There is no such thing possible as an easy commute unless we pave every inch of surface. Traffic study is pretty clear that as more space is freed up more cars arrive and clog up roads. The Braess paradox shows that adding capacity tends to increase congestion (http://www.davros.org/science/roadparadox.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox). Its counter intuitive but it is this simple, more roads mean more cars. As I have said before the first complaints about congestion appeared as soon as there were more than one car in existence (This is documented all over and even here the TTC subway was built over concerns about gridlock and traffic in the early 1940's (!) and yet we still use the same Bloor Street today). Even if you wanted to go the opposite direction of most cities today and add roads, where would you put them? Walking, cycling, and public transit are the only options.
The problem with lobby groups that are specific to a certain class - be that class the pedestrian, the cyclist or the car - is that they often advance their cause at the expense of the other classes. It's not that any one group is good or right to demand their share of transportation infrastructure (and sidewalks are part of that infrastructure every bit as essesntial as roadways) - it is that the coordination of SHARING is lacking.
* If streets were safe and accessible to cyclists, they would use the roadway.
* If sidewalks were beside legitimate bike lanes (not just false 'sharrows' with painted reminders that bikes may want the same few feet your car does), pedestrians would have the sidewalks to themselves.
* If roadways reflected the volume of traffic, there would not be gridlock and cars could enjoy an easy commute.
* If public transit were reliable, customer-service driven and inexpensive, transit users would use it more often, thuse freeing roadways and sidewalks for both cyclists and pedestrians.
Instead of fighting to divide the pie in favour of one class or another, the emphasis should be on the intelligent SHARING of that pie to benefit everyone.
Lobby groups exist to bring attention to indidualist, specific groups.
Government is SUPPOSED to exist to ensure equity and access for all.
This useless bylaw is rarely enforced. No one takes it seriously, or we wouldn't have all these people riding bikes on sidewalks. People have been getting away with it for too long. It would be very hard to actually enforce this bylaw with any vigilance at this late date, because when a grown person who ought to know better has already assumed the right to operate a vehicle on a walkway that should be strictly for pedestrians, infants in strollers, people in wheelchairs and even those sometimes-annoying people with their motorized mobility-assistive scooters, this grown person has thrown moral responsibility out the window and decided to act strictly in their own self-interest. No matter how slowly they ride, or how many excuses they make! This behavior is not acceptable and should have been stopped long ago, but our cops have long since decided they can't be bothered with the penny-ante problems of people who use sidewalks.
There is a correct way to use sidewalks if you are a cyclist; dismount and walk your bike. Period. If you can't even be bothered to do that, then you shouldn't be surprised when people hurl abuse at you. You may see yourself as a splendid soul, salt of the earth, loved by many. Wowee, good for you. But if you automatically put yourself ahead of people who have more right to be on a pedestrian walkway than you do, you are behaving like a selfish pig.
Does this sound "patronizing?" Well, too bad if you're so immature and wrapped up in yourself that you cannot take correction and admit you are wrong. But why must more vulnerable people feel threatened and disrespected? Why do you deserve any respect, if you can't accept people trying to point out how you can make our city better for everyone, not just for you and the people who behave like you?
Yes. Just returned from City Hall where I withdrew at 12:48 PM today
(Guess this means that not only city hall but also vic is surprisingly efficient)
I just got on to post my withdrawal with a brief explanation:
Four Reasons:
1. I live in a centrally forgotten area of the ward with extremely cynical (non) voters. I know this as I worked in the election and saw the voter apathy here. There is very little desire in my local neighbourhood to become politically active over the long term. While other areas bloom with increasingly powerful lobby groups, BIA's and residents' associations, all around me my neighbours just don't engage in that way. I have no name recognition and cannot afford to buy it, and there is little support for political campaigns here. So, I can't even get off the starting blocks.
2. Money. I am poor and my neighbours are struggling (over a third of the ward earns less than $30,000 and many low incomers are in my immediate area). Although the city made some great strides in forbidding big corporate or union donations to political campaigns they still have the glaring loophole whereby partisan parties can loan out paid volunteers to campaigns. Ana Bailao and Kevin Beaulieu are both certainly benefitting from this (Liberal, NDP). Elections are still an uneven playing field.
3. I originally entered the race to challenge Adam Giambrone and offer an alternative. Like many residents, I grew sick of the lack of consultation, his poor judgement and felt I could do better. Now Adam is out for reasons we all know and there are many challengers - with so much "filler" as vic loves to say. Davenport has many choices.
