Or rather, he “pounded” out a thinly veiled threat to anyone opposing him (as Ford does), to a group of Orthodox rabbis. This, according to Councillor James Pasternak anyway. In any event, it was all re-election this, casino that, pressure your Councillors the other. Blah blah.
True, I wasn’t there to get a gauge on the crowd so I don’t know how bothered they were by Ford’s diatribe and his “disheveled” appearance, but I imagine that since they were there to discuss the Toronto Eruv (which, I’m taken to understand, is some sort of Jewish Sabbath cheating map), it probably wouldn’t have been appropriate.
Councillor Joe Mihevc said of Ford, ” he (almost) grabbed the mic … he did not do honour to our good city. He did not make people tremble with fear [over yet another election threat]. It was just an awkward and embarrassing moment.”
“They’re saying (the city’s revenue) is going to be $100 million, $150 million, $200 million — we’ll see,” Ford said. “I want to get (a casino) first and then we can talk about proposal second.”
But that’s perfectly fine — Rob Ford has clearly shown us that those with more power and responsibility can do whatever the fuck they want with complete impunity, so we all need to just shut the hell up and take whatever they’re dishing out. Clearly, nothing bad could ever come out of it, so why do the “lefties” keep raising a stink about such things?
If you’re a Torontonian, here are two pieces for your consideration:
Three times more lobbyists signed up with the city in 2012 as in 2010. The number of subjects they’re pushing has doubled. Allegations of misconduct have tripled. And the daily communications logged between lobbyists and public office holders appears to be 10 times higher last year than the year before Ford took office, an analysis by the Star has shown.
And with the numbers on the rise, lobbyist registrar Linda Gehrke worries there is dwindling awareness around the “ethical” guidelines set out in the code of conduct.
But for many councillors, the most worrisome result of the new reality is that average citizens and community associations — people without the means to hire Bay Street professionals to plead their case — are being shut out.
This article easily demonstrates the dangers of getting too cozy with lobbyists, a prime M.O. in the Ford’s Toronto is “open for business” agenda. I recommend you read the whole thing, including all of the backroom connections and deals between the mayor’s office and the people who are responsible for all of the projects he’s pushing at any given time (no, the casino wasn’t his idea!)
Basically, if you’re okay with the mayor making hush-hush big-money deals behind pulled curtains, you’d really have to trust in him to be quite honest under such circumstances, no?
I’m going to suggest to you, then, that that mayor isn’t Rob Ford. I mean, the man (predictably) can’t even tell the truth, while (predictably) insulting a few supporters in the process, about that football charity for which he’s already received plenty of attention:
Ford called Don Bosco, in Rexdale, a “tough school” in a “tough area.” Players, he said, have told him they would be dead or in jail if not for the team.
Ford also praised the players as intelligent and hard-working. And he enthusiastically spoke of the happiness he feels when they succeed in life. “You’d be amazed what these kids can do when they have a reason to do it,” he said.
A group of teachers said in an anonymous letter to the board that Ford’s comments were “demeaning” and “filled with untruths.”
In a formal statement on Thursday, the board said some of Ford’s words represented “a completely inaccurate portrayal of our students, our school and the community in which the school is located.”
That’s not me saying it, that’s former mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson claiming that Ford decided that this was the way to go at the CJPAC Action Party last night.
Posted on
February 8th, 2013
–
Comments Off on Is it the 8th already?
Holy cow, I can’t believe how quickly the time has flown by.
Between partying it up for my birthday (replete with a nice gift from the people at Budweiser), moving into our new place (yes, we finally found one and, yes, there’s more to follow), putting together a new game for Astral Media, putting the finishing touches on the countless apps soon to be hitting Android Play, etc., tending to my other blogs and sites, doctor’s visits, cooking, cleaning, mopping up after the cats, trying to hunt down well-past-due cheques, dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency (that’s a nightmare I don’t want to relive in recounting), and all the other little bits of business life tends to toss out, and, well, you get the picture.
There’s been plenty to talk about, of course, from Ford’s campaign audit to Mammoliti’s, not to mention that Toronto isn’t a no-news city at he best of times. But I’m getting the feeling that the change of scenery that our new digs offers (of course there’ll be panorama pics!) might inspire me to take a slightly different approach. Sarah and I have been tossing around the idea of changing the layout and format so that we can explore our other sides — the foods we love, the scenery we enjoy, the places we like to shake our rumps at, and yes, even our cathartic expositions on the spuds at City Hall.
So please bear with us for a few moments while we make this happen. The blog hasn’t had a face lift since I started it over four years ago, and I think it’s high time it did. And if you notice anything amiss or out of place, please be sure to drop us a line in the meantime!
Posted on
January 29th, 2013
–
Comments Off on City planners initially rejected Restaurant Row condo, love it now that it’s bigger and more destructive
City planners rejected the proposed tower at 323-333 King Street West when it was supposed to be 39 storeys, with 201 condo units. So the developer bought an adjacent property and redrew the tower at 47 storeys with 304 condo units.
Now the city planners are in favour of it.
A staff report suggesting that city council approve the tower comes to Toronto and East York Community Council Wednesday morning.
Al Carbone, the founder and longtime owner of Kit Kat, an Italian eatery on the city’s historic “restaurant row,” adjoining the proposed tower, is aghast. He plans to speak out at Wednesday’s meeting, even though he says the city never advised him of its change of plan.
“This gives nothing to the city and more to the developer,” Mr. Carbone says. “The tower got bigger. It didn’t get better — it got worse. I can understand if the building shrunk.”
Because we decided that the City Council decision to repay wasn’t legal, Ford didn’t contravene the MCIA (though he kinda did).
[46] However, the matter before Council changed when thereafter a motion was made to rescind Decision CC 52.1. From that point, Mr. Ford clearly had a pecuniary interest in the matter before Council, as he would be relieved of the reimbursement obligation if the motion passed. Therefore, the application judge correctly found that Mr. Ford had a direct pecuniary interest when he voted on that motion, and s. 5(1) of the MCIA was engaged.
[47] Nevertheless, as set out in the following section of these reasons, it is our view that Mr. Ford did not contravene s. 5(1), because the financial sanction imposed by Decision CC 52.1 was not authorized by theCOTA or the Code. In other words, it was a nullity.
…
[89] While he [Rob Ford] may have honestly believed his interpretation was correct, it would undermine the purposes of the MCIA if a subjective belief about the meaning and application of the law was sufficient to excuse a contravention of s. 5(1). When an individual seeks to rely on an error of law, good faith requires that he or she make some inquiry about the meaning and application of the law, rather than rely on his or her own interpretation. Wilful blindness to one’s legal obligations cannot be a good faith error in judgment within the meaning of s. 10(2).
…
[96] In light of our conclusion that Decision CC 52.1 was a nullity because of the nature of the financial sanction it imposed, the appellant has not contravened s. 5(1) of the MCIA. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the application judge is set aside and the application under the MCIA is dismissed.
... with pictures
... with sounds
... with videos
... with opinions
... that's shorter
... that's longer
