The Two Solitudes

The Public Works and Infrastructure Committee might be the most spiteful and rancorous at City Hall. Chaired by Denzil Minnan-Wong, the committee has so far featured surprise motions on the Fort York Bridge, Jarvis Bike Lanes and Yonge-Dundas pedestrian scramble. 

The disputes between the left-wing councillors, Gord Perks and Mike Layton, and the Ford allies, Minnan-Wong, David Shiner, John Parker and Mark Grimes, have been strong and frequent.

Thursday was shaping up to be different. With four major items on the agenda, it looked like consensus might be found on each of them. But when it got down to details, problems arose:

·         On a motion to put in separated bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide, Adam Vaughan requested research to be done on making the streets two-way so as to avoid congestion from constantly circling the block. He was concerned that with the number of developments and parking garages he was familiar with in the corridor, feasibility and implementation needed further study. Vaughan’s request did not pass.

·         Shiner introduced a motion forbidding dwelling on a sidewalk or street, ostensibly a downtown issue. Perks amended it (which Shiner supported) to incorporate this with the Streets to Homes program. In effect, the bylaw had no change whatsoever, as the existing law forbade obstructing sidewalks or streets and transitioned individuals to Streets to Homes. Now, rather than proving 'obstruction' police will have to prove 'dwelling' in order to move homeless people. More on this at Inside Toronto.

·         Shiner introduced a motion to ban ‘things’ from being locked to post and ring locks, streetlights, bus shelters and other street furniture for more than 24 hours. Layton objected to this, pointing out that it would make it a crime for bicycles to be locked to anything but post and ring locks and those only account for 5% of bike parking. Shiner was not amenable to Layton’s amendment to exclude bikes, reasoning that they should not be allowed to lock onto bus shelters. More on this at Torontoist. 

·         On the Fort York Bridge item, Shiner and Layton had worked closely to bring it to committee. At the last minute, Minnan-Wong introduced a motion that would send it to the executive committee, stipulate that the bridge use ‘as little debt as possible’ and look at selling 53 Strachan Ave. to pay for the bridge, which includes a community garden and shelter. The amendment failed and the bridge passed. More on this at Ford For Toronto.

Each of these items has a common theme, and it’s a failure to communicate. During the campaign a refrain heard often was that downtown just doesn’t understand the suburbs. To an extent, it’s true. There are very different needs and ways of living downtown and in the inner suburbs and the two probably don’t appreciate the differences as much as they should.

It would be nice if that would change easily, but people have lives to live and jobs to work. 

But for city councillors, this kind of understanding is their job. It’s their job to extend empathy and intellectual understanding to what makes various communities work and identify how exceptions should be carved out to ensure needs are taken into account. Just like downtown councillors can’t impose one-size-fits-all solutions on the inner suburbs, the inner suburbs should not do that to the downtown area.

So when a law comes up that completely ignores the impact it will have on bicycles, that’s a failure to understand that bikes are a common mode of transportation downtown and finding appropriate parking can be tough (Only 5-10% of bikes are parked using post and ring locks).  

It’s a failure that extends to the other issues. 

When Minnan-Wong suggested selling 53 Strachan to help pay for the bridge in addition to using Section 37 money, he didn’t know what the local consequences were. Layton picked up on this and asked , ‘what’s on this property?’ To which the Chair responsded, ‘some buildings and land.’ This vague non-answer highlights the lack of connection Minnan-Wong has to the area, including the community garden and successful shelter that are on it. He eventually withdrew the 53 Strachan portion of the motion, leaving it to be sent to the executive committee that has no connection to downtown.

For the bike lanes on Richmond and Adelaide, they’re likely a genuine effort by Minnan-Wong to improve cycling infrastructure. However, he also genuinely lacks the knowledge of the area to appreciate the complications that come with his plan. When Vaughan offered to slow down the process to study the option of making Richmond and Adelaide two-way streets, Minnan-Wong dismissed it out of hand. Vaughan offered a detailed development map, knowledge gleaned from campaigning in the area twice and working there for years, but this did not matter. Minnan-Wong has a plan to foist on the downtown core, and things like consultation won’t stop him.

This is how we have Toronto’s two solitudes, through a failure to communicate and a lack of understanding of the needs and desires of local constituencies. It’s a failure that was cited as an indictment of the Miller administration by the current mayor’s inner circle, but it’s one that continues to this day. And it’s a big problem. Successful governance isn’t based on spite; it’s a two-way street.  

The Fordzone: Going too far and losing control of the issues

In the last week City Hall further descended into the Fordzone, that special spiral of increasing absurdity. It started with This Hour Has 22 Minutes’ Mary Walsh confronting Rob Ford on his driveway in the guise of Marg Delahunty and ended with a newly appointed library board director ridiculously proposing 38 libraries closed and all computers gone.

