes the reader for. 

For starters, the title implies that Ford has been unsuccessful thus far in shaping City Hall, that he can’t do so. To be fair, this is because the headline writer is playing off of the popular phrase, but it’s fitting with the shape of Kohler’s narrative. The subtitle then goes on to identify two sources of Rob Ford’s problems, his enemies and his brother Doug. With these external sources, even Canada’s toughest mayor can’t withstand the pressure. 

The headline here immediately casts Ford in a positive light by being the ‘tough’ politician, a virtue universally admired. By setting Ford up as the tough maverick outsider taking on the establishment, the headline sets up Ford’s downfall solely in opposition to external forces, thus absolving him of his role in his precipitous poll numbers.

Kohler leads his article by establishing the setting at Krista Ford’s inaugural Lingerie Football League game. It’s a place where the ethic of Doug Ford’s daughter- and by extension the family, is on display, “All I care about is: not missing a single tackle & leaving it all,” Kohler cites Krista as tweeting.  The backdrop of red-meat, hard-nosed football- lingerie football at that- is used to frame Kohler’s preferred juxtaposition of  “the intense culture war under way between the Fords and Toronto’s downtown elite.” Lingerie Football, Kohler offers, “is the most powerful symbol of the conflict.”

Putting aside what constitutes ‘the most powerful symbol,’ Kohler’s use of ‘downtown elite’ has a clear agenda. By categorizing an amorphous and undefined group of opposition into an unfavourable term, distance is created between the reader and the perspective that is critical of the Fords. The ‘downtown elite’ is particular and cast as an ‘other’, an identifier by which no person would earnestly portray themselves. 

By contrast, the article gives an intimate and detailed look at the Fords which provides the reader a source of identification and thus sympathy. This is would be more understandable if the article was solely a feature on the Ford brothers but seeing whereas it’s a look a the dynamic of council and the city to the Fords, it would be helpful to further define those elements.

Kohler does make mention of the attention paid to City Hall, but it’s only in passing. He writes that the polarizing nature of the Fords, “[has promoted] a level of civic engagement at city hall not seen in years.” This is true, as evidenced by the intense media coverage, record number of deputations and various civic groups organizing to be heard. However for Kohler’s narrative of entrenched interests v. Fords to work, he disregards that the sources of this civic engagement are new. After all, the unions have always been there and their representatives like Bob Kinnear, Maureen O’Reilly and Mark Ferguson can only give so many deputations. When he does allow for the criticism from moms and crossing guards he dismisses it as a ‘granola backlash’.

The backlash is only described in abstract ways while the Ford mission to combat ‘vested interests’ are given details. The 2600 word article gives just five words to Joe Mihevc and two sentences to Shelley Carroll describing the Fords and one paragraph on the Doug Ford call-in to centrist Josh Matlow’s radio show. The objections to the Ford agenda aren’t given a great voice by the people objecting, but Kohler provides the context:

Ford, who secured an improbable election win by promising to deliver a stripped-down Toronto—one free of graffiti, a Toronto of roads, perhaps some police, lower taxes and little else—has been stopped in his tracks by the city’s old order. His story is a morality tale that plays more like farce. It would be funny if it were not such a powerful lesson in the staying power of civic vested interests and the Sisyphean challenge of changing a city.     

Ford promised a lot of things, among them a city free of graffiti, cancelling the land transfer and vehicle registration taxes and a focus on roads. However, saying he promised a ‘stripped-down’ Toronto is a half-truth. He promised a Toronto free of ‘gravy’, unnecessary things like councillors having the city pay for their own retirement party. His platform promised to find $1.7 billion in ‘waste’ and redirect $416 million of this to improving priority services such as childcare services, services for seniors, affordable housing and other items. Importantly, he said in the weeks before his mayoral campaign that, “Services will not be cut. Guaranteed.”

The objections from the ‘granola crowd’ are largely to these inconsistencies (the governance style too). Services were promised to not be cut and others improved and yet Ford has sought to cut both. Ignoring this part of his mandate and the objections to the city’s direction that are largely fuelled by this conveniently de-complicates the issue to make an easier narrative.

In fact, this information directly undermines Kohler’s story. Rather than being the tough outsider shaking up City Hall, the Fords are like the cynical view of other politicians, tripped up on promising the world to everyone and having no real plan to deliver it.

Kohler’s article is informative on a few levels. To be fair, it’s a decent piece that adds some interesting details like the extent of Doug’s frosty relationship (although other details are exaggerated as Dale points out, so this can be called into question). He also captures the Ford personality and ethic nicely for a general audience.

However, what’s most informative is the range of rhetorical devices and framing mechanisms used to position Rob Ford as the embattled hero of this story. From the start it positions the mayor as the constant and consistent warrior at odds with uncontrollable external forces from his brother to council opposition. When it refers to his opponents, it’s almost always by a derisive and distancing term, like ‘downtown elitists’, ‘the granola backlash’ or ‘special interests’. The concerns of these groups aren’t presented, obscuring any way that Ford brought these problems on to himself.

This isn’t necessarily intentional on Kohler’s part, but it’s an important exercise to look at the shortcomings of media narratives. The mostly pro-Ford story mimics the political narrative presented by the Ford team. It’s framed as an appeal to character, a personal connection to an individual on a vague mission to overcome vaguely villainous groups and vague waste.

In the end its connection to the detailed and nuanced political circumstances at City Hall is tenuous. After all, it's just a story. 

