Have any of you noticed that the Toronto Star columnists are pushing for political parties at the municipal level.

For example Christopher Hume:

quote:

---

Regardless of who occupies the chief magistrate's chair, the fact is that Toronto governance is dysfunctional. It doesn't work. The post-amalgamation council might be one of the worst ever, but even if many of its members weren't so dismal, it still wouldn't work.

As it's currently set up, we have 45 disparate voices screaming and shouting, largely at cross-purposes. Sadly, all this sound and fury signifies nothing.

In the meantime, there's a city to run. It's time to look at different models. For instance, perhaps it's time to bring party politics to the municipal level. True, many councillors are already affiliated, but they don't seem to let that influence their behaviour. Clearly, what's needed is more discipline; council debates have become noisy, largely meaningless and even irrelevant.

---

Humes article

Then from Royson James:

quote:

---

Encourage political parties to provide focus and structure for the electorate. Yes, this is an unfortunate conclusion, but a necessary one.

More on that later.

---

Royson's Article

http://www.thetorontoparty.com/
Toronto Party

From the page of the site:

quote:

---

Toronto can no longer be run by what is essentially a single-party system dominated by councillors who are supported by the New Democratic Party ("NDP").

Any thoughts?

It is our intention to establish a party, however, that is not partisan. It will not be affiliated with the provincial Liberal Party, Progressive Conservative Party or the NDP. It will not be affiliated with any federal party in Canada.

---

He generally writes what his bosses want him to.

Of course the Star is right that only a party structure allows for accountability in government.
It's just to hard to track individual counsellours positions on important issues.

They can cover a wrong vote with procedural votes which make it unclear what their real position is.

Or, they can pull a Jane Pitifield, and come out STRONGLY against any raises for "politicians", meanwhile insuring that her allies vote in favour of those same raises.

quote:

---

Toronto can no longer be run by what is essentially a single-party system dominated by councillors who are supported by the New Democratic Party ("NDP").

---

[ 19 October 2006: Message edited by: Albireo ]

quote:

---

the New Democratic Party, the only one to nominate municipal candidates

---

quote:

---

Like the other parties, the NDP prefers to hide behind veils that are guaranteed to confuse voters.

---

Why the secrecy? Are the candidates afraid or ashamed of the support they receive from their political party?

[ 19 October 2006: Message edited by: Albireo ]

quote:

---

Montreal was once Canada's great financial centre. Then politics made Montreal unwelcoming to business and, over time, Toronto took over. Now Toronto has become hostile to business and companies are relocating outside the city and to more business-friendly Calgary. If Toronto remains hostile, Calgary will continue to outpace Toronto and could replace Toronto as the country's business and financial capital.

---

quote:

---

It is a great fallacy to think that Toronto is ready to fully govern itself. The city is made up of a series of local fiefdoms, called wards, which local councillors rule without meaningful checks and balances. The mayor has few powers, other than the ability to place cronies in positions of power. In this unaccountable, dysfunctional environment, petty corruption thrives and rumours of major scandal circulate.

To make matters worse, taxation and fees are arbitrary, largely unrelated to the services they support. Property rights are all but non-existent. In this lawless, unprincipled governance structure, large corporations, and especially those in the financial district, become especially irresistible targets. With no one obvious to lobby, without a vote, these corporations become the geese whose golden eggs get plundered.

---

There is a perception that the NDP control the council. The reference to unaccountability and the corruption and scandal is dead on.

While many point to corruption by Liberals and COnservatives, it appears the finger can be pointed right back to the NDP.

This may be not right but politics is a game of perception not reality.

Municipal governments (expecially Toronto's) need change and maybe the idea of bringing party politics from behind the cloak of secrecy is the best way.

I can just see people coming together with a vision for Toronto that truly is a coalition of varying political interest and forming a party. That party creates a constitution and principles, is allowed to fund raise outside of an election year, runs nominations, and puts forward a slate of candidates. Now picture three or four more parties running competing visions to the status quo political parties. Talk about the excitment that can drive voters to the poles instead of the paltry 38% Toronto had recently.

This media and right wing attack on the NDP at the municipal level would be hilarious if it weren't so insidious. It is another example of the big lie.

All parties work at the municipal level. The Liberals and Conservatives poor money, sign locations, and volunteers into civic elections. When they do it it is non-partisan but when the NDP does it it is some sort of blasphemy. Pure bullshit.

But Chris Hume is right and so is the propaganda rag the Financial Post. But for all the wrong reason. That contemptible, corrupt, and destructive Harris regime rendered Toronto un-governable and politically paralyzed with amalgamation.

The problem with the Financial Post is that particular rag has never encountered a truth that couldn't be spun into a lie nor a lie that couldn't be made big.

If Toronto is sagging and motionless it is because rags such as the FP supported the policies and the goverment of the worst gang of vandals and cons ever to occupy Queens Park.

But it is anathema for conservatives to ever accept any responsibility of any action ever undertaken so we should become accustomed to them blaming councilors who neither form a majority nor even a balance of power.

[ 20 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

But municipal governance is also the best place to initiate real grass roots activism and, consequently, the most appropriate political change at this level would be to institute a
Direct Democracy system of governance.

The issues at the municipal level are few enough to be managable and the importance of them are much more directly experienced by the community involved than provincial or federal issues. It also provides a fertile environment for the eventually inclusion of provincial and eventually federal politics into the Direct Democracy system as local populations become more and more experienced in the process at the municipal level.

That is, if anyone is really interested in a truly Democratic process of governance.

[ 20 October 2006: Message edited by: otter ]

quote:

---

The perception is created by the media.
This media and right wing attack on the NDP at the municipal level would be hilarious if it weren't so insidious. It is another example of the big lie.

---

Is this the same perception the Conservatives have that they cannot get their messaage out due to a left wing dominate media.

quote:

---

That contemptible, corrupt, and destructive Harris regime rendered Toronto un-governable and politically paralyzed with amalgamation.

---

How would you expect it to work when we voted in councillors that were against the idea? They had a vested interest in making sure that it did not work to make Harris look worse then he did. The sad thing is the majority of these councillorsw are still there.

The error Harris made and continued by McGunity was making municipal governments responsible for social programs and the re-distribution of wealth.

Municipalities role is not to re-distribute wealth that is the role of the provincial or federal governments.

