Toronto Garrison Crossing (was Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge) | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | Pedelta

Me too, and it makes me mad as hell.
 
Somehow, I wonder if Earth Heals Itself was a Ford/Kouvalis "plant". And given all of that, I wonder if closure of Fort York is due on "we're broke; nobody uses it" grounds...
 
Just to be sure, the rest of the project is going ahead ? i.e. the Fort York visitor center ? I guess the more appropriate question there would be; Is all funding in place for it or will it require more city votes.

btw - bad feeling here but; Next up, St. Lawrence market north. i.e. just keep the courts where they are.
 
I wouldn't count anything as secure. It's clear Dougie and Robbie are out to smash up as much as they can. After all, they've got a four billion dollar subway promised. They'll be hunting for cash everywhere.
 
gristle said:
I wouldn't count anything as secure. It's clear Dougie and Robbie are out to smash up as much as they can. After all, they've got a four billion dollar subway promised. They'll be hunting for cash everywhere.
Click to expand...

Honestly too be fair here. There issue is the large structural deficit Toronto faces in the next budget. It's a legitimate problem you can't really fault the Ford administration for. Well ... you can to a certain degree :) That is if you complain about the lack of a property tax increase and the removal of the vehicle registration tax. But, even if both of these didn't happen there would still be a lot of money to account for.
 
Hey if they realistically can build this for 5-6 million and with the rest of the cash (16 million) build the 3 other pedestrian bridges that are much needed,
than im OK with that.
Queen-King west village,.. south Shaw street to Liberty Village,... Portland street to CityPlace...Hey, four bridges for the price of one, why not.:) Down the line they can always upgrade them to something more attractive.
 
taal said:
There issue is the large structural deficit Toronto faces in the next budget. It's a legitimate problem you can't really fault the Ford administration for. Well ... you can to a certain degree :) That is if you complain about the lack of a property tax increase and the removal of the vehicle registration tax.
Click to expand...

Yep, they created the structural deficit that's now justifying their gutting of programs and projects. If the city's broke, it's because they actually chose to make it that way.

So forget about the Fort York Visitor Centre, and the Queens Quay makeover as well. If it ain't cheap, it ain't on.
 
Last edited:
Northern Magus said:
Yep, they created the structural deficit that's now justifying their gutting of programs and projects. If the city's broke, it's because they actually chose to make it that way.

So forget about the Fort York Visitor Centre, and the Queens Quay makeover as well. If it ain't cheap, it ain't on.
Click to expand...

But who created it ? Clearly it wasn't Ford's administration ...

I hate this just as much as the next person, but when you stop and think about; It may simply be there's no other choice.
I'm not going to dabble in this specific matter, you can argue it's already budgeted or something along those lines but in general we need to spend a lot less money (or increase our revenue sources drastically ... whatever that entails).

You may argue, oh 'Miller' managed ... he had a surplus last time around ! ... no, Miller managed through a combination of good luck, and a ton of provincial / federal help over the years / along with Toronto's previous reserve funds. To be clear I love Miller and think he's been the best Mayor in recent times.

Also, I think the city has it's share of bad luck in terms of the province and funding that's been removed over the years (most of this happened earlier in the earlier 2000 / late 1990s).
 
taal said:
btw - bad feeling here but; Next up, St. Lawrence market north. i.e. just keep the courts where they are.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the new market was axed, but only after the current north market was razed. Not only will we not be allowed new nice things, we won't be allowed the things we already have. Markets are for downtown elitists, anyway. Do our grocery shopping once a week by driving our crossovers to a suburban Metro, as just God and Don Cherry intended.
 
adHominem said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the new market was axed, but only after the current north market was razed. Not only will we not be allowed new nice things, we won't be allowed the things we already have. Markets are for downtown elitists, anyway. Do our grocery shopping once a week by driving our crossovers to a suburban Metro, as just God and Don Cherry intended.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how much I hate Don Cherry !

In the scenario you describe - instead of it being in the North Market it'll be in the temporary tent they set up. Though it won't be so temporary :) Honestly though that's not terrible in my books. I tent may have more character then the current North Market which is just a shed effetively. So it can be sold to developers. Might not be the worst thing.
Clearly I'd love to see what was proposed instead but ...
 
taal said:
I'm not going to dabble in this specific matter, you can argue it's already budgeted or something along those lines but in general we need to spend a lot less money (or increase our revenue sources drastically ... whatever that entails).

You may argue, oh 'Miller' managed ... he had a surplus last time around ! ... no, Miller managed through a combination of good luck, and a ton of provincial / federal help over the years / along with Toronto's previous reserve funds. To be clear I love Miller and think he's been the best Mayor in recent times.
Click to expand...

Lol "I'm not going to dabble" he says, while clearly dabbling. But fair enough.

Downloading created the annual city bailout problem, and it was for all intents and purposes solved with the province giving the city the revenue powers that Ford campaigned so vigorously to rescind. He also broke his promise to raise property taxes (read: increase the city's revenues to keep the budget balanced), meaning he took a small fiscal problem and chose to make it big.

But Robbie's public record on city projects and programs is crystal clear. I think it's fair to say he hates them.

And with the budget balanced and revenues delivering the kind of income to keep on delivering more, it would be difficult to find excuses to justify cutting without looking like the kind of small minded slasher his critics have always accused him of being. So with a deliberate reduction of revenues, voila. A useful crisis has been created, to borrow John Snobelen's words.

So whatever fiscal problems anyone wishes to argue exist, I believe it indisputable that Ford has actually had a hand in exacerbating them.
 
Northern Magus said:
Lol "I'm not going to dabble" he says, while clearly dabbling. But fair enough.

