News   Jul 24, 2024
 432     1 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 964     1 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 608     0 

Greenbelt developments

There were issues prior to 4 years ago, but the mismatch between population growth and new housing builds has been significantly worse in the past 4 years. I think the rise in unaffordability was actually worse in the smaller Ontario cities like Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Hamilton, Niagara Region, Brantford, Barrie, London, where unaffordability is a more recent problem, whereas in Toronto it's been getting gradually worse since the mid 00s.
The issues were only exasperated and made worse by Covid-19 and the subsequent massive inflation we've been seeing during the recovery period. People have been banging at the door for years screaming there were problems with the housing market, and the government chose to ignore it. Unfortunately they were too stupid and preoccupied by other things to realize it until now. That doesnt mean the issues just all of a sudden cropped up.

The problems are being felt by smally cities because people are being pushed out from Toronto into those markets which you listed, and a lot of those cities weren't building at a level which could absorb that rapid growth. Thus, the prices shot up in those areas dramatically.
 
Also a reason why the Conservatives (provincial and federal) do not like the CBC, and why some like to reduce funding to the CBC.

Ditto for some mild-mannered reporters at great metropolitan newspapers.
lol I'm not a big C conservative but I support defunding the CBC. We don't need activism masquerading as journalism poisoning the public sphere for $1.5 billion a year.
 
lol I'm not a big C conservative but I support defunding the CBC. We don't need activism masquerading as journalism poisoning the public sphere for $1.5 billion a year.

Interesting language you're using here - "poisoning". Investigative journalism is a thing since day one - and if not in this case, where?

AoD
 
yeah? edit: it's the impression one gets seeing article after article of rather one sided/slanted coverage. Pretty clear by now.
 
On this issue, sure. I don't support giving the greenbelt to developers.

But I will say I'm not enamored with the other side either. CBC has the occasional good article, but the signal to noise ratio has worsened over time. This is a real problem, but is lost in the drama when things like the greenbelt rezoning occur.

And as I keep yammering on, the significant role of the federal government is often overlooked in causing the housing problem. Again lost in the noise when the province pulls a boneheaded move like this.
 
lol I'm not a big C conservative but I support defunding the CBC. We don't need activism masquerading as journalism poisoning the public sphere for $1.5 billion a year.

I completely disagree with defunding the CBC.

Lets start there.

Without digressing too far from the topic of this thread, let me point out that CBC is a French Radio Network, a French TV network and a French news channel which collectively represent about 40% of that 1.5B

Lets add that CBC Radio One is simply the best radio out there in Canada at the moment, bar none, and is commercial free. The quality soars above it competitors.

Radio 2 and 3 likewise offer music that you simply wouldn't find in any quantity, on terrestrial radio, from Classical, to Jazz to Reggae to innovative independent artists.

The balance, which funds CBC English TV and Internet funds Drama, Comedy, Arts and Variety, National and local news; the portion of the 1.5B devoted to 'activist' journalism is well less than 1%.

The CBC is the least funded public broadcaster among Anglo countries on a per capita basis, far less than Australia's pubcaster, and a small fraction of what goes to BBC.

****

To return this to the fundamental issue of the thread.............. why would you advocate for vapid journalism with journalists who parrot news releases without providing insight, analysis or context?

I've always thought you were better than that.

The government deserves to be smoked over this issue, its handling of which is illogical, contrary to the public interest, contradicting their own past public statements and the whole thing reeks.

I want journalists who won't abide that for 60s; they ought to ask Why? Who Benefits?, Why now? Will this achieve what is stated? Is it worth it if it does?

I applaud the CBC for their activism on this file, and I would cut funding to any broadcaster that didn't practice journalism this way.
 
Last edited:
On this issue, sure. I don't support giving the greenbelt to developers.

But I will say I'm not enamored with the other side either. CBC has the occasional good article, but the signal to noise ratio has worsened over time. This is a real problem, but is lost in the drama when things like the greenbelt rezoning occur.

And as I keep yammering on, the significant role of the federal government is often overlooked in causing the housing problem. Again lost in the noise when the province pulls a boneheaded move like this.

Tell me about all the journalism on the private owned CTV network about Federal policy's adverse effects on housing prices? I'm waiting............

