[PHOTO] Civil defense siren, Dundas and Shaw

This civil defense siren, slightly relocated east to its current location at Dundas and Shaw, just across Dundas from the northwestern corner of Trinity Bellwoods Park, is one of the last sirens remaining and a noteworthy artifact of the Cold War. In 2007, the Toronto Star published an article by Leslie Scrivener about it and the few others left.

“It’s a neat thing to look at,” says Claire Bryden, referring to the air raid siren near the corner of Dundas St. W. and Shaw St., a remnant of Toronto’s age of atomic anxiety. The sturdy, horn-shaped siren rests on a rusting column on the property of Bellwoods Centres for Community Living.

Few of these Cold War relics, which would alert the population to an imminent nuclear attack, remain in Toronto. One siren resides atop the York Quay Centre at Harbourfront. Others, like the one on Ward’s Island, disappear when buildings get new roofs.

Today, no one claims ownership of the surviving sirens. Call the City of Toronto and they refer you to the province. Call the province and they refer you to the Department of National Defence. Call the Department of National Defence and they refer you to … the city.

But Claire Bryden is happy to take possession of the one at Dundas and Shaw. Bryden is executive-director of the Bellwoods Centres, which provide homes for people with physical disabilities. The air raid siren, overlooked for decades, suddenly became of interest during construction of a new building. Because it was in the middle of the Bellwoods Park House property, which straddles old Garrison Creek (now flowing through an underground culvert), the siren had to be moved or removed altogether. A new public path, part of a Discovery Walk daytime urban trail from Fort York to Christie Pits, will go through the property right where the siren was.

What to do with the towering artifact? “Rather than throw it away, we decided it’s a piece of historical memorabilia,” says Bryden, who recalls air-raid-siren practice in her childhood. “It gives character, and we don’t see too many around.”

[LINK] “A Star Pupil Flunks Out”

At Transitions Online, Martin Ehl writes about the problems associated with formerly Yugoslavian Slovenia’s well-managed, self-guided transition to capitalist independence. Was not enough changed?

After the declaration of independence in 1991, various formations composed of former communists who were careful about words such as privatization and foreign investment took turns governing the country. Yugoslavia’s socialist legacy had a lot to do with that, but so did the concerns of a small nation, which had, for the first time, its own country and feared that outsiders would again steamroll over its history, culture, and economy – this time not militarily, but economically. Sometime in 1998, for example, I first heard the story of how the Slovenians were preventing foreign speculation by requiring that money into and out of the country could legally be transferred through only one state-controlled account.

A right-wing government took power only in 2000, with its banner wielded mainly by former dissident Janez Jansa, who is known for seeing plots everywhere. He himself was accused of secret arms purchases during the dissolution of Yugoslavia. This year, his government fell not because of economic problems, although they played a role, but because of suspicions of corruption among ministers and the prime minister.

Slovenia’s shining image shows up in rankings of countries’ living standards and development. When we dig deeper into these indices, however, we can see the residue of the state-directed approach to the economy and the socialist attitude to the state as the hand that distributes full handfuls. For example, the Prosperity Index, compiled by London’s Legatum Institute, puts Slovenia at 24th of 142 countries. But the worst evaluated of the eight categories is the economy, while the best is the educational system.

It’s similar with the Catch-up Index, compiled by the Open Society Institute in Sofia, which judges whether and how quickly the former Eastern bloc countries are catching up with Western Europe. Of the four categories assessed Slovenia fared a shade better in quality of life than in democracy, governance, or the economy. It looks as if the Slovenians live well but have relied too much on their economic model working forever and even being able to grumble about their government, which, however, still controls most of the economy through state-owned banks and companies.

Just as Slovenians have a problem with privatization and opening up their economy to foreign investors, so it is in other areas. For example, a history-related time bomb has been ticking in Slovenian society, considered taboo all the way up until Jansa’s governments that ruled after 2000. During World War II, certainly not all Slovenes stood on the side of Tito’s partisans. Slovenia was divided during the war among the three occupying powers, and only much later Jansa and others began to talk about the massacres of tens of thousands of people from the so-called Slovene Home Guard – namely the units on the side of the Italians, Germans, and Hungarians, whom the allies in 1945 handed over to Tito’s units along with the remnants of the Croatian Ustasha and Serb forces loyal to the exiled Western governments.

