Testing of a new President

McCain says that Senator and VP-candidate Joe Biden said "Obama will be tested in the first six months." In fact, Biden was only partly right. Experts believe any new President will be tested, not just Obama. McCain as a war-mongerer is actually more likely to be tested. As Kennedy was tested, so too was W. How did that work out for you?

Make no mistake about it, McCain will continue the isolationist, go-it-alone policies of George W. Bush. That will produce a much weaker America than an America with truly willing coalitions. Further terrorist attacks under McCain for instance, would result in the same approach to retribution as in Iraq, further driving the American economy to the brink of total bankruptcy. This is the irony of the boosters who chant "U.S.A" at McCain rallies. Their vitriol and hyperbole are exactly the kind of fear-driven, reactionary response that those who seek to drive America into economic ruin are hoping for.

McCain continues this line saying that he has been tested. "I've sat in the cockpit of a fighter plane on the deck .... in the cuban missile crisis...I had a target...I know how close we've been and I've been tested." How? How was McCain tested in anyway in the Cuban Missile Crisis - he got in a plane? What decision did he have to make? To follow orders? Which leg to put in his jumpsuit first? I don't know how being a pilot, on the brink of total mutual assured destruction tested him. I'm sure it tested his nerve but no one questions his will - just his readiness to go to war. He's the one who says he's a fighter.

McCain continues to misquote Obama and spread fear about meeting with the leaders of sovereign, if antagonistic countries such as Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. First, I think it's a classic example of American arrogance to put pre-conditions on meetings. I also think its ridiculous of war-mongerers like McCain to suggest that not talking to your neighbour is a better way to deal with his fence being on your property. Venezuela is more likely to cut off oil to McCain than it would be to Obama. Cuba is more likely to be pulled out of its regime with support since it's worked everywhere else. Line-ups for Levi's jeans and Big Macs brought down Soviet communism, not the appeal of American-style health care! Iran was once a strong ally of the US and its likely a majority of the people would like to have a working relationship at worst.

Since he's an angry old man who likes to fight I suggest that it's apt to think that McCain would be the type to sneak out in the middle of the night to throw garbage back on his neighbours lawn rather than talk to his neighbour about his poor put-out practices.

I love the end of McCain's speeches too. "Stand up and fight. Stand up. We never hide from History, we make History." cough, cough...I'm angry. I'm really angry. Bring it on. We're right, you're wrong - always.

America can no longer bully the world. It can't afford to bully the world. The world also can't afford another decade of an isolationist America. Everyone impacted by US foreign policy ought to be able to cast a vote in US elections. The world could help them become number one again!

Palin an Energy Expert?

I'm watching Sarah Palin. I am so ready for this election to be over, for Obama to become President elect (knocking on wood) and for Sarah Palin to go away for at least 3 years.

I am a big fan of women in politics. I worked for a female City Councillor. She was not formally educated but displayed a clear ability to grasp complex issues and to understand the underlying philosophies of government. For instance, she would never call someone a 'socialist' lightly.

I love Hilary Clinton. I admire strong women conservatives like Peggy Noonan, Deborah Grey and there are others I'm sure - Belinda Stronach who is a blue Liberal or red tory, I'm not sure anyone ever really knew. I didn't agree with Kim Campbell but thought it was great that we had a woman Prime Minister and believe she got a rough ride. She at least understood the tenants of conservatism.

Sarah Palin's big credentials are that she is an Energy expert since she comes from Alaska. And yet, she continues to lie and mis-state facts about energy and Alaska's supply. Drill Baby Drill is the lamest chant - it's like saying, Magic baby Magic. T. Boone Pickens, the famous Texan Oilman has endorsed Obama's plan so it's not like Obama is just proposing conservation (which would be a great place to start.) Pickens says we cannot use Oil to get off of Oil and that we cannot wait, drilling is not an answer in and of itself.

I also think that if you are an expert in something, you should be able to at least pronounce the words that are used, such as Nuclear. I'm not a big opponent of Nuclear. I just don't think it makes a lot of economic sense, or at least it hasn't proven itself affordable anywhere in the world. Palin suggested that we teach our children about the importance of "Newk-u-lar power." Please don't give us another 4 years of that stupidity!

The McCain ticket has also made a big deal about Obama's answer to the "Manhattan Project" question - should government lead the effort to discover and implement new alternative energy supplies. McCain rightly believes (as does Obama) that the private sector is the better sector to pursue innovation. However, the R&D costs and eventual implementation costs of alternatives to Carbon-based fuels are so high that the Private Sector ought not to be solely responsible for their development. In other words, government research and resources are needed to support efforts to innovate and incubate new technologies. I believe that is Obama's intent - to financially support the development and implementation of alternatives.

