Because it deserves its own thread, away from any thread about this year's mayoral race.
Below is the wiki page on the Toronto municipal election, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_municipal_election,_2014
Interesting to note that a few incumbents have not filed their nomination papers.
Expect the wiki page above to be updated periodically and more and more candidates enter the race.
It is surprising to me that Liz West is a Conservative. Hope people know that and don't vote for her because of her 'name'.
When Donna Skelly ran for the PC party CHCH took her off the air, and said she could not appear again for three years. It would hurt the station's credibility to have a PC as an on-air personality.
Ironically Liz West replaced Donna at CHCH. Wonder if they will yank West off the air. But then again she is not affilated with any party.
If Ford didn't have his problems, the game plan for him was to get 22 councillors who share his right-wing view to get elected. So he could have a block of Ford votes to ram through his agenda.
He tried it when he got elected as Mayor, by having his committee heads and Mayor's finance committee (or whatever it is called) to sign forms pledging their support. And stating they would vote Ford's way 100% of the time. His staff also handed out 'talking point' when speaking to the media. So they would be all on the same page. Almost immediately things fell apart.
When he gets back from rehab, I doubt he would have the resources to get 22 right-wing councillors elected. He has his own problems with his own mayoralty race.
There is a Paul McGuire running in Scarborough East. Wonder if it is the same McGuire from CMT
George Smitherman brother is running, and he is a supporter of Fords. George and the brother have not spoken in decades.
I'm hoping Jonah Schein and Paul Ferreira run for city council.
Maybe Cristina Martins will campaign for Jonah?
Some other potential progressive pick-ups:
In Willowdale - a very left-leaning Liberal Dan Fox is running to unseat ultra rightwinger David Shiner.
In Scarborough Southwest - Bob Spencer who is an NDPer came very close to beating Fordite Gary Crawford last time and is running again.
Some very progressive guy whose campaign colours match Olivia Chow's is running against Mammoliti in York West
We still don't know who will run to fill Adam Vaughan's seat - if he loses the byelection maybe he runs for his old seat again to he can attack Olivia Chow on city council since he apparently hates her so much
We still don't know who will run to fill Adam Vaughan's seat - if he loses the byelection maybe he runs for his old seat again to he can attack Olivia Chow on city council since he apparently hates her so much
He said if he loses T-S he is done with politics.
He can always change his mind. Vaughan needs to earn a paycheck somehow. I suspect if he loses the Byelection he will wait a week and the say that he has been "drafted" by the people to run again for city council
Née than Shan who can in second with 32% for the NDP in Scarborough Rouge River is running for city council against Raymond Cho who ran for the PCs in the same seat and came in third!
It is surprising to me that Liz West is a Conservative. Hope people know that and don't vote for her because of her 'name'.
Liz West ran as the anti-Fletcher candidate last election. She was even endorsed by Rob Ford. I expect that endorsement will come back to haunt West in uber-urbane Riverdale and Leslieville.
I think the race will be between Fletcher and Farrow. Farrow will be formidable but Fletcher has defeated other 'progressive' candidates in the past. In 2003 she beat Kyle Rae's executive assistant Chris Phibbs in a close race.
A couple of interesting races:
Ward 17: Alejandra Bravo is running against Ford lackey (and Liberal) Cesar Palacio. Bravo came close to beating Palacio in 2006 but sat out in 2010 when Johan Schein rain. A big wild card is a new candidate Saeed Selvam who has built a solid presence in the ward. He could potentially split the anti-Palacio vote with Bravo.
Ward 18: Former Liberal advisor and Harvard-trained lawyer Dan Mazer is running against the incumbent card-carrying Liberal Ana Bailao. Mazer has an impressive team so far and is downplaying his Liberal past in the hopes of gaining the support of Dippers in the neighbourhood. He recently got endorsed by Brian Topp.
Ward 30: Incumbent Paula Fletcher has a rematch against Liz West. Also running is former Janes Walk exec and LGBT activist Jane Farrow. Farrow is running as an "independent progressive" but I have heard that she is getting the nod from many local area Liberals who would love to unseat a card-carrying NDPer.
Apart from Bravo, are there any potential pick ups for NDP candidates?
However, I see Farrow as being more of an Adam Vaughan-esque "post-partisan progressive" galvanizer. By comparison, Chris Phibbs was Chris Who?
