MB Toronto
Morning Brew: Mayor's office criticized by ombudsman, battle looms over LRTs, TTC OKs fare hike, we're tax friendly, angry chocolatiers, and dancing York U style
Oh, to own the royalties to a "sad Rob Ford" photo. A report from Toronto's ombudsman, Fiona Crean, says unnamed staff in the mayor's office interfered with the way the municipal government appoints members of the public to roughly 120 of its boards. Among various fiddling, staff deleted copy from an advert calling for applications from "diverse" communities and pulled communications from the Toronto Star based, presumably, on the Ford's feud with the paper. Forcing the appointment process to speed up led to a member with a serious conflict-of-interest to slip through, Crean says.
Two city councillors aren't about to let the province take the new LRT lines away from the TTC. Joe Mihevc and Gord Perks have tabled a motion that the new lines not be run by Metrolinx. Last week, the provincial transit agency announced it would seek a private operator for the Eglinton, Sheppard, and Finch routes. Ontario Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation Bob Chiarelli said the motion would further hamper the project. Should council be fighting to keep the lines in TTC red and white?
Also at the TTC, a five-cent fare hike moved a step closer yesterday with the Commission's board approving a raise in the price of tokens and Metropasses in line with inflation at a meeting yesterday. Under the plan, cash fares will remain at $3 but tokens will go up to $2.65, weekly passes to $38.50. Meanwhile, the transit workers union says it will fight outsourcing of cleaning jobs.
It didn't take long for first completed stage of the Sherbourne separated bike lanes to become, well, parking. @biketo Tweeted a picture of a UPS van blocking the lane, which is separated from traffic by a rounded curb designed to allow emergency vehicles to hop over in a crisis.
Time for images of an injured albino squirrel?
According to accounting giant KPMG, Toronto is home to the fifth least tax burdened population in the world. Everyone whinges about taxes but according to the results written up by Forbes magazine we don't have much to complain about. Does this sound right to you?
Push that fun mental image of a chocolate factory out of your head - a Nestlé plant at Dundas and Lansdowne is waging war on a proposed condo development near their property with fliers, robocalls, and door-to-door campaigners. What, no Oompa-Loompas?
Finally, in case you haven't seen it already, here's York University student David Kim parodying the wildly popular South Korean pop song "Gangnam Style." Kim performed for Breakfast Television at Yonge-Dundas Square earlier this morning. Crazy.
IN OTHER NEWS:
- Blue Jays' offence, defence, pitching shine vs. Yankees [CBC]
- City breaks ground on $158M aquatics centre for 2015 Pan Am Games [National Post]
- Landmark accident claim case broadens benefits after 'catastrophic impairment' [The Star]
- String of burglaries ends happily for couple who regained a $14,000 ring [The Star]
Photo: No Parking Anytime by Dominic Bugatto in the blogTO Flickr pool.
Discussion
35 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
#proofread
While many buildings don't provide any functional delivery zone, it's possible to be a delivery driver, and not be a dick.
#501backdoors
f you had bothered to look, asswipe, you'd see that the photo of the UPS truck blocking the bike lane was taken from inside a car. now we can discuss the laws surrounding using your phone to take a photo while driving, but you're still a cretin.
I'd love to discuss the laws surrounding someone who is obviously a passenger in a car taking pictures with their cellphone? Is that illegal now?
Hopefully the UPS guy got a huge ticket and he won't park in live lanes or bike lanes anymore.
This is not about reading while driving or giving people the finger or going to KFC while supposedly on a diet (although the mayor is the one who put the BIG GIANT SCALE outside his office, so he made his bed on that one). This is about trying to bully staff into disregarding a policy voted into effect by democratically elected councillors. There is a pattern here -- ignoring conflict of interest rules, using staff to help with outside projects, demanding special treatment for road work, trying to overrule policies on board recruitment -- that is very obvious and ought to be very troubling to anybody.
But then, when you work for a Mayor who was born on third base but acts like he hit a triple in life, I guess your perspective gets a little skewed.
A statement that applicants from diverse backgrounds is encouraged is not the same thing as prohibiting applications from anyone. Sorry, but that's a pretty tired "reverse discrimination" argument used by white guys who are surprised to find that folks that don't look like them are actually beating them to jobs in some cases. Its a crutch to necessarily assume that because a member of a minority got the job over a white guy, then it must be because of some form of reverse discrimination - heaven forbid that anyone believe the white male might have been an inferior candidate.
Has it ever occured to you sir, that the absence of candidates from diverse backgrounds actually makes for a shallower applicant pool and that encouraging applicants from different backgrounds to apply for a job is intended to build the strongest possible applicant pool from which to fill the position? Of course not. Why would it - much easier to just believe in the fable of the poor discriminated white male and how they're suffering compared to all those minorities who are prospering at their expense.
Give me a break.
Again, Mark's initial point was that white males were being discriminated against in City jobs and that keeping that statement about diversity was tantamount to telling white males not to bother applying.
You're suggesting the Employment Equity Act in fact prevents white males for applying for City jobs of the type cited in the Obmudman's report.
I'm not disputing that affirmative action, or whatever the current term is exists. What I am disputing is Mark's suggestion that white males are being prevented from APPLYING for jobs with the City. I'm also taking issue with the assumption on his part that inferior candidates are being considered for jobs because those same white guys are or may might be prevented from applying. I'm taking issue with the assumption that a more diverse applicant pool somehow weakens it.
If you're going to claim to challenge my opinion on the basis of "fact" citing the existence of the Employment Equity Act is not proof of that "fact". Not unless you can show where the Act states that including the statement about diversity in and of itself can act to prohibit white males from applying for those City positions, as stated by Mark.
Anyway, I was simply pointing out that "reverse discrimination" is in fact legislated, and not just a feeling or perception. Companies of a certain size, public and private, have race quotas. And by race, it says "non-white" (actually, it says "visible minority", but that's the same thing).
Prime Minister of Canada: White male.
Premiers of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, PEI, Sask the Yukon and NWT : White males.
Mayor of Toronto : White male. I could go on, but I hope your understand how asinine your comment about "poor white males" is.
Having no evidence to back up your claim, I hope you'll actually take time to think about why it's wrong. Heal and grow, bro.