2023 Toronto Mayoral by-election

[No Vacancy]

I have to agree with you. Many of chows "revolutionary plans" have been tried in new York, san francisco, los Angeles, Portland, or every city with massive issues in right now. As much as Some people don't like Furey I see that he is the best positioned to lead Toronto. Saunders is a Doug ford ally and someone who would never tell him no which think is a big problem for a mayor. Look at Ontario place, imagine if we had a mayor to tell Doug Ford no (Matlow would also be good for this). Furey really isn't that radical, he really is fairly progressive. He just uses common sense. If you listen to him not just yell at him you find he is fairly pro cycling (unlike Saunders). He also notices the insane congestion on streets like university and Bloor where cyclists could easily be directed on side roads, but instead we choose to make our streets more dangerous and congested. His plan to treat homelessness is also the most logical. Drugs are the core problem and if we do not offer proper treatment, these people will never escape their drug addictions and continue to sleep on the streets. Go watch the cp24 debate. The most calm and respectful person on stage was Anthony. He isn't perfect, but he has the best plan to lead Toronto.

I agree with you about Furey 100% but he appears to be fading in his support with time running out. I don't find anything he has to say remotely radical. The most radical candidates are Chow and Matlow, by far.

 

[Towered]

Seeing Thug have a conniption over the mere thought of a "lefty" like Chow becoming mayor warms the cockles of my black heart. Though I'm still inclined to vote for Matlow, I might just switch to Chow out of spite for that buffoon.

 

[christiesplits]

I think what gets Chow across the finish line on Monday is the lack of a consensus anti-Chow candidate.

Among centrist/centre-right types, it’s Bailao.

Among right wingers, it’s Saunders or Furey.

 

[JGHali]

I'm merely trying to maximize the return on my investment for my stakeholders. I assume you do the same with your investments? rental suites, Apple shares, gold, art, bitcoin, baseball cards, watches, etc. Investors are looking for a return on their investments. That generates enormous tax revenue to the state.

Sure, that’s what investing is all about. I don’t assume that my investments occur outside regulatory environments and, of course, politics. I also mainly stick to the index. And pay a six figure tax bill annually.

The landlord tenant relationship is governed by a voluntary contract entered into by both parties evenly. There is no coercion. Managing rental property is a full time job for any manager and provides a great deal of investment and productivity for the region through non stop maintenance, repair and capital work. Regulation is immoral. It is essentially a taking of private property rights.

The landlord-tenant relationship is governed by provincial legislation. There are bad tenants and bad landlords. There’s lots of coercion and bad behaviour. You are not presenting serious arguments and honestly just making stuff up. Regulation is “immoral”? Law is “immoral” then? This is just 16-year-old level fact free Libertarian nonsense.

That's right- she can't change rent control but she can use her role as mayor to make the eviction of bad tenants harder. That in turn makes life drastically worse for good tenants- the ones who pay and don't disturb others. She will create the most toxic environment possible and cause widespread harm.

Where is she planning on making evictions of bad tenants harder? You’re making stuff up.

Furey and Sanders are the least bad candidates. Pick whichever one you feel has the greatest chance of winning. Neither is impressive I agree but the city cannot afford 2+ years of a dangerous Chow. She will turn us into a mini San Fran without the ocean and nicer weather.

Furey has no relevant experience and is just a dog whistle for right-wing pet projects, like the evils of bike lanes. Saunders presided over a criminally incompetent serial killer investigation.

 

[Northern Light]

I have to agree with you. Many of chows "revolutionary plans" have been tried in new York, san francisco, los Angeles, Portland, or every city with massive issues in right now. As much as Some people don't like Furey I see that he is the best positioned to lead Toronto. Saunders is a Doug ford ally and someone who would never tell him no which think is a big problem for a mayor.....

Revolutionary? Whoa...... no free passes on the use of that word, spell out exactly which campaign promises merit that appellation and provide evidence in support of same, please.

In respect of vacancy de-control; the comparison to SF is inapt.

I'll explain why; what is noted is that when SF went to full rent control that many landlords converted their buildings to condos to circumvent this........

However, in Toronto that is already prohibited. You simply can't eliminate rental housing w/o rebuilding it, and offering it at essentially the same rent as was previously the case (for buildings with six or more units) As such there is no material risk of a comparable outcome.

I'm not advocating one way or the other on the vacancy de-control question, nor am I Chow's defender; rather, I would like to see speech stay reasonable, well-evidenced and fair; as opposed to hyperbolic. That is equally true whether one's inclinations lean right or left or somewhere in between.

I agree with you about Furey 100% but he appears to be fading in his support with time running out. I don't find anything he has to say remotely radical. The most radical candidates are Chow and Matlow, by far.

