Getting Things Done

                              

Those who prize quick decisions and action will no doubt applaud the likes of the Doug Ford government. As pointed out in my previous post, the premier and his coterie are not very often burdened by critical thinking. And that, as I tried to point out, has consequences.

Star letter-writers also share their misgivings over this kind of 'governance' in the following.

Someone should remove Premier Doug Ford’s supply of napkins and pens before he comes up with another plan to “save” taxpayers’ money, such as inviting 18 year olds to skip secondary education and join the police force right after graduation; knocking down the Ontario Science Centre and build housing on the ravine. So what if they get flooded every spring. Think of the view!

Let Therme Group build a spa on Ontario Place that 99 per cent of Ontarians won’t be able to afford, but won’t cost the taxpayers a dime, except for $200 million to clear the land and $450 million for underground parking. And those are only preliminary estimates.

Cut funding to hospitals so they can’t keep up with the need for cataract surgeries, but pay private clinics more per procedure than OHIP covers.

And those are only the most recent unplanned plans.

I can’t wait to read about his next great idea in tomorrow’s Star.

Carol Libman, Toronto 

Let us examine the Ford legacy 20 years down the road.

The Ontario Science Centre will be no more and Toronto will have lost a significant piece of architecture that could have been adjusted to continue its role in promoting science. In its place there will be a mass of grotty highrises with few if any subsidized units, much to the delight of developers.

On Ontario Place the wonderful spa which took twice as long to build and cost well-over budget failed as a business venture and was converted to a casino after structural additions. Both the spa and the casino were found to have guarantees from the province to cover revenue shortfalls.

Part of Ontario Place was converted to parking for the casino because water seepage made underground parking a non-starter.

RIP Ontario Place.

Peter Anastasiades, Markham

 The Toronto Star correctly points out that most of the Ontario Science Centre land is composed of hazardous and floodplain lands. Good luck to the Doug Ford government and a developer in trying to secure a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permit for new housing development over these lands!

During Hurricane Hazel in 1954, many houses in the Don Valley were swept away by flooding and hence the conservation authority followed up by preparing floodplain mapping of the Don Valley to ensure that future housing would not be exposed to such destruction. There is also the concept of “setback” zones from floodplains.

Ministers within Ford’s government need to learn how to interpret floodplain mapping before suggesting new housing over hazardous and floodplain lands.

Jim McEwen, retired civil engineer, Bowmanville

In the annals of the oxymoron, known as Ontario Government intelligence, this could rank near the top.

The plan is to build the New Ontario Line subway running from Ontario Place to The Ontario Science Centre. But now, may also include moving the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place and building housing in its present location.

The Ontario Science Centre is a gem, nestled in a beautiful valley. By all means renovate it as needed to keep it relevant, but leave it where it is. Why not simply build high density housing above and around the new 2,700 space parking lot at Ontario Place, leaving the new residents closer to downtown.

Ian Alter, North York

Envelopes are best reserved for their original purpose, not as a medium for calculating public policy.  Expect no course corrections in the near- future from this obdurate regime, however.

 

Angry Talking Heads

 

When I was a teacher, it used to bother me to no end that it only took one or two ignorant, badly-behaved kids to spoil the atmosphere and discourse in a class. For those who think it should have been a simple matter to silence those voices, well, let's just say they don't understand the reality and the dynamics of teaching.

I feel the same frustration today when I see angry men-children like Elon Musk and his Canadian counterpart, Pierre Poilievre, spreading their mischief to gain either attention or political advantage. Take, for example, Musk's impish decision to label publicly-funded media as government-funded, the implication being that they are merely organs of government propaganda. In the United States, this has led both NPR and PBS to close their Twitter accounts.

Not to be outdone, our own domestic mischief-maker, Pierre Poilievre, wants the same designation for the CBC. This is perhaps not surprising, coming from the man who is trying to exact as much political mileage as possible out of his promise to defund the CBC.

Like the problem students I dealt with, they clearly have too much power to influence the agenda. Unlike the classroom, however, all of us have a role to play in mitigating such madness, as pointed out in the following letter from a Star readers:

Trying too hard to make CBC the enemy, April 13

Bruce Arthur is right to pay attention to Elon Musk and Pierre Poilievre championing the word freedoms in order to destroy it when it comes to the public funding of national media like the CBC. Clearly these two are not reformers but transformers and destroyers of our democracy. As antistatist freedom fighters they appeal to everyone’s sense of liberty while bringing about its end in the media.

Like the typical 1980s neo-con U.S. President Ronald Reagan who identified government as the enemy of the people, Musk and Poilievre regard publicly funded media to express the national will of its people as illegitimate. They demand that the marketplace is the only way to provide free and balanced reporting.

