News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 837     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 751     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 320     0 

2018 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races

How many non-incumbent winners will there be on council?

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Richard White said:
I give Ford around a year before there is a coup in the party.
Click to expand...

Ford was the coup in the party. I also imagine many Conservatives will tolerate some drama to get their agenda pushed.

Bit of tin foil hat scenario here but Its a bit odd the timing of something so chaotic like reducing council occurs on the same day as another big announcement that normally would have drawn media attention. Coincidence or perfectly timed smokescreen?
 
Last edited:
OneCity said:
He was the coup
Click to expand...

Yes but if the federal liberals use their constitutional powers to reserve and overturn any bill designed to reduce the number of wards I can see him being stigmatized in the party.

Basically the federal government can reserve judgment on a bill in terms of royal ascent.

It happened last in 1943 but it has happened.
 
Richard White said:
Yes but if the federal liberals use their constitutional powers to reserve and overturn any bill designed to reduce the number of wards I can see him being stigmatized in the party.

Basically the federal government can reserve judgment on a bill in terms of royal ascent.

It happened last in 1943 but it has happened.
Click to expand...

Maybe small chance. But if this was just a smokescreen to take attention from other big ticket agenda items being passed I'm sure the party really won't mind and would be welcome. Obviously Ford is enjoying watching certain players on council squirm for their careers but I doubt the party cares if the fed Liberals intervene here. Actually creates further drama to the story and more intrigue from the media on a topic they really dont even care too much about either way.

And you talking about a party the has been irrelevant for well over a decade. Internally those that don't like the Ford team already didnt. Otherwise the others are likely quite happy with trading a bit of drama for "wins"
 
Last edited:
Richard White said:
Yes but if the federal liberals use their constitutional powers to reserve and overturn any bill designed to reduce the number of wards I can see him being stigmatized in the party.

Basically the federal government can reserve judgment on a bill in terms of royal ascent.

It happened last in 1943 but it has happened.
Click to expand...
Dream on.
 
Urbinski said:
The move by Ford will have the opposite effect. Only the most entrenched incumbents will be able to win in a 25 seat race. We were all set to get some fresh faces on council when this happened.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

Short-term yes. Long term no.

If the ward and riding boundaries line up, the City Councillor will have a substantially higher profile, on par with the MP and MPP for the area. I think you'll see higher quality candidates. And you'll see them use the position as stepping stones to run for MPP and MP.

The only reason say people like Raymond Cho survived for 20+ years as a councillor was that because the position wasn't seen as high profile and people don't think of their councillor much. That changes when you have 25 of them.
 
TrickyRicky said:
While I’m clearly against this move on the basis of it being poorly timed and considered I do question anyone’s argument that 47 or 25 is a better arrangement or any less or more democratic. We really just don’t know. Not knowing is a bad rational for moving forward; However, we will see how this works because it’s happening.

While there might not be enough councillors to fulfill representation demands much of their work is already done by their assistants. With less councillors you would probably see more issues handled by the councillor team with the councillor themselves like a boss functioning more at the executive level and less direct contact with constituents. People who think councillors don’t work hard or are a waste of money don’t know their councillor or their work load. On the other hand does the person fielding calls about a skunk under a porch need to be the same person developing a mass-transit system for millions of people? Probably not.
Click to expand...

This.

I'll expound a bit more. Toronto has a larger population than all but 4 of the most populated provinces in the country. Governing a city like that, with a consensus based council system is really messed up. That works fine when councillors have to address potholes and dead skunks or approve development applications. It's not the same thing when they are managing a city government with a budget of $11 billion.

Large cities need a strong mayor system. And with that the size of council can change, along with the duties of the councillors. They'll be a legislative body essentially acting as a check on the chief executive (the mayor). For that function 25 isn't a bad number. New York City runs with 51 councillors for a city of >8 million.

Alternatively, I like the idea of very local representation. Toronto has 140 neighbourhoods. Each one gets a single constituent assistant and a stipend of something like $25k/year, with legislative sessions held for 4-5 days per month. There's a spectrum here. Talking about the number of councillors misses out a major point: what exactly is it that we want them to do? Do we want them to take calls for potholes or represent an area for discussions of policy setting only?
 
ttk77 said:
I don't understand how anyone who lived through Rob Ford's tenure as mayor could seriously argue for a strong mayor system.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised. My parents are such entrenched conservatives that they drank the Ford Kool-Aid when it came to efficiencies. They are of the belief that no matter how bad Rob and Doug Ford were/are, government is bloated and things need to be cut. You could tell them that we need 44 Councillors for effective representation but they call it waste. When things go to hell in a handbasket, they ignore the problems and claim it is a necessary evil.

My point is that there are people out there that would rather slash and burn government despite having everything under the sun cut. These same people would rather have a strong mayor because they believe it would cut out all the problems at City Hall even though people like Rob Ford would screw the city over with endless power.
 
DSC said:
as noted above; the predicted Ward sizes that were used for the City's Ward Boundary review were to achieve parity n 2026 (i.e. 10 years after this review.) The assumption being that there will be another municipal review in ca 20 years. The figures used for the Federal boundary review were to achieve parity in now and that there will be another review in 10 years. (The Constitution of Canada requires that federal electoral districts be reviewed after each decennial (10-year) census.) Though I do not know the details, the Liberty Village Ward is now pretty much 'built out' so no great population change is expected whereas Corktown/Distillery are expanding, rapidly, and the population there will change a lot.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this though.

The boundaries should be set based on current population. Not potential future growth. That is unfair to citizens now.

Besides a lot can change in 10 years. Its possible not all growth targets will be met.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top