News   May 24, 2024
 258     0 
News   May 24, 2024
 238     0 
News   May 24, 2024
 1.1K     3 

Toronto election sign wars

King of Kensington

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
2,818
Reaction score
596
I think this warrants a thread. Here's what I've seen:

I live in Trinity-Spadina and have been around most of the riding. North of College is very heavily signed with mostly Chow signs but some Tory signs. The south end is more thinly signed but still with Chow in the lead. I've seen 2 Ford signs both in the south. In ward 20, Joe Cressy is leading in terms of council candidates, Sarah Thomson is probably just plonking up signs from her 2011 Liberal list. Ward 19 Mike Layton has no real opposition.

I also went through a lot of St. Paul's today. Tory dominates in Forest Hill and Cedarvale, I saw zero Ford signs. Chow has decent signage south of St. Clair and west of Bathurst. Joe Mihevc has lots of signs and isn't in much of a race.
 
I was in Etobicoke today and here is what I saw.

Ward 2:

-Lots of council candidate signs, including Domise and Abukar. I saw one lone "Ford Councillor" sign.
-An average amount of Ford signs, but nothing huge
-School trustee signs


Ward 3:

-Once again, a lot of council candidate signs, including Holyday's son
-A good amount of Tory signs
-Less Ford signs than I expected
-School trustee signs

Ward 4

-Lots of council signs again
-Less Ford signs than expected
-Some school trustee signs

My parents are in Norm Kelly's ward and his signs are everywhere. Trustee Sam seems to be popular for some reason too.

I am in Ward 37 and Michael Thompson signs are everywhere. There are also some Ford signs and a surprising amount of Chow signs, plus school trustee candidates.

Shelly Carroll is very popular in her ward and I saw very few Ford signs.
 
Last edited:
reposting from another thread -- RE: Signs

I saw two FordMayor signs on Glencairn between Marlee and Dufferin -- other than those two, I haven't seen any east of Dufferin. I feel like I've seen about the same number of Tory & Chow signs around. Maybe a slight edge to Tory. Lots more ward councillor signs than mayor. That "Colle" guy is really popular.

Area: I had driven through some residential streets that go between Bathurst and Yonge, from Eglinton on south side to Wilson/York Mills on north. Also went to Yorkdale and surrounding area.
 
reposting from another thread -- RE: Signs

I saw two FordMayor signs on Glencairn between Marlee and Dufferin -- other than those two, I haven't seen any east of Dufferin. I feel like I've seen about the same number of Tory & Chow signs around. Maybe a slight edge to Tory. Lots more ward councillor signs than mayor. That "Colle" guy is really popular.

Area: I had driven through some residential streets that go between Bathurst and Yonge, from Eglinton on south side to Wilson/York Mills on north. Also went to Yorkdale and surrounding area.
Josh Colle is a very popular candidate, even though Ahmed Belkadi is making some inroads. Josh Colle is the son of the popular Liberal MPP Mike Colle, representing the same area.

In my neighbourhood (I live on Marlee), Chow signs outnumber Tory signs by approximately five to one (and have yet to see a single Doug Ford sign in my immediate neighbourhood), while on the other side of the Allen, Tory signs dominate.

Yes, I have a Josh Colle sign, an Ahmed Belkadi sign, and a Chow sign.
 
So far around Yonge & Eg I've only seen Tory signs (and Matlow for councillor). I honestly don't think I've seen a single Chow or Ford sign yet, although I've seen Chow volunteers.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tory owns midtown, Rosedale to Lawrence near Yonge.
 
So far around Yonge & Eg I've only seen Tory signs (and Matlow for councillor). I honestly don't think I've seen a single Chow or Ford sign yet, although I've seen Chow volunteers.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tory owns midtown, Rosedale to Lawrence near Yonge.

Interesting. I wonder why midtowners are supporting the guy who opposes Eglinton Connects.
 
Interesting. I wonder why midtowners are supporting the guy who opposes Eglinton Connects.

Well.. I'm a midtowner who was at the Eglinton Connects meetings and I support Eglinton Connects, and I'm likely going to choose Tory over Chow, so I'm probably as good a person as any to answer this.

I think that the claim that Tory "opposes" Eglinton Connects is quite an over simplification of his position on that issue.

Tory's main issue is with the 3-lane format of the stretch between Mt Pleasant and Avenue Rd, a pretty small section of the whole 20 km road that Eglinton Connects covers. The other parts of Eglinton in the plan have a 4 lane format, with bike lanes, trees and improved pedestrian realm.