[ISL] “Tour operators get lesson in being gay-friendly”

The CBC Prince Edward Island article is interesting, and certainly reason for hope. Just stay away from the comments.

(I did not know there was a P.E.I. Gay Tourism Association.)

With tourism season fast approaching, operators from across the Island are getting a lesson in welcoming those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

Many Islanders in the tourism industry pride themselves on welcoming visitors but the organization Travel Gay Canada say there’s a lot more some could be doing.

Anne Marie Shrouder, of Travel Gay Canada, spent Friday morning educating operators on ways to make their businesses more LGBT-friendly.

Often, said Shrouder, it’s the more subtle reactions that are problematic for tourists in the gay community.

“I’m checking in with my partner and we’re both female and we want one bed. And it’s like, ‘Oh, right.’ Little things like that — eyebrow [raising], whispering behind the counter, and it all undermines my sense of ‘I want to be here,’” she said.

[URBAN NOTE] “Will crack allegations be enough to sink Mayor Rob Ford?”

The National Post‘s Toronto news discussion panel, featuring Chris Selley, Jonathan Goldsbie, and Matt Gurney, tackles the question of the alleged Rob Ford crack video. Their conclusions leave me with the feeling that no one is going to come out of this looking very good–not the media, not the Toronto electorate, certainly not Rob Ford himself–but that this still might not be enough to change things.

Goldsbie: I’ve spent the last few days just assuming that the video would eventually get out, and probably sooner than later. But then I recalled that I took the same approach to the tape in which Rob Ford allegedly cursed out some 911 operators, and now I’m faced with considering the terrifying possibility that the footage may never be released. The thought that — in the absence of hard, publicly-viewable evidence — Ford might try to deny and move on from this allegation, as he has so many others, is upsetting to the point of being enraging. The thing is that, by now, it is difficult to imagine a scandal from which Rob Ford could not somehow escape: he is superhuman in his political abilities, with a hardcore fanbase that would find a way to rationalize a murder charge. Somewhere out there is a video recording that apparently depicts our mayor smoking crack and making disgusting homophobic and racist remarks, and yet nothing in his political experience would suggest to Rob Ford that the appropriate reaction is anything other than to carry on though there weren’t.

Gurney: I tend to agree that we’ll see the video. I’d have no doubt if we were dealing with rational actors. A deal would be reached and honoured. But both the Star and Gawker have said that the gentlemen in possession of the video are involved in the drug trade and their paranoia — making reporters meet them in backs of cars in random places — speaks to their mindset. I wouldn’t be surprised if the intensity of the coverage spooks them and sends them to ground. Again on the assumption that it never comes out, I agree with Chris that the voters would probably conclude that this indeed happened as related by the Star and Gawker. And they’d remember that in 2014. But Council, now? I don’t often give that group of human beings the benefit of the doubt. But here I will. Whatever they conclude about Ford’s alleged use of crack, if the video doesn’t come out, they’ll keep their private thoughts private and get on with the job. That’s good, I suppose. But it also leaves us where we were before the alleged video.

Selley: For now, sure. No point rubbing it in every chance they get. But suddenly it’s just that much more toxic to be seen supporting the Mayor himself, as opposed to happening to agree with him on any given issue. So many of his ideas depend on leaps of faith or logic — casino revenues build subways, for example — that this could become a significant hindrance, at least to the limited extent that the Ford administration operates according to standard rules of space, time and politics. Looking beyond that, it would certainly be an intriguing election dynamic. You’d think it would be easy to run a spirited campaign against an alleged crack-smoker, but it’s a fine line between pariah and victim. Ford’s best political play right now would be to step down, check into rehab — whether or not he really has a problem — and vow to return a better man in 2014. I don’t see that happening.

[LINK] “Why The Pollsters Got BC Wrong”

Wonkman’s recent post examining the rationale for the recent bad polling in British Columbia’s election, and why there might not be that much of an incentive to fix it, is worth reading.

