sno man
Senior Member
Doug was pretty upset about the photobomb sign at CH the other day... I'm sure he'll be fine with it... ;^)
|
|
|
Rob Ford's Toronto
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
Doug was pretty upset about the photobomb sign at CH the other day... I'm sure he'll be fine with it... ;^)
pud99
Senior Member
That is not correct.
The parts of the by-law that prohibit putting up an election sign before October, putting up an election sign in a park, putting up a too large election sign, and so on apply to whomever puts the sign up or has it put up on his/her behalf. There is no provision for a candidate to be fined for that unless the candidate him/herself is the person who puts the sign up or has someone put it up on his/her behalf. (The fact that all of these prohibitions apply to "any person who" violates them makes sense when one considers that "election sign" includes a sign put up by a non-candidate - such as a person putting up a sign saying vote for anyone but Ford.)
The only provision of the by-law under which a candidate can be subjected to a financial consequence for someone else's actions or inactions regarding election signs that were not done on his/her behalf is the one relating to the removal of signs from public property. In that case, the cost of removal (not, strictly speaking, a fine) can be invoiced to the candidate. The invoiced sum can be deducted from the candidate's sign deposit (if he/she paid one) or the candidate can be sued for payment of the invoice (if his/her deposit is used up [it is only $250] or if there is no deposit). In contrast, for instance, the cost of removal of a sign from private property can be invoiced to the owner; it cannot be invoiced to the candidate unless the candidate is the property owner. (Oh, and BTW, the candiate cannot even be invoiced for the cost of removing a sign from public property if the candidate attests under oath that he/she did not know that the sign was put up = ignorance is a defence.)
(I do not say this out of support for any backstabber, maggot or c*cksucker who actually would complain to the City about the satirical signs.)
Last edited:
pud99
Senior Member
It does. The rules against too early signs, too big signs, etc. apply to "any person" who violates them and apply to too early signs, too big signs, etc. on private property (such as in your window) or public property.
(But I agree you can be pretty confident that no one from the City would be very likely to try to have you fined over it.)
Last edited:
Bob But Not Doug
New Member
If April ends without Ford's arrest then I will lose hope, given MM's "just a just call away" posts last week.
euler
Active Member
That's good because I have a sign up in support of Porter's island airport expansion. My window, my rules, dammit!
(And with that, I have lost the support of the forum)
JWBF
Senior Member
Typical Ford move, it's fine to heckle, errr... comment on others, but get testy with quid pro quo.
The same goes for sign by-laws.
dforthandbview
Senior Member
Anyone know if Lisi's trial is beginning on Wednesday?
OSS 117
Senior Member
Robbie was just on CP24 talking about Porter and said at the end when asked if Porter might be just trying to drum up publicity to sell the business, said "Bob Deluce has put his heart and soul into Porter and they're making money, so not too many people sell businesses when they're making money".
Which got a good laugh from the reporters as he made his exit, obviously. Probably good for the family business that he got into politics early.
Which got a good laugh from the reporters as he made his exit, obviously. Probably good for the family business that he got into politics early.
pud99
Senior Member
Do you recall the part of the City council debate dealing with Matlow's motion to delay the vote on the Scarborough subway extension? Doug stated that tens of thousands of people in Scarborough had spoken to him to say that they want subways. Matlow replied, tongue in cheek, that is his case he had spoken to hundreds of thousands - no, millions - of people. Doug's priceless 'come back' was: "Well, if you're going to be sarcastic...".
Cooper
Senior Member
Wow. That Rob Ford is some kind of business whiz. I thought the best time to sell a business is when it's making money and still has growth potential, because, you know, that's when it's worth the most. I think they call it an "exit strategy." Whether or not a jets deal is a trigger for Porter, I'm pretty sure Bob Deluce and his investors expect to do some profit-taking sooner or later.
pud99
Senior Member
Cooper
Senior Member
I doubt it. I don't think they've even had preliminary hearing. Is the disclosure even complete? My understanding is that we are a long way away from a trial.
euler
Active Member
It's true that if you have growth potential and are profitable, it is better to stay put to maximize your long-term gains than cashing out early, but there's a sizeable risk in that. Ford's not exactly a long-term thinking kind of guy, but he is a risk-taker, so who knows - I think he's just rambling. He's not much of a businessman.
Huge Seagull
Active Member
Remember when Dougie claimed (re. subways) that in the private sector they never go into debt to finance built assets. Well thanks for that bit of bidness advice, Dougie...
dforthandbview
Senior Member
I should have phrased it better. By "trial" I meant the entire process. I thought I read somewhere that the proceedings would begin April 2. Maybe not.
- Status