A Bit More Detail

Daren Foster’s Torontoist post is properly skeptical of the good sense of building a casino inside the city of Toronto, and of Rob Ford’s judgment in this regard. (Both his brother Doug Ford and the brothers’ political ally on council, Giorgio Mammoliti, are in support. So far, they seem relatively isolated. I think, and hope.)

To give the mayor his due: during Monday’s debate on the prospect of building a casino in Toronto, he executed what would not be considered a typical Ford manoeuvre. Instead of just blustering through, acting impulsively on gut instinct or what he believes some mythical taxpayer wants, Ford introduced a motion calling for further study and fact-finding before asking his colleagues to make a decision about whether to give a thumbs-up to the OLG and allow a casino in Toronto.

What’s that you say? A reasoned debate? A little of the old rational discourse? Well, I do declare.

Of course, the mayor made it clear what he personally thinks about casinos. For him, they are all upside. A hundred million delicious, lilac-smelling dollars would flow into our coffers—a number that, like many of the mayor’s boasts, is of uncertain origins. (Perhaps he simply multiplies 100 by 5 cents and arrives at the amount he needs to back a claim?) It’s never the same number, but it always works in the mayor’s favour. Call it the new math.

[. . . W]hat’s giving the mayor pause on the casino issue isn’t a new-found desire for informed debate, but rather the thorny matter of its location. Jane Holmes, Woodbine Entertainment Group’s vice president of corporate affairs, told the committee that a new casino anywhere else in Toronto would jeopardize Woodbine’s existing business—and by extension, the mayor’s much ballyhooed Woodbine Live complex. For Ford, the decision of where a casino might go clearly comes with much larger implications. How could he be seen championing a waterfront casino to the detriment of a business in his own backyard? Don’t us downtowners already get everything without leaving even so much as crumbs for the suburbs? The optics of that—not only for the mayor but for every pro-casino suburban councillor—are ugly.

It’s unfortunate that’s the direction it seems the casino debate will take: not if, but where. Because there’s a much larger conversation we need to have, one that bubbled up at Monday’s meeting: What is the net benefit of building a casino in Toronto?

Note the word net. Anybody who’s pro-casino can read off the reasons having one would be good by rote. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Added revenue to plug budget holes or build much-needed infrastructure. The zazz of a shiny new edifice dedicated to the pleasure of vice and a palace to watch Howie Mandel perform. Why would anybody be against that?

Besides, if we don’t build a casino, Mississauga will. And if Mississauga builds a casino then, well… Yes. What does happen to Toronto if Mississauga has a casino and we don’t? Do we get economic spin-offs, and do they mitigate massive traffic jams? That’s where the question of net benefits—gains minus the costs in receiving those benefits—enters in. The pros minus the cons. Just because the project comes with some advantages doesn’t mean we end up in positive territory.

It’s too soon to say what realistic revenue projections look like, but they won’t be nearly the amount Ford declared. It’s pretty well established that municipalities in Ontario with casinos get the short end of the stick, the slightest slices of financial pie. And the notion of our mayor marching into the premier’s office and striking a better casino deal for Toronto is delusional even by the hyper-delusional measure of this mayor. He’s missed no opportunity to alienate our current premier, regularly threatening him with electoral pain at the hands of Ford Nation. Not to mention that little bit of debt the province is wrestling with. Yeah, they’ll want to hand over more cash to us.

[. . .]

What downtown Toronto needs—especially along its waterfront—are more vibrant public spaces. Real, tangible, lived-in ones, not those manufactured by corporate entities catering to some projected desire we have to get away from it all. How much is it worth to us as a city to bargain away a chunk of our prime real estate in return for a whack of service jobs and an uncertain revenue stream that will invariably fall short of expectations?

CBC journalist Dave Seglins’ summary of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director’s report on the role of police in the 2010 G20 protests merits extended reading. A sampler:

Poor planning by the RCMP, OPP and Toronto police for the G20 summit, along with orders by a Toronto deputy police chief to “take back the streets," are to blame for the more than 1,100 arrests during the 2010 weekend summit, says the province's top civilian police watchdog.

