Bob Burnhamthorpe
New Member
Like these.
(I just think ... *this* is the kind of low information loser who still hates a man who's now been dead for almost a year and a half, and who now hates Tory? Pfft ... sure. I can't wait 'til next year.)
|
|
|
2018 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races
- Thread starter animatronic
- Start date
Like these.
(I just think ... *this* is the kind of low information loser who still hates a man who's now been dead for almost a year and a half, and who now hates Tory? Pfft ... sure. I can't wait 'til next year.)
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
another Toronto Councillor who might be gone next year....
Chin Lee to run for Liberals in Scarborough North against Raymond Cho
https://www.insidetoronto.com/news-...als-in-scarborough-north-against-raymond-cho/
Chin Lee to run for Liberals in Scarborough North against Raymond Cho
https://www.insidetoronto.com/news-...als-in-scarborough-north-against-raymond-cho/
Videodrome
Senior Member
The less incumbents, the better!
christiesplits
Senior Member
Steve Paikin says there are rumours that KWT has been approached to run for the Libs in Toronto Centre. I always assumed she was a New Democrat.
https://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/ontario-liberals-wrestle-with-the-principle-of-local-democracy
https://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/ontario-liberals-wrestle-with-the-principle-of-local-democracy
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,538
- Reaction score
- 9,534
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
I didn't think she was especially aligned with any political party. I met her at a causal David Soknacki fundraiser in 2014. I would prefer she stayed on Council, personally.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
KWT has $60 million in Section 37 money sitting in her ward.
I don't feel like she has a large incentive to leave.
I don't feel like she has a large incentive to leave.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Austerity, status quo or city building: It's time for Toronto voters to pick a path
In the upcoming municipal election, voters will be able to determine which path is most important for the future.
From MetroNews, at this link:
In the upcoming municipal election, voters will be able to determine which path is most important for the future.
From MetroNews, at this link:
What kind of city do you want to live in?
It’s a big, nebulous question, I know, but with less than a year to go before Toronto’s next municipal election, it’s time to start thinking about choices.
City Manager Peter Wallace can help with that.
Wallace delivered his third annual city manager’s address at the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance a couple of weeks ago. The event is always relentlessly nerdy. Lots of numbers and charts.
But this year, beyond the technicalities, Wallace used his time at the podium to do something especially relevant as we move toward another election campaign: He laid out three viable paths forward for our city.
Path #1: Austerity
Wallace called this path “focus on services to property.” If Toronto follows it, city hall would actively work to shrink itself. Fewer libraries, a reduction in recreation programming, less emphasis on building new infrastructure and so on.
The city government would focus most on stuff like picking up garbage and fixing potholes.
As Wallace explained it, this is the only pathway the city could take that avoids the need to increase revenue. You want property taxes to stay super low? You have to be OK with losing services.
Path #2: Maintain existing service levels
The status quo.
The same level of TTC service, the same amount of park maintenance, the same incremental implementation of strategies to tackle issues like road safety, poverty and climate change.
But be warned: even keeping the status quo requires the city to increase revenue.
Over the last few years, city council has used windfalls from Toronto’s hot real-estate market and an array of various accounting tricks to balance its books. Neither is sustainable.
Path #3: Broader city building
Down this path, Torontonians say to hell with the notion of cutting our city or maintaining the status quo, and embrace efforts to rapidly build. It’s about vision.
It won’t be free, because great cities aren’t built for free. Try as you might — and Toronto politicians have tried — you can’t pursue a city-building agenda while cutting the budget.
With the money, strategies to expand transit service, build bike lanes, make roads safer, fight climate change and address the city’s sky-high child-poverty rate could get the full level of investment they need.
The cost to you? Well, maybe Toronto wouldn’t be able to claim the lowest property taxes in the GTA any longer. It could also mean a new sales tax or parking levy.
During his presentation, Wallace made sure to point out that these three pathways aren’t meant to be definitive, merely illustrative. There is variance within each and more choices that need to be made.
But during an election year, the approach has a lot of value as a starting point. It’s a way to categorize the many candidates for council and mayor who will come forward: austerity, status quo or city building.
In past municipal elections, Toronto has gotten tangled up in debates about specific issues without deciding what kind of city voters want in the first place.
This time, let’s try something new: First pick a path, then find the leaders who can get us there.
It’s a big, nebulous question, I know, but with less than a year to go before Toronto’s next municipal election, it’s time to start thinking about choices.
City Manager Peter Wallace can help with that.