CodeBlueTO's History and a Model for Activism

Paula Fletcher stood up in the council chamber as the last speaker on item EX 9.6, a ‘consensus’ motion on Toronto’s Port Lands. As the local councillor for the Port Lands, Fletcher had been particularly busy for the past three weeks. In that time, City Hall- and the city at large- had become embroiled in a debate as to the best vision for Toronto’s Port Lands.

An undeveloped former industrial site close to the size of Toronto’s downtown core, the Port Lands was the apple of Rob and Doug Ford’s eye. Located on Toronto’s eastern waterfront, they knew it could attract a substantial amount of money if sold to developers immediately, and this money could then be used to balance the operating deficit, pay down city debt or eliminate the land transfer tax.

It was Doug Ford’s job to get this done, to muscle through Waterfront Toronto, the agency with the long-term plan and the authority. At the same time he had to convince Council and Torontonians this was the right thing. With slicked back hair, playful banter and the ability to put forward a vision, the older Ford brother comes across as a consummate salesman. Yet there he sat in front of Fletcher, leaning back in his chair and subdued. In what was supposed to be his triumphant day, Ford didn’t say a word on the item.

Fletcher, on the other hand, made sure to mark the moment. Dressed in a light blue suit and sporting a sharp navy button on her lapel, she gave context, “This is a Toronto moment and this is a Jane Jacobs city”.

While stopping the Ford Port Lands vision likely won’t share the same historical importance as Jacobs and Friends defeating the Spadina Expressway, here too was a group of highly engaged, vocal and organized constituents. Sitting behind Fletcher in the audience were a group of activists calling themselves CodeBlueTO, the name scrawled across Fletcher’s button.

As much as the Port Lands was a story about the Ford Team’s governance style or the Mushy Middle finding its backbone, there was something else. It’s a story of citizens successfully voicing their message, capturing the attention of politicians, and bringing them to their feet.

Ears to the Ground, Constant Vigilance

Cindy Wilkey knew she was going to be contacted imminently. For months she had feared this day was coming, and it was right around the corner. A lawyer and long-time advocate for the Lower Don Lands and Port Lands area that she calls home, Wilkey had heard troubling news through the grapevine.

Back in April, she knew something was going on as soon as Doug Ford accused Waterfront Toronto of being a ‘boondoggle’. When she received advance notice on Thursday, August 25 (see timeline here) that there would be an announcement about Waterfront Toronto from City Hall, she knew it was going to be bad and had a rough outline of what it was going to be.

When the notice went up on the City Hall website at 4:15 on the Friday before a long weekend, Wilkey was stunned by the breadth of the recommendations. From the transfer of power from the arms-length Waterfront Toronto to the city-run Toronto Port Lands Corporation to the cost critique of the Don River naturalization, everything involved in the Port Lands was under siege.

Since the Ford plan wasn’t a full-fledged surprise, Wilkey had a number of people to speak with who were paying as much attention as her. For instance, there was Dennis Findlay, a retired baker had taken an interest in the waterfront in 2005 when Toronto was considering a World Expo bid which would have an impact on the Port Lands.

A talkative and energetic man, Findlay had embraced city planning, engineering and the waterfront over the six years of his involvement with consultation and development plans.

The passion continued for Findlay as Ford’s April comments came. A group of engaged waterfront activists arranged periodic meetings to ensure they shared information and stayed on top of the latest developments. The meetings with other individuals like Wilkey, Julie Beddoes and John Wilson made him ready to go when the Ford motion came, “When we became aware of the fact the Mayor had his eyes on the Port Lands, we got on our high horse,” he said over the phone. “They were going to have to take our hard work over our dead bodies”.

The hard work Findlay spoke of came from other sources too. Two months before the Ford Vision, Toronto academics Gene Desfor and Jennefer Laidley had co-edited Re-Shaping Toronto’s Waterfront, a collection of essays and articles from University of Toronto Press. Both Desfor and Laidley had been experts in the Toronto waterfront for a long time, in everything from its history and environmental impact to the socio-political responses to it.

When Desfor returned from his Algonquin Park camping trip over the long weekend to find the Waterefront turned upside down, he saw it as a dangerous idea from a hostile administration, something he warned about on Metro Morning promoting the book in June. Laidley adds, “When the report first came out we were horrified. We had heard something like that was in the works but to see it on paper was horrifying”.

Between Wilkey, Findlay, Desfor, Laidley and others, there were a good number of Waterfront knowledge experts with important things to say. But to combat Doug Ford’s ‘horrifying’ vision and Lyle Lanley ways, they would need to amplify their voice.

Finding A Framework, Making Voices Heard

Laurence Lui

Laurence Lui knew Wilkey through the Corktown Residents Association. Seeing Lui’s  passion for urban issues such as planning and transit, Wilkey encouraged him to become involved in the Waterfront. Like the long-time activists, Lui followed the waterfront issues as they came up. Unlike them, he was also fully immersed in social media, which would prove to be an effective tool for CodeBlueTO.

The Waterfront veterans could see its impact right away. As soon as Doug Ford started speaking of monorails, megamalls and Ferris wheels, “the Internet lit up like Christmas lights," according to Findlay.

Immediately upon the news breaking, Lui tweeted the suggestion that discussions around the Waterfront topic use the hashtag #CodeBlueTO. The prolific City Hall watchers / tweeters took up the idea and a stream of alternately concerned and mocking comments flowed around that name.

Lui wasn’t the only one whose first instinct was to organize and mobilize the online anger at the Ford Vision. Jude Macdonald, a writer and frequent user of social media, created a Facebook page to voice opposition. It quickly gained traction and she was invited to join a CodeBlueTO meeting by Laidley.