“What occurred over the course of the weekend resulted in the largest mass arrests in Canadian history. These disturbances had a profound impact not only on the citizens of Toronto and Canada generally, but on public confidence in the police as well,” writes Gerry McNeilly, head of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), a citizen agency that today tabled the 300- page systemic review report.

Overall, McNeilly says, the G20 was an unprecedented event in the city’s history — one police forces were unprepared for.

“It is fortunate that, in all the confusion, there were no deaths,” McNeilly writes.

McNeilly concludes that police had legitimate concerns and faced challenges tracking “black bloc” vandals intent on violence and criminal activity as they hid within crowds of peaceful demonstrators.

But the OIPRD reports that police also had a responsibility to balance law enforcement with citizens' rights to demonstrate.

He concluded some officers used “excessive force” to clamp down on any and all protesters, with Toronto police commanders acting on orders for mass arrests.

Deputy Chief Tony Warr issued such a directive late on June 26 following a day in which police lost control and saw windows smashed and a police car set ablaze.

Gerry McNeilly, head of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, speaks to reporters about G20 protests in June 2010. (Dave Seglins/CBC)“The night shift incident commander said Deputy police Chief Warr told him that he wanted him to take back the streets,” writes McNeilly in the report. McNeilly said the commander told him, “'I understood his [Warr's] instructions to mean that he wanted me to make the streets of Toronto safe again. He wanted the streets that had been made unsafe by the terrorists that were attacking our city to be made safe again by restoring order.'"

Referring to protesters in such a way left the impression that they were criminals, the report says, and that attitude resulted in the decision to contain and arrest approximately 1,100 people during the weekend summit.

Tess Kalinowski’s Toronto Star article seems–to my mind–to gush overmuch about the new light rail scheduled to be constructed along Toronto’s midtown/west-to-east Eglinton Avenue. It is interesting to be in town to see the process start, but the sheer geographic scope of the process could potentially allow for plenty of flaws to be manifested.

When MPP Mike Colle takes a mental stroll down Eglinton Ave., he sees pokey one- and two-storey buildings, gas stations, parking lots. In his mind it boils down to a whole lot of potential.

Now, after decades of neglect, the Liberal MPP for Eglinton-Lawrence says the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown LRT, still eight years from completion, is already transforming the neighbourhood he loves to boost.

“We need more people living on Eglinton. It’s the forgotten middle of Toronto. For decades nobody ever paid attention to it. Now this gives us a chance to pay attention. This is a chance to give it some light and some investment. The transportation is really the catalyst. And it’s already happening,” said Colle, who cites the redevelopment of the 50-year-old China House restaurant at Bathurst St. into a condo that sold out in a couple of weeks.

How Eglinton looks once the Crosstown is running will depend on a two-year city planning exercise called an avenue study that begins community consultations Thursday at the Fairbank Memorial Community Centre on Dufferin St.

The $1.3 million study, which will eventually go before city council, is the first step in envisioning what Eglinton will look like after the Crosstown is built, how it will be zoned, what kind of buildings and public spaces will be encouraged.

Avenue studies typically focus on one or two kilometers of a street. But this one, like the ambitious 26-kilometre, $6 billion Crosstown line itself, will be unprecedented. It will traverse 14 wards through the tunnelled west and central portions starting at Black Creek Dr. and at street level from Laird Rd. to Kennedy Station in the east, said Toronto director of Transportation Planning Rod McPhail.

It will look at all kinds of potential development — from retail and residential to public realm issues such as what to do with the bus lanes that will no longer be required in the Dufferin-Keele area.

In the comments to yesterday’s post regarding a guest on the brothers Ford’s radio show who launched into all sorts of homophobic speech without getting a reprimand, Livejournaler suitablyemoname alerted me to what’s probably the definitive word on whether or not Rob Ford is a homophobe. In his words?

All he has to do–literally–is read a two-minute proclamation, get his photo taken shaking a few hands, and he can move on with his life. He won’t even do that. He doesn’t even have to touch a gay person: this is PFLAG, so if he only wants to be photographed with heterosexual grandmothers, that’s entirely possible to arrange. But this is evidently still a bridge too far.

He’s a homophobe.

The Globe and Mail‘s article is below.

Mayor Rob Ford is passing up another opportunity to support the gay and lesbian community, this time opting to skip a flag-raising outside his office that will be attended by Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke.