BC is perhaps the least homogeneous province in the country. The economic, social and demogaphic conditions in one community can be wildly different from those of a neighbouring community, to say nothing of the stark differences between a big city on the Island and a small town or rural area in the northern interior. In a province like Prince Edward Island, you can pick 50 random numbers out of the phone book and be pretty sure you’ve got a balanced sample; in British Columbia, you have to consider dozens of different factors and weightings (which means polling hundreds and thousands of different people!) just to get basic data.

And that’s a problem.

Because of that diversity, BC is expensive and difficult to poll. So are Ontario and Quebec, but Ontario and Quebec both have way, way, way more seats than BC, making their results more critical to the national picture.

This obviously bodes poorly. It means polling agencies have weak operations in a critical province, and—in situations like this—the lack of resources is plain and obvious.

But is that the wrong decision?

The bottom line is that Ontario and Quebec do matter more than BC when it comes to federal elections. Given the choice between throwing resources into a province with 107 seats or one with only 36, you’d need a very compelling reason to opt for the smaller province.

[URBAN NOTE] “Public Works: A Casino That Works?”

Torontoist’s Patrick Metzger had an interesting examination of how Singapore made its casino work for that city-state, with a minimum of social pathology. The key lay in Singapore’s very tight regulation of the casino’s development, something that–as Metzger notes–was not necessarily available in the case of Toronto.

[T]he broad approach—ensuring the development process is guided by government and not casino operators—makes sense. Singapore spelled out a set of conditions to be placed on any gambling facility before considering specific proposals, and made licensing contingent on operators accepting any future regulation they might choose to impose.

Toronto has already set out a list of 47 conditions that a potential casino would have to meet (although they’re far less draconian in addressing social issues than those imposed in Singapore). However, unlike the Singaporean government, which isn’t beholden to any higher authority, Toronto is subject to the whims of Queen’s Park. This is why many councillors feel forced into a binary choice: that their only real decision is the yes/no question of whether to open up this question. If they do allow the process to go forward, they fear, they won’t have the capacity to direct the development process thereafter. Though the province has said it will listen to the municipalities, subsequent negotiations will largely be left to their creature, the OLG (“creature” in this case being not only the technically accurate term but also one that serendipitously conveys just the right tone).

Also, even if the province and OLG were to agree to include Toronto’s conditions in any negotiation, many of those conditions are sufficiently vague (“the casino will have an urban form that is designed to fit within its local context”) that there’s plenty of weasel room, particularly when the cash-strapped government is under pressure from a developer dangling bags of Yankee greenbacks and resistant to anything that might hinder efforts to hoover loonies from the pockets of hopeful punters.

Singapore seems to have found a trade-off that works, largely through its willingness to take a strong stance on regulating the casinos it has allowed. It’s an example that suggests Toronto could introduce casino gambling in a way that could be an economic and—don’t laugh—a cultural asset. But to get there, the province would have to let the City drive, or itself take on the task of regulating the facilities very strongly, and the prospective operators would have to sit in the back seat.

[URBAN NOTE] “City council rejects new casino in 40-4 vote”

The good news comes from CP24.com’s Chris Fox.

City council has voted in favour of rejecting any new gaming facilities for Toronto, effectively shutting the book on a multi-billion dollar casino and entertainment complex proposed for downtown.

During a special meeting Tuesday morning, council voted 40-4 against the creation of any new gaming facilities within the city. In a separate vote council also voted 24-20 against the expansion of gaming at Woodbine Racetrack.

A motion from Mayor Rob Ford that would have rejected a downtown casino outright, but left the door open to adding table games at Woodbine Racetrack was defeated 31-13.

“This was about the impact on the citizens of Toronto and the people of Ontario that didn’t want us to put forward a policy that encourages more people to get addicted to gambling and raises money in that fashion,” Coun. Mike Layton told reporters following the vote. “This was about how we treat people in the City of Toronto.”

“The casino vote was what thousands and thousands of Torontonians asked us to do,” added Coun. Paula Fletcher. “This is probably the biggest vote that we will have in our entire term.”