Adam Vaughan was a high profile reporter for CBC and then for City when he ran in 2006. I have never heard of Jane Farrow. Apparently she works as an assistant to right of centre city councillor Mary Margaret McMahon. In what way is she a big deal? Also in 2006 Vaughan was running in an open seat, not against an entrenched incumbent
Adam Vaughan was a high profile reporter for CBC and then for City when he ran in 2006. I have never heard of Jane Farrow. Apparently she works as an assistant to right of centre city councillor Mary Margaret McMahon. In what way is she a big deal? Also in 2006 Vaughan was running in an open seat, not against an entrenched incumbent
Farrow is also the former executive director of Jane's Walk and has done a lot of work in the LGBTQ community. I have never heard anyone refer to Councillor McMahon as a right winger. Yes she was endorsed by John Tory in 2010 when she handedly defeated left winger Sandra Bussin but her council record positions her firmly in the centre-left field with the likes of Shelly Carroll and Josh Matlow.
Fletcher should be the favourite. After all, incumbents have a huge advantage in council elections with past supporter lists and a team of staffers and volunteers. But the fact that a centre-right entertainment reporter with no political experience almost unseated Fletcher in 2010 shows that she is not a shoo-in.
I suspect Farrow's pitch as a "post-partisan progressive" is just a Trojan Horse for local area Liberals to organize around an anti-Fletcher candidate. On Farrow's twitter feed there is a picture of her with Adam Vaughan and Kathleen Wynne celebrating Vaughan's by-election victory.
Farrow is also the former executive director of Jane's Walk and has done a lot of work in the LGBTQ community.
That's all very nice, but I'll wager that her name recognition in the ward she is running in will be in single digits. Its one thing to be a reporter on network news as Vaughan was before being elected and another to lead a few walking tours.
That's all very nice, but I'll wager that her name recognition in the ward she is running in will be in single digits. Its one thing to be a reporter on network news as Vaughan was before being elected and another to lead a few walking tours.
You're almost sounding as peevishly obtuse as Doug Ford viz. Margaret Atwood there.
Margaret Atwood is just about the most famous living Canadian author and a household name...how does being a former executive director of an organization that offers walking tours compare to that? People complained that Joe Cressy was unknown because he was "only" a leading figure in the Stephen Lewis Foundation working on AIDS in Africa - he's a celebrity compared to "Mia" Farrow
Given how Jane's Walk is a genuine municipal "event" in the spirit of Doors Open, Pride, Luminato, Nuit Blanche, NXNE, Taste Of The XXXX, etc etc (and now an *international* one--and it all started in Toronto as a Jane Jacobs memorial gesture), to dismiss it as mere, insipid "walking tours" strikes the same culturally boneheaded note as Denzil Minnan-Wong (and now joined by Comeback RoFo) grumbling about the so-called patio umbrellas and Muskoka boulders at Sugar Beach. I mean, if you want to *reinforce* what drove cultural-class Torontonians away from the "Fordwath" ONDP; yeah, take that angle.
It's not to say that Farrow's quite the omnipresent household name that Adam Vaughan was; but btw/Jane's Walk, her CBC work and general involvement in urban activism (and, as Jane's Walk demonstrates, her alliance w/the Jane Jacobs legacy), she's still pretty formidable--and maybe not being a "TV star" a la Vaughan is actually be a net plus.
Put it this gentle, reassuring way: there's a greater likelihood of Farrow defeating Fletcher than there is of Farrow & Fletcher splitting the prog-vote and allowing Liz West up the middle.
I will bet you no more than 1% of people in Toronto Danforth have ever heard of her. In any case Paula Fletcher has a 100% progressive record! why is this Farrow person wasting resources running against someone who does such a good job when she could be opposing one of the rightwing councilors?
I notice that she works for the right of centre Mary Margaret McMahon who worked with Ford a lot in his first two years and is considered part of the so called "mushy middle". I predict that farrow and McMahon will back john Tory for mayor be act as pseudo progressive fig leafs for him even though if he comes mayor, Nivk Kouvalis's will be the power behind the throne.
It is important we elect as many of the councillors who stripped Ford of his powers.
God forbid he gets re-elected (anything is possible) we need that council to continue to deny him the powers that come with the job of mayor.
Some other races of note:
Ward 9: Incumbent NDPer Maria Augimeri is facing a rematch against Ford supporter Gus Cusimano who lost by only 89 votes in 2010. It was a nasty fight with Cusimano arguing that there was voter fraud. At one point the Ontario Superior Court ruled the final tally invalid, but it was later overturned. Ironically, Cusimano himself was accused of voter fraud, and as of last fall was on trial for voting illegally in Ward 9 last election.
Ward 20: Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, the city's former Diversity chief, was just appointed as Adam Vaughan's replacement. She is not expected to run in October. I'm amazed there haven't been more candidates throwing their hat in the ring considering the high profile nature of the riding. Of course, Joe Cressy's name has been thrown around. I've also heard Chris Bolton, the local trustee, and Ange Valentini, Adam Vaughan's executive assistant, as potential candidates.
Ward 29: First-term NDP councillor Mary Fragedakis won the ward - the northern half of the Tor-Dan riding - in a three-way race against Jennifer Woods and Jane Pitfield in 2010. The local riding association put a lot of resources into the race, perhaps to the detriment of Paula Fletcher in Ward 30 who fought for her political life last go around. Mary's two main challengers are Dave Andre, a local civil engineer who is endorsed by former councillor Case Ootes and former Beaches-EY Grit MP Maria Minna, and nutty former EY councillor turned unabashed Ford supporter John Papadakis.
Ward 20: Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, the city's former Diversity chief, was just appointed as Adam Vaughan's replacement. She is not expected to run in October. I'm amazed there haven't been more candidates throwing their hat in the ring considering the high profile nature of the riding. Of course, Joe Cressy's name has been thrown around. I've also heard Chris Bolton, the local trustee, and Ange Valentini, Adam Vaughan's executive assistant, as potential candidates.
I think there is zero chance of Chris Bolton running. He just resigned from the school board for "personal reasons" and was embroiled in a scandal about school board money being misappropriated - he seems to be damaged goods.
Apparently Joe Cressy is considering running for Vaughan's vacant council seat.
GO JOE! I'd definately vote for him if I still lived in the riding. He and Mike Layton are best friends, and that would be great for best friends be council seatmates sharing the same riding (but different wards)
Maybe Adam Vaughan will endorse? One can hope.
Takeitslowly another chance for you to help him out in his campaign.
Maybe Adam Vaughan will endorse? One can hope.
I think its great if Cressy runs and with the name recognition he built up running in the byelection, he would have an excellent chance of winning...there is zero chance of Vaughan endorsing him. Vaughan has an almost pathological hatred of the Chow-Layton family and anyone associated with them. He will likely be shitting bricks at the thought both council seats in Trinity-Spadina being occupied by them.
Maybe Adam Vaughan will endorse? One can hope.
I think its great if Cressy runs and with the name recognition he built up running in the byelection, he would have an excellent chance of winning...there is zero chance of Vaughan endorsing him. Vaughan has an almost pathological hatred of the Chow-Layton family and anyone associated with them. He will likely be shitting bricks at the thought both council seats in Trinity-Spadina being occupied by them.
Yes, their relationship is pretty cold, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "pathalogical," though. From what I've heard he had a good working relationship with Mike Layton and Rosario Marchese. For what it's worth, I dug through Adam Vaughan's campaign donors in the 2010 council election and Chow chipped in $100.
I think Cressy should definitely run in Ward 20. He has a database of supporters, and as you mentioned, name recognition. However, while the poll results have not come in, I imagine he did better in the polls in more NDP-friendly Ward 19 than Ward 20.
I think Cressy should definitely run in Ward 20. He has a database of supporters, and as you mentioned, name recognition. However, while the poll results have not come in, I imagine he did better in the polls in more NDP-friendly Ward 19 than Ward 20.
I'm not sure that Ward 19 is necessarily more "NDP-friendly" than Ward 20 - its more than Ward 20 was more "Vaughan-friendly" in the byelection because he was their incumbent. Its more that the NDP does better in the northern half of the riding as opposed to it being an east/west faultline.
It is important we elect as many of the councillors who stripped Ford of his powers.God forbid he gets re-elected (anything is possible) we need that council to continue to deny him the powers that come with the job of mayor
On what basis should they strip him of his powers?
It is important we elect as many of the councillors who stripped Ford of his powers.God forbid he gets re-elected (anything is possible) we need that council to continue to deny him the powers that come with the job of mayor
On what basis should they strip him of his powers?