The Toronto chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays has confirmed that Mr. Ford turned down its invitation to a flag-raising to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia in Nathan Phillips Square on May 17.

The event was considered among the likeliest to draw the reluctant mayor – it’s low-key, conveniently located and not part of the formal Pride Week celebrations.

Irene Miller, the president of Toronto PFLAG, began sending the mayor’s office invitations in February.

In a letter she called warm and gracious, the mayor’s office replied in late April that Mr. Ford couldn’t fit the event into his schedule.

“We will continue to keep that door open in the hopes that … the mayor will one day come with us,” Ms. Miller said.

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, whose ward includes the Gay Village, described the May 17 event as “gentle” and “welcoming.” Among the confirmed guests is Mr. Burke, whose late son was gay.

“It would have been wonderful to see the mayor there,” she said. “In many ways, it might have taken the question away about whether or not he supports the LGBT community.”

The mayor will sign the proclamation – as he does for every official day or week the city proclaims through its protocol office – but Councillor Gord Perks will read it in his stead.

When the right-wing National Post comes up with such a bitingly ironic headline for Natalie Alcoba’s article on Mayor Rob Ford, it’s a safe bet that it’s slipping. (And when, as here, the comments seem to be equally divided between supporters and opponents of the mayor, something’s up.)

Mayor Rob Ford joined members of Canada’s ethnic press at City Hall on Monday to emphasize “the need to respect press freedom.”

The occasion marked the United Nation’s World Press Freedom Day, which was May 3.

“The day serves as a reminder that violations of press freedom occur in countries around the world where journalists, editors, publishers are harassed, detained, attacked and killed,” said Mayor Ford, who has himself been embroiled in a public dispute with the Toronto Star after a confrontation with a reporter outside his home last week.

The Mayor has threatened not to take part in press conferences if a Star reporter is present. Mr. Ford accuses Star reporter Daniel Dale of spying on his house.

Mr. Dale denies the allegation, saying he was in the area last Wednesday to inspect a piece of parkland that the Mayor wants to purchase next to his house.

The Mayor did not take questions after he read the proclamation on Monday.

Torontoist’s Steve Kupferman shared the news about a particularly egregious statement made by Sun News personality David Menzies on the brothers’ Ford radio show. Menzies’ a personality, apparently, though not one I’d heard of before. I said “particularly egregious,” by the way, because as this Toronto Life blog posting makes clear he said quite a few other things.

“Could you imagine if I was at that all-candidates meeting and I went to George Smitherman and I said, ‘You know what—you know, George, being a practicing homosexual, and being the fact that you’ve been involved with all kinds of illicit drug use, how do we know you won’t engage in high-risk sex and drug use that will bring about HIV leading to AIDS, and you’ll die in office? I would be run out of town on a rail!… It is despicable, and it speaks of the double standard with the left-wing media in this city, Mayor Ford.”

—David Menzies, speaking on Mayor Rob Ford and Councillor Doug Ford’s weekly radio talk show on Sunday. The topic was the left-wing media’s supposed bullying of the mayor, as evidenced by the coverage of Ford’s run-in with Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale last week. The all-candidates meeting to which Menzies is referring took place during the 2010 mayoral election. During a q-and-a period with mayoral candidates, a man named Marvin Kay, who identified himself as a physician, took the mic and told Rob Ford, “I’m concerned about your weight. Do you think you’ll be able to handle the entire four-year term?” Menzies was arguing that the media would have thrown a fit had an equally rude question been asked of then-candidate George Smitherman, who is gay, and who has admitted to having used drugs in the past. Except, judging by the reaction on Twitter and elsewhere, Menzies seems to have overshot “equally rude” and landed squarely in “unbelievably offensive” territory. (Which he would doubtless say only proves his point.)

Two linked points.

1. Aren’t the brothers Ford responsible for what their guests say on their radio show?

2. Is anyone really surprised that Rob Ford isn’t going to attend Pride, after this especially?

Physical artifacts advertising Occupy Toronto can still be found at different places in the city. This odd vehicle I saw on the southwest corner of Yonge and Dundas, on the opposite side of Yonge-Dundas Square a couple of weekends ago, is one.

