On Feb 21, 2019 I spoke at the city’s Special Committee on Governance, which was formed to take public input on how to govern Toronto now that Ford abruptly slashed council in half mid-election, and also to discuss Councillor Bradford’s motion to institute term limits. The committee has five councillors: Perks, Carroll, Holyday, Crawford, and Bailão .

After being one of hundreds of election candidates burned by Ford’s meddling I decided this was my chance to really speak to the issue. I wrote a scathing critique of Ford’s flailing destabilizing version of ideologically-driven governance, while also jamming in all my thoughts on improving democracy in Toronto, including my opposition to term limits. It makes for a lively rant:

I am truly baffled by Councillor Holyday’s senseless interjection of “stick on point with governance”. How can we have a discussion on governance and completely leave out any mention of the man who unilaterally changed our governance with no consultation, and without whose actions the committee would not even exist? And why wouldn’t we address that elephant in the room seeing as he has the power to negate any decisions that committee tries to make?

The question I will be asking the committee is whether or not they intend to pursue some kind of higher level autonomy for Toronto, like a charter city, or are they only mandated (or willing) to work within the confines of the existing power structure?

Here’s a clip of the Q&A after my speech:

The very next week there was an excellent event on the very topic of Toronto’s governance held by Why Should I Care?. Former Mayor John Sewell and former CBC journalist Doug Earl were there, representing the group Charter City Toronto. They believe the way forward is to find a willing provincial partner to use Section 43 of the Constitution, although at a glance it’s not clear how this will apply. They say it’s been used by provinces successfully before, however the catch is it requires a cooperative provincial government. Something we are in short supply of, and my fear is the Ontario Liberals might run on such a notion next election to woo urban votes, but just like the federal Liberals’ false promise of electoral reform, they will renege once in power. Toronto’s tax revenues are too lucrative to cede us control over our own affairs.

It seems Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver all have charters, but they were done in cooperation with their province and haven’t involved the feds in any way, so they are still vulnerable to provincial meddling should a province decide to rescind or alter the charter. Also, Calgary and Edmonton didn’t receive any additional taxation powers, and Vancouver’s charter seems similar to the City of Toronto Act, basically just making an exception out of the largest city and provincial capital to have some powers other municipalities don’t, however it does seem to be the most independent of all Canadian cities. A great article details much of this history.

Ford has made it clear we need more than provincial laws that can be unilaterally changed to impose whims upon any municipality that a premier disdains. The constitution calls for changes requiring authorizations by:

• “(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
• (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.”

Well, if you take all the biggest cities in every province that MORE than qualifies. Now, imagine if those cities banded together in a Municipal Sovereignty Movement to pressure the feds to make cities part of the constitution? Under the current proclamation (it must be understood, both versions of the constitution were unilaterally imposed by governments, people had no say) we would still need the “legislative assemblies of the provinces” to agree, but if pressure starts to come from all cities across all provinces at once… If this idea takes off who knows which parties will adopt it in their platform to win urban votes, and which new parties might even spring up focused on that goal?

These discussions have the potential to alter Toronto’s power dynamic moving forward. I encourage residents to follow the Special Committee on Governance, email them to sign up for updates ([email protected]), and follow and join groups like Charter City Toronto and Defend Toronto.

My years with the Beach Village BIA (2010-2016) were my first foray into volunteering, lobbying, and advocacy, and my first time on a board of directors.  The board has changed over the years, but regardless of the board’s membership I was frequently the sole voice of opposition to many ill-considered policies and plans, and found myself often discriminated against because I was the young guy who didn’t actually own a business on Queen.  Which was actually my strength, as being in my 30s I represented our main demographic of shoppers (most board members had 20+ years on me), and not owning a business (and not having my livelihood on the line) my perspective was much more macro and saw the entire strip as a whole (unlike a few myopic board members who could only see through the lens of their own business).

However, over time I earned more respect and my ideas FINALLY started to take hold.  It culminated with my becoming chair of the streescaping committee where I brought back our hanging baskets of flowers, brought Christmas decor to a new level, and started the painting of the tree planters, many of which are my designs.

My first obsession upon joining the board in 2010 was with wayfinding and business directories.  I was always devising ways to get all our businesses displayed on a map that also included landmarks and other points of interest for visitors.

It started with lobbying to replace our incredibly aging and decrepit (and now defunct) Discovery Walk signs (at one point I wanted to simply cover them over with our own design as they were so ugly and worn down).

As I got deeper involved eventually the 360 project came to light and I was at most of the stakeholder meetings.  After one meeting I even mocked up and submitted wayfinder designs that gave more focus to transit routes, just for extra ideas on how to display as much transit info for users as possible.

Until of course this year, the most crucial for our area as the program is finally being rolled out.  As a brief context, this year my firstborn turned 1, my family moved houses, and then I ran for city council.  Suffice to say I’ve had little time and 360 slipped through the cracks of my busy schedule.  Then I went to the BIA streetscaping meeting last night to find out 360 is coming soon!  Which pleased me very much, LONG overdue.

