? whoisearth ?

Well it all started about 2 years with Oriental Portal closing its doors on King Street East, across from The Toronto Sun. Now, in late December, Wall Bed King is about to shut its doors and I have a funny feeling the Asian furniture store beside it will follow rather rapidly.

All this, of course, can be traced roughly to the great condo influx through this particular strip of King. The most recent of which, East, seems to be doing a great job of marketing King East as a very expensive, albeit shoe-box sized, living in downtown Toronto.

I personally will continue to put my money on St. Clair West and my new found hope in Yonge + Sheppard possibly becoming a Canadian version of an upper east + west side rollled into one.

I can’t help but think, with a growing certainty and unease, that Toronto and its people are in the throes of an identity crisis. A lot of this I feel can be explained by the development history of the city.

Specifically, over the last 20 - 25 years Toronto has seen a boom in spreading outward and upward from the core. The 80’s and 90’s, one can argue, we very dark decades both in terms of design and socially. Things have gotten colder and utilitarian. Toronto is really lacking a vibrance, and that void can be found in the general level of pride that the city and its residents have.

Love of the city is rarely there. People, in varying states, have very isolated ineraction with the city. Although Toronto boasts one of the fastest population growths of a North American city, it still lacks the intimacy of cities like New York where everything is folding over itself.

Toronto has evolved as a “city that does not take risks”. It’s my opinion that this can spell a death knell if continued without addressing. As I had mentioned before concerning the Gardiner, major problems are ignored until they become that gorilla in your living room.

Why else would I have spent almost all of my 10 years in East York? In a word, community. Something that worries me about looking at condo’s at Yonge/Sheppard is the lack of community. It’s amazing how a city can adopt the intimacy of a small town, or horribly fail in trying.

Of course, I’m going to take that risk though. My whole life I’ve needed things to fix. Perhaps our relationship with our neighbourhood should be as important as our significant other…

You know, as much as I deride the actual effectiveness of politicians, do I really want a job where ever public appearance means a publicity shot.

Watching BT this morning, I was a mixture of appalled, sickened, disturbed and saddened by Mayor David Miller taking part in a showing of the Nutcracker.

Granted, I may have been the only sour grape in the audience were I there, but do I really want to see the Mayor attempting to ham up to me and garner my support? Furthermore, what kind of person does it make me when my political and social intelligence is so low that I don’t recognize the base pandering to an audience this involves?

I hate to be echoing history, but some great cynics have already said it… As promising as society can be some times, it can be a major disappointment.

You, David Miller, you disappointment me. Not for what you’ve done as a mayor, I think you’ve done an admirable job. You disappoint me for pandering to the masses.

The rest of us? We’re a disappointment for letting it affect our opinions and our judgements.

Why is it that come the fall, the city manages to find something wrong on almost every major street?

Yes, I understand that this city is built on an aging infrastructure, as is any city with a large enough population. What I’m trying to comprehend is why so many fixes are done to localized small areas that seem to have no connection to construction from previous years, or years to come.

An example of good construction that comes to mind is the broadview bridge right west of Broadview on Queen. This is a bridge that’s being looked after properly, albeit lazily. Over the last 3 years there has been a stream of construction rebuilding the various problems of age and weather. Last year the streetcar tracks were addressed, this year it seems to be piping of sorts.

Take that in contrast with what has been going on at Pape and Danforth, the seemingly arbitrary ripping up of a street that has no bearance to known problems in the past, and very well may have nothing to do with construction in the future.

I hate to say it, but this sort of business practice is old hat. Departments get budgets, and these budgets are set to expire on or around the New Year. Most major businesses operate in this manner and a city, despite disagreement, is a business. The mayor is essentially an elected CEO of a company and we’re all the workers.

Now what I find disturbing in all of this is not that the fact that government has the same authoritative structure as businesses, its that governments operate inefficiently when compared to businesses of similar size.

In no uncertain terms would a large business such as the one I work for cut training funds, yet we routinely cut our education budget.

Conversely, we would not be paying for the maintenance and upgrading of equipment and systems that aren’t needed. As well, our budgets are laid out for all within the company to have access to if required.

Yes, Toronto has aging hardware but so does any other large company. Doesn’t mean its a smart think to waste rolling budgets patching holes when a major overhaul is all that’s needed to reset the system for another X number of years.

New feature time!

This past election, of which I didn’t take part has made me think on my walk home. Something that I have been thinking about on and off for years now. Is our democracy flawed or has it just failed to evolve to the next step (whatever that may be)?

I was off yesterday, the privledge of working for a bank and the last social sector that honours our veterans by not working, and even though having a full day I still refused to vote.

Could I have voted? Of course. I could have made the time. That leads me to wonder then. Why didn’t I vote? Furthermore, why have I been so apathetic towards the voting process in general?

The short answer is I don’t know. The long answer is that, like anything, it gets complicated when picking at the fine print.

Ideally, and idealistically, I think it comes down to a lifelong disdain for authority. As George Carlin said, when explaining the 10 commandments, “respect for ones elders should never be assumed, it’s to be earned”. I’ve had great respect for teachers, bosses, and co-workers alike but as for the actual submissiveness that is implied towards their intellect or experience I have always drawn exception.

Now how does this apply to voting? Perhaps it doesn’t at all. Perhaps it comes down to personality.

I can’t say that the hearts of our city’s politicians and journalists are in the wrong place, but I truly have to question where their thoughts and their motives are. The becomes important especially when we’re on the topic of any solutions to our current violent crimes and what defines it as a serious enough problem to trump all other issues Toronto faces.

Let’s just, for the sake of compliance, agree with the masses. Is violent crime the root of the problem, or is violent crime merely the multiplication of a myriad of other problems in this city?

I know that politicians, of which I doubt any in this city live in what could be perceived as a “bad” area. In my experiences, I have only felt threatened once in my 10+ years in this city. That was my first year here living up at Dufferin and Finch and going west to Jane after midnight. Keep in mind, I was a green country hick who had no experience with a city more than 300k in a population. Fear of crime, and perceived crime, originates in the minds of those who do not understand.

I’m not, however, saying that crime isn’t a problem. It is. What I am saying is that thinking its a major issue is just a bit skewed and possibly pandering votes to those who do not understand how safe the city is.

Common sense should dictate that situations like walking at night alone, especially for women, is dangerous no matter where you live. Same goes with leaving children unattended in busy areas. The fact is that there will always be “bad” people. A city, with more concentrated populations, is going to have more “bad” people.

So what makes a bad person? Violent crime can mean a few things. Physical violence, sexual violence or property violence, to name a vew examples. So what’s the plan of action on curbing these forms of violent crime? More police could be a solution, albeit an expensive one. The city has already been through a few dangerous strikes involving “work to rule” over the last decades. Police are not cheap, nor do they warrant a safer city. Toronto has been increasing it’s police force steadily over the last decade. Crime has not decreased, and the population is not increasing at any more of a drastic rate than it was in the past.

Healthcare, however, has been on the decline and drastically both in funding and manpower. The same can be said for education. The same can be said for youth programs.

Growing up in a small town of 900 people, and now being 29 I’m a firm believer in the old addage “Idle hands are the devils playmate”. What does Toronto really expect is going to happen to crime when peope with various levels of psychosis are free to walk the streets along with kids who aren’t getting the same quality education as in the past (parents are just as big in the blame on this as teachers) and extra-curricular activity is gone in the name of budget cuts.

A safe society is one that takes care of its weak and young to the best of its ability. How did Mike Harris shutting down almost all the mental health hospitals in Ontario make the streets safer? Has Mike Harris, or any politician, seen a mentally ill person?

How has Dalton Mcguinty cancelling music programs, or athletic programs, helped make the streets safer? Has Dalton McGuinty, or any politician, seen what happens to youth without boundaries, guidelines, and constructive learning OUTSIDE of the classroom?

In our short-sightedness we continue to vote in politicians and mayors that look to short term solutions. They look to budget cuts and downsizing. Its gotten to the point where 2 parents need to work just to economically raise a kid. What are we to do when the school system is downsized to the point where you either school your kid at home, or spend 50k a year on a private school? This is as the number of mentally ill people continue to strike fear into us, and our children.

Where do we really draw the line?

Is crime really the problem with Toronto?

Transit in this city is in a sorry state. Transit in this country is in a sorry state. Canada, on a whole, is in urban sprawl. Major urban centres such as Toronto are now stuck in the hard place of reasoning how to develop the transit system. The core of the city continues to grow, but is it at the same alarming rate that the boroughs continue to grow?

From the federal or provincial to municipal levels the politicians try to tell us that transit, particularily in Toronto, matters. Thing is, what’s being said and what’s being done are two different things.

Toronto sits at a point where over 90% of their operating costs are coming from fares. Little to no money is coming from Provincial or Federal levels. When it does, it’s coming with strings attached such as the gas tax.

On top of this, we have a population that is highly in need of a reliable and effective transit. What we’re left with, however, is a system that doesn’t co-operate with the city and is in many cases villified and unjustified. Whether this is warranted or not is not for me to decide, but this is the way a lot of city dwellers feel.

The TTC is not sustainable on fares alone, regardless of how good the service is. Too many variables change. Maintenance and repairs, salaries and upgrading systems are all factors that politicians seem not to take into account.

Yes, one can’t expect the province, or the country, to have a reason to subsidize transit in a city like Toronto. Can we in Toronto, however, be expected to subsidize the economic clout of the province?

What ultimately ends up going around is a bunch of disdain on all sides.

Transit users bemoan the horrible service and decaying system, the gridlock on buses and streetcars, or the strong-arming administration that drives up costs ultimately punishing them (the loyal traveller) monetarily.

Rural areas and drivers complain about the traffic downtown, and the taxes they pay to maintain a transit system they don’t use.

Are both sides right or are they wrong?

Who is to blame, and who is responsible for public transit?

I’m not saying I know the answer, but ultimately it does lie in the middle.

Perhaps, if all levels of government refuse to aid in the Transit in major urban centres like Toronto, the cities should lobby seriously for autonomy. Maybe Mel Lastman was pushing a creative idea to address the transit issue, without realizing it. The best way to fight money is with money. Maybe by providing a monetary value to what Ontario and Canada gain from Toronto, the general population might be more willing to loosen their purse-strings to a cash strapped city.

Getting near 1/2 a month until we go through the motions of a possible new major. What does this mean to me personally? Little to nothing. Hate to call it as it is, but that’s the truth and I’m sure you could as a lot of 20 - 30 somethings if the feeling is mutual. This lends me to ask the question why?

Well of course, I can only break it down in terms that affect my own life. From there I’ll try to explain it down.

As I get older, I hate to say it, but we’re pretty much at the whim of the economic machinery. Yes, this means the poor gets jilted along with the enviroment on a routine basis but dollar bills, like guns aren’t evil. Its the people who weild them wiith the problem. Every year the veil on that gets lifted back a little bit more. Doesn’t mean my beliefs have changed, just that they’re more fine tuned.

Poverty, I feel, is everyones problem regardless of how sheltered a life they chose to live. Living in Rosedale or The Distillery District doesn’t absolve you from finding a solution to the problem. Problem is, nobody seems content on actually adressing it, aside from as a superficiality.

The same method (or lack thereof) was used to address other issues such as:

1. Revitalizing the Waterfront
2. Adressing the Gardiner
3. The Island Airport

Of these 3 issues that were around with poverty and crime during the past election:

1. Quagmired due to financial shortfalls and disagreements on where to start and a final vision.
2. Ignored until Corktown, Distillery, etc decide to take into their own hands due to proximity to the problem or it reaches a point of demanding to be adressed due to safety or some other unseen reason.
3. While government officials butted heads with the locals, business decided to move forward.

So when it comes to important issues, what have the politicians told us? Everything will remain a quagmire until the people with a strong vested issue in the problem take control of the situation. Rest assured, in the next 5 years; the Gardiner will still be looming, flights will still be coming out of the island airport, and poverty will still be the growing problem that it is today. I’m not saying that this is a reason to give up on politics, I’m just saying that if you expect action you’re up for disappointment.

Now granted, this is more of a diatribe than a glowing review of politics in Toronto. But as I hope you’re all aware, discourse is important. Closer to election day I’ll cover a bit more as I make my choice a more educated one, but rest assured that right now, the feeling is dim. And I hope this has done a good job of explaining why that’s so.

I’m going to go out on a limb with this one, and to start off, no this is not a direct attack at the Bain Street co-op housing. However, I think the way in which co-op housing is addressed both in Toronto and world-wide (as far as I know), it needs to be re-thought.

Co-op housing is an institution many of us in any city both pride ourselves on, and also despise. It’s the ying and the yang. We want to think that we’re providing a neccessity to get people on their feet, if they were down on their luck or new to the city. On the other hand, we don’t like the crime, drugs, and poverty that always seems to be associated with co-op housing (or in this sense “low income housing” as it aids us to point a finger more readily). I think we can address both of these issues by simply changing the way that co-op housing is managed.

To start, lengthy studies have been done about the difficulty of people and families to “jump classes”. That is to say that historically the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Society has been playing this nickel and dime game for hundreds of years and, although it has worked on occassion, it’s not perfect. Now here’s where we get to the meat of the idea. It’s quite obvious to me, that as ownership is available you see an increase in things such as pride in your property and community as well as interaction with your community. Where ownership is not an issue, you usually see the visible quality of the housing in question, and its community, in a state of disregard and decay.

Every area of Toronto you can experience this. A perfect example is the Bain Street co-op housing. When you compare it with other streets of owned homes in the area you see a sharp difference in the quality of the area.

Now this, then forces you to ask the question, is this problem because of the difference in class between an affluent neighbourhood and low income squatters? Or, does the premise of a rental unit lower a tenants interest in their property?

If you’re a home owner, would you care less about your place if you rented?

If you’re a renter, would you care more about you’re place if you owned it?

There are more implications than just this too. If you allow the tenants of these co-op projects to buy their property, you do two things. You create a bump in status by providing real estate to people who would not have access otherwise. You also allow for co-ops to physically move neighbourhoods. As a co-op fills and becomes tenant owned, then you are free to build a new co-op elsewhere. What better way to avoid the quagmires that have become Regent Park, or Rexdale? Places where millions are being spent to undo this co-op permenancy that we created decades ago by squatting financially poor people.

The final question? Do you have the balls to allow a co-op housing project to come to your neighbourhood when tenants become owners?