Because despite his denials he is still an addict? Perfect example is the massive flood Toronto had a few years ago. In access to information documents staff was trying to reach the mayor, but he couldn't be found anywhere.
What if another disaster happens, and he falls off the wagon?
For what it's worth, I dug through Adam Vaughan's campaign donors in the 2010 council election and Chow chipped in $100.
Shows that Olivia knows which side her bread is buttered. Shoots down Stockholm theory that Chow & Vaughan hate each other. I suspect they have a better relationship, than the one Stockholm describes.
It is important we elect as many of the councillors who stripped Ford of his powers.God forbid he gets re-elected (anything is possible) we need that council to continue to deny him the powers that come with the job of mayor
On what basis should they strip him of his powers?
Perfect example is the massive flood Toronto had a few years ago. In access to information documents staff was trying to reach the mayor, but he couldn't be found anywhere.
That seems like more of an argument against re-electing him than an argument to justify stripping him of his powers. I'm no Ford fan, but if people want to re-elect him to be their mayor they should get who and what they vote for.
It is important we elect as many of the councillors who stripped Ford of his powers.God forbid he gets re-elected (anything is possible) we need that council to continue to deny him the powers that come with the job of mayor
On what basis should they strip him of his powers?
Perfect example is the massive flood Toronto had a few years ago. In access to information documents staff was trying to reach the mayor, but he couldn't be found anywhere.
That seems like more of an argument against re-electing him than an argument to justify stripping him of his powers. I'm no Ford fan, but if people want to re-elect him to be their mayor they should get who and what they vote for.
Ford could get re-elected with only 35% of the vote, due to vote splitting. Highly unlikely, but possible. Which means a majority of Toronto voted against Ford, than voted for Ford.
Then you can also say that (under by-laws) council gives the mayor these powers, and can take away these powers. If enough of them are elected by the city, then they democratically have the will of the people to continue to withhold these powers.
It is important we elect as many of the councillors who stripped Ford of his powers.God forbid he gets re-elected (anything is possible) we need that council to continue to deny him the powers that come with the job of mayor
On what basis should they strip him of his powers?
Perfect example is the massive flood Toronto had a few years ago. In access to information documents staff was trying to reach the mayor, but he couldn't be found anywhere.
That seems like more of an argument against re-electing him than an argument to justify stripping him of his powers. I'm no Ford fan, but if people want to re-elect him to be their mayor they should get who and what they vote for.
Ford could get re-elected with only 35% of the vote, due to vote splitting. Highly unlikely, but possible. Which means a majority of Toronto voted against Ford, than voted for Ford.
Then you can also say that (under by-laws) council gives the mayor these powers, and can take away these powers. If enough of them are elected by the city, then they democratically have the will of the people to continue to withhold these powers.
Unless they're running for re-election with that as a central plank, it would be hard to justify that as "the will of the people".
What if 65% of voters voted AGAINST Ford and he only received 35% of the vote?
For what it's worth, I dug through Adam Vaughan's campaign donors in the 2010 council election and Chow chipped in $100.
Shows that Olivia knows which side her bread is buttered. Shoots down Stockholm theory that Chow & Vaughan hate each other. I suspect they have a better relationship, than the one Stockholm describes.
No, it shows that Olivia Chow was prepared to turn the other cheek and make a gesture of goodwill to Vaughan in 2010 when he was essentially unopposed, despite having to endure years of his insults, rumour-mongering and condescension directed at her. She's obviously a much better person than he is.
Despite having to endure years of his insults, rumour-mongering and condescension directed at her.
Link please to back up your claim.
What if 65% of voters voted AGAINST Ford and he only received 35% of the vote?
What if Chow or Tory were to win with 35% of the vote? Would council be justified in stripping either of them of their powers on the basis that 65% voted AGAINST them?
What if 65% of voters voted AGAINST Ford and he only received 35% of the vote?
What if Chow or Tory were to win with 35% of the vote? Would council be justified in stripping either of them of their powers on the basis that 65% voted AGAINST them?
No, because neither one of them is a functioning drug addict. That is the difference.
What if 65% of voters voted AGAINST Ford and he only received 35% of the vote?
What if Chow or Tory were to win with 35% of the vote? Would council be justified in stripping either of them of their powers on the basis that 65% voted AGAINST them?