The extent of CodeBlueTO’s communication with each other online was so large that they only met twice, once before and after the Executive meeting (September 6). With that said, the mix of people and energy was appreciated. Lui was impressed when he put faces to names, “Meeting the group that first time, I knew it was going to be something great. Everyone around the table spoke passionately and it was clear we all had the same goal in mind."

They all agreed that a website was needed, and the way Lui responded made everyone impressed with his work. Findlay says, “We all agreed a website was needed and within 24 hours, Laurence had it done. We all agreed a petition was needed and 24 hours later Laurence had it done."

The two elements proved to be important community rallying points. In the three-week time span, the clean and appealing-looking CodeBlueTO site received 20,000 hits and the petition had 7,000 signatures.

Importantly, CodeBlue focused on messaging and tone early on. They had concerns that criticism would devolve into cheap anti-Ford rhetoric and they wanted something more, “[The message was] not about personalities but about substantive issues,” says Laidley. “The message all along was ‘we have a plan, it’s a good plan and it doesn’t make sense to switch now’.”

The group went into the executive meeting with this message in mind and the attention of Twitter and Facebook firmly looking at the Executive.

The committee meeting was a bizarro world, as unfocused and unknowledgeable as CodeBlue was the reverse. Several CodeBlue members made deputations, including Wilkey, Laidley and Desfor. For Desfor, it was a rare foray into municipal politics. After the speakers had completed, he spoke in the hallway, saying he was concerned and frustrated by the disingenuous arguments of councillors. Unlike the Jarvis Bike Lanes vote, where thousands of people called the mayor’s cell phone in futility, this campaign would have to be more focused and targeted.

Connecting the Message to Politics

From Matt Elliott's Ford For Toronto blog

Notably, Executive member Jaye Robinson had made herself absent during the committee vote, so there was some hope yet. Outside in the hallway as Lui passed out CodeBlue buttons a number of people looked down at a chart from the popular (and awesome) FordForToronto blog. The writer, Matt Elliott, had created a chart focusing on who the potential swing votes on the issue would be and another article critiquing Doug’s plan. The latter was one of his most popular yet, a testament to the public interest in the waterfront that went beyond ‘the usual suspects’.

While the knowledge, network, social media presence and public outreach were coming together nicely, CodeBlue needed another component. Many of their members were immersed in the intricate dynamics of the waterfront, but not council. So they asked Elliott to come in to their second meeting to answer questions about who to contact and persuade. He complied and answered the group’s questions as needed. While the primary focus of the group was public outreach to raise awareness and support for the current Port Lands plan, it was also necessarily tied to the political geography.

Left-wing councillors at city hall each targeted a councillor or two to persuade and pass on information to. At the same time, some were telling the press that they were getting 4000 e-mails from constituents in response to the issue (many of which were coordinated by CodeBlue). CodeBlue was concerned that some kind of compromise deal would emerge and strongly stressed to sympathetic councillors this was not what they wanted. According to Findlay, they heard from McConnell’s and Fletcher’s office that they had to figure out how to move the motion forward with getting the most they could and constructing it so it could actually pass council. They encouraged CodeBlue to keep up the public pressure and contacting councillors to let them know this matters.

As the messaging of consulation, consideration, planning and prudence was repeated, mushy councillors fled the Ford scene. Josh Matlow was an early critic of the plan but Jaye Robinson was the one who set things in motion for it to fall apart. 


After weeks of being hammered in the media and by groups like CodeBlue, Civic Action and a group of 147 Toronto planning experts, the mayor’s poll numbers were dropping rapidly. Now with a 42% approval rating, Ford was vulnerable and Robinson spoke up against his plan. Executive member Michelle Berardinetti followed suit as well as Deputy Speaker John Parker.

The mission to connect the voices of a large group of citizens to moderate councillors through social media, petitions and waterfront knowledge had worked. It was now a virtual certainty that the Ford vision would not pass, it was just a matter of how many concessions they would have to give, if any.

The Resolution

Emboldened by their political position, CodeBlueTO released a ‘no compromise’ document the weekend before the vote, outlining areas that they could not give up (Waterfront Toronto as lead agency, Prioritization of Don naturalization and working within existing environmental assessments).

They held a rally at City Hall called “Behind Closed Doors” with supporting events and McConnell and Fletcher singing the titular song. It was an event that could have turned angry very easily but the mood was kept light and focused on a positive message with substantial criticisms.

On the other hand, Doug Ford had went off the rails over the weekend going so far as to calling in to Josh Matlow’s radio show, accusing Ken Greenberg of being married to Adam Vaughan’s EA (they’re not), stating that Janet Davis bullies him and parsing words over what constitutes ‘horse-trading’ with Matlow. It perfectly encapsulated his campaign: out-of-nowhere, alienating, bizarre and brash.

And so Doug Ford sat in council, defeated by the likes of Fletcher and McConnell, moderates like Robinson and even Ford allies. According to Fletcher, this was in no small part due to CodeBlue, “With an exceptional knowledge base and a good ‘rolodex’ they created a port in the storm and encouraged Torontonians to speak out for what they believed in…The state of civic life in Toronto is as healthy as ever."

Long-time activist Wilkey shared the sentiment, and found it personally fulfilling, “The group was politically savvy, energetic, able to operate in traditional and social media, smart, informed and fun. And I believe we made a difference.”

Wilkey’s observation points to a model for contemporary activism. CodeBlueTO didn’t succeed by doing the opposite of Doug Ford’s single-minded bullying, but because they integrated their diverse and complementary personal skills into their group tactics.