These events were the bookends to a week that included: a ban against shark fin soup (complete with a flying shark!) that Ford was one of four votes against, the Scrooge of the Jarvis bike lanes, Denzil Minnan-Wong, expensing the Bike Union membership he used as a prop in the spring, and Ford outsourcing his gold business cards to his family firm at up to four times the cost of city printing (Update: Ford has pledged to reimburse the city for this out of personal funds).

These incidents garnered indignation and an amount of attention disproportionate to their actual importance. In particular, the Marg Delahunty incident generated hilarious hashtags, one-liners and the inevitable Halloween costumes. The incident, which was presented with varying shades of truth from both the Ford camp and CBC, unnecessarily dragged on for days. Like the other incidents, this was a character study in microcosm, one that for all of its he-said, she-said drama revealed little in the way of policy.

In a way, it’s unfortunate. After all, there are real and serious issues more worthy of discussion, such as the merits of a $200 Million garbage contract awarded with little details last Monday and the potential sale of city assets worth $600 Million that will be discussed at the Executive Committee level tomorrow.

But it’s clear people connect to talking about the more character-driven, emotional issues. That makes sense; they’re more accessible issues that provoke a visceral reaction. The challenge, then, is to link the two kinds of issues in real and meaningful ways.

As Ivor Tossell points out in the Toronto Standard, the Marg Delahunty incident is an indictment of risk assessment on the part of Ford. So the questions should become:

• ·         Is Ford and his three 911 calls the person we should trust to provide a measured response to a crisis for our city?
• ·         Is Ford, with his varying versions of the Delahunty incident, the person we should trust to be honest with a $9 Billion budget?
• ·         Is Ford more out to represent ideological conservatism or the public in issues like shark fin soup and selling city assets?
• ·         Does the Ford Camp choose people to speak for them on the library board and elsewhere who are both competent and representative of Toronto’s values?

Ford enjoyed a lot of success during his campaign in part because he was able to tie small incidents like the chipmunk suit into a larger narrative of waste, entitlement and mismanagement at City Hall. Without that connection, the incidents are rightly devoid of meaning.

But there is something here, in terms of both the Ford Camp’s policies and character: it’s an administration that has gone too far.

Ford goes too far in his overreaction to Marg Delahunty and he goes too far when it comes to an attempted takeover of Waterfront Toronto.

His delegates go too far when they go out of their way to thumb their noses at cyclists and they go too far when they suggest shuttering over a third of Toronto’s libraries.

The Mayor goes too far when he misses the majority of the shark fin soup debate only to return to be one of the few to oppose it, and he goes too far when the only thing remotely liberal about his tenure is the relationship with the truth. 

As the city further moves into the depths of the budget debate, it’s important to create distance from the Fordzone spiral and see the greater issues. They’re issues that, yes, are informed by the character and emotions of the individuals at play. But moreso they’re issues that must be discussed meaningfully before that opportunity is too far gone.

      

My Second Favourite Vote From Yesterday's Council Meeting

The logical thing to write about today would be the landmark Waterfront defeat of Ford’s agenda but since I’ve already written my first thoughts I’ll move on to my second favourite vote of the day. Before getting to what that is, some context is needed.

There are some regular criticisms of City Council’s left that are agreed to by many: they have no solutions, only want to pick fights and revel in opposition. Doug Ford alluded to some of these criticisms when he called in to Josh Matlow’s radio show last Sunday, “I get bullied by Adam Vaughan, Janet Davis and Gord Perks,” he said. “Rob could come out and say he had the cure for cancer and the left would come out criticizing him”. Matlow somewhat agreed, saying there are some individuals that wouldn’t agree with the mayor no matter what he did.

Matlow’s response is an important distinction. ‘The left’ is not a monolithic voting bloc that thinks the same way (as with the right wing of council). Adam Vaughan is not Shelley Carroll and she is not Mike Layton. Council is filled with very different personalities and one of these that diverge from the Ford caricature of the left is Kristyn Wong-Tam.

Toronto Life/JoeyS4B

Rookie councillor Wong-Tam (read more about her in this excellent Toronto Standard profile ) has acquitted herself as one of the hardest-working councillors and through that has offered workable solutions. She has put together proposals in conjunction with the local BIA to revitalize Yonge and Dundas north to Gerard and was working on a plan to develop Jarvis into a cultural corridor before the bike lanes were unceremoniously cancelled.

It is the latter case where Wong-Tam was first undermined by Denzil Minnan-Wong. The chair of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, Minnan-Wong spearheaded the removal of the Jarvis bike lanes that was done without notice to local councillor Wong-Tam or community consultation.

Two weeks ago it happened again. Minnan-Wong, once again without notice to Wong-Tam, put forward a proposal to study the Yonge-Dundas pedestrian scramble. She stated she was okay with the idea of looking at it (even though it means it’s clearly under threat) but was again frustrated with ulterior motives and the lack of notice to her (giving notice to the local councillor is considered proper etiquette). Minnan-Wong responded in an interview with the Toronto Star that described him as dismissively saying with a smile, “A-gain? Poor Kristyn.” and on Metro Morning argued that Wong-Tam’s objections were disingenuous.