The fact that such free enterprise thinking resulted in Fox News, becoming the lying propaganda media for Republicans only is ignored.

The fact that Musk bought Twitter promising to free it up so that everyone would be heard but turned it into the embodiment of censorship is overlooked. (Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s opposition is censored in Indian and Substack notes’ links are censored in the U.S.)

The fact that magical thinking that freedom bestows legitimacy on anything done in its name has proven to do major harm to democracy is ignored.

History has shown that public funding for national media like the CBC is the only democratic economic system that allows individuals to vote for how their money is to be used in the media. They can vote out the government and replace it with a different policy about its funding.

Musk can’t be voted out. Poilievre with such anti-democratic views should not be voted in.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

Perhaps a tall order from Mr. D'Andrea, but one that none of us who believe in a healthy democracy can afford to shirk.

 

 

 

It's Not Going Away

In my post about homelessness the other day, I wrote, In Toronto, a motion that would have kept warming centres open from November to April was defeated, despite shelter space being at a premium. 

Homelessness is not going away, and many citizens are acutely aware of that fact and the immorality of Toronto's decision.

A shameful shelter vote, Feb. 10

I am sad and appalled by Council’s heartless and immoral vote against 24/7 warming centres this winter. There can be no justification for voting against providing warmth for people seeking shelter from the cold.

People need warm, safe places to be instead of stairwells, bridges, parks, ttc buses and subways, libraries, etc. The approximately $400,000 per month warming centres would cost, is a drop in the bucket compared to other city expenses that are not vital to prevent suffering and save lives.

The basic purpose of government is to provide essential services for the safety and security of its citizens. As Edward Keenan opines, when there’s money for police and the World Cup, how can 100 people a day be turned away from shelter?

I am angry that the Mayor and Council have failed their core responsibility.

 Dawn Michael, Toronto

The heartless decision of the mayor and some councillors not to see keeping warming centres as their first priority shames all Torontonians.

Brydon Gombay, Toronto

One need only walk a few city blocks or ride the TTC to be confronted with the human suffering and despair of individuals who are unhoused.

It is heartbreaking to witness people bedded down on our sidewalks and to know that our elected representatives believe that the citizens of this city are OK with this callous disregard for human life.

The complex issues that lead to homelessness are certainly not resolved by warming shelters, but leaving people exposed to the cruel elements of our Toronto winters is just wrong.

Barbara McMorrow, Toronto

The refusal of Toronto city council to ensure there are warming places 27/7 in the winter is a new low, done while the police budget is goosed upwards.

But maybe we can lower the bar to something the slim majority of council might support: opening up the city hall parking garage as a shelter.

I’m sure it isn’t all that well used, especially on the lower levels, and at least it’s warmer than outside. It’s already owned by the city, and there’s a lot of security around already. Yes, if it were completely repurposed, it might present a problem for some of the drivers at city hall, but Line 1 subway is minutes away. and there’s the Bay Street bus and the Queen streetcar.

Hamish Wilson, Toronto

There are clearly no simple answers to the growing dimensions of homelessness, but at least the above, and I am certain many thousands more, are unwilling to accept a patently untenable status quo. 

It is incumbent upon all of us to speak for those who have no voice.

 

 

 

A Time To Reflect

While I doubt the new year will see me lose any of my outrage over the political machinations of our elected 'representatives', this is the season for reflection and hope. In that vein, I offer you the following. It reflects my own perspective, one that was not always easily achievable in my younger days of work stress and providing for a family. 

In the years since my retirement, I think I have come to understand the meaning and purpose of life: to be as kind and helpful as possible to others. Indeed, we can never know the ripple effect of even a bit of kindness, gentleness, a small gesture, or simply the affirmation we give when we listen openly to another.

Beware of your ‘destined mood,’ Dec. 17

Cathrin Bradbury’s article is storytelling at its best because its characters teach us by their lived experience; instead of letting the human failings of your neighbours make you mean and nasty, you should assert independent thinking to be kind and tolerant.

Character is not fate. Destiny is determined by choice.

This choice of “personality to be” is wonderfully illustrated in the Indigenous American tale told by a grandfather to his grandson about two wolves living within each of us. According to the grandfather, they fight because each one values different qualities of being human. The angry, mean, cynical, and predatory wolf wants to dominate the happy, kind, hopeful, and peaceful one.

Provoked by suspense, the grandson asks who is the winner of this clash between human traits.

The grandfather replies that it depends which wolf you feed.

The story illustrates that our behaviour is a direct result of the choices we will make along the way.