4. I am rather economically disadvantaged, being on ODSP (disability), and finding myself short of food for myself - and worse - for my cats. Here I thought that since city hall required the $100 fee in cash when I registered February 1st, I might have it returned in kind. No such luck. 'The cheque will be in the mail'.
I thank the people in my community who engaged in the political process by coming out to candidate meetings and particularly those who organized such events. I am saddened I cannot continue to run, but realities must be faced.
Ken Wood (the tree guy)
As I stated in last two candidates' debates, I pledged to give up $20,000 of salary to be put towards developing better communication tools to reach ward 18 residents in their ow language. Didn't see any other candidate offer up that.
It drives me nuts that a candidate for public office is telling me what I should be looking for in an elected official. I can think for myself and make up my own mind just like everyone else in the Junction Triangle. How about telling us what you are going to do Ken and stop telling us how we should think and act? Can we expect that you will give up the salary should you become the next councillor, or will you be keeping all the money?
City Councillor : $ 99,535 plus $ 21, 246 benefits = $ 120,781
plus a $53,100 office expenses budget that they can pretty much do what they want with
plus expenses paid for travel and trips to conferences around the world (see this link for examples: http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/41555--giambrone-tops-list-of-... )
I have been following city council for at least a decade now, even watching city council and committee meetings in person or via rogers. Yes a hard core of councillors are there for every meeting and are active in their wards, but the majority are frequently missing in action, skipping regular meetings or ducking out on key votes. Often committee meetings miss members or don't get quorum or are just postponed to next regular meetings.
scottd says: " Salaries of elected officials are always an easy target for populist grand standers but if they were in the private sector they would be paid twice as much for the hours they put in."
This is always the argument incumbents use to say they need to attract the best skills and is a fallacious argument on many grounds:
1. If they were in the private sector, they are subject to much more tangible penalties and rewards. Don't perform and you are fired - immediately. Exceed goals and you get bonuses. Neither of those systems are in the public sector for politicians. Apples and oranges comparison.
2. Politicians have no on site 'boss' per se. They use their time however they see fit, whether that be attending baseball games, dinner parties or meeting constituents. They are not held to accountr during their term of office except to themselves.
3. Salaries for elected politicians are often benchmarked to other levels of government and other geographies and positions. Different places, different times, different budgets. Still a lot of apples and oranges comparisons.
4. An argument made is often that elected politicians can suddenly find themselves out of a job come election time (happens infrequently if you look at history). Even if they do lose in an election, they are not out on the street like in a normal job. They have built up name recognition and networks and insider information that gives them fallback positions to run in other elections or to be on boards of corprations or be lobbyists.
Don't be taken in by the politician who claims 'it's hard' and I could do better in private industry. If money is what you want go there. If you want to serve the public - that's what voters should look for.
What people also forget is that even an average councilor sits on additional committees at City Hall plus sits in on many boards in their community and attend events and meetings every night of the week. Being a councilor can be a 24 365 commitment, more so than MP's and MPP's. I would love to serve my community and have considered running (when I was in Parkdale) but having worked with councilors directly i realized that I would have no time for family or other interests and for that the salary was too low (Toronto's Council salaries, like our taxes are actually lower than most of the GTA). Salaries of elected officials are always an easy target for populist grand standers but if they were in the private sector they would be paid twice as much for the hours they put in.
The Electric Train Music Series rolls into Perth Square Park this Sunday with Pound for Pound. This is the final event in the series and we hope that you can help us drum diesel out of town! The performance is at 12:30 p.m. and is part of the neighbourhood picnic series which starts at 11 a.m. With hot sunny weather in the forecast, loads of shady trees and a splash pad for the kids will provide lots of opportunities to beat the heat.
I didn't get many details. I just saw the guys there on my way home from work. Grabbed my camera, and they were just leaving as I arrived and weren't too chatty. But they're finishing off over the next couple of days. Don't know much about them, if they're local, etc... except that it's a city-funded project, apparently. I'm guessing part of the City's Clean and Beautiful initiative.
It's inaccurate to call it a $120K job. The salary is $99K. Yes there are benefits too - but you don't usually roll those in with salary when discussing what a person earns.
There's enough political grandstanding about councillor salaries out there already - I don't understand why a candidate would deliberately try to misinform people.
When there are no incumbents with name recognition running, some may feel they have an equal chance. Is getting elected just a lottery chance?
I discovered this great analysis on the blog site by Kris Scheuer here: http://kscheuer.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/election-races-with-no-incumben...
"But the absence of incumbents, doesn’t mean newcomers will have an easier time getting elected. In fact, they may have to fight just as hard.
Name recognition can still be a factor in races with no incumbent, says University of Toronto political science professor Larry LeDuc.
“More candidates are attracted by the appeal of an ‘open’ seat, so the number of candidates ought to increase. And lesser known candidates will think they stand a better chance,” he wrote in an email. “But, somewhat perversely, the larger number of candidates may also confer an advantage on some whose names are better known to voters, even though they are not incumbents.”
One way to stand out in the pack is to run a serious campaign with a well thought out platform, says York University political science professor Robert MacDermid.
“The problem with 12 candidates is how do you sort out each person,” he says. “How do you tell who the serious candidates are?
“Many of these candidates aren’t serious. They want to appear at all candidates debates and talk about their one favourite issue,” says MacDermid. “If they are not serious candidates, so some voters get frustrated.”
At a bottom line cost of $100 to run for a $120,000+ a year job.... are we just seeing speculators and gamblers in the "filler" ???? ...hmmm
Yes, I too wish that the provincial and federal governments would do more about this.
The reality is that governments of all political stripes have been able to ignore or deflect concerns about poverty, hunger and homelessness for many decades, both in good or bad economic times. Yet it is at the local, city level that most of the progress has been made, perhaps because cities are face to face with the situation, often charged at least with the administration of programs in this regard.
In my opinion, it is important that all candidates for political office be asked their stance on these issues
fridays sound great. i'm in. have a 13 year old who could play - would that be an option or adults only. cool either way. did you guys make it last week?
Details about the Scotiabank Nuit Blanche exhibit Rail of Light by local artist Richard Mongiat are now available at www.railoflight.ca The exhibit on the Wallace Avenue bridge on Saturday, October 2 will explore the diesel/electric train issue and brings thousands of people to the neighbourhood for the City's great outdoor art event.
"Since the walls have been without any heat for 3 winters now, they are deemed unsafe and therefore will be taken down once development begins on this site " Funny how that happens.
There is no such thing possible as an easy commute unless we pave every inch of surface. Traffic study is pretty clear that as more space is freed up more cars arrive and clog up roads. The Braess paradox shows that adding capacity tends to increase congestion (http://www.davros.org/science/roadparadox.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox). Its counter intuitive but it is this simple, more roads mean more cars. As I have said before the first complaints about congestion appeared as soon as there were more than one car in existence (This is documented all over and even here the TTC subway was built over concerns about gridlock and traffic in the early 1940's (!) and yet we still use the same Bloor Street today). Even if you wanted to go the opposite direction of most cities today and add roads, where would you put them? Walking, cycling, and public transit are the only options.
The problem with lobby groups that are specific to a certain class - be that class the pedestrian, the cyclist or the car - is that they often advance their cause at the expense of the other classes. It's not that any one group is good or right to demand their share of transportation infrastructure (and sidewalks are part of that infrastructure every bit as essesntial as roadways) - it is that the coordination of SHARING is lacking.
* If streets were safe and accessible to cyclists, they would use the roadway.
* If sidewalks were beside legitimate bike lanes (not just false 'sharrows' with painted reminders that bikes may want the same few feet your car does), pedestrians would have the sidewalks to themselves.
* If roadways reflected the volume of traffic, there would not be gridlock and cars could enjoy an easy commute.
* If public transit were reliable, customer-service driven and inexpensive, transit users would use it more often, thuse freeing roadways and sidewalks for both cyclists and pedestrians.
Instead of fighting to divide the pie in favour of one class or another, the emphasis should be on the intelligent SHARING of that pie to benefit everyone.
Lobby groups exist to bring attention to indidualist, specific groups.
Government is SUPPOSED to exist to ensure equity and access for all.
This useless bylaw is rarely enforced. No one takes it seriously, or we wouldn't have all these people riding bikes on sidewalks. People have been getting away with it for too long. It would be very hard to actually enforce this bylaw with any vigilance at this late date, because when a grown person who ought to know better has already assumed the right to operate a vehicle on a walkway that should be strictly for pedestrians, infants in strollers, people in wheelchairs and even those sometimes-annoying people with their motorized mobility-assistive scooters, this grown person has thrown moral responsibility out the window and decided to act strictly in their own self-interest. No matter how slowly they ride, or how many excuses they make! This behavior is not acceptable and should have been stopped long ago, but our cops have long since decided they can't be bothered with the penny-ante problems of people who use sidewalks.
