October 17th, 2006
Pitfield takes Spacing’s word — literally!
Posted by Matthew Blackett
UPDATE: CityTV did a news segment on the Pitfield blog SNAFU. They don’t supply a direct link to the video so follow these directions: Go to their website, and click on VIDEO NEWS DIRECTOR on the yellow bar. The story should be in their top stories section titled: “Was Major Mayoral Candidate’s Blog Plagiarized?” You can also read the text version.
—————-
Sometimes candidates, and their campaign teams, take action without putting much thought into the consequences. And we think Jane Pitfield’s team had a serious brain cramp last week.
It was rather surprising for us to read Ms. Pitfield’s blog entry on October 7th which, almost word-for-word, plagiarizes a column by Spacing Votes’ John Lorinc. The text below is Ms. Pitfield’s:
David Miller made a thin promise yesterday — $28 million to Toronto’s 13 distressed neighbourhoods, spread over four years. That works out to be just over $500,000 per neighbourhood per year — a bit less than what the city’s works department requested last winter to hire six new enforcement officers. In fact, the annual cost of Miller’s new program adds up to just 0.1% of the city’s total spending. This amounts to very little for at-risk youth. Municipal spending alone won’t solve the problems for young people growing up in distressed neighbourhoods. These steps won’t do much other than generate a few more summer jobs.
Now, read the following paragraph, taken from Lorinc’s October 6th column, the day before Pitfield’s blog entry. Similarities are in bold:
How else to explain the paper-thin promise he made yesterday — $28 million to Toronto’s 13 distressed neighbourhoods, spread over four years. Do the math, and that works out to be just over $500,000 per neighbourhood per year — a bit less than what the city’s works department requested last winter to hire six new enforcement officers. In fact, the annual cost of Miller’s new program adds up to a princely 0.1% of the city’s total spending. How’s that for commitment? All those low-income, at-risk, gang-involved youth we’ve been talking about so earnestly these part three years — let’s pitch them what amounts to a rounding error and hope for the best. (Oh yes, and cops, too, but that comes out of another budget.) Miller has been saying in his stump speeches lately that in his Toronto, “no one will be left behind.” But this line is not only eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” education reform slogan; it also has a distinctly hollow ring, given yesterday’s developments. Municipal spending alone won’t solve the problems for young people growing up in poor neighbourhoods, but it’s hard to imagine that what Miller plans to ante up will do much other than generate a few more summer jobs.
I honestly don’t expect Ms. Pitfield to write her own blog entries, but I would certainly hope her campaign team would understand the difference between quoting a media outlet and outright plagiarism.
Calls from Spacing to Pitfield’s campaign office today have yet to be returned.
UPDATE I: Just after midnight, “(Source: John Lorinc Spacing.ca)” was added. Hmmmm….
UPDATE II: I talked with Ms. Pitfield on Saturday afternoon and she said a campaign volunteer was writing her blog entries. “There hasn’t always been a clear plan of what to do with my blog,” she said. “I have a young man looking after it. But I will talk to someone at our office right away.”
The entire entry was removed early Saturday evening.
UPDATE III: As of Sunday morning, Jane’s blog has been replaced with her policy positions.
UPDATE IV: It seems another of her “blog” entries was lifted, this time from the Globe and Mail [thanks to Torontoist for the tip].
ANTHONY REINHART IN THE GLOBE AND MAIL (July 10):
More clear are the signs that the ratio of employers to residents is changing in Toronto. Most of the many construction cranes operating in the city have been building condominiums, not office buildings. So while the city’s population continues to grow, the number of jobs has been dropping by about 1 per cent each year for several years.The Toronto Office Coalition says the job market has shed 100,000 positions since 1990, while the 905 has gained 800,000 jobs in the same period. Pointing to ever-increasing outbound traffic during the morning rush hours, business groups have been warning loudly that the city is becoming a bedroom of the suburbs, in a stark reversal of the conventional pattern.
