Ford's attack on Toronto is good news

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Doug

Also surprisingly timely. I wonder if the threat of NWS sped up the ruling?

Probably not too significant. They are used to having to hear stay applications on short notice and the need to get the election back on track would likely have been convincing enough as a factor.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by osmo

The ruling was political and not based on actual law, it would have been overturned if the PCs/Doug went for an appeal versus the nuclear NWC option.

Going to appeal is precisely what they should have done.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It may be a factor that's considered, but the number of elected officials does not automatically correlate to population. A village of 300 people won't have a town council of 2 relative to a town of 5000 that will have a council of 10. The U.S. Congress doesn't have 4,000 people in it just because it represents 10 times Canada's population.

In Ontario, a village of 300 people is usually either part of a larger municipality or in an unorganized township.

Unorganized townships, especially ones not far from cities in Northern Ontario are growing in population because there is no municipal government. That means no municipal taxes and the land taxes paid to the province instead are about only 5-10% of what you'd pay to a municipality. You'll often find a lot of high income households moving and building large homes in these areas.

The province funds local service boards where there are villages and significant numbers of residents within a certain area (cottages, camps for example) and many services are often provided to villages and populated areas such as fire, garbage, ambulance, road maintenance and more. Plus, there are no municipal by-laws so there is more freedom in general when it comes to building and land use. The local services boards are elected by residents but the board members don't pass by-laws and only oversee the delivery of services and represent local concerns to the province.

Unorganized townships are a good example where there is no municipal representation yet things can actually be better in many of them. But some unorganized townships have no services at all, normally because they have little to no population.

Vid has discussed this topic a lot from what I remember. Maybe he can correct me if need be or add some things.

[Loco101]

I mentioned this before but I think that the size of Toronto city council should be 30. Have the 25 wards that go with the federal/provincial electoral districts but also have 5 members elected at large.

Maybe the mayor at elected at large councillors would have a bit more power for overseeing specific things. I feel that there needs to be some councillors who are focused and accountable to voters on city-wide issues rather than just their own wards.

[Doady]

I'd have more sympathy for Toronto if they didn't ban 905 bus systems from operating within their borders, or if they were building an Eglinton LRT that connected to the Mississauga Transitway, or if TTC had fare integration with 905 systems. Toronto tries too hard to exist in its own little bubble and it's finally time these people got a wake up call. Doug Ford is just another one of them. He just another example of the typical Centre of the Universe, elitist attitude that defines the people of Toronto. Even as premier of Ontario, all he can think of is Toronto, Toronto, Toronto. Just nauseating. I think the PCs and the Rest of Ontario will get a wake up call too. They need a leader who can think of something else besides Toronto for once and obviously Doug Ford is not that leader.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Which is already small anyway. At any plausible council size, the era of a councillor as someone from your neighbourhood is long past in Toronto.
New councillors will continue to refer most citizen concerns to staff, just as they do now. The issue is how effectively decisions can be made by a group of 47 people, each of whom brings independent views to the table. No company would have a board of directors of 47, no matter how huge its business was. The reason is that decision-making is hampered at such an unwieldy size. It’s just like how not even the smallest village has a council of 2, because 2 people aren’t enough to hold effective deliberations and decide things. In my opinion, Ford is doing Toronto a huge, and entirely non-partisan, favour by cutting the ranks of council back to a group that can be more focused and efficient.

Yeah, that's a very good post Andy! The people who obsess over how tiny the savings will be are missing the point by lightyears; the impact is not in the direct savings, it's in all the indirect longterm benefits (financial and otherwise) of having a board of directors that's closer to optimal size.

And before someone shows up with a "but how can we possibly know what the optimal size is", we kinda do know. For companies, studies seem to show the ideal size to be in the sub-10 range. (Google it if you don't want to take my word.) For a city council, there's no doubt 25 is going to be less dysfunctional than 47. And 25 is likely still bloated, but already preferable to 47.

[niwell]

I'm not sure you can really compare a city council to a board of directors - the functions of both entities and responsibilities of individual members is completely different. The flawed neoliberal trend of treating any form of government "like a business" notwithstanding.

