WARNING: Rant Follows:
So there was a piece done for Spacing recently that looked at the Regent Park Social Development Plan; and the failure of lift-off on most of its non-physical components (programs as opposed to facilities).
That piece is here:
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2020/09/18/coming-clean-on-regents-park-social-development-plan/
Within said piece, they linked to the actual plan; which I'm sure I read way back when.......but that was more than a decade ago, so I clicked through and re-read it.
That induced something of a Twitter rant from me..............because while I believe governments of all stripes ought to be held to account to honour their commitments; and I certainly support
providing programs and services that will foster opportunities for low-income residents of Regent Park..........
That Plan was absolute garbage.
An abject lesson in how to write a plan that will be ignored and achieve next to nothing even if it isn't.
Here's the plan:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-8820.pdf
First sin................a whopping 75 recommendations.
The lesson of Royal Commissions, Judicial Inquiries and Coroner's Inquests past................Do not write so long a wish list that people will fall asleep reading it, and even you won't remember what you wrote!
That is a surefire way to get more of your recommendations ignored; and it also invariably means you have lots of superfluous flotsam in there; and those will end up being the ones with check marks beside them, not the substantive ones!
But its not just numbers...............its recommendations with wording so amorphous, so nebulous and non-specific that there's virtually nothing actionable in them; and in any event no clear measure of success or failure.
Lets look at Recommendation #74
Stakeholders will work together wherever possible to develop effective, efficient, broad-reaching communication strategies toensure that residents have access to up-to-date information. RPNI will work to arrange regular update meetings for residents as necessary in order to create consistent opportunities for residents to obtain accurate information about ongoing developments and emerging issue
You must be kidding me.
Aside from the fact I would hope keeping the relevant parties informed would be normal course of business..............if it were not..........the answer is not the above statement.
Instead, if you're worried about secrecy, you say:
-All Stakeholder meetings will be open to the public with agendas posted online and in every TCHC building lobby and laundry room 7 days or more prior to the meeting date.
-The scheduled date and location of meetings shall be public one year in advance with notifications of any change to the schedule not less than 14 days before such change takes effect.
-The minutes of all meetings will be published within 30 days of the said meeting being held.
-An update letter/email will be published each month and shall included any action items or updates provided to stakeholders at their most recent meeting and information related to any known items for the subsequent meeting's agenda.
-Such correspondence will be sent by email to everyone who requests this and provides an email address, to anyone by mail who provides a mailing address, and public copies shall be posted in all building lobbies and laundry rooms.
There. Now there's a clear, unambiguous understanding.
***
To be clear, I think this recommendation shouldn't be there at all, either in its original form or with my suggested changes.
Because it allows a box to be checked for putting out an email the content of which will always be somewhat subjective and which either way wont' really improve anyone's life.
I think a Plan like this should be clearly focused on jobs, education, childcare, social supports etc.
It needs succinct, well articulated goals that cannot be fudged.
ie.
The developer SHALL provided no fewer than 50 skilled trade apprenticeships to existing residents of Regent Park. The opportunity will be be marketed to residents by ...... etc.
The City of Toronto shall provide 'x' number of childcare spaces of which no less than ' y' shall be subsidized. The clear expectation on the City is that no residents of Regent Park who qualify for subsidized childcare shall wait longer than 'x' for a space.
Parks and Recreation will start an aquatics program with the specific goal of training young, low-income residents of Regent Park to be lifeguards and camp councillors.
All training and skills-building programs shall be provided to residents for free; with a goal of 'x' number of councillors and lifeguards to be trained over 10 years, and in any event by Jan 1st 2021 every life guard and camp councillor employed in Regent Park by PF&R shall be or have been a resident of Regent Park in the preceding 10 years.
That's how its done.
Maximum number of asks is 10.
So everyone remembers what they asked for and what was asked of them without looking it up!
So yes, the City should invest in low income residents...........
But please FFS don't let any jargon-speak bureaucrats or activists have control of the plans......
If you plan for nothing.............you get what you planned for, 100% of the time.
/Rant End!
'