One of the best pearls of Twitter wisdom crossed my desk a few minuets ago when Twitter member LarryLarry posted the following:
Eventually, history will remember David Miller as a great mayor, especially when the next mayor screws up the next strike.
Truthfully, I think history will eventually remember Toronto mayor David Miller as a good mayor, who failed to live up to the promises that surrounded his election, but who still did his best. Emerging from well back of a packed field, elevated during a council meeting by a dressing down from the previous mayor Mel Lastman that highlighted the dysfunctional nature of Toronto City Hall, he brought a broom with him to the stage as he claimed victory. And in that moment, he promised voters with images rather than words that he would clean up city hall, end the squabbling, the back room deals, and just make the city work as it had done years before.
Unfortunately, the structure of the city proved too big of a beast to slay. Toronto had run out of developable land, and was confined to a financial structure that guaranteed fiscal shortfalls. A third to a half of the city’s budget spending was controlled by Queen’s Park, and when Mayor Miller took office, he was — like Mel Lastman — just another voice on council, and one that only voted to break a tie.
Miller’s detractors have had much to say about his shortfalls: that he couldn’t control spending, that he was in the pockets of the unions, et cetera. The month long garbage strike provided the symbolic moment that his haters needed to crystalize the vague anger of Torontonians into something solid that could be wielded as a weapon against him. But I believe that any other candidate for mayor, if they had been elected in 2003, would have found themselves in the same fiscal position that Miller found himself in earlier this year — and that includes John Tory. Indeed, a lesser candidate might not have made the gains that Miller made.
Toronto City Council is now governed by an Executive Committee, which strengthens the mayor’s leadership and makes city council meetings more productive. Thanks to Miller’s campaigning, the provincial Liberals passed the City of Toronto act, giving the City powers to control more of its own fiscal picture, and also whether or not to hold the bars open longer for special events. And under Miller’s leadership, the TTC embarked on significant service improvements, such that this year the TTC will carry 473 million passengers, breaking all previous records. Money has flowed and work is finally beginning on subway extensions and an LRT network, and attention has been paid to improving the maintenance and expansion of transit infrastructure.
I worry about whether Toronto will maintain its commitment to improving the quality of public transit in the city, but I’m comforted in the fact that McGuinty has also made this a priority. Also, front running candidates like John Tory and George Smitherman have either acknowledged the desperate need to rehabilitate and expand the TTC’s aging infrastructure, or have helped commit the province to funding said infrastructure.
With Miller gone, the field is wide open for the mayoralty race taking place through 2010, and that’s good for the city’s democracy. Of the front runners in the field, George Smitherman and John Tory are both good men with big ideas, and both should be good mayors if elected. Personally, my own preference is for John Tory, for as hard working as Smitherman has been in the McGuinty government, he’d be shifting gears from a job where he was the boss (as the head of a super ministry) to a job where consensus and conciliation is far more important. John Tory, as the former leader of a provincial political party, strikes me as having far more experience in herding cats, and that’s perhaps the most important skill in being mayor.
Whatever the case, I thank mayor Miller for making substantial improvements to the make-up of Toronto since his election in 2003. He leaves the post with the city still facing considerable challenges, but he has an exciting field of potential successors to take the city into the next decade. The future of Toronto has become a lot more interesting, but there’s still plenty of hope. And Miller deserves credit for helping to keep that hope alive.
September 25, 2009 12:12 PM
Miller’s chief problem was his lack of a Liberal or Conservative Party membership card.
September 25, 2009 3:05 PM
My first choice will be for Denzil Minnan-Wong. Living in the city, when I ask myself is it better than it was 6 or 10 years ago, it is a resounding no. Current so-called front runners are according to the small pool of private companies which have also run down various traditional ‘local’ media outlets during the past few years.
My first criticism is Development. Such as the approved downtown condo buildings, and their permanent locations being flush against(!) existing major roadways rather than being offset to allow for future lane expansions including bike lanes. This also includes the development that hugs the Gardiner Expressway, forbiding any possibility of a substantial volume percentage (busway?) increase through increasing by only one lane each way. Another issue is an over-gentrification with the parks and roadway repairs.