If you want to go down that direction I've long been a proponent (on and off this board) of a rethink in the way council is organized and functions that would likely result in fewer Councillors that vote on city-wide issues. There are a number of ways this can be done, such as what Loco101 described above, or for instance have separate community councils that deal only with local issues in addition to a smaller primary council (this is what happens in NYC for instance).

I know the latter option above could be accomplished despite Bill 5, but not so sure about the former. What the Bill does is effectively remove the ability for the City of Toronto to determine its own ward boundaries and the number of wards. Making it the only municipality in the province to lack this power and have provincially prescribed wards (somewhat ironic). It's pretty sloppy legislation tbh, and apparently no drafting instructions were ever given to staff.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah, that's a very good post Andy! The people who obsess over how tiny the savings will be are missing the point by lightyears; the impact is not in the direct savings, it's in all the indirect longterm benefits (financial and otherwise) of having a board of directors that's closer to optimal size.

And before someone shows up with a "but how can we possibly know what the optimal size is", we kinda do know. For companies, studies seem to show the ideal size to be in the sub-10 range. (Google it if you don't want to take my word.) For a city council, there's no doubt 25 is going to be less dysfunctional than 47. And 25 is likely still bloated, but already preferable to 47.

Hoped for benefits. Afaik, there's little concrete evidence of the current council being sub-optimal in size or the new, reduced council being more cost effective. One wonders what Ford's response will be if the new council turns out to be more dysfunctional than the supposedly dysfunctional current iteration?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Hoped for benefits. Afaik, there's little concrete evidence of the current council being sub-optimal in size or the new, reduced council being more cost effective. One wonders what Ford's response will be if the new council turns out to be more dysfunctional than the supposedly dysfunctional current iteration?

It's not in the nature of politicians (especially not Ford types) to admit that they were wrong.

[niwell]

He can always blame it on "NDP councillors getting re-elected" or just ignore it. He's never been one for facts and lies or embellishes seemingly mundane things in virtually every presser.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Doady

I'd have more sympathy for Toronto if they didn't ban 905 bus systems from operating within their borders, or if they were building an Eglinton LRT that connected to the Mississauga Transitway, or if TTC had fare integration with 905 systems. Toronto tries too hard to exist in its own little bubble and it's finally time these people got a wake up call. Doug Ford is just another one of them. He just another example of the typical Centre of the Universe, elitist attitude that defines the people of Toronto. Even as premier of Ontario, all he can think of is Toronto, Toronto, Toronto. Just nauseating. I think the PCs and the Rest of Ontario will get a wake up call too. They need a leader who can think of something else besides Toronto for once and obviously Doug Ford is not that leader.

What's interesting is the discourse that insinuates that this is something being imposed on Toronto by an outside entity of sorts - the government of Ontario with mostly non-416 Tory MPPs.

But the truth is that on a personal level it's Doug Ford the life-long 416er who is doing this to other 416ers.

While certain Tory MPPs from other regions may have some animus towards Toronto, most of them probably don't care much about how the city is governed and are just going along with Ford's personal vendetta because he is their leader.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Hoped for benefits. Afaik, there's little concrete evidence of the current council being sub-optimal in size or the new, reduced council being more cost effective. One wonders what Ford's response will be if the new council turns out to be more dysfunctional than the supposedly dysfunctional current iteration?

I think it is far too large. Most legislative bodies of that size have a party system which expedites debates, appointments, etc.

[once]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Hoped for benefits. Afaik, there's little concrete evidence of the current council being sub-optimal in size or the new, reduced council being more cost effective. One wonders what Ford's response will be if the new council turns out to be more dysfunctional than the supposedly dysfunctional current iteration?

The benefits will be borne out after the change. You have to look at the consequences of the action. You are asking for benefits when the only consequence thus far has been city councillors fighting for their jobs.

This isn't a hard science - it is a soft science. We have to look at the effects and the decision making apparatus that the CoT will operate under with the new smaller group. If it is a change for the better, I say reduce the size even more.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's interesting is the discourse that insinuates that this is something being imposed on Toronto by an outside entity of sorts - the government of Ontario with mostly non-416 Tory MPPs.