[ 20 October 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

quote:

---

Winning candidates will be whipped (what a wonderful expression in this context) by the Central Party Authority at the provincial and federal levels,

---

As soon as one mentions party politics, everyone immediately jumps to the conclusion it will mean more of the same of the goings on on Ottawa and Queens Park. I can understand that.

But I see this idea differently. I see it as an opporunity to move away from the mainstream political parties that are driven by the elite and mainstream political activists.

I find it curious that the provincial government would prohibit individuals to form political parties at the municipal level. DO they not trust us? DO they thinik were are stupid?

What about our fundamental rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association?

Why should they discriminate against individuals that wish to assemble and associate in municipal politics without having to be controlled by the Liberal, Conservative or NDP parties?

Why are municipal parties controlled by provincial statute in Quebec? Why are Ontarians denied the same rights?

What are they afraid of? Maybe is that when people come together to make things right without a political agenda, it will show to everyone how corrupt and devious the three major parties and their establishments truly are.

eta: What I mean is that I very much like having a system in which local politics are conducted at a local level. If I want to deal with a government in which my local representative has to check with Her Superiors before deciding how she can vote, then why not just go straight to the provincial level?

[ 20 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

That means we should be able to learn from the experiences in Quebec.

In Toronto where the Liberals and NDP do utilize political party apparatus to elect their candidates, we see the exact same thing.

Maybe I am being idealistic, but the cry for different governance system in Toronto is so strong, that we should be able to come up with a solution.

Party politics at city hall need not be covert

Hopefully, the idea will get some action.

some quotes:

quote:

---

With enhanced powers — and a bolstered group of councillors loyal to the mayor and to the NDP — Miller will, in effect, run an unassailable government in a one-party state, critics charge.

---

quote:

---

Disappointment and dissatisfaction with Toronto city council is turning to disgust. And with it, comes a clamour for changes to the way our municipal government is elected and run.

Criticism from newcomer candidates centres around three themes:

The large, 45-member council can't be rallied around a vision or plan because councillors are elected as "independents."
Self-serving councillors reject reforms that threaten their hold on lifetime council seats and make it near-impossible for newcomers to get in.
Toronto is being run by a one-party system, the New Democratic Party. With an NDP mayor in Miller at the helm, his push in this election to elect several more New Democrats, and new powers to control the council agenda, means the balance tilted too far.

One solution, they say, is to open the process and formalize it, with official civic parties not necessarily tied to the parties at Queen's Park or Ottawa.

---

quote:

---

Dave Meslin, who has sparked interest in the current civic election by running a City Idol contest seeking candidates for council, says such a shakeup is needed. "We already have parties at city hall. The problem is that the party members aren't accountable to a membership, or a platform or a nomination meeting or a convention. All the mechanisms that make parties democratic are missing. So we end up with the worst of both worlds; the party councillors, who aren't held accountable for their actions, and the independents who are outnumbered and have to make deals."

---

Tomorrow morning one of the co-founders will be interviewed on Toronto 860 AM at 7:50

On November 3rd, the two co-founders willbe interviewed on channel 12 at 6pm for the news version.

A longer version of the interview will aired on Saturday Nov 4th at 5 pm (channel 12 again)

The Toronto Party was on CBC radio twice this past week and twice on CBC TV over the weekend. The TV segments were aired throughout Ontario.

In Saturday's segment on CBC Telejournal, the The Hon. Mr. John Gerretsen Minister of Municipal Affairs (Ontario) stated that the Ontario government will have to review municipal election act after the November 13th elections. The formation of civic parties is an Ontario issue and not only a Toronto concern.

The need to bring the 3 main political party politics out from behind the curtain of secrecy has been written about in the media a couple of more times. The political pundits and the professors of political science have been vocal about the need for allowing citizens not aligned with any political party the have right to form parties with the same rights of the standard political parties.

To ensure the Ontario government reviews and amends the Municipal Elections Act, we must write letters and e-mails to The Hon. Mr. John Gerretsen Minister of Municipal Affairs at Email: [email protected]

The Toronto party is continuing to receive e-mails from individuals willing to join and work to bring the party to the people. They have received interest from 3 sitting councillors already.

A preliminary meeting is being planned within weeks following the Nov 13th elections. I will post the date and meeting location when I am made aware of the particulars.

The article is titled Toronto needs party politics

quote:

---

If Toronto City Council really wants to become more formalized and more like provincial and federal governments, we need to throw party politics into the equation. And, like in some other cities, these parties would not have to be the traditional parties that compose Parliament or our provincial legislatures.

---

quote:

---

Party politics would gain the attention of those who don’t necessarily pay much attention to individuals. If residents don’t like the way the city is functioning, they can vote the governing party out of office and bring in another party that they have more faith in. It’s easier to follow the activities of a party than it is an individual councillor. The introduction of party politics would make for a better functioning democracy.

Party politics would also act as an incentive to politicians to work harder for their constituents in order to attempt to avoid losing the next election if their party is falling out of favour with the public. Party politics would raise the importance of municipal elections and they would cease to be the virtual non-races that many councillors face at election time.

---

TORONTO NEEDS PARTY POLITICS

The concerns this article are probably applicable to all municipalities, including Windsor, London, Hamilton Kingston, Ottawa, Sudbury, etc etc.

www.thetorontoparty.com

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

quote:

---

With only three days until election day, a slate of union-backed candidates sounding alarm bells about school closings and job cuts is in one corner.

In the other stand parents and veteran trustees of the Toronto District School Board who say they're fighting to avoid a takeover by teachers' and staff unions.

---

quote:

---

The union is employed by the board. It's a conflict of interest. It's like developers buying councillors," said Lillyann Goldstein, whose son attends Northern Secondary School.

---

Google Source

This is the union/NDP running a slate of candidates which is a POLITICAL PARTY. This is so common across Ontario and even Canada.

Do not get me wrong. This is ok but it should be brought out into the open with full accountability of the donations and donations in kind.

The Toronto Party is fighting for CIVIC PARTIES to allow non-aligned citizens the right to form civic parties and to raise funds and transfer those funds to their candidates.

It is quite obvious that the Unions and the NDP along with the Liberals and PC's are doing this.

If one reads the Municipal Act and pay particular attention to contributions and who can and cannot contribute and how donations are to be raised and dispersed you will quickly realize that there is quite alot of hanky panky going on.

