I have been following this thread with interest and concern but have hesitated to re-open the discussion.
However I feel I must as someone here, someone who perhaps has their own agenda and is hiding behind a pseudonym, has come onto this forum to make unfounded accusations, spread misconceptions and generally smear the reputation of a person I respect and a project I am proud to be associated with. This person has also misquoted me and taken comments I made out of context. All of this has been done in a manner which does more to undermine his own credibility and show his bias. Some of it, the name-calling in particular, does not dignify a response. I don’t expect anything I say to change this person’s perspective, but for the others here who have been following the discussion and weighing in, I would like to address the main concern this person seems to have.
Even after all of the posts from others, this person ends his last post accusing the developer of 229 Wallace Ave of exploiting the community. To address this person’s lingering concern and make things clear, here is what the developer of the Junction Triangle Lofts @ 229 Wallace has done to “give back” to the community to date:
- after hearing about the community initiative, he contacted FB to see if he could assist in any way. Unlike some developers, he likes to be connected to the communities he is building in. After a meeting with FB where they expressed what they would be interested in (not the other way around), it was decided that a financial contribution to assist with flyer distribution would be welcomed.
- a subsequent conversation took place where the developer offered the side of the soon-to-be-demolished D&M building to be used as a mural to bring further awareness to the naming campaign. FB took that idea and ran with it. The developer provided all materials for this, the community did the painting.
- in response to the community’s mixed reaction to the mural, the developer, in conversation with FB, decided that he would, at his own expense, do some subtle tweaks to the mural, keeping in mind the sensitivities of those volunteers in the community who worked so hard on the mural in the first place. He was willing to hire a professional painter; it was my idea to try to find some local youth and work with them. Their school actually mentioned they should do it for community hours, as the students need them to graduate. That this is warped on this forum as a smart business decision to get free labour is cynical in the extreme.
- the developer offered his site to FB and by extension, the community to serve as a place to do the reveal of the "new" name of the community. FB declined, saying that it felt the venue, even though it had the mural as backdrop, might send the wrong message, as there are elements in the community that are very anti-development and anti-real estate no matter the intent. The developer thought it unfortunate, but agreed and respected FB’s decision.
- the developer continued to follow and was excited by what was happening surrounding the naming process. As witness to strong community spirit, he wanted to honour that and name the whole project after whatever the community chose. His thought was that it would be a good thing for community spirit to see business embracing the name and providing further momentum of the naming process. He planned an event and did a mail-out, inviting the entire Junction Triangle neighbourhood and providing lunch. Often renaming a project would simply be done as a press release. It is also worth noting here that from a marketing standpoint, it's VERY risky to place the name of your project in the hands of an outside democratic process. This was pointed out to him, but he said he believed what the community was doing was a great thing and he wanted to support it, no matter what the outcome.
- the developer has established contacts for catering, however he chose to use Yasi's to provide the food, as he wanted to use a local business.
- as to the continued “giving back” that has yet to be written and others have touched on, thanks to the developer at 229 Wallace, some of the businesses considering a move to the Junction Triangle neighbourhood include: an Art Gallery and training studio, a independant coffee shop, a textile shop doing silkscreening, an animation/tv production head office, a physiotherapy clinic, a pilates studio, a restaurant, a walk-in family doctor's clinic, design firms, and many others. One of the businesses currently interested in the project plans to employ over 30 people in just one unit; these businesses and service industries benefit the local community for years, possibly decades to come.
In closing, I think it’s important to note that the developer, with sensitivity to the FB initiative at every step of the way, actually took into practice exactly what the naming process is all about. He used the name. Wasn’t that part of the point of the whole process to begin with: to get the name in use again and continue to raise the profile of the neighbourhood? I believe this very important point has been missed.
Communities can be built hand in hand with developers, not in constant opposition to them. Are there developers out there that have no concern for the community they do their projects in? Absolutely. Has the developer at 229 Wallace behaved in that way? Absolutely not. I would argue he has done the opposite. His actions speak to this fact.