But the truth is that on a personal level it's Doug Ford the life-long 416er who is doing this to other 416ers.

While certain Tory MPPs from other regions may have some animus towards Toronto, most of them probably don't care much about how the city is governed and are just going along with Ford's personal vendetta because he is their leader.

Doug Ford is a 416er through and through, and he is a high-school dropout, millionaire-by-inheritance. A guy who has always lived in a bubble within a bubble. As I said, the Rest of Ontario is in for a rude awakening, especially the PCs (maybe the Liberals and NDP secretly won't mind Doug Ford too much, haha).

The fact that there is even any discourse at all in the Canada section of SSP about potentially saving 6 million dollars annually from Toronto multi-billion dollar budget is part of the problem. It is a good argument for why Toronto should be a separate province, or even a separate country. This potential 0.05% reduction of Toronto's budget could have been only Toronto's problem. Doug Ford could have been only Toronto's problem as well.

[once]

Originally Posted by niwell

I'm not sure you can really compare a city council to a board of directors - the functions of both entities and responsibilities of individual members is completely different. The flawed neoliberal trend of treating any form of government "like a business" notwithstanding.

If you want to go down that direction I've long been a proponent (on and off this board) of a rethink in the way council is organized and functions that would likely result in fewer Councillors that vote on city-wide issues. There are a number of ways this can be done, such as what Loco101 described above, or for instance have separate community councils that deal only with local issues in addition to a smaller primary council (this is what happens in NYC for instance).

I know the latter option above could be accomplished despite Bill 5, but not so sure about the former. What the Bill does is effectively remove the ability for the City of Toronto to determine its own ward boundaries and the number of wards. Making it the only municipality in the province to lack this power and have provincially prescribed wards (somewhat ironic). It's pretty sloppy legislation tbh, and apparently no drafting instructions were ever given to staff.

I agree the "governments should run like a business" cliche is a bit overused, but I think you hint at some of the failings of the current model.

The board of directors point is a really good one. Get 10 people to agree on strategy and approve major investment initiatives. Treat the rest of the CoT organization as a company with a CEO who is focused on executing the approved strategy and working within the approved budgets.

Hopefully we can all agree that expecting to get 47 people to agree on things is absolutely ridiculous.

There is an argument to be made that city council has way too many members, and at the same time the CoT is massively under staffed at the same time.

I think the entire organization needs a rethink. It could be doing a much better job of meeting the needs of the voters and residents of Toronto. There is no reason that the City of Toronto should be built on a city council model that is also used in places like Ottawa. It's like saying a Loblaws should be run like a dépanneur.

Is reducing the size at this time fair? No. Was it poorly thought out? yes. Will Toronto be worse in the short term over this hastily made decision? Probably. But normalizing these types of shocks to the system will allow the entire thing to hopefully evolve in a way that long term realizes benefits.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

I'm not sure you can really compare a city council to a board of directors - the functions of both entities and responsibilities of individual members is completely different.

I wasn't really comparing per se, my angle was much more generic than that: 47 unaffiliated humans in the same room is too large a number for that group to be doing a good job at running/managing whatever it is they're asked to run/manage. (There are parallels with a board of directors, but that's only because a board of directors also happens to be a bunch of humans in a room who have to take decisions together.)

My social circle, we've organically noticed this over the years - our threshold for "okay, this isn't going anywhere, let's delegate the plan-making to this subgroup and we'll all go with whatever they decide" is MUCH lower than 47.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I wasn't really comparing per se, my angle was much more generic than that: 47 unaffiliated humans in the same room is too large a number for that group to be doing a good job at running/managing whatever it is they're asked to run/manage. (There are parallels with a board of directors, but that's only because a board of directors also happens to be a bunch of humans in a room who have to take decisions together.)

My social circle, we've organically noticed this over the years - our threshold for "okay, this isn't going anywhere, let's delegate the plan-making to this subgroup and we'll all go with whatever they decide" is MUCH lower than 47.