My second criticism is the salary levels. Here, Mayor Miller was directly responsible far settling too eagerly, multiple times, agreeing to nearly all demands. Other Ont. cities such as Ottawa and Windsor withstood their civic strikes. I do appreciate the work but I don’t believe that secure government workers (and mgmt) should lead in general compensation. Not every worker/manager is a SWAT team/ Early Childhood/ Cardiac Surgeon. At $60,000 per year (ignoring at will overtime and/or sick days) transit ticket sellers, for example, might be earning more than what: 80% possibly(?) of adult-aged TTC customers. The consequence drives up the cost of in-demand housing for everyone else.
I also expect the direct airport rail link to be a white elephant since Union Station sits at the southern-most geographic end of the city, demanding a “doubling back” for travellers to the N-W airport. Miller’s west-end St. Clair Avenue dedicated route may end up as helpful as Lastman’s backyard Stubway line.
Giving Credit: Some facts you’ve mentioned, such as the exec. powers are a strong improvement!
October 7, 2009 4:33 PM
In your commentary, you stated, “George Smitherman and John Tory are both good men with big ideas, and both should be good mayors if elected”.
Please enlarge on the “big ideas” you have reported that John Tory and George Smitherman have for the city of Toronto. I couldn’t find anything but political rhetoric on the subject from any of the personalities touted as possible successors to Miller when I did a search.
Because I am always interested in good ideas for this city, I’d really like to know what you’ve been told (hopefully in specifics rather than inconsequential generalities).
While I agree that both Smitherman and Tory are fine upstanding members of the community, I would also like to be informed why George Smitherman, according to media commentaries about him, has detractors in the city; and why John Tory has been viewed as potentially disasterous for Toronto, if elected.
It’s lovely for you to tout both of these politicians as satisfying candidates in your opinion, but your banal reportage seems to only skim the surface of an interesting and informative story. Are you not giving us honest, journalistic evaluation of either one of them and merely expecting us to accept your recommendation at face value after being Mayored by David Miller for seven unproductive years? What does your recommendation stem from?
Wasn’t it the media who elected Miller in the previous election after giving us Jane Pitfield, Stephen LeDrew, and him as our choices of “who should be a good mayor if elected” from the “front runners”? As I recall, the media dropped Pitfield after she revealed herself as having shallow depth of the city’s issues and LeDrew after he declared several times to the media that he really didn’t want to be Mayor, and was only running to criticize Miller’s performance in his first term of office.
James, if you intend to do us a service with your blog, I hope you don’t do a dis-service in the process by picking “front runners” whose only recommendation is that they are well-known.
October 8, 2009 1:09 PM
Well, first of all, this is not a journalistic web site, but a personal blog. I am offering you my opinion. I have no connection to the mainstream media and I am not being paid for what I write here. So, take the advice and value it for what you paid for it. Take it or leave it; you don’t need to get snooty about it.
I’m basing my assessment of John Tory on the proposals he brought forward during his mayoralty run. Like Miller, he acknowledged that the city needed to spend a lot more money than it was doing on public transportation, and he acknowledged a number of pressing issues, such as the need to renovate or replace the Scarborough RT. He talked in terms of extending the subway to the Scarborough Town Centre and similar projects. His campaign approach was also one of trying to build a broader consensus, and he took that approach with him when he became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (it ultimately did him in, there, for in trying to build a bigger tent, he found himself well on the left of his party on a number of issues and lost their confidence). This is why I give him the edge over Smitherman in terms of functioning as a mayor. Instead of dealing with three political parties as one does in Queen’s Park, any mayor deals with 44, and Tory seems to have the consensus building, cat herding skills to make council meetings more productive there.
Again, this is just my opinion. Make of it what you will.
Smitherman is currently a Minister of Everything, charged with bringing some major infrastructure investment into the City of Toronto, including the Eglinton LRT, the Metrolinx proposals, et cetera. This is certainly something he’s going to try to bring with him as he campaigns to be mayor. Whether or not he succeeds is another matter. As a provincial minister, he’s used to being in charge. If he were to employ bullying tactics as mayor, I doubt he’d get as far. It’s a subtle but significant difference in approach, and I have to wonder if Smitherman is up for it.