If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I can be reached anytime through my brokerage office. Also, if you would like further information about the project, which is moving along quite quickly, the number is 416-535-3103.
Regards,
Michael
Michael Wacholtz
Sales Representative
Junction Triangle Lofts @ 229 Wallace
Freeman Real Estate Ltd, Brokerage
416-535-3103 michael@229wallace.com
Scott, I'm not sure what changes more often, your positions or the direction of the wind. You go from disagreeing vehemently with the lead organizer one day to defending him the next.
Here is a guy who has practically made a career of playing the victim and portraying the neighbourhood in a negative light with a series of vigils (a number about events completely unrelated to the neighbourhood), repeatedly overstating crime and safety issues, and attacking every community initiative that he dislikes in an ignorant manner.
The discussion and criticisms of the organization of tonight's debate are fair. This event will be one of the very few opportunities that will see the candidates debate the issues right here in the Junction Triangle. Residents would be better served if there had been a more open organizational structure that permitted interested residents to have a say in the format and the debate moderator which remains a secret to all but a select group of people. Instead, what we have is one individual hijacking an important event without input from any other residents. That's not a community event, those are the actions of someone with their own personal agenda attempting to hog the spotlight.
Hi Scott,
I appreciate you reiterating that the RailPath is an "on leash" area, however, this particular dog has also been seen just wandering around Perth and Ruskin streets, alone, by different people on different occasions. No owner has been present.
If people would spend half the time they do guttersniping into something positive we could really move on. There are real issues affecting the ward and the City and all this endless debate about what is fair and what isn't just distracts from the real work that needs to be done. The meeting will probably be not unlike the hundreds of other meetings going on in other wards and if people don't like it then stage your own meeting or stay home. At least save your energy for talking to the candidates, promoting an issue, or helping a campaign. Bickering is tiresome.
Railpath has always been designated as an "on leash" area and as always there are problems with dogs loose. Most people are pretty cool but some just dont get it and some also leave poo bags on the ground. It will take a while for things to become established etc and currently the main priority is getting the stones in place to stop people driving cars on the path.
Suggestion, When you organize your own debate, please do a community wide vote to choose a moderator. We decided to go this route. We have been working on this for a month, trying to get a venue , buying our own flyers and distributing them. So like I said everyone is welcomed, if you don't like it, stay home or do your own debate. I feel we have been fair, like I said no pre-planned question, no secret panels of experts. Now to clarify the observers, they are couple of candidates from other wards, wanting to hear the debate. They have no offical role, other then to see what we are doing, everyone is welcomed to come. One of them is a first time candidates the other has run before. I hope I have clarified it for the same few writers who many of us know who it is. Try to be orginal use your own words. I heard these words before. JF
4. ...Owners of restricted pit bulls must ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act and regulations relating to restricted pit bulls. These regulations include:
Leashing (<1.8 metres in length, of sufficient strength) and muzzling (humanely and sufficently strong and well-fitted to prevent biting) of restricted pit bulls,
Spaying or neutering of restricted pit bulls,
When kept within enclosed property, the property is enclosed in a way that can be relied on to prevent the pit bull from breaking out of the property,
5. Provide for controls on pit bulls. The definition of “pit bull” includes:
a. a pit bull terrier
b. a Staffordshire Bull Terrier
c. an American Staffordshire Terrier
d. an American Pit Bull Terrier
e. a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to dogs referred to in a. to d.
6. Provide for offences and increased penalties (up to $10,000 and six months of imprisonment) for contravention of the Act, regulations or orders.
So you and the candidates know the identity of the moderator Jack. Why don't the residents know as well? It seems like a bit of a stretch for you to say residents should determine which candidates can speak at the Dig In meetings, but you will decide who moderates the local all candidates meeting, set all the terms and keep it a secret as well. Doesn't appear very democratic and indicates that the City really needs to step in to prevent debates getting hijacked and set the terms for these kind of events in the future.