During this fractious time of gaslighting by populist leaders imposing their phony sovereignty over others’ democratic rights, it’s good to be reminded about peace on Earth to persons of good will.

The root word of both good will and beautiful mind is the Greek “eunoia.”

There is a beauty in choosing to do good. Peace on Earth to those who choose to do good this Christmas!

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto 

More Of The Same

 

H/t Moudakis

For those hoping my monomania would end after my hiatus, please stop reading now. The depredations of the corrupt Ford government are too much with me.

And apparently also with others, as these letters suggest.

That’s rich: Ford accusing Tory of mismanaging the revenue (he) already collects. What a laugh! Of course, Bill 23 hurts cities’ finances. Why should I pay for some urban sprawl somewhere that needs roads, hydro, water, and so on?

What I would really like to know is what do Ford and his developer cronies consider “affordable, attainable homes”?

Dollars to doughnuts, it will not be affordable housing except for those than can afford over $1 million for a home.

Developers are out to make money, bottom line, and they don’t make it with “affordable” housing, and that’s the problem.

You can bet that monster homes will be built with four garages, because the only way to get into the city will be by highway.

Georgia Volker, Toronto 

We all know the government of Ontario is not being run the way it was originally designed. All the ministries are made up of professional experts in their fields, so why doesn’t the Ford government use them more?

Would the Deputy Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs want to build houses on Ontario’s No. 1 farmland, which Bill 23 calls for?

Part of the ministry’s mandate is land-use planning. I would imagine that housing would be encouraged on the less fertile lands. Again, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, not to mention the conservation authorities, should be very upset with development plans for the Greenbelt.

It seems to me that the proper way to approach Bill 23 would be for Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark to bring in all the views from affected ministries, such as agriculture and environment, if they haven’t already done so.

I would expect the ministries to work together to find common ground as Minister Clark is dramatically affecting the land-use decisions (that affect) the other ministers.

Greg Prince, Toronto 

Former Ajax mayor Steve Parish is right on, (in saying) development charges are not used as a slush fund by our municipalities; they are used to fund the growth-related component of new infrastructure, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, roads and firehalls.

Without development charges, local property taxes are expected to rise significantly in Ontario.

Ratepayers should not be expected to pay for growth-related infrastructure.

Surely there is a better way to build homes faster than to eliminate development charges and destroy municipal planning departments and our conservation authorities, which are essential.

Telling our municipalities that they need to find new efficiencies to make up for lost development charges is a huge pill to swallow, especially for our smaller cities and towns, not to mention that the math does not equate.

As an alternative to Bill 23, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing should be consulting with Ontario’s municipalities to see where proposed housing densities can be increased under local Official Plans.

Jim McEwen, Bowmanville, Ont. 

Besides threatening clean water, biodiversity, wildlife and Grade 1 farmland crucial to food security, Bill 23 will gut protection for renters because it will no longer require developers to replace affordable units.

By taking away development charges, it puts money in the pockets of developers at the expense of municipalities which will be forced to drastically cut services or hike property taxes.

The argument that the Greenbelt needs to be encroached upon to build much needed housing is bogus; there is enough land within urban boundaries to build housing and create sustainable communities and many municipalities have already created and put forward excellent development plans ready to implement.

Esther Cieri, Toronto 

 

J'Accuse

The sad state of Ontario provincial politics should be evident to anyone who reads a newspaper or watches the news. Those who do should also look in the mirror to see if the following applies to them:

Doug Ford has abandoned the people to put politicians first, Cohn, Nov. 19

After reading so much negative publicity about how Premier Doug Ford is trashing our province, I say shame on you to those 57 per cent of voters who were physically able to get out and vote but did not.

You could have made a difference had you done your homework, got involved and realized what damage Ford had done in his first tenure as premier. Perhaps you found the other candidates unappealing, but they may have offered a better choice had you bothered to look into it. Now we have to put up with — and fight — some of Ford’s policies for another four years.

Please educate yourselves about the candidates and get out and vote next time.

Jane White, Scarborough

Let's all try to be better citizens next time around. 

The Stench That Cannot Be Ignored

 

H/t Moudakis

A Star letter-writer observes that Doug Ford must think Ontarians are stupid. In that I hope he is wrong, At least, as seen in the report that follows this letter, his political opposition is not letting his depredations of the Greenbelt go unchallenged.

Changes to the way Ontarians live are coming thick and fast from Premier Doug Ford.

From rearranging regional and city governments to take away oversight and responsible decision-making, to cutting health care costs at a time of unprecedented demand, to destroying the Greenbelt he seems to have gone mad with power.

