News   Apr 17, 2024
Sustainability Month: The Combined Power of Bike + Subway + RER
 1K     0 
News   Apr 17, 2024
Daniels' OMG2 Offers EV Charging at Brampton Condo Homes
 323     0 
News   Apr 17, 2024
Canada Lands Company Advances Downsview Lands Transformation
 2K     1 

Political Landscape of Toronto (including Ward Boundary Review)

Skeezix said:
Wait ... what?

I looked at the various ward configurations when originally proposed, but I don't remember that one.
Click to expand...

The 47-ward proposal has East York, and the northern half of Danforth (currently Ward 29), merged with a large part of Leaside. This isn't too odd given that Leaside was a part of East York up until amalgamation.
 
Overall I'm pretty satisfied with the proposed wards, and I look forward to seeing more representation from downtown. My only nitpick is that Regent Park would be split in half along Dundas Street, and that the booming Yonge & Eglinton neighbourhood will still remain divided between three different wards.
 
mjl08 said:
The 47-ward proposal has East York, and the northern half of Danforth (currently Ward 29), merged with a large part of Leaside. This isn't too odd given that Leaside was a part of East York up until amalgamation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's correct.

Leaside would be part of the new Ward 33.

Ward 34 (currently 29, western East York) would expand west to include a big chunk of Rosedale.

While the new Ward 35 (currently 31, and eastern East York) stays fairly close to what is now, except for some small growth to the north (taking in west of Bermondsey, south of Eglinton), and tiny sliver north of O'Connor between Coxwell and Don Mills.

The DVP is a boundary line in this area; as is the CP main line
 
mjl08 said:
Agreed. I anticipate cries of "What about Scarborough/York/Etobicoke??!" from Mamo, Jimmy K and the rest of the rest dead weight.



I will be surprised if they add 3 councillors, especially with Tory keeping an eye on the 2018 race. "More politicians" is not very palatable to the electorate, regardless of the merit. I predict they go with Option 2 which keeps 44 seats with reconfigured boundaries.
Click to expand...


As noted in the report, w/e decision is taken is reviewable by the OMB, including no decision at all.

Any variation of redistribution will cause the power-shift effect. (towards downtown, centre-left etc.)

I would suspect, theatrics aside, that council would support 47, as this involves less 'bloodshed' than would otherwise be the case assuming the alternative is redistribution of 44, which would mean nixing 3 suburban wards.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't believe that's correct.

Leaside would be part of the new Ward 33.

Ward 34 (currently 29, western East York) would expand west to include a big chunk of Rosedale.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding as well. While there is some historic logic for including part of "Old East York" and Leaside in the same ward (although less logic for the parts of Ward 29 that were in the former City of Toronto), that logic doesn't really exist for a Rosedale/Danforth/East York ward.
 
Northern Light said:
As noted in the report, w/e decision is taken is reviewable by the OMB, including no decision at all.

Any variation of redistribution will cause the power-shift effect. (towards downtown, centre-left etc.)

I would suspect, theatrics aside, that council would support 47, as this involves less 'bloodshed' than would otherwise be the case assuming the alternative is redistribution of 44, which would mean nixing 3 suburban wards.
Click to expand...

Apologize if this is a stupid thing of me to say, but wouldn't the simple solution (at least politically) be to divided each of the new federal/provincial wards in two? I know it doesn't necessarily achieve the same population distribution that the consultants were aiming for, but it strikes me as politically easier to achieve at Council and more easily defensible at the OMB.
 
Skeezix said:
Apologize if this is a stupid thing of me to say, but wouldn't the simple solution (at least politically) be to divided each of the new federal/provincial wards in two? I know it doesn't necessarily achieve the same population distribution that the consultants were aiming for, but it strikes me as politically easier to achieve at Council and more easily defensible at the OMB.
Click to expand...

Nothing stupid about that thought.

In general, that seems like an entirely reasonable solution.

I believe the argument is over how much variation exists between ridings, and that variation exceeding the City's mandated variation level. But I could stand to be corrected on this point.
 
I think you're right about the variation. But it's the only scenario I could see a majority of Council supporting, without the meeting descending into a gong show, and there is a certain simplicity to it that allows it to be sold both as a status quo and also as change (depending on the audience).

This whole process emphasizes to me that, much like the ranked ballot issue, this type of decision should not be in the hands of Council.
 
One principle the boundary review is "downtown wards should be inside the downtown." By that logic Rosedale is out, and Seaton Village is transferred to Mike Layton's ward.

Rosedale really naturally belongs with St. Paul's riding, but I suspect they can't stick it there because it would mess too much with population and force the redrawing of adjacent ones etc. Hence it sticks out like a sore thumb wherever it goes.
 
I suspect the awkward placement of Rosedale had to do with population growth in what were formerly the Toronto Centre wards, and the fact that Ward 29 has the lowest population. Carve Rosedale off KWT's ward, add it to the Danforth/East York, and voila - population balance. Doesn't make a whit of sense, but the numbers add up!
 
Northern Light said:
I don't believe that's correct.

Leaside would be part of the new Ward 33.

Ward 34 (currently 29, western East York) would expand west to include a big chunk of Rosedale.

While the new Ward 35 (currently 31, and eastern East York) stays fairly close to what is now, except for some small growth to the north (taking in west of Bermondsey, south of Eglinton), and tiny sliver north of O'Connor between Coxwell and Don Mills.

The DVP is a boundary line in this area; as is the CP main line
Click to expand...

My apologies, I meant Ward 29 as it current stands (represented by Clr Fragedakis). In the the 47-ward proposal, all of current Ward 29 is in Ward 34, except it creeps across the Don Valley and includes a big chunk of Leaside and all of Bennington Heights.

Let's say the 47-ward council prevails, where do incumbent downtown councillors run? Does Cressy run in 20, 22, 24 or 25, all of which take parts from his current ward? Does KWT run in 23, 24 or 25? And who are the up-and-comers to run in wards with no incumbent?
 
Last edited:
mjl08 said:
My apologies, I meant Ward 29 as it current stands (represented by Clr Fragedakis). In the the 47-ward proposal, all of current Ward 29 is in Ward 34, except it creeps across the Don Valley and includes a big chunk of Leaside and all of Bennington Heights.

Let's say the 47-ward council prevails, where do incumbent downtown councillors run? Does Cressy run in 20, 22, 24 or 25, all of which take parts from his current ward? Does KWT run in 23, 24 or 25? And who are the up-and-comers to run in wards with no incumbent?
Click to expand...

Cressy definitely runs in 24.

KWT probably in 23.
 
mjl08 said:
My apologies, I meant Ward 29 as it current stands (represented by Clr Fragedakis). In the the 47-ward proposal, all of current Ward 29 is in Ward 34, except it creeps across the Don Valley and includes a big chunk of Leaside and all of Bennington Heights.
Click to expand...

I think I am perhaps misunderstanding what you're saying, @mjl08, but that still doesn't seem correct. RW34 would include the western portion of Old East York, the portion of the former City of Toronto on the north side of the Danforth, Moore Park, Governor's Bridge and Rosedale. It does not appear to include any of Leaside or Bennington Heights.

ETA:
RW34.png
 

Attachments

  • RW34.png
    RW34.png
    282.8 KB · Views: 305
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top