I hope the debate moderator is a resident of Ward 18. I'd like to add that just because all 8 candidates agreed to who the Moderator will be, those eight have yet to be elected as Ward 18 councillor and DO NOT REPRESENT the community. Democracy means the community gets to choose. It's too late now, but next time we have a debate organized by the same people, please consider a community wide vote to help select a moderator. It's only fair.
Just because the residents are asking the candidates questions means nothing, if we didn't get a chance to vet and choose the debate Moderator, then it's not democratic. Moreover, who are these "observers" for the debate? What are they observing? Are they observing which resident asks a question that may not fit a particular platform and will then be watched with greater scrutiny during the course of the evening? Who gets to choose who these "observers" are? Are these "observers" part of Ward 18? I'm just looking out for the unsuspecting people who may not know they are being "watched" by observers.
I don't think it's a secret who the moderator is when all 8 candidates know, we have been communication back and forth since the beginning, so no one ojected to who the moderator is so that was fine with. We will also have some observers coming down to the debate. There is no preplanned question so the residents will be asking the questions, we will let the residents ask the questions. I have never heard of residents ever deciding on a moderator. I do have a suggesting for the anonymous writer is do your own debate and make up your own rules. It seems that's the way things are do in this community.JF
A little more democracy would help this debate. Residents have not been permitted to participate in the selection of a moderator or the format of the event. The identity of the moderator remains a secret and the format won't be revealed until the start of the debate. It appears that organizers are just going to dictate debate terms to residents. Can't imagine why an inclusive process that would foster more participation in an area that has a historically low voter turnout could not have been developed?
Hi, We can always use more Interpreters. If you want to email me at favagj@hotmail.com or just come to the debate and introduce yourself. There are many agencies out there, but many have want a fee attached for there services, which is understanding, as many make a living interpreting. Many have gone to University and College and have made a career in this. Thank you Jack
I look forward to the debate. I know that this is the first one to my knowledge in the the hood. I'm sure it's in everyone's best interest to have this debate and attend.
Hats off to to the organizers the people who run this site..it's a greaf forum.
And builds the enthusiasm for the neighbourhood and desire to make it a better, well informed neighbourhood. Maybe after the debate, we can meet to discuss how to make future debates happen and how to help make our neighbours informed about the issues and upcoming debates.
For anyone who frequents the Perth/Dupont location of the Toronto Public Library, you might have noticed a flurry of construction activity next door at 1587 Dupont. Workers are busy making a new home for the SOMA Studio which focuses on residential architecture, interior design projects and custom furniture. Led by principal designer Andrew Fee, his company has been operating for ten years and has been featured in a number of publications.
You can learn more about this fascinating additon to the neighbourhood and follow progress of the construction at http://somadupontproject.blogspot.com/.
At the Debate there will be a table for anyone who wish to bring info like this. Many of us have not heard about the Kent meeting, Should be the Trustee's responsibility to tell others. Also If anyone see's Carla tell her if she wants to drop off some flyers at the debate about the Perth event. If possible even translated in at least one of ward18 top languages Portuguese. Thanks
The meeting to hear the Board's recommendations for Kent Sr. Public School is May 19th at 8:00 pm. at Kent School (Dufferin and Bloor). Although Perth is not a feeder school to Kent some students do choose to attend there. If you want to hear what the Board has decided in regards to closing this school please come out and attend this meeting.
Vic, You said that Michael's posting were completely on line. Do you think that comments that I took from Mike's posting were fine to say(see below). There are 8 candidates, lets hear what all the candidates have to say before we judge them. I have my own opinion on who I would choose as the councillor or vote for. I sure won't use this forum to let others know. Lots can happen before the October's Election. JF
"Some candidates have no hope of winning and worse, have no useful or interesting ideas. They deserve to be ignored".
"I would be against giving Kevin Wood equal time with Kevin Beaulieu or Ann Bailao who I see as the main contenders"
"Frank De Jong and Hema Vyas don't seem quite as competitive but I think their candidacies are strong enough to deserve some attention".