Also remember that it was energy expert McCain who proposed a Gas Tax holiday. I will give credit where it is due and think it has been a mistake of the McCain/Palin team not to play on her great work at getting a pipeline approved. That is fantastic work and displays more than her rambling speeches ever could. Besides, rambling speeches expose what you don't know more than what you do also. ;-)

Americans have to accept a few truths. First, they have to accept that they are the biggest wasters of energy. Acknowledging the problem and recognizing you are powerless are the first steps to addiction recovery after-all. Secondly, they have to understand that the best way to curb mis-use is through economic incentives and dis-incentives. Prices send signals. Reducing energy costs will not discourage waste. The era of cheap energy is largely over. Actually, it was a myth anyway since we've deferred all of the environmental costs and hidden many health costs and created unsustainable systems.

Why, if the McCain ticket is so knowledgeable about government spending and energy have they made no reference to the impending crisis in Highway funding. The Highway Trust fund is nearly bankrupt, requires reauthorization and the Gas Tax has shown itself to be counter-productive and unsustainable as a revenue source. McCain knows Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters quite well since they are both from Arizona and Peters is former Arizona Secretary of Transportation. McCain has been oddly silent though so too has Obama. This is just one of the many areas where real issues aren't being discussed.

Now, Palin and McCain have been name-calling of late, using the term socialist to describe Obama's modest tax plan. Beyond being totally inaccurate, an insult to actual socialists and actually telling us more about McCain/Palin's own ignorance, it's quite hypocritical. The Obama campaign could easily call McCain a facist, since he's very militaristic, supported nationalizing banks and believes in the corporatism of 'Country First' while having a running mate who believes that Americans are Gods chosen people. But they of course are better than that and know that name calling is ultimately a sad comment on oneself more than it is on the target.

How is further subsidizing oil companies, Nuclear development companies and other energy providers not socialist or even facist? McCain, who's own party's President was charged with running the US economy, supported the bailout. Meanwhile, the Democrats, showing bi-partisan cooperation supported the President's plan since ultimately it is the President who is looked upon and appoints such luminaries as the Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and others. So McCain has supported nationalizing banks, the most socialist measure ever and has excused that as an action needed to address a crisis.

I think that most people dislike intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and inconsistency. Unfortunately, those have all been the calling cards of the McCain/Palin ticket. Now we should care that some bald, angry, overweight, biggoted, self-centered moron from Ohio is endorsing Obama? Joe the liar supports McCain? Surprise surprise. He probably bought McCain's promise to reduce gas prices and reduce food costs at the same time. Wonder if he also has 'land' in Florida?

Lastly, if McCain is an energy expert and an economic expert and a supporter of anti-Climate Change actions, why has he not proposed something like cap-and-trade and/or carbon taxes? Guess that would be 'straight talk'?

The Politics of Health Care - Part 1

This blog is going to take a few to write I think which is why I've labeled it Part 1. Health Care is a complex subject and one that hits home for everyone at some point in their life. In fact, for most people it involves a number of interactions and health plays an intricate role in our happiness, even if some of us do take it for granted.

I am going to try to write about this topic from a variety of angles, disecting health care into its different segments and facets. I want to look at the topic of public versus private health care provision, private versus public insurance, user interaction and mis-use. I will review and discuss our perceptions and expectations of care and try to deal with the issues of right to care and whether or not Health Care ought to be a basic human right or if it is a privilege or an obligation of the state.

No discussion of Health Care can be conducted outside the context of existing systems. I will attempt to educate myself and make reference to documented proof and world-wide standards of outcomes. I, like any Canadian, have strong opinions about health care and I will try to adopt other sets of lenses than my own in order to conduct a balanced and empirical review. In other words, this blog will take some time and some re-edits and my opinions may change over time. For now, let me state my basic beliefs.

Health Care is a right, particularly the right to critical care or emergency services. Particularly within a developed nation is Health Care a right. I would like to state that in a perfect world all nations would have access to top quality health care and that no person should die due to lack of access to care. I also believe that individuals need to play a stronger and more conscious (yes, there is one finger pointing back at me) in their own preventative, holistic care. This is an area where tax incentives for physical fitness would be ideal.