Since when did a membership to a political party or membership to a union give them superior rights to the ordinary citizen?

If you wish democratic reforms at the federal and provincial levels, then maybe we should start at the municipal level.

Please pick up the paper and review the article.

The Toronto Party has received some e-mails from individuals in Ottawa and Vaughan. These two cities elected new mayors on Monday night. The citizens voted for change but according to the e-mails all the incumbent councillors were returned to office. Many see them as stonewalling the mayors' agenda for change and actually working together to make sure they are viewed as incompenent.

If you desire change, we need civic parties for all of Ontario. This is the time to let your MPP and the Minister of Municipal Affairs know of your concerns. Send an e-mail to them today.

Contact you local MPP via the Ontario government website and ask them to admend the Municipal Act to allow Civic Parties.

quote:

---

Almost everywhere, political parties are part of local government. For 70 years, they have dominated Vancouver municipal politics. Montreal has a pair of civic parties. New York and Tokyo, Stockholm and Rome, Berlin and London, England, all have parties of their own.

And yet, in Toronto, there are no party colours and no slates of candidates. In Toronto, formal civic parties are not just non-existent but effectively banned.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Thiele uses words like "non-partisan" or "multi-partisan" to describe his new party's ethos. Rather than an offshoot of a provincial or federal party, the Toronto Party's founders envision an organization focused on specific issues rather than ideology.

"What we've found is it doesn't matter that you are affiliated with the Conservative party or the NDP or the Liberals when it comes to city issues," Mr. Thiele said. "People can work together to fix something regardless of their political labels."

A formal party structure would also end the climate of "covert party politics" at City Hall, Mr. Thiele said. "We have a single party system at City Hall -- it's called the NDP."

---

quote:

---

Parties also provide voters with a clear way of determining where a politician stands on an issue. In a city with an $8-billion operating budget such as Toronto, this can only increase accountability, Prof. Smith argues.

"It's entirely appropriate to have people come together and form political coalitions to say, 'This is how we will spend the public money,' " Prof. Smith said. "And the way you do that in any normal democracy is through parties."

---

Source

quote:

---

This view that partisan politics shouldn't be allowed to overtake municipal government is at least one of the reasons that the Ontario Municipal Elections Act doesn't permit the formation of parties to field candidates in civic elections.

Overall, it's an approach to municipal politics that works fairly well, although there's no question that party politics can indirectly play a part in municipal elections in Ontario. Many candidates have party ties, which are used to help run campaigns and solicit votes. As well, special interests -- including organized labour -- can play a role by endorsing certain candidates.

---

They just admitted that party politics and unions are directly involved in municipal elections. That seems to be a contradiction of their position.

Ordinary citizens with no party affiliation and not a member of a union should also enjoy the same fundamental Charter rights.

quote:

---

But it's a safe bet that it wouldn't take long for traditional parties to make their mark on municipal politics, whether through the establishment of municipal wings, or alliances with other civic parties. It would be possible for a provincial government, for example, to influence decision-making that would be more amenable to its needs than those of local constituents.

---

In the last federal election, Miller stood on stage with Paul Miller endorsing the Liberal party. That is using municipal government to promote a political party.

Also, Miller is suggesting a parking tax increase and using "climate change" as the excuse to drive more business and tourists from our downtown core. "Climate Change" and Kyoto is a NDP election plank. Again using the office to promote one party over the others.

Again this is an area that is a federal issue and not one that municipalities should be getting involved with.

[quote]As well, party affiliation could give a distinct fundraising advantage to a particular slate of candidates. As happens at both the federal and provincial levels, independent candidates -- not tied to parties -- are rarely elected because they do not have the backing of well-organized and well-funded party campaigns.[quote]

Again, in Olivia's former ward, the NDP held a nomination contest to select their candidate. It was reported that they fund raised and established a campaign team of volunteers from the process. I understand that Ms Kenndey did not win, but Adam Vaughn is even further left in his views then Ms. Kennedy who came with a balanced NDP approach to civic politics.

Push for Civic Parties Windsor Star

Ordinary citizens should be allowed the same charter rights as partisan poltical parties and organized labour to naturally form civic parties at the municipal level.

[ 29 November 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

On Friday, the Toronto Party was the cover story of the Toronto Free Press.

Toronto Free Press Cover Story

quote:

---

New Toronto Party to revolutionize City Hall

Given the dashed hopes of municipal candidates and the increasing apathy of the public toward civic elections, the Toronto Party couldn’t have been born at a more auspicious time. Even the most dejected will soon notice the green leaves growing on a tree where there was no sign of life before.

With Vote2006 finished, and Mayor David Miller re-elected with a stronger left-wing dominated council than under the previous council, the work of the Toronto Party now begins for Vote2010,” states a post-election Toronto Party press release.

Hundreds of candidates in Toronto municipal elections suffer the same fate. They come away discouraged and watch the same incumbents celebrating at televised victory parties.

Voter apathy long ago made municipal government, the government of acclamations.

At City Hall, there are never any new faces, only the certain return of career councillors like Howard Moscoe and company.

That’s because municipal elections are structured in a way that all but guarantees the return of the incumbent.

The Toronto Party wants to pump new life into Toronto municipal elections.

David Miller can keep his iconic election brochure broom. Toronto Party organizers want to waft fresh air through City Hall and give civic government back to the people.

---

In the Sunday Edition of the Toronto Sun, Sue Ann Levy wrote an article on the Toronto Party and its role within the City of Toronto.

Sue Ann Levy Column

quote:

---

If I were a betting person, I’d wager that fiscally responsible councillors like Denzil Minnan-Wong, Doug Holyday, Rob Ford, Case Ootes, Mike Del Grande and Karen Stintz won’t be asked to head up any of the seven key standing committees or to play a role in developing the city’s 2007 budget.

Inclusive — that is open to dissenting opinion or a novel idea — is the last thing one can call our mayor.

Ditto for Holyday who isn’t the least bit surprised that his phone has also been silent.

“The first thing we should try to do is organize ourselves into some meaningful opposition,” he says.

He’s absolutely right. But the efforts of Holyday and Co. over the past three years have been weak and ineffective.

But help has arrived, in the form of a new civic party called the Toronto Party.

