Rob Ford's Toronto

[spider]

Yesterday at Thanksgiving, I found out that my uncle voted for Ford. The whole family couldn't believe his idiocy but when looked at from a perspective of Ford vs Miller's status quo (even though he didn't run), my uncle's options were limited. He hated Smitherman, didn't want Miller (Joe Pants) and the closest to a Conservative was Rocco Rossi who had no chance of beating Smitherman or Joe Pantalone. Ford just bumbled in as the Conservative choice by default.

My uncle got what he wanted and could care less that Ford is an embarrassment. I asked him if he would vote for Ford again and he said yes if there were no other viable Conservative on the ballot.

So this all just comes down to a poor selection and a best pick of the junk pile for some.

Jeez! I think I'm your uncle.

 

[ShonTron]

I'm not so sure this is how it works. Plenty of people are happy to step away from private law firm gigs in order to satisfy their egos via being able to lay claim to running a city for a term or two. Then they go back to their board positions and lucrative lawyering. Federal-level pols do this all the time - and being a pol almost always translates to less dough than the private sector. Yet there's no shortage of people who want to run big cities, or take a run at being premier or prime minister.

Indeed. Nigel Wright left a very gig at Onex to take a leave of absence as Harpo's chief of staff. Over the long run, this is very good for Nigel, serving for a very pro-business administration opens even more doors, and Onex, who can take Nigel back, gets eyes and ears in the government.

Though I don't have a problem with career politicians per se. Perhaps it is what the person's best at, or that person's calling. I'm not a big fan of term limits either.

 

[Lenser]

I would say two consecutive terms is quite enough, otherwise I think it paves the way for complacency and cronyism. That's my .02 on the matter.

I have nothing against career pols either. Do what you do best. But I do object to incompetents and people who claim to be on the side of the taxpayers while abusing their powers and pretending their own particular brand of corruption is somehow a display of honesty and forthright public service.

 

[freshcutgrass]

David Miller was far less hardcore a leftie than Rob Ford is a rightie--in fact, it may be more apt to say that in '03, Miller was as hard-left as John Tory was hard-right. Which ain't "hardcore" at all.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "Hardcore" lefty (or if there is indeed such an animal), but I'm sure they are generally not Harvard lawyers..or politicians at all.

A conservative is by definition, "hardcore" by default. And Tory is the proverbial wolf-in-sheep's-clothing of conservatives, despite being perceived as something different by the general public. He's good at paying lip service. If he isn't a hardcore "righty" what's he doing endorsing Ford in the first place and running his pretend empire from the Canadian Tea Party headquarters AKA...CFRB?

My uncle got what he wanted and could care less that Ford is an embarrassment. I asked him if he would vote for Ford again and he said yes if there were no other viable Conservative on the ballot. So this all just comes down to a poor selection and a best pick of the junk pile for some.

Voting ideology is of course why people can defend voting for something as stupid as a Rob Ford. But the people who voted for Ford should be the most upset, as he did not accomplish basically anything he ran on. Forget the fact that those things he did not accomplish were either not possible or stupid in the first place. But yea....the conservative guy got in...congrats on that. Throwing the baby out with the bath water seems like the mantra of the conservative-thinking mind.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But the people who voted for Ford should be the most upset, as he did not accomplish basically anything he ran on.

I don't know about that. Those who voted for Ford because the garbage workers held the city hostage would be happy that he's privatized garbage collection for part of the city, thus reducing the ability of the union of hold the city ransom. Those who voted for Ford because they wanted to avoid Miller-era tax increases and fees on automobile plate renewals will be happy with the reduced tax increases and elimination of the auto fees. Those who voted for Ford because of "perceived" deficit spending at City Hall will be pleased that Ford has in their minds (truth be damned) reduced spending. Those who wanted an end to bike lanes will be pleased with Jarvis' return to five lanes for cars.

Many of those who voted for Ford don't care that he acts like an angry yet incompetent Chris Farley. They're pleased because Rob tells his critics to suck it and keeps doing what he believes is right.