In addition, Eglinton Connects is quite a multi-faceted plan which covers things like the height of new developments, where new development should occur, grass on the LRT ROW etc.

My point is, the part of the plan that Tory is opposed to is a very small percentage of the overall plan. The plan has already had amendments by City Council, ex. Matlow's motion to add right turn lanes at Yonge & Eg. I don't consider further minor amendments and adjustments to constitute "opposition" to the plan.

That's a basic summary of why I think that the idea that Tory "opposes" Eglinton Connects is a mischaracterization.

In addition to the above, many voters are not necessarily voting based on the Eglinton Connects issue. I believe that midtown Toronto generally votes in what can be described as politically more Liberal or "central". For example midtown is much less likely to elect NDP than areas of downtown, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's less left-wing than downtown, yet not as right-wing as the 905 or suburbs further out.

I no expert on this but my guess is that Tory aligns well politically with many voters in Midtown.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Eg Connects was approved by council already, so it's pretty unclear, to me at least, whether it will be an issue after the election is over anyways.
 
Last edited:
Well.. I'm a midtowner who was at the Eglinton Connects meetings and I support Eglinton Connects, and I'm likely going to choose Tory over Chow, so I'm probably as good a person as any to answer this.

I think that the claim that Tory "opposes" Eglinton Connects is quite an over simplification of his position on that issue.

Tory's main issue is with the 3-lane format of the stretch between Mt Pleasant and Avenue Rd, a pretty small section of the whole 20 km road that Eglinton Connects covers. The other parts of Eglinton in the plan have a 4 lane format, with bike lanes, trees and improved pedestrian realm.

In addition, Eglinton Connects is quite a multi-faceted plan which covers things like the height of new developments, where new development should occur, grass on the LRT ROW etc.

My point is, the part of the plan that Tory is opposed to is a very small percentage of the overall plan. The plan has already had amendments by City Council, ex. Matlow's motion to add right turn lanes at Yonge & Eg. I don't consider further minor amendments and adjustments to constitute "opposition" to the plan.

That's a basic summary of why I think that the idea that Tory "opposes" Eglinton Connects is a mischaracterization.

In addition to the above, many voters are not necessarily voting based on the Eglinton Connects issue. I believe that midtown Toronto generally votes in what can be described as politically more Liberal or "central". For example midtown is much less likely to elect NDP than areas of downtown, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's less left-wing than downtown, yet not as right-wing as the 905 or suburbs further out.

I no expert on this but my guess is that Tory aligns well politically with many voters in Midtown.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Eg Connects was approved by council already, so it's pretty unclear, to me at least, whether it will be an issue after the election is over anyways.

Thanks for your comment. However I'm not sure that it's an an over simplification or mischaracterization to say that Tory opposes it. I say that because his platform said "Not proceed with the $150 million “EglintonConnects” proposal, which will increase traffic congestion by reducing traffic lanes”. The public outcry that ensued eventually forced Tory to sing a slightly different tune, as we've seen many times before. Thus his platform now says, "Not proceed with construction of the $150 million “EglintonConnects” proposal, until actual funding has been secured and a congestion-causing narrowing of lanes has been eliminated". Again, "not proceed" (i.e oppose). Mischaracterization? Traffic issues aside, if he supports the overall plan, perhaps he could propose a funding plan of his own if that's an issue, or at least promise to do that, which he didn't (not that I would trust him on finance, because TIF). Nevertheless, it's not the kind of position that I thought would be palatable to the urban residents of midtown. But as you said, there are also other election issues that voters are thinking about. This one hasn't been in the news much these days.

I understand that Eglinton Connects is a multi-faceted plan. It's just that I often hear "Eglinton Connects" and "blablabla congestion" in the same sentence, so sometimes I forget that there are other components of it. However the public realm improvements is the most tangible part of Eglinton Connects, and while it may appear that it's only a small part of the plan that he opposes (between Avenue Rd and Mt Pleasant), I'd argue that it's this area that needs it most due to the high density and pedestrian activity. If Tory insists that the traffic lanes are to stay, then I don't see how there will be enough room for the bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and street trees. I'm concerned that we may end up with a half-baked compromise because of the sheer narrow-mindedness of certain politicians, who prefer to pander to car drivers and ex-ford voters, than to read the traffic studies and expert advice of the chief planner.