I believe that we also have unrealistic expectations of care but that these are very natural. One is expected to be anxious and wanting nothing but first class, gold-plated Health Care when their or someone they love is in a health crisis. We ought not to base public policy on the hearts and minds of those under the most stress. That leads to irrational public policy that anyone not confronted with such a crisis fails to agree with. I also think that (and have heard directly from someone in the know about Ontario's Health Care System) surveys of those in the system are under-reported and are actually more positive than many other people would perceive.

I also believe that while patents need to be long enough for drug companies to recoup their research and development investments, there is also a lot of bluster when one looks at the amount that pharmaceutical makers spend on lobbyists and advertising. Generic manufacturers offer affordable opportunities, particularly to developing nations.

I believe that the Canadian system, while not ideal, is one of the best in the world particularly when one considers the presence of the for-profit American system and the lure it presents to Canadian Doctors. I support residency requirements for Canadian Doctors until health education subsidies are worked off by doctors receiving Canadian educations. I also support incentives for those who go to under-served communities.

I believe in the public provision of emergent, critical, non-elective and palliative care for all citizens but also support optional higher tier services that can be supplemented by private insurance in addition to public taxes and offered by private care providers. No one should go broke because they get sick but those who can afford better care ought not to be prevented from seeking it. The tricky part is ensuring that public sector health care is not undermined.

I believe that the US system adds at least two and even three layers of unnecessary profit and cost to the system. Private Insurance creates a profit-driven decision making system when it comes to care. Claims are often disputed, payments delayed and are often only partial (health care coupons.) Private companies are responsible to shareholders, not to doctors, hospitals or clients. Secondly, private hospitals have an incentive to charge higher costs, seek care that may be unnecessary and have their own issues that I'm not altogether familiar with. But it only makes sense that private hospitals would seek to maximize revenues and reduce costs. Doctors are exposed to significant malpractice suits and those companies that ensure them are forced to charge higher premiums. Trial lawyers also get rich from lawsuits. Tinkering will not fix their broken system.

I believe that the Canadian system conversely is in need of some tinkering to make it run smoother. We need more doctors and more community care. We need investments in community centers and fitness programs both in and out of our school systems. We need a greater emphasis on preventative care, healthy diets and active transportation. And unless we change things, we need to check unrealistic expectations at the door or prepare to pay more for high quality care for all.

I will write more but I think this is a good basis. I will expand on the thoughts above in coming blogs. I welcome comments.

Chantix Ad

I just saw this ad for a pharmaceutical that can help you quit smoking. A couple of thoughts instantly caught me.

First, I was at my computer listening to but not watching the computer. What caught my attention initially was the list of possible side effects. The calm, re-assuring voice said: "If you have feelings of severe depression, thoughts of suicide or take suicidal actions, stop taking Chantix immediately and contact your doctor." I chuckled to myself as I thought in the voice, "If you kill yourself, contact your doctor immediately."

There was a continuing list of worsening conditions far worse than death. "Some users may experience nausea, sleeplessness and vivid dreams while taking Chantix." Okay so what's the difference between taking Chantix and quitting cold turkey? These are normal symptoms of quitting.

Lastly, what really made me think this is one of the most dangerous confidence scams I've ever seen is when the soothing voice said "in clinical trials, users of Chantix were 44 percent successful at quitting smoking over placebo groups who's success rate was 18 percent over a 12-week period." So while I admit I'm no statistician, what this says to me is that if it takes on average 7 times to quit smoking, the placebo did very little to improve that success rate - maybe 2 percent?

It essentially gives you a 3-fold better chance than if you simply decide to quit and engage in some cognitive behavioural thought, decide you really want to quit and don't stop trying. Now, I have not yet been successful in quitting so I will never be too critical of methods that work for some people. But the sales job of a chemical which takes just as long with very little improvement and threatens to send you into dark depression or worse, to kill yourself, is just a tad unnerving.

Pharmaceutical ads ought to be made illegal. They distort the patient-doctor relationship and give people false expectations. Companies spend far too much on advertising while complaining of too-limited lifetimes of patents. More money ought to be directed back to research and development. No more blue pills, no more ads about erections lasting longer than 4 hours thank you very much!

Development Charges are a Tax on the Poor

Leave it to Toronto City Council to once again stick it to those who make the right choices about how to live in an urban area. Today's Toronto Star reports about excessive increases being proposed for the City's Development Charge Scheme. Unfortunately, a number of Councillors simply believe this is a tax on developers - not a cost that will be ultimately borne by consumers.

