News   Nov 05, 2024
 668     1 
News   Nov 05, 2024
 468     0 
News   Nov 05, 2024
 534     1 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
cdr108, I think only a small minority of the population takes any interest in municipal politics outside of election years beyond maybe a couple of out-of-context newspaper headlines which they use to reinforce their very vague political biases. This is what allows for so many people to be duped by simple-minded sloganeering, which is how I believe Rob Ford got elected in the first place. That said, I feel that Rob Ford has been dragged through so much mud that, at this point, it would be impossible for anyone to ignore his failings. I'd say the guys is toast.
 
So true

I also think it's interesting that Ford supporters (whoever they are) are constantly fixated on the dollar amount of the transgression, and not the fact that Ford broke the law. Look at it this way: if I commited a bank robbery and pointed a loaded weapon at the teller and demanded that she fork over five dollars and twenty cents, should I get off with a lighter sentence than if I demanded the entire contents of the vault?

Very good point!
 
and again

This guy just can't stay out of the news...for all the wrong reasons.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/11/mayor-ford-bails-on-executive-meeting-to-be-coach-ford


Mayor Ford bails on executive committee meeting to be Coach Ford


TORONTO - Mayor Rob Ford missed the last half of his own executive committee Monday due to his football coaching duties.

Ford disappeared from the meeting of his inner circle of councillors around 2:30 p.m. — the meeting didn’t end until just after 8 p.m. The absence — finally admitted by Ford’s office Tuesday — led to Ford’s opponents quickly calling him a “part-time mayor.”

George Christopoulos, Ford’s press secretary, confirmed Tuesday morning that the mayor, who coaches high school football, was with his team at a scrimmage. But Christopoulos stressed it was a “rare occasion” when football coaching trumps the mayor’s job.

“It is extremely rare one of his football duties conflict with his mayoral duties,” Christopoulos told the Sun.

“There were no contentious issues remaining on the executive agenda, he felt comfortable leaving it in the hands of members of the executive.”

On Monday, the mayor’s staff didn’t respond to questions about Ford’s absence. Several councillors, including Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday, said they didn’t know where Ford was.

Earlier in the day Ford had suggested to councillors they work through the lunch hour to grind through the agenda but was turned down.

Councillor Adam Vaughan blasted Ford for ditching City Hall for the football field.

“The executive committee is the mayor’s committee and he has responsibilities to it,” Vaughan said Tuesday. “He’s not being paid to coach football. He’s not being paid to do anything other than being mayor by taxpayers.

“If he takes that slogan seriously, which is he respects taxpayers, he ought to show up for work.”

Ford missed the approval of a request for proposals for an operator to run Casa Loma, a heated debate over a review of the city’s anti-discrimination policy, and several items on both the city budget and the Toronto Police budget.

Vaughan said speakers show up at the executive committee to address the mayor.

“He has a responsibility to be there,” he said.

“We all have extracurricular activities … I just think (being at a council meeting) is a fundamental responsibility.”

The Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina councillor questioned if Ford would skip campaigning for football activities.

“I don’t understand it, I’ve never understood it — do your work with your kids but show up for work,” he said.

Vaughan argued nobody working in the private sector could “just walk off the job and coach kids football.”

“They’d get docked pay, they’d get fired eventually.”

He said it’s clear Ford is a “part-time mayor.”

“And it shows, it showed in the courtroom (during last week’s conflict of interest hearing), it showed in the committee room and eventually it is going to show up at the ballot box,” he said. “People don’t like part-time politicians who claim to be watching their back when he is not watching anything other than kids playing football.”

Ford’s team, the Don Bosco Eagles, play their first game of the season Friday at Esther Shiner Stadium against the Donald Wilson Gators.

During his speech to supporters at Ford Fest last Friday, Ford vowed the team would win the Metro Bowl this year.

“Mark my words, we are going to be the Metro Bowl champs, not Donald Wilson,” Ford told the crowd.
 
