Your City Council Guide for October 24-25

So it’s another City Council session today, surely to be marked by the usual diplomacy from Speaker Nunziata, graciousness from Councillor Peruzza and compassion from Councillor Mammoliti.

Beyond that, there will be some actual issues too. Here are some highlights and the supporting and dissenting arguments that may accompany them:

Photo by Doug Mo

Outsourcing Garbage West of Yonge

Oh, the Mayor’s featured item! Fancy! John Lorinc and Matt Elliot  have the best analyses of the issue so far. The groundwork for this was laid in April when Council voted on a request for quotations to outsource garbage in zone 2, the area west of Yonge St. Notably, Councillor Matlow successfully passed motions on environmental standards (70% diversion rates) and the savings required for bidders.

The supporting argument: This was a key issue in the Mayor’s platform that voters approved of. It saves the city money too- the Green for Life bid will only cost about $17M per year, more than $10M less than the current collection. They won’t be able to go on strike and we all know from 2009 this is important to Torontonians. Plus, it’s the lowest bid and we are legally encouraged to take that.  Key voice: Denzil Minnan-Wong.

The dissenting argument: The competing bids weren’t looked at in detail and GFL’s was taken simply because it was the lowest. There has not been a feasibility study conducted on their numbers, and they don’t seem to add up. How can GFL outbid its nearest competitor by 15%, a huge difference? How can they claim to be 8% more efficient per tonne compared to the private company that takes care of Etobicoke, a less complicated area? How come when you average out the total cost over seven years without inflation it comes to much more than $17M per year? How come they use a high inflation number per year? For a large contract, we know very little. This requires further study to make a prudent decision. Key Voices: Various.

Banning Shark Fin Soup  

Shark fin soup is considered a Chinese delicacy and served on special occasions such as weddings and banquets. It’s a status symbol of sorts and has a big impact, having been named as a chief reason for the declining shark population worldwide.

The supporting argument: Moral leadership starts with sacrifices and as a city that cares about its impact around the world and setting an example for others, Toronto can lead the way. It’s an opportunity to do the right thing, as the devastating impact that barbaric shark finning has on ecosystems around the world is profound.

California has shown it’s possible and we have to be a leader for Canada. It’s not necessarily easy being early on an issue, but it’s not necessarily easy to be right. Key voice: Kristyn Wong-Tam.

The dissenting argument: There’s a lot of information we don’t know. There’s a good chance a lawsuit will follow, so what’s the legal liability going to be like for the city? What’s the impact on Chinese restaurateurs in the city? In a bad economy, will they lose significant business to the surrounding area? Plus, it’s not up to the government to dictate the norms of Chinese culture. Key voice: Doug Holyday.

Status of  Citizen Committees

Remember when Team Ford announced it was scrapping the citizen committees of volunteer advisors? Maybe not, because it happened back in April. It came to Council in May and with some amendments was sent back to the Mayor. The Mayor’s office was tasked with delivering a report on the committees, essentially to justify their elimination. The report was supposed to come back in July but didn’t. Today there will be an update on the status of this report. 

The supporting argument (to eliminate): We need to look at all aspects of how we manage costs and efficiency, and these committees are a waste of staff time, which is limited and costly. We can do outreach through the Internet and other resources. Additionally, some of these committees are way past the time when they were useful. Key voice: Giorgio Mammoliti

The dissenting argument: The mayor campaigned on open and transparent government that engages in real community consultation. These are good promises, and these are good committees. They provide meaningful channels to connect City Hall to passionate, everyday experts in communities around the city. These people provide the civic energy and fresh ideas that makes our city more livable and vibrant for it. Key voice: Sarah Doucette.

Update: Rob Ford's office responded to Sarah Doucette by letter and Council will consider this issue in full in February. 

Increase the Fine on Illegal Parking During Rush Hour

Josh Matlow’s motion seeks to increase the fine from $60 to $500 for illegally parking during rush hour to make a delivery or grab a cup of coffee. The current law isn’t really enforced and the motivation is that by increasing the fine and making it more visible people will comply.

The supporting argument: Delivery companies’ rights don’t trump commuters rights. We’ve all been in the situation where two lanes are traffice are reduced to one because of one selfish person going in to grab coffee for five minutes. We need to improve congestion for everyone, and part of that is improving the behaviour of the few people who currently flout the law. Key voice: Josh Matlow.

The dissenting argument: The existing law is sufficient, it just needs to be enforced more often and with some common sense. Furthermore, we can’t be targeting small businesses who need to make their deliveries. They’re the ones that support the community with jobs and services and going out of our way to make things more difficult for them makes it more difficult for everyone. Key voice: Doug Ford.   

Make EMS an Essential Service

A lot of people might be surprised that this is not currently an essential service. EMS has a limited right to strike, where 25% of its workers can strike at any given time.

The supporting argument: EMS workers save lives around Toronto every day and are essential to protecting the welfare and well-being of the city. During the municipal workers strike, the response time for EMS dropped by 50 seconds per call. This is critical time for critical situations. If the TTC is an essential service, then so too is EMS. Key voice: Gloria Lindsay Luby.

The dissenting argument: While EMS workers are invaluable and important, making them an essential service is tough for a city in austerity mode. Key voices: Unknown.

Continuation of Civic Appointments

This topic was fairly contentious last time with accusations and aspersions being frequently cast. The city is continuing the process of appointing individuals to various boards This is done in the early stages of each Council term.

The supporting argument: These are qualified individuals who want to contribute to the city. The committee has went through a very thorough process to vet candidates, using much of their summer to do so. The opposition is trying to make this a political issue and in the process is undermining the candidates and discouraging future candidates from participating next time. Key voices: Michael Thompson, James Pasternak.

The dissenting argument: The proper process was not followed. The city has a mandate to include minority voices to represent the makeup of the city. Judging by the numbers so far, this has not been the case. Instead, individuals seen to be politically friendly have been appointed to key positions despite having little to no experience in the area. Additionally, there’s a lack of continuation from previous board members to help train newcomers and ease any transition pains. This is a straightforward task and it is stunning that it has been botched like it has. Key voices: Adam Vaughan, Gord Perks.  

Endorsing Peaceful Occupy Toronto Protests

In the past little while the Occupy protests have taken root in cities around the world, including downtown Toronto. It’s been going for over a week now and has been peaceful thus far.

The supporting argument: The Occupy movement is largely about giving a voice back to the majority of people who feel underrepresented. This is an ethic that should resonate at City Hall, where we all pledge to do our best to look out for every constituent and make sure they are fairly treated. Additionally, the peacefulness that has characterized the Toronto protest is to be commended. Key Voice: Gord Perks.

The dissenting argument: While it’s great that people feel passionate enough to voice their opinion, it’s not up to City Hall to lend credibility to one group or another. They have to do that on their own merits, and we’re confident that citizens can judge the protests for themselves. Key Voices: Various?

Other issues: Pepsi License Agreement for city vending machines, TCHC provincial tax amendment, Carbon Credit Policy Revenues, Licensing of Household Movers

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.