"Kevin Wood on the other hand means well, but has no chance of winning"
You accused someone of using city property for the purpose of entertaining prostitutes. I haven't seen such allegations from ANYONE else yet, including the media. Unless you can prove that there's even a slight possibility that this is true, it's a complete fabrication of your own and could easily constitute libel. If you want to pull stuff like that, do it somewhere else, or better yet, start your own website or discussion forums.
Michael's posts were completely on-topic. This is a forum about candidates speaking at DIGIN meetings, and that's what he was posting about.
Jack, like I've said many times before: I'm totally fine with you posting on this site, as long as you stay on-topic and abide by the code of conduct. It's the exact same for anyone else. Your posts are not the only ones that have been moved or deleted. I have even deleted posts that made accusations about you. I'm just trying to be fair. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to read or post here.
Kevin, Sorry to say, but I am not the moderator at the debate. I choose not to do it. The candidates have not objected to the moderator that was choosen, so I am fine with that.
Regarding Adam, I don't think I said anything about Adam that the media has not already said. Are you going to sensor all the media too.
I made those comments after reading what Mike wrote. Mike is Intitled to his opinion, but not to make Ken feel like shit. Yes Ken has run his mouth off and had run in's with Digin. Ken and I have also exchanged words and had our differences, but I still respect him, like I respect Mike.
He was talking about Fringe candidates and stuff and I was just pointing out that our present councillor Adam is not any better.
Vic, it's funny, but Mike was off topic and didn't obey the Code of Conduct. I was waiting for you to say something, but I guess the code of conduct only applies to Virginia and I.
Anyhow, I attached Ken's response scroll below.
------------------------------------------------
Hello Jack and fellow candidates,
Interesting to hear that Michael Monastyrskyj sees "Kevin" as "not a serious candidate for city councillor". I think Mr. Kevin Beaulieu will have a lot to offer in the candidates' debates and I am particularly interested in hearing how he is any different from our current disgraced city councillor, Mr. Adam Giambrone. :)
In all seriousness, I take particular umbrage at anyone deciding for the voters in ward 18 who is a legitimate candidate. Being offered and able to make an informed and open choice of political representation is the fundamental element of a true democracy. This is precisely why I think ALL candidates should be offered the opportunity to present their ideas to the public in as many forums as possible. For far too long, politics has been an insiders club where incumbents and only those with strong party ties or big corporate or union backing gave the members only club an extreme advantage. Voter apathy has been terrible in our ward (only 35% voted last time) and perhaps it is precisely because constituents did not perceive a real difference or choice.
Yes, I admit my candidacy is not the same as those with Liberal, NDP or Green party ties. I am not independently wealthy nor do I have big business ties. Candidates can spend up to about $30,000 on their campaigns according to municipal election laws, (which coincidentally is the same annual income that about one-third of the people in our ward earn). Do the many people in our ward who are low income not deserve a choice of a person who knows the challenges of such a life?
One statement by Michael that needs refuting is: "Free speech is an essential civil right, but that liberty doesn't include an automatic right to a platform". I would suggest people do research on where the new social media is taking us. Facebook, twitter, weblogs, etc are all being pummeled in use by the so-called 'non-fringe' candidates who already have mainstream platforms of their own. At any time, I am even painfully free to hear where mayoral candidates had lunch or what their favourite tv shows are. Just yesterday, a new venture started to give a voice to truly local, street level issues: http://openfile.ca/ The world is changing fast and old thinking needs a re-think.
Mr. Monastyrskyj is of course to decide who he supports at any time, but it would be nice if he gave me a chance to present my ideas before he ruled on them.
I hope others woud extend the same courtesy.
I have been following this thread with interest and concern but have hesitated to re-open the discussion.
However I feel I must as someone here, someone who perhaps has their own agenda and is hiding behind a pseudonym, has come onto this forum to make unfounded accusations, spread misconceptions and generally smear the reputation of a person I respect and a project I am proud to be associated with. This person has also misquoted me and taken comments I made out of context. All of this has been done in a manner which does more to undermine his own credibility and show his bias. Some of it, the name-calling in particular, does not dignify a response. I don’t expect anything I say to change this person’s perspective, but for the others here who have been following the discussion and weighing in, I would like to address the main concern this person seems to have.