Which begs the question: Is there no way to check this man? Has Ontario become an autocracy complete with its own dictator?

Our premier must think Ontarians are stupid as he works to restrict health care wages, safety protocols and access to medicine to try to drive our health care system to the breaking point so he can tout privatization as the only solution. Of course, he will never admit privatization — with a built-in profit factor — will cost more. So he lies about his motivations and goals to make his strategy more acceptable.

Turning to the Greenbelt, prior to the election he was caught discussing plans to open it to development. He then publicly stated he would never do that. Once he was re-elected, he did just that.

It is said people get the government they deserve.

But does Ontario really deserve Doug Ford?

J. Richard Wright, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.

Meanwhile, as Richard Benzie reports, Municipal Affairs Minister Richard Clark brazenly tries to deflect attention from the apparent corruption in his government's relationship with well-heeled developers, a corruption the Opposition demand be investigated.

Asked by reporters Monday if “cronyism” was at play, Clark said, “No, it’s a bold action by the government to ensure that we meet our housing target at the end of the day.”

The Tories are facing criticism after revelations party donors stand to benefit from the opening up of 7,400 acres of protected Greenbelt land to housing construction.

 But an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Narwhal found that of the 15 areas where development will soon be allowed, eight included properties purchased since Premier Doug Ford’s election in 2018.

NDP MPP Marit Stiles (Davenport) has asked the auditor general to probe the land deals. She said the Tories are making changes to “benefit powerful landowners” with ties to the governing party.

“Given how suspicious this looks, the least the government can do is be transparent about what has been happening behind closed doors,” said Stiles. “How did the government choose which lands were going to be removed from the Greenbelt?”

Despite his blithe dismissal of accusations of cronyism (I prefer another word: corruption), it is clear something is rotten in the state of Ontario, a fact not missed by Green Party leader Mike Schreiner, who said the Tories are

“absolutely rewarding literally a handful of wealthy land speculators who are going to turn a million into billions.

“This is a huge land play for a handful of people to cash in and the people of Ontario are going to pay the price for it,” said Schreiner, warning of other consequences for agriculture and the food supply.

“People don’t realize that once you start saying protected land can be developed, you can engage in speculation on protected land,” he said.

“So it’s going to make that land unaffordable for farming because farmers are never going to be able to purchase land that is being valued for (potential) development.”

As Rob Ferguson writes, Schreiner has filed a complaint

with the provincial integrity commissioner seeking an investigation into the property deals.

“Over half the parcels of land being opened for development in the Greenbelt were purchased after Premier Ford was elected and some of those parcels of land were purchased as recently as September of this year,” Schreiner said.

“This doesn’t pass the smell test … we need to clear the air.”

Schreiner is right. Ignoring a stench this fetid does no one other than the Ford government and its developer supporters any good.

Ontarians, public morality and justice demand much, much more.

 

 

The People Speak

 

H/t Moudakis

H/t de Adder

Following up on yesterday's post, here are some of the things people are thinking about when they consider Doug Ford and his unholy relationship with developers:

Doug Ford shows his true colours with attack on the Greenbelt, Cohn, Nov. 11

Premier Doug Ford and his developer cronies want to kill the type of communities federal Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner is talking about and what Jane Jacobs talked about before him.

Building mansions on farmland and conservation areas does not make a community people want to live in. Besides shops and transit, people want well-funded schools in good repair and accessible health care where staff are not devalued in burnout jobs. Cultural amenities are lacking in the suburbs: theatres, galleries, concert halls, museums and parks where people enjoy the benefits of nature.

Doug Ford is not interested in viable communities or nature conservation, and our democracy suffers as a result.

Diane Sullivan, Toronto

The Greenbelt grab, Nov. 19

Kudos to the Star team for looking into what looks like a huge scandal. And I completely agree with the spokesperson for Environmental Defence, who is quoted as saying: “Nobody would pay this amount of money for land if they didn’t think it was going to be open for development.”

The question is, how can this be fully investigated, how can it be stopped and what will happen to those in government who appear to have colluded with those making (at least) the most recent purchases of Greenbelt land now proposed for development?

Truly a very sleazy mess, and one that must be investigated by the police, the Auditor General and appropriate ethics officers.

David S. Crawford, Toronto 

Then there is this letter, from Orillia: 

The Ford government’s recent proposal to open the protected Greenbelt to housing development seems to be, yet again, another financial windfall for his developer friends.

The developer buys the land cheaply because it is protected from development and then reaps gigantic profits when your government changes the rules and allows housing. Some might say that such action may be evidence of shady backroom deals and hidden kickbacks for secret government services rendered. It certainly is not being done for the environment or to the long-term benefit of the citizens of Ontario.