It’s rather impressive that Rob Ford’s political career is fast approaching a point where a possible deposition from his position for violating provincial conflict of interest legislation this September coming will be a relatively dignified ending to the career. The news of his encounter with Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale outside of Ford’s home, where Dale–investigating reports that Ford was interested in buying city-owned property–was confronted by an angry, yelling, running Rob Ford and forced to leave, leaving his phone and camera behind.

I understand that Ford may have felt he was being spied on, and that he’s fully entitled to his privacy. That being said, if you want someone to get off your land, there are better ways to go about it instead of charging gung-ho at a guy whose only weapon is a cell phone. What, are you afraid he’s going to slowly radiate your brain to death?

This isn’t about Ford’s ideology, or his point of view, or anything other than the fact that this kind of conduct is not becoming of a representative of Toronto. I don’t think highly of Ford as a mayor, and it has less to do with his politics, and more to do with his willingness to put himself in these kinds of situations. If a city elects you to office as a representative of the city, it’s your responsibility to be level-headed and not get into, as Latrice Royale would call it, “Rumpus Room Shenanigans”.

Like it or not, Mayor Ford, your position of power comes with responsibility. YOU are a representation of Toronto. And shit like this is a terrible way to represent the people who gave you your position. You’re supposed to be better than this. Even if the guy was infringing on your territory, charging angrily into a situation without thinking of the consequences instead of following the proper procedures (calmly questioning his actions, asking him to leave, calling for help) is only making the city you claim to speak for look bad.

Toronto’s reputation is increasingly undermined by the antics of its bombastic mayor, some political observers and insiders warned a day after Rob Ford’s latest clash with the media.

[. . .]

Counc. Shelley Carroll, who has frequently butted heads with the mayor, said his chronic “overreactions” are drawing jokes and eye rolls in political circles outside the city.

“It’s the conversation opener” when meeting officials across Canada and even parts of the U.S., she said Thursday.

Wednesday’s incident “takes us into the realm of _ one could almost say _ international embarrassment,” she added.

Graham White, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, said Ford’s blunders have given the city “a really bad image” beyond simple ridicule.

Unlike former mayor Mel Lastman, whose many gaffes both irritated and charmed the public, Ford “is coming across as a thug,” a far more alarming reputation, he said.

The mayor’s threatened media blackout is “absolutely appalling,” White said. That it came on World Press Freedom Day adds a note of irony to an otherwise troubling development, he added.

[. . .]

This isn’t the first time Ford has been involved in a dust-up with a member of the media.

In October, Ford called 911 after Mary Walsh of the CBC’s comedy series “22 Minutes” confronted him in his driveway dressed as her Marg Delahunty, Princess Warrior character.

Ford, who has had death threats, said he didn’t know who Walsh was and feared for his safety.

Dale, if you’ve never met him, is a mild-mannered, quiet, gentle guy. He is an award-winning journalist. And he has handled the media attention this situation has garnered with a great deal of composure.

None of that matters for the purpose of this point. The point would hold even if Dale was a talentless loudmouth who bungled at every turn.

What matters is that Dale had a 300-pound angry man with a football player’s build coming at him. He got the hell out of there. And for this he has been widely mocked.

We can continue to discuss those other questions about media relations at City Hall, but there should be no debate about whether running from a guy who is twice your size and has his fist raised, when nobody else is in danger and nothing but your phone is at stake, makes you less of a man.

It makes you a sensible human being with survival instincts. It means you are capable of keeping your head under pressure. It is, most of all, a sign that you have a sense of proportion—that you prize safety over some ego-driven display of bravado that can make a precarious situation worse. And if you did run when there was something more vital at stake—someone else’s safety, for instance—that wouldn’t make you less of a man, either, though it might make you less of a person.

[. . .]

Maybe the Star does have a vendetta against the mayor. Or maybe this is just the kind of scrunity they bring to every mayor: they sent a photographer to David Miller’s house to see if he kept his lights on during Earth Hour back when he was in office, after all. But whether he should have been working on this story or not, at that hour or not, nobody should fault a male reporter—one working on a real estate story in Toronto rather than, say, a street battle in Syria—for running from a raised fist.

I live in Leafs Nation. That’s not only the name of the official and heavily promoted Toronto Maple Leafs‘ fan club; that’s the name Toronto has gotten by proxy.

