The Rob Ford-Jerry Agar Interview Infographic

This morning Rob Ford took to the friendly and familiar confines of AM talk radio to turn around his record-low popularity and sell the KPMG recommendations. He spoke with fellow right-winger Jerry Agar on Newstalk 1010 who gave a surprisingly tough interview (listen here). It was Ford in classic form, responding with talking points, half-truths and misrepresentations and pinning the blame on the Miller administration.

I put together this wordle to give a visualization of those talking points and the discussion, which is better viewed here.

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. 

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

What My Executive Committee Deputation Would Have Been

I took a day off work on Tuesday so I could attend the Executive Committee (and I'm not even in a union or a communist!) and depute on the Waterfront issue, which I did a fair amount of research on to write my latest post. There were some really passionate, knowledgeable and insightful speakers there-- I was feeling a bit intimidated to be honest. At one point, my ex-gf sent a text asking what was up so I stepped out of the room and gave her a call to see how her recent vacation was. In this time a rush of speakers weren't there to make their deputations and my name was called. (Cityslickr later asked me if my ex is a secret Ford operative, but we get along, she's an awesome person and is not exactly a Ford voter, so I'm going to go with no). 


But I did miss my chance to depute, as I asked the City Clerk if I could go at the end but the Mayor declined that opportunity. C'est la vie. For posterity's sake, I thought I would post my deputation- I had a rough outline of my arguments, but wanted to speak extemporaneously. 

Before I begin, I’d like to thank both Executive and Visiting councillors for their effort and attention and particularly city staff for enabling these deputations to take place. I say this because I think we can all agree that hearing from citizens is an important function of government to craft better plans and policies.

It’s something I know Mayor Ford agrees with too. As a councillor he made it a priority in listening to the needs and concerns of constituents and excelled in doing so. He encapsulated this ethic in the mayoral campaign too, promising to ‘respect taxpayers’. This wasn’t just a vague notion either. The tenth point of his mayoral platform, ‘Real Community Consultation’, eloquently stated these principles:

“[The consultation process] will not just ‘inform communities of decisions already made- it will engage stakeholders early enough so plans can reflect their interests and ideas. This process will include proactive notification of all impacted residents, businesses and other stakeholder groups and require sufficient lead-time to receive informed input.”

I didn’t vote for Mayor Ford, but I support these values. They’re the values that build the foundation of a strong city and democracy, that enable the strength and diversity of voices to come together and enrich us all. They also help to avoid, as Councillor Paul Ainslie mentioned this morning in relation to his windmill motion to ‘avoid government foisting projects onto citizens’. It’s a conservative principle- let’s ensure that we have both grassroots dialogue and expert opinions before implementing principles- and it’s one that I’m sure all the councillors here can agree is the bedrock of prudent, intelligent and meaningful city building.

But that’s not what we have here today.

What we have here today is a Mayor- and his brother, Councillor Ford, brazenly flouting the principles and values they campaigned on. They didn’t campaign on the waterfront, but they did campaign on the values of transparent, respectful and prudent governance.

I believe that these are the values you subscribed to when you chose to accept a seat on the Executive Committee and I remind each one of the councillors here today that they are beholden to those values- the commitment to their constituents and Toronto, not beholden to the Mayor.

The Mayor isn’t representing your values when he derides ‘backroom decision-making’ during his campaign and then his brother crows about his ‘backroom vision’ of which we know nothing.

The Mayor isn’t representing your values when he derides Waterfront Toronto as moving too slowly yet since he’s been on their board as of December 8 has not attended any of their five board meetings, three conference calls or one strategy session.

The Mayor isn’t representing your values when he promises to have a close and thoughtful examination of each budget item but isn’t willing to defer this decision until after Waterfront Toronto votes on their Don River business plan- long in the works- tomorrow.

The Mayor isn’t representing your values when he promises openness and transparency yet gives the public four business days to understand the vague generalities of a vision and an Epcot Centre style video for their Ferris Wheel-Mega Mall-Monorail attraction.

Your principles, and by extension the principles of your constituents, are better than that.

Councillor Milczyn, your expertise as an architect and planner would fly in the face of these rushed development  visions that violate process.

Councillor Parker, who is absent, I know has been a long supporter of the Don, which does not receive any attention in the ‘vision-making exercise’ we see here today.

Councillor Kelly, at the July 22 opening for Sherbourne Common, you called Waterfront Toronto’s work and cooperation with the three levels of government ‘magical’ and ‘one of the reason’s why Toronto is one of the world’s emerging cities’.

Councillors Thompson, Del Grande, Minnan-Wong and Holyday, you routinely criticized the previous administration for seeking one-time cash to solve problems, yet that’s the solution sought here today.

Councillor Robinson, you campaigned on shifting power back to residents on community development and planning issues and promoted civic engagement as part of the ‘My Life, My City’ series.

Councillor Berardinetti, you believe in creating jobs through protecting the natural environment, a central tenet of the Waterfront Toronto plan.