They gathered a passionate group of knowledge experts, communicated a condensed and positive message through old and new channels like social media and used a two-pronged approach to engage in public outreach and political persuasion. In a way, it was a model example for affecting change in the community.

Their activism- often a derogatory word in politics- was appreciated. As Fletcher finished her speech and Council unanimously voted for a consensus that only gave token concessions to the Ford Vision, applause broke out.

But it wasn’t just from the City Hall watchers. Most of the politicians turned around and stood to face the audience and gave a sustained applause to them. Even the chamber camera broke tradition and panned the audience, capturing a moment when the ideals of activism helped to (briefly) change the tenor of politics.   

It was Laidley’s favourite moment of the three weeks, a validation of the impact a small group of people can have. Asked about a lesson from the experience, she offered, “A city is not just created by those who have the power to make decisions, it’s shaped by all of us. All of us have to take responsibility for how we’re governed.”

CodeBlueTO will continue to cover the waterfront. For the purpose of this article, some people who made significant contributions were not covered. 

The Port Lands Timeline

From an out of nowhere Waterfront proposal to a midnight consensus the Port Lands has taken a lot of twists and turns in the quick month since it became an issue. In the interest of looking back and preserving those details, here is a timeline of how it happened:

August 25: Waterfront activists hear rumours that there will be imminent action on the Port Lands. 


August 26: At 4:15 on Friday, Port Lands item EX 9.6 is announced on the city website for the next Executive Committee meeting. 


August 27-28: On the weekend, speculation mounts as to what the Ford plans for the Port Lands are. Initial guesses include an NFL stadium at the RL Hearn site. 


August 29: After the weekend, the daily newspapers pay more attention to the Waterfront issue and it's generally not positive.


August 30: In an effort to gain public support Doug Ford is sent to pitch his vision to the media. With only rumours surrounding it earlier, he takes to Metro Morning, Newstalk 1010, AM640, CP24 and CTV to articulate his plan for a Ferris wheel, monorail and mega-mall. 


Predictably, Twitter reacts negatively. Laurence Lui (@larrylarry) starts the hashtag #CodeBlueTO to organization opposition. It will be the name of a quickly mobilized group of activists organized to support the current Waterfront vision.   


August 31: Doug Ford refers to his backroom meetings with developers as 'backroom vision'.


September 1: Torontoist contributor and Animaniacs enthusiast Jaime Woo creates a video to dispute Doug Ford's claim in his Metro Morning interview that aside from the Eaton's Centre there is nowhere to shop downtown (and thus a mega-mall is needed). 


September 2: John Tory and Julia Deans of Civic Action release a letter urging community consultation and cooperation with Waterfront Toronto. 


September 5: A formal complaint is lodged with the integrity commissioner over Doug Ford meeting with Australian mall developer Westfield without them registering as a lobbyist. 


September 6: The day of the Executive Committee meeting where architect Eric Kuehne's video and PowerPoint presentation is given (see eye candy designs here). There is strong opposition in the room, including critical deputations from former Chief City Planner Paul Bedford, waterfront activist and lawyer Cindy Wilkey and waterfront academics Gene Desfor and Jennefer Laidley.   


During the lunch break Councillor Adam Vaughan organizes an impromptu informational media session with Waterfront Toronto's John Campbell, Mark Wilson and Wilkey. 


The executive unanimously approves the motion to be sent to council, but executive Councillor Jaye Robinson is noticeably absent from the room at the time of the vote. 

Eric Kuehne's Ford Vision

September 7: After being critical at the executive committee and on Twitter, centrist councillor and critical vote Josh Matlow indicates in an online letter he will not be supporting the Ford vision. 


September 8: Mayor Ford gives a classic quote, that trees in the Port Lands are nice but a mega-mall is better because, "That tree can't employ anybody".


September 9: Waterfront Toronto officials indicate to the Globe that the Ford vision might cost $270 million more than the current plan. 


September 12: Ivor Tossell writes a very good piece for the Toronto Standard comparing Doug Ford to an 1860s prospector.


September 14: A very bad poll comes out that puts Ford's approval rating at 42% following the waterfront vision and KPMG cuts being in the news. 


Also today, The mayor's chief of staff, Amir Remtulla, writes a letter accusing Waterfront Toronto CEO John Campbell of a 'serious breach'. This is in response to a question about the pace of development and that he has to turn away offers because, "We cannot do deals behind closed doors". 

September 15: Jaye Robinson becomes the first member of the Executive Committee to defect over the Port Lands. Later in the evening TTC chair Karen Stintz posts a letter to constituents indicating the same thing as well as executive councillor Michelle Berardinetti. Deputy Speaker John Parker will later join them while executive councillor Peter Milczyn sends out a 1300 word e-mail to constituents explaining that he will support the mayor's vision but encourages compromise and cooperation.    


Also today, Richard Florida, Richard Sommer, Paul Bedford, Eric Miller and other leading Toronto academics, planners, architects, engineers and thinkers hold a press conference and release a letter to strongly criticize the Ford vision for the waterfront. 


CodeBlueTO also releases a comprehensive reality check and announces that they have reached their goal of 2,500 signatures. They would go on to collect 7000. 


September 16: A massive poll of 13,000 is commissioned by CUPE 79 that shows only 27% of voters would vote for Rob Ford tomorrow. The poll is ostensibly about the KPMG cuts but is further proof of Ford's declining popularity. 


September 18: Doug Ford had cancelled his guest spot on Josh Matlow's weekly radio show a few days earlier and Goldsbie teased on Twitter that Matlow would have story to share related to it on-air before 2:00. Matlow then related an exchange that while Ford had cancelled on his show he would do it the following week if he voted 'yes' on the Ford Port Land vision. Saying that he didn't do horse-trading, Ford allegedly responded that 'everyone has their price'. 