Here's my particular beef with development charges in the City of Toronto. Development Charges are intended to pay for increased services used by those who move into new developments, and into new neighbourhoods. These types of charges make imminent sense in the 905 and for 'greenfield' development, where new infrastructure is built to accommodate new residents. These include massive new Water pipes, Schools and community centres.

Unfortunately though a Toronto resident would have to have been living under a rock for the last 10 years if they think that with all the population growth and development Toronto has seen, that any new services or large infrastructure has been delivered. In fact, the opposite is true - services have shrunk, user fees increased and new fees introduces - such as the Vehicle Registration fee.

Now, some Councillors are advocating increasing development charges by upwards of 126 percent over the charges approved 5 years ago. Unfortunately, this is one instance where our City government finds the rules that are adequate for the suburbs are adequate for a mature City like Toronto when in most cases they argue for special treatment based on the age, density and special needs of the City of Toronto. Think of the opposite of the School Funding Formula and you have the Development Charges Act. I guess consistency doesn't really matter when all you run on is your name, not your record or your party's record. People largely vote based on name recognition so even if you make the comments of a buffoon in local media, as long as they spell your name right it's generally considered good publicity. It's too bad no one tracks voting - a far more important record than what Lobbyist you met with.

The charges would be about 25,000 for a Single Family Home (not too many of those being built, but this seems excessive for nothing in return.) A one-bedroom condo would be charged nearly 11,000 a 144 percent increase over the current charge of $4,467.

Cliff Jenkins is leading the charge with his fellow poor North Torontonian Karen Stintz. Together, these two represent some of the City's wealthiest residents and yet are the first to whine about increased property taxes on homeowners (which are very low in Toronto.) Mr. Jenkins is even making the ridiculous complaint that homeowners will subsidize developers to the tune of 40 or 50 Million dollars. Unfortunately, his flawed reasoning leads him to believe that since the Mayor has wisely signalled that there will be a base number of units built in one year before certain increases are introduced, that foregone revenue amounts to a subsidization by homeowners.

But let's look a bit deeper and with some sense of reason and ration. Who buys condos? They are predominantly bought by three segments. First time homebuyers, empty nesters and investors who plan to rent the unit out. In the first instance, Mr. Jenkins proposes to make it even harder for young families, freshly graduated students, new Canadians and those trying to make the leap from rental housing to home ownership. In the second, empty nesters are people who are selling a home in Toronto to do something good for all of us. They have, by Jenkins' logic, already paid they're fair share as homeowners - why should they be hit again? Lastly, the vast majority of new condominium units become rental units. Increased costs are a barrier to entry to the market for those seeking to offer a unit, thereby reducing supply over the long-term and ultimately driving up rents.

Here's the other problem too. Tell me what new infrastructure has been built at Yonge and Eglinton, to the exclusive benefit of new condo owners in the Minto complex that was not paid for by the developer? There are fees under Section 37 (in exchange for height and density bonuses) there are parks levies, there are public art levies, sewer impost charges and a myriad of fees, including building permits based on the value of the project - and yet the new owners will move into exactly the same neighbourhood as existed before it was built. This will only further undermine the City government's legitimacy and further increase the belief that City Hall is run by Unions who are bleeding this City dry. In fact, most Condominium projects are built with their own Community-Centre like facilities, such as work-out facilities, meeting rooms, etc. So there isn't necessarily any truth to the argument that new condo owners create needs for new facilities and services.

Point me to any massive new infrastructure that has been built to accommodate a new development in the City of Toronto. There was the Sheppard Subway Development Charge where development charges were introduced to pay for the Subway and to offset some of the increases in property values. There are also other financial tools that can be used to extract added value from developers who benefit from new public infrastructure.

Development Charges may not immediately be passed through to buyers since there is some price sensitivity in the market. But that also assumes that developers do not share information or the ultimate goal to make money. Eventually, increased costs for building lead to increased costs of housing. Why do Right wing Councillors not get this basic fact about economics? Are they Sarah Palins? Right wing but not really sure why - just that they resent other people and taxes.

If these Councillors are delusional enough to think that homeowners subsidize anything in the City of Toronto, perhaps they'd be willing to actually look at our system of property taxes. For instance, maybe Karen Stintz would support basing the Transportation portion of property taxes on how many cars are owned and how far they are driven by homeowners. Maybe we should treat condos differently than homes and tax them less since they clearly use much less resources and City services. Let's really look at this issue and who subsidizes who.

I am dead sure you will find that it is tenants who subsidize property owners, the poor that subsidize the rich and those who make wise, sustainable lifestyle choices that subsidize the self-centered homeowners of North Toronto. It makes one wonder if those from Lawrence and Bedford Park ever actually leave their neighbourhood to see how the rest of the City lives.

And it is clear why Jenkins and Stintz support development charges. It's obvious that they cannot identify places within the budget to save money (something both of them are normally quite bold about) and that they must agree that the City needs more money (even though Stintz is famous for her sorority-girl style rants about taxes) since both think charging more is a sensible plan. Clearly it is because they do not have to fear the reaction of homeowners (ie voters) since those who pay development charges don't live in the neighbourhood - yet.


My questions to Councillors Jenkins and Stintz are: Since new Condo owners pay municipal taxes that are the same as homeowners, how are homeowners subsidizing new Condo buyers to the tune of $40 to $50 Million? Are you saying that every new condo owner will get nearly 11,000 worth of new services in the neighbourhood they move into? Tell me then, with nearly 2500 units built in the Yonge/Eglinton over the last few years, what new major pieces of infrastructure (to the tune of 27.5 million) have been built in that area to accommodate new residents? Presumably if homeowners are 'subsidizing' condo buyers than at least that much
new infrastructure has been built there right? You see, to subsidize means that some have paid more for something than others.

I am going to record the vote on development charges and circulate it to every new condo built over the last 3 years to show new residents how their new Councillors welcomed them to the neighbourhood - with a bill for an additional $6,000 (added after their mortgage!) This is another tiny (massive actually) part of the ignorance shown by Councillors about the condo market. Many of the City's fees are imposed after the purchase and are added at closing, which then drives up either the mortgage or the closing costs depending on the buyer's arrangement.

The truth here is that trying to prop-up an unsustainable Operating Budget is actually looking to Condo builders and buyers to subsidize homeowners!!!! Get your economics straight Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Stintz - you'd think with all the Richie Riches the two of you represent you could find one brain that understands the concept of subsidies and the basics of economics.

At the end of the day, what Stintz and Jenkins and those other right-wingers are saying with this and their opposition to anything progressive is 'keep those people out of my neighbourhood. My nice White neighbourhood.' If they could put walls around North Toronto, they would have quite some time ago. They'll do it through zoning and if they fail there, they can just price us all out of the market. Genius. What a Healthy City that builds!

From Facebook Note: Hybrid Buses vs Local Food?

Here's another baffling story about Toronto City Hall and the environmental leadership being provided by Mayor Miller's team socialist. (I'm starting to understand Sue Ann Levy's frustration!)

So the TTC bought a whole bunch of Hybrid Electric Buses. Turns out they're not working as they should according to the agreement of Purchase and Sale. They are enjoying significantly less of a life span than they should, are breaking down and are only resulting in a 10 percent fuel savings. So the bright lights that be at the TTC are going to go back to buying dirty Diesel buses. (Guess Bombardier doesn't build the Hybrid-Electric buses?)

Meanwhile, a report coming through the process at Toronto City Hall recommends sourcing food for City programs from local producers. Aside from being just the latest in trendy green-washing (there are numerous studies that suggest that buying local produce is not always greener) this is an insult to most Torontonians who are struggling to pay bills in the face of an economic downturn. At a recent Council meeting, some genius on Council moved a motion that all food be sourced locally. They probably also wanted organic. I guess that's what you get from uneducated politicians who claim to have educational backgrounds they don't actually have. I dropped out of a University Astronomy Course once - can I please tell you how our Solar System works?

So, the report that City Staff has produced says that it will cost an additional $15,000 to provide food for Children's Services alone - that's not even one of the City's bigger food budgets but wait until this lunacy hits the Homes for The Aged and Shelter programs. I'm all for good nutrition but it starts at home - not at publicly-run charitable organizations when the City is broke!!!! Priorities people, priorities.

Now, what's really ironic is when you place these two programs against each other. Saying that the TTC's Hybrid Electric buses only reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent is an interesting piece of spin. Sure, if it was my personal vehicle, 10 percent wouldn't amount to that much. But we're actually talking about one of the biggest bus fleets in North America. Every budget year, the Mayor tells us that the City needs more money for, among other things, rising fuel costs. So to my mind, saving 10 percent is signficant, particularly when we don't get any rebate from the City when the cost of gas decreases as it is right now.