JANE PITFIELD ON HER BLOG (October 3):
The ratio of employers to residents is changing in Toronto. Most of the construction cranes operating in the city have been building condominiums, not office buildings. So while the city’s population continues to grow, the number of jobs has been dropping by about 1 per cent each year for several years.The Toronto Office Coalition says the job market has shed 100,000 positions since 1990, while the 905 has gained 800,000 jobs in the same period. Pointing to ever-increasing outbound traffic during the morning rush hours, business groups have been warning that the city is becoming a bedroom of the suburbs.
UPDATE V: We’re still waiting for a call from the Pitfield campaign team as of Monday evening. Just in case, here is our contact info.
Loading ...
Comments
Torontoist is with Spacing on this one. Though I see that Pitfield’s blog now credits John…
Comment by David Topping
October 14, 2006 @ 1:35 am
Looks like Spacing’s reaction was heard - they have now quoted Lorinc as a source for the blog entry and added a link to Spacing.ca.
Shouldn’t “Jane’s Blog” be Jane/ the campaign team’s thoughts and ideas, not linking to articles on websites that seem to help her? At least add some of your own insights, Jane!
Comment by Jack Phelan
October 14, 2006 @ 2:07 am
lazy and desperate
Comment by Bob
October 14, 2006 @ 2:15 am
This is a nice metaphor for her capaign thus far — lack of originality, bereft of own ideas, just repeating whatever it will take to win over voters….
Comment by Mei
October 14, 2006 @ 2:37 am
Pitfield’s October 3rd entry is also ripped verbatim from an July 10th Anthony Reinhart column in The Globe, again without credit.
Comment by Marc Lostracco
October 14, 2006 @ 7:05 am
The choice is clear:
Either Jane writes John’s articles, or John runs for Mayor!
Somehow I think her career as a writer would be almost as short as her career as Mayor.
Comment by Steve Munro
October 14, 2006 @ 7:42 am
You have a case for copyright infringement. Spacers have a demonstrated history of appeasement in such cases, acting as though the infringers weren’t the party in the wrong. Why don’t you have my lawyer contact them for you?
Comment by Joe Clark
October 14, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Well…that’s highly illegal, Ms. Pitfield.
Comment by Karen Whaley
October 14, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
If Pitfield becomes Mayor, you can be certain Toronto will become a second rate city.
Comment by Justin Bernard
October 14, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Looks like Pitfield owes Spacing an official apology.
Comment by Jerrold
October 14, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
…or money for policy advise or speech writing!
Comment by Gloria
October 14, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
What a disgrace. I hope Grafstein has his excuses for this failure ready.
Comment by Mark Dowling
October 14, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
Seems to have disapeared off her site…
Comment by Nick
October 14, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Now, is this laziness, lack of ideas, an olive branch to people with ideas, hilarious, arrogance, an honest mistake or just sad?
Comment by Genet
October 15, 2006 @ 6:41 am
“If Pitfield becomes Mayor, you can be certain Toronto will become a second rate city.”
Comment by Justin Bernard — October 14, 2006
Which of course would be a step-up from the 5th rate city it has become under Miller.
I don’t really care if Jane’s blog was similar to John’s. The bottom line is the point is the same in that Miller’s program, like most of his ideas, are useless.
I fail to understand this blind following of the most useless mayor ths city has ever had. He makes Mel’s last term seem great by comparison.
Do we really want 4 more years of this kind of stuff?
- claimed stopping the island airport bridge wouldn’t cost taxpayers a loonie. (no it cost 22 million loonies)
- voted against sending garbage to Kirkland Lake because of environmental concerns, yet supports trucking it Michigan, and now to London.
- 3 consecutive property tax increases (all above the rate of inflation), yet refuses to reign in city budget by reducing staffing, contracting out, and of course supports a 8.9% pay hike for himself and his councillors
- had a popular and respected police chief removed in Julian Fantino, just so he could put a puppet in place that he could control
-campaigned on transperancy at city hall. Meanwhile supports nepotism in handing out jobs, secret deals to but teh Green lane landfill, and sole sourcing of TTC contracts to Bomardier.
- continues to support out of control councillor Howard Moscoe, who’s best before date expired in 1985.
A fire-hydrant would make a better mayor than Miller.
Comment by Gary Powell
October 15, 2006 @ 10:42 am
Sunday morning, her whole blog is gone… replaced with her positions on a variety of issues.
It’s too bad because I found her whole blog laugh-out-loud funny.
Comment by Andrew Spicer
October 15, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Gary –
Your concerns about Miller can be easily be refuted
- Island airport bridge did not cost Toronto taxpapyers any money. It was the feds that handed out the money.
- Proprty tax increases are only happening because Lastman made the stupidiest promise not to raise taxes when that is exactly what the city needed. That action started the city’s demise.
- Fantino is a bully and was against the proper type of policing this city needs (a format that worked until he became chief and we started getting higher crime rates). Fantino was popular with Sun readers and cops who like to beat the shit out of people.
- Sole-sourcing is fine under the rules of city hall as long as the public si aware of it. It wasn’t as if city council didn’t vote on it. They did, and the deal passed.
- Kirkland Lake garbage: if we bought Adam’s Mine we would be on the hook to continuously send garbage which would defeat any kind of waste diversion program would be stalled and actually stop. instead, we’re the North America leader in waste diversion.
- Outside of the public SNAFUs of Ducharme and the pay raise, which I agree were stupid as hell, Moscoe is considered one of the best coucnillors in the city — he knows everything that goes on in city hall because he reads every report that comes across his desk. People like Pitfield only skim the reports they want to read instead of learning about all the details. Any seasoned trasnit observer will tell you that he is an abrasive jerk at times, but he knows his stuff and has done a tremendous amount of good for the TTC.
If you just want to list off things you think is wrong with Miller go ahead, but you would be wise to back it up with some info instead of being misinformed and completely partisan. I may not even vote for Miller but at least I know what the fuck is going on at City Hall unlike yourself.
Comment by Gloria
October 15, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Let’s keep on topic people — this string of comments should be about Pitfield’s blog mess-up.
Comment by Matt Blackett
October 15, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Re: Update II:
Did Pitfield say “please accept our apologies” or “sorry about this” or anything to that effect? Was it simply a buck-pass (because that’s how it reads).
Comment by jerrold
October 15, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
There has been no apology or returned phone call. I cornered her at City hall during an election event. The closest it came to an apology was “I’ll look into this.”
Comment by Matt Blackett
October 15, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
the whole point of Ms Pitfield having a blog should be for her to communicate directly with voters. if she doesn’t have time to maintain it herself she obviously doesn’t get it and should scrap the thing altogether.
Comment by Tim
October 15, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Look, quit appeasing illegal behaviour. Do not ask for an “apology”; ask for a settlement.
Comment by Joe Clark
October 16, 2006 @ 1:28 am
No Gloria, it’s you who doesn’t have a clue what is going on a city hall.
- Island airport bridge did not cost Toronto taxpapyers any money. It was the feds that handed out the money.
And where do you think the feds get the money from? yeah, that’s right, taxpayers
News flash dear, there is only one taxpayer.
- Proprty tax increases are only happening because Lastman made the stupidiest promise not to raise taxes when that is exactly what the city needed. That action started the city’s demise.
Propery tax increases are happenning because city spending is out of control. Miller has refused to find any savings in his budget by exploring contracting out. Also hiring levels continue to increase, settlements to his union buddies (who he is counting on to get elected again) are well above the average wage settlement in the private sector.
Under Miller city spending has increased to record levels yet all the while Miller claims to be cashed strapped and is constatntly begging Ottawa and Queens Park for more money. Oh and lets not mention the ridiculous wage hike he supports for himself.
-Fantino is a bully and was against the proper type of policing this city needs (a format that worked until he became chief and we started getting higher crime rates). Fantino was popular with Sun readers and cops who like to beat the shit out of people.
