Forget the crack. And the thuggery. And the drunken stupors.
The Mayor of Toronto, according to one poll, still has a 44 percent approval rating. Some think he could get re-elected.
How can that be? Is it his personal charm? All those return telephone calls to citizens with complaints.
Or is it, as some commentators affirm, the anger of the suburban base for what they perceive as the contempt of the “downtown elites” and a wasteful City Hall – and for whom Rod Ford is their avenging angel? Is Toronto politics really just a consequence of the amalgamation of the mega-city by a conservative provincial government which perfectly understood that an ideologically divided region would rebound to their benefit. They probably never expected a Rob Ford (Mel Lastman was more their style), but Ford’s personal antics are secondary to the value of a suburban-dominated Toronto.
Could something similar happen in Vancouver?
In particular, is the transit referendum a chance for the suburbs to express their frustration and contempt for the City of Vancouver – its greenies, its bike lanes, its grab of regional resources – while they get stuck in traffic in order to find more affordable housing from which they are priced out in the city?
Isn’t that what the ‘White Rock Friend’ was expressing in “What the ‘Yes’ side is up against …“?
If the provincial government can’t amalgamate us, they can least use the suburban voter base to limit the taxes that are seen to disproportionately benefit of the core by requiring region-wide votes. And yes, of course transit benefits the region as a whole, of course the city and suburbs are co-dependent. But isn’t that true in Toronto as well? While we may not get a Ford running the City, we’ll get the consequences of the divide.
There’s another way in which Vancouver could get Forded: in the transformation of our image. The world sees us as, well, nice. We’re a stable and fortunate and beautiful place on the planet, not very exciting, but admirable, diverse and desirable. The Vancouver region, in particular, is seen as a place that ‘mostly got it right.’ The City has, in urban circles, been credited with “Vancouverism” – the way we have accommodated to a constrained environment, how we’ve learned to live with limits and without freeways, with aspirations to be the greenest city in the world. Just as Toronto was seen as ‘New York run by the Swiss.”
Then came Rob Ford and “I smoked crack in a drunken stupor.” Toronto will never be seen the same.
Perhaps Vancouver will go through a similar, if not as extreme, re-evaluation. That green halo in our case could get not just tarnished but burned to a crisp.
We’re on the verge of the biggest expansion of carbon-transfer infrastructure in our history. Let’s say we expand those coal terminals on Burrard Inlet and, especially, on the Fraser River – taking the thermal coal from Wyoming that the Pacific Northwest states have rejected. Let’s say we approve those pipelines. Or we transfer bitumen by rail. And build one, two, three or more LNG plants on our coast, amping up the number of tankers by the dozens that flow through our dangerous waters.
Then, here in the region, we defeat transit expansion. We open up the Agricultural Land Reserve. We build a ten-lane bridge to sprawl onto our wetlands and lowlands. Even the First Nations pave over part of a continental flyway for a car-dependent shopping mall. Realtors take out options on farmlands and then erect tilt-up warehouses, as the port expands its operations on the farmland it purchases. And to top it off: no more of those damn bike lanes.
What of our image then – and our sense of our self as the world discovers that we’re not who they thought we were?
That we’ve become the environmental equivalent of Rob Ford.
David Suzuki may also be a tad depressed over our country, which we should rename from “Canada” to “Carbonia”.
https://twitter.com/MacleansMag/status/400711430435262464/photo/1
I think you are over-generalizing here. At the worst, IMO you are perpetuating stereotypes of people in Surrey and Langley all being anti-transit.
You want to see a leader in anti-transit/translink/vancouverism sentiment? Look across the vancouver border at Derek Corrigan in heavily urbanized burnaby.
“Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan asserts Vancouver city hall is “dreaming in technicolour” with regard to the $2.8-billion (broadway subway) proposal. He said he “cannot imagine” the rest of Metro Vancouver’s municipalities identifying the subway as a priority. ”
http://www.straight.com/news/burnaby-mayor-derek-corrigan-slams-broadway-skytrain-line-talk
But Corrigan also has it in for SoF munis.
“Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, however, warned TransLink’s plans are unaffordable and argued scarce funding should be used to sustain service to areas with strong existing ridership rather than areas with low transit use if cuts are required.
“There are significant subisides going into many of the South of Fraser routes that are questionable in terms of business efficiency,” he said.”
Click my name for the link.
Burnaby would lose if a much needed Broadway subway would get approved. Of course he is against such a subway, as Burnaby has three lines and benefits wildly from this investment made 20 or so years ago.
A subway from UBC to Canada line and SkyTrain at Commercial along Broadway would make total sense and would create billions in new housing, much of it affordable, along Broadway, 4th and 16th Ave.
Vancouver would win huge here as a denser yet eco-friendly less car oriented city .. At the expense of expansion elsewhere such as Burnaby.
Nope:
Burnaby could be the biggest winner, with a Millenium line extended to Central Broadway eventually UBC,,,
the main reason is that the M line will finally go somewhere!
see also there:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/freedom-map-with-broadway-rapid-transit/
…And that will not make housing more affordable along 4 avenue/16th avenue, quite the contrary…Corrigan is against everything, so no surprise here…
If anything, it’s not surrey/langley that really wants to knock vancouver down a peg, but its next door neightbour.
“Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan criticizes amount of resources devoted to Vancouver
Corrigan, chair of the Metro Vancouver regional planning committee, explained to the Straight that he’s “resentful” of the fact that “in this province, it [Vancouver] is always the tail that wags the dog.” He added that infrastructure targeted at Vancouver, which has 600,000 residents—about one-quarter of Metro Vancouver’s total population—“consistently dwarfs what’s put into the rest of the region”.
http://www.straight.com/news/burnaby-mayor-derek-corrigan-criticizes-amount-resources-devoted-vancouver
GTA’s Champion of the Burbs: Rob Ford. Metro Vancouver’s: Dianne Watts.
Dianne Watts seems reasonable and generally pro-urban. Certainly she is not a radically negative force like Rob Ford.
If you’re right, Gordon, Vancouver and Canada have lots of company. Here in Sydney, even more car-choked than when we lived here a few years ago, the bush fires are finally over after a record-breaking springtime heat wave, and the new federal government is winding down any commitment to combatting climate change. This from the ABC this morning, contrasting the new Australian position with the Phillipino one (in the wake of their devastating storm), as spoken by diplomat Yeb Sand:
‘On Wednesday morning our new Prime Minister stood before the freshly sworn-in Parliament and tabled a set of bills designed to repeal the carbon price and — perhaps even more significantly — remove Australia’s limit on carbon pollution.
‘Abbott’s speech was short, and it was strident. “Madam Speaker, we are not renaming it. We are not floating it. We are not keeping the machinery in place so we can dust it off in the future. We are abolishing the carbon tax in full. We have said what we mean and we will do we say: the carbon tax goes. It goes.”
‘And although it lacked the emotion of Sand’s appeal, it was no less remarkable. It represents the first attempt anywhere in the world to remove a national price on carbon pollution after it has been legislated. While nations like the Philippines implore the rest of the world to show greater ambition, our new Government is breaking the commitments we have already made to reduce our contribution to climate change and support those facing the consequences.’
Bravo Australia. Canada should follow suit.
I think you’re overestimating the importance of extreme environmentalism to the general public (and any resulting backlash).
And as to re-electing a crack smoking politician?
Washington, DC did it – after Marion Barry got out of prison:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1955750_1955749_1955842,00.html
I agree with Mezz. Some of the most vocal transit supporters in this region come from south of the Fraser and those people have been the source of many cost effective ideas.
Derek Corrigan can’t even maintain a consistent position. He says we should maintain service where it’s well used and cut where it isn’t. Then he slams Vancouver for getting the lion’s share of service when that’s exactly where the services are most used. I don’t have the figures in front of me but doesn’t Vancouver have 40% of the passengers with only 25% of the service hours?
Having been around for a while Mr. Corrigan should know that Vancouver doesn’t drive transit decisions in this region. Everything comes down from the provincial level either directly from the Ministry of Transportation or their appointed representatives at TransLink.
Most of the passengers on the two rapid transit lines that traverse his city aren’t Vancouver residents. Rapid transit always disproportionally benefits the residents of the suburbs. The resident population of Vancouver relative to Metro Vancouver is irrelevant. The working population of Vancouver relative to the rest of the region is important and I believe is one of the things that most irks Mr. Corrigan.
I think he’s upset about is the fact that the region isn’t called Metro Burnaby, that some other city has the most jobs and thus the biggest tax base. He’s doubly angry that yet another city (Surrey) is growing faster than his own and is poised to become the largest in the province. He’s a bit player in a large metropolis and he’s jealous that other mayors get more money and attention.
Should he still harbour anger over the way Canada Line was imposed upon the region I recommend he buy a ticket to see Gordon Campbell in the UK; one way of course.
Vancouver already Forded themselves by very publicly slapping the premier in favour of the agitator David Eby. If you push your host out the door, don’t expect to be offered dessert.
So… vote for someone you don’t like because they might be spiteful?
No – vote for someone that will be effective in getting you what you want – not some backbencher on the opposition party.
“someone that will be effective in getting you what you want”. Aye, there’s the rub.
The job of the Premier of the province is to represent all of its citizens, not just the ones that voted for her party.
Premier Clark and the governing government ~are~ representing the province’s citizens, businesses (employers), and institutions. And, her gov’t is also representing us as part of a Canadian federation.
If someone in a riding votes against the governing gov’t, they are saying on balance, we don’t agree with the direction, and we don’t want to take part. Or, we’re just fine the way we are, we don’t want any change. They elect a member of a losing (loser) minority, and that’s how they “send a message.”
I find that the maturity level of political voting is pretty low compared to other democracies. Many BCrs don’t get how the simple system works. Yes, it has flaws – we are all human – but it does work. A smart community would elect someome capable of being a part of the governing gov’t, and ensure that the rep looked after their unique interests. The best thing a current member of the New Dinosaur Party could do for the citizens in its riding is to become independant. The first, courageous community to do so will be rewarded handsomely, for sending an ‘updated’ message that we want to have a big part in the success of the next 10-12 years, before the Dinosaurs get another chance to blow one.
