Rob Ford's Toronto

[jusbokeh]

Rob ford doesn't have challengers on the right or left because he is neither.

It's rob ford the populist/have a beer with/folksy/regular guy vs. Everybody else who are maggots/politician

This is how it will be framed.

 

[GenerationW]

The problem Soknacki has is that he was David Miller's Budget Chief in his first term. Ford will simply dismiss him as a Miller ally which will go a long way to ruining his credibility with Ford's base.

More ammo for Ford: Soknacki is pro-LRT.

 

[jje1000]

More ammo for Ford: Soknacki is pro-LRT.

Speaking as someone who would just like a decent conservative-centrist, of the top of my head I have little recollection what Soknacki did as budget chief. All I can remember is the constant criticism Miller faced because of the taxes, so that would be one of the first hurdles he would face.

 

[GenerationW]

I wouldn't know Soknacki at all if his column didn't appear in the North York Mirror.

 

[adma]

One other thing about the "divisive" matter; speaking as someone who'd have likely opted for John Sewell in '78 and '80, I still cannot deny that he cut a "divisive" figure in his day: as a municipal version of primal-scream-era John Lennon, Sewell's the closest thing to a left-leaning mayoral Ford equivalent Toronto's had (the Ford to Crombie's Holyday?), adored by his entourage, gratingly alienating to his opponents--even the Ford Fests had their tribal equivalents in the proto-Jane's Walks Sewell used to hold during election time. (And I wouldn't be surprised if, at least as Alderman/Councillor, Sewell wound up backhandedly poisoning some of his own pet issues a la Ford.)

 

[CowboyLogic]

Ah, but when it comes to a CowboyLogic sort, "divisive" = "not CowboyLogic-friendly" For you see, that's what message-boarding Libertrollian wingnuts dig about the Ford mayoralty: it's about the only opportunity they have for a foot into actual power. Otherwise, they'd be "divisive'd" off into fringe territory.

Would any other serious mayoral candidate have allowed a Mark Towhey type into the inner circle?

So I'm supposedly the "Libertrollian wingnut", and yet you're the one throwing out baseless ad hominem attacks.

Yeah, I support Ford, but I believe any of my posts on here have 10x the maturity and decorum of this latest one from you. How exactly did you conclude that I'm libertarian? How have I trolled this board, beyond supporting Ford? Exactly which of my views constitute as "wingnut", unless the 50% of Torontonians who currently support Ford are all fringe wingnuts? Where do you get off calling me "message-boarding" when you post 5.46 posts a day to my 0.96?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Didn't the cost of a Metropass rise by about $60/year right about the same time as the VRT cancellation happened? Not sure how the total numbers line up overall, but that seemed like just shuffling money from one pocket to another.

Wasn't that part of Ford's "War on Transit"?

Not that Ford is all to blame...Council does love to do things ass backwards...

We are trying to discourage cars on the streets and encourage more people to take public transit. So what do we do....increase subsidies to car drivers...and decrease subsidies to transit users. That's so brilliant.

Ridership is skyrocketing...so let's cut the TTC's budget. Pure Genius.

So we reward those who are doing what we apparently don't want them to do, and penalize those who are doing what we want them to do. Clearly the wrong people are pro-creating.

 

[JWBF]

Wasn't that part of Ford's "War on Transit"?

Not that Ford is all to blame...Council does love to do things ass backwards...

We are trying to discourage cars on the streets and encourage more people to take public transit. So what do we do....increase subsidies to car drivers...and decrease subsidies to transit users. That's so brilliant.

Ridership is skyrocketing...so let's cut the TTC's budget. Pure Genius.

So we reward those who are doing what we apparently don't want them to do, and penalize those who are doing what we want them to do. Clearly the wrong people are pro-creating.

And... the oldie but goodie, (insert name) doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Apparently Rob Ford's approval rating has gone up, and "he's on a roll" according to this poll exclusive to The Sun

I always laugh when Forum Research oversells their polling results. They'll report a "drop" from 47 to 44 and say something like "Ford's support drops sharply!" when the margin of error is something like +/- 3%.

In order to say someone's "on track" or "on a roll", you need more than just 2 data points. Over the past three months, Ford's approval has been 46-44-49. Really, those are all within the same margin of error. And anyway, the long term trend has been for Ford's approval to oscillate between around 42% and 48% and his disapproval between 52% and 58%. This poll is on the higher end, but it hasn't yet broken out of the trend that has characterized Ford's approval for the past year and a half.

