October 28th, 2007
The sun has set on another election. Who knows if a federal election is around the corner or not so we can’t predict when we’ll be back. But all of our contributors have enjoyed covering this election and look forward to examining public space topics in future campaigns.
Thank you for visiting daily and reading Spacing’s unique take on the important issues that dominate Toronto’s relationship with Queen’s Park. A special thanks to our frequent commenters who participated in a lively and intelligent debate about how to shape our city.
photo by Bouke Salverda
2 Comments | Leave a comment
| Email this post
Permalink for Sun sets on Spacing Votes
Posted by Spacing Votes
Categories Spacing
October 17th, 2007
Now that the Liberals are back in the drivers’ seat, we can look forward to business as usual. What does this mean for the development of urban form in the province? David Caplan at Public Infrastructure Renewal will be continuing with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario that his department has launched into, before moving on to the other key areas of the province not covered by Places To Grow. In addition, PIR will continue to hammer out the details of their strategy for curbing sprawl and encouraging transit use for the GGH. For aid in both of these tasks, we can only hope that they refer to the ongoing research of the the Neptis Foundation.
A Toronto-based independently-capitalized research institution, Neptis closely watched the evolution of the province’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the ‘Places to Grow Plan’). Last year, after the final draft of ‘P2G’ was introduced, they released a most informative commentary reviewing its strengths and weaknesses. I fully encourage people to read the actual commentary themselves, but what follows is a quick summary of Neptis’s points:
As with Peter Tabuns’s criticism of the growth plan, Neptis’s criticisms are mainly focused upon the seemingly weak intensification targets. The plan calls for 40% of all residential building to occur in already built up areas by 2015. There are several problems with this strategy.
First of all, the targets are actually pretty low - leaving 60% of all residential growth to happen pretty much exactly how we are used to it happening - in spread-out, meandering, single-use suburbs, between the edges of the growth centres and the Greenbelt. 40% is not very far from what we know to be the status-quo in the region. Already intensification for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the GGH) was estimated at 36% between 1991 and 2001, and the trend is for this percentage to increase. Likely, the actual intensification portion of projected residential building will occur in the form of tall towers, unless municipalities step in. The trend of ‘either flat or tall’, as I recently heard it described, is only likely to continue under the proposed plan.
The second problem with the intensification targets is that they are just too darn uniform. The GGH is a widely varied area and the identified growth centres are qualitatively different based upon their geography and their history. Intensification is already happening at very different rates in different places. According to Neptis, intensification in the City of Toronto between 1991-2001 was already at 96%. For the inner ring of suburbs, it was estimated at 28%, and the outer ring was intensifying at an average rate of 17%. So we can see that while 40% seems like a dramatic increase for places on the outside such as Simcoe County where only 8% of their residential growth was in the form of intensification over this period, it should probably be higher for a place like Niagara Region which is already at 33%. The Neptis report figures that outside of the City of Toronto the proposed intensification targets would only result in a total of 16% of all development units being transferred from rural sites to sites within urban boundaries.
But the primary problem with the province’s intensification targets is that, according to Neptis, they are measuring the wrong things. First of all, between 1991 and 2001, 50% of the intensification in the GGH occurred within half a kilometer of the urban edge, which the report refers to, reasonably, as a “particularly ineffective form of intensification.” In fact, development so close to the ‘urban edge’, which itself is a shakily defined thing, is hardly intensification at all! This sort of phenomenon is just not accounted for in the Plan.
As the Neptis report says, “The Growth Plan contains many policies, but few tools by which to measure progress toward their achievement.” Intensification targets should not be so focused on measuring residential growth. It ignores the very complicated nature of the planning problems. For one thing, the plan fails to recognize the difficulty of centering employment in urban growth areas when location decisions made by employers are often focused on property tax, parking availability and access to highways.
In order to account for the complexity of intensification, targets should include population density, dwelling units, and office floor space. These metrics should then be linked to distance from higher-order transit. Also the plan fails to include a measurement of the transportation mode shares within intensification areas which is very important. All of these statistics are missing from the Growth Plan’s targets and from its strategy for measuring success.
Says the report, “Identifying appropriate sites for intensification in established urban areas can take place only in the context of a region-wide plan for investment in transportation facilities.” This is a very important point - intensification and transit must happen in concert with one another. Intensification cannot usefully happen without robust transit inter-connectivity. Transit is both useless and difficult to materialize without proper intensification. For this reason, the Liberals’ Move Ontario 2020 transit plan is essential, their much lauded Growth Plan being impotent without it. Neptis however questions the emphasis on inter-nodal transit, claiming that the regional transit plan should focus first on nodal catchment areas, that being the key frontier in confronting sprawl.
While the Neptis commentary applauds the policy objectives, it does not find the implementation metrics or the incentives / disincentives to be sufficient to achieve Places to Grow’s stated goals. Further, the commentary emphasizes the fundamental role that region-wide infrastructure, and specifically transit infrastructure, must play in achieving the objectives. This is very important to keep in mind. If the Liberals’ transit promises turn out to be just so much hot air, then the province will never be able to achieve its stated planning objectives.
