Rob Ford's Toronto

[PinkLucy]

Not surprisingly, the Mayor's office has been slow to turn over documents for FOI requests: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/09/03/ford_team_stalls_on_releasing_records.html

Ford’s office was asked in early June by the Star and other media outlets to release email and other records maintained by Ford staffers who either resigned or were fired during the crack cocaine video scandal.
City freedom of information staff “have just started to go through them,” Brown told the Star. “The records are coming and coming really slow.”
The Star has found this is a pattern, not just with these records but with most records requested this spring and summer from Ford’s office. On three of the Star’s relatively benign requests — about a public works project, a neighbourhood dispute, and a city hall event early in his mayoral term — his staff have not only missed the legislated 30-day response deadline but had very little communication with the city freedom of information office that is responsible for gathering public records.
Two of the requests are more than 40 days overdue. One is more than 30 days overdue.

Are there no repercussions for missing multiple deadlines?

 

[dforthandbview]

From Reddit:
Willful violation of the deadlines by way of delaying or obstruction can result in the information being ordered released. There's a heck of a lot of nuance to it, but the Information & Privacy Commissioner has a lot of power regarding the ability to seize and review an institution's records. This is outline in section 46(d)
The Commissioner may engage in or commission research into matters affecting the carrying out of the purposes of this Act
It's not free reign, but it does let them involve themselves in the matter.
There may also be financial penalties associated with it, per section 48(2), but they're paltry. However, it's more the optics of it. If an institution was found to have willfully violated the law under section 48(1), it would be really embarrassing. It could well be grounds to remove someone from their position. In the case of an elected official, at the very least, it seems like it would be begging for a review by the Integrity Commissioner.
http://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1ln0xf/ford_team_stalls_on_releasing_records/cc0wn2w

 

[anonymoose]

The admins of the website should change how it is run, such that those with fewer than ten posts require mod approval, just like with some forums.

If that's directed at me, I assure you I'm not trolling. Obviously many people here take architecture very seriously, and hopefully I haven't offended anyone or overly embarrassed myself. Or maybe you think my posts are just noise. If that's the case, I can take a hint.

I just get a bit uncomfortable when people are judged so harshly based on seemingly subjective opinions. Not referring to anything else HaveLove said (trolling or otherwise), just the one major point of contention regarding his taste in architecture. As if his bad taste in architecture somehow symbolized everything this board hates about Ford Nation....

We all have our own specialized fields of knowledge, interest or work, and not everyone has the time or inclination to be sophisticated and knowledgeable regarding everyone else's interests.

 

[OSS 117]

People with different views vs. Elitism(racism)

Different views:
Person a: I like blue
Person b: I like red
A+b= well I guess we can compromise with green

Elitism(racism):
Person a: I like blue
Person b: I like red
Person a: you are stupid for not liking blue. You don't know any better you should like blue. Its OK well do blue and you'll understand.

Person a: I think racism and sexism are wrong.
Person b: I think they're good.
Person a: Well, let's just agree to disagree.

Nope. Not feeling it. If somebody's being an idiot sometimes they need to be called out on it.

 

[Marko]

Person a: I think racism and sexism are wrong.
Person b: I think they're good.
Person a: Well, let's just agree to disagree.

Nope. Not feeling it. If somebody's being an idiot sometimes they need to be called out on it.

Person A: Red is good
Person B: Blue is good
Person A: Of course you would you philistine! I mock you and your rudimentary understanding of anything and everything and I will respond to you with run on sentences full of characters attacks, red herrings, ad hominems and any other forms of sophistry I please, because it makes me sound bigger and better and more important than you, so much so that only I, not you, will bother to read my post and appreciate the glory that my verbal masturbation is. I'll mock you further, vis-a-vis some kind of tangential picture (tee hee hee) and since that really doesn't make me feel quite as good about myself as I'd like, I'll go ahead and post some completely unrelated subject and say "Since YOU think SO-and-SO about this particular topic, well then YOU must like THIS or THAT" and of course you can protest all you like, but you're still a philistine for not liking Red.


Which person is the idiot in this example?

 

[jusbokeh]

Person a: I think racism and sexism are wrong.
Person b: I think they're good.
Person a: Well, let's just agree to disagree.

Nope. Not feeling it. If somebody's being an idiot sometimes they need to be called out on it.

today i learned that disliking colors is the same as racism and sexism.

you learn something new everyday.

 

[LowPolygon]

Person A: Red is good
Person B: Blue is good
Person A: Of course you would you philistine! I mock you and your rudimentary understanding of anything and everything and I will respond to you with run on sentences full of characters attacks, red herrings, ad hominems and any other forms of sophistry I please, because it makes me sound bigger and better and more important than you, so much so that only I, not you, will bother to read my post and appreciate the glory that my verbal masturbation is. I'll mock you further, vis-a-vis some kind of tangential picture (tee hee hee) and since that really doesn't make me feel quite as good about myself as I'd like, I'll go ahead and post some completely unrelated subject and say "Since YOU think SO-and-SO about this particular topic, well then YOU must like THIS or THAT" and of course you can protest all you like, but you're still a philistine for not liking Red.