Please protect our watersheds, our conservation areas and our scarce farmland for the next generations. Ontario needs more affordable rental stock and more dense, multi-storey units that are priced according to income. Ontario does not need more urban sprawl and more ‘McMansions’ on our Greenbelt lands.

David Howell
Orillia

And this, from London, Ontario:

You are free to tell Doug Ford to halt his plan to destroy the Greenbelt so we don’t hasten climate change. You are free to tell Doug Ford to stop paving over agricultural land so we can rely on our own country to supply us with food.

As evidenced by his about-face with CUPE, public opinion does matter.

Jennifer Mills, London 

It has been said that politics is perception. If that is true, much of the public is perceiving the dark shadow of corruption and insider information in the government it helped re-elect, either by intention or inertia, this past June. 

 

Time For Some Truth

 

In Doug Ford's Ontario, the answer is, "Plenty of people." 

Yesterday I attended a rally to protest the provincial government's plans to override local democracy and extend urban boundaries into the valuable Greenbelt and farmlands (a.k.a The Doug Ford Discharging His Debt To Developers Act). By the robust turnout, it was clear that the premier is fooling few with his claim that such is needed to create affordable housing. Indeed, affordable housing today is something of an oxymoron, isn't it?

While much more needs to be said, an unanticipated visit to the dentist this morning forces me to keep this post brief. Just who are these developers? Clicking on this CBC link affords some answers, as will this one to the Hamilton Spectator. Draw your own conclusions.

As well, these letters from readers show that Ford's veneer of concern and rectitude is quite thin:

Ontario backtracks on Greenbelt pledge with plan to allow housing on 7,400 acres, Nov. 4

It’s no wonder people don’t vote. Why bother, when too often it seems that promises made aren’t promises kept.

Why pay attention to a politician’s platform when we suspect it is nothing but lies in order to get votes? Premier Doug Ford said he wouldn’t touch Ontario’s Greenbelt, and many believed him. I would wager there isn’t a single person in this province who doesn’t believe that his housing plan is simply a way to appease his developer buddies. We all know, there is no need to carve portions out of the Greenbelt for the building of homes. In his usual way, Ford acts without thinking things through, ignoring the experts and public opinion.

Bob Coupland, Oakville

Greenbelt is for nature, not housing, Nov. 9

After reading the above editorial and realizing Ontario’s own housing affordability task force found there was no need to intrude on our Greenbelt for new housing, I now understand what Premier Doug Ford is up to.

The only reason he wants the Greenbelt properties is to appease his developer buddies who have bought up lands in anticipation of Ford’s takeover of huge sections for them to build on. This would destroy precious watersheds, wetlands, farmlands and animal habitats which should be preserved in perpetuity. Discussions are going on right now to determine the fate of the Greenbelt, and the answer to its destruction should be an emphatic NO.

Jane White, Scarborough 

It has been said that sunlight is one of the best disinfectants. Clearly, there is the need for some heavy-duty sanitization of the Doug Ford regime.

Readers React

I'm on a bit of a tight schedule today, so I cede to newspaper letter-writers their thoughts on Doug Ford's tactics and values before his province-wide blink yesterday.

Premier Ford’s decision to withdraw Bill 28, and go back to the bargaining table shows the kind of things that can happen when you stand up to a bully.

Joe Virio, Bowmanville, Ont.

 “I pity that man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth shall starve in the process.” This quotation, by former U.S. president Benjamin Harrison, was posted on the wall of the union office where I once worked.

It makes me wonder: how cheap does the Ford government want to make our educational system?

Trampling the rights of the lowest paid is not only deplorable, but devastating to our society.

Who wants to live, work and do business in a province that disrespects and under values its education and health care professionals?

Ontarians want and deserve better.

Paul Templin, Newmarket, Ont.

SHARE:

 Nobody loves a bully.

The development lobby gets approval to build Highway 413, at a cost of $8.2 billion amid disagreement about its utility.

More than $1 billion a year in annual licence fees is given away as an election goody.

Ongoing green energy projects were scrapped mid-development at a cost of $230 million, amid a growing climate-crisis. The lowest paid education workers (70 per cent women), earning less than $40,000 a year, get offered a salary increase of 1.5 per cent, or, in some cases, 2.5 per cent..

Any trained nurse (more than 90 per cent women), with a salary capped at one per cent, could have easily and far more effectively triaged these competing priorities, so that the educational chaos spread across the Star’s recent front pages could have been avoided.

Paul Visschedyk, Burlington, Ont.