There’s an opportunity today, and it’s not the ‘vision making’ brainstorming, although some of that may complement existing plans. The opportunity belongs to the councillors on the Executive, and it’s this:

You have the opportunity today to show leadership. You have the opportunity to be what you were elected to be- strong community representatives in touch with your own principles and those of your constituents. You have the opportunity to hold this mayoralty to account to the values they espouse, to make sure that their actions align with their promises. You're being asked to give the Mayor a blank slate by sending this to Council. Instead, the community and council, as people have pointed out today, needs to ask more questions

Like politics, the end product for the Port Lands is a result of the process. As empty as the Port Lands are, as frustrating as the building process can be, they will not be built on murky PowerPoint promises or toxic and shallow accusations. They’re built with the values and integrity of our process generated through consultation and transparency. They’re built with an active and engaged citizenry that demands better, that wants Toronto to be prudent, thoughtful and great. 

Today, you have a chance to affirm those values and your principles by voting No on Motion 9.6. 

I hope you do so today, and I thank you for listening. 

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

The TCDSB and Me

I went to Catholic schools for my entire education. My Mom always felt it was important, that the values and compassion informed by Catholicism were invaluable life lessons. I didn’t put up much of a fuss; aside from the easy religion mark and the uniforms it seemed like any other school at the time.

I can’t say I was particularly astounded by the quality of the three Catholic schools I attended (although one was very good). Instead, there were individual teachers who stood out as going beyond. They demonstrated the passion for education and ability to understand the individual needs of students that marks a positive environment in which to grow.

The teacher who was best at this in my high school was also gay. He didn’t talk about it, but people knew. There were other gay teachers too, and they didn’t talk about it either. It never felt like a hostile environment, but looking back it probably could have been better. For instance, the individual in my grade who didn’t feel comfortable coming out until his second year of university might have had an easier time. Or students in general could have learned the Very Catholic lessons of greater empathy, inclusion and understanding.

The current slate of TCDSB trustees

Last night the Toronto Catholic District School Board chose different values. The subject was Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), a controversy that arose as Halton students were denied the right to form a GSA as it would ‘not be in accordance with the teachings of the church’. Board chair Alice Anne Lemay said at the time that, “we don’t allow Nazi teachings either”. This created tension with the province’s equity policy, which was then clarified to support the rights of GSAs. But clearly further clarification is needed, because the trustees of the TCDSB voted last night (led by John 'son of Mike' Del Grande) that denominational rights supersede ‘other rights’.

According to Professional Tweeters Andrea Houston (Xtra) and Jonathan Goldsbie (National Post, The Grid) the scene was ugly. The deputations were limited to ten even though more than that number correctly filled out and filed forms to speak. Nine of the ten opposed the GSA. Applause filled the room as people argued that homosexuality was unrepresentative of the Catholic faith. When a motion put forward by Del Grande to ban GSAs in the future lost 5-6, the audience was frustrated at the ‘weak language’ of the final policy. Some argued that the Trustees who voted against it weren’t real Catholics and should resign, others accused them of being communists (Aside: really? Can we get these people dictionaries?). Others prayed for Andrea Houston, possibly because of the colour of her hair. The audience was there as an affirmation of their values, to ensure that their constitutional right to express their religious teachings in an educational context (section 93, yo) was protected and enshrined.  

But by re-affirming their values by opposing GSAs the TCDSB and many of its speakers lost sight of some of the original reasons for which the separate Catholic system was established. They could well point to the fact that it was established to ensure that Catholic values were preserved (Pope Leo XIII even wrote an encyclical to this extent). But Catholic schools already teach that the ‘act of homosexuality’ and any premarital sex for that matter is against Church teaching. The design of any GSAs would be to foster an environment of support and inclusion to de-marginalize LGBTQ teens (who also have a much higher teen suicide rate than the national average).

At the school board’s founding Catholics were marginalized too. They were cast as the ‘other’ who threatened the mainstream integrity of the socio-political environment. They were said to poison the minds of youth and be stealth advocates of the Vatican sent to undermine values and democracy. The cartoon below by the notable anti-Catholic Thomas Nast illustrates this sentiment with Catholic priests as metaphoric alligators ready to sneak up, take away and eat unsuspecting children. 

It all sounds familiar given the rhetoric of last night’s TCDSB meeting. Catholics shouldn’t lose sight of that position of marginalization and difference; it’s from this place that an empathy and understanding can be extended and amplified.

Perhaps the proudest moment of my Catholic education was graduation day and not for the reason that I was getting out of there. I won an award that I didn’t know existed, for ‘best exemplifying Catholic values’. It was flattering, surprising and promising that as a non-religious individual with no involvement in the Peer Ministry at the school, I could win the award.

But, sadly, I have my doubts about the worth of the award today. The TCDSB acutely expressed their own values last night and they were intolerant, exclusionary and reactionary. I don’t think those were the values my Mom signed me up for and they certainly don’t represent me.  

Blues Brothers vs. Ghostbusters vs. Rob Ford

A week ago Rob Ford went out to support a fundraiser for a great cause, Famous People Player's that had Canada's second favourite Ghostbuster and Blues Brother Dan Aykroyd hosting. It was another odd Ford pairing and sparked a brief conversation on Twitter about whether the administration was more like Blues Brothers or Ghostbusters (or My Girl, but not really). 


Since this important question has been bugging me since I've tried to solve it scientifically*. With a table and jazz. 
*May not be scientific


I've judged how well the Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters match up to the reality and wishes of the Fords based on arbitrary categories. Place your bets now!

And winning 5-4 is Ghostbusters! Congratulations Ivan Reitman, your vision of Toronto doesn't stop at the Bell Lightbox building!