Even after all of the posts from others, this person ends his last post accusing the developer of 229 Wallace Ave of exploiting the community. To address this person’s lingering concern and make things clear, here is what the developer of the Junction Triangle Lofts @ 229 Wallace has done to “give back” to the community to date:
- after hearing about the community initiative, he contacted FB to see if he could assist in any way. Unlike some developers, he likes to be connected to the communities he is building in. After a meeting with FB where they expressed what they would be interested in (not the other way around), it was decided that a financial contribution to assist with flyer distribution would be welcomed.
- a subsequent conversation took place where the developer offered the side of the soon-to-be-demolished D&M building to be used as a mural to bring further awareness to the naming campaign. FB took that idea and ran with it. The developer provided all materials for this, the community did the painting.
- in response to the community’s mixed reaction to the mural, the developer, in conversation with FB, decided that he would, at his own expense, do some subtle tweaks to the mural, keeping in mind the sensitivities of those volunteers in the community who worked so hard on the mural in the first place. He was willing to hire a professional painter; it was my idea to try to find some local youth and work with them. Their school actually mentioned they should do it for community hours, as the students need them to graduate. That this is warped on this forum as a smart business decision to get free labour is cynical in the extreme.
- the developer offered his site to FB and by extension, the community to serve as a place to do the reveal of the "new" name of the community. FB declined, saying that it felt the venue, even though it had the mural as backdrop, might send the wrong message, as there are elements in the community that are very anti-development and anti-real estate no matter the intent. The developer thought it unfortunate, but agreed and respected FB’s decision.
- the developer continued to follow and was excited by what was happening surrounding the naming process. As witness to strong community spirit, he wanted to honour that and name the whole project after whatever the community chose. His thought was that it would be a good thing for community spirit to see business embracing the name and providing further momentum of the naming process. He planned an event and did a mail-out, inviting the entire Junction Triangle neighbourhood and providing lunch. Often renaming a project would simply be done as a press release. It is also worth noting here that from a marketing standpoint, it's VERY risky to place the name of your project in the hands of an outside democratic process. This was pointed out to him, but he said he believed what the community was doing was a great thing and he wanted to support it, no matter what the outcome.
- the developer has established contacts for catering, however he chose to use Yasi's to provide the food, as he wanted to use a local business.
- as to the continued “giving back” that has yet to be written and others have touched on, thanks to the developer at 229 Wallace, some of the businesses considering a move to the Junction Triangle neighbourhood include: an Art Gallery and training studio, a independant coffee shop, a textile shop doing silkscreening, an animation/tv production head office, a physiotherapy clinic, a pilates studio, a restaurant, a walk-in family doctor's clinic, design firms, and many others. One of the businesses currently interested in the project plans to employ over 30 people in just one unit; these businesses and service industries benefit the local community for years, possibly decades to come.
In closing, I think it’s important to note that the developer, with sensitivity to the FB initiative at every step of the way, actually took into practice exactly what the naming process is all about. He used the name. Wasn’t that part of the point of the whole process to begin with: to get the name in use again and continue to raise the profile of the neighbourhood? I believe this very important point has been missed.
Communities can be built hand in hand with developers, not in constant opposition to them. Are there developers out there that have no concern for the community they do their projects in? Absolutely. Has the developer at 229 Wallace behaved in that way? Absolutely not. I would argue he has done the opposite. His actions speak to this fact.
If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I can be reached anytime through my brokerage office. Also, if you would like further information about the project, which is moving along quite quickly, the number is 416-535-3103.
Regards,
Michael
Michael Wacholtz
Sales Representative
Junction Triangle Lofts @ 229 Wallace
Freeman Real Estate Ltd, Brokerage
416-535-3103
michael@229wallace.com
Scott, I'm not sure what changes more often, your positions or the direction of the wind. You go from disagreeing vehemently with the lead organizer one day to defending him the next.