Speaking of the infrastructure question, an interesting play is developing on this front between Smitherman and another mayoralty candidate, Michael Thompson of Scarborough. He’s one to watch. Now that Metrolinx has essentially rejected Toronto Council’s concerns about pollution and congestion from major rail initiatives in the Weston Sub (see here), Thompson has written to Smitherman directly, asking the Minister to intervene and require Metrolinx to start the new rail investment using electric trains from the get-go, rather than diesel. The decision that Smitherman makes here will certainly reflect on his campaign: does he side with the provincial agency Metrolinx, or the council he eventually hopes to lead?
October 20, 2009 8:10 PM
This is a lot to post in the comments section of a personal blog. Would you be willing to post this to your own web site, and I’ll build a link to it here?
October 20, 2009 10:28 PM
(Typos corrected version of this posting.)
I apologize for confusing you for a reporter. Your website is professional enough looking for someone who values his punditing as good reportage, and looks like that of others who are definitely reporting for various media. I didn’t intend to seem “snooty” about it; but I suppose I’ve been labeled as worse than that; and I totally admit to being opinionated —but who of us isn’t.
So before you read on, a caveat that might save you some time by not reading what I have to say here, or publishing it either. It’s your choice.
Caveat: To me, John Tory is a well-known person, with strong corporate connections. That one qualification for mayoralty in Toronto is his complete and only justifiable reason for running. True, he is widely recognized as a moral and upstanding man; but it is hoped that at least a majority of his fellow candidates for that office will share that virtue. It’s his track record that convinces me he should not run for Mayor; and I honestly believe if he were to be elected, it would be a larger, even overwhelming, tragedy for our city than the current administration’s inept handling of civic affairs. Neither the fact that the media have published his name repeatedly nor the fact that his father’s law firm represents the greater majority of the moneyed folk, (whom Tory knows on a first-name basis,) in this country qualifies him to be Mayor.
My message is simple. DON’T VOTE FOR A NAME. A NAME DOESN’T MAKE A GOOD MAYOR. INVESTIGATE THE CANDIDATES AND CHOOSE FROM THE BEST PLATFORMS, NOT THEIR NAMES.
Why I write this follows, but first, I’d like to tackle a couple of platforms attributed to John NAME that you and others quote.
You have invited readers (specifically me) to “make of [your opinion] what I will”.
I can’t change your opinion, but I can add to your informational resources such that perhaps your opinion will become more informed. And I hope those of your readers who have been similarly persuaded of the value of Tory for Mayor will be similarly enlightened.
[And in the case of Smitherman, I hope this posting about John Tory will caution responsible, self-respecting voters to be more critical of WHOM and WHAT it is they are casting ballots for other than a recognizable NAME. Smitherman was a major player in the Metrolinx program that promoted diesel trains along the corridors abutting the city; and because of the strong promotional and protesting activities of the “Clean Train Coalition” has been awakened and is now backtracking to a position on electric trains that had he done his homework in the first place he would have realized was not only current in many world transport systems, but better all-round for the Toronto corridors. One has to ask oneself why he didn’t do the homework involved like a responsible ministerial representative as he should have. The response is that despite his responsibilities in the matter, his attention was not on the issue at hand in any discernable depth. And with the administrative eHealth controversy that resulted in the resignation of a provincial Minister of health, he was also a major player in the formation of the concepts and evolution of the eHealth network where he obviously again didn’t do the obviously necessary homework. Will he have any substantive platforms? Does he have any now? What are they?]