Before I knew the BIA was working with 360 I was under the false impression they were finally going to create some of their own wayfinders (something I had been exploring in my last months of being chair of streetscaping).  I mocked up some designs, but more importantly, in doing so I also created a full business directory with map that also includes points of interest and landmarks, and all in a 16″ x 48″ image.

Another idea I floated to the BIA was the opportunity to use our banners as either wayfinding, or to put local artists’ work on them, but I had left by the time the new banners came and did not have any input.  A missed opportunity for the BIA, as while campaigning I discovered the current  banners are of such little impact most people don’t even realize they are there.

Back to the new wayfinders, I have some issues with the proposed placement of some of the 360 totems.  To properly devise wayfinding one must put themselves in the shoes of pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and tourists.  I’ve attached the map from last night’s presentation with the following feedback:

1) Lee Avenue is no longer a good location for a totem since the streetcar stop moved, now it’s just a corner like any other.

2) Move the totem from Lee Ave to Wineva.  First and foremost, this is where the 64 bus route ends, it’s one of the transit gateways to the Beach.  You don’t want people getting off the the last stop of the bus and then have no idea where to turn.  A totem is crucial at this intersection, and it’s perfect as the intersection is slated for a curb bumpout which has the potential to hold the totem.  Also, at Lee it was too close to the one at Bellefair and too far from the one at Glen Manor, this spreads them out nicely.

3) It’s hard to tell from the map what corner many of these totems are planned for, but this one should be well displayed in front of Ivan Forrest Gardens.

4) Again, hard to tell where it’s planned, but I’m sure it goes without saying the northeast corner of Beech and Queen is best.

5) Don’t know why a totem would be placed here, it’s not on a streetcar stop nor any other significant landmark or route and it’s too close to the one at Silver Birch

6) The totem at Munro Park should be at Neville Park, it’s the end of the streetcar line and is the eastern gateway into the Beach.  The perfect spot (attached photo) is right by the new Bike Share station so it can integrate with both cycling and transit routes and is highly visible to pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and even cars entering from the east.

And it is things like cycling routes, bike share stations, and transit routes and stops I want to ensure are on the totems (I’m also a local transportation expert, having run the Ward 32 Transportation Committee for 8 years).

I don’t know why there wasn’t more fulsome local consultation on the wayfinders, maybe there wasn’t time or maybe there was an assumption the BIA’s input would suffice, but I want to ensure this opportunity isn’t squandered.  I invite everyone to contact the BIA and the 360 project to ask for more public consultation to ensure our area is being captured properly.

This is what I like to call “auto-waste”, and it’s a policy of FAR too many businesses, organizations, and charities in the Western world.

Basically it means that no matter how you sign up for something, for example entirely online, the entity you signed up with will automatically send you a bunch of wasteful paper mail you never wanted nor needed.

I used Canada Post direct mail service for my campaign to mail out flyers. The ENTIRE process was done online, and I never opted for any extra info or mailout. What I got a few weeks later AFTER THE CAMPAIGN WAS OVER was THREE separate mailouts, one expensive looking spiral bound booklet mailed in a bloody bubble envelope (most wasteful part), and TWO separate paper mailouts, one which contained a useless plastic membership card for a campaign that no longer exists (and the card isn’t even necessary, it’s just for show, you don’t need it for direct mail drop offs). I’m pretty livid they would do this without any consent on my part, the waste is staggering.  Most ironic, it’s all explaining and detailing the process I’VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH, so they’re telling me something I already know.

I donate to the CNIB Ontario, and also recently received their pointless waste of paper newsletter, which I could easily read online, but more to the point, WHEN I SIGNED UP I MADE IT CLEAR I NEVER WANTED PAPER MAIL. Like ever, to the point the first time they mailed me I wrote to them and said don’t ever mail me again, clearly they didn’t get the message.

Same issue with the Green Party of Ontario and Green Party of Canada – Parti vert du Canada, told them multiple times I would cease donating if they kept sending me unwanted paper mail, took them a couple years but it seems they may have finally got the hint.

Worst of all however was when I first donated to a dubious charity a few years ago “Friends” of the CBC which is an offshoot of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting // Les Amis de la radiodiffusion. Well, some friend, they sold my name and address to a bunch of other charities and for almost three years I received numerous expensive mailings with unwanted swag (bags, stickers, keychains), many from charities and foundations I’ve never heard of nor would ever donate to. At one point I was going to start putting it all in a pile to make a complaint to show how many pounds of useless waste one donation had resulted in, but at that point the bulk of it had passed. Charities should not be allowed under law to sell your name to other charities, if I’d know that was legit I would have thought twice. The amount of mail I received over the next three years cost FAR more than my donation.

It’s this kind of “auto-waste” our economy needs to ban, it’s based on unproven and obsolete assumptions about what will attract more business and money. The biggest irony is that I contacted ALL of these orgs via the internet, and yet ALL thought it necessary to send me wasteful paper. Why? Because it’s just something they do automatically without thought or question. Which is why I call it auto-waste and it needs to be banned. It’s an anachronism from a time before online, we have evolved, their policies need to as well. Any online donor that needs to feel special being mailed something physical in exchange for their donation doesn’t really get the point. Our planet has enough strain with the waste created from everyday life, we don’t need to add to it waste no one asked for or needs.