Which person is the idiot in this example?

speaking of verbal onanism...
kind of overdoing the 'armchair psychology' there, bro.

 

[animatronic]

Fact is, lots of voters are immature, vote for questionable reasons, vote with little to no knowledge of the issues, vote because they like the candidate's photo ... the list of reasons why people vote the way they do is a long one. Sadly, there is no criteria beyond age and being out of jail that keeps people from voting.

They got rid of the incarceration disqualification at both the federal and provincial levels. The only citizens over 18 not eligible to vote are the Chief Electoral Officer and Deputy Chief Electoral Officer.

 

[Johnny Au]

If that's directed at me, I assure you I'm not trolling. Obviously many people here take architecture very seriously, and hopefully I haven't offended anyone or overly embarrassed myself. Or maybe you think my posts are just noise. If that's the case, I can take a hint.

I just get a bit uncomfortable when people are judged so harshly based on seemingly subjective opinions. Not referring to anything else HaveLove said (trolling or otherwise), just the one major point of contention regarding his taste in architecture. As if his bad taste in architecture somehow symbolized everything this board hates about Ford Nation....

We all have our own specialized fields of knowledge, interest or work, and not everyone has the time or inclination to be sophisticated and knowledgeable regarding everyone else's interests.

No, that post is not directed against you. It is directed against the likes of HaveLove et al. I agree with you on many issues though. Regarding EIFS, it depends for me, as long as EIFS does not spread downtown.

 

[Blovertis]

posters like ADMA and politicians who espouse those views are perfect examples of why the average citizen is led to vote for Ford.

Had a good laugh at that one. As if any politician in the history of the world has ever thought or talked like Adma.

 

[pw20]

If you (or anyone) is voting for Ford because you deem some people with views annoying, I'm pretty sure you aren't mature enough to be voting... or at the very least, you're voting for the wrong reasons.

You do realize that probably a large percentage of the population votes

I've worked in liberal politics for a lot of my life - and what the liberals under was that they talked down to the population. They acted with an obnoxious paternalistic attitude that basically said: "Don't worry Canada, we know what's best for you." Miller, and Smitherman followed a similar ethos. While you may have agreed with Miller's policies - they came across similarly. "I'm smaaat and went to Harvard and I know what's best for you." Therefore its not big surprise that people voted in a reactive way against Smitherman, and migrated towards the simplistic: I will not raise your taxes and I'm going to cut the gravy. It was retail politics at its finest.

And yes - it may seem silly that the population is so reactive - but politics isn't entirely rational.

The "left" or "centre" will never win the mayoralship in Toronto if it speaks down to the suburbs or if it continues to further a class divide. Too much of Toronto's current debate veers into pseudo classist divisions between urban issues and suburban issues. Take for example the "downtown is a poor place to raise families" comment, wherein all of the people who live in nice downtown semi-detached houses overlooking Trinity Bellwoods couldn't believe Doug Holyday's comments. Yet they are in the economic minority. Doug Holyday was making a serious comment about raising families in condos that got overblown into a purported attack on the inner city.

Living in the suburbs is both an economic and social choice. Until we can find a candidate or leader that is respectful of both the suburbs AND urban cities while also trying to put forward a progressive agenda then we're pouched. I personally believe it can happen (its happening Calgary). Rob Ford obviously is NOT that candidate - but "we" the "urbane" progressive core needs to cut the patneralism or we're going to be cut from the dialogue completely.

 

[toraerach]

Sadly, there is no criteria beyond age and being out of jail that keeps people from voting.

People fought long and hard for universal adult suffrage. We might not like the results of elections, but that's no reason to bar people from having a say in the way they're governed. And as much as you or I might despise Ford Nation types, they have just as much a claim on this city and its future as the folks around here.

The alternative is just too dangerous.

 

[PinkLucy]

I'm actually not referring to Ford Nation when I say sadly. I've worked with people with various mental health and cognitive issues who have, for one reason or another, limited critical thinking skills and who make their voting decisions based on things like a photo or where their pencil falls or doing what someone told them to do. I know that we can't test people, because it would never be fair. The whole voting process is frustrating -- we have people exercising their right to vote who have no idea who they are voting for or why, and we have people with good reasoning skills who don't bother voting. Maybe that balances out, I don't know.

 

[Johnny Au]

As much as I despise Ford Nation, there is no ban on human stupidity, as much as many of us wish it were implemented.

 

[freshcutgrass]

While you may have agreed with Miller's policies - they came across similarly. "I'm smaaat and went to Harvard and I know what's best for you." Therefore its not big surprise that people voted in a reactive way against Smitherman, and migrated towards the simplistic: I will not raise your taxes and I'm going to cut the gravy. It was retail politics at its finest.

And you think catering to that is the solution?

What we need to do is reverse the market-driven society cliff we went off a while back. Because we do need smart people telling us what to do. And it just isn't politics...we used to dress better and listen to better music when we had half the sense to take the lead from those who knew what they were talking about.