No Comments | Leave a comment
| Email this post
Permalink for The Neptis Foundation’s Commentary on the ‘Places to Grow’ Plan
Posted by Duncan Patterson
Categories Development, Election Tidbits
October 16th, 2007
John Barber has an interesting column today on Kathleen Wynne’s victory over John Tory in last week’s election.
The quintessential image of the recent election, according to Toronto councillor and political expert Adam Vaughan, appeared simultaneously on several direct feeds from the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre in North York Wednesday night, when Kathleen Wynne mounted the podium at the most elated victory party in the province and immediately fell into the embrace of a beaming Muslim woman in a stylish head scarf.
It was certainly striking: A married lesbian cabinet minister celebrating an epic victory against religious intrusion into secular life amid the cheers of observant Muslims from every denomination and a dozen countries, one of whom - a woman no less - congratulated their giant-killer with an unrestrained, sloppy kiss in front of every camera in the province.
Where else in the world, Mr. Vaughan wondered, could such a startling image occur - “a lesbian kissing a woman in a hijab” - and not just at any old photo op, but at the climax and epicentre of an irresistibly biblical political drama, with Goliath lying heels up and twitching in the background?
That’s not something outsiders schooled in current debates on the limits of tolerance might expect, Mr. Vaughan observed. “That’s Toronto.”
Read it in full.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
| Email this post
Permalink for A lesbian kissing a woman in a hijab — that’s Toronto
Posted by Spacing Votes
Categories Election Day
October 14th, 2007
The significant margin of defeat of the MMP proposal suggests that Ontario voters don’t see the voting system as a big issue at the moment — unlike BC, where the proportional proposal was heavily discussed and got majority support (though not enough of a majority). The Ontario result may in part be the result of four years of middle-of-the-road Liberal government. While many are dissatisfied with the Liberals, they have not, since the health premium, instituted policies that are *intensely* opposed by a lot of voters — unlike the previous NDP and Conservative governments. So there is less sense that the will of a minority is being imposed on the majority. MMP might have done better in the previous three elections.
The idea of some kind of proportional representation (PR) is likely to come up again in the future, though, especially if the Green party continues to get significant support without winning any or many seats. So I think it’s worth looking at some of the key objections to the MMP proposal that was presented this time, and seeing if and how they can be addressed.
Also, given the seeming lack of interest of Ontario voters in perfect proportionality, it’s worth thinking about how the advantages of a proportional system can be presented to voters.
I would say that there were three set of objections to the MMP system that had some validity, or at least a lot of traction among voters and commentators.
1) It weakened the direct responsibility of politicians to voters
2) It made it almost impossible to get a majority government, and thus made unstable governments more likely.
3) It was unduly complicated
I think the first two issues can be addressed by changes to the MMP system that was proposed in this referendum.
A) the number of constituencies should not be reduced. Ontario already has the largest provincial constituencies in Canada (an average of over 100,000 people per riding, apparently). It was a bad idea to make them even bigger by reducing their number. Keeping the same number of directly elected politicians would partially alleviate the sense that PR reduces the direct connection between voters and politicians.
B) Prevent politicians from running both for the “list” and for a constituency at the same time. This feature made the list seem like an insurance policy for unsuccessful/unpopular politicians. Since a party that wins government will be made up almost entirely of constituency politicians, preventing this double-dipping would mean that constituency representation has priority — you have to get elected by a constituency to be part of government, which is the ultimate goal of anyone who goes into politics. So the list would be used for up-and-coming politicians, giving them experience and exposure in opposition until they are ready to run in a constituency. And the governing party would always be composed almost exclusively of people who were directly elected by voters in a local riding.
C ) Reduce the number of “list” candidates, to maybe 25 rather than 39. This would, first of all, raise the number of votes required to get a member into the legislature (to something like 4% of the vote), reducing the danger of including “fringe” parties. It would also reduce the influence of the list members within the legislature.
Most significantly, though, it would abandon the notion of strict proportionality, because there might not be enough list members to perfectly balance the constituency results. A party with significant support across the province could still win a majority, through constituency seats, without 50% of the vote. It would be more difficult to win a majority, but it would still be possible.
The Citizen’s Assembly report was very concerned about trying to be as strictly proportional as possible, but the popular vote suggests that people are not actually that worried about perfect proportionality. If someone is clearly ahead of the pack, voters seem to be ok with the idea that they can get a majority. On the other hand, making it *more difficult* to get a majority would probably appeal to voters, as people are generally happy to make things more difficult for politicians. Probably a greater concern is that parties like the Greens who get a significant number of votes get *some* representation in the legislature.
D) Finally, it would be worth exploring systems whereby the list candidates are directly selected by voters. For example, with 25 list places, the province could be broken up into 5 regions, each of which would choose 5 of the list members. Voters in each region would vote on which of their chosen party’s list candidates they prefer — or perhaps they could even vote on which individuals from any party they prefer. The candidates with the most votes would move to the top of the list for their party in that region. That would address the most serious objection to the MMP proposal, which was the idea of members being selected by parties rather than voters.
