TRANSIT
• GO urges commuters to make own plans as strike looms [ Toronto Star ]
• For City, TTC’s a big ticket [ Toronto Star ]
• Gimme shelters [ Toronto Star ]
• GO plans for conductors walkout [ Toronto Star ]
• Transit wins big in new budget [ Globe and Mail ]
• TTC bites budget bucks [ Toronto Sun ]
• Camp-out with TTC geeks [ NOW ]
• PM’s green plans bouy Miller [ Toronto Star ]
• Yonge-Bloor to get new tower [ Globe and Mail ]
• HUME: Changing the civic universe, one bit at a time [ Toronto Star ]
• City to take on 1B in debt over 5 years [ National Post ]
• City plans to sell street signs [ National Post ]
• Snow day snow job [ NOW ]
• City to renegotiate litter bin contract, lose $2.5 million [ InsideToronto ]
• Toronto: meeting place or fish corral? [ Torontoist ]
5 comments
Wow, 51% for the TTC! That is pretty incredible.
I would like to see parks get a little more, but as the “snow job” NOW article shows, we have learned that the problem with Parks is not funding but management…
because NOW says so, we draw the conclusion that management is THE problem with parks?
Bobio >> The NOW article is about an experience we had this weekend, and if Parks could be said to have a problem, especially in this part of town, I would say management is far more serious a problem than funding!
One experience doesn’t mean you’re right, Kevin. Management may be a problem, but that is hard for the public to fully understand, so I think you might be jumping to conclusions based on just one event or interaction. What we DO know is the how much funds the dept. receives and how they are allocated. If you have examined that, you would know that Parks is TOTALLY under-funded, because if they weren’t they’d be able to water our street side trees, start rec programs, improve our outdoor rinks and tennis courts, etc, etc.
This is not to say there isn’t management problems, but you can’t base it on one instance. Some might argue the that the lower-rung employees, not the managers, may be the root of the problem — the ones that take advantage of the rights and benefits that have been advanced by their powerful union. I’m not saying this is the case, but it may be part of the problem. It is never just one thing, like poor managers, that cause problems in a huge organization like the city and the Parks, Forestry and Rec department.
Its easy to made broad accusations, but it takes research to find the real problems. Too often people like Kevin make broad comments that only perpetuate misconceptions and lazy thinking..
Mick- The recent history of Dufferin Grove Park is full of examples of overly-cautious Parks management. It’s not personal: very often, lower-rung Parks management are worried about crossing their superiors, who in turn are often saddled with numerous liability issues that aren’t matched with empowerment from the political level.
A significant part of the problem really is management; sometimes the buck stops there. But sometimes it doesn’t. The real issue is the overall structure- parks should be community-run.