Minutes later Ford angrily calls into the show to correct what he feels are inaccuracies. He then inaccurately says that planner Ken Greenberg is married to Adam Vaughan's executive assistant and claims he feels bullied by Janet Davis. The whole thing is alternately bizarre and amazing (last five minutes of Sept 18, part one and first half of part two). 


Sensing that they have the political leverage, CodeBlueTO releases a 'no compromise' message to councillors, Waterfront Toronto and TPLC. They insist on the approved Lower Don Lands vision for river naturalization, Waterfront Toronto as the lead agency and to use the existing environmental assessments and research while recognizing the need for some sort of deal. All of these priorities will be realized in the final deal.  


September 19: While most eyes are on the marathon KPMG core service review Executive Committee meeting, John Lorinc writes an excellent Spacing article on the case to be made for measured compromise on the waterfront as Waterfront Toronto will still have to work with the mayor if the Ford vision loses on the 21st. 


September 20: Late in the day, word breaks that a 'consensus' agreement has been reached. The consensus is worked on until midnight and seems to have heavy involvement from councillors Fletcher and McConnell (whose wards include the Port Lands) and executive members Milczyn and Thompson.  


The consensus defers all governance 'enhancements' proposed for TPLC from the Ford vision and requires further financial and environmental assessment to be done with increased city coordination and a report to be completed for May or June. It also calls for an 'accelerated' timeline but avoids specifications. 


CodeBlueTO holds a public event "Behind Closed Doors" to raise awareness for the issue. They deliver their petition to City Hall and Pam McConnell and Paula Fletcher sing "Behind Closed Doors". In their three week campaign CodeBlue's website received 20,000 hits. 


September 21: The consensus agreement unanimously passes. Councillors and citizens in the audience cheer each other. The mayor goes up to his brother, shakes his hand and has a short conversation with him. 

The scene after the consensus vote with Rob talking to Doug and the crowd cheering.
Photo credit: A Goldsbie production

Correction (10:00 AM Sept. 22): An earlier version of this post incorrectly had the name 'Jamie Woo' rather than the correct and updated 'Jaime Woo'. I regret the error and thanks to Geoff Gilmour-Taylor for pointing it out.

Political Implications for Ford's Sinking Port Lands Vision

For better or worse, you likely won't see this on the Port Lands

In advance of Wednesday's City Council vote a 'consensus' has been reached on the motion to hand over control of the Port Lands from Waterfront Toronto to the Toronto Port Lands Company to be sold to developers. 


The Toronto Star's David Rider has more reporting here and CodeBlueTO co-founder Laurence Lui has a brief summary here. 


The consensus promises an 'accelerated' timeline with Waterfront Toronto in the lead and 'more co-operation' with TPLC. I put 'accelerated' and 'more co-operation' in quotes because it remains to be seen what concrete actions these refer to and how they will be enforced. 


Apparently a range of councillors from opposition to centrists to Ford allies worked on the consensus and must be pretty tired after yesterday's 19 hour meeting. Which councillors took the lead in developing the motion will likely come out in due time and they'll get some hard-earned political points. 


While details about the consensus (note, not a 'compromise') are sparse, it's never to early to speculate on the political ramifications. 


Ford loses here and loses big. When details emerge it will be interesting to hear the level of involvement the mayor's office had in building the consensus although my guess is that it's low to negligible. 


Both Rob and Doug shot themselves in the foot on this item and shot themselves many times. They made this a flashy, high visibility issue which drew attention to themselves and the lack of transparency that brought them to this point. The megamall-monorail-ferris wheel plan alternately looked like a flight of fancy on the back of a napkin or a series of backroom, opaque steps. Either way confirmed the worst public suspicions of their governance style. 


Moreover, as Goldsbie said on Josh Matlow's radio show The City, the Fords have seemed to lose control of the narrative. Even after the disastrous launch of the Ford Waterfront Vision, they had a series of miscues in trying to sell their pitch. 


The Mayor had his absurd Fordian line that trees may be nice but they don't employ people. His office also slammed Waterfront Toronto CEO John Campbell for rather harmlessly explaining why he doesn't have private developers line up, that his organization legally, "cannot do deals behind closed doors". There was an official complaint about Doug Ford meeting with Westfield without it going in the lobbyist registry. Then there was Doug cancelling on Matlow's show- allegedly to get Matlow's vote on the issue- and then calling in to, among other things, dismiss noted planner Ken Greenberg for being married to Adam Vaughan's executive assistant (he's not) and complain that Janet Davis bullies him.


The 'consensus-builders' look all the better by contrast. From the vocal left to centrists like Matlow, who took an early and forceful stand on the issue, they come out on the winning end of history. It's particularly good for individuals like Jaye Robinson, Michelle Berardinetti and Karen Stintz, Ford allies who showed a willingness to say no. 


More than any individual political capital won from this issue- and yes, this article ignores the huge benefit of keeping the better Waterfront Toronto plan- is the demonstration that a broad coalition of councillors is workable at City Hall. 


The breadth of this consensus will likely not be a regular occurrence, but at the very least it indicates there's a willingness to work beyond the mayor when needed on key issues. This should embolden all councillors to say no and force the mayor's office to either consult more broadly and openly with council or risk having the mayor further marginalized. 


While it's a nice victory- one that will probably be remembered next election when people say, 'Hey, remember that crazy monorail-megamall thing?'- it's not over yet. According to Marcus Gee, Doug Ford has expressed an interest in a Board of Directors seat with Waterfront Toronto. It's conceivable they'll try this again in a different way. 