No, because neither one of them is a functioning drug addict. That is the difference.
What difference should that make? Do you think there's anyone in Toronto who doesn't realise that by now? If a plurality of people vote for him in spite of what we all know about him, why should council stand in his way? Why would 35% represent an acceptable threshold for Tory or Chow to become mayor, but not for Ford?
So you are okay with a functioning addict running the city if he was voted in by the people?
Because that says to me that we are enabling his drug use. And saying it is okay to be an addict on the job.
The guy is sick and needs help.
So you are okay with a functioning addict running the city if he was voted in by the people?
Because that says to me that we are enabling his drug use. And saying it is okay to be an addict on the job.
The guy is sick and needs help.
I loathe Rob Ford, but yes, if he's re-elected I don't think his health issues should preclude him from assuming his full duties as mayor. If you consider that "enabling" then I suggest you vote for someone other than Rob Ford.
If someone gets a plurality of votes - they get the title of mayor. However, city councillors have a popular mandate as well and if they as a groups were to vote to legally strip Ford of his powers and if council was to reject his appointments and elect its own slate - Frd would essentially be mayor in name only for the next four years and it would all be perfectly legal.
That being said, I think the ceiling on support for Ford is not 35% it is more like 26-27% - meaning that the only way he could win would be if there was literally a four-way deadheat - and that is clearly not going to happen.
If Ford somehow gets re-elected his past sins (short of being charged criminally) get exunged to some extent. I don't think Council would be justified in paring back his powers unless he does something new, which is inevitable.
Council doesn't have to formally pare back Ford's powers - all it has to do is exercise its own powers. The mayor presents a slate of committee chairs and executive committee members to council for ratification - what if council a. refuses to ratrify his slate and/or b. only 2 or 3 councillors are even willing to be part of Ford's slate?
If you consider that "enabling" then I suggest you vote for someone other than Rob Ford.
Which I am doing. I think Rob Ford needs serious, serious help. And to elect him mayor would be enabling his addiction. But if he came out and said 'I'm a functioning addict' and he was voted back into office, then I would see that as the will of the people. That the people don't care that he is a functioning addict. But right now he is still in major denial about his problems.
Seeing how he is mobbed at every event terrifies me that he still has a shot of getting elected. That some of his electorate is a silent majority not being polled. I read in Macleans that the 2010 Ford campaign targeted lower-income voters. Folks that are less educated/own less. He tapped this electorate that are less likely to vote in municipal elections to his own advantage. My fear is that this electorate will be more motivated to vote than the general population, thus he will get re-elected in a squeaker. Unlikely, but possible.
Have these voters been polled? They are Ford Nation and they are the ones that carried him in 2010.
However, city councillors have a popular mandate as well and if they as a groups were to vote to legally strip Ford of his powers and if council was to reject his appointments and elect its own slate - Ford would essentially be mayor in name only for the next four years and it would all be perfectly legal.
For once something Stockholm and I agree one. Council gave him his powers in 2010 and took away his powers in 2013.
Councillors are representing their constituents, and if the NDP block and mighty middle were to vote this way. I seriously doubt their constituents would disagree with their decision.
No, because neither one of them is a functioning drug addict. That is the difference.
By what metric, exactly, does Rob Ford count as "functioning"? 
So you are okay with a functioning addict running the city if he was voted in by the people?
Because that says to me that we are enabling his drug use. And saying it is okay to be an addict on the job.
The guy is sick and needs help.
Rob Ford is a right-wing idiot. I can't imagine circumstances in which I would vote for him that were anything less than having a gun pointed at me while at a voting booth by someone telling me he would shoot me if I did not vote for Ford.
Having said that, everyone should be careful about overly broad statements about people with addictions being unqualified to work. Rhetoric gets heated here (and elsewhere), so we should all be careful when it comes to broad statements about any group with disabilities, including people with addictions.
Fifty years ago, there was little debate about addictions being a recognised disability -- addictions were not. Our society has moved on in recent decades. Many people with diagnosed addictions will come to terms with the addiction, seek help, and change horrible patterns of decision-making into better patterns (in the best cases, into admirable patterns). Many people with addictions who have been "on the wagon" will still tell others that they are addicts who have their illness in control; everyone uses terminology that best descrbes themselves, and this is not universal. I personally know people who have never used the term above "functioning addict", but who do admit to being addicts who I know to be quite functional in their work.
