Toronto council races part 4

Quote:

"Up here we call this Ford Country. Every single day I knock on doors and I tell Rob-they know you, they love you. Rob could commit murder on the steps of City Hall and they would still vote for him."

Doug Ford says so

If Rob Ford didn't exist, Smitherman would have to invent him, in order to run against a candidate who looks worse than he does.

nussy wrote:

There may be lies and distortions (on both sides). The one constant is that Ford ran a great campaign his mantra repeated over and over again won over many voters that don't like the Miller gang. 

Walking around in Willowdale I did not see any signs except for some Ford signs. 

Now we may have to deal with the public image of Ford speaking for Torontonians world wide. The city councilors gave us the finger far too long. 

As opposed to taking envelopes stuffed with cash in the basement parking lot of city hall where they thought no one would notice. Please, lets remember where we were and were we are now, instead of piling on to a few moments of excess as if they outrageous examples of corruption. Indeed, most of what is happening at city hall seems to be within the rules, even if some councillors are taking advantage of perks.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Don't think Rob Ford will have any coattails.

You know, that could be a very significant thing in the final outcome.  Sure, there are opportunistic incumbents hitching onto the Ford anti-gravy train; but when it comes to the potential of upset or open-ward gains, there's almost zilch chance that any (other than Doug Ford, of course) explicit representatives of Team Ford will get in.  By and large, they're too much the cranky wingnuts.  (Remember: the rabbis may be recommending "Rob and Rob"; but it's Ron Singer, not Rob Davis, who came into this as the Ford standard-bearer.  Likewise, when it comes to anti-Bussin momentum, 3M has left the Ford-aligned Bruce Baker in the dust.)

I've been wondering whether or not to post something about the Ward 22 race for a while. I was waiting for someone else to bring it up, but no one seems interested. But I need to get this out of my system, as the race seems so close between Chris Sellors and Josh Matlow.

Some here may be aware that I have issues with Mr. Matlow, but I don't believe they have ever been set out all at once.

I have written here about his involvement in the banning of the book 'Three Wishes' by the TDSB. While this banning disturbed me, what disturbed me more was Matlow's denial of having an opinion on the matter - while he used his position as trustee to silence dissenters gathered to debate the issue. He did this by giving a handful of supporters of the ban 'equal time for their opinions' (though they accounted for a very small fraction of those attending), and TDSB employees and other trustees double that time to justify their action. As 'public consultation' it was a total farce, and Josh was very much responsible for that. For those who don't know, Mr. Matlow's parents have for years been deeply involved in the CJC (who called for this banning).

This kind of politicking is typical of Mr. Matlow. Along with that he displays more than typical Liberal arrogance and entitlement. In this campaign he has the full force of the Liberal party machine behind him (Josh was deeply involved in the youth wing of the party), yet makes claims not to be beholden to 'corporations or unions' for donations. Which brings me to the most egregious example of his behaviour, which I have come to relate to his party connections:

Josh was very much front-and-centre when the trustees chose to ignore procedural commitments to consult the active Parent Advisory Committee about the expansion of immersion programs in the city. When the FSLPAC looked at the sites being recommended, they made little to no sense. They were not situated near existing programs with over-crowding and pent-up demand, there was no consideration of 'real' existing vacancy (whether the 'unused' classrooms in consideration were actually in use for services such as daycare) and there was apparently no planning for feeder-school flow into senior levels, etc.

There had been at least five years of discussion about important criteria for success, and the requirement for consultation. But no, it was a done deal - accept it, or have nothing. As Josh Matlow so eloquently told the involved parents of the PAC: he was the elected one, and who did they think they were, to tell him anything?

Clearly the parents who devoted several nights a month to improving our schools hadn't been informed of the most important criteria of all: the need to close schools. If the Liberals wanted to close schools in Toronto, Josh Matlow was going to make certain that no school slated for closure could be revitalized by a high-demand program bringing in new students with involved and aware parents. Indeed, ever since, Josh has led the charge for school closures in the media, knowing he was slated to run for council rather than continue with the TDSB.

His reward for his actions should be defeat in this election, but I fear he is to be rewarded for his 'behind the scenes' services.

Chris Sellors is much like Michael Walker - rather MoR non-partisan politically, with very much a focus on the neighborhood.

Along with Michael, Chris has been supportive and helpful in regards to a number of community issues (helping residents fight ill-conceived developments in the ward, two on my street). Michael Walker and Chris Sellors also openly came on-side to fight the long-term lease of the Northern Secondary field to private interests. This was not due to an ideological issue with the privatization of public properties (which i grant was my primary concern), but due to straight-forward parking issues which could not be resolved.

BTW, Josh Matlow was also involved in this issue, and as always played both ends against the middle. It was very interesting to hear from the school field improvement fundraisers about Josh's promise of stalwart support, and on the same day learn that the 'Stop the Dome' committee had also been assured that Josh was on-side.

That is, unless Ford enlists Chan as an "ally of convenience", not unlike the role Feldman, Milczyn, Kelly etc played here and there viz. Miller...

adma wrote:

That is, unless Ford enlists Chan as an "ally of convenience", not unlike the role Feldman, Milczyn, Kelly etc played here and there viz. Miller...

The thing is that Chan core constituency in the gay community and among the big "L" Liberal Rosedale crowd would have very very low tolerance for him allying himself with Ford.

No one said Matlow was "left". The question is whether he is better or worse than Sellors? His views on Israel are just about the most irrelevant issue I can imagine in a Toronto municipal election.

Quote:

The question is whether he is better or worse than Sellors?

That is the question. And I've attempted to provide an answer. 

Have I been too subtle?

You are right, middle east issue are not going to change because of who sits on council, but nothing that Rob Ford does or thinks is going to change either the gun registy laws or the right of gay marriage, which are both in the federal jurisdiction, one foreign policy, the other domestic policy. If effective jurisdiction makes the issue irrelevant for one, then it makes it irrelevant for all.

You can not have your cake and eat it too.

Cueball wrote:

You are right, middle east issue are not going to change because of who sits on council, but nothing that Rob Ford does or thinks is going to change either the gun registy laws or the right of gay marriage, which are both in the federal jurisdiction, one foreign policy, the other domestic policy. If effective jurisdiction makes the issue irrelevant for one, then it makes it irrelevant for all.

You can not have your cake and eat it too.

 

There are some differences. NOTHING that Ford or Smitherman or Pantalone say about the Midle East is going to make one iota of difference to whether or not the peace process makes progress etc... especially since Ford Smitherman and Pantalone all have the exact same views on the Middle East (or lack thereof) - but having a mayor who is anti-gun registry can make a difference politically. Imagine if when the gun registry was being debated in September - Ford had been mayor and was actively making speeches saying "I as mayor of Toronto think the LGR is a waste of time and money - SCRAP IT!" - i think that the absence of a mayor of Toronto who was a reliable voice in favour of gun control would have an impact. Similarly on gay issues - a blatantly homphobic mayor of Toronto can have an impact - he could cancel all finding for AIDS prevention, he could cancell all funding for gay committee groups, he could cancel all funding and refuse to give a permit to Pride Day - I remember all the years that vicious homophobe Art Eggleton was mayor and he pointedly refused to let council even pass a resolution supporting Pride Day. I also remember how after a gay positive mayor named John Sewell was defeated in 1980 by vicious homophobe Art Eggleton - within weeks the police took the hint that they now had carte blanche to harass the gay community and so you had the infamous bath house raids where over 500 gay men were arrested etc...A homophobic mayor of Toronto could also easily go out of his way to get a new Toronto police chief who hates gays and wants to start harrassing people etc...

You may think I'm being alarmist - but i think symbolism matters and having a mayor with mandate from the people of Toronto who is blatantly homophobic has CONSEQUENCES. Just like it would have consequernces if we elected a mayor who thought Blacks were inferior to whites and like to wear a white hood and burn crosses on peoples lawns.

Bullshit. Everything applies in either case, as has been amply demonstrated by the whole debate about funding of gay pride on the issue of QAIA. Indeed city council took a very politicized position that had a significant impact on the national debate about Canadian foreign policy and Israel, adding weight to a highly tendentious definition of what constituted anti-semetism.

Furthermore, believing that marriage should be defined by hetrosexist norms. may be homophobic but it does not equate to thinking that homosexual people should have crosses burned on their lawns, no more than support for Israel's racist policies equates to the believing that Muslims and Arabs should be deported or put in internment camps.

This can easily be demonstrated because the last council took up a position that clearly defended Israel racist policies but this did not result in having the police unleashed upon the Muslim and Arab population of Toronto.

Nor does the fact that some supporters of Councilors who are virulent defenders of Israeli Apartheid, do actually think the police should be unleashed upon Arabs and Muslims and that they should be deported mean that the person they support advocates for this. Likewise the fact that some people who support Ford may be extremist homophobes who have similar ideas about gay people mean that the person they support advocates for this, as well,

I think the deliberate misinformation being distributed by the Smitherman camp about Ford policy positions is also telling. If we can attribute the homophobic smears being put about by some Ford supporters to the "Ford camp" to Ford, then surely we can attribute the distortions, lies and manipulation being put about by Smitherman supporters to the "Smitherman camp".

On Smitherman's web site there is a map of his Transit City plan that basically takes credit for all of the existing street car routes to Smitherman's plan, I guess because of the remark made by Ford's campaign manager about possibly phasing out streetcars. Predictalbly all the "neutral" social media like "torontocannotaffordforf" and the Anybody but Ford Facebook page, both have come out with endorsements of Smitherman, and the latter even released this attack add on Pantalone, using Smitherman's "A vote for Joe Pantalone is a vote for Ford" line.

Both web pages do not say who made them and the Cannotaffordford site is very very slick, and expsensive looking.

That is the kind of sleezy manipulation we can expect from Smitherman in the future, if he is elected, no doubt. Smitherman has not released his campaign donors list yet, and maybe the fact that their is some social media out there that is being put together for his benefit is part of the reason. Who knows? Sleezy people.

Did my voting duty in Ward 29.

Voted Fragedakis for councillor and Smitherman for Mayor.

I could not bring myself to support Ford in any manner whatsoever, which is what voting for Pantalone would boil down to meaning.

Hopefully Fragedakis (IMO a better choice than Wood, a former corporate lawyer, and Pitfield, the Conservative "user fee" hack) will be a small counter balance to either Ford or Smitherman.

I just waited in line here in Willowdale. There was never a linup before so I think we will be in for big surprises. The buzz around here is Ford. Shiner for counsellor. God knows why.

Don't know where to vote?
http://app.toronto.ca/vote2010/whereToVote.do