News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 767     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 917     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 639     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes seriously. Welcome to law 101.

His lawyer is probably going to appeal the verdict if found guilty with that defense. The law states minimum sentences for crimes but sometimes these sentences are out of whack with the actual crime committed.
 
Was law 101 a high school course? There is nothing I would like to see more than a right winger like Ford relying on s. 12 of the Charter to stay on as mayor. Sure, he would oppose s. 12's application to overlong prison sentences and probably the death penalty if we had it (who knows where he would come down on torture), but his dismissal as mayor? That's the individual liberty our charter should protect.

Surely Lenczner wouldn't try something that silly.
 
MegaMax said:
I don't feel that optimistic. Rob Ford guilty, sure, but I doubt it will result in him thrown from office. The amount was too small, and Ford too incompetant, for there to be any calculated scheme. It will just end up being another nail in the coffin of his career, which will be sealed later.
Click to expand...

You should read through back some pages of this thread. The judge has no discretion on the minimum sentence. If Ford is guilty -- he left no doubt that he is -- then the sentence is removal from office. The judge can't say: Okay, you're guilty but let's change the law here and I'll let you off. Ford's only way out is if he's found not guilty. Insiders with access to Ford's inner circle tell me that pretty much everyone is expecting a guilty verdict and that he will either appeal or accept the verdict and take it to the people in an election since the judge is unlikely to add a ban on seeking office to his sentence.
 
ShonTron said:
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.
Click to expand...


Another thing which has motivated laneway naming in recent years: laneway housing/development which requires a street name.

Oh, and re Mayor Ford: keep in mind the news du (near-)jour: that even Mel Lastman has come out into the open in criticizing him...
 
Well, I've said it all along: "if you thought Mel Lastman was bad". So: now here's Mel saying it.

Though interesting to consider that Ford's lapses really ought to be much more picayune than MFP--yet in Ford's inept hands...
 
Well, The Ford brother's language here could hardly be more inflammatory - basically calling democratically elected and operating downtown councillors crooks:

Mayor Ford wants suburbs to prosper from downtown development
Posted By: James Moore james.moore@astral.com · 10/14/2012 5:59:00 PM


It may seem a little out-of-character for Toronto's notoriously right-wing mayor to call for the city's wealth to be distributed more evenly but that is precisely what Rob Ford did on Sunday's edition of The City on NEWSTALK 1010.

The mayor and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford, discussed a motion by Councillor Peter Milczyn that will see city staff review how City Hall collects and distributes development fees.

The Fords have two beefs with the system as it is now.

First, they feel the suburbs get short-changed on development windfalls.

Developers negotiate fees with City Hall to be exempted from zoning by-laws and those fees pay for things like parks, arenas, and arts programs in the neighbourhood where the building goes up.

Those builders negotiate fees directly with the city councillor in the ward they want to build in and Rob Ford believes that gives downtown wards (and their large condo towers) an unfair leg-up.

"I think they are just re-election slush funds and I think that's why they (city councillors) want to hold on to it," he says.

"If you get $50 million downtown and all of the development is happening downtown ... and there are other councillors that only have a couple thousand dollars, its completely unbalanced," says Ford.

Ford says the money should be split equally among the 44 wards, adding that there should be 'true equalization.'

Meanwhile, City councillor Doug Ford believes some of his colleagues on council put the squeeze on developers seeking building permits, and then hoard the development fees.

He says the City needs to put a stop to it, referring to the process as 'a shakedown.'

Doug says its time to cut councillors out of the bargaining process and leave it to planning department staff.

"Its back-room dealing and we ran (our election campaign) against this," says Doug.

He went on the blame left-leaning members on council for what he sees as fund 'hoarding.'

"They're a bunch of hypocrites and talk out of both sides of their mouth ... when it comes to their money they want to keep it downtown and God forbid they spread it across the city," says Doug.

City staffers have been ordered to report on ways to make the negotiation of building variance a more open process.


http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10450199
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is, Rob Ford is the only councillor I can name who has diverted section 37 funds to a project that he personally benefitted from. At least we can't say he's not speaking from experience.
 
Perhaps we should laid it all out and see just how much money the core pays to the inner suburbs already - tax revenues from those office towers sure as hell didn't end up in general revenues, right? And funny he should mention the slush fund aspect...considering what who this scheme would benefit most...and how it correlates to his base.

AoD
 
W. K. Lis said:
Go Rob, go!

Really Rob, just go.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have a clue what's going on!

Re: the above (suburbs prosper from downtown development) let the Councillors in the suburban areas encourage more development there and do their own deals for s37 funds. While they're at it some of the shelters and geared to income housing can be more evenly re-located throughout the suburbs along with all the social infrastructure needed to help these folks such as mental health facilities, rehabilitation services, health clinics and community centres.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Re: the above (suburbs prosper from downtown development) let the Councillors in the suburban areas encourage more development there and do their own deals for s37 funds. While they're at it some of the shelters and geared to income housing can be more evenly re-located throughout the suburbs along with all the social infrastructure needed to help these folks such as mental health facilities, rehabilitation services, health clinics and community centres.
Click to expand...

Good point! This should be pointed out to Rob Ford and any other "conservative" suburban councilors who complain about downtown s37 funds. I use scare quotes around "conservative" because of the irony of the idea of distributing wealth away from wealth creators (eg. downtown) to parts of the city that just can't hack it in a market system, and where it makes no economic sense to invest (eg. the inner suburbs).
 
CanadianNational said:
"I think they are just re-election slush funds and I think that's why they (city councillors) want to hold on to it," he says.

"If you get $50 million downtown and all of the development is happening downtown ... and there are other councillors that only have a couple thousand dollars, its completely unbalanced," says Ford.

Ford says the money should be split equally among the 44 wards, adding that there should be 'true equalization.'
Click to expand...

Totally unexpected from a right-leaning mayor. Fair, balanced, sharing..? In my opinion, if there's ever a time when fees should be used locally, it's when there's a local development being built. It just makes sense. The secion37 funds for allowing developers to surpass density rights should remain in the immediate area for improvements.

The statement that they're re-election slush funds is just ludicrous. Most development is happening downtown. Downtown ridings are dominated by left-leaning politicians. So Rob is going on the attack and, ironically, trying to push a left-wing agenda at that. Strange times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top