The lesson to be learned from all of this is that skepticism of the administration is good, the governance style of the mayor's office is publicly and internally seen as bad and in the absence of change a broad coalition is an achievable better way. 

My Letter to the Toronto Taxpayers Coalition

Recently the Toronto Taxpayer's Coalition- where that scare-tactic 34% property tax increase number came from (if the budget was made of nothing else which it's.....not) announced an essay contest for 'Why your Toronto is better with lower taxes'. They lined up some conservative luminaries to support it and as a prize you can have lunch with Councillor Doug Ford, Toronto Sun columnist Sue-Ann Levy, Professional Provocateur Ezra Levant and newly instated Sun TV talking head Michael Coren. 

As someone who can't resist a free lunch (I went to Ford Fest) I thought I would write my own entry after the deadline was recently extended:

Dear Doug Ford, Sue-Ann Levy, Ezra Levant and Michael Coren:

I’m writing today to let you know why my Toronto is better with lower taxes. I know a contest like this runs the risk of preaching to the converted, but Michael is a fine example of this and one that I think we can all follow.

Since this is a personal essay, I suppose I should write about where I come from. You see, I’m 25-years-old and earn $60,000. I have no mortgage payments to make, no debt, no kids and a reasonable amount set aside for retirement given my stage.

But it’s not enough. You see, I’m a pretty independent and responsible person so I should be entitled to more. I don’t drive, so I don’t rely on all of those subsidies to build roads for cars yet my taxes pay for them. I don’t have kids yet I’m paying for things like ‘recreation programs’ and ‘daycare’ and ‘nutritional support for poor children’. I have a home and yet my taxes go towards ‘homeless people’.

Where’s your empathy towards me, the young and financially secure individual? We’re always talking about ‘social justice’ yet where is my fiscal justice? I mean, sure, I was once a child who benefitted from those programs mentioned, someone who has epilepsy and stutters, but you know what: screw those people. I’m doing just fine, thanks. Why should I sacrifice now that I’ve already used the system that got me to this point and enabled my success?

Ezra, if my taxes are reduced by $1000- hopefully from the library budget- did you know that I could buy 55 copies of this book?  Why do the critics of supply-side economic theory hate freedom so much?

Sue-Ann, surely you learned about the Laffer Curve at Rotman Business school, which states that there is a tax rate either higher or lower that optimizes revenue. What if we set it at zero? Why are left-wing kooks afraid to try new ideas?

Doug, it’s like your brother’s business card says on the back, “Self above Service”. 

For you, Michael, it’s like when Jesus spoke to Zaccheus the Tax Collector and he said, “Shut your mouth, you tax and spend liberal!”.

Modern societies and real prosperity are built on the strength of industrialists like Jeffrey Skilling, John Galt and Bruce Wayne. We must separate ourselves from the plebian parasites and capture the Hobbesian spirit that will propel us forward. As our city motto states: Divergence, our strength.

I’d like to thank you for taking the time to consider my letter- after all, time is money- and for having the courage to look out for yourself as no one else could.

Sincerely,

David Hains

Doug Ford and the Forgotten Waterfront History

The diversity of scenes I met with this morning made the ride extremely pleasant. The wooded part of the peninsula was like shrubbery. The sands towards the lake reminded me of the sands at Weymouth, and

the sight of the highlands presented a totally different country to anything near the bay, tho' I was not more than four miles from it.

-Elizabeth Simcoe, wife of Toronto founder John Graves Simcoe, describes the Don River in her diary, August 1793

York Habour as painted by Elizabeth Simcoe in 1793

At the heart of Toronto’s founding is the Don River, a site of natural beauty and promise, its industrial history and a hybrid of the two. From when John Graves Simcoe picked the area between the Don and Humber Rivers as the site for Toronto, the Don has been a point of constant discussion for what its role is. For Simcoe’s wife Elizabeth, it was a source of inspiration and possibility. For the mid and late 19^th century industrialists of the site the Don was a means to an end for their factories, a place to dump waste and transport materials. This made it a public health hazard until the 1940s when the lower Don was buried and mostly forgotten. The Don continues to be a site at the heart of Toronto’s potential and imagination, with proposals for a “Technodrome”, 20-story glass pyramid and harness racing site along the way.

With his big announcement of his vision for a monorail, the world’s largest Ferris wheel and a massive mega-mall, Doug Ford added himself to that history last Tuesday, altering the course of the Don-and by extension, Toronto- yet again.

“We had fifteen people in the room at the Port Lands and everybody’s jaw just dropped. [The vision for the waterfront] is spectacular, just spectacular”

-Doug Ford describing the reaction to his Port Lands proposal on Metro Morning

Tuesday August 30 was going to be a big day for Doug Ford. The articulate older brother of the Mayor was tasked with selling his vision for the Port Lands and changing the tone of a sceptical reception. For the rookie councillor whose most recent foray in selling the Mayor’s agenda involved ill-advised derision of Margaret Atwood. This would be his toughest and most important challenge yet.

The agenda for the City Hall Executive Committee had been released Friday afternoon, the dead zone for media coverage. Between Hurricane Irene’s impending threat of New York, Moammar Gaddafi’s standoff in Libya and coverage of Jack Layton’s life and funeral, there wasn’t much news capacity to pay attention to the procedural details at City Hall. But there it was, item 9.6 on the agenda in the city’s dry looking template, “Revitalization Opportunities for the Port Lands”.