Which brings us to yesterday’s council meeting. As with the Jarvis bike lanes, Minnan-Wong was scheduled to speak last and introduced a last minute amendment (this time to consult with the TTC, but not riders). In his speech, he referred to Dundas St.:      

 “There’s been a lot of discussion about the process and how notice is required and notice has to be given and somehow councillors’ rights have been abridged or sacrificed. I can tell you, they have not. No rule has been broken, no member has raised an objection, I have not received any complaints from the integrity commissioner…. One member of council has been complaining that they were somehow injured or the community not notified, but I can tell you, quite frankly, it is not my job to do the work of other councillors for them.”

Minnan-Wong goes on to argue that accommodations were available if they were asked for. If she- he then stopped himself to say 'they'- had requested to specially speak at committee, he would have allowed it. Until the rules change, everything was proper.

Wong-Tam spoke on a point of privilege to point out that the report at the committee level did not touch her ward and the suggestion that she should have been there out of interest is disingenuous. She objected to Minnan-Wong suggesting that she isn’t doing her job to which Minnan-Wong said that ‘I never said that’. John Parker, acting as speaker, agreed because no particular councillor was mentioned by name.

Which bring us to my second favourite vote of the day. After Wong-Tam lost a challenge to the speaker’s ruling there was a vote to extend Minnan-Wong’s speaking time.

Here’s how it went (apologies for the blurry screencap):

In spite of Minnan-Wong’s personal attack, the procedural shenanigans he has pulled, and the lack of courtesy he has shown, Wong-Tam chose to extend his time. No one would have batted an eye if she chose to vote against it but instead she decided to rise above it.

It’s a really small thing, but that’s why it’s worth mentioning. These acts of courtesy don’t really go noticed but they are what collectively ensure civility and integrity in our discourse. They defy the stereotype that casts aspersions on certain ‘types’ of councillors and they’re things that Denzil Minnan-Wong could hopefully appreciate. 


On a day when Kumbaya was ironically sung by councillors Wong-Tam quietly embraced the spirit. 


It’s not quite the same as beating a monorail-megamall-ferris wheel, but it’s worth celebrating. 

Responding to Ford-KPMG Talking Points

The upcoming Executive Committee meeting on the recommended KPMG service cuts will be well-attended and watched. Questions remain as to whether it will be as dramatic and eventful as the 'Citizen's Filibuster' in July and whether councillors like Jaye Robinson and Michelle Berardinetti will defect and vote against the report. One thing that we do know is the type of arguments Team Ford will employ to further their agenda. In the spirit of CodeBlueTO's  excellent Spacing article on arguments against Waterfront Toronto I've compiled the KPMG list below to provide my own humble bit. Reading some of Matt Elliott's old posts was a great help in this, so a hat tip to Ford for Toronto


1) "Toronto has a massive $774 million deficit. This needs to be solved".
This is an oft-repeated refrain that has been cited by most media sources and officials. 


Toronto does have a deficit, and its starting point was indeed $774 million. As happens each year, Toronto starts with a very high deficit and whittles it down, which Edward Keenan explains nicely at The Grid. The idea that this particular starting point is a 'tsunami' is misleading as it tracks with previous years pretty closely. Matt Elliott, writer of the superlative blog Ford For Toronto put together the nifty chart below:

In fact, $774 million isn't really the number we should be talking about as Elliott explains in that excellent post. Instead, we should conservatively be talking about a $530 million deficit. Other people have pegged the number much lower, such as left-wing councillor Gord Perks and Rob Ford's former Chief of Staff Nick Kouvalis (August 28 on The City) have pointed to a number closer to $300-$450 million (Kouvalis later recanted this on Twitter, oddly claiming he meant this in addition to the starting point). 

$530 million is conservatively the more accurate number we're dealing with at this time and using the $774 million is an effort to increase political leverage to make unpopular cuts. 

2) "We've inherited this mess from the out-of-control Miller regime. We're the only ones willing to talk about the problems we face". 

For all of the promise of accountability and responsibility coming from Team Ford, this is a frequent line. 

As suggested in the chart above, Toronto has endured large annual structural deficits since amalgamation. During the mayoral campaign Ford frequently pointed this out and criticized the Miller administration for only thinking of the year at hand. 

Yet in the first budget for Team Ford, Frances Nunziata- presumably on orders from the mayor's office- refused to allow mention of the 2012 budget. As Sean Meagher pointed out in his Citizen's Filibuster deputation, if Team Ford had planned ahead for the 2012 budget in the previous budget it would have had the lowest deficit starting point in almost a decade. 

But council was forbidden from talking about or planning for this year's budget-that-must-not-be-named. Now that it's here, The Voldemort Budget is-surprise- scary. All of that money from keeping the Vehicle Registration Tax and having an inflation-based property tax increase (which would just maintain levels, as this Spacing article explains) would be enough to pay for all of the KPMG recommended cuts. Even the Christmas bureau. 

