Tuesday’s Headlines

SUBURBS
Mississauga gets off the bus [Toronto Star]
Bradford development proposal moves ahead [Toronto Star]
A question of sprawl: Live in the past or plan for the future? [Globe & Mail]
On Sheppard Avenue East, pink hieroglyphics reveal the future [National Post]

DOWNTOWN
Keep Islands a precious heritage [Toronto Star]
$65 million PATH expansion feeds Lakeshore-to-Bloor tunnel dream [National Post]

OTHER NEWS
Use electric for expanded rail services: health officials [Globe & Mail]
Top Tory curses Toronto [Toronto Star]
City moving to ban new day cares, parents’ group warn [National Post]
Freedom for women came with apartments [Toronto Star]

10 comments

  1. While I’ve always had a soft spot for PATH, I’ve never liked the meaningless name or the hard-to-follow map. I suppose we’re stuck with the name at this point, but couldn’t the map be made more readable, something more like a transit map (i.e. Montreal RESO, http://tinyurl.com/nkdy9w) or a real street map (i.e. Calgary, http://tinyurl.com/pj63p)?

  2. Do you notice that once again Metrolinx has “no specifics”. Their story on why they cant go electric keeps changing week to week. Electric is cheaper by the way in the long run and cheaper than building a dirty diesel system once and then building it again for electric.

  3. I wonder what the health externalities of the 401 are.

  4. Wondering why Royson James’ Star article is not listed in headlines? It is one of the most frightening examples of a another really bad idea that Mayor Miller is supporting. The idea that politician’s should be able too get public money to sue the public is pure Orwell.

  5. Hi Dave,

    I did see James’ article but didn’t think it was all that relevant to issues of public space and the urban landscape. Seemed more about bickering politicians who are fed up with the outrageous name-calling that goes on in the council chambers.

  6. Jake,

    I think you have it wrong on 2 counts.

    1. The threat of government funded Libel Chill in municipal discussion is a serious issue that Spacing should be strongly against as a matter of principle.
    2. The James’ peice makes it clear that largely because of Miller, Council is disfunctional making the sort of consensus and pacing, noted in the Gehl’article, virtually impossible to achieve thus hindering progressive development of public space.

  7. Hi Glen and Dave,

    Just to return to what started this discussion – why I left out James’ article – I guess all I can say is that the opening few paragraphs didn’t seem to be particularly focused on public space or actual news:

    “the current crop at city hall is soft, thin-skinned and hypersensitive – a crybaby class of pampered whiners plagued with a millennial sense of entitlement”

    As I’ve said before, I make an effort to post all articles dealing with Spacing-related issues no matter what the politics of the writers (eg. Sue-Ann Levy). “Thin-skinned council” has very little relevance to issues dealt with by Spacing. But Spacing readers can judge for themselves:
    http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/647629

    Dave, as for posting James’ article “as a matter of principle,” you’d be hard pressed to show me how James’ article does anything else besides stifling informed debate, which is precisely what the issue is about. Describing the council as “weasels,” “prima donnas,” and “politics as a blood sport”(even if it is true), is trashy journalism that’s making up for in crass style what it lacks in actual substance.

    And to claim that “James’ piece makes it clear” how Miller is responsible for a dysfunctional council, please point that out to me since I can’t seem to find that section.

    Dave, as for Matt’s post, I won’t speak for him but I bet he has his own good reasons for that post. Maybe partly because it was actual news rather than overly-opinionated rhetoric.

  8. Sorry Jake,

    Your rebuttal just does not cut it as you fail to address either of my points.

    On the matter of ‘principle’ you say nothing. All responsible, respectable and free thinking media are against Libel Chill, so do you support it just because Miller gang does??

    Glen’s point on Ford is beautifully taken. When by your own stated position a story is irrelevant but critical of Miller’s critics it gets in, but James’ critcism of Miller does not. Pure and simple bias.

    As per your ‘James makes it clear’ comment and connection to his article, it is not my failure to make my point but your failure to see. The Star is the Liberal rag in town yet 90% of comments support James.

    Again, pure and simple bias. James was right on and you can’t see the truth.

  9. Our daily headlines posts are intended purely as a service. There is no expressed or implied political opinion here — these posts are simply our attempt to collect as many relevant stories as possible and link to them for our readers’ convenience.

    We welcome and are grateful for comments from people who catch a story we miss and provide a link to it. We also enjoy a good debate about the issues surrounding these stories. But I know for a fact that Jake is not basing any of his headline inclusion or exlusion decisions on a political opinion or bias, so it’s pointless to suggest otherwise.

Comments are closed.