Here is a guy who has practically made a career of playing the victim and portraying the neighbourhood in a negative light with a series of vigils (a number about events completely unrelated to the neighbourhood), repeatedly overstating crime and safety issues, and attacking every community initiative that he dislikes in an ignorant manner.
The discussion and criticisms of the organization of tonight's debate are fair. This event will be one of the very few opportunities that will see the candidates debate the issues right here in the Junction Triangle. Residents would be better served if there had been a more open organizational structure that permitted interested residents to have a say in the format and the debate moderator which remains a secret to all but a select group of people. Instead, what we have is one individual hijacking an important event without input from any other residents. That's not a community event, those are the actions of someone with their own personal agenda attempting to hog the spotlight.
Hi Scott,
I appreciate you reiterating that the RailPath is an "on leash" area, however, this particular dog has also been seen just wandering around Perth and Ruskin streets, alone, by different people on different occasions. No owner has been present.
If people would spend half the time they do guttersniping into something positive we could really move on. There are real issues affecting the ward and the City and all this endless debate about what is fair and what isn't just distracts from the real work that needs to be done. The meeting will probably be not unlike the hundreds of other meetings going on in other wards and if people don't like it then stage your own meeting or stay home. At least save your energy for talking to the candidates, promoting an issue, or helping a campaign. Bickering is tiresome.
Railpath has always been designated as an "on leash" area and as always there are problems with dogs loose. Most people are pretty cool but some just dont get it and some also leave poo bags on the ground. It will take a while for things to become established etc and currently the main priority is getting the stones in place to stop people driving cars on the path.
Suggestion, When you organize your own debate, please do a community wide vote to choose a moderator. We decided to go this route. We have been working on this for a month, trying to get a venue , buying our own flyers and distributing them. So like I said everyone is welcomed, if you don't like it, stay home or do your own debate. I feel we have been fair, like I said no pre-planned question, no secret panels of experts. Now to clarify the observers, they are couple of candidates from other wards, wanting to hear the debate. They have no offical role, other then to see what we are doing, everyone is welcomed to come. One of them is a first time candidates the other has run before. I hope I have clarified it for the same few writers who many of us know who it is. Try to be orginal use your own words. I heard these words before. JF
Anonymos, It was Ken who said the thing about Dig In, not me. Get your story strait. JF
I forgot to add to my previous post...
From: http://www.toronto.ca/animal_services/pets_and_people.htm#top
Toronto Animal Services
416-338-PAWS (7297)
Animals in the Community
We can help with:
From http://www.toronto.ca/animal_services/dog_owners_liability_act.htm:
4. ...Owners of restricted pit bulls must ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act and regulations relating to restricted pit bulls. These regulations include:
5. Provide for controls on pit bulls. The definition of “pit bull” includes:
a. a pit bull terrier
b. a Staffordshire Bull Terrier
c. an American Staffordshire Terrier
d. an American Pit Bull Terrier
e. a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to dogs referred to in a. to d.
6. Provide for offences and increased penalties (up to $10,000 and six months of imprisonment) for contravention of the Act, regulations or orders.
So you and the candidates know the identity of the moderator Jack. Why don't the residents know as well? It seems like a bit of a stretch for you to say residents should determine which candidates can speak at the Dig In meetings, but you will decide who moderates the local all candidates meeting, set all the terms and keep it a secret as well. Doesn't appear very democratic and indicates that the City really needs to step in to prevent debates getting hijacked and set the terms for these kind of events in the future.
I hope the debate moderator is a resident of Ward 18. I'd like to add that just because all 8 candidates agreed to who the Moderator will be, those eight have yet to be elected as Ward 18 councillor and DO NOT REPRESENT the community. Democracy means the community gets to choose. It's too late now, but next time we have a debate organized by the same people, please consider a community wide vote to help select a moderator. It's only fair.
