News   Jul 19, 2024
 132     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 366     0 
News   Jul 18, 2024
 1.2K     2 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
The skydome eventually will have real grass put in and that will eliminate the Argos from using the facility. Either way they will need a new stadium. I hope a mirrored version of the TFC stadium could be built beside it. If a NFL stadium is going to be built it will be in combination with an Olympic bid.
First, no government will pay for an NFL-ready stadium for an NFL team that doesn't exist, Olympics or not.

Second, the Argos will be evicted from the dome if the Jays/Rogers decide to install grass (no decision has been made yet) owing to the fact that the 100-level seats will no longer be able to be shifted around with a permanent grass field. Ford typically shot off his mouth after seeing Winnipeg's new stadium, but there will very likely be a debate over pubic funding (full or partial) for a new stadium if the Argos are forced out of the dome. If the idea of another publicly funded stadium bothers anyone here, I suggest voicing your displeasure by writing to the Jays, Rogers, and your local Councillor and MPP.

The irony of this potential eviction is that the whole idea of building a dome originated with the Argos, the 1982 Grey Cup, and Premier Bill Davis, an avid Argo fan.
 
The real problem is that the Argos have an awful average attendance of around ~20,000 and play only 8(!) home games a year. That on a year when they win the damn thing!

A terrible team like TFC on the other hand plays something like 20-25 home games any given season with an average attendance of ~20,000 people while finishing at the bottom of the table.

If the Argos were such an important institution to Torontonians, they would be filling up the stadium 8 times a year and wouldn't risk being evicted by Rogers.

That said, I favour letting them continue to use the skydome even if it means the absence of real grass.
 
On the Queen car this afternoon (re-routed between Church & Spadina, I wish I had have known) two younger, twenty-something hipster dudes behind me were talking, it went like this (not a joke): Hipster dude #1 - "Katherine and I were over at the old Maple Leaf Gardens last week, do you know that Rob Ford turned that into a shopping mall"? Hipster dude #2 - "He's such a [expletives here]". So much for smart "downtown elites" that Fraud Nation likes to believe populates the downtown.
 
On the Queen car this afternoon (re-routed between Church & Spadina, I wish I had have known) two younger, twenty-something hipster dudes behind me were talking, it went like this (not a joke): Hipster dude #1 - "Katherine and I were over at the old Maple Leaf Gardens last week, do you know that Rob Ford turned that into a shopping mall"? Hipster dude #2 - "He's such a [expletives here]". So much for smart "downtown elites" that Fraud Nation likes to believe populates the downtown.

Though at least unlike Fraud Nation, they aren't being egged on by the anti-Frauds on Council, etc...
 
On the Queen car this afternoon (re-routed between Church & Spadina, I wish I had have known) two younger, twenty-something hipster dudes behind me were talking, it went like this (not a joke): Hipster dude #1 - "Katherine and I were over at the old Maple Leaf Gardens last week, do you know that Rob Ford turned that into a shopping mall"? Hipster dude #2 - "He's such a [expletives here]". So much for smart "downtown elites" that Fraud Nation likes to believe populates the downtown.

A couple of suits were talking about the Scarborough LRT/Subway issue and were just vomiting nonsense left-and-right. They equated the LRT to the St. Clair Street car.

I fully support mandated testing on the issues before giving a ballot to a potential voter, at all levels of government. I don't care how undemocratic it is. The "right to vote" empowers the stupid and lazy.
 
A couple of suits were talking about the Scarborough LRT/Subway issue and were just vomiting nonsense left-and-right. They equated the LRT to the St. Clair Street car.

I fully support mandated testing on the issues before giving a ballot to a potential voter, at all levels of government. I don't care how undemocratic it is. The "right to vote" empowers the stupid and lazy.

I blame the media for not challenging robbie and douggie's idiot claims harder, or in the case of the Sun actively abetting his campaign of lies and misinformation.
 
A couple of suits were talking about the Scarborough LRT/Subway issue and were just vomiting nonsense left-and-right. They equated the LRT to the St. Clair Street car.

I fully support mandated testing on the issues before giving a ballot to a potential voter, at all levels of government. I don't care how undemocratic it is. The "right to vote" empowers the stupid and lazy.

Here's an even better idea: Remove politicians from office for lying and ban them from running again. Make it a three strikes rule. If there are three or more instances of a politician lying to or misleading the public or being purposely ignorant (like our mayor), you get removed from public office and are banned from running for five years.

I'm not joking. People can be thrown in jail for lying to police. Why not the same for politicians who are lying to the public? That is arguably a much worse crime.

They have a similar law in the UK, but it hasn't been enforced in a century. But all it takes to get a lying politician removed from office is a private citizen to being them to court (similar to the Ford conflict of interest case).

This wouldn't be unconstitutional either. It would be considered a reasonable limit of section 2 of our Charter rights.
 
Last edited:
Here's an even better idea: Remove politicians from office for lying and ban them from running again. Make it a three strikes rule. If there are three or more instances of a politician lying to or misleading the public or being purposely ignorant (like our mayor), you get removed from public office and are banned from running for five years.

I'm not joking. People can be thrown in jail for lying to police. Why not the same for politicians who are lying to the public? That is arguably a much worse crime.

They have a similar law in the UK, but it hasn't been enforced in a century. But all it takes to get a lying politician removed from office is a private citizen to being them to court (similar to the Ford conflict of interest case).

This wouldn't be unconstitutional either. It would be considered a reasonable limit of section 2 of our Charter rights.

I have a personal rule of 2 chances, 3 chances are to much, and we are dealing with professionals, and professionals who like to pass the buck.

Besides, 3 strikes and your out is to much like base ball, Ford would like that too much. :)
 
Earlier this week, Rob Ford was painting curbs red. Around the same time, the new low-floor streetcars made their daytime debut. Believe it not, I think Rob Ford was actually helping streetcars with the painting photo op.

curb01-500x375.jpg


Except if snow windrows are present, the red curbs will be an excellent asset for the new streetcars. There is supposed to be no standing at streetcar and bus stops. No standing means vehicles can only stop to let out or let in passengers, no parking for anything else.

curb03-500x375.jpg


The 30+m red painted curbs should be located (initially) at streetcar stops. Now, no more excuses for parking where streetcars stop because they will see red. Next step, towing the selfish parking offenders who will ignore even that.

So, Rob Ford has actually supported streetcars by showing where it is illegal to park, especially at streetcar stops.

Next, bus stops.
 

Attachments

  • curb01-500x375.jpg
    curb01-500x375.jpg
    60 KB · Views: 356
  • curb03-500x375.jpg
    curb03-500x375.jpg
    65.2 KB · Views: 402
Overheard a pair of non-hipster hosers in the park yesterday:

GUY 1 "Well, ya gotta admit that Rob ford got a lot of people interested in municipal politics"
GUY 2 "Yeah, but it's all fuckin' polarized!"
GUY 1 "And now he wants a football stadium."
GUY 2 "We've GOT a stadium! And who fuckin' paid for it? And then it got sold."
GUY 1 "Why can't they build a stadium without our tax money?"
 
I have a personal rule of 2 chances, 3 chances are to much, and we are dealing with professionals, and professionals who like to pass the buck.

Besides, 3 strikes and your out is to much like base ball, Ford would like that too much. :)

Don't call them strikes, call them downs. Our mayor is a big fan of 3-down Canadian Rules Football, after all.
 
First, no government will pay for an NFL-ready stadium for an NFL team that doesn't exist, Olympics or not.

Second, the Argos will be evicted from the dome if the Jays/Rogers decide to install grass (no decision has been made yet) owing to the fact that the 100-level seats will no longer be able to be shifted around with a permanent grass field. Ford typically shot off his mouth after seeing Winnipeg's new stadium, but there will very likely be a debate over pubic funding (full or partial) for a new stadium if the Argos are forced out of the dome. If the idea of another publicly funded stadium bothers anyone here, I suggest voicing your displeasure by writing to the Jays, Rogers, and your local Councillor and MPP.

The irony of this potential eviction is that the whole idea of building a dome originated with the Argos, the 1982 Grey Cup, and Premier Bill Davis, an avid Argo fan.

In the Olympic bid scenario the government would build the stadium in partnership with whomever would take it over for the nfl franchise. So if the stadium cost 900 million to make the government would pay about 1/3rd and the nfl team the other 2/3rds. The government sells it as a way to get part of the stadium paid for so they aren't really out the entire stadium. If you think that a nfl stadium is going to be built in Toronto without government help then you are simply wrong. Almost every stadium in this day and age gets a government kick in of some sort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top