The drawback is that this would make the system even more complicated (you would need some complex formulas to work out who, from what parties and regions, ends up in the legislature). Although people complained about the complexity of MMP, I suspect it was chosen in part because it is in fact one of the simplest forms of proportional representation. Since that didn’t help, I would say that the complexity issue is simply one that has to be accepted as part of any PR system, although once a system is chosen, it is important to find ways to reduce that complexity as much as possible.
On the plus side, if one is going to take the time to go to a polling station to vote, in a way it’s more satisfying to be able to cast several different votes while you’re there.
Finally, there’s the issue of how to market proportional representation. Its supporters tend to focus on the issue of exact proportionality as a fairness issue, but that did not seem to resonate with voters this time around. In my discussions with people about it, one of the biggest selling points was voting flexibility — the possibility of voting for a favoured local candidate from one party, but voting for a different governing party separately. I know I’ve often wished I could do that, and I suspect a lot of other voters have too — apparently, in New Zealand, up to a third of voters split their votes in any election. I think this aspect would appeal to a lot of voters.
I think another selling point would be the idea of a stronger opposition. People might not mind a majority government, but they are happy to ensure that government is kept on its toes by a vocal opposition with decent resources. If PR is presented as a way to make sure that any government is held more accountable by a strong opposition, I think it would get support.
There are other appealing aspects that did receive some coverage — less “wasted votes”, ensuring that parties like the Greens that get significant support get some representation — and I think these have more resonance than the concern about perfect proportionality.
23 Comments | Leave a comment
| Email this post
Permalink for Some thoughts on proportional representation
Posted by Dylan Reid
Categories MMP referendum
October 11th, 2007
Cross-posted from Eye Daily.
Dalton McGuinty has been awarded a second majority government. MMP was soundly defeated. The people have spoken! Or have they? Voter turnout for this election was a record low — only 52.6 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot, beating the previous all-time low of 54.7 percent, which occured in 1923.
Taking this into consideration (that the Liberals won 42 percent of the popular vote, though only 52 percent of eligible voters voted), and assuming my math is right, the Liberals really took Queen’s Park with the support of about 27 percent of eligible voters.
So how can we get more people to vote? One solution that’s already received much discussion is to change our electoral system. What’s the point of voting if you know the person you want to vote for has no chance of winning? And where’s the fun in the same two people always duking it out for a seat? How do we inject new perspectives and fresh ideas into the groups that come to represent us at Queen’s Park? Ontarian’s may have voted against MMP, but that doesn’t mean we should stop talking about the problems that exist in the electoral system we’re stuck with now.
There are many other reasons, of course, to explain why voter turnout was as disappointing as it was. Perhaps the act of voting is just not seen as something that is important in our culture right now. Perhaps politicians have failed to talk about the issues that Ontarians are really passionate about. Perhaps Elections Ontario should turn the whole exercise into a weekly reality TV show where candidates are followed around by cameras and are caught bickering with campaign managers and crying in private interviews. What will it take to convince more people to cast a ballot?
Click here to leave a comment.
| Email this post
Permalink for Voter turnout hits an all-time low
Posted by Dale Duncan
Categories Election Day
October 11th, 2007
The electoral map published in today’s Toronto Star speaks volumes: there’s the 416 and much of the 905, nice and red, with a few splotches of orange — all of it surrounded by a sea of blue.
This isn’t a barbarians-at-the-gate observation. Much of rural Ontario, with a few exceptions, has been blue for years, and there’s little reason to expect it to change anytime soon. But yesterday’s result — not new, but re-affirmed — is a lopsided political result for the GTA.
Why? There are lots of conservatives in this city, and they deserve a voice. In fact, the PC captured more votes in Toronto than the NDP. Torontonians, moreover, shouldn’t overlook the importance of urban conservatives. They’ll help the NDP hold the Liberals to account and remind them not to take the city for granted — a form of selective blindness that afflicted Jean Chretien’s Liberals in the days when the federal Tories nearly vanished.
Furthermore, Dalton McGuinty won’t be premier forever. He’ll eventually be felled by scandal or compounding incompetence or voter itchiness. When — and not if — that happens, Torontonians will have to find ways to converse with the Conservatives. And that dialogue is much less likely to happen unless they have a beachhead in Toronto.
Of course, one could argue that 905ers like Christine Elliott could fill that advocacy role. For my money, I’d prefer to see Peter Shurman step aside and let leader John Tory serve out this term as the MPP for Thornhill — a riding that is sufficiently urban and diverse to provide Tory with the base he needs both to serve the leader of the opposition and provide an alternative perspective on policies affecting Greater Toronto.
He got trounced because he gambled wrong. But that doesn’t mean he should call it a day and go back to the private sector. As much as ever, the city needs him, and his ilk, in the legislature.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
| Email this post
Permalink for LORINC: Dont go, John
Posted by John Lorinc
Categories Leaders
Loading ...
