Morning Brew: December 3rd, 2008
Photo: "27 Shopping Days Left..." by chewie2008~, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.
What's happening in the GTA (and sometimes beyond):
The strike that has kept students out of the classroom for a month (and counting) at York University is wearing their patience thin. Student protests at Queen's Park yesterday aimed to put pressure on the government to force union members back to work, and also resulted in a news article that started with a cute poem.
If you live in Toronto's east end Beach neighbourhood, do yourselves a favour and lock your windows and doors - at least until the serial burglar (who has entered over 40 homes in less than a month) is apprehended. He might be the one who in the middle of the night helped himself to your neighbour's honey almond muesli and he might also be the one who stuck a knife in someone's abdomen.
While it likely has come far too late, the residents on the now narrower Lansdowne Avenue finally had their chance to have a public meeting with city councillor Adam Giambrone, who apparently was subjected to a virtual group spank down. People are still not happy about how the road work has changed their street, and apparently Giambrone still needed a police escort to the meeting, as precaution.
--
On Monday, tragedy struck a family in Woodstock, Ontario. A mother is clinging to her life, while the rest of her family have already succumb to the silent killer that is carbon monoxide. If you or your loved ones don't have a CO detector, perhaps one would make for a better Christmas present than anything else.
Research, student aid, and faculty posts took a hit at the University of Toronto. The message has now been delivered to its staff and students - the $62-million in endowment funds that were raised during good times are no longer available since bad times have now struck.
And it's official - plastic bags at retails store in Toronto will cost consumers 5 cents a pop come June 2009. I'm going to take the thousands of bags stored in the cupboard beneath my kitchen sink, and set up a shop on the street, selling them for 3 cents. Yeah, that'll show them! :P
Comments (24)
The people who are still complaining about Landsdowne being narrowed must not have seen the result. It is so much nicer now.
If grocery stores switch to paper bags to get around the 5 cent fee for plastic, I think I might just vomit.
Agree with you, Ben. Lansdowne is much nicer. But those bike "sharrows" are plain idiotic. It could have been done better.
Adam Giambrone really does have good intentions, but I fear he's just not all "there."
Sorry, Ben, but the people complaining about Landsowne live on that street so I think it's safe to assume they've seen it. And the real issue here is not whether it's "nice", but the fact that this was pushed through without any consultation with the constituents.
The lansdowne people are a bunch of whiners. Period, end of story, and the fact that they're still getting attention for their whining is pathetic. By fixing the street, Giambrone probably increased the value of their homes significantly.
I live near Lansdowne (Symington Ave., actually), and I think the new Lansdowne streetscape is a HUGE improvement.
Sharrows or not, the street is now MUCH better for cycling with the wider lanes and less crapped-up pavement / streetcar tracks poking through.
The sidewalks are wider and more pleasant to walk on. There are MANY new trees planted along there, and large new planter boxes at Bloor St.
Some parking has been lost, but it was under-used anyway. Any time I have been down that street, there have been plenty of free parking spaces. Of course, this still doesn't prevent jerks from parking on the sidewalk, even when there's an empty space a few metres away...
I don't doubt that traffic has slowed down a bit (that's good!) and there's a bit more congestion, but it has never been bad any time I've been through there. I think many of the claims are exaggerated.
I live right on Lansdowne, north of College, and I have not been able to understand what the other residents in this neighbourhood see as the big problem with the street changes. Sure, the street is not quite wide enough for these "bike lanes," but it is definitely wide enough to ride a bike on Lansdowne safely - much wider than many other streets in Toronto that I have cycled. I think having the bike lane signs painted on the street most help motorists to be more aware of cyclists, and I think that is always a great thing (and now most of my neighbours ride their bikes on the sidewalk because they don't feel safe on the road - when I'm a pedestrian this feels much more unsafe than cycling in the new bike lanes does!). I haven't lived in this neighbourhood all that long, so it probably isn't fair of me to judge the whininess of the residents here yet - but it really seems like this complaining is a pattern around here. I read an article from NOW recently: http://www.foodshare.net/media_archive38.htm that talked about how residents here reacted to the possible building of a community garden by Food Share in this neighbourhood. People had their kids post protest signs saying things like "i hate veggies!" and "gardens are for losers!". I'm starting to feel like there is just a real resistance to anything new around here, and I'm not sure whether this comes from a general distrust of Giambrone or city council in general, or whether my neighbours are just all a bunch of curmudgeons.
I guess my problem is why ram through the narrowing if it's not wanted and isn't a critical project. Aren't there lots of projects around the city which ARE wanted and for which there isn't any money? Instead Giambrone has wasted political capital on ramming through this project rather than telling the city bureaucrats to spend the money on an area which is crying out for it.
I was under the impression from Lansdowne residents that it was the construction/time frame of the project that they didn't like... now that it's getting cleaned up and from these comments, everyone seems content.
Just because residents say they weren't consulted, doesn't mean they are right.
I found and posted a "setting the record straight" post on this topic back in June 2007 when this was initially controversial.
to quote:
Although no consultation is formally required in law or policy for such a project, Adam considered consultation appropriate and took it upon himself to:
1. Hold a public meeting at 3 p.m. on Sunday, May 28, 2006. Flyers were distributed in both English and Portuguese and the meeting was well-attended.
