Skip to content

Spacing

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered

Features

Dale Duncan at City Hall: April 12

By

Read more articles by

A Toronto for all

Next to climate change, social inclusion — or more specifically, ensuring that Torontonians of all backgrounds have a voice in local politics — has been getting a lot of attention at City Hall. In the past three weeks, there have been two panel discussions and one presentation on the topic, but the question remains: are our politicians ready to change the way they do business to make it easier for everyone to participate?

It’s hard to remain hopeful after witnessing how some Scarborough councillors reacted to a presentation that the Scarborough Civic Action Network (ScarboroughCAN) gave on citizen engagement on March 27. Upon hearing the statistics — that 66 per cent of the Scarborough residents who took part in a recent survey said they felt disconnected from the political process, that 80 per cent wanted more contact with their politicians and that one third felt that their local representatives didn’t reflect their priorities — Councillor Glen De Baeremaeker became downright defensive. He could have asked how ScarboroughCAN managed to bring over 1,000 Scarberians, many of whom didn’t vote in the last election, together for a community summit to talk local politics. He could have said: “It’s great that so many people want to be more involved; now how do we make it happen?” Instead, he was noticeably frustrated, angry and skeptical. “My community has 20 different language groups,” he told the presenters. “I almost take offence to the suggestion that I take 20 interpreters [to community meetings]. How could I possibly do that?”

Some people might say it takes imagination. Others might say that it’s a matter of political will. No one suggested it would be easy.

Granted, amalgamation has made reaching out to constituents even more challenging. Pre-mega city, there were 106 councillors. Post-mega city, that number dropped to 44, approximately one councillor for every 55,000 residents. Still, if De Baeremaeker isn’t afraid of battling climate change and making Toronto the “greenest city in the world” (a challenge many people also view as insurmountable), surely he can find a way to begin tackling this difficult feat.
“Social inclusion isn’t about rearranging chairs on the Titanic; it’s about building a new
vessel,” Uzma Shakir, executive director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, told the Community Development and Recreation Committee on April 2. “What I suggest to you, as the level of government that is closest to communities, is that rather than creating structures where you expect people to participate, that you actually do the hard work and find out where the communities are at and listen to what they’re saying in the language that they are saying it…. Don’t look at the term social inclusion like it’s an easy thing.”

Creams and coffees and coffees and creams

“You can take away my coffees and my creams. Go ahead. I’m still here. I’m still going to get re-elected,” said Giorgio Mammoliti in reaction to Paul Ainslie’s suggestion that council scrap free coffee (and creams!) for city councillors. Everyone knows Mammoliti doesn’t need no stinking creams and coffees to get re-elected. The councillor blew over $100,000 on his campaign last fall, throwing a lavish fundraising party to get around silly spending limits (according to the rules he shouldn’t have spent more than $22,368 on his campaign). When a Toronto Star reporter told him that Doug Holyday spent under $4,000 on his winning campaign, Mammoliti replied, “Doug Holyday doesn’t like to dance.”

Photograph of Uzma Shakir by Rick Eglinton.

Visit Eye Weekly’s City Hall Blog to read regular updates and reports on municipal politics from Spacing’s Managing Editor Dale Duncan and Eye Weekly’s City Editor Edward Keenan.

Recommended

7 comments

  1. Glen De Baeremaeker is probably one of the nicest people you’ll find around City Hall but when he digs in his heels like he seems to have done here he’s impossible to work with. And, unfortunately, he does it over issues that aren’t the really hard ones to resolve.

    In 2005, De Baeremaeker refused to let youth-oriented events into Albert Campbell Square citing security concerns. After I’d had a couple of informal discussions with him about it still he refused to change his mind knowing that the issue was going to spill into the press if there wasn’t a resolution. Even after a week-long pissing contest in the media that he clearly lost he wouldn’t change his mind.

    It took the mayor setting up a task force to examine the permit policy at Albert Campbell Square over the course of five months to get him to finally retreat from his position.

  2. I find it really odd that on the Spacing Wire there are links almost everyday to Eye Weekly.

    How is linking to a private interest on a publicly accessible website different than ad creep in other public areas?

    Are you guys getting paid by Eye or something?

  3. Adam> Spacing runs a blog that is “publicly accessible” and Eye Weekly runs a blog that is “publicly accessible.” Eye Weekly publishes a weekly print magazine, Spacing publishes a print magazine every 5 months. Spacing is a “private interest” as much as Eye Weekly is — how did you think differently?

    Dale Duncan is the managing editor of Spacing, but she writes for Eye Weekly (as do I) and we cross-post her web posts, and post her weekly column.

    So I’m not sure what you’re getting at, or how blog cross-posts are anything like Ad Creep out in public areas…how this blog is anything like, say, the sidewalk, I don’t know.

    It’s an open and interactive space, welcoming all public commentary on everything we publish here, but The Spacing Wire isn’t pubic space.

  4. “Pubic” space is a whole ‘nother issue.

    I do think that over the past year or so Spacing has been drifting dangerously close to becoming a brand, instead of a focus for advocacy.

    There are tons of “publicly accessible” blogs out there that aren’t organs of a media empire – the question may be why does Eye magazine get singled out for inclusion as a regular feature on spacing. Maybe because Shawn Micallef writes for them. Not that I care either way – Duncan’s blog is sometimes interesting.

    “Spacing is a “private interest” as much as Eye Weekly is — how did you think differently? ” Well, maybe because some of us are under the impression that Spacing came out of the TPSC originally and much of its goodwill in the community comes from that perceived connection. If Spacing were a Maclean-Hunter type publication I don’t think it would have the “activist cred” it currently enjoys.

  5. How about that issue of social inclusion? how about it?

  6. blarg> Spacing came out of the TPSC three or four years ago but has been a completely separate entity for a long time. And it is totally a brand, not just “dangerously close.” Spacing = a magazine/blog/event-co-ordinator/media-organ dedicated to all things public space. The TPSC covers pure-advocacy perfectly well on their own.

    If it had not become a private interest that generates some income, it absolutely would not exist right now, I promise you, because none of this can happen for free and it takes an incredible amount of time to make it happen. More on that here (yet another Duncan-Eye Manufacturing Consent piece though, beware):

    https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=1483