Here's Mayor Miller pushing a new package of increased user fees, increase property taxes and reduced services while trying to provide gourmet foods for people who would be happy with Campbell's Soup - produced locally but wonder if it qualifies under this program.

Any savings in energy or reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from buying local food for City programs (again, not a slam dunk) would be elapsed in about one day (total guess) when the TTC returns to dirty Diesel buses.

Seriously folks. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. And at the end of the day, are these buses not under warranty and is the City's contract not specified to ensure that these things work or that extensions will be granted, more buses delivered until they do work as promised?

What kind of investor does this? What companies switch horses mid-stream without fully knowing how that horse will perform in the long-run. And what is the cost of the 10 percent fuel savings?

I suspect they don't want the buses because Hybrid-Electric buses make a lot more sense than expensive, heavy, capital intensive, inefficient streetcars that Mayor Miller would like to buy from Bombardier for the next 100 years, leaving us either caught on a slow streetcar, with cars banished from our streets or choking in congestion behind brokendown streetcars. The TTC can also continue to provide it's brilliant short-turn services, kicking riders off prior to their last stop for 'operating efficiency."

And the TTC has the gaul to attack Metrolinx for thinking outside the box and looking at new solutions to our problems. To paraphrase Einstein; "You cannot solve the problems of today with the same thinking that created them." Come on TTC, it's not 1965 anymore.

Once again, I also have to ask what the Mayor meant when he said "Climate Change is the most serious challenge facing our generation" cause he clearly did not mean it as a call to action.

Trump's Esteem rises for Me

While he has not yet taken back his McCain endorsement, something the Donald just said to Wolf Blitzer causes me to take back my recent blog about him being less than smart. (in fact, I think he's crazy like a fox!)

"I was disappointed cause I thought Pelosi was going to go after Bush and impeach him." Blitzer: So you think the President should have been impeached? For what?
Trump: "For lying to us about the war. They impeached Clinton for something far less meaningful, in fact something meaningless."
Blitzer: "but they'll say based on the intelligence at the time..."
Trump: "Come on Wolf. I don't buy that. You don't buy that. You're too young and smart a guy to buy that."

That's a paraphrase. Trump went on to talk about how Iraq is screwed up and has been by Bush and the fact that the moment they leave, Iraq will collapse and Iran will fill the vacuum. He quite rightly pointed out that in fact, Saddam had been very harsh towards terrorists.

"The United States has been stupidly managed for the last 8 years."

Quelle Surprise! Rats on Spadina

So like many Toronto residents I've been entirely disgusted by the pictures and video of rats in the window at Lucky7 Chinese Restaurant on Spadina Avenue. The Public Health Department has done a sweep of Chinatown restaurants and closed a number of establishments under its licensing system and posted warnings on other establishments.

This is not a huge surprise to me. Spadina Avenue is disgusting. I love Kensington and I do understand the charm of the unkempt and true Asian feel of Spadina but for a long-time health standards have failed to meet our North American cultural requirements of cleanliness.

One only has to look in the gutters along Spadina south of College and in particular south of Baldwin, north of Dundas to see why we have the problems we do. While an erroneous CityTV report cited the location of the subway under Spadina (really?) I would imagine it has more to do with the amount of grease, blood and other viscous materials that are poured down local storm sewers. The sidewalks are permanently grease-stained as are the gutters. The gutters look like compost heaps at the worst of times. In the sweltering, humid heat of a Toronto summer the smell of rotting chicken is enough to make one gag.

So the City should feel very little compassion towards any of the businesses along Spadina. It's unfortunate too that some of the City's most impressive heritage assets line the streets of Spadina and Kensington. In bygone eras some planners might have suggested that the source of the best solution to this whole issue would be a match. Thankfully we've long since past that point and now appreciate the contribution that historic properties make to the character of our City and ourselves.

But for far too long, Politicians have struggled to solve this issue. The cleanliness issue is a symptom of a larger problem on Spadina. That problem is a general disrespect for the City and its rules. Parking laws are consistently violated to the point that unplated vehicles are used, drivers are on alert to vacate when parking enforcement comes around and the BIA has been forced to make ill-fated efforts to address this issue through private security firms. But it continues.

This issue will certainly test the mettle of City Councillor Adam Vaughan. His friends at City have so far not pinned him down on camera, preferring to go after Public Health Committee Chair John Filion. Toronto Public Health apparently failed to act after citizen complaints of rats until it was caught on video, though it is relatively difficult to prove rat infestation from visit-to-visit, at least to the point where a closure is ordered. However, this story is ill-timed as it comes on the heels of a negative story about the Lysterium outbreak.