But neither do I wear rose-coloured glasses. Not every action by every a person with an addiction can be or should be attributed to the addiction. But neither should the commentary of progressive folks be careless in this area. Progressive folks should acknowledge that a broad term will not accurately describe every with that condition.
Rob Ford merits the support of no progressive person. But we need to stop short of saying anyone with an addiction is unable to function, period.
Fifty years ago, there was little debate about addictions being a recognised disability -- addictions were not. Our society has moved on in recent decades. Many people with diagnosed addictions will come to terms with the addiction, seek help, and change horrible patterns of decision-making into better patterns (in the best cases, into admirable patterns). Many people with addictions who have been "on the wagon" will still tell others that they are addicts who have their illness in control; everyone uses terminology that best descrbes themselves, and this is not universal. I personally know people who have never used the term above "functioning addict", but who do admit to being addicts who I know to be quite functional in their work.
But neither do I wear rose-coloured glasses. Not every action by every a person with an addiction can be or should be attributed to the addiction. But neither should the commentary of progressive folks be careless in this area. Progressive folks should acknowledge that a broad term will not accurately describe every with that condition.
Rob Ford merits the support of no progressive person. But we need to stop short of saying anyone with an addiction is unable to function, period.
That is why I used the term 'functioning' addict. I've done alot of reading and research in the field of addiction. I too agree with you that there are some with an addiction who can function in society, and no one is the wiser.
I also wonder if he just came out and said "I'm a functioning addict". But it doesn't affect my job. I can get things done. Would there still be an outcry to this degree? Because in Canada we have a line. Whatever a politician does in their private time is their business.
As Pierre Trudeau said "The nation has no business in the bedroom".
If Ford was not in such denial about his addiction, he could of said "I'm a functioning addict" and list all the past political leaders who dealt with their own addictions, while serving in office. If he just said that, I think the debate today would be could a functioning addict still be able to get the job done? That would be the issue. Instead of waiting for Ford to fall off the wagon.
That being said I think Ford is so out of control, so in denial and so much an addict that the City of Toronto needs to give him a dose of tough love. He is also addicted to his fame. So we need to get rid of his bully-pulpit and a dose of tough love so he can hit rock bottom, and get the help he needs.
We are sobeyond politics, as this is someone's life we aer dealing with.
This is what gets me worried about Rob Ford getting re-elected. The huge support he has in the black and other ethnic communities.
I wonder if this group of voters is even being polled. They could be a silent majority and get Ford back in office.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/07/21/rob_ford_a_divisive_fig...
The article is just a collection of anecdotes and tells us nothing...I think that Ford's support among visible minorities is being grossly exageratted. In fact, i think it almost borders on racism to imply that only a visible minority group member would be stupid and infantile enough to stull support Ford. In reality, the true diehard Ford supporters according to every poll are angry white men in the suburbs who drive a lot, own homes and are over 50.
I think that Ford's support among visible minorities is being grossly exageratted. In fact, i think it almost borders on racism to imply that only a visible minority group member would be stupid and infantile enough to stull support Ford. In reality, the true diehard Ford supporters according to every poll are angry white men in the suburbs who drive a lot, own homes and are over 50.
I posted this article last fall in the anti-racism forum, but it's worth repeating now.
Chris Ramsaroop: [url=http://nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=195574]Ford on his own turf[/url]
A recent report by Access Alliance, Working Rough, Living Poor, highlights the employment and income insecurities experienced by racialized neighbourhoods in the Black Creek area (an apparent Ford Nation stronghold).
It found that locals lack adequate resources and programming and experience place-based racism. There are no resources available to counter their lived experience of discrimination, and participants expressed frustration at the lack of accreditation hindering their access to dignified work. The report notes that poverty and precariousness have adverse impacts on health.
It’s easy to see the people of the suburbs thinking that if social programs aren’t supporting their neighbourhoods, why should they be paying into them? If transit isn’t accessible, why invest in something they will never be able to use? Ford has tapped into this alienation in phenomenal and concerning ways that we need to understand.
He is able to entice people to identify with him. He gets things done for those who have felt ignored in the past; he returns their calls; he speaks to them in a way they comprehend.