You have a social circle outside of SSP?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by once

There is no reason that the City of Toronto should be built on a city council model that is also used in places like Ottawa. It's like saying a Loblaws should be run like a dépanneur.

This is not a great example. The City of Ottawa has just under 1 million people and spans thousands of square kilometers. The City of Toronto has just under 3 million people and is only 630 square kilometers. In some ways Toronto is probably easier to run (e.g. more uniform service levels). I don't know how functional Ottawa is but if it's running well and Toronto is not it's not clear that the differences all come down to a different in scale.

It's a bit misleading to talk about a need to get all councillors to agree on things. Most of the time they vote and a simple majority is needed.

Many cities have smaller community councils that serve as a lower tier of government, and committees that work as smaller groups. I don't know if Toronto has the community-style councils or not, but those could be, say, 3 or 5 councillors and they really could reach consensus on issues and be responsive to smaller districts. A committee of 4 people might create a proposed bylaw that gets voted on by the 47. Only the 4 people worry about the details and need to coordinate, but they need to make sure that they satisfy at least half of the 47. I don't think that system is inherently bad. It is much better than the strawman system of 47 people who try to write bylaws in council sessions.

Some regions have mayors' councils for regional planning, or separate regional planning bodies. Some cities have at large councillors and some have a ward system. Some have a hybrid. These all solve different problems. One of the big problems is that geographically-oriented councillors often cannot work together on regional projects because they all want to "bring home the bacon".

If Doug Ford wants to help out metro Toronto his priority should probably be to do something like create a regional transportation authority for the GTA.

[Mikemike]

From what I can tell Toronto's full council doesn't decide much anyway, other than as a rubber-stamp board approving committee work. It sounds to me as though there is far more getting done in committees, including the various departments and "community" boards for the former municipalities. If you cut too far then each councillor has to sit on too many boards and the system doesn't function... and then far more is decided by bureaucrats.

yay democracy?

[rousseau]

Did anyone not foresee that Trump North would be a total shit show? It's not like he came out of nowhere (if you're in Ontario, anyway). And it's not like he ever disavowed anything his brother said or did.

Only if you believed in the most paranoid fantasies of the Fordite fever swamp could even a prima facie case have been made for escalating straight to notwithstanding
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/and...as-unnecessary

What the infantile vengeance and strong-arm interference in an election have highlighted here is Ford's offence against the Canadian social contract. As the pithy comparison goes:

America: Works in theory, not in practice.
Canada: Works in practice, not in theory.

The notwithstanding clause was never meant to be used in such cavalier fashion for the purposes of a petty personal vendetta. This understanding was a given until the current premier came along.

I wonder if this doesn't also signal a major (perhaps final?) break in Canada's traditional affinity to Great Britain as we march execrably onward to the wholesale adoption of American political norms? After all, the comparison above works with the UK, too: in theory it's as much a theocracy as Iran, but of course the practice belies that.

Seems to me that the reaction against Ford is as much cultural as it is political. While there is great anger at the damage his policies are going to do to Ontario, the laundry list of conservative clichés he's subjecting us to (fuck programs targeting climate change! save our children from the predation of up-to-date sex education! cut back social assistance handouts to freeloaders! i'm going to save money, regardless of the actual costs fiscal and otherwise when you look more closely at the numbers and the impact my stupid policies are going to have!) are even more offensive.

We've long been accustomed to sneering at the parade of transparently idiotic hucksters south of the border, never really thinking it could happen here. But it seems Rob Ford wasn't just a temporary stain on the body politic; now with his equally troglodytic brother in charge, Ontario's humiliation is complete.

Though at least some here are attempting to pull the province back from the Fordian depths:

The #NotwithstandingClause is not a get out of jail free card. It’s a measure of last resort. It’s use should be of concern to all of us. Today I put forward a motion to establish parameters to prevent its routine use #OnPoli #Constitution



https://twitter.com/JohnFraserOS/sta...44691114201089

With our current premier, looks like the theory needs to be updated if we can no longer rely on the traditional decency of practice.