---

The transportation plan is impressive expecially the via duct over the railway tracks. visit www.toviaduct.com

TORONTO PARTY STRIKES GOLD

Paul Henderson joins prominent Torontonians in setting new Party’s agenda

Toronto (December 14, 2006) – Economic renewal, sports and tourism, and transport have been identified as priority areas for The Toronto Party.

Former Olympian Paul Henderson will chair the Toronto Party’s Sports and Tourism Committee, one of three standing committees organized to build a policy platform over the next four years. “This is the gold standard,” said Stephen Thiele, who along with Brian Roussie, co-founded the Toronto Party and will be petitioning the Ontario government to allow political parties in the 2010 municipal election.

“Changing the Ontario Municipal Elections Act to allow the formation of political parties is of course our number one priority. Once we are successful there has to be a reason for a party to exist. These committees are a strong step in that direction,” Thiele said.

In addition to Henderson’s Committee, The Toronto Party has established a Transportation Committee chaired by James Alcock, an urban and transportation planner, and founding member of the Citizens’ Transportation Alliance of Toronto. John Eisan, a former business unit leader with Marsh Canada Limited, with experience in international trade, will chair the Economic Development Committee.

“These are people who believe passionately in their city, and are used to getting things done,” Thiele said. “To attract this level of talent so early in The Toronto Party’s development demonstrates the hunger there is out there for an alternative to challenge the ease of incumbency and culture of entitlement at Toronto City Hall.”

About the Toronto Party

It looks like the media types must want civic parties to happen if they keep giving them press time.

Globe and Mail – Inside City Hall Section - Monday December 18th, 2006 Pg A11

Let’s Have a Party

quote:

---

They barely called “wrap” on this year’s election when a few eager beavers decided to rev up for 2010.

---

quote:

---

“Our idea is to look at issues, not ideology, though we are trying to counter balance what in essence is an NDP-dominated city council. “ Mr. Thiele said.

Last week his group announced that several local luminaries, former Olympian Paul Henderson among them, have come on board.

---

quote:

---

Ontario Municipal Affairs Minister: John Gerretsen, whose ministry is about to review the rules on municipal elections and campaign finance, says “I am not diametrically opposed to any of these ideas at all. Whatever makes local government function better.”

---

I do not have a subscription to G&M's website so I cannot post the link.

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:
I apologize if this is in the wrong forum...

---

quote:

---

Municipalities role is not to re-distribute wealth that is the role of the provincial or federal governments.

---

Every province experienced the same as Mike Harris and that includes Premiers that were NDP and Liberal.

The provincial governments did exactly to the municipalities that the feds did to them.

My view is that the provinces (and the feds) outsourced their jobs to a lower government just like corporations do in the world. AS with any outsourcing function the company gets paid to perform a job. The theory is the savings to the company are split between the company and the firm that won the oitsourcing contract.

Municipalities should only be in the wealth re-distribution business as long the provincial govs fund it plus provide a premium to create the vehicle to distribute the program. With all due respect, in some cases municipalities are better suited to deliver social programs than higher levels. They should get paid to due that.

Even Unions every now and then have to re-adjust their overhead costs at their offices. The unions are like any other business. Their source of revenue is union dues and sometimes they understand that like raising taxes, raising union dues does not result in more revenue. If people feel they are being over taxed or over unioned dues, they will find ways to avoid both. In unions, they can de-certify or look for a union with cheaper dues.

quote:

---

The actual fact is the Liberals in 1993 took power and immediately started down loading to the provinces and keep cash in Ottawa for themselves.

---

I agree that the federal government has regularly reduced its 50% share but the biggest contributor to that reduction has been the federal liberals.

This discussion still does not remove the main thrust of the thread. The way politics is run at the municipalities must change to allow non-aligned citizens to come together and naturally form a civic party to take back control of the tax and spend people currently running city councils.

It still does not reduce the statement that municipalities should not be in the wealth re-distribution business for the higher levels of government unless one they are fully funded and two receive a fee for outsourced services performed.

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

....op-eds straight from the National Post presented as facts, a view that the NDP somehow controls Toronto City Council, and a grotesquely skewed vision of history in which Mike Harris was simply a victim of Liberal malfeasance....

1. If you review every province's health care costs and read the comments of their premiers and health ministers every single one of them are concerned with the amount health care costs eat of their budgets. It is or approaching the single largest line item in any budget.

All I am suggesting is the current method is not working. The feds mainly under the liberals reduced their share from the 50%. The provinces must make that up. They understand that they cannot simply tax the people to death so they have a few options: cut other services to fund health care, cut services covered by health care, or review the delivery mechanism.

2. Harris along with other premiers of all political stripes had to grapple with the down loading from the feds with no accompanying funds. Not a historical revision.

3. Sid Ryan in his column in the Sun lauds the success of the NDP and union in the recent municipal elections. He claims the NDP and Union now control 15 mayors in Ontario and the Toronto District School Board. Every political pundit has stated that Toronto City Hall is dominated by the NDP. If Sid and the political pundits suggest the NDP has been successful across the province running their political party apparatus to win control, who am I to disagree.

4. The articles I posted are from a wide range of newspapers with different political philosophies.

Municipal politics should not be partisian politics. Since it is now, all this Toronto Party is asking is to allow people with no political affilation the same rights as Unions and the NDP (along with the liberals and the Conservatives)have to organize and fund raise for their candidates.

I was hoping this forum's participants would be all for democratic rights for the people.

www.thetorontoparty.com

[ 19 December 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

This idea is certainly getting a lot of press coverage. The media must be wishing to hope this comes to pass.

To see the interview click on this link:
http://tinyurl.com/y6z3sc

visit www.thetorontoparty.com

[ 30 December 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

[ 30 December 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

[ 30 December 2006: Message edited by: civicduty ]

The article can be read here:

Vaughan Weekly

A balanced approach to our transportation woes which includes cyclists, walkers, public transit (bus/subway/LRT) and the car. The bonus it opens up the whole Lakeshore and reconnects the waterfront to the city and the people

National Post

Cars, cyclists and condos welcome at proposed viaduct

Dave McGinn
National Post

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Last Sunday, the Toronto Party, a fledgling civic political party, endorsed a plan to replace the Gardiner Expressway with a cable-stayed viaduct running above the railway corridor downtown. The viaduct (see it at www.toviaduct.com), designed by engineer Jose Gutierrez, is part of a comprehensive transportation plan for the city of Toronto created by urban and transportation planner James Alcock. The viaduct would accommodate not just cars, but also transit, pedestrians and cyclists. Dave McGinn spoke to Mr. Alcock about the plan.