Just because the residents are asking the candidates questions means nothing, if we didn't get a chance to vet and choose the debate Moderator, then it's not democratic. Moreover, who are these "observers" for the debate? What are they observing? Are they observing which resident asks a question that may not fit a particular platform and will then be watched with greater scrutiny during the course of the evening? Who gets to choose who these "observers" are? Are these "observers" part of Ward 18? I'm just looking out for the unsuspecting people who may not know they are being "watched" by observers.
I don't live in North Korea.
I don't think it's a secret who the moderator is when all 8 candidates know, we have been communication back and forth since the beginning, so no one ojected to who the moderator is so that was fine with. We will also have some observers coming down to the debate. There is no preplanned question so the residents will be asking the questions, we will let the residents ask the questions. I have never heard of residents ever deciding on a moderator. I do have a suggesting for the anonymous writer is do your own debate and make up your own rules. It seems that's the way things are do in this community.JF
A little more democracy would help this debate. Residents have not been permitted to participate in the selection of a moderator or the format of the event. The identity of the moderator remains a secret and the format won't be revealed until the start of the debate. It appears that organizers are just going to dictate debate terms to residents. Can't imagine why an inclusive process that would foster more participation in an area that has a historically low voter turnout could not have been developed?
Hi, We can always use more Interpreters. If you want to email me at favagj@hotmail.com or just come to the debate and introduce yourself. There are many agencies out there, but many have want a fee attached for there services, which is understanding, as many make a living interpreting. Many have gone to University and College and have made a career in this. Thank you Jack
You didn't post your contact info publicly, so the organizers won't be able to reach you. I'd suggest sending an email to them (see above).
If you need a Spanish interpreter then I am available.
I used to live in Ward 18 years ago.
If you can e-mail me before the debate. I can help out.
I look forward to the debate. I know that this is the first one to my knowledge in the the hood. I'm sure it's in everyone's best interest to have this debate and attend.
Hats off to to the organizers the people who run this site..it's a greaf forum.
And builds the enthusiasm for the neighbourhood and desire to make it a better, well informed neighbourhood. Maybe after the debate, we can meet to discuss how to make future debates happen and how to help make our neighbours informed about the issues and upcoming debates.
See everyone on Tuesday.
r.
Not a great pic, not the photographer's fault! it was great to do. Hema and I had a blast. I love the railpath.
r.
For anyone who frequents the Perth/Dupont location of the Toronto Public Library, you might have noticed a flurry of construction activity next door at 1587 Dupont. Workers are busy making a new home for the SOMA Studio which focuses on residential architecture, interior design projects and custom furniture. Led by principal designer Andrew Fee, his company has been operating for ten years and has been featured in a number of publications.
You can learn more about this fascinating additon to the neighbourhood and follow progress of the construction at http://somadupontproject.blogspot.com/.
At the Debate there will be a table for anyone who wish to bring info like this. Many of us have not heard about the Kent meeting, Should be the Trustee's responsibility to tell others. Also If anyone see's Carla tell her if she wants to drop off some flyers at the debate about the Perth event. If possible even translated in at least one of ward18 top languages Portuguese. Thanks
The meeting to hear the Board's recommendations for Kent Sr. Public School is May 19th at 8:00 pm. at Kent School (Dufferin and Bloor). Although Perth is not a feeder school to Kent some students do choose to attend there. If you want to hear what the Board has decided in regards to closing this school please come out and attend this meeting.
I disagree with some of what Michael said, but he's not out of line. He's posting his opinion, not making up slanderous "facts", and staying on-topic.
Let's move on....
Vic, You said that Michael's posting were completely on line. Do you think that comments that I took from Mike's posting were fine to say(see below). There are 8 candidates, lets hear what all the candidates have to say before we judge them. I have my own opinion on who I would choose as the councillor or vote for. I sure won't use this forum to let others know. Lots can happen before the October's Election. JF
"Some candidates have no hope of winning and worse, have no useful or interesting ideas. They deserve to be ignored".