Toronto has traditionally been devoted to the Toronto Maple Leafs. No matter that they haven’t won the Stanley Cup since 1967, or been in the playoffs since I moved to Toronto back in 2004, or are really any good. They’re the Leafs Nation team, and obeisance is due them.

(That sort of attitude upsets me. You’ve noticed I’m not a hockey fan?)

Obeisance was due, at least; faced with being shut out of the playoffs, early last month the team management made the surprising move of apologizing to the fans for their failure. Over at Torontoist, Jamie Bradburn has an extended two-part essay (1, 2) examining the sad downwards trajectory of the team. For the first two decades of the team’s relative failure, its faults could be blamed on one man.

Until his death in April 1990, many of the franchise’s faults could be blamed on one man: Harold Edwin Ballard. From the time he entered the Leafs’ ownership as part of a triumvirate with John Bassett and Stafford Smythe in 1961, Ballard seemed driven less by a love of the game and more by greed and a near-pathological need for attention. The same year the Leafs won their last cup, that greed appeared to drive the decision to sell their top farm teams in Rochester, NY and Victoria, BC for just under $1 million. The move robbed the Leafs of 45 players, many of NHL calibre. The combination of the sale, the expansion draft to stock six new teams in 1967, changes to player development rules that denied the team the use of the junior Marlboros as a feeder team, and aging stars thinned the Leafs’ depth pool, which led to a last place finish during the 1969/70 season.

But after Ballard died, things never got better. The most recent iteration of hopes for a revival has been dimmed.

On paper, the tandem of general manager Brian Burke and coach Ron Wilson appeared to be a swell idea. Burke blew into town full of bluster, speaking of truculence and then demonstrating his intentions by challenging other GMs to fights in barns. And yet, the product he put on the ice in 2009, his first full season, finished dead last in the conference. The acquisitions of defenseman Dion Phaneuf and forward Phil Kessel have proven to be worthwhile, but one wonders if the cost may have been too steep. Signs of incremental improvement in 2011 did not carry over to this past season, leading to a mob mentality that forced Burke’s hand in dismissing Wilson.

And now, here we are, not a taste of the playoffs since 2004, wondering once again how to right the ship. Ask any fan in the city and they will have a detailed plan for success—sturdier defense, a veteran goalie, speedy Europeans, or bruising fighters that will teach opponents a lesson. Toronto is teeming with folks that are, above all else, tired of losing. They are demanding not the apologies that they have been given, but only an immediate honest-to-goodness winner. If that seems unreasonable or irrational, such is the nature of these things. Fair or unfair, rabid fan-bases don’t much care how you do it, just that it gets done.

Can there actually be significant change? Will the Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup in my lifetime, or at least make it to the playoffs? Stay tuned.

Torontoist’s Steve Kupferman has a post up there highlighting the Toronto Public Library’s annual report. Despite cuts, he summarizes, the system is busier than ever.

* Wi-Fi Use Is Way Up: The Toronto Public Library offers wireless internet in all its branches, and Torontonians are evidently taking advantage. In 2011, TPL recorded 2,526,757 wireless sessions in its branches, up 126.5 per cent from 2010. By a wide margin, that’s the biggest usage jump in any service category. Library staff attribute the increase partly to the prevalence of new mobile devices, which sometimes connect to wireless networks without their owners realizing.
* Workstation Use, Also Up: Library computers had more users than the TPL’s wireless service, with 6,380,037 sessions in 2011, for a 6.5 per cent increase over 2010. Workstation usage numbers have been trending upward since at least 2007.
* Circulation Has Been Climbing Steadily for Five Years: Circulation (that is, the number of materials that were borrowed) at the TPL was 33,252,235 this year, up 2.9 per cent from 2010. And that’s no fluke: every year for at least the past five, circulation has increased by a comparable amount. The biggest growth category was e-books, e-audio, and e-video—though the report says these formats still make up only about 1.6 per cent of all items borrowed.
* Program Attendance, Too: 865,495 people attended library programs in 2011, which is a 9.4 per cent increase over 2010. Interestingly, the number of programs offered increased by 10.8 per cent over 2010: there were more events, and there were more attendees. We can only assume the two things are related.