News   Nov 04, 2024
Catching Up on Two Years of Construction at Topped-Off Leaside Commons
 476     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
UrbanToronto Launches New Map Experience – Explore New Features Today!
 729     4 
News   Nov 04, 2024
13 Storeys Proposed on The Queensway East of Kipling
 912     1 

2014 Municipal Election: Toronto Mayoral Race

A question about Porter and the mayoral candidates - Ford ('yes'), Tory ('skeptical') and Chow ('no jets') have their positions. Given that the vote will now go to council in 2015, does their position even matter given they have one vote? We could see no jets even if Ford is reelected, or jets even if Chow is elected. Am I off base here?
 
John Tory showed his ignorance on public transit. See link. Better than Rob Ford or Karen Stintz, but not as good as the others. I'll go with Chow as my first choice, with Soknacki as my second choice, for knowledge on transit.

John made this comment:
We’ll have to rebuild the LRT in 35 years, Tory says. Not so with a subway.
Click to expand...

Steve Munro, at this link, responded with this:
Steve: John Tory is full of crap, or at least those who advise him are. The subway will need new cars in 30 years, new track in 25-30, replacement of escalators and elevators in 25-30, new ventillation, lighting, etc, in 30-40, tunnel repairs on an ongoing basis to deal with leaks. Many of these have no equivalent for LRT unless we put it underground like the subway.This is a favourite comparison that has been used by the likes of Ford and Stintz to downplay LRT while ignoring the fact that if we build on the surface, we avoid huge capital costs for precisely those parts of a subway that must be built to last because they are so hard to replace. Remember all the parts of the existing subway system that are being rebuilt, or which don’t work very well today because they are too old.
Click to expand...
 
It all depends how persuasive they are. Some will vote to support their mayor (ok, maybe not so much in Ford's case) and some will vote the opposite of the mayor on general principle. Politics is a game -- some could be "persuaded" to vote one way or another in return for support on another issue. Some councillors (McConnell, Vaughan, Layton) will never vote to support jets. Depending who gets elected, it will be interesting to see which way the wind will blow; for most wards, I doubt it will be an election issue.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Sheesh, prone to drama much? Lack of planning on transportation is not a disaster. Go ahead and tell the people of Fukushima Prefecture, New Orleans (Katrina) and Indonesia et al (2005 Tsunami) that having an ineffective oaf for a mayor is a disaster.
Click to expand...

You should write Ford's campaign ads. Vote Ford: I may have done harm to the city, but it's not as bad as the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, so get over it.
 
Ok. The reasons I asked is I know (somewhat embarrassingly) of two people who won't vote for Chow because of this issue, and would actually vote for Ford because of it! I'm still undecided (won't be voting for Robbie) but I feel must do my part to persuade as many people to an 'anybody but Ford' mentality.
 
Silence&Motion said:
You should write Ford's campaign ads. Vote Ford: I may have done harm to the city, but it's not as bad as the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, so get over it.
Click to expand...

Get a sign on Trinity Bellwoods with that STAT!

4 years of Ford was horrendous. Thankfully we don't have strong mayorship like some cities in the States, it could have been even worse.
 
Tell them to vote for Tory or Stintz as part of the anyone-but-Ford approach. Either one of them is liable to flip flop at any time on the airport issue :)
 
Southcore said:
A question about Porter and the mayoral candidates - Ford ('yes'), Tory ('skeptical') and Chow ('no jets') have their positions. Given that the vote will now go to council in 2015, does their position even matter given they have one vote? We could see no jets even if Ford is reelected, or jets even if Chow is elected. Am I off base here?
Click to expand...

There are a few things in play here. First, the mayor appoints the committees, so they could decide whether and in what form the airport issue gets put on council's agenda.

Second, a lot of the undecided councilors might look to the mayoral vote for cover one way or the other. Miller's election was seen as a plebiscite against airport expansion, and Ford's election was a seen as a plebiscite against the VRT, and council felt justified in voting with the mayors on both issues.

Third, the mayor is really the only person who can build consensus around a single agenda (within council and among staff). Under Miller, the Waterfront Toronto plan became a rallying point for everyone involved. There were a few voices of dissent, but in general most of City Hall was on board. Ford had something that resembled an agenda in the few months after his election (finding efficiencies, cutting taxes, etc), but it fell apart very quickly and ever since council has basically been a free-for-all. A more competent pro-airport mayor might be on the phone with councilors, the Toronto Port Authority, and Porter, and attempt to come up with a plan that would expand the airport while addressing people's worst fears. Ford is never in front of the agenda like this. All he is capable of is knee-jerk reactions, which council just ignores.
 
W. K. Lis said:
John Tory showed his ignorance on public transit. See link. Better than Rob Ford or Karen Stintz, but not as good as the others. I'll go with Chow as my first choice, with Soknacki as my second choice, for knowledge on transit.

John made this comment:

Steve Munro, at this link, responded with this:
Click to expand...

I'd still rather have Tory or Stintz or anybody else influence transit decisions than Ford.

At least Tory admitted that Finch doesn't justify a subway, which puts him way above Ford.

When Ford tried to cancel the Eglinton line (and leave nothing there), Stintz prevented that.

I'm not saying either is perfect, I'm just saying they're much better than Ford.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Sheesh, prone to drama much? Lack of planning on transportation is not a disaster. Go ahead and tell the people of Fukushima Prefecture, New Orleans (Katrina) and Indonesia et al (2005 Tsunami) that having an ineffective oaf for a mayor is a disaster.
Click to expand...

The word "disaster" can be used to mean many different things. It doesn't necessarily have to mean "cataclysmic natural event". This thread is about municipal politics, so it's all relative. Especially Doug. In that context, he's the worst relative.

I don't think it's hyperbole by any means to call Ford a disaster of a Mayor.
 
SecretSquirrel said:
The word "disaster" can be used to mean many different things. It doesn't necessarily have to mean "cataclysmic natural event". This thread is about municipal politics, so it's all relative. Especially Doug. In that context, he's the worst relative.

I don't think it's hyperbole by any means to call Ford a disaster of a Mayor.
Click to expand...

To some people, this is what a "disaster" looks like: http://goo.gl/maps/fHJRA
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top