It sounds innocuous, but the Twitter-verse predictably sounded the alarm. Underlying the bureaucratic language of the document was a clear direction to sell the Port Lands--some of the most underdeveloped but valued land in Canada--to the private sector and distance the city from the existing arms-length Waterfront Toronto agency that has been guiding it for ten years. Typically news about procedure and technical changes don’t make it much further than City Hall and Twitter, but when speculation for details grew on the weekend, that all changed.

Like the KPMG reports that put anything legally able to be cut up for cuts, the Port Lands strategy was to not commit to any specific ideas until needed. The advantage of this is that the administration is able to test public sentiment and can distance itself from anything by saying, ‘We’re just talking about ideas here, a vision to make this great. Things will change’. The disadvantage is that rumours and speculation can run wild, enabling easy criticism.

The latter overwhelmed the benefit of the former. By Monday the news was creeping outside the City Hall Watcher bubble and into the general public about any number of wild ideas. The Port Lands were Doug’s thing, and he would have to sell them with just enough details. So began his day of giving interviews, starting with Metro Morning’s Matt Galloway just past 8AM. His salesman face would be on for the rest of the day.

At the heart of motion 9.6 isn’t a Ferris wheel or monorail or mega-mall, but the Don River. The motion addresses the pace and investment in naturalizing the Don:

“The proposed flood protection measures for the Port Lands are currently unfunded. Without flood protection, significant revitalization cannot occur. Staff recommend that TPLC be granted authority to explore private sector and other options to front end infrastructure and flood protection costs in order to unlock development potential within the Port Lands.”

By criticizing the pace for the naturalization of the Don the motion undermines the very reason that Waterfront Toronto has been lauded: for its careful and methodical planning and execution. As much as the Don is shaped by water and erosion and other forces of nature, it has been shaped by Toronto’s political history, and often for the worse. It’s a history that people often stumble into or it goes unnoticed.

Waterfront Toronto's Port Lands plan with restored Don

John Wilson’s first encounter with the Don River was as a university student. Coming from the countryside, he missed the interaction with nature but connected with it in Toronto at Wilket Creek Park. He didn’t know it at the time but when he and his friends slipped under the chain link fence to sit by the river he would be forming the roots of a lifelong passion for the Don. He would also be connecting to a deep and rich history of naturalists and conservationsists like Ernest Thompson Seton and Charles Sauriol and the river’s tension between conservation and industrialization.

Wilson would re-connect with the Don in the early 1990s when the report Bringing Back the Don came out to much news coverage. He wrote a few articles on the subject and found himself pulled in, “I wanted to be able to show my kids they could do something about the environment close to them”. He joined the Task Force to Bring Back the Don which produced the report and was one of the first City Hall advisory committees. Wilson would go on to chair this committee, describing their role to be, ‘friendly to city staff and councillors and offer good advice’. In this capacity, Wilson has contributed thousands of hours of volunteer work, doing frequent educational walks, community consultations, presentations and research. 

But the Ford administration has not looked for their advice.

In May a motion backed by Ford came before council to axe the more than 20 advisory committees comprised of citizens and experts who consult with city staff on ideas and local priorities. These advisory bodies are required to be renewed at the start of each mayoralty. The rationale for eliminating the committees- the Task Force among them- is that staff time would be freed up and the void could be filled by social media.

The motion was sent back to the executive for consideration with the stipulation they had to report back in July with a detailed rationale for why each advisory body should stay or go. But it was missing on the agenda and when left-leaning Councillor Janet Davis pointed this out at the start of the meeting, the item was punted to September. It wasn’t a priority.

Wilson indicates that some Task Force members are active in other ways, but that there’s a frustration that their voice and expertise aren’t wanted by City Hall. Wilson adds, “Sometimes life sucks and you move on. I’m fine with not everything turning out the way I want, that’s the way these things go.” With that said, he cautions Ford on altering the process, “We’ve already done this, the consultation, the environmental assessment...To use the terminology of the day, it’s not ‘respect for taxpayers’”.

Due to the monorail content of Doug Ford’s pitch, the immediate reference for most people was that Ford was Lyle Lanley, the silver-tongued salesman who hoodwinks Springfield into building a monorail in a classic Simpsons episode. But watching all of these interviews again, one can’t help but think that there’s another classic American cartoon figure that is a Doug Ford substitute.

With his slicked back hair, business background and insistence that the vision will be ‘huge’, ‘spectactular’ and ‘world-renowned’, Doug Ford is Toronto’s Donald Trump. With that larger than life persona he took to Newstalk 1010 at 9:30 to sell his vision to a decidedly different radio audience than Metro Morning, one that leans right-wing and tends to support Ford.

In the intro to the Doug Ford interview on Newstalk Ryan Doyle enthuses about the Ford Vision arguing that its dazzle and signature Ferris wheel would lure tourists from abroad. With a sympathetic host, Ford expanded his vision, indicating that it would include ice cream shops and pubs in addition to the Ferris wheel.

Las Vegas just built a monorail and is planning to build the world's largest Ferris wheel for $500M

Ford would reiterate his talking points 15 minutes later on John Oakley’s Talk 640 radio show, long a Ford-friendly media outlet. The argument goes something like this: Waterfront Toronto moves too slowly and does not have allotted funding. The private sector moves faster and will do a better job at making something we can be proud of.

Drawn to spectacle, the media quickly focused in on the prospect of a monorail, mega-mall and the world’s largest Ferris wheel. In so doing some outlets, like Newstalk and Talk 640, ignored the historical context for the waterfront and the existing framework that goes with it. Talking about the process was dull, but Ferris wheels and monorails are shiny.