This is where the Mayor needs to step in and reassure the public that its Health is in safe hands. Politically it would be wise for the Mayor to do a personal sweep of the businesses along Spadina. If I were his advisor, I'd get him out Guiliani-style, in full protective gear with a Task Force of Water/Wastewater, Public Health, Police, Fire, Buildings and Garbage Managers and Inspectors and private exterminators. They'd go door-to-door, inspecting kitchens, coolers, freezers, back alleys, grease and garbage bins.

And I'd get John Filion as far away from this issue as possible. We need toughness on this issue and Filion is simply ineffectual. The Mayor might also consider forming a task force, led by Councillor Vaughan with assistance from Councillor Lee (I do think a Chinese Councillor would help on this issue) and someone rather white from the rest of Toronto - a Cliff Jenkins or Mark Grimes type. This would give Vaughan a chance to shine, to introduce a new approach which he is very good at doing, it would allow Councillor Lee to establish contact and understanding (more than he may already have) with the downtown core and the issues of a downtown ward and a conservative would give the broader public the perception that this is a bi-partisan review, both culturally sensitive to the businesses but also respectful of the demands of the broader public for general cleanliness and a basic level of health standards.

As for CityTV, someone needs to tell Sue Scambati (I think that's who filed the report from Spadina yesterday) that the Spadina Subway runs up University south of Bloor, not under Spadina as she erroneously reported! While Subways can provide a breeding ground for rats, as reported by numerous residents in the neighbourhoods around Yonge Street, they are clearly not an issue in the case of Spadina. Unless there is a magic subway I've missed? Nothing like accuracy in reporting.

North York Council Madness

Well, Tuesday October 7th will go down as a day that lunacy reigned at City Hall - or at least at North York Civic Centre.

A group of disgruntled City Councillors from North York voted to name a street "OMB Folly" in response to an OMB-approved development. John Filion, the NIMBYest of all Councillors, a lefty only by affiliation made the motion over a development in his own ward. Surely this is a low-point in his career, though we haven't seen yet how he will mangle any new policies for food carts! Mr. Filion constantly complains about the traffic that infiltrates North York City Centre everyday but doesn't make the connection between more compact urban development and higher transit use. I think you'll agree this is an interesting position for a New Democrat.

This vote may have been one of the single-biggest indicators of why Toronto City Council ought not to have authority over individual development approvals. Every single City Councillor, with the possible exception of Kyle Rae who is too pro-development, acts in a NIMBY-like manner when it comes to development in their Ward. Some Councillors act in a NIMBY manner about development anywhere in the City of Toronto which is at least consistent.

The worst offenders though are those who perpetrate hypocrisy and my favourite, intellectual dishonesty. These Councillors tend to support big ideas and big moves, higher transit priority and intensification - as stated in our Official Plan but then actively oppose development in their ward. The Right wing of Council is not without their own issues when it comes to the day-to-day application of private property rights, de-regulation and the interests of private capital on their constituents - they support free markets except in housing and development. There is also tremendous political pressure on bureaucrats and planners to write reports and to make recommendations that will be safe and that Council will adopt.

Don't get me wrong. I support a clear zoning by-law that regulates the size/shape and use of properties. But I also don't think Zoning is ever cast in stone and that non-conforming developments can be accepted based on other considerations such as quality of architecture and design. Part of the problem in Toronto is that the Official Plan was adopted before any attempt was made to create a new, unified Zoning By-law with numbers that were updated to reflect the realities on the ground. For instance, Forest Hill's zoning at .35 lot coverage does not reflect the fact that most homes are at .57 x lot area. This creates a almost automatic need for Committee of Adjustment and/or Zoning reviews and automatically causes the angst of neighbours.

There are too many issues about Urban Planning and its legal framework, how it fits with capitalism, private property rights, natural law and the entire basis of zoning (actually an elitist attempt to keep the wrong people out of various areas in England where it was conceived) to the impacts of the entire system on property values, speculation and the orderly development of a City for this blog to explain. Plus, I am not an urban planner but have formed an opinion based on my experience in front and behind the scenes in development approval. The public cannot be expected to understand all of these underlying principles or the play between their various supporters. Developers will always push for the freest market possible. Homeowners will always fear change in their neighbourhoods and a vocal minority will generally lead an opposition. And politics does nothing but further confuse the issues and rather than constructively engage people it creates animosity about something that should be considered positive: growth and intensification

Here are some conclusions I have made: Happy people don't call City Hall to complain. A significant number of people less than a majority of people call City Hall. Therefore, particularly with respect to Toronto's growth, most people are fairly happy or indifferent. And given the rate that most new condo projects sell at, the market is further stating to Council that it is mostly positive about new developments.

People disconnect their own theory/belief when it comes to change in their neighbourhood. Why else would free market conservatives, home-ownership supporting liberals and/or some tenants-rights activists oppose many of these developments? New supply means cheaper rents and home prices, a free market encourages the growth of private capital. All of us believe in rational and good government but many of us believe that means "I get my way." They forget that Minto's Skyscrapers are directly related to their own ability to propose and get approval for a much-needed home renovation. Somehow the wealthier the land-owner or the bigger their property, the less right they should have to question blanket zoning by-laws that treat all properties similarly regardless of their individual characteristics or local context.

Without knowing it, Torontonians generally become supporters of a Soviet-style central decision making regime where plans for the use of capital and assets, i.e. the means of production, are made by City Hall bureaucrats. Most people would consider those fighting words but I've long argued that this is the real world application of political theory and you cannot disconnect the two! They may not like to be called that but that is exactly what they support - if they don't understand that, it is time to do some reading. I suggest starting with John Locke, some Marx, perhaps some Adam Smith...

I'm rambling. To get back to my central point - Politicians are in a lose/lose situation with regards to development approval and ought to divest themselves of authority for individual decisions while setting the broader policy context. In fact, that is what we elect them to do, not to review building plans or the location of driveways to new developments. The current system works on conflict of interest and deal-making, whether that's with NIMBY voters or secretly pro-development colleagues on Council. Some people think this is about contributions to candidates and lobbying rules but that is very simplistic. This is about politicians sheltering the public from the tough decisions. It's about the fact that Laws and Sausages are two things the public shouldn't see being made.


This is why a Vancouver-model, with exactly the kind of broad-policy oversight I mention above is set by Councillors while day-to-day decisions are made by experts and others in the development field through peer review. This preserves the integrity of their decision-making process; something that all City Councillors would benefit from.

It is clear to me that the OMB system is broken and for bringing that to our attention yet again Councillor Filion has done us all a service. However, when one fails to achieve anything constructive and sings the same tune, does not adapt his approach, change strategy, one has to worry about the effectiveness of that politician. I imagine most developers know well the records of local Councillors and their chance of a reasonable and open discussion about local change and those who will drive even the most modest changes to the OMB.

Unfortunately, Mr. Filion is also being somewhat less than honest with the public. The City of Toronto currently has Legislative Powers to reform many of its processes for building and zoning reviews, particularly with respect to the Committee of Adjustment set-up. The Provincial Government has at least expressed an interest in giving more authority to the City of Toronto in a de-politicized process.

Consider too that Councillor Filion supported appeals against the City of Toronto’s new plan. This is one of those odd prerogatives that Councillors enjoy – to oppose the Corporation whose by-laws they are sworn to uphold. Does it then make sense that after Council has made a decision – by the majority, that a minority can assist aggrieved homeowners Associations in holding up that By-law from taking effect? In this instance it was the City’s Official Plan. Councillors have funded fights against their own Urban Planners. What kind of use of Tax Dollars is that? Either fire them for giving bad planning advice or take their professional advice. Reports can be questioned in Council after all.

Furthermore, this Administration with the tacit support of Councillor Filion has completely failed to follow-up on former Chief Planner Paul Bedford’s directions that a new Zoning By-law be written within 5-years of the adoption of the new Official Plan. It has identified money as a central issue of course.

But this petty decision, to throw sand across the sandbox at the Dirty Rotten Developer is not only a sad reflection on our politics and our politicians but on our own ability to accept the organic and unorganized growth of a vibrant City. After all, how did John Filion’s constituents get their homes in the first place? Were they always there or at some point did a developer not apply to break some rules, create some new ones - it used to be farmland at Yonge/Sheppard after all!

The attitude is, I got here first - go find your own Greenfield to ruin! It is far past the point where we address the suburban growth patterns that make us entirely susceptible to an economic collapse fueled by higher carbon-based energy prices.

At the end of the day we need OMB Reform to remove the adversarial approach but we also need a substitute appeal mechanism separate from City Council. Council needs to update its Zoning By-law to be in conformity with the goals of the new Official Plan. Lastly, Council should create peer review and other panels to make decisions about individual development applications after they have set the broader policy context.