2. Canvass the street about the project in the lead-up to the November election. Subsequent declarations collected and provided by some community members confirm at the very least that this canvassing took place.
3. Distribute a flyer on Lansdowne in April of 2007, in English and Portuguese, advising residents of the project and inviting further input.
I do use reuseable bags but for the mass majority, Id rather see paper bags laying in ditches and parks than plastic ones.
Paper will make more people switch to reuseable, they are akward to carry, no handles, etc. Justy putting a fee on plastic ones isnt gonna change a thing. If most go buy $100 in groceries they're not gonna care about another 80 cents...
Question, do stores get to keep the 5 cents per bag? I thought the whole point of the 5 cents wasn't necessarily to discourage use (although thats a great side effect), but to make up for the cost of making them, disposing of them, etc... in which case shouldn't the money go to the city? Anyone know?
Side note: Doesn't accumulating hundreds of plastic bags in your house encourage people to use reusable bags??? It's just annoying!
I always use reuseable bags. Even when I buy clothes or shoes. I find the majority of the time I buy groceries and use my own bags, the clerks refuse to pack the bags for you, however they are more than willing if you accept their bags. This is not only a huge inconvenience (I usually end up holding up the line while I fumble to pack everything and pay) but I find it very rude and poor customer service on their part. It's one thing if I'm shopping somewhere where I am expected to pack my own stuff (ie no frills) but that's not the kind of place I'm talking about. I have also been given dirty looks and attitude from various retail store employees when I opt to use my own bag instead of one of theirs with their logo all over it. I think maybe the attitude of retail and grocery store owners really needs to change, and their employees need to wholeheartedly encourage the use of reuseable bags before you see a major shift in the way most people do their shopping.
There are great paper bags out there - Whole Foods, Holt's, Harry's... pretty much every Gap or better retailer has wonderful paper bags.
The 5 cent fee is insane, since it won't do anything to reduce plastic usage - one Starbucks latte will buy you 80 plastic bags, which should cover several months of shopping for even the largest families. It is nice to see Miller waste political capital on idiocies like this than on real programs. He and Giambrone have the worst instincts.
How can anyone take a group of people seriously who make it their mission to take down a community garden? No wonder they can't get a grasp on the crime and drug problems there. It has nothing to do with Giambrone, it's about do-nothing residents.
Paper bags are horrible for the environment when compared to plastic. It's sounds wrong, but it's true. Whole Foods' green initiatives are purely marketing.
If we're talking about overall environmental impact, the order looks something like this:
Corrugated Shipping Cartons, No Frills style > Nothing > Reusable Bags > Plastic Bags > Paper Bags (there may a little bit of overlap between plastic and paper however in some situations)
Why are shipping boxes better than nothing and reusable bags?
Well, they already exist and are easily reused for something that would normally require another product (I use mine as recycle bins, for storage and for moving). Use nothing and they'll get tossed anyways. Sure, they're recycled, but paper can only be recycled so many times. If you can reuse it a few times before it gets recycled, the world will be slightly better off. Not to mention it eliminates the need to manufacture something that wouldn't normally exist (such as recycling containers, new shipping boxes for moving and storage, etc)
Same deal with reusable bags. It is an additional item that needs to be manufactured that really doesn't need to be. Sure there will be more of a finite number than standard plastic bags, but manufacturing will still have to exist to replenish the ones that wear out or get thrown out. That means pollution, waste, transportation, etc, etc. Meanwhile the corrugated box gets tossed when it could be utilized.
Get some reusable bags - I feel that people just need a change of mindset towards this...
For a different perspective, I didn't use them much at home in Toronto (and had full drawer of useless plastic bags everywhere I lived, as many others), but since moving to Sydney, Aus a couple years ago, 'green bags' are our standard and I'll continue that back in Canada eventually. (In fact everyone that has come to visit Australia has actually taken a bag back from here.) People even use them for the beach, sports gear, drink transport for parties, etc. so they're a common site everywhere - even coming with rugby team logos or other promos.
They cost a $1 at most check-outs here and generally any grocery store will pack other company's bags for you as it's standard practice for most in the city.
Keep a couple in the car or backpack and you'll find you don't use paper or plastic ones much anymore, which can really add up over the years...
Regarding the Lansdowne item, the issue is not whether people like or don't like the proposed change. Someone can find the change an improvement and still consider that the Councillor acted in a despicable manner. (Though, as a resident, I will say that anyone who thinks the street is now more pedestrian friendly has obviously not had to walk on the east side where a rather narrow sidewalk is right next to a moving lane of traffic on a busy street. U of T Urban Planning students who visited the area said this was definitely NOT a pedestrian-friendly set-up.) People know that the City will sometimes do what residents oppose. But I don't think anyone can name another major street change that has been approved with so little consultation. The Councillor knew there was a significant opposition and concerns about the proposed change. During the 2006 municipal election, he acknowledged this to a local paper (the Villager) AND he sent a letter saying there would be further consultation. The next thing residents heard was that he had pushed this through Council. And when residents complained to the media, he had the gall to say he had conducted a door to door survey -- when in fact, we who lived on the street were unable to find a single neighbor who had been "surveyed". Around this time, residents also heard that in another another part of our ward, it was learned THREE community meetings were held on a new toilet in Dufferin Grove Park (which is a more affluent area of the ward). Why the discrepancy in terms of consultation? To put it bluntly, many Lansdowne residents (who for the most part are immigrants) saw themselves being treated as second class citizens -- and they were not happy about it. People can get used to change, especially if consultation has taken place in the affected community in a fair and respectful manner, and concerns are addressed in a transparent way. Yes, people can get used to change -- what most find difficult (even working class immigrant types) is being treated with contempt by their local councillor.