Rob Ford was caught trying to eat a baby:

7976935757_12fe76767a_z.jpg
 
The difference here is that expensing thousands for a public speaking course can be argued as an investment in a politician's abilities to do his/her job more effectively. The same can't be argued for expensing thousands for your own, personal football charity.

Of course, you can be cynical: maybe the politician in question did use French lessons for personal gain, possibly to seduce a French lady or because he was going to Paris on vacation in a couple of weeks - but you can't prove or disprove that these lessons were solely for personal benefit, since we live in an officially bilingual country where a significant amount of political events and encounters are conducted in French. It is an asset in business and politics; I've certainly worked for a firm that gladly paid for all my Spanish lessons. I don't think they would've gladly paid for a personal football charity.

---

I also think it's interesting that Ford supporters (whoever they are) are constantly fixated on the dollar amount of the transgression, and not the fact that Ford broke the law. Look at it this way: if I commited a bank robbery and pointed a loaded weapon at the teller and demanded that she fork over five dollars and twenty cents, should I get off with a lighter sentence than if I demanded the entire contents of the vault?

Very good point!

Well, taking out the gun part {which does not seem terribly analagous} yes the amount involved in a crime does make a difference. Theft under $5,000 is treated very differently than theft over $5,000.

The sentence for armed robbery is different though...but that is because of the "armed" part not the "robbery" part.

As for this matter.....conflict of interest rules are, essentially, measures to prevent influence peddling and outside financial matters effecting city business. In that regard, does common sense not say "the amount should matter". Does anyone (honestly, now) think that Rob Ford's (or any councillor's for that matter) vote on anything (keep in mind that's all he has is a vote...he can't "make" the city do anything) is available to a company/developer/lobbyist in exchange for (on average) a $300 donation to a local charity?

For some of us (well, at least me) without a horse in this.....this is the most interesting nature of this whole thing........a) the "gotcha" (as I have described it) nature of leaping at the first (however trivial) breach (technical or not) to remove a sitting Mayor over a very small amount of money that he didn't even get....and b) a Mayor (who may not be the brightest but is savvy enough politically) who still spoke/voted on a matter like this when it is pretty clear that he did not have to (ie. the order to pay would have been overturned whether he voted or not).
 
Last edited:
Well, what about $300 for minor influence, $3,000 for less minor influence? Either way, it is influence peddling and constitute an abuse of power - there is no minor instance of such. Besides, his testimony raises an even bigger issue that should be brought to court - someone who basically lied during their swearing in (which compels them to uphold the Code of Conduct - an act necessitate an understanding of such, which his worship clearly stated in his testimony he haven't had) constitute breaking the oath of office.

AoD
 
Last edited:
cdr108, I think only a small minority of the population takes any interest in municipal politics outside of election years beyond maybe a couple of out-of-context newspaper headlines which they use to reinforce their very vague political biases. This is what allows for so many people to be duped by simple-minded sloganeering, which is how I believe Rob Ford got elected in the first place. That said, I feel that Rob Ford has been dragged through so much mud that, at this point, it would be impossible for anyone to ignore his failings. I'd say the guys is toast.


Yet, looks like more than 40% of Toronto residents do not follow the news about Rob Ford. They must just tune in for the weather forecast or do their dishes when its on.

From the Toronto Sun, at this link:

Ford's approval rating still high: Poll

...

Around 41% of Toronto residents approve of the job Ford is doing as mayor, a month earlier, a Forum poll found Ford had a 43% approval rating. Ford support is strongest among older Torontonians, suburban residents and car drivers

...

The poll also found if Ford were to run against Stintz and Councillor Adam Vaughan in a three-way race, he would win but barely. Ford would get around 35% support while Vaughan would get 29% and Stintz would get 23%.

In a two-way race, the poll found Ford would lose to either Vaughan or Stintz if either one of them were the lone candidates to oppose him in an election. Ford would earn 37% support in either election while Vaughan would earn 49% as the lone anti-Ford candidate. Stintz would earn 46% if she faced off one-on-one with Ford

...
 
Courtesy of our mayor's continued hiring freeze:

Come January, some Toronto EMS stations are being shut down at night. Our ridiculously high attrition rate combined with 2001 staffing levels are proving unsustainable.

Our stations cover quite a large area so this will have a pretty noticeable impact to response times. I'll post which stations are affected when I find out.
 
Ford's approval rating still high: Poll

...

Around 41% of Toronto residents approve of the job Ford is doing as mayor, a month earlier, a Forum poll found Ford had a 43% approval rating. Ford support is strongest among older Torontonians, suburban residents and car drivers

...

The poll also found if Ford were to run against Stintz and Councillor Adam Vaughan in a three-way race, he would win but barely. Ford would get around 35% support while Vaughan would get 29% and Stintz would get 23%.

In a two-way race, the poll found Ford would lose to either Vaughan or Stintz if either one of them were the lone candidates to oppose him in an election. Ford would earn 37% support in either election while Vaughan would earn 49% as the lone anti-Ford candidate. Stintz would earn 46% if she faced off one-on-one with Ford
Are these the same pollsters who declared Ford vs Smitherman too close to call?
 
It's great that the Toronto Sun thinks that 41% is a high approval rating for a mayor. I haven't looked back, but I'm sure the Sun said the same thing about David Miller when he had a 43% approval rating during the garbage strike.
 
Courtesy of our mayor's continued hiring freeze:

Come January, some Toronto EMS stations are being shut down at night. Our ridiculously high attrition rate combined with 2001 staffing levels are proving unsustainable.

Our stations cover quite a large area so this will have a pretty noticeable impact to response times. I'll post which stations are affected when I find out.

"Customer service excellence, guaranteed." Meanwhile, the population of Toronto went up to 2,615,060 in 2011 from 2,503,281 in 2006 and 2,481,494 in 2001, not down by 10%. Why is Rob trying to reduce services to 2001 levels when the population levels are going up?
 
Next on Rob's to-do list, from The Toronto Sun, at this link:

Mayor wants homeless out of Nathan Phillips Square

Mayor Rob Ford gave a wake-up call Tuesday to the homeless sleeping in Nathan Phillips Square.

Ford asked city officials to “remove” those sleeping in the square at Toronto City Hall.

“I just had a meeting with Joe Pennachetti, another one ... and asked him to remove the people from the square,” Ford said Tuesday.

As Toronto Sun columnist Sue-Ann Levy revealed Tuesday, the number of homeless sleeping in the square has skyrocketed despite the fact it is banned by a city bylaws.

According to city staff the number of people sleeping on the square at night has gone from zero in late 2005 to 63 last Friday and 42 people on Saturday. Around 91 people were recorded as sleeping in the square in August 2004.

Ford said he was surprised by the recent numbers.

“Yeah, because I had a meeting with (Pennachetti) before and addressed it,” he said. “I was pretty upset ... that there are people still sleeping on the square.”

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, whose ward includes the square, said she hopes the mayor intends to move the homeless into affordable housing rather than just sweep them away.

“I think there has to be a second half to that thought (to remove them),” she said. “Where would you be putting them? That would be my question to the mayor. Are they planning to build housing?”

Asked if it was time to lift the ban on sleeping in the square, Wong-Tam said she’d rather spend city resources an increasing housing options as opposed to trying to keep people off public spaces.

“It’s a constant game of cat and mouse and no permanent solutions will come by the mayor announcing by decree that he wants the square swept clean of homeless people,” she said. “Ultimately, they still need housing and that is the ultimate and only solution we should be pursuing relentlessly.”

It is my understanding, that Rob Ford's mom's backyard can hold 5,000 to 6,000 of the homeless with maybe a supply of hamburgers, hot dogs, and drinks. Maybe even security and they could get to shake the Mayor's hand. So the numbers mentioned, "63 last Friday" and "91 people were recorded as sleeping in the square in August 2004", that backyard could easily hold any small number from Nathan Phillips Square.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top