There were lots of good questions to be asked. What were the legal liabilities? Where was the consultation? Wouldn’t breaking government agreements scare investors off through instability? How would this impact neighbouring projects? If Ford was concerned with the slow pace of Waterfront Toronto and the lack of investment in its properties, what effort had he made to work with them? For the latter, according to Waterfront Toronto spokesperson Michelle Noble, Mayor Ford had been installed as a member of the Waterfront board on December 8. Since then he has not attended any of the five board meetings, three conference calls or a strategy session. City Hall’s sense of inquiry into these questions was as limited as some media members’.

As for the funding at issue for the Don naturalization, the Waterfront Toronto schedule explicitly stated that the funding would not be available until late 2011. Over the past few months they have been preparing a business case to be made to the board in September which will then be released to the public later if it passes. According to a Toronto Star column by Royson James, this board meeting will occur on September 7, the day after the Executive Committee meeting.

Waiting another day for more information would seem like prudent business planning for a multi-million dollar decision, but Doug Ford’s Trump-like persona is more about the style than any business substance.

It’s not the first time Toronto has seen a business proposal for the Port Lands and Lower Don that didn’t have the underlying details sorted out. In 1987, the Ataratiri housing project was proposed for the West Donlands which would have provided 14,000 mixed housing spaces. After investing in soil de-contamination and various studies, no private investors had an interest in the project.

Facing budget difficulties, the Bob Rae government tried to unload the site for a song in 1992, offering it for $30M provided the buyer finish the de-contamination process. There were no takers, partially due to a soft real estate market.

In 1999 the Mike Harris government attempted to sell the property to a harness racing consortium, bypassing any community consultation. It’s this last instance that got Cindy Wilkey involved. On the board of the local BIA, she was blindsided by the proposal and has since been one of the most active individuals to build sustainable waterfront development

“I see a lot of parallels between now and then”, writes Wilkey, a lawyer, about the lack of transparency. Ultimately in 1999 the community opposition shut down the development. In contrast to the Harris plan to sell the land, Waterfront Toronto consulted extensively, spending six years and $19M on various studies, assessments and consultations. Wilkey has since got involved in #CodeBlueTO, a group quickly put together to oppose the Ford vision for the Port Lands.  

Kids play in Waterfront Toronto's Sherbourne Commons

The Ford vision seems to have some of the same weaknesses as the Harris plan. Gene Desfor is a York professor has specialized in urban waterfront planning who recently co-edited a book, Re-Shaping Toronto’s Waterfront, with fellow academic Jennifer Laidley. He got back from an Algonquin Park camping trip to learn that the waterfront had been flipped upside down and violated the lessons outlined in the book, “If planning and development of Toronto’s waterfront does not recognize the plurality of interests and the variety of scales (local, regional, national and global) through which these interests are expressed, then the city will not succeed...Planning is a process as well as producing a product. And to ensure a great waterfront, both the process and product need to be considered”.

The process has been decidedly private. Ford has insisted there is sufficient private sector interest in contrast to previous waterfront opportunities and cites preliminary talks with the Australian real estate developer Westfield as an example. However, Ford did not receive council approval to pursue these talks and searches for Westfield in the lobbyist registry do not yield any results.

One disconnected piece of transparency occurred in April when City Council voted to allow the Toronto Port Lands Company, a city agency, to sell its real estate holdings for a profit and funnel the proceeds back into the capital reserves as opposed to reinvesting them in the waterfront. This lends credence to the idea that the Ford plan for the Waterfront is designed to shore up short-term budget gaps as opposed to long-term investment in the community. It’s an approach that contradicts the Waterfront Toronto strategy of a consultative market based, phased approach. “The city can only absorb so much development each year,”  says Noble. She adds that the first few years are for planning and consultation to get it right. Rushing this process and selling to much at once would dramatically depress prices. 

  

When Wilson was asked what advice he would give Mayor Ford about the waterfront planning, he was quite direct, “ You must not sell off the city’s future for pennies on the dollar in order to balance next year’s budget. It looks to me they’re selling off potentially expensive real estate at firesale prices unimproved because they have a problem with how they’re going to balance the books”.

Desfor agrees, “I believe that Ford’s plan for the waterfront is not a plan at all. It seems to be an ill-considered attempt to solve a fiscal problem rather than planning what is best for the waterfront and city... There have been many other ill-conceived plans for the waterfront and I would place Ford’s scheme right at the head of the line”.

Doug Ford’s long day continued, giving TV interviews with CTV and CP24 for their noon newscasts. The day must have been a rush, a blur of repetition and oddly symbolic. The Don River and Port Lands are fraught with people adding mistakes and not learning from history or the context that shapes its discourse. As Doug Ford pitched his way through his day, he created a void of history and context. With images of monorails and Ferris wheels and mega-malls he created a historical vacuum by using Fordian rhetoric and planning.

In the background lay everything else. In the background lay the details of the Ford plan, of which no one but he knew. It’s where the guardians of the Don and waterfront were, people like Wilkey and Desfor and Wilson who have collectively put in countless hours of thought and research. It’s where the collective citizenry was relegated, with no consultation or transparency and existing assessments and consultations dismissed. But most of all, it’s where history lay. All the lessons, errors and politics that layer the Don and Port Lands like sediments on a river bed were washed away. The Waterfront Toronto plan tried to capture that in a workable, open framework. But Ford wanted to make his own history and do it quickly. But in making his own splash he ignored the environment of the Don, City Hall and the citizens of Toronto and refused to engage in the history he’s altering.

Tyler Anderson/National Post