Q Would it be weird to have a bridge spanning the downtown core?

Alcock No, of course [it wouldn't]. We already have a bridge running through the downtown core -- it's the Gardiner. We'd just build a much nicer looking one, a Gardiner we could be proud of.

Q Good point. It's also a Gardiner we could live in, right?

Alcock The pylons that the bridge would stand on, some of the towers could actually be habitable and could actually be condo buildings.

Q Is there anything like this anywhere else in the world?

Alcock France has just built a cable-stayed viaduct that's taller than the Eiffel Tower that goes across a big valley. You have to understand that great cities around the world have signature bridges: London with the Tower bridge, San Francisco with the Golden Gate bridge. Toronto would have a signature bridge with this plan.

Q What advantages do you think the viaduct plan has over other plans to deal with the Gardiner?

Alcock Instead of having two transportation corridors, we have the expressway beside the railway lines. We'd combine them into one so that the expressway is above the railway lines in a much more aesthetically pleasing design and where the Lakeshore now could be opened up as a beautiful, grand waterfront boulevard.

Alcock We have. We've surveyed quite a few councillors and they just love the idea. Karen Stintz likes it very much. Jane Pitfield, when she was running for mayor, liked it very much.

[ 18 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

[ 18 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

The Toronto Party has just signed up two sitting MP's to the party. Apparently this is just the start. As more individuals of this calibre join, the more influential the Party will grow.

Second:

I would like to congratulate David Miller and the council for using The Toronto Party's Transportation Plan for the LTR routes.

While we beleive this is a step in the right direction, LRT should not be utilized to reduce the road routes available to the automobile users. Also LRT's should not be used to divide neighborhoods.

There are a number of hydro corridors that can be used to improve transit and reduce congestion on our roads.

IF LRT's are used to reduce traffic lanes, it will only increase congestion, smog, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Toronto needs a balanced approach to the transit issues facing it. NO matter how many years and decades spent in trying to get people out of their cars, automobile use has actually increased.

visit:

www.gettorontomoving.ca
www.toviaduct.com

and join the Toronto Party at www.thetorontoparty.com

[ 18 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:
[QB]...The Toronto Party has just signed up two sitting MP's to the party. Apparently this is just the start. As more individuals of this calibre join... [QB]

---

What calibre is that? Certainly many MP's are persons whose calibre wouldn't impress many of us here. I don't see the names of them anywhere.

I actually went and read your March Newsletter, but couldn't see the names of them there.

The names I did see made it seem like a sneaky right-wing group trying to gain the support of the citizens by using a trendy name.

When I google John Eisan, your economic advisor, I got no hits at all except those few that referred to the "Toronto" Party.

For James Alcock, I found this biography for a town planner-- who is presumably him-- who spent much time working for the Canadian Automobile Association, and real estate interests.
biography

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:
Thank you for that information Stephen Gordon.

That means we should be able to learn from the experiences in Quebec.

In Toronto where the Liberals and NDP do utilize political party apparatus to elect their candidates, we see the exact same thing.

Maybe I am being idealistic, but the cry for different governance system in Toronto is so strong, that we should be able to come up with a solution.

Since this cry is so strong, I truly can see 4 or 5 municipal parties being created and electing councillors and even a Mayor with no political debt to the major parties. This would then allow for the implementation of new programs that changes the way things are done in Toronto.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me we would still have the problem of personnal affiliations,which is what we already have.For me Direct Democracy means referendums for things like: should we invade Iran,or better yet should we accept the NorthAmerican Union,and having recall thus eliminating floor crossing.Municipalities will still be under the thumb of business,like in ::if you do not give me consessions I will not bring my business here,then the voters will turf that party out cause they will be perceived as anti economic prosperity all the while forgetting that having allowed big business this sway over this sorta kinda regulated development is why Canada is where it's at now.

---

Dear E:

Reform was all about direct democracy. They did not get to govern the country. With that said, I am all in favour of binding referenda at the time of the federal elections. The majority will of the people on issues of signifance should prevail. Judges and MP's should not make those decisions.

AS to civic parties, the current regime of Mayor Miller is definitely of the NDP persuasion and they never hid that they were using the NDP political machinery and unions to get elected. Good for them for being open and honest about that. Even with that said, a left of the political spectrum ideology is not good for running a city same as a far right one would be not proper.

Governing a municipality requires balance and acceptance that we need to foster an environment that assists companies to move here and employ people.

A municipality should not be in the wealth re-distribution business as that duty belongs to the upper levels of government. If they wish for the cities to deliver the services, then fund them 100% and give the cities a premium to set up the necessary department to deliver the service, Rate payers (civilian and commercial) should not bare the brunt of that cost)

A city should only be invovled in the services the people require ... police, ambulance, fire fighters, sewage, water, garbage removal to be used for energy production, roads maintenance and parks and recreation. No discussions on minimum wage (provincial issue) no discussions on climate change (federal and provincial issues), and all the other crap they have no jurisidcation over.

If the NDP wish to address issues then elect enough MP's or MPP's to form federal or provincial governments.

City governance is not the proper place to instill far left, left , right or far right political ideology. City government is about delivery of services without political partisanship

[ 18 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:
LRT should not be utilized to reduce the road routes available to the automobile users. Also LRT's should not be used to divide neighborhoods.

There are a number of hydro corridors that can be used to improve transit and reduce congestion on our roads.

IF LRT's are used to reduce traffic lanes, it will only increase congestion, smog, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Toronto needs a balanced approach to the transit issues facing it. NO matter how many years and decades spent in trying to get people out of their cars, automobile use has actually increased.

---

The evidence is that building and expanding roads and highways does not significantly address congestion. More importantly, the whole issue of “congestion” is inflated in importance in the first place. Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are caused by (among other things) the large volume of traffic on the roads. Slower travel times don’t increase the volume of GHG emissions and pollutions significantly. Or to put it another way, if you make it easier to drive, more people will drive, offsetting any small reductions in emissions / pollution that might come from a quicker commute.