There is a correct way to use sidewalks if you are a cyclist; dismount and walk your bike. Period. If you can't even be bothered to do that, then you shouldn't be surprised when people hurl abuse at you. You may see yourself as a splendid soul, salt of the earth, loved by many. Wowee, good for you. But if you automatically put yourself ahead of people who have more right to be on a pedestrian walkway than you do, you are behaving like a selfish pig.
Does this sound "patronizing?" Well, too bad if you're so immature and wrapped up in yourself that you cannot take correction and admit you are wrong. But why must more vulnerable people feel threatened and disrespected? Why do you deserve any respect, if you can't accept people trying to point out how you can make our city better for everyone, not just for you and the people who behave like you?
Yes. Just returned from City Hall where I withdrew at 12:48 PM today
(Guess this means that not only city hall but also vic is surprisingly efficient)
I just got on to post my withdrawal with a brief explanation:
Four Reasons:
1. I live in a centrally forgotten area of the ward with extremely cynical (non) voters. I know this as I worked in the election and saw the voter apathy here. There is very little desire in my local neighbourhood to become politically active over the long term. While other areas bloom with increasingly powerful lobby groups, BIA's and residents' associations, all around me my neighbours just don't engage in that way. I have no name recognition and cannot afford to buy it, and there is little support for political campaigns here. So, I can't even get off the starting blocks.
2. Money. I am poor and my neighbours are struggling (over a third of the ward earns less than $30,000 and many low incomers are in my immediate area). Although the city made some great strides in forbidding big corporate or union donations to political campaigns they still have the glaring loophole whereby partisan parties can loan out paid volunteers to campaigns. Ana Bailao and Kevin Beaulieu are both certainly benefitting from this (Liberal, NDP). Elections are still an uneven playing field.
3. I originally entered the race to challenge Adam Giambrone and offer an alternative. Like many residents, I grew sick of the lack of consultation, his poor judgement and felt I could do better. Now Adam is out for reasons we all know and there are many challengers - with so much "filler" as vic loves to say. Davenport has many choices.
4. I am rather economically disadvantaged, being on ODSP (disability), and finding myself short of food for myself - and worse - for my cats. Here I thought that since city hall required the $100 fee in cash when I registered February 1st, I might have it returned in kind. No such luck. 'The cheque will be in the mail'.
I thank the people in my community who engaged in the political process by coming out to candidate meetings and particularly those who organized such events. I am saddened I cannot continue to run, but realities must be faced.
Ken Wood (the tree guy)
According to the City's website, Ken Wood has withdrawn from the Ward 18 race.
As I stated in last two candidates' debates, I pledged to give up $20,000 of salary to be put towards developing better communication tools to reach ward 18 residents in their ow language. Didn't see any other candidate offer up that.
It drives me nuts that a candidate for public office is telling me what I should be looking for in an elected official. I can think for myself and make up my own mind just like everyone else in the Junction Triangle. How about telling us what you are going to do Ken and stop telling us how we should think and act? Can we expect that you will give up the salary should you become the next councillor, or will you be keeping all the money?
City Councillor : $ 99,535 plus $ 21, 246 benefits = $ 120,781
plus a $53,100 office expenses budget that they can pretty much do what they want with
plus expenses paid for travel and trips to conferences around the world (see this link for examples: http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/41555--giambrone-tops-list-of-... )
I have been following city council for at least a decade now, even watching city council and committee meetings in person or via rogers. Yes a hard core of councillors are there for every meeting and are active in their wards, but the majority are frequently missing in action, skipping regular meetings or ducking out on key votes. Often committee meetings miss members or don't get quorum or are just postponed to next regular meetings.
scottd says: " Salaries of elected officials are always an easy target for populist grand standers but if they were in the private sector they would be paid twice as much for the hours they put in."
This is always the argument incumbents use to say they need to attract the best skills and is a fallacious argument on many grounds:
1. If they were in the private sector, they are subject to much more tangible penalties and rewards. Don't perform and you are fired - immediately. Exceed goals and you get bonuses. Neither of those systems are in the public sector for politicians. Apples and oranges comparison.
2. Politicians have no on site 'boss' per se. They use their time however they see fit, whether that be attending baseball games, dinner parties or meeting constituents. They are not held to accountr during their term of office except to themselves.
3. Salaries for elected politicians are often benchmarked to other levels of government and other geographies and positions. Different places, different times, different budgets. Still a lot of apples and oranges comparisons.
4. An argument made is often that elected politicians can suddenly find themselves out of a job come election time (happens infrequently if you look at history). Even if they do lose in an election, they are not out on the street like in a normal job. They have built up name recognition and networks and insider information that gives them fallback positions to run in other elections or to be on boards of corprations or be lobbyists.