You wrote, “I‚Äôm basing my assessment of John Tory on the proposals he brought forward during his mayoralty run.” Tory’s platforms for the 2003 election were also reported In The Star as follows (and I’m certain that there were other platforms in his portfolio, such as those you mentioned). To save space, I’ll address each point individually, with my remarks indicated by *:
Like Miller, he acknowledged that the city needed to spend a lot more money than it was doing on public transportation, *Well, now Miller has spent a HUGE amount of money on public transportation, and guaranteed that we’ll be using the same old transit system for the next 40 or so years until it wears itself down, but not joining the rest of the world in examining new forms that will probably be our next choice, 40 years behind the times. And we’ll be constructing that system in large part without due respect or attention to other forms of urban transport than public. But that doesn’t address the Tory perspective, if there is one. Because if there had been one, Tory would have been vociferously against it in Parliament…even from the point of view of the official opposition, which obviously didn’t do its homework either.
and he acknowledged a number of pressing issues, such as the need to renovate or replace the Scarborough RT. *When the RT was originally conceived, the Ontario government was overruled by the city. The province wanted to construct a silent high-speed maglev vehicular presence rather than the slow, tremendously noisy (probably exceeding legal decibel levels) system city council insisted on. The current city council’s idea of running LRTs in ROWs (“Right-Of Way”, where there is a curbed-off pair of streetcar lanes up the centers of rush hour traffic routes) is Neanderthal compared to the original placement of the Scarborough LRT off the travelled highways. The question is why Tory holds the view that the Scarborough LRT “requires renovating or replacement”; and the answer is because the TTC said it’s out of date and envisions that it wouldn’t be able to carry the crowd it’s intended for. This was a published report at the time of the 2003 election, and a bandwagon Tory chose to superficially jump upon to get votes. The history of the Scarborough LRT or its viability issues were not investigated in order to provide depth to the platform. Since then, nothing has been done to that service, and it’s still running similarly to the way it always has.
He talked in terms of extending the subway to the Scarborough Town Centre and similar projects. *Again, another popular issue based upon the discontinuation at the time of the Lastman-initiated Sheppard subway. (Now, the subway will be continued to York University and Keele and Steeles as one of the out-of-towner links with Metro-links.)
His campaign approach was also one of trying to build a broader consensus, and he took that approach with him when he became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party…”
Mr. Tory is hardly running on a staunchly conservative platform, *staunch conservatism or any other staunch positioning does not have the ability to handle all the directions this city must take in developing its future existence
and some of his policies — including opposition to high-rise condominium projects — are very ill-conceived *it’s not “condominium projects” that are at issue, but rather housing for the 38th largest city in the world, including where it should be, of what type (including high rise condos), and what it should look like. Tackling one form of housing as a policy is a popularity contest kind of a platform that shows a shallow depth of thought on the subject.
But unlike Mr. Miller, he seems to grasp the fiscal challenges of the city’s budget shortfall, expected to top $200-million next year. *Not in his 2003 campaign nor to date in any findable location has Tory offered any useful ideas of how this “budget shortfall” can be handled, which is indicative of this as being mouthed rhubarb rather than a substantive initiative.
His platform includes a complete review of program spending, reductions to councilors’ office budgets, a civil service hiring freeze and the sale of “non-core” assets — all well-needed reforms that have been overlooked for too long. *The writer has this opinion that the abovementioned ‘reforms’ are necessary; and in at least the first case, they were and still are. So, OK, what is the Tory platform guideline included in his program under which the review should take place? The answer is that there was none.
-The call for “review” was merely a mouthed hope that in conducting such a review, economies of measure could be found that would save the city money. -Blanket calling for reductions to councilors’ office budgets is in itself counter-productive; and was only a response to the yearly publication of stupid expensing of EXTRA-budget items that when discovered were made good by embarrassed councillors.
-A civil service hiring freeze is meaningless rhetoric, because it’s impossible to run a city of this size without a good civil service; and attrition means continually finding good people to take up the slack. But that’s only reality talking. - And the city doesn’t own any assets it can afford to sell for now, because we’re broke, and we need the assets to fund our liquidity.
Meanwhile, he promises a property tax freeze following a single-year increase limited to the inflation rate. *If we remember, city council had been threatening to raise the mill rate under Lastman’s chairmanship (which is eventually did with great outcry from wealthy people with beautiful homes…whom Tory is well-connected with…). The bid for votes in opposition to the tax increase was not disguised; and tagging a property tax increase to the GDP inflation rate was a slippery slope down which city council might have found an attractive money source over and above the one-time blast that Lastman brought in. Remember, though, hooking the property tax rate to the inflation rate was Tory’s platform.