David Miller left a $350 million surplus. By refusing to plan for 2012, Team Ford owns this budget and has turned what could have been a very manageable budget-that-must-not-be-named into a Voldemort Budget of heartless cuts.    

3) "Either we do these cuts or we face a 35% property tax increase. Some downtown NDP councillors want to do this, but I don't".

Rob Ford mentioned a few variations of this line of attack in his interview with Jerry Agar. 

The 35% property tax increase number comes from the Toronto Taxpayers Coalition (tacitly endorsed by Doug Ford, Sue-Ann Levy and Michael Coren, oh my!). The TTC that's not really the TTC based this number on the $22 million generated for every 1% increase in property taxes. Using the faulty $774 million number covered in number one here, you get 35%.

This is a completely unreasonable number. The number excludes any further funding sources for the city (land transfer tax, user fees, dividends from assets etc...), surplus money left over from the previous budget ($88 million) and actual honest-to-goodness efficiencies that departments can find to cut their budget. The number is also politically unfeasible and acts only as a scare tactic. 

Furthermore, no councillor has supported raising property taxes by this amount and I haven't seen any activist, journalist or deputant support it either. 

Saying 'either we make these cuts or raise property taxes 35%' is a disingenuous false dichotomy that uses a false number for cynical politics.

4) "We're being taxed to death in Toronto. This has got to stop". 

Rob Ford has essentially ruled out any property tax increase greater than 2.5% (he wants 2%) and feels taxpayers are unduly burdened. 

Toronto has significantly lower property taxes than comparable Ontario cities. While Toronto has a 0.79% property tax rate, Mississauga's is 0.96%, Ottawa's is 1.25% and Hamilton's is 1.48%. 

Additionally, Toronto offers more services than these cities and pretty efficiently as the KPMG report indicated. Within the KPMG report the lowest ranked policy priority from citizens was 'affordable taxes' (page four), so the idea that this is being demanded by citizens is contradicted by the report the mayor is relying on. 

Lastly, there's a secondary concern in having very low taxes. When the city goes to arbitration- as it soon will with the TTC in a very expensive process- the city will argue that it doesn't have the financial capacity to extend salaries in the manner the union wants. The arbitrator will then say, 'but you have extremely low property taxes compared to your comparables and recently cancelled a tax just granted to you by the province. You clearly have more capacity, and should pay accordingly'.

Toronto is not being taxed to death- far from it. This isn't to say taxes should be at Hamilton rates, but that there is public willingness and an economic argument to raise taxes reasonably. 

5) These aren't really cuts, they're efficiencies. 

Rob Ford said no service cuts. Guaranteed. He promised efficiencies and doggone it, that's what these are. 

While Ford's lead spokesperson acknowledged service cuts in a talking points memo to allies recently, the mayor has refused to do so. In the Jerry Agar interview yesterday, Ford was asked whether cutting 2000 daycare spots was a service cut. His response? "No, it's an efficiency. There are no service cuts." 

Someone on the Toronto subReddit made the appropriate analogy that it would be akin to saying cutting off three of your fingers makes your hand more efficient. This line is utter nonsense. Potentially cancelling the blue night bus? Service cut. Eliminating 2000 daycare spots? Service cut. Reducing snow shoveling, street sweeping, horticulture, getting rid of the Christmas bureau, reducing wheel trans, eliminating libraries or reducing hours? Those are service cuts. 

Importantly, Rob Ford told the National Post's Natalie Alcoba and Chris Selley that closing one library on a Sunday would be a 'major' service cut. 

Efficiencies are when you have the same service delivered at a lower price or increased services delivered at the same price (or better value, dollar for dollar). That is not the case here.

These aren't really efficiencies, they're cuts. 

6) "There's lots of gravy. Just look at all of these unionized city employees. How come we have more than at the start of amalgamation? We should have less."

This is a relatively new line of attack and the strategy is to position your tax dollars against the disliked unions. 

In 2000, Toronto had 2.4 million citizens and 45,000 employees according to this budget (page 3).   

In 2010, Toronto had 2.77 million people and 46,228 employees according to this city document. Granted, the number of employees has been low at various points- it was 40,000 in 2006- but it's hardly out of control like this claim suggests. 

And it does bring up another Ford campaign pledge, that he wouldn't fire staff but would finance his budgets through a managed 3% attrition rate. 

This wasn't the 'gravy' Rob Ford promised, in fact he promised to not fire anyone. City employee growth tracks reasonably well with population growth which makes Ford's claim less meaningful. 

7) "The People complaining are just the Usual Suspects, Unionists, Socialists or Jobless. They don't speak for the city."

"There are 2.5 million people in this city and we've heard from about 400 individuals over the process of consultation. Letting them say which programs they would like to keep and which ones they don't want to keep for 2.5 million people, to me that doesn't make sense." -Giorgio Mammoliti to Inside Toronto

While Team Ford simultaneously says that they've done historic consultation, staying up all night listening to people, they also dismiss them out of hand as having unrepresentative voices. 

