For the TTC, it’s been a perfect storm. In under a month, we’ve seen the fare hike, Richard Soberman’s post mortem, Rocco Rossi’s call for a Transit City moratorium, The Napping Photo, and yesterday’s terrible accident involving a driver whose car was t-boned as it tried to make an illegal left across the St. Clair right-of-way.
To regular riders, of course, The Photo is merely a variation on the theme – in league with the guys on the phone, the guys obsessively re-counting the coin, the guys yakking with off-duty colleagues, etc.
More remarkable was Amalgamated Transit Union president Bob Kinnear’s admission, in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, that three-quarters of the collectors are “down there for medical reasons.” Since when did fare collection become the TTC’s de facto worker’s comp strategy? One would think that someone in Kinnear’s position would know enough to keep that nugget under lock and key.
TTC chair Adam Giambrone has ordered up a customer service review, led by outside private sector advisors. But isn’t this a case of slamming the barn door after the horse has bolted? It would have been much better if he’d made that move after he took over as chair in 2006, rather than waiting until the eve of the mayoral race. And he was certainly aware of the issues.
When I spoke to George Smitherman yesterday, he said such “horror stories” are “a symptom of a bigger problem,” which, in his view, is the need for tougher oversight and “executive leadership.” “The mayor must answer to the people of Toronto for the TTC’s performance.”
He said the TTC needs a “skills-based board” that includes representatives of the riding public, and vowed to replace the councillors on the commission.
As for Transit City, however, Smitherman dismissed as “terribly amateurish” Rossi’s call to put future construction on hold pending a financial review. “These are projects that have been studied to death and are ready to go,” said Smitherman, who characterized Soberman’s criticisms – cost overruns, needless delays and problems with the contracting process – as an indictment of the city’s current leadership. The conclusions, he added, “reinforce the lessons that need to be applied going forward.”
In terms of the customer service review, what will be interesting to see if whether the panel comes up with the right solution or a merely cosmetic one. Recommendations for better customer service training for fare collectors (“Memo to all staff: no naps”) will miss the mark. This isn’t about a wake-up call.
What’s needed is for the commission to automate fare collection at all points of contact with riders, as most other transit agencies have done long ago. That Toronto still doesn’t an Oyster card is astonishing, given the volume of riders. Smitherman accuses the TTC of blocking efforts to bring in smart card technology.
In a line that garnered a lot of applause at his speech to the Empire Club on Thursday, Rossi said, “We have the world’s best 1970s public transit system, but it’s 2010.” Smitherman largely agrees with the sentiment.
While they sharply differ on the future of Transit City, their emerging critique of the TTC’s culture will resonate with Torontonians who rely on the system and can see for themselves that it’s an organization that’s been caught snoozing on the job.
photo by David Michael Lamb
38 comments
I have to say, I’m starting to like Smitherman more and more. The TTC needs a shake-up (sorry Giambrone), but it doesn’t need a knee-jerk, ideologically-driven shake-up that cuts funding and halts development (Rossi).
I don’t think anyone should be too hard on that one collector. Maybe it was health issues, maybe not. The reason the picture became so viral is because it represented a growing and long-standing frustration with customer service from the TTC. Like it or not, he became a poster child for that sentiment. A picture of a napping employee at Starbucks would not have blown up like that.
I think transportation is the most important issue facing the city right now. Something has to be done about the rising public sentiment against the TTC before it becomes endemic. With goodwill comes willingness to see public funds diverted to.
Well said Tom. That picture did seem to capture the zeitgeist of frustrations with the TTC and unions more generally. Giambrone is going to have a hard time separating himself from that.
The times are creating a wave of populist haters that right or wrong are influencing the public mood. Sometimes, no matter how good a candidate is they cannot swim against the tide of public outrage. A astute candidate might want to wait another 4 years.
A friend of mine whom works for the TTC, told be that many fare collectors used to just go home and leave the ticket booth unattended.
Couldn’t agree more that the solution is and always will be an electronic fare collection system, the Oyster in London being regularly cited as an example. If you want one closer to home, look to Montreal’s Opus card. I’m currently working a contract in Montreal and use the Opus card daily. It has it’s faults, the foremost being my inability add credit online, but even if it’s the lesser cousin of the Oyster card it’s still better than anything the TTC has going on.
If you want real sophistication, check out Hong Kong’s Octopus card. (Why do these all start with O?). Not only is it a transit card but it’s also an RFID debit card usable at many coffee shops, convenience stores, etc. Like that Dexit thing that was tried in Toronto a few years back but better, because it’s relevance is rooted in the transit system.
The TTC needs something fast. Mr. Rossi’s comment about our “1970’s transit system) might be the only thing on which we agree for the rest of the campaign.
PS…this is the same “We have to invent everything ourselves” mentality that has the TTC creating their own shitty trip planner as opposed to just buying into the excellent Google Transit system, like Peel Region, Hamilton, Montreal and a pile of transit systems in the US.
I second the ‘build it ourselves’ mentality as being absolute BS and wrong-headed.
I work with a corporate development team, and we’d never dream of building something from the ground up where there’s already a proven application that’s been written that we can buy.
Google has the brightest software engineers in the world working for them, and they’ve already built numerous working systems for many different cities. That means it’s just a matter of setting up some basic requirements and testing Google’s service against that. There’s no way they could beat Google without spending a ton of money. And Google is offering it for free.
I’ve heard that the city is ‘working with Google’ on this, but I’m pretty sure that means setting up feasibility studies that lead nowhere. We have the data; just give it to them.
/endrant
The TTC had to go through the process of collecting the necessary data (geocoding stop locations etc.) whether or not they used google. Having done so, do you really think a public utility like the TTC should just completely hand it over, for free, to a for-profit third party? I think google transit is pretty cool, and found it very useful in Montreal but I do think there are questions to be asked about using public investments to prop up corporate business models.
I’ll add a “from the hip” shot at the TTCs generally atrocious graphic design as another sign that most things they do themselves turn out badly. Maybe that’s a opinion I should save for Joe Clark’s website.
@Paul…yes. I think a public “service” like the TTC should employ a 3rd party firm in this case. Especially if that firm is Google and ESPECIALLY if they have a proven service that will provide greater functionality to the end user. I cite specifically the ability to chart transit trips from your smartphone.
Rossi hit the right note where the TTC is concerned. He’s obviously studied the issue extensively and knows that we can’t continue with the same nonsense. I still lose sleep over the insanity of the St. Clair streetcar fiasco.
A someone who worked in IT most of my life, I have to support the idea of letting Google have the data. There are many advantages including:
A common platform that users from all over the world will know rather than the kludgy implementation the TTC’s consultants came up with;
Full support for all internet platforms with no ongoing redevelopment costs when something new comes along;
Instant availability of service — a “zero to one hundred” implementation;
Ongoing enhancements at no cost, and based on world-wide useability experiences.
Sure Google gets to sell ads. The last time I looked, so does the TTC. Letting Google wrap your trip data in their advertising is a very attractive deal. However it doesn’t make for a cushy IT contract to develop and maintain the system.
As for fare cards, the TTC really needs to substantiate its cost estimates for implementation (now pushing half a billion dollars), and we also need some honesty from GO/Metrolinx about how much they have wasted on Presto and the degree to which it is already an out of date implementation. I understand that the number is $150-million and counting, and we have little to show for it.
In not just Toronto, but also Ontario there is a “not invented here” syndrome that has hobbled transit for many decades. The absence of LRT as a well-understood and widely-used transit mode is only one of many examples.
Rex wrote: Rossi has “obviously studied the issue extensively and knows that we can’t continue with the same nonsense.”
Except Rossi admitted to Spacing just two weeks ago that he knew very little about Transit City.
C’mon. Just don’t trot this stuff out for your preferred candidate; add context and don’t prop up someone who obviously HASN’T studied it and is simply pandering.
He may be right that St Clair was a disaster, but delaying Finch and Eglinton is a kneejerk reaