Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

[DSCToronto]

I was annoyed that she caved on low rise and six-plexes outside of downtown.

She did NOT cave in, she upheld her statement about democracy =, refused to use her Strong Mayor" powers and brought the policy into much (but unfortunately not all) of the City.

 

[Admiral Beez]

She pledged in the last election not to use this power, which she deemed undemocratic.

She did NOT cave in, she upheld her statement about democracy =, refused to use her Strong Mayor”

Cop out. You’re the mayor, are given responsibilities and powers under the province’s version (as opposed to your personal feelings) of democratic governance. When council is blocking important housing initiatives (during a housing crisis) that both the provincial and the federal governments are pushing, it’s the time to act decisively, and not seek the least path of resistance in the pursuit of a partial win - even if that costs you the next mayoral election. Chow can hardly ask either Queen’s Park or Ottawa for housing aid in future without seeming the hypocrite.

 

[rbt]

Cop out. You’re the mayor, are given responsibilities and powers under the province’s version (as opposed to your personal feelings) of democratic governance. When council is blocking important housing initiatives (during a housing crisis) that both the provincial and the federal governments are pushing, it’s the time to act decisively, and not seek the least path of resistance in the pursuit of a partial win - even if that costs you the next mayoral election. Chow can hardly ask either Queen’s Park or Ottawa for housing aid in future without seeming the hypocrite.

Agreed. Sometimes leadership needs to acknowledge when they made a mistake and promising not to use strong mayor powers when they benefit the city as a whole was a mistake. It's not undemocratic to use them, but it is democracy at a different scale; they mayor is still elected and accountable to the voter.

That said, I'd switch Toronto to a Swiss system of quarterly referendums if I could. I like the idea of the mayor being an elected city manager so they're strictly execution focused, not decision making focused. While the public sometimes makes poor choices it removes the harder left/right swings in policy and navigates closer to centre; this is good for long-term planning for government, individuals, and business.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Agreed. Sometimes leadership needs to acknowledge when they made a mistake and promising not to use strong mayor powers when they benefit the city as a whole was a mistake.

Of course then we must also accept it when a mayor uses their new strong powers to do the opposite of what is beneficial to issues like the housing crisis.

Markham’s Scarpitti uses strong mayor powers to veto fourplexes citywide

The decision overrides a council vote and could cost the municipality federal housing money.

www.thestar.com

 

[rbt]

Of course then we must also accept it when a mayor uses their new strong powers to do the opposite of what is beneficial to issues like the housing crisis.

I very much doubt is Chow's precedence of rejecting the power will be honoured by future mayors.

Either the power shouldn't exist, or it should be used to achieve the goals of the electorate and they will be judged in future elections.

 

[DSCToronto]

I very much doubt is Chow's precedence of rejecting the power will be honoured by future mayors.

Either the power shouldn't exist, or it should be used to achieve the goals of the electorate and they will be judged in future elections.

I think it should not exist but if you think it should exist so that Mayors can 'achieve the goals of the electorate' I suspect that most suburban voters were supportive of Olivia's compromise to allow 6-plexes downtown but not in THEIR backyards.

 

[picard102]

Of course then we must also accept it when a mayor uses their new strong powers to do the opposite of what is beneficial to issues like the housing crisis.

Markham’s Scarpitti uses strong mayor powers to veto fourplexes citywide

The decision overrides a council vote and could cost the municipality federal housing money.

www.thestar.com

Interesting seeing as the powers are scoped to areas the province want to see advanced, and not stymied.

 

[DSCToronto]

Interesting seeing as the powers are scoped to areas the province want to see advanced, and not stymied.

That's the danger of giving anyone 'special powers' - YOU would, of course, use them 'properly', others might not!!

 

[picard102]

That's the danger of giving anyone 'special powers' - YOU would, of course, use them 'properly', others might not!!

Unless the province has changed it's priorities on housing, this veto does not appear to be valid.
Whether or not YOU would use it 'properly' or not.

 

[zang]

That's the danger of giving anyone 'special powers' - YOU would, of course, use them 'properly', others might not!!

See; “Notwithstanding Clause”

 

[DSCToronto]

I put this here because it seems to me that the cost of 4 STOP signs seems somewhat excessive! It does not seem to be new traffic lights, where cost might be reasonable!

TE31.58 - Dockside Drive and Knapp Lane - All-Way Stop Control​

Consideration Type: ACTIONSchedule Type: DelegatedWard: 10 - Spadina - Fort York

Origin​

(March 16, 2026) Report from the Director, Enforcement and Street Management, Transportation Services

Recommendations​

The Director, Enforcement and Street Management, Transportation Services recommends that:

1. Toronto and East York Community Council authorize all-way compulsory stop control at the intersection of Dockside Drive and Knapp Lane.

Summary​

This staff report is about a matter that Community Council has delegated authority from City Council to make a final decision.

Transportation Services is requesting approval to install all-way stop control at the intersection of Dockside Drive and Knapp Lane. Based on the assessment undertaken, the installation of all-way stop control is recommended and should enhance safety for all road users.

Financial Impact​

The estimated costs associated with the proposed amendment is approximately $18,900.00. Funding is anticipated to be available within the Transportation Services 2026 Operating and Capital Budgets.

Background Information​

(March 16, 2026) Report and Attachment 1 from the Director, Enforcement and Street Management, Transportation Services on Dockside Drive and Knapp Lane - All-Way Stop Control
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-285218.pdf

 

[txlseries4]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-counter-terrorism-unit-rifles-toronto-9.7140751

“Toronto police say they are creating a counter-terrorism unit and a specialized task force that will see officers with semi-automatic rifles stationed at key locations in the city.

The locations include places of worship, tourist attractions, high traffic public spaces and critical infrastructure, police told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

Police Chief Myron Demkiw said the dedicated counter-terrorism security unit and "task force guardian" are not being set up in response to any one threat but are security measures to "prevent, detect and disrupt" extremism violence and terrorism.”

 

[picard102]

Yes, people armed with military weapons and tactical gear is just what the city needs. Certainly not an over-reaction or dystopian at all.

 

[81-717]

Yes, people armed with military weapons and tactical gear is just what the city needs. Certainly not an over-reaction or dystopian at all.

Much better than this happening. This story in particular enraged & shook me to my core (I'll admit I was even a bit shaky while typing this), and still leaves lasting fear for my and others' safety, because I have a dreadful feeling that this threat is far from over. What is it with people always complaining how "dystopian" enhanced safety measures feel, instead of complaining about the evil that made those safety measures necessary in the first place.

 

[Northern Light]

Much better than this happening. This story in particular enraged & shook me to my core (I'll admit I was even a bit shaky while typing this), and still leaves lasting fear for my and others' safety, because I have a dreadful feeling that this threat is far from over. What is it with people always complaining how "dystopian" enhanced safety measures feel, instead of complaining about the evil that made those safety measures necessary in the first place.

Fear mongering is dangerous. Whether you intend that or not, it creates a problem as bad, or worse than the one you actually fear.

The social, economic and other consequences are high.

While the value is, even if real, probably unprovable. (incident type x that you worry about does not happen after said unit is deployed for the next 10 years). Wonderful, but the fact that no similar incident has happened in the preceding decade without any such action.........

That's not to say terrorism doesn't happen, isn't real, or ought not be prevented where feasible.

But living in fear, under perpetual armed guard is not desirable or viable. It also does more to create a target than build understanding.

By all means we should have good investigators who track down worrisome leads, be they tips or something AI sifts off the interweb.

But shotgun or machine-gun toting pseudo-soldiers in public, in front of buildings, with an itchy trigger finger........ Nah, take a pass thanks. Not the society I want to live in.