Since council already approved it, I really hope that it will not be an issue anymore. Perhaps you may know better than me on how safe the plan is at this point. Although without the funding, none of the public realm stuff will be build anyway, regardless if it's four lanes or three. Needless to say, I am seriously annoyed with this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your comment. However I'm not sure that it's an an over simplification or mischaracterization to say that Tory opposes it. I say that because his platform said "Not proceed with the $150 million “EglintonConnects” proposal, which will increase traffic congestion by reducing traffic lanes”. The public outcry that ensued eventually forced Tory to sing a slightly different tune, as we've seen many times before. Thus his platform now says, "Not proceed with construction of the $150 million “EglintonConnects” proposal, until actual funding has been secured and a congestion-causing narrowing of lanes has been eliminated". Again, "not proceed" (i.e oppose). Mischaracterization? Traffic issues aside, if he supports the overall plan, perhaps he could propose a funding plan of his own if that's an issue, or at least promise to do that, which he didn't (not that I would trust him on finance, because TIF). Nevertheless, it's not the kind of position that I thought would be palatable to the urban residents of midtown. But as you said, there are also other election issues that voters are thinking about. This one hasn't been in the news much these days.

I understand that Eglinton Connects is a multi-faceted plan. It's just that I often hear "Eglinton Connects" and "blablabla congestion" in the same sentence, so sometimes I forget that there are other components of it. However the public realm improvements is the most tangible part of Eglinton Connects, and while it may appear that it's only a small part of the plan that he opposes (between Avenue Rd and Mt Pleasant), I'd argue that it's this area that needs it most due to the high density and pedestrian activity. If Tory insists that the traffic lanes are to stay, then I don't see how there will be enough room for the bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and street trees. I'm concerned that we may end up with a half-baked compromise because of the sheer narrow-mindedness of certain politicians, who prefer to pander to car drivers and ex-ford voters, than to read the traffic studies and expert advice of the chief planner.

Since council already approved it, I really hope that it will not be an issue anymore. Perhaps you may know better than me on how safe the plan is at this point. Although without the funding, none of the public realm stuff will be build anyway, regardless if it's four lanes or three. Needless to say, I am seriously annoyed with this nonsense.

From the March 2014 Eglinton Connects-Traffic Study Report

"In assessing 2031 traffic conditions, a scenario with Eglinton Avenue at 4 lanes throughout
the corridor reveals spare capacity between Avenue Road and Mount Pleasant Road, thus
presenting and opportunity to provide additional travel space to non-automobile modes

through this section of Eglinton Avenue. Utilizing the City’s traffic model, the traffic
conditions with only two traffic lanes between Avenue Road and Mount Pleasant Road was
assessed. Traffic impacts of this scenario compared to the 4 lane scenario appear to be
minimal because longer distance traffic diverts away from Eglinton Avenue.
Because of the minimal traffic impact of the 2-lane scenario versus the 4 lane scenario, it is
recommended that the City pursue the 2-lane reduction of Eglinton Avenue between Avenue
Road to Mount Pleasant Road
for the benefits to making Eglinton Avenue a more complete
street accommodating all travel modes with continuous cycling lanes, wider sidewalks and
overall improved public spaces.The implementation of these recommendations will be
accompanied by further traffic study, monitoring, and traffic infiltration mitigation measures."

http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toro...Final Resubmission 20140326 (Report Only).pdf

I don't understand the point of conducting studies if they won't even be considered. People would rather use their instincts and lack of expertise on the subject matter instead of relying on engineers and planners.
 
Last edited:
This discussion highlights the importance of having a firm grasp of the English language: "not proceed" does not mean explicitly mean "cancel" or "reverse". The original statement on Eglinton Connects was very open-ended, allowing him to appeal to voters who are completely opposed to the plan and those who would support a modified plan. His new statement is more detailed, but still quite open-ended in that his support is dependent on a solution that doesn't cause "congestion" which is itself undefined.
 
This discussion highlights the importance of having a firm grasp of the English language: "not proceed" does not mean explicitly mean "cancel" or "reverse". The original statement on Eglinton Connects was very open-ended, allowing him to appeal to voters who are completely opposed to the plan and those who would support a modified plan. His new statement is more detailed, but still quite open-ended in that his support is dependent on a solution that doesn't cause "congestion" which is itself undefined.

However you want to put it, "not proceed" = not gonna happen. I don't see anything ambiguous about that.
 

Back
Top