It is not just on economic issues where Mr. Tory trumps his rival. *Every single economic issue that Tory has been involved with [—with the two exceptions of his United Way chairmanship and raising money for St. Mike’s Hospital, both of which made use of his extensive corporate connections—] has become an unmitigated disaster. Check out his bio on Wikipedia.
Unlike Mr. Miller, he has shown a strong commitment to public safety by promising to hire an additional 400 police officers. *Immediately upon being elected, the new city council hired 400 new police officers, which had nothing to do with Tory and everything to do with Lastman’s wishes. Since then, Miller has arranged with the Ontario government to hire an additional 1000 police officers. You decide the political depth of this issue.
And even on the issues close to left-wingers’ hearts, like public transit and housing, his plans are both more practical and more comprehensive. *Read above. Not practical, and too comprehensive.
Mr. Tory’s best qualification, though, has nothing to do with his platform. Because the mayor represents just one of 43 votes on Toronto’s council, the position requires a strong degree of moral leadership to achieve any degree of effectiveness. *How about just a strong degree of leadership. Has Tory exhibited this when he was CFL commissioner and the league lost the Ottawa Roughriders and almost lost the Hamilton Tiger Cats or tried and failed to expand the league to seven cities in the USA and had to close down those franchises within two years; or when he co-chaired the federal Conservative party’s election campaign during which it lost 158 seats and only retained two in Ottawa…not even enough to call itself an official party; or when he chaired (by invitation of his pal Ted Rogers) the Rogers cable business and it came close to bankruptcy during those two years, or when he was ran for Mayor in 2003 and got into a kerfuffle with John Nunziata about a bribery issue that allowed the Miller campaign group to do an end run around the Hall campaign group while the media was focused on the Tory/Nunziata affair and get Miller elected into the Mayor’s chair; or when he was convention-elected to lead the provincial conservatives but Ernie Eves had to give up his solidly conservative seat (good riddance!) so Tory could sit in parliament; or when the provincial election took place, and his party lost due to his insistence of platforming the public funding of private schools over his colleagues’ advice to the contrary; and he couldn’t then get elected either in his own riding or that of another Conservative who gave up her seat so he could try to stay and was beaten in both by an opposition party that ordinarily doesn’t even run a strong candidate against the leader of another party who wishes to sit in parliament? Where should I start? What in this list of disasters makes Tory a good candidate for leader of our city?
Unlike Mr. Miller, who has spent nearly a decade in municipal politics, he would bring a fresh perspective to City Hall. *Actually, I don’t think John Tory is capable of either a ‘fresh’ perspective or bringing any perspective to city hall. To him, adopting a genuine perspective might alienate votes, so I expect similarly shallow, current-events based platform group from him again.
More importantly, his tremendous management experience — including as president and CEO of Rogers Cable and Rogers Media, and commissioner of the Canadian Football League — would command strong respect from city politicians. *If they respect his accomplishments as either one, I’d be surprised. As a close friend of Ted Rogers and with his strong connections to wealthy individuals, I am required to wonder about his original qualifications to take the post of CFL commissioner. He was obviously good at bringing the money on board later for the United Way. Had he exhibited strong negotiating experience in his past?
As opposed to Mr. Lastman, who frequently lost control of Toronto’s dysfunctional city council, we believe he would succeed in achieving results. *I believe that Lastman was elected by landslide votes. This and the manner in which the control mechanisms at city hall make it virtually impossible for a Mayor to lose control of the city council. In fact, Lastman ensconced the power of the Mayor by centralizing it more solidly than any mayor since, and was only exceeded in this area of governance by Miller, who learned at Lastman’s knee. As he was approaching the end of his term at office, Lastman’s ill health required him to relinquish his tight reins on council more and more. Under those conditions, his previous privilege of calling the shots diminished. While he was Mayor, the city never enjoyed more publicity; and when he was elected, he brought the same form of governance and benefits to the people he had instilled in North York; benefits which made him unbeatable in election after election. Lastman was an unabridged showman, and used all of his energy on behalf of the city, which stayed close to his heart. Sometimes, his showmanship made him an ass; and when it did, everyone in the world laughed at him or was embarrassed by him; and everybody in the world knew where Toronto is. Now, they’ve forgotten.