Alternatively, just sit in a comfy chair and weakly attempt to fight the last election through a blog. Your choice.
No, I’m saying don’t expect your Vancouvercentric priorities to be hers, when you’ve reduced her party’s presence in the city. Vancouver Forded itself by showing them they don’t need to carry the urban ridings to form government.
Perhaps the referendum on additional TransLink funding needs to be seen in light of this i.e. too many left-leaning mayors and MLAs, so Christy will invest $s elsewhere !
On the opposite side, even when a Mayor (Nenshi) has been courageous enough to speak out against local powerful developer lobby, it results in lawsuit threat today in Calgary:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Home+builder+Wenzel+Shane+Homes+sues+Calgary+Mayor+Nenshi/9172067/story.html
The plaintiff (CEO of a development firm, also leader of local developer group) was revealed a few months ago through his own meeting and other leaked communication of planting pro-developer candidates to run for municipal election which occurred just a few wks. ago.
****So no city outside of beleaguered Toronto, should ever become complacent of never being “Forded” or …tripping over completey narcissitic individuals who clearly don’t care about municipal fiscal control, well-designed, sustainable communities, etc.
I don’t think you need to worry about Gregor ever being sued by developers. Why would they harm the goose that keeps laying them golden eggs?
GROTESQUE OVERREACH
first, you abuse Ford who seems to need medical treatment and that we would otherwise consider with compassion – possibly we should simply accept that Ford really needs a Dr. and move on.
and really Toronto will never by the same??? this will soon all be forgotten or has the public’s memory become permanently stretched in Toronto unlike most other electorates that tend to have very short recollections of past actions of the political class.
But more importantly, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW FORD’s BEHAVIOUR has caused Toronto Council to go along with non-progressive policy changes, and by extension the Toronto electorate must NOT have the capability to understand what is happening around them. But of course polls are always accurate, so can you provide the scientifically supported research methods that we can assess to whether the 44% is real.
and on the question of evidence for our statements, WHAT INFORMATION CAN YOU SHARE WITH US THAT THE REFERENDUM IS LOST – instead, I’m actively promoting in the Tri-Cities the need for support for the referendum and willing to put my name and reputation in PUBLIC FORUMS to explain why it is crucial to support a POSITIVE outcome.
PS – your reference to suburbs really not relevant way of thinking about this region as the City of Vancouver’s center is NO LONGER THE REGION’S DOWNTOWN – instead while this core area does provide some high order goods particularly in specialized services and the entertainment/tourism industries, the workplace has spread out across the region with the fastest growing commute between municipal centers, rather than traditional core-periphery. In my engaging communities around the region, I’m learning that the movement to the DOWNTOWN is shrinking and many in this region have no reason to go to the City of Vancouver at all.
but of course with Vancouver having only 25% of the region’s population and dropping fast, then attempting to retain prominence is typical in diminishing political circles.
btw…life-long resident of Burnaby…
For those who are looking for a POLITICAL GEOGRAPHER’S perspective on the Rob Ford phenomenon, open this newspaper article and have a look at the fourth photo:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Photos+best+Ford+inadrunkenstupor+memes/9133317/story.html
It is interesting to contemplate the political ideological geographic distribution in Toronto and Vancouver, and how they are similar or different, and how someone monkeying around with municipal jurisdictions (like the province) might affect all of that, as Gord speculated.
I would say that the factors are hugely complex, but to name a few – demographics, ethic geography, and transportation.
I note that when the government of Ontario forced the amalgamation of the 6 cities that made up the Metro Toronto region into the City of Toronto a number of years ago, it still left 6 or more suburban/exurban municipalities on the outskirts of the GTA alone. They were not forced to amalgamate, and while their power balance in GTA may have gone down – they faced one single municipality as opposed to 6 before – in terms of real politics, did anything change? In terms of electoral distribution at the provincial level, where the money is, things remained as they had always been.
So it was not a forced amalgamation of the whole urban region. If the equivalent were to be done in the lower mainland, it would mean amalgamating the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and the University Endowment Lands into one municipality, and MAYBE adding in the North Vans, West Van and Richmond as well. The outer suburbs, such as Delta, Surrey, Langley, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge would surely be left out of the amalgamation, if it followed the Toronto model. this is as one would expect. I cannot imagine the residents/electors of the outer suburbs of the lower mainland agreeing to an amalgamation that would dilute their power and autonomy.
If such a reorganization were to take place, imagine what effect it would have on regional planning issues such as transportation, public transit, the ALR, and regional funding. I doubt that all the catastrophes would transpire that Gord wrote about at the end of his piece, or that Gregor Robertson would be replaced by a Rob Ford type, but it would make for a different balance of power between the inner region and the outer region, and many things, such as the transit funding referendum, would unfold in a different way.
what are the pro’s and con’s of such amalgamation ? Is there tax savings across the board, i.e. higher efficiencies, i.e. a smaller government as a % of tax revenue collected ? Faster decision times due to a more central government ?