 

[DSC]

At Council meetings most of the items on the agenda pass without any debate but Councillors can "hold" items for debate or questions. It is interesting to see that the kinds of item Ford "holds" are things like laneway naming, new traffic signals and speed bumps. You can see these holds on the online "Meeting Monitor" when the meetings are happening. These are clearly things Ford can understand but one does wonder (more) about a mayor who concentrates on the trees without being aware of the forest and spends his (limited) attention on items that have little or no effect on the 'big picture'.

 

[spider]

At Council meetings most of the items on the agenda pass without any debate but Councillors can "hold" items for debate or questions. It is interesting to see that the kinds of item Ford "holds" are things like laneway naming, new traffic signals and speed bumps. You can see these holds on the online "Meeting Monitor" when the meetings are happening. These are clearly things Ford can understand but one does wonder (more) about a mayor who concentrates on the trees without being aware of the forest and spends his (limited) attention on items that have little or no effect on the 'big picture'.

Why would anyone want to name a lane? Are sidewalks next?

 

[ShonTron]

Why would anyone want to name a lane? Are sidewalks next?

More and more lanes are being named throughout the city. There's several valid reasons for this. It's a way to commemorate a locally famous person, organization or business and it doesn't make sense to name or rename anything major in their honour. It's also useful for fire services and emergency utility locating if you can rely on an easily identifiable name for a laneway.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Those who voted for Ford because the garbage workers held the city hostage would be happy that he's privatized garbage collection for part of the city, thus reducing the ability of the union of hold the city ransom.

Garbage strikes happen too rarely to be of any interest to anyone. CUPE dug their own grave with that strike, so I have no sympathy for them. But privatizing garbage pick up is really just a sideways move with a dubious fiscal future. But if you are the typical anti-union conservative, I suppose punishing the union is considered a "win". It's of course a hollow victory, as being ideologically anti-union across the board makes you rather stupid in the first place.

Those who voted for Ford because they wanted to avoid Miller-era tax increases and fees on automobile plate renewals will be happy with the reduced tax increases and elimination of the auto fees.

Except that really didn't happen as per his campaign fiscal policy at all.

Those who voted for Ford because of "perceived" deficit spending at City Hall will be pleased that Ford has in their minds (truth be damned) reduced spending.

One of the hallmarks of the conservative-thinking mind is...delusional thinking.

Those who wanted an end to bike lanes will be pleased with Jarvis' return to five lanes for cars.

The amount of money wasted on that issue should have had the pro-Ford, anti-waste crowd furious.

They're pleased because Rob tells his critics to suck it and keeps doing what he believes is right.

And we're right back to where we started. He doesn't "do" what he believes to be right, and what he believes to be right...isn't.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Garbage strikes happen too rarely to be of any interest to anyone. CUPE dug their own grave with that strike, so I have no sympathy for them. But privatizing garbage pick up is really just a sideways move with a dubious fiscal future. But if you are the typical anti-union conservative, I suppose punishing the union is considered a "win". It's of course a hollow victory, as being ideologically anti-union across the board makes you rather stupid in the first place.



Except that really didn't happen as per his campaign fiscal policy at all.




One of the hallmarks of the conservative-thinking mind is...delusional thinking.



The amount of money wasted on that issue should have had the pro-Ford, anti-waste crowd furious.




And we're right back to where we started. He doesn't "do" what he believes to be right, and what he believes to be right...isn't.

And over time, the private organizations will eventually be unionized. This will result in the workers asking for the same pay as in other organizations, which could also mean strikes. Then it will all start all over again.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And over time, the private organizations will eventually be unionized. This will result in the workers asking for the same pay as in other organizations, which could also mean strikes. Then it will all start all over again.

They are unionized. Green For Life (GFL) says so on its website http://gflenv.com/index.php/services/site-excavating-remediation/overview. The difference between public and private service providers is not that they're unionized or not. The difference is that with private service providers, the impact of union tactics is reduced because they do not have a monopoly on the service, like public unions. For example, if GFL's union demands higher wages, that doesn't affect Toronto's contract with GFL. If GFL tries to increase their prices to Toronto due to wage cost increases, Toronto can shop for a new provider. This element of choice keeps the providers and their unions in competition for business, and thus makes them all run lean and efficiently in order to keep their business.