*Crickets*

The Globe and Mail?, Global News? That's right, no one is touching it; not a problem unique to CBC.
 
I never said it was unique to CBC. CBC came up in the context of Walter's post. That's what I was responding to. To me, this situation is very much "pottle calling the kettle black" when the CBC is held up as a paragon for keeping dirty government accountable. Absolutely yes to the latter, but let's not idolize the source because its own slant is often part of the problem.

And then you get posts like Walter's which further muddle and conflate the issues.

I happen to think most media are fundamentally broken because they are 1) activists masquerading as journalists on both sides 2) rely on advertising dollars, 3) use clickbait for attention 4) appeal to the lowest common denominator on both left and right. Social media has further exacerbated the problem with the most extreme views getting the most attention.

I regularly shake my head/fist at the stupidity published in the National Compost, Globe, etc. And I've got a good track record of statements here that I see the problem as crossing party/ideological lines.

The balance, which funds CBC English TV and Internet funds Drama, Comedy, Arts and Variety, National and local news; the portion of the 1.5B devoted to 'activist' journalism is well less than 1%.
The dollar amount on activism is not the issue. The issue is the activist slant informing much of the reporting across the entire platform, at least for the news section.
 
Last edited:
I happen to think most media are fundamentally broken because they are 1) activists masquerading as journalists on both sides

I think we may differ here fundamentally on what journalism is; I oppose one-sided cheerleading, or reporting that omits facts unfavourable to one's ideological or partisan viewpoint; but I absolutely think journalists should have a view point; "Truth to Power" ; holding those who hold power, politically or otherwise to account.

2) rely on advertising dollars,

Eliminating advertising is a great idea, that will be 400M added to CBC's budget.

3) use clickbait for attention

Agreed, it happens, they aren't BlogTO, LOL, but it happens more than it should.

4) appeal to the lowest common denominator on both left and right. Social media has further exacerbated the problem with the most extreme views getting the most attention.

I regularly shake my head/fist at the stupidity published in the National Compost, Globe, etc. And I've got a good track record of statements here that I see the problem as crossing party/ideological lines.

Don't get me wrong, I agree there's plenty of room for quality improvement; I'm just not clear on how de-funding CBC achieves that.

The dollar amount on activism is not the issue. The issue is the activist slant informing much of the reporting across the entire platform, at least for the news section.

The dollar amount is the issue when you say 'de-fund'; that's money we're talking about, and de-funding cancels everything, it cancels music, kids programs, local tv in remote areas, drama, comedy, news, sports all of it. You want to de-fund all that over how 1% of the money is spent? That would seem to define the term 'over-reaction'.

***

Also let's take a look at what CBC News home page is leading with right now, and see how click-bait or bias the headlines read:

1668374772220.png


So far, not overly partisan or ideological to me. Not uber-click-baitey......what's below that?

1668374874202.png


A bit too much human-interest flotsum for my taste, but only the refugee headline could really read as having any sort of policy agenda to it, and even then, that's not a given, it could merely
be more human interest, but arguably its purpose to make people feel good about refugees being admitted to Canada; but I can't say that's a bad thing per se.

****

One more for good measure, going straight down the page in order:

1668375076032.png




I don't think this represents what you suggest to any great degree.

That's not to suggest there aren't material areas of quality improvement required; but you make their journalism sound like toxic waste, that doesn't seem to be born out in cursory examination.
 
Last edited:
Sigh.............Ford's Minion, Minister Clark is at it again.........

In an article just published in The Star, it starts with a potentially innocuous or not so innocuous suggestion that regional governments around the GTA may see some additional or different responsibilities....

But then.........we get this towards the end of the article:

1668616375144.png


This would allow development all over class 1, and 2 farm land and would cost us the green corridor that links Rouge Park to the Greenwood Conservation lands further east. Unfathomably terrible policy.

 
Last edited:
I think if Ford pushed for these and all future developments to be dense housing with railed transit hubs and links, forever breaking the car-dependency even the most green Ontarian may be persuaded. But why would anyone support taking away green spaces to inefficiently house perhaps a few hundred families on sprawling lots?
 

Back
Top