Wallace delivered his third annual city manager’s address at the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance a couple of weeks ago. The event is always relentlessly nerdy. Lots of numbers and charts.
But this year, beyond the technicalities, Wallace used his time at the podium to do something especially relevant as we move toward another election campaign: He laid out three viable paths forward for our city.
Path #1: Austerity
Wallace called this path “focus on services to property.” If Toronto follows it, city hall would actively work to shrink itself. Fewer libraries, a reduction in recreation programming, less emphasis on building new infrastructure and so on.
The city government would focus most on stuff like picking up garbage and fixing potholes.
As Wallace explained it, this is the only pathway the city could take that avoids the need to increase revenue. You want property taxes to stay super low? You have to be OK with losing services.
Path #2: Maintain existing service levels
The status quo.
The same level of TTC service, the same amount of park maintenance, the same incremental implementation of strategies to tackle issues like road safety, poverty and climate change.
But be warned: even keeping the status quo requires the city to increase revenue.
Over the last few years, city council has used windfalls from Toronto’s hot real-estate market and an array of various accounting tricks to balance its books. Neither is sustainable.
Path #3: Broader city building
Down this path, Torontonians say to hell with the notion of cutting our city or maintaining the status quo, and embrace efforts to rapidly build. It’s about vision.
It won’t be free, because great cities aren’t built for free. Try as you might — and Toronto politicians have tried — you can’t pursue a city-building agenda while cutting the budget.
With the money, strategies to expand transit service, build bike lanes, make roads safer, fight climate change and address the city’s sky-high child-poverty rate could get the full level of investment they need.
The cost to you? Well, maybe Toronto wouldn’t be able to claim the lowest property taxes in the GTA any longer. It could also mean a new sales tax or parking levy.
During his presentation, Wallace made sure to point out that these three pathways aren’t meant to be definitive, merely illustrative. There is variance within each and more choices that need to be made.
But during an election year, the approach has a lot of value as a starting point. It’s a way to categorize the many candidates for council and mayor who will come forward: austerity, status quo or city building.
In past municipal elections, Toronto has gotten tangled up in debates about specific issues without deciding what kind of city voters want in the first place.
This time, let’s try something new: First pick a path, then find the leaders who can get us there.
christiesplits
Senior Member
This shows how important it is to elect more progressive councillors to tilt the balance of power. I think progressives should avoid taking on the mayoralty until 2022 and build very strong local campaigns to take out dead weight right wingers on council like Palacio and Di Georgio.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,538
- Reaction score
- 9,534
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
There are a few others than can and should be taken out: Grimes came close to defeat, saved only by John Tory's robocalls (but Russ Ford has no plans to run again, sadly), and Carmichael-Greb should be very vulnerable.
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Several dead weight left-wing Councillors need to go as well. This upcoming election should be like a complete home renovation...gut the entire thing!
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
I don't feel this is even a partisan point anymore.
Mary-Margaret McMahon, Ana Bailão, Cesar Palacio, Jaye Robinson, Mary Fragedakis and Michelle Holland all need to go. [I swear I am not singling out the women councilors, I am just going off of voting record.]
I am beginning to have reservations towards Joe Mihevc too, since for some god-knows what reason he doesn't see the need of the Relief Line.
We should be demanding better from our Council.
BurlOak
Senior Member
The more Councillor's there are, the more likely they are likely to get elected based on name recognition - which means incumbent wins.
It won't change until the wards change.
Cut the Councillors in half - that way nobody is an automatic win (although they would still be in the future).
Create an elected "Deputy Mayor" position - who is elected 1 for each Community Council.
Give more power to Deputy Mayor than regular Councillor and more power still to Mayor.
That way some Councillors (if there are good ones), can move up.
It won't change until the wards change.
Cut the Councillors in half - that way nobody is an automatic win (although they would still be in the future).
Create an elected "Deputy Mayor" position - who is elected 1 for each Community Council.
Give more power to Deputy Mayor than regular Councillor and more power still to Mayor.
That way some Councillors (if there are good ones), can move up.
adma
Superstar
3M's already going. She did the two terms in office she promised, and she's leaving of her own accord.
toaster29
Active Member
I really wish some of the less respectful councillors would go. As much as I agree politically with someone like Gord Perks, he is rude and talks down to people who disagrees with him. Comes off as nasty, or a little kid who didn't get what he wants, when council doesn't agree with him.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
In Gord Perk's defense from events today, I think the way he explained his decision for supporting staffs recommendations for approval over that condo development on King West, despite community opposition, was pretty applaudable.