Regarding the comment from "o_O" at 1:50 PM, the residents on this stretch of Lansdowne had NOTHING to do concerning opposition to a community garden. This was MISINFORMATION stated by the Councillor in a story in NOW magazine in fall of 2007 -- and of course, with NOW Maganzine's journalistic standards being what they are, it didn't even bother to verify this statement before publishing. The opposition to the Community Garden was from a neighborhood north west of this affected area. NOW magazine subsequently agreed to publish a letter clearing up the misunderstanding ...but not a correction (since apparently they don't bother to publish corrections, given that their journalistic standards are what they are.)
Oh.. and regarding the post by "Joe" at 11:57 am, dec. 3, on his "setting the record straight" about the consultation Councillor Giambrone did, please note that setting the record straight involves more than just speaking to the politician whose shortcomings are being pointed out. Let me provide some clarifications about the so-called consultation that the Councillor claims took place.
Did the
1. Yes, a "meeting" on this issue was held at the Councillor's constituentency office in May/06. Let me also add that there was no clear agenda and the small space was TOO small to accommodate those attending, so that people were outside on the street. In any case, those attending were clearly overwhelming against what they were hearing about the proposal. Another small detail, but one that speaks volumes about the level of respect that attendees were being accorded, was that there were NO CHAIRS for the attendees, even though many of them were seniors. I have NEVER been to any other community meeting in which no chairs were provided. I also know that when meetings in other parts of Ward 18 regarding complex changes are held, this same councillor knows better than to not have chairs available for attendees.
Yes, one meeting was held for this $2M project... but when similar changes are put through in other areas, significantly more meetings have been held. What has never been explained is why the Lansdowne reconstruction warranted 1 community meeting and the toilet in Dufferin Grove warranted 3.
2. Regarding Joe's comment that the Councillor canvassed the area, well "DUH", there was a municipal election in the fall of 2006. Yes, Councillor Giambrone clearly did election canvassing. Nobody denied that. What residents have said is that there is no indication that he "surveyed" people on this issue. There really is a distinction whether people want to acknowledge it or not. In fact, the residents we spoke to said that THEY not the Councillor were the ones who mentioned the street issue during his election canvassing. Others said they would have liked to raise the issue BUT were unable to because of language barrier issues. And even if one accepts that the Councillor did a bona fide survey (and there is NO evidence for this other than statements made by the Councillor's office) the question still remains why this should be considered an adequate method of consultation for Lansdowne when it is not considered adequate for other significant road changes. Community meetings would have allowed issues and concerns to be dealt with in an open and transparent manner. A door to door survey does not.
3. Yes the councillor sent a flyer to "inform" residents about the project in April 19/07. This was 2 WEEKS after residents who had already learned about the project (because it had gone to tender) had started calling his office for an explanation as to why no further community consultation meetings had been held since the Councillor's May/06 meeting. To be "informed" about something is not the same as being "consulted" about something. As for the "oppurtunities for further input on minor details of the project" that Councillor's letter referred to, suffice to say that most residents saw this as another slap in the face given that what they were expecting were consultation opportunities BEFORE the project was approved by City Council. When a project has gone out to tender, the opportunities for consultation are at most, very very minor. What Joe's "setting the record straight" post fails to mention is that the Councillor also sent residents a letter in Sept/06 (during the election campaign) stating that the project had been put on hold and referring to further opportunities for community consultation before the project was reviewed. The Councillor was also interviewed by a local paper, the Villager, in which he acknowledged residents were very unhappy with the proposed changes for the street and said that staff were coming up with other ideas. Without calling anyone a liar, I will say that the comments made by the Councillor in this Nov/06 story do not seem consistent with comments made the Councillor in April/07 that only a small percentage of people were unhappy about the changes.
What angers me most is not the changes that have been made to the street. (Some of the changes I actually like -- but that isn't the issue.) It is that residents' concerns and issues regarding this change were given some short shrift. This is a largely immigrant area and most of the people here were resigned to the change. What sent them over the edge (so that they came out in the hundreds to protest on Portugal Day/07) was to hear claims that a "survey" by the Councillor had taken place and not seeing any evidence of this. What also angers me is that some people continue to want to justify Councillor Giambrone's "consultation" on this issue, when they would likely be infuriated if a similar lack of consultation had taken place regarding a major change in their area. I think I've written way too much... but I do want to do my bit to help set the record straight in the face of the misinformation that continues to be circulated on this incident.
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS