CITY HALL
• Miller to thwart daycare limits [Toronto Star]
• Should long-term residents be allowed to vote? [Toronto Star]
• Miller warns unions as strike deadline looms [Globe & Mail]
• Tory’s name keeps popping up for City’s top job [Globe & Mail]
• Don’t let non-ctizen’s vote Toronto councillor says [National Post]
• Outside workers warn of June 22 stoppage [National Post]
• City unions ramp it up [Toronto Sun]
• Outside city workers take battle to airwaves [Toronto Sun]
• Tom Dodek: Unaffordable justice on $100,000 a year [National Post]
TRANSIT
• TTC map must look at big picture [Toronto Star]
• Baird should heed his own advice [Toronto Star]
• St. Clair hubbub: Joe Mihevc asks merchants not to sue [National Post]
• Pelham fiction meets TTC reality [Toronto Star]
• Baird can apologize by funding transit [Toronto Sun]
OTHER NEWS
• An absence of heart and sole [Toronto Star]
• Texas city offers model for cutting home energy use [Toronto Star]
• The last working farm in Toronto? [National Post]
• Yes, that is a very big hole in the Distillery District’s courtyard [National Post]
7 comments
RE St. Clair,
Joe Mihevc, in the course of reminding the St. Clair BIA how much the city does for it, almost sounds as if continued city support is contingent on not suing.
“The City cannot reduce taxes for business disruption on streets where there is construction, just as it cannot raise property taxes on a street where new infrastructure has brought new business opportunities.”
First of all, there is a practice in other municipalities of tax increment funding – Toronto just doesn’t use it. Second, while the mill rate might not increase, that doesn’t mean MPAC won’t increase the assessment. In the short term the existing retailer base may get crucified and once the LRT is finally built their successors reap the benefit. After all, isn’t that what’s likely to happen at the Duke’s Cycle site?
Good Comment Glen,
Maybe we should become a tag team when Spacing goes overboard in obsequious support for Mr. Miller.
Have you noticed how similar CUPE rhetoric is to Miller gang’s rehtoric when they refused to set an example to freeze their salaries with ‘we are underpaid’ ‘we are entitled’ ‘we work hard.’
I thiknk Mihevc’s approach is a good one and different than the adversarial approach by everyone else, including SOS and the TTC.
But what is commenter McD talking about? “Maybe we should become a tag team when Spacing goes overboard in obsequious support for Mr. Miller.”
Spacing posted a headline and nothing else. Spacing is a magazine and can have any kind of political tilt they feel like. Do you keep take the Sun to task every time they show support to the right of council? C’mon…. Who you trying to be a hero for?
McD – by reading and commenting on this blog, you are part of the “Spacing crowd”. After, it’s hardly compulsory activity. If you don’t like the consensus bring facts to the table.
Like Margaret Thatcher said “there is no society” I say there is no “Spacing crowd” — in as much as there is no ideology other than being “into the city”. Even within our close ranks (the editors) we disagree on stuff. I like skyscrapers and want more of them, and higher ones — others want low. Some want more subways, others are into Transit City LRT stuff. Some bemoan the NDP and other party interference at City Hall, others see a role for parties.
It’s a big tent that is “into the city” and we, just as our readers, discuss and debate from that point on.
Thanks Shawn,
Interesting exchange.
Hope you get the gist of my sequence of comments that started with questioning Jake’s omitting Royson James’ article on Libel Chill that was critical of Miller.
Mark,
Above is the ‘facts’ you ask for. Miller did not squash the idea but gave it credibility and for any media not to oppose the suggestion that politicians get public money to sue the public is to me wrong.
So Mook,
I am a ‘hero’ of freedom of speech and the concept that progressive is not the blind support of the left or right but a reasonable consideration of all.
I hope Spacing will step forward and speak against public funding to Councillors to sue the public.