He fights for the voiceless masses – not to build their collective strength, but to manage their discontent. He supports tenants in community housing – not to encourage expansion of affordable rental units, but for their privatization. Ford is responding to deep-seated resentment and frustration that have resulted from decades of underfunding by all levels of government.
Rather than demonize the suburbs (they are already criminalized because of over-policing), it’s important to have a rethink. Poverty and racism are extremely complicated and affect people in numerous ways. The folks who show up at a Ford BBQ or rally are some of the same people denied adequate services, decent housing and good jobs.
If we’re to succeed in bringing about change, we need to end our preoccupation with Ford, build strength within impoverished communities and forge multiracial understandings. Downtowners need to stop denigrating the suburbs and show up at community meetings there. And they need to apply an equity lens to all their grassroots campaigns.
I think that Ford's support among visible minorities is being grossly exageratted. In fact, i think it almost borders on racism to imply that only a visible minority group member would be stupid and infantile enough to stull support Ford. In reality, the true diehard Ford supporters according to every poll are angry white men in the suburbs who drive a lot, own homes and are over 50.
I posted this article last fall in the anti-racism forum, but it's worth repeating now.
Chris Ramsaroop: [url=http://nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=195574]Ford on his own turf[/url]
A recent report by Access Alliance, Working Rough, Living Poor, highlights the employment and income insecurities experienced by racialized neighbourhoods in the Black Creek area (an apparent Ford Nation stronghold).
It found that locals lack adequate resources and programming and experience place-based racism. There are no resources available to counter their lived experience of discrimination, and participants expressed frustration at the lack of accreditation hindering their access to dignified work. The report notes that poverty and precariousness have adverse impacts on health.
It’s easy to see the people of the suburbs thinking that if social programs aren’t supporting their neighbourhoods, why should they be paying into them? If transit isn’t accessible, why invest in something they will never be able to use? Ford has tapped into this alienation in phenomenal and concerning ways that we need to understand.
He is able to entice people to identify with him. He gets things done for those who have felt ignored in the past; he returns their calls; he speaks to them in a way they comprehend.
He fights for the voiceless masses – not to build their collective strength, but to manage their discontent. He supports tenants in community housing – not to encourage expansion of affordable rental units, but for their privatization. Ford is responding to deep-seated resentment and frustration that have resulted from decades of underfunding by all levels of government.
Rather than demonize the suburbs (they are already criminalized because of over-policing), it’s important to have a rethink. Poverty and racism are extremely complicated and affect people in numerous ways. The folks who show up at a Ford BBQ or rally are some of the same people denied adequate services, decent housing and good jobs.
If we’re to succeed in bringing about change, we need to end our preoccupation with Ford, build strength within impoverished communities and forge multiracial understandings. Downtowners need to stop denigrating the suburbs and show up at community meetings there. And they need to apply an equity lens to all their grassroots campaigns.
Will [url=http://www.oliviachow.ca/transit]statements like these[/url] help?
“Rob Ford’s underground is a billion-dollar, 30-year tax hike. Plus all the costs yet to come. And it is at least $30 million more a year to operate. That will cost jobs and cost families. I will mind the public purse and deliver better transit faster.”...
As our new mayor, Olivia will get people moving faster, now. 60 per cent of TTC trips include a bus and Olivia has a practical plan to boost rush hour capacity by 10 per cent. Rob Ford says he stands up for the little guy, but he cut the TTC—leaving the little guy standing at the stop, unable to catch a bus. We can do better. Making it easier to catch a bus, and more comfortable on board so people can ride with dignity instead of being packed like sardines.
...
Our city needs to get people moving, now. Rob Ford has no plans to move anyone until 2023. Olivia does, with better bus service starting right away and above-ground rail in Scarborough four years faster, with four more stops. Better transit is key to better traffic flow. But Olivia also has practical ways to respond to drivers so people can get around faster—right away.
Keep in mind that Rob Ford "finds his place" in the poor multiethnic/multiracial suburbs in the same way that payday loansters, shady used car dealers, and dicey storefront lawyers "find their place" there. And, address that point.
Doug Ford said Rob got more votes from the black community than Obama did in 2012. About 17 million blacks voted for Obama. City of Toronto is only a population of about 2.5 million.
Speaking with reporters on Tuesday, Doug Ford said the media has "twisted around" his comments.
"What you should say is that one of the candidates accused the Ford family of not taking care of the black community," he said. "That is the truth and maybe you should report it that way."