Aside from the fact that activists, unionists, socialists and the unemployed are also Torontonians who have a valid voice and contribution to make to the discourse, this line of argument is also untrue. Anyone who was there at the Citizen's Filibuster knows that the day was not just remarkable for its length, but the diversity of people and causes who were there. 

Another argument ties in to this one, that 'these people' are just out their to protect their own self-interests. In a way, that's true- they feel invested in their community and value services provided for it. Much like, say, some people might be self-interested and value having a lower property tax rate. After all, in the Habermas vein, that's what politics is about. 

What's really going on with this is an attempt to categorize the opposition into a caricature and devalue that voice so as to ignore it. And really, that's undemocratic.

 This argument ignores the reality of the diversity of people speaking out, is anti-consultation and cheapens the political institutions the mayor's office is supposed to uphold. 

8) "Why are we in the business of running zoos and theatres? It's about wants and needs. When we ask people 'what do you need', it's not running a zoo". 

This argument suggests we need to re-prioritize and have a paradigm shift (ugh, that phrase) in how we think of government. 

This is a somewhat reasonable argument. It's important to re-assess the role of government to make sure it's on track. We should force ourselves to re-think what the status quo could be too. 

However, for that to be done, a simultaneous efficiency and value study has to be conducted to find out what those priorities are. People have to be genuinely asked and listened to for what they need so that subsidized dental care for the poor can be evaluated from both the citizen's and a 'business' perspective. 

This was not done. The scope of the KMPG report was explicitly limited to discovering what could legally be cut and giving limited recommendations. The value the city gets from the services it delivers (the intangible benefits of the arts, say) was not considered. The limited consultation that was conducted was dismissed as 'not statistically valid' by Ford ally Denzil Minnan-Wong. 

Wants and needs cannot be determined until you find the value of each service in consultation with citizens.

9) "We need to run this city like a business. I'm going to do that."

With his experience at Deco Labels, Rob Ford positions himself as the man with the knowledge to get things done at City Hall. 

I'm not going to cast aspersion on Ford's experience at Deco Labels, but I don't think his 'business strategy' is right for the city. 

I work in business too. Businesses conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses to make prudent short and long-term decisions to optimize profit and limit risk appropriately given their profile. That means they invest in themselves and cut sometimes and most of the time they're doing a combination of both. 

However, this mayor is so idelogically opposed to the idea of government that he is unwilling to look at ways for the city to invest in itself. So the argument of how arts funding spurs a multiplier effect of city benefits falls on deaf ears. Good businesses are open-minded, think creatively and plan for contingencies. They look at the market for the cost of debt- interest rates- to see whether they can get capital at cheaper rates than the returns they generate. With interest levels at record lows, cities with business savvy and good AA+ credit ratings like Toronto can see that as an opportunity for wise investment and measured growth.  

Good businesses do not exclusively cut. They grow because they believe in themselves.

If the city must be compared to a business, it's one that should rightly face a shareholder revolt for not finding value. 

10) "This is the City Manager's report, not ours. We're just following staff."

We're just responding to data and acting accordingly. Why are you making this all political?

Ah, the age-old 'we're just following the wishes of staff' argument. It's a great argument because councillors are not really allowed to criticize staff- Joe Mihevc drew some 'ohhhhhs' when he criticized Pennachetti for producing the Waterfront Toronto-TPLC report. 

The thing is, everyone knows staff are influenced by political pressure and the mayor's office in particular. To think otherwise is just naive.

City staff aren't immune to political pressure. 

**********************

Team Ford will give lots of reasons to justify their actions including some of the above. Many of them are demonstrably false or shallow arguments and should be treated accordingly. 


Note: An earlier version of this article stated Matt Blackett wrote the Spacing article with arguments against the proposed Waterfront-TPLC changes. This was written by CodeBlueTO and the article has been edited to reflect this. Apologies for the error and thanks to Matt Elliott for pointing it out. 

Let Us Compare Mythologies

Whether intentional or not, Rob Ford built a mythology around his style and ethic as a councillor and mayoral candidate. He was the self-reliant man who didn’t need to use his office budget, the outcast on a quest to restore the city’s self-respect, heralding his nation toward change. It’s a powerful narrative, filled with understandable and potent metaphors.

Metaphors and narratives work in politics as they are abstractions of reality that reduce complicated ideas in more universal and communicable ways. So when we see the concrete actions of how this impact individual lives, people react more negatively. While Rob Ford built up a mythology for himself, that means that unpacking what the various myths are that lend him credibility can take away the authority he has over council and constituents.

In order to move away from Team Ford controlling the narrative, it’s necessary to debunk the myths that make it possible and move on to a more sustainable vision.

Myth #1: Rob Ford is Popular

This is likely the most important myth. In politics, popularity is credibility whether the policies earn it or not. For Rob Ford, his bad policies and governance style have caught up to his popularity.

According to a newly released Forum Research poll this morning, Rob Ford now has a 42% approval rating. Now this might not sound terribly bad at first glance; he won 47% of the vote and Barack Obama also has a 42% approval rating.

But it’s bad, really bad. A year into his mayoralty, David Miller had an approval rating that was over 80%. So did Mel Lastman.

People tend not to pay much attention to municipal politics which generates higher approval ratings (as the public give the benefit of the doubt). But for Ford to tumble so quickly from a 70% approval rating in May to 42% today is astounding. When did David Miller reach the 42% mark? At the onset of the garbage strike, six years after becoming mayor. We all know how that turned out.

As the Toronto Star’s David Rider points out, this is even during the recommendation stage before the actual cuts have taken place. It’s hard to see how he can turn around public opinion.

Ford frequently speaks of his mandate from the public to implement his agenda. At a certain point this political capital is spent and ideas must be sold to the public to gain buy-in and council acceptance. This is particularly true for items that were not campaign issues (the Port Lands, scramble intersections, the Fort York Bridge) and items that contradict his promises (no service cuts, not depleting capital reserves, keeping Jarvis bike lanes).   

Ford speaks about his historic mandate, garnering more votes than any politician in Canada. Yet he is historically unpopular for a Toronto mayor at this point, his downward arc as pronounced and sharp as his ascendancy.

Myth #2: Rob Ford is All-Powerful

This has been covered elsewhere, including in this fine assessment by Mike Smith.

While the idea that Rob Ford has only limited powers as mayor (more in the semi-strong mayor system) is out there, general public perception hasn’t changed from the idea that the mayor is a pseudo-dictator. Ford takes advantage of this perception gap in order to bypass Council and ‘cancel’ Transit City, unilaterally offer governance changes to the Waterfront model and even excludes councillors from reading reports such as the KPMG recommendations before they go to the media.

The worst part of this is that councillors take cover behind this myth. By essentially arguing, ‘well this is the mayor’s vision and that has to be respected’ councillors undermine their own agency and authority. Council is made up of 45 votes for a reason-- to respect the wishes of local constituents and act as a check on the mayor. The absence of leadership from councillors lends credence to the idea that the mayor is all-powerful and diminishes their own ability to enact change.

There’s a way around this though. By pressuring the mushy middle and other councillors to actively and persuasively promote new and positive ideas it demonstrates that Ford does not control all the levers of power at City Hall or have a monopoly on ideas. Councillors need to make themselves relevant and the best way to do so is for the public to shine a light on their roles and responsibilities. More on this in future days.  

Myth #3: Rob Ford is Making Tough Decisions

This myth goes something like 'Rob Ford is working hard, staying up all night listening to deputations and closely examining the budget to find savings. This isn’t easy, and it requires leadership and business savvy.' 

While the city has some tough choices to make in balancing its budget, Rob Ford isn’t making them. He promised to find waste and efficiencies through creativity, empowering staff and listening to insights from citizens. None of this has happened.

Instead, the proposals to balance the bulk of the budget are cop-outs. The idea that selling TPA and TTC parking lots or auctioning the Port Lands at firesale prices is the best way to find a budget solution is both misguided and shows a lack of dedication to finding real solutions.

Selling or using long-term assets to balance the operating deficit is wrong from an accounting standpoint. To use the household budgeting analogy the mayor’s allies like to use, it would be like selling your furniture to pay your rent.  It’s easy to do, but leaves you in a worse position next time.

You have to consider all possibilities. How can I optimize my investment? How can I generate more revenue in reasonable ways? What are alternative options? Which brings us to...

Myth #4: Rob Ford has a Vision to get the City on the Right Track

During the campaign Rob Ford made a lot of promises. Many of his supporters, when interviewed, opined that they felt he was the one who could provide the solutions for Toronto and repair a broken and out-of-control city.

Putting aside the disagreement that Toronto was broken and out-of-control under Miller, where are the new ideas? If the TTC needs to diffuse ridership from rush-hour to be more efficient, why not create a loyalty program that incentivizes riders to change habits as has been proposed here? Or why not explore a libertarian solution to accurately reflect the cost of parking, thus reducing congestion up to 30% and raising more revenue? Or why not explore micro-financing solutions (another conservative alternative) to enable property owners to invest in reducing water and energy consumption that is highly subsidized by the city in various ways? Andrew Coyne has advocated for two-tier traffic pricing on expressways. The idea has worked elsewhere and is supported in various ways like HOT lanes, as described in this CD Howe analysis (a conservative organization). It would reduce congestion for everyone and increase revenue. Is that worth exploring? Asking these questions and analyzing their implementation is the hard work of governing.

The thing is, Ford doesn’t explore ideas or consider possibilties (mega-malls notwithstanding). He also doesn’t enable people to offer solutions.

The executive committee deputations (or Citizen’s Filibuster) were meant as a response to the KPMG reports, not as a forum for new ideas. The people who did depute were dismissed as unionists, socialists or jobless (as if this should devalue their voice). The consultation survey was dismissed by Ford ally Denzil Minnan-Wong as ‘not statistically valid’.  

Ford’s governance is ideologically close-minded and the decisions are reactionary. Far from being the man with the plan to save the city, Ford’s means of operating are antithetical to any coherent and sustainable vision.

**********************

While Ford had a heroic and mythic quality to him during the campaign- that quest that inspired passion in a great deal of people- his actions so far debunk the mythic qualities ascribed to him.

Instead, he’s a different kind of mythic archetype. As his promises and metaphors are revealed to be empty he is not a folk hero but a trickster. The myths listed above are still sold to the public and councillors to sustain his image and ensuring he can pass his agenda.

The reality is he is none of these and his authority that rests on these ideas is questionable. By debunking the myth of Rob Ford the agency for citizens and councillors can improve. In doing so, the potential to shape reasonable and nuanced policies to impact positive change can become more of a reality. 

A Tip of the Hat to Mike Del Grande, John Parker and Peter Milczyn?

So I was going to make a post about Rob Ford taking questions on Jack Layton. The video is a revealing and sensitive portrait of Ford as he is genuinely saddened by the news and shares memories of the NDP leader who used to be his seatmate in Toronto City Council. But Cityslickr over at All Fired Up in the Big Smoke did a nice write up first and anything I put into it is just duplication of his fine effort. 


To add just a few small words, it's nice that we're able to transcend partisanship in the spirit of honouring an individual who was passionate about policies, people and connecting the two. 

*****
Speaking of bypassing partisanship, there was a budget meeting on Tuesday notable for its contradiction of a June decision. Back in June, Ford surprisingly opposed a provincially-funded offer of two public nurses over a concern the money would not be there on an ongoing basis and that there were enough health workers already. Rather than attaching a motion stating that if funding was pulled so too would the nurse positions, Ford deferred it indefinitely at the Executive Committee.


He was opposed at committee by Council veterans and Ford allies Norm Kelly, Mike Del Grande, Denzil Minnan-Wong and Peter Milczyn. At the time Minnan-Wong said, "The province is paying for two nurses full-time. Why would you say no to additional public health nurses to help out? Why would you say no?” 


When the issue was brought to a council vote to re-open it (2/3rds majority needed), Kelly, Del Grande, Minnan-Wong and Milczyn fell in line and supported the Fords and the funding didn't go through. 


This sets up the context for Tuesday's budget meeting where there was a debate about whether to accept the province's offer of three public nurses dedicated to helping combat bedbug issues. Doug Ford asked some questions about the value of nurses ("shouldn't we just hire more exterminators, since they get rid of the bugs?") and worried that the Toronto Star would make the city look bad if the funding was cancelled and the nurses were released. But there was a pushback. John Parker, Mike Del Grande and Peter Milzczyn, among others, strongly pushed back and argued for the need for more health support in fighting bedbugs. A- wait for it- compromise was reached, with Doug Ford putting forward a motion stating that the nurse positions will be tied to ongoing provincial funding. The motion passed. As Doug quickly ducked out from press questions, Mike Del Grande spoke for a couple of minutes, saying that he was inundated with 3000 emails on the issue and adding:

I think if one is politically astute, when one is asking maybe for other things in the future, that you'd want to be on more friendly terms with the province

This quotation is as scathing an indictment of the administration's tactics as you'll find within the inner circle. The situation provides a few useful lessons too. 

An about face on nurses.

1. Ford allies are willing to admit mistakes. 
This is clearly a strong reversal from the Council vote in July and demonstrates that some individuals are willing to point the mayor in the right direction on these issues. While it may seem like a no-brainer, it's not always politically easy and should be commended when it happens. 


2. Ford allies can listen to public engagement.
Not always of course, but to receive 3000 emails on a relatively small (although illustrative) issue like the two nixed nurses is massive. Del Grande took that overwhelming support into account when he voted. So this gives room for optimism; engagement can make a difference. 


3. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 
Ordinarily an issue like the public nurses would gain little public attention. (Granted, ordinarily there would be a 44-1 vote to approve them).This is a case where the access to information and attention paid to City Hall proved enormously successful in ensuring sensible policies are adopted. The crowd had left from the Jarvis Bike Lanes Debate when this was originally debated in Council but thanks to the follow-up from various journalists and bloggers (the Toronto Star's Daniel Dale did a great job on this one) the issue rightly didn't fade away. 


So kudos to Ford allies for standing up for what was right and hopefully with diligent attention paid to them this can be often enough to not be exceptional.  

Team Ford's Terrible July: A Review

Most people can probably agree July was not Team Ford's best month. But looking back on each day with some excepted for weekends or slow news days, it was exceptionally bad. Bad enough to affirm the most cynical views of what a Rob Ford mayoralty would look like-- filled with gaffes, spite, bad policy-making, juvenile taunts and divisiveness. 

Team Ford's July in all its glory is below:  

July 2: Giorgio Mammoliti videotapes Dyke March and alleges some people unfurled a QuAIA sign.