Utter bullshit. Could you back up these allegations with facts?
-Sole-sourcing is fine under the rules of city hall as long as the public si aware of it. It wasn’t as if city council didn’t vote on it. They did, and the deal passed.
In the wake of the MFP compuetr inquiry, the chief recomendadtion was to have an open and fair process for tenderring contarcts. Why did the details of the Bomardier deal have to be obtained under a freedom of information request? So much for open transparancy. Why can’t we get an honest cost of the Green Lane landfill purchase?
- Kirkland Lake garbage: if we bought Adam’s Mine we would be on the hook to continuously send garbage which would defeat any kind of waste diversion program would be stalled and actually stop. instead, we’re the North America leader in waste diversion.
I’d like to see the facts to back up that statement
So if sending garbage to Kirkand Lake was bad, then why is sending it to Michigan and London good. And why the utter dismissal of proven modern clean burn incinerators which are in wide use in Europe. Perhaps it’s because Miller is pig-headed?
- and who the hell considers Moscoe one of the best councillors? Most people consider him a buffoon who has no respect for the democratic process and he is also a male chauvinist pig. Witness the remarks he has made to female members of council.
Comment by Gary Powell
October 16, 2006 @ 7:55 am
This is typical Pitfield. Everything in her campaign is negative and anti-David Miller, and none of it is pro-Toronto. Even her website speaks more to her hatred of David Miller than it does to new ideas.
She seems to live in a different city than I do: her’s is violent, crime ridden and dirty; mine is growing, vibrant and full of opportunity. In my neighbourhood, people are generally happy with the city - they do not see Pitfield’s city in decline.
People will always choose hope over fear, and Pitfield will join a long list of also-rans on November 14 because she chose to focus on negatives rather than on positives.
Comment by David Wills
October 16, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Gary^
Gloria is right, you don’t know details. To redfute you again:
1. Federal tax money went to the island settelment. Toronto tax money didn’t which means Miller was not in control of that decision.
2. If you look at the shortage of money at City hall it is directly proportional to what was downlaoded from the province. If the shortfall is $90 million, you’ll see that the social programs dowlaoded on to us will hover right around $90 million. The biggest and most signicant increase in funding came from the cops’ budget. You wanna cut the cop bugget? Doesn’t sound like it.
3. Crime went uo udner Fantino. Call the cops youself for the stats if you don’t believe it. Community policing is where it is at. Fantino was a thug.
4. If you read the Bellamy report you’ll see that sle-soiurcing is not discourgaed — rather it muct be an open process to the public (which Bombardier was). It was voted on by council and approved. This is not MFP which happened under the radar. The process is not good, I agree, but we’ll be getting much better subway cars from Bombardier than from Siemens. If you even have ridden a Siemens car they are cheap and feel like plastic.
5. Send garbage to Michigan was a contrat. We did not HAVE TO supply them with a specific amount of garbage. In London, we own the dump (unlike Kirland Lake which was a contract to a private firm). We do not have to supply X amount of garbage to it. In fact we can accept other communities waste when we start to reach high diversion targets. Or we can sell it and wash our hands of it.
Incinerators cost $700 million to build and need garbage to make it burn, no matter how clean it is. When we have a high diversion rate (say 80%) that $700 million investment is going to look stupid.
6. Moscoe — yeah, he’s a jerk personally. But he has done well as the TTC beside those above above comments. You just seem to be spitting BS from what you’ve heard from whatever source you’ve picked (Pitfiled? Stintz?).
You obviously don’t think for yourself because your assertions are just regergitated slop from hack politicians and media outlets like the Sun.
Worst part is you could certainly criticize Miller for a number of flaws but you picked the easiest ones to refute. Which just goes to show ya….
Comment by Mick Mick
October 16, 2006 @ 11:49 am
^David — Her city is Leaside. I was there the other day, they seemed happy on the street, all along Bayview. I was unhappy only when dodging giant SUV strollers, but otherwise, the Lattes flow effortlessly through the streets of Leaside, and life seems good.
Comment by Shawn Micallef
October 16, 2006 @ 11:53 am
Not impressed with the way Pitfield has handled her campaign. I was expecting much better.
However….not to keep this post off topic but..:
1. Federal tax money went to the island settelment. Toronto tax money didn’t which means Miller was not in control of that decision.
Federal tax money is collected from all provinces and all cities…including Toronto. So to be fair…Miller killing the bridge cost ALL taxpayers money…unless there are different taxpayers paying municipal, provnincial and federal tax that we don’t know about.
2. Shortage of money? The city has over $20,000,000 to subsidize professional sports! They have a SPENDING problem…not an income problem.
3. The problem with statistics is that results will always very depending on what time frame you choose to compare numbers.
4. You should re-read Bellamy (the full version)…..especially the talk about transparency and political interference. As for being open to the public…you are kidding right? Perhaps one day we shall see the actual motion that was accepted where they decided to sole source..and not get bids. Regardless….no proponent of the deal can ever answer….”what was the harm in getting a competitive bid from another company?”
5. Ok…the garabage is a Toronto issue. London does not want it but many are happy to jam it down their throats. The fact is…we will NEVER have 80% diversion…we are at 40% as of March…with an increase of 2% per year…in a perfect world….
Incineration can produce electricity. Electricity can be sold to the public grid. We can then make money with incineration. A hole..is a hole..is a hole…
Edmonton was faced with the same challenge we have. The real story is…they planned and did something while our city simply stagnates.
6. TTC is in trouble period. Since 1985, construction on new lines has virtually stalled.
Comment by David
October 16, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Aaand I see you got this on CITY-TV news.
Still think that apparent contrition from Jane Pitfield is a sufficient redress for copyright infringement?
Comment by Joe Clark
October 16, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
The biggest mistake that Jane Pitfield has made in her campaign to date was to agree to (David)Miller’s policy on not accepting donations from unions or businesses.
Political campaigns need money to hire professionals, such as editors who know about plagiarism and the implications that go with it, not well-meaning volunteers who do not understand.
Miller is already the Mayor. Jane is not(yet).
Free press and exposure usually has negative outcomes.
Value in = Value Out.
Simple.
Comment by Bob
October 16, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
“Incineration can produce electricity. Electricity can be sold to the public grid. We can then make money with incineration. A hole..is a hole..is a hole…”
Incineration is a reason to never stop producing garbage, because more garbage turns into more electricity, and thus more money. Even if you reduce your garbage production, you now have a profit center sitting idle that other cities will happily ship their garbage into for burning. Toronto is a net exporter of garbage, but the answer isn’t to turn us into a net importer.
A garbage policy that gives us strong financial disincentives to produce more garbage is idiotic. It’d be like solving the homelessness problem by paying people to sleep on the streets.
Comment by Anticorium
October 16, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
Answer me this then. Why did Miller oppose shipping garbage to a landfill in Adam’s mine for what he cited as environmental reasons, yet supports sending same garbage to Green Lane landfill in London? Is the environment in London less important than Kirkland Lake?
Comment by Gary Powell
October 17, 2006 @ 7:32 am
Ed Keenan at Eye Weekly has been patiently posting and reposting an update on where the city’s examination of the incineration options stands:
http://eyeweekly.com/election2006/?p=51
We still need a landfill for some of Toronto’s garbage, even when we get up to 80% diversion or even if any other waste disposal methods are added to the mix. Securing our own landfill - by buying one that was going to be filled up with someone’s garbage no matter what- is a responsible move.
Comment by Molly
October 17, 2006 @ 8:15 am
There’s an article in the Toronto Star this morning. Pitfield’s comment to The Star is that it wasn’t plagiarism but a simple failure to credit the material.
That hardly explains all those minor edits (”paper-thin” to “thin”, “adds up to a princely 0.1%” to “adds up to just 0.1%”, “poor” neighbourhoods to “distressed”, etc.)? If you’re quoting, reshaping someone else’s words to better fit your message or style is blatantly dishonest. Realistically, little wording changes are the hallmark of the plagiarist, trying to disguise someone else’s work for their own.
I thought Jane Pitfield was all for “accountability”. Would it be so hard to say she wasn’t keeping a close enough eye on her blog and a serious mistake happened?
Comment by Matt L.
October 17, 2006 @ 10:06 am
If this is how Pitfield responds to a minor campaign problem I wonder how she’d handle a major city problem.
Comment by jerrold
October 17, 2006 @ 10:39 am
I clearly don’t think she will win and this is just one of the many stunts she is persuing. She’s finished and thank goodness.
Comment by Daniel Boyington
October 17, 2006 @ 10:49 am
and we’ve already had 3 years of Miller and look what’s happenned.
wit the exeception of cancelling the Island airport bridge to appease the condo dwellers and Island squatters, and raising property taxes annually, absolutely nothing!
Comment by Gary Powell
October 17, 2006 @ 11:55 am
Gary,
Perhaps you should compare the Adams Mine and Green Lane sites a little more carefully.
The latter is an existing landfill site which was allowed to expand after a full, properly conducted Environmental Assessment. It was going to be taking in garbage no matter who owned it, and was already taking some of Toronto’s waste.
Adams Mine was a recently closed open-pit iron mine. There were substantial concerns about leaching of waste into the groundwater because of the mining practices used thereat. After analysing the site, Metro decided that it was not suitable because of environmental issues. The Harris government then changed the legal requirements for Environmental Assessments (specifically because of Adams Mine’s insuitability and the presence of his friends on the owner’s board) and pushed through a very limited EA that purposefully avoided addressing the legitimate concerns of the proposal’s opponents. City Hall eventually voted against the proposal because of a sustained from Toronto and Kirkland Lake residents and environmentalists province-wide.
The Harris government then proceeded to underhandedly push the proposal and pull strings to make finding other solutions diificult. Maybe you slept through the late 90s and missed all the cronyism, bullying and dishonesty that characterized anything the province had its fingers in?
And as regards the TPA… that $20 million came out of our pockets because the feds decided to subsidize Porter Air (for unexplained reasons) so try taking aim at your MP, not Miller.
Comment by John Duncan
October 17, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
As for Pitfield, I agree. She’s done. Not because of this plagiarism incident directly, but because people have actually been drawn to her site only to realize there are absolutely no new ideas here.
David Miller’s decision to kill the airport absolutely cost Toronto taxpayers $22 million dollars. To say it’s not fair to blame him and to call our MPs is a complete cop out. You don’t need to be in politics to know that someone was going to get stuck with the bill and he should have known it would be us. (Unless there are tax payers out there that only pay municipal tax and not federal and provincial?)
Are Pitfield’s ideas any more unoriginal than Miller’s? Not really. But better the devil you know…
Comment by Steve Wylie
October 17, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
Steve> Killing the airport bridge was one of the biggest election issues 3 years ago — so whatever it “cost” Toronto Taxpayers, you can blame Toronto Taxpayers, because they voted for it.
Comment by Shawn Micallef
October 17, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
Under fair dealing in the Copyright Act, it would indeed have been possible for Pitfield to have quoted extensive sections of your Web site for certain limited purposes– *with attribution*. But none of those purposes would be fulfilled on a campaign Web site, and rewriting the copy in the way she did is not a simple duplication but a violation of the moral right of the author (the droit moral, a much more important concept than a prohibition against copying).
Hence Pitfield’s claim in the _Star_ that the copy was merely “misattributed” is false and legally beside the point.
Comment by Joe Clark
October 18, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
I think the People vs. Gary should come out on November 6th to the Mayoral Candiadate Party, and argue your shit face to face, lol.
Comment by TDE
October 24, 2006 @ 12:51 am