Is there anything in John ‘disaster-prone’ Tory’s or George ‚ÄòOops? Uh-oh!’ Smitherman’s or Glen ‘Abandon Mayoralty office all ye who seek ambition elsewhere’ Murray’s or Giorgio ‘I sit in Miller’s inner council therefore I am’ Mammoliti’s or Denzil ‘Suddenly, I have something to say’ Minnan-Wong’s or Adam ‘Go screw yourselves, Lansdowne Avenue, Jane Street, Kingston Road etc. etc. residents!’ Giambrone’s abilities or background that would again bring the kind of leadership that might place Toronto on the world map? Not just passion, heart, or (lord help us!) showmanship, but any world attention-grabbing quality?
If we don’t care about the attention of the world, we should maybe think about a Doug Holyday kind of leader, who at least seems to be a genuinely independent and reasonably —hopefully enough!— progressive thinker.
October 20, 2009 11:43 PM
James:
In total fairness, you had better first visit my website before offering to link your own to it. There are some views in it you may or may not subscribe to or wish to share with your readers.
Nothing in it is extreme, and I quite obviously have the welfare of the citizens —both present and future— of this city at heart.
Nonetheless, for an individual like yourself, concerned enough to publish your own blogset, if you wished not to link to even one part of my website because the entire URL, immediately accessible to your readers, may clash too strongly with your own way of thinking, I would understand completely.
Having written that, you would be most welcome —if it meets with your approval— to link directly or only in part to my website, http://www.mark-state.com, and I’ll do what I can to facilitate your link from my end.
Mark State
October 20, 2009 11:50 PM
I am not afraid to link to someone who disagrees with me. And I have no problem posting comments from individuals who disagree with me, assuming that they comment with respect, as you have done. My only concern is that, as I said, the length of your comment compared to the rest of the post might be more appropriate on its own page. So, if you’re willing, you can copy and paste your comment onto a post on your blog and let me know it’s there. Once it’s there, I’ll replace the old comment with a summary and a link encouraging people to check things out over where you are.
October 21, 2009 12:48 PM
Hello, James!
http://mark-state.wetpaint.com/page/Mark%27s+Blogs%2C+Commentaries%2C+And+Technical+Writing
My last comment (re-edited for the sake of offering grammatical mercy to the reader and a more cogent explanation of the remarks it contains) appears on this page of my web site.
Mark
November 12, 2009 1:54 PM
We should thank Mayor Miller for some of the things he has done for Toronto….especially the garbage strike, I bet City Workers will think twice about striking again.
Mark State, since you know so much, why don’t you run for Mayor. Remember it does not matter what you do or how well you think you can do it….the critics will crawl all over you.
January 5, 2010 12:16 AM
Hello, Anne S.
It’s very true that the critics will crawl all over any public figure, who knowingly and voluntarily becomes fair game to the practice. Sometimes it’s easier to criticize some of them than at other times; and to be fair, the longer they have held public office, the more vulnerable they are to criticism over their public foibles.
I think Mayor Miller has done his best for the city. I don’t happen to agree with his approach to solving the city’s woes, but I can’t fault him for trying.
As far as the city garbage strike is concerned; or for that matter, any other civic group strike or any strike of any kind by any union on any entity, I think that speedier resolution might be encouraged by greater public scrutiny of the negotiation process.
For example, if legislation existed that required all negotiations prior to and during a potential strike to be broadcast on cable television, there’d be less posturing and more genuine attempts at reaching a compromise based upon knowledge that not only the public but also union members not directly involved in the bargaining process were watching their representatives; and citizens in general were watching their city representatives during the process. Strikes would be over more quickly, or in some cases not even necessary. Exposure encourages truth.
And, as of this morning January 4th, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Anne S., I’ve mirrored your suggestion by submitting my nomination as a Toronto 2010 Mayoral Candidate. In the light of how I feel about the caliber of the potential competition for the position of Mayor, it is the only course of action I could —for now— pursue to maintain my integrity and belief that Toronto needs a real leader with visionary qualities at this point in its existence.
Mark State