Again, radical is a very extreme word; it cannot be used by a reasonable person without citing those specific policy proposals you deem to be radical and providing evidence to support the claim that that is a reasonable descriptor.

 

[Northern Light]

One other note on the issue of vacancy de-control, Chow cannot implement it as the law stands today. She can only advocate for it with the province.

Since Doug Ford chose to eliminate vacancy rent control (implemented de-control) it would seem unlikely that a Chow mayoralty will change much on this front.

 

[concrete_and_light]

He also notices the insane congestion on streets like university and Bloor where cyclists could easily be directed on side roads, but instead we choose to make our streets more dangerous and congested.

Please specify what possible realistic parallel cycling route to Bloor you're talking about. It doesn't exist.

Bloor needs to be made safe to cyclists no matter what. All our streets need to be because people need to travel on them regardless even if parallel routes exist in some places (food delivery, local travel, going to and from places on that street, people who live and work there). But Bloor and many of our major streets don't have viable parallel routes because of how the city was built. I'd love it if they did, but they don't.

If you think you have an idea of how it could be done I'd be interested in specifics.

This idea that parallel routes can solve it is just not reality and is simplistic wishful thinking about a fantasy version of the city that is laid out completely different and an alternative simplistic policy answer that doesn't grapple with the details of the map of the city but sounds reasonable. Viable parallel routes do not exist because of how the street network was built. We just don't have a lot of east west routes in particular outside of our major corridors. It's mostly long north/south blocks in between major roads. And the ones we do have don't connect very well.

 

[zang]

I'm merely trying to maximize the return on my investment for my stakeholders. I assume you do the same with your investments? rental suites, Apple shares, gold, art, bitcoin, baseball cards, watches, etc. Investors are looking for a return on their investments. That generates enormous tax revenue to the state.

And "investors" would buy up all the food in a grocery store if they felt they could legally make a profit reselling it.

You think you're providing a service?

"Rental investors" have driven the cost of living up dramatically in this city.

I have many other words I can use that I won't use here. Let's just say I think there's a lot of greed in most landlords.

The landlord tenant relationship is governed by a voluntary contract entered into by both parties evenly. There is no coercion. Managing rental property is a full time job for any manager and provides a great deal of investment and productivity for the region through non stop maintenance, repair and capital work. Regulation is immoral. It is essentially a taking of private property rights.

Immoral is buying up free stock of the human right to housing in order to make a cozy profit.

Furey and Sanders are the least bad candidates. Pick whichever one you feel has the greatest chance of winning. Neither is impressive I agree but the city cannot afford 2+ years of a dangerous Chow. She will turn us into a mini San Fran without the ocean and nicer weather.

I will relish her win, even if she wasn't my initial choice.

 

[afransen]

How do you figure? Unaffordable rents are just as bad for “mobility”.

Unaffordable market rents are the flip side of rent control. If people are unwilling to leave rent controlled apartments, liquidity is lower in the rental market and there are fewer available units being chased by prospective renters. And new supply is less likely to be added if the expected returns are depressed by the prospect of long tenancies with below-market rent increases.

 

[Towered]

He also notices the insane congestion on streets like university and Bloor where cyclists could easily be directed on side roads, but instead we choose to make our streets more dangerous and congested.

Please. Bloor has had "insane" congestion forever. I remember my parents frequently taking me downtown in the 80's, often using Bloor, and it was almost always stop and go traffic, decades before anyone even dreamed of putting a bike lane there.

Stop spouting ignorant nonsense. Cars and 80 years of city policies catering to them are the sole causes of congestion.

 

[picard102]

As it stands today with extremely low turnover of units landlords are simply not recovering their annual cost increases

They should sell then.

Landlords are having to eat that cost and accept a lower profit or a loss in many cases and all operating costs have skyrocketed along with inflation.

Good. Investor landlords are immoral.

Does Apple have a price cap on the cost of an iphone? How about Rogers? Loblaws? Air Canada?

Only one of those sells something that's a basic necessity.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Seeing Thug have a conniption over the mere thought of a "lefty" like Chow becoming mayor warms the cockles of my black heart.

That’s why I voted for Chow. She’s may be a disaster or may be fine. I voted to piss off Doug.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Good. Investor landlords are immoral.

Isn’t every landlord an investor? You don’t do it to lose money.

 

[zang]

Isn’t every landlord an investor? You don’t do it to lose money.

No, no.

Home owners make investments. Investors think spending money is the same as working.

 

[afransen]

No, no.

Home owners make investments. Investors think spending money is the same as working.

So renting should be abolished?