 

[adma]

So I'm supposedly the "Libertrollian wingnut", and yet you're the one throwing out baseless ad hominem attacks.

Yeah, I support Ford, but I believe any of my posts on here have 10x the maturity and decorum of this latest one from you. How exactly did you conclude that I'm libertarian? How have I trolled this board, beyond supporting Ford? Exactly which of my views constitute as "wingnut", unless the 50% of Torontonians who currently support Ford are all fringe wingnuts? Where do you get off calling me "message-boarding" when you post 5.46 posts a day to my 0.96?

Well, again: a Towhey likely wouldn't be given the time of day under any other mayor, left or right...

 

[ShonTron]

Speaking as someone who would just like a decent conservative-centrist, of the top of my head I have little recollection what Soknacki did as budget chief. All I can remember is the constant criticism Miller faced because of the taxes, so that would be one of the first hurdles he would face.

Soknacki, I believe, is a moderate fiscal conservative. He was picked by Miller partly to build some bridges, partly as Sokanacki was competent in that role.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And... the oldie but goodie, (insert name) doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

This also well describes the financial situation of many Canadian households. Spending beyond revenue isn't just a gov't problem. The main difference being that households, beyond one time financial gifts (eg. inheritances) have no means of increasing revenue other than employment advancement or increasing the number of revenue generating household members.

Gov'ts on the other hand, do not ever have a spending problem, because the revenue source is essentially limitless. If you need more cash, simply increase existing taxes or impose new taxes. The citizens have no choice than to pay the taxes, at risk of losing their homes or limiting their use of city services. With the fist of the law on its side, governments never have a spending problem.

This is not to say that gov'ts should be run like households, but IMO the idea that gov'ts have a spending problem is not accurate. There is always more money to squeeze from the citizenry, as they have no choice between elections other than to accept it.

 

[jje1000]

Soknacki, I believe, is a moderate fiscal conservative. He was picked by Miller partly to build some bridges, partly as Sokanacki was competent in that role.

I certainly don't doubt that Soknacki could potentially be a decent mayor, the problem lies in the fact that he's not a household name like Ford, who can use his multiple bully pulpits to ruin Soknacki's reputation even before the campaigns starts.

Thinking about the whole subway-LRT debacle a bit, I realize that I'm not really opposed to Ford's plans. What I'm opposed to is his hypocrisy in demanding more subways whilst reject ways of paying for them, essentially ensuring that nothing gets done. It reeks of a mayor who's not interested in actually having transit built, someone who talks the talk but who refuses to walk the walk.

This is essentially the base of the issue and why it hasn't been settled. Ford wants subways, but he refuses to pay for them. People want subways, but are convinced by Ford that they don't need to pay for them. The argument has essentially turned from LRTs vs subways, to LRTs vs nothing. If Ford had scuttled Transit City, but had also endorsed a new, comprehensive plan of how to pay for them, this would be done by as smoothly as butter on a baby's back.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I certainly don't doubt that Soknacki could potentially be a decent mayor, the problem lies in the fact that he's not a household name like Ford, who can use his multiple bully pulpits to ruin Soknacki's reputation even before the campaigns starts.

Thinking about the whole subway-LRT debacle a bit, I realize that I'm not really opposed to Ford's plans. What I'm opposed to is his hypocrisy in demanding more subways whilst reject ways of paying for them, essentially ensuring that nothing gets done. It reeks of a mayor who's not interested in actually having transit built, someone who talks the talk but who refuses to walk the walk.

This is essentially the base of the issue and why it hasn't been settled. Ford wants subways, but he refuses to pay for them. People want subways, but are convinced by Ford that they don't need to pay for them. The argument has essentially turned from LRTs vs subways, to LRTs vs nothing. If Ford had scuttled Transit City, but had also endorsed a new, comprehensive plan of how to pay for them, this would be done by as smoothly as butter on a baby's back.

This has always been the problem with Ford. He doesn't actually want subways that badly. He seems to be perfectly happy putting subways off indefinitely, as long as we don't build anything that will interfere with car traffic in its place. I remember Mammoliti (when he was still one of Ford's cronies) saying something like a Finch subway would be better than a Finch LRT, even if we had to wait 20 years before we could build it. And didn't Doug Ford say something about building a brand new highway, and then using the tolls from that highway to fund subways (CRAZY!!)

 

[bobbob911]

At this point, doesn't it seem like the funding will all pretty much fall into place? The city will generate their side by .25% over 6 years, the province will kick in that $300, and its done. Getting the fed money was by far the least likely portion.