Downloading created the annual city bailout problem, and it was for all intents and purposes solved with the province giving the city the revenue powers that Ford campaigned so vigorously to rescind. He also broke his promise to raise property taxes (read: increase the city's revenues to keep the budget balanced), meaning he took a small fiscal problem and chose to make it big.

But Robbie's public record on city projects and programs is crystal clear. I think it's fair to say he hates them.

And with the budget balanced and revenues delivering the kind of income to keep on delivering more, it would be difficult to find excuses to justify cutting without looking like the kind of small minded slasher his critics have always accused him of being. So with a deliberate reduction of revenues, voila. A useful crisis has been created, to borrow John Snobelen's words.

So whatever fiscal problems anyone wishes to argue exist, I believe it indisputable that Ford has actually had a hand in exacerbating them.
Click to expand...

I did dabble didn't I ? :)
Well I might as well continue.

I definitely see your argument but I'm not ready to make that conclusion just yet. For the last 6-10 years this structural deficit has been a clear problem, ever since we started eating into our reserve fund and surviving on bailouts. Throughout this time Ford has always advocated the city doesn't have money to spend, on well, anything just about. Clearly that's not the correct attitude to take. But at the same time we increased our structural deficit over the years.

Who's to say how he would behave if we had no 'debt' and had a structural deficit of 0. I'm sure he wouldn't be Mr. Big Spender but still ...

Also, so it's clear, I hate Rob Ford with a passion. But the reason for this hate isn't his insistence that Toronto is broke ... it's everything else he does ... a lot of it centers around how he successfully manifested the inner city vs outer issue. Which in all honestly I don't think ever existed until he 'created' it.
I hate him, I hate his brother :) ... hate may be strong but I'm not trying to support any of his initiatives but rater simply justify his distaste for spending.
 
I sent out an email to Rob and Doug Ford (Rub n' Tug as I've heard them called), as well as Councillor Shiner (who really has no business in the matter) and Councillor Layton. This is what I said:

Good afternoon,

I am only 20 years old, and I am concerned with the direction the city
is heading. I do not want to see a stagnant city of the future where I
look past on what could have been.

I am writing to state my disappointment in the potential cancellation of the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycling Bridge, which could have been a Toronto landmark that would serve the community next year and years beyond. Now, with its referral and the pursuance of a cheaper alternative, the bridge will likely be delayed several years, thus, not opening for the 2012 bicentennial of Fort York. Funding was already in place as per the annual budget and $1.3 million has already been spent on planning, which would be wasted if the current design is not built. The city spends hundreds of millions of dollars on road repairs annually, yet $23 million for a
pedestrian bridge to connect two neighbourhoods is deemed too expensive. Road repairs only serve the interests of some, not everybody drives; I hope this is not the beginning of a 'War on Pedestrians', because everybody is a pedestrian.

What is more disconcerting is the lack of consultation with the local community - neither Councillor Layton nor the community had notice of the plan to delay and potentially cancel the project, a motion brought by Councillor Shiner who does not represent Trinity Spadina. It was suddenly and surprisingly a shock to many of us who had hoped to use the bridge next year. I can only say that you let the people decide whether it is a good investment - Councillors and the Mayor represent the interests of the people, not they're own. You cannot assume that all of your decisions will be agreed upon by the affected ward. I realise you are trying to save the city and its people money, and I commend you on this, but I do not believe this is the time or the place to do so. If the people of Trinity Spadina believe the bridge is not worth the investment, so be it, but you cannot assume that. I also hope this is not the beginning of the end of our carefully-planned waterfront revitalization, which is well underway, and is getting excellent use and praise from my family. I do not want a privatized waterfront with even more condominiums, nor do I want an unjustified football stadium and monorail, and based on my discussions with Toronto residents, neither do they.

Mayor Ford campaigned on a promise to open the doors of City Hall and to respect the taxypayers; yet projects like the Fort York Bridge are being delayed or outright cancelled without any sort of public opinion. People want things done now, we do not want to wait another decade for much needed transit and infrastructure development. Those in my household who voted for Mr. Ford are losing faith that he cannot save the city money without cutting important municipal services and projects, and I would like you all to prove them wrong.

I would appreciate a response, but I understand if you do not have the time. I can only ask you to respect and consider my opinion as a Toronto resident.

If you would like to view it, an online petition has been set up by a concerned taxpayer who wants to save the bridge, perhaps this is an indicator of the support for the connection. http://toronto.typepad.com/fortyorkbridge/

Thank you,

Marc.
Click to expand...



Then I got a generic automated response seconds later from Rob Ford:

Thank you for your email.

As I promised during the mayoralty election, I am dedicated to delivering customer service excellence, creating a transparent and accountable government, reducing the size and cost of government and building a transportation city.

I will continue to work on behalf of the taxpayers to make sure you get the respect you deserve.

This note is to confirm that we have received your email and that we are looking into your matter.

Please feel free to follow up to check the status of your email.

Thanks again and have a great day.

Yours truly,

Mayor Rob Ford
City of Toronto
Click to expand...




If that's Ford's idea of "always replying to your messages", then what a cop-out.
 
Marcanadian said:
I sent out an email to Rob and Doug Ford (Rub n' Tug as I've heard them called), as well as Councillor Shiner (who really has no business in the matter) and Councillor Layton. This is what I said:





Then I got a generic automated response seconds later from Rob Ford:






If that's Ford's idea of "always replying to your messages", then what a cop-out.
Click to expand...

That response is a total joke. Obviously nobody in Ford's office reads or gives a damn what taxpayers have to say. Yes, we are not citizens, just taxpayers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top