July 3: Rob Ford conspicuously absent from Pride Parade and any Pride Week event

July 4: Mammoliti says all Pride funding should be withdrawn because of QuAIA appearance

July 5: Former TTC manager David Gunn says TTC planning is heading off a cliff, calls Sheppard subway plan ‘a joke’.

July 6: Sue-Ann Levy furthers the sense there is tension between Team Ford and TTC Chair Karen Stintz by attacking her performance in a Toronto Sun column, suggesting she has to go.

July 8: KPMG releases their first core services report. It concludes 96% of services provided by Public Works and Infrastructure are essential. Other reports will suggest high numbers for essential services and point to libraries, pools, Riverdale and High Park farms, fluoridated water as areas that could legally be cut. 

July 11: Ford ally Denzil Minnan-Wong declares community consultation and surveys statistically invalid, irrelevant. 

July 12: Denzil Minnan-Wong moves up Jarvis bike lane debate by a day in a move that seems designed to avoid bike supporters showing up. They pack the chambers at 2:00 when debate starts anyway. Rob Ford votes against all community grants .

Denzil Minnan-Wong's pitches to cyclists were always awkward

July 13: In addition to voting down Jarvis bike lanes, Team Ford votes to not debate accepting provincial funding for two public health nurses (this includes Ford votes by Mushy Middle councillors Beradinetti, Moeser and Lindsay Luby). Rob Ford also votes against AIDS grants.

In the Toronto Standard, writer Ivor Tossell adds a new word to the Toronto political lexicon, ‘uncompetence’.

July 14: Ford loses a vote on implementing a stop light in a school zone (he was against). His team huddles in response, presumably over how the war on the car has continued.

On the radio, Doug Ford claims that the library system is bloated and that his area has more libraries than Tim Horton’s (there are 39 Tim’s and 13 libraries in Etobicoke).

July 15: Ford does a fact-allergic interview with John Oakley to spin the opposition to the KPMG reports coming at the standing committee meetings.

Marcus Gee, a Ford sympathizer during his campaign and to this point, writes a scathing critique of Ford’s budget numbers and mayoralty in the Globe and Mail.

July 17: Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler, the co-founder of Fair Elections Toronto, is allegedly threatened by Doug Ford who is one of the councillors his group has an outstanding audit request against. 

July 18: At the Public Works committee, Ford loyalists Mark Grimes, John Parker, David Shiner and Minnan-Wong vote against having the Medical Officer of Health report on what the implementation changes would mean and against comparing the savings in the KPMG report to priorities from the public consultations. 

July 19:  The news that left-leaning councillor Janet Davis was unanimously kicked out of a Civic Appointments meeting hits the media. Giorgio Mammoliti unironically calls her a bully.

July 20: Organized by Critical Mass, over 900 cyclists protest Jarvis bike lane removal by taking over the street.

Photo by Hyedie Hasimoto of bike protestors at City Hall. 

Also today, Fair Elections Toronto loses their audit application for the campaign finances of Giorgio Mammoliti, Doug Ford, James Pasternak, Michael Thompson and three losing candidates.

July 22: The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail report that Team Ford is looking to fire TTC head Gary Webster due to a lack of support for their Sheppard subway plan.

Meanwhile, Ford answers another softball-laced interview, this time from Stephen LeDrew, with misrepresentations and falsities. He then implores Ford Nation to come speak for five minutes at the Executive Committee meeting on July 28. 3 of the 169 speakers go on to support service cuts in the committee meeting.

July 26: Breaking the mainstream news after being posted on Facebook, Rob Ford allegedly gave a fellow driver the finger as she and her six-year-old daughter gave him a Mammolitieque thumbs down for speaking on his cell phone while driving.

More importantly on this day, Mushy Middle councillor Josh Colle essentially admits he was squeezed to vote against Jarvis bike lanes due to a hold Ford put on a development project in his ward. 

Discussing her criticism of potential library closures, Doug Ford engages in a war of words with Margaret Atwood, dismissing her as someone he doesn’t know, wouldn’t recognize on the street and doesn’t have standing to contribute to the debate as she didn’t run for office. 

July 27: Doug Ford ‘clarifies’ his Margaret Atwood comment by saying exactly the opposite of what he originally said.

Doug Ford in media scrum. Globe and Mail photo. 

July 28: Executive Committee Meeting begins at 9:30AM with a vote on limiting speakers’ time from five minutes to three minutes and deciding that the meeting will not be broken up into separate days. 344 people sign up to speak.

July 29: At 7:57AM after a wide array of creative, thoughtful and passionate deputants the Committee votes on moving forward all measures. Ford’s executive, including Mike Del Grande, Giorgio Mammoliti and Denzil Minnan-Wong dismiss the strong opposition as union supporters, a vocal minority and a ‘socialist party’.

July 31: Mercifully, the month finally ends. 

Ford at Executive Committee meeting. Carlos Osorio/Toronto Star