Don't be taken in by the politician who claims 'it's hard' and I could do better in private industry. If money is what you want go there. If you want to serve the public - that's what voters should look for.
What people also forget is that even an average councilor sits on additional committees at City Hall plus sits in on many boards in their community and attend events and meetings every night of the week. Being a councilor can be a 24 365 commitment, more so than MP's and MPP's. I would love to serve my community and have considered running (when I was in Parkdale) but having worked with councilors directly i realized that I would have no time for family or other interests and for that the salary was too low (Toronto's Council salaries, like our taxes are actually lower than most of the GTA). Salaries of elected officials are always an easy target for populist grand standers but if they were in the private sector they would be paid twice as much for the hours they put in.
The Electric Train Music Series rolls into Perth Square Park this Sunday with Pound for Pound. This is the final event in the series and we hope that you can help us drum diesel out of town! The performance is at 12:30 p.m. and is part of the neighbourhood picnic series which starts at 11 a.m. With hot sunny weather in the forecast, loads of shady trees and a splash pad for the kids will provide lots of opportunities to beat the heat.
I didn't get many details. I just saw the guys there on my way home from work. Grabbed my camera, and they were just leaving as I arrived and weren't too chatty. But they're finishing off over the next couple of days. Don't know much about them, if they're local, etc... except that it's a city-funded project, apparently. I'm guessing part of the City's Clean and Beautiful initiative.
Is someone from the JT area completing this project?
Inside Toronto (i.e., The Villager) has a good summary of Ward 18 riding and its candidates at http://www.insidetorontovotes.ca/wards/bloor-west-parkdale/ward-18-daven... Nice to see the Junction Triangle featured in the Google map as the centre of the ward.
It's inaccurate to call it a $120K job. The salary is $99K. Yes there are benefits too - but you don't usually roll those in with salary when discussing what a person earns.
There's enough political grandstanding about councillor salaries out there already - I don't understand why a candidate would deliberately try to misinform people.
saw this today as well, looks great!
When there are no incumbents with name recognition running, some may feel they have an equal chance. Is getting elected just a lottery chance?
I discovered this great analysis on the blog site by Kris Scheuer here:
http://kscheuer.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/election-races-with-no-incumben...
"But the absence of incumbents, doesn’t mean newcomers will have an easier time getting elected. In fact, they may have to fight just as hard.
Name recognition can still be a factor in races with no incumbent, says University of Toronto political science professor Larry LeDuc.
“More candidates are attracted by the appeal of an ‘open’ seat, so the number of candidates ought to increase. And lesser known candidates will think they stand a better chance,” he wrote in an email. “But, somewhat perversely, the larger number of candidates may also confer an advantage on some whose names are better known to voters, even though they are not incumbents.”
One way to stand out in the pack is to run a serious campaign with a well thought out platform, says York University political science professor Robert MacDermid.
“The problem with 12 candidates is how do you sort out each person,” he says. “How do you tell who the serious candidates are?
“Many of these candidates aren’t serious. They want to appear at all candidates debates and talk about their one favourite issue,” says MacDermid. “If they are not serious candidates, so some voters get frustrated.”
At a bottom line cost of $100 to run for a $120,000+ a year job.... are we just seeing speculators and gamblers in the "filler" ???? ...hmmm
Yes, I too wish that the provincial and federal governments would do more about this.
The reality is that governments of all political stripes have been able to ignore or deflect concerns about poverty, hunger and homelessness for many decades, both in good or bad economic times. Yet it is at the local, city level that most of the progress has been made, perhaps because cities are face to face with the situation, often charged at least with the administration of programs in this regard.
In my opinion, it is important that all candidates for political office be asked their stance on these issues
Angel's Cafe
Hours of Operation starting on July 19, 2010
Monday to Friday 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
5:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Saturday and Sunday 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
fridays sound great. i'm in. have a 13 year old who could play - would that be an option or adults only. cool either way. did you guys make it last week?
Details about the Scotiabank Nuit Blanche exhibit Rail of Light by local artist Richard Mongiat are now available at www.railoflight.ca The exhibit on the Wallace Avenue bridge on Saturday, October 2 will explore the diesel/electric train issue and brings thousands of people to the neighbourhood for the City's great outdoor art event.
Angels is not open in the morning during the week.
"Since the walls have been without any heat for 3 winters now, they are deemed unsafe and therefore will be taken down once development begins on this site " Funny how that happens.
His website is: http://www.voteforkirk.ca
Sorry I missed the game. I didn't know until the last minute but I will be there this Friday.