 

[canmark]

Rob Ford's favorite school, Don Bosco, is holding a Give Your School a Hug Day to "combat negative image"

Teachers and students at Don Bosco Catholic Secondary want to reclaim the identity of their school. So they’re giving it a big hug — figuratively speaking.

“I don’t like to see what’s happening around me,” says Grade 11 student Antonino Calarco, one of the chief organizers behind the Give Your School a Hug Day event at Don Bosco on Wednesday morning. “You have to step in and intervene if you see things you don’t like.”

Calarco, 16, says students are judged unfairly because they go to Don Bosco, the school where Mayor Rob Ford coaches football. Calarco says those belonging to visible minorities have been the target of negative stereotypes, and academically inclined students are discounted because their school is characterized as a place for football. The time has come to push back and garner some pride and positivity, he says.
* * *
For weeks, in newsprint and broadcast media, the words “Don Bosco” have been either preceded or closely followed by “Rob Ford” and “football controversy.”Toronto’s mayor has been accused of skirting his duties and using city resources when coaching the Don Bosco Eagles. The allegations garnered so much attention that last month the Toronto Catholic School Board banned reporters from Don Bosco property during football practices.

“When people do hear about Don Bosco, it’s in relation to Ford, and I think overall, they’re left with a negative feeling,” says Erik Guglietti, a York University teacher’s college student completing his placement at the school. “(This event) is sort of a way in responding to being categorized as that school where Ford is. It’s much more than just that.”

 

[freshcutgrass]

The difference is that with private service providers, the impact of union tactics is reduced because they do not have a monopoly on the service, like public unions.

That isn't true, as the current situation proves. A contract is a contract. Whoever has the contract has a time-specific monopoly. The only real difference between a public service provider and a private one is.....PROFIT!!

If GFL tries to increase their prices to Toronto due to wage cost increases, Toronto can shop for a new provider.

What do you mean "if"? LOL

Or are you the only person in the universe who thinks that ridiculous low-ball quote of theirs is realistic?

And where are all these competitors lying around with the kind of resources to all of a sudden handle half of Toronto's garbage if things go bad with GFL? And if there were, they certainly wouldn't be as cheap as GFL (considering the next lowest bid in the current contract was $3.5 million more than GFL). And it's not like the city is in any position to take back the work....they've been laid off and equipment sold at a loss.

And even if GFL can manage to provide this service without going bankrupt or giving considerably lousy service, it's not like that $11 million savings is real, after you look at apples & apples regarding the real numbers of the contract (adding in the millions of added fees that will go to GFL and subtracting the millions from the old city contract not in the curtsied pickup contract with GFL), plus the fact that there will still be redundant costs to the city for "managing" it (311 calls, etc).

Even if there is an actual saving to the city, what do you think will happen to it? It's a rate-based service, so it has nothing to do with operational budgets or your property taxes, so it can't be used there. You might get a freeze on your annual garbage bin fees.

I'm not necessarily against outsourcing certain public services....I just don't give as much credit to the myth that the private sector is always being more cost efficient, because it's simply not true.

And at the end of the day, if the costs are about the same, I'd rather more of the same money is going into the pocket of a well paid, well benefited public employee, than to a private corporation that needs to pay their employees shit to be competitive with public unions.

 

[RC8]

And at the end of the day, if the costs are about the same, I'd rather more of the same money is going into the pocket of a well paid, well benefited public employee, than to a private corporation that needs to pay their employees shit to be competitive with public unions.

How dare you be happy for someone else's happiness and dignity? No one is handing me benefits and so no one should have them ever even if it doesn't cost society a thing. It's unfair. /sarcasm

 

[Ice_Burn]

How dare you be happy for someone else's happiness and dignity? No one is handing me benefits and so no one should have them ever even if it doesn't cost society a thing. It's unfair. /sarcasm

Go back to Russia with that talk! Garbage pickup is an easy job with loads of people lining up to do it so they should earn minimum wage. Also we should reduce the minimum wage! [/sarcasm]