"I would be against giving Kevin Wood equal time with Kevin Beaulieu or Ann Bailao who I see as the main contenders"
"Frank De Jong and Hema Vyas don't seem quite as competitive but I think their candidacies are strong enough to deserve some attention".
"Kevin Wood on the other hand means well, but has no chance of winning"
Jack,
You accused someone of using city property for the purpose of entertaining prostitutes. I haven't seen such allegations from ANYONE else yet, including the media. Unless you can prove that there's even a slight possibility that this is true, it's a complete fabrication of your own and could easily constitute libel. If you want to pull stuff like that, do it somewhere else, or better yet, start your own website or discussion forums.
Michael's posts were completely on-topic. This is a forum about candidates speaking at DIGIN meetings, and that's what he was posting about.
Jack, like I've said many times before: I'm totally fine with you posting on this site, as long as you stay on-topic and abide by the code of conduct. It's the exact same for anyone else. Your posts are not the only ones that have been moved or deleted. I have even deleted posts that made accusations about you. I'm just trying to be fair. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to read or post here.
Kevin, Sorry to say, but I am not the moderator at the debate. I choose not to do it. The candidates have not objected to the moderator that was choosen, so I am fine with that.
Regarding Adam, I don't think I said anything about Adam that the media has not already said. Are you going to sensor all the media too.
I made those comments after reading what Mike wrote. Mike is Intitled to his opinion, but not to make Ken feel like shit. Yes Ken has run his mouth off and had run in's with Digin. Ken and I have also exchanged words and had our differences, but I still respect him, like I respect Mike.
He was talking about Fringe candidates and stuff and I was just pointing out that our present councillor Adam is not any better.
Vic, it's funny, but Mike was off topic and didn't obey the Code of Conduct. I was waiting for you to say something, but I guess the code of conduct only applies to Virginia and I.
Anyhow, I attached Ken's response scroll below.
------------------------------------------------
Hello Jack and fellow candidates,
Interesting to hear that Michael Monastyrskyj sees "Kevin" as "not a serious candidate for city councillor". I think Mr. Kevin Beaulieu will have a lot to offer in the candidates' debates and I am particularly interested in hearing how he is any different from our current disgraced city councillor, Mr. Adam Giambrone. :)
In all seriousness, I take particular umbrage at anyone deciding for the voters in ward 18 who is a legitimate candidate. Being offered and able to make an informed and open choice of political representation is the fundamental element of a true democracy. This is precisely why I think ALL candidates should be offered the opportunity to present their ideas to the public in as many forums as possible. For far too long, politics has been an insiders club where incumbents and only those with strong party ties or big corporate or union backing gave the members only club an extreme advantage. Voter apathy has been terrible in our ward (only 35% voted last time) and perhaps it is precisely because constituents did not perceive a real difference or choice.
Yes, I admit my candidacy is not the same as those with Liberal, NDP or Green party ties. I am not independently wealthy nor do I have big business ties. Candidates can spend up to about $30,000 on their campaigns according to municipal election laws, (which coincidentally is the same annual income that about one-third of the people in our ward earn). Do the many people in our ward who are low income not deserve a choice of a person who knows the challenges of such a life?
One statement by Michael that needs refuting is: "Free speech is an essential civil right, but that liberty doesn't include an automatic right to a platform". I would suggest people do research on where the new social media is taking us. Facebook, twitter, weblogs, etc are all being pummeled in use by the so-called 'non-fringe' candidates who already have mainstream platforms of their own. At any time, I am even painfully free to hear where mayoral candidates had lunch or what their favourite tv shows are. Just yesterday, a new venture started to give a voice to truly local, street level issues: http://openfile.ca/ The world is changing fast and old thinking needs a re-think.
Mr. Monastyrskyj is of course to decide who he supports at any time, but it would be nice if he gave me a chance to present my ideas before he ruled on them.
I hope others woud extend the same courtesy.
Thank you.
Ken Wood
kenwood@bell.net
website: http://davenportdemocracy.blogspot.com/
416 535 2601