Increased congestion combined with improved public transit can encourage more people to take transit. So yes, taking up road space for transit rights-of-way makes sense. Drivers can see the light rail cars or buses going past them, as opposed to being out of sight and out of mind. Congestion may be a positive, as long as transit vehicles aren’t themselves stuck in the traffic jams.

The steps Toronto has taken so far are only tentative first steps – rights-of-way along Spadina, Queen’s Quay and St. Clair are only a small part of what could be done. So we don’t really know yet whether an ambitious system of public transit improvements would get people out of their cars.

quote:

---

I don’t care how pretty it looks at night – I don’t want a freeway cutting through my city, your city, or anyone’s city.

---

You already have the following freeway’s cutting through the city: the 401, 427, 400/Black Creek Drive, Gardiner and finally the DVP. Some consider Kingston Road as another expressway from the downtown core to Scarborough only one with many traffic lights. Moving the Gardiner over the exsiting railway line improves the traffic flow and provides LTR and a connection to the underground PATHWAY in the Core. Inn addition, it opens the waterfront to the downtown core. It is a win win for all.

quote:

---

Slower travel times don’t increase the volume of GHG emissions and pollutions significantly. Or to put it another way, if you make it easier to drive, more people will drive, offsetting any small reductions in emissions / pollution that might come from a quicker commute.

---

A combustion engine is most efficient when it is running at speeds close to 45 mph. In stop and go traffic or periods of idling the efficient burning of fuels is reduced significantly and increases not only GHG but particulates that cause smog. Just Google “Stop and go traffic” + “greenhouse gases” and you will see plenty of information from governments and Greenpeace and other groups on this topic. Who am I to argue with the experts.

Putting more congestion and longer drive times will not drive people from their cars. It will just get them even more angry with city councils. It will increase pollution, public transit times and injuries due to accidents from road rage.

Politicians have spent decades trying to get people out of their cars. FDR stated over 50 years ago, that we must get people out of their cars. Well it has not happened and it is exactly the opposite. Cars represent mobility and freedom to people.

In 1951 there were nearly 5 people for every vehicle registered in Canada. By the mid-1980’s this number had fallen to less than two persons per vehicle (see http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16-201-XIE/2006000/ct010_en.htm)

Suburbanization and unfriendly business attitude of Toronto and its effects:

In 2001, 80% of the Canadian population lived in an urban area compared to just under 76% two decades earlier. For the majority of these urban areas, population growth has been fastest in the suburbs. At the same time, employment growth in the suburbs has been on the rise. According to the Census, between 1996 and 2001, for each new job created within a 5 km radius of a city core, nearly five were created in the suburbs.

As more people and jobs have become 'suburbanized,' commuting patterns have become more complex and diffuse. The suburb-to-city-core commuting route, the one that is most easily supported by traditional public transit systems, has increasingly given way to suburb-to-suburb commutes. Even reverse daily commuting—from city core to suburb—is becoming more common. Canadians living or working in more distant suburbs are much more likely to drive to work than to use the bus or some other means
According to the General Social Survey of time use, the proportion of workers in Canada who used the bus or subway to get to and from work remained steady at about 12% between 1992 and 2005. In large urban areas, where service is more accessible to commuters, this proportion was higher—20% of workers in Canada’s six largest metropolitan areas used the bus or subway for part or all of their commute in 1992 and 2005

Citizens and politicians have to realize the car is not going away. Providing less road space for them will not make people take transit, especially the inefficient transit system of Toronto and the GTA.

The answer is to provide a balanced approach to the problem at hand. Provide a system that addresses the car, utilize hydro corridors and other public own lands for dedicated routes for both cars and transit, build more cycle friendly paths and walk pathways.

Cars and yes transit buses moving quicker and with minimal stops due to stop and go reduces GHG and smog causing pollutants.

Also Toronto should cease the attack on businesses and actually work to create a more business friendly environment. The less people that have to commute to the suburbs to work the more they are likely to utilize transit and leave their car at home. Remember all those condo's they are building. The people must work and most of that work is in the burbs.

Your run your life in a balanced position, cities and governments are no different. Provide a balance and allow people to make the choice. Diverting cars to dedicated routes removes then from our city streets. This in turn increases the efficiency of public transit and should drive ridership up.

The answer is not driven by partisian political ideology. The answer is starring everyone in the face and they and you know it.

[ 20 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

The winning option ... wasn't even on the ballot. After Mayor Nickels's tunnel netted a paltry 30 percent of the vote ... and the state's elevated highway option got barely 45 percent ..., the clear winner was the surface/transit option.

quote:

---

Earlier in the evening, starting at around 7:00 p.m., an increasingly rowdy crowd that would eventually grow to 300 jammed into the stifling Alki meeting room at the Edgewater Hotel anxiously awaiting the results of the two nonbinding up-or-down ballot measures.... After both freeways were defeated, the establishment figures on hand, like the Downtown Seattle Association's Kate Joncas, mainstream environmentalists like Aaron Ostrom from FutureWise, and Jessyn Farrell and Rob Johnson from the Transportation Choices Coalition (TCC), got busy re-tooling their raps to align themselves with the surface/transit option.

As Ostrom announced the results and the mayor entered the room followed by his entourage, one staffer began clapping loudly, but the room was slow to comply. Indeed, the mayor's show was put on hold while a TV reporter finished interviewing long-time surface/transit fan City Council Member Peter Steinbrueck in front of the mayor's podium—almost literally stealing Nickels's spotlight. Off to the side, Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis hugged surface/transit leader Cary Moon and told her quietly, "We'll be talking more soon."

The speeches began with TCC's Farrell who told the audience, "We have spent the last 50 years [building roads] and it has resulted in gridlock, it has resulted in climate change, and it has resulted in sprawl." Then Nickels, surprisingly for one of the most stubborn supporters of a tunnel freeway on the waterfront, echoed Farrell. "What [voters] said... is we do not want a freeway on our waterfront." Nickels alluded to conversations in recent days with County Executive Ron Sims (who was out of town, but supports the surface/transit option) and Gov. Christine Gregoire (who supports a rebuilt viaduct), and all but endorsed the surface/transit alternative.

Asked later, after Nickels scurried out dramatically, followed by a pack of cameras, what Nickels had meant by "not another freeway," Ceis was direct: "A big, ugly thing where cars go 50 to 60 miles per hour. The voters don't have to hit us on the head for us to get it." Then he gestured toward Moon with his glass of red wine. "There's your story. She's your storyline tonight." Moon, a dogged activist for the transit option for three years now, is a political novice, but her longstanding prediction that her option would emerge as the compromise solution was indeed the story of the night.

Over at the Spitfire on Fourth Avenue, the surface/transit supporters were still celebrating at 9:00 p.m. when Moon made her entrance after leaving the dwindling party at the Edgewater. She walked into the room to loud applause and said she hoped the mayor would "support the will of the voters and get onboard with the surface/transit plan" instead of considering other options that were beginning to circulate again, including a deep-bore waterfront tunnel. (The rejected tunnel was a cut-and-cover tunnel.) ...

On Wednesday, ... the governor and mayor were expected to sit down again and attempt to hash out a solution. The speculation Tuesday night was that they would agree to begin work on the portions of the roadway south of King Street—the portions that are the same under any plan—and, possibly, to begin implementing the surface/transit option as a "stopgap" until a new plan can be devised. Simultaneously, Steinbrueck said he would introduce legislation freezing all city money for the viaduct in this year's budget (about $8 million) and allocating $500,000 to begin a joint city/county study of the surface/transit option, the council and mayor's official "backup" plan. But Tuesday night's clear victor, any way you look at it, was Cary Moon and her surface/transit option.

---

It is a less expensive and provides a quick and easy access to the cores with minimal stop and go traffic that generates the GHG and more important the particulates that cause smog.

Coverting the Gardiner to a 8 -10 wide surface route with numerous trafic lights will cause two thngs:

1. cut off the waterfront from the city and its citizens
2. increase pollution and smog

The TOVIADUCT provides routes for autos, LTR, cycle and connects to the core PATH. In addition the A shaped pylons can be habitable to allow for commerical or residential occupancy. By moving the Gardiner to the airspace over the existing railway corridor, the city needs not to expropriate land while allowing for the opening of the waterfront to the downtown core. Just what they have been trying to achieve for decades.

The city continues to use the number of 1,000,000 new residents over a 5-10 yar period. If the numbers hold true, that means up to 80% of them will be using cars to get to work In the suburbs and 20% will use transit.

The goal by providing a balanced approach to the tranportation issues facing Toronto is to provide services that will lessen an individual's time spent commuting. Whether you like the car or not, expressways (dedicated) are required along with an improved public transit system that interconnects the GTA. The Toronto Party Transportation Plan achieves that goal.

I am glad we are finally having a discussion on the issues. It is great to have competing plans and hopefully more plans will come to the table. Let's hash it out and provide the best solution given the reality of transit issues, pollution issues, business environment, tourism and the all important waterfront.

Let's build a legacy for Toronto.

www.thetorontoparty.com
www.gettorontomoving.ca
www.toviaduct.com

[ 20 March 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

quote:

---

The voters know it, Mayor Nickels at last claims to know it, and the federal government, which has stopped writing blank checks for multi-billion-dollar megaprojects, clearly knows it. ...

Nonetheless, there are still plenty of people living in the past—the governor apparently included—who continue to insist we can't live without an elevated freeway through downtown Seattle.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) claims it studied a "no replacement" option as part of the study it used to reduce the number of viaduct-replacement options to two. But that option simply removed the viaduct and redistributed all its traffic onto I-5, through the downtown street grid, and onto Metro buses, while making no investments in freight mobility, adding no new programs to reduce demand, and making no efforts to better utilize existing road capacity in the street grid. Given those limitations, the conclusions of the WSDOT report are hardly surprising: Simply dumping viaduct traffic onto surface streets would slow travel speeds to a 15 mph crawl through downtown, and would increase traffic on the surface Alaskan Way from 11,000 to 74,000 cars a day. Traffic on I-5, meanwhile, would increase by 22,000 trips a day, or about 6 percent.

Clearly, we couldn't live without the viaduct—or could we?

While it was claiming that tearing down the viaduct would result in gridlock downtown, the state was preparing a $200 million plan for traffic during the construction of a new viaduct. That mitigation plan predicts that 41,000 car trips would be absorbed by transit or simply disappear, leaving a much more manageable 77,000 trips to redistribute onto surface streets and new transit.

Another report by WSDOT consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas found that a new boulevard on the waterfront could accommodate 30 percent of the viaduct's 110,000 cars, the street grid could accommodate 42 percent more, and 28 percent would simply disappear, eliminated by greater use of mass transportation and more efficient trip planning by individual drivers. And that study, like WSDOT's, didn't account for street mobility improvements, demand-management programs, or the massive increases in transit (and improvements in transit mobility) that Metro is planning. ...

Every study of cities that have removed freeways has found that people are far more flexible in practice than traffic models predict. Intuitively, that makes sense: You're much better off on a congested surface street than on a gridlocked freeway, because you can leave that street to access other parts of the grid. On a freeway, once you're stuck, you're stuck. The day before the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, 110,000 vehicles used the viaduct every day. After it reopened later that year, only 80,000 vehicles did. More recently, a WSDOT study found that if the state charged a $1 toll on the viaduct, 40,000 trips would disappear, indicating that "demand" is a very flexible concept; conversely, a recent UC Berkeley study found that for every 1 percent of new road capacity, traffic increased by 0.9 percent.

Freeway supporters often express concerns over freight mobility: Without the viaduct, they warn, Seattle's working waterfront (and industrial businesses in Ballard) will be killed by gridlock. Those concerns are, to some extent, legitimate; as proponents of both freeway options have noted, the viaduct is a (relatively) major freight corridor through the city. However, the approximately 4,000 trucks that use the viaduct daily primarily use it when it's least congested, in the middle of the day, and in trips to and from downtown, rather than areas north and south of downtown. During rush hour, only about 250 trucks use the viaduct daily. (The vast majority of rush-hour traffic is to and from downtown, contradicting the WSDOT claim that the viaduct is "a major regional highway corridor carrying long-distance trips through downtown.") Most of those trucks, moreover, don't serve the Port of Seattle, which relies primarily on freight trains to serve its container ships; and in any case, ports with more container traffic—such as L.A., New York, Oakland, and Charleston—all have fewer freeway miles per capita than Seattle.

For all its hell-bent dedication to preserving car capacity through downtown Seattle, even the state highway department recognizes that something must be done to accommodate travelers to and from downtown, at least during viaduct construction. To that end, the city, county, and state have all been working—collaboratively!—to come up with options to avoid gridlock during the 9 to 12 years of viaduct construction. However, as we've said before, if we can live without the viaduct for 9 to 12 years, we can live without it forever. So why not make some—or all—of these solutions permanent? It's hard to understand why, after routing traffic off our waterfront, we would invite it back after a decade. Instead, the city, county, and state should invest in a surface option that augments transit, improves surface-street connections, and encourages alternatives to driving alone. ...

---

Seattle's particulars are different than Toronto's. We are fortunate to have a railway corridor north of the Gardiner that we can build over.

Construction phase of the toviaduct would not increase congestion on the roads to downtown Toronto.

It is estimated that it would take 4 years to construct the viaduct. While that construction was underway, the Gardiner would still be in place and in use.

I believe that 200,000 vehicles currently use the Gardiner everyday. If you take down the Gardiner, the 200000 vehicles must still enter downtown. They will use existing side roads of residential areas and the 8- lane road the City of Toronto plans to replace it with. That stretch of road would be entirely stop-n-go due to traffic lights. The pollution and smog would be horrendous given the amount of highrise condo's and commercial buildings in that stretch that will act to contain the smog in the area.

The car is here to stay. It is a fact of modern life. Goods must be transported to the city for the occupants and its citzens.

Roads are needed as a result.

The decision to narrow the road was supported by area Councillor Adam Giambrone, who is widely reported as having conducted a survey showing that 50% of residents didn’t care about the plan, 30% were in favour of it, and 20% were opposed. Many residents, however, contend that no such survey was ever done and that proof of it does not exist.

According to one report less than 10% of residents on Lansdowne support the narrowing of the road.

In light of the controversy surrounding whether area residents support the change, we strongly support efforts to have city council’s decision reviewed and reversed.

There are other reasons, however, why narrowing Lansdowne is not good for the city. The road services 17,000 vehicles a day. It is home to two bus routes and is a primary response route for the fire department. Fire Services has expressed concerns about narrowing the road because “it will reduce the available road width, increase congestion on Lansdowne Avenue, reduce space for their vehicles to maneuver around stopped vehicles and increase response times.”

The transportation committee of The Toronto Party is opposed to the plan to narrow Lansdowne Ave. In our view, Toronto already suffers from too much traffic congestion. Gridlock costs our city more than $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Increased congestion also has negative impacts on our environment and on our quality of life.

Although plans to beautify a neighbourhood or city are worthwhile, such plans should not carry the consequences that narrowing Lansdowne will have on this area and the city. Furthermore such a fundamental change to a neighbourhood requires full scale consultation with the local residents and a support rate of significantly greater than 30%.

We urge you to fight back today. We urge to join your neighbours in the Toronto Lansdowne Residents’ Association and to not give up hope.

Join the Toronto Lansdowne Residents’ Association
Telephone: 416-588-9113 (leave a message); E-mail: [email protected]
Visit: torontolansdowne.googlepages.com

[ 03 June 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

Hey, speaking of which - I wonder if I'm going to be in a new ward as of June 14th. I'll be living in Regal Heights, which is just south of St. Clair, near Dufferin. I'll have to look it up. Edited to add: Nope. Still Davenport.

P.S. I fully support municipal political parties. I think it would go a long way toward improving voter turnout.

[ 03 June 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

P.S. I fully support municipal political parties. I think it would go a long way toward improving voter turnout.

---

One difference is we recommend that the LRT lines in Toronto be below surface instead of above ground.

Please visit this announcement from the Ontario Governemnt Premier's Announcement
Premier's Announcment

To complete the solution to gridlock in the GTA, we only need two more highways in Toronto - one to the northwest (400 Extension) along the Georgetown railway corridor and one to the east (448) along the Gatinieau Hydro Corridor. There is no expropriation for either - just negotiations with CN for 400 and Hydro One for 448. Then of course, there is the Waterfront Viaduct to replace the elevated Gardiner.

The two new routes could be built by the provincial government for under $1 Billion. The 400 Extension as a viaduct above the railways would provide a new and needed access to Pearson Airport and to cottage-bound 400. 448 could connect to a future Pickering Airport. These two routes will fill the missing links in the Toronto highway system adequately without a single house being torn down for either of them. Both routes are the key highway recommendations in our plan for road expansion (the viaduct is a replacement of an existing highway).

[ 24 June 2007: Message edited by: civicduty ]

quote:

---

One difference is we recommend that the LRT lines in Toronto be below surface instead of above ground.

---

And, I gather it goes without saying, that the construction contracts will be let to companies who will best turn a portion of thier profits back into the Liberal Party, thus completing the circle of tax dollars to Liberal Party friends, and back to the Liberal Party.

I have no idea about that claim of corruption. The Toronto Party has no affiliations to any political party at either the Federal or Provincial levels.

If one is worried about corruption, one must always look at city hall and the outrageous tendering process or lack there of.

The latest was the awarding of contracts to Bombardier without tendering. Many suggested that wasa pay off by Miller and the NDP to the unions for their backing and financial support during the municipal elections and their victories in 15 municipalities across Ontario.

But of course that is all conjecture just like your claim of a Liberal Compact Family.

Please visit the folloiwng page and click on CLICK HERE to see the latest comments on Miller's Broken Promises.

http://thetorontoparty.com/broken_promise.html
_________________

quote:

---

We support efforts to introduce waste-to-energy technology to deal with municipal waste and support announcements made by Premier Dalton McGuinty and Leader of the Opposition, John Tory in this respect. Claims made by environmental groups against new waste-to-energy facilities on the grounds that they emit harmful toxins are outdated and unproven.

---

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

# We support amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act which remove municipalities from the definiton of "construction employers." It is believed that trade union monopolies at City Hall add significant costs to the City's operating costs. A report looking at the issue of trade union monopolization in Hamilton was prepared in 2007 for Hamilton City Council. Please see the report (PDF). A related news item appeared in the Hamilton Spectator: "Union hold on carpentry could shut down city", Nancy McIntyre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by civicduty:

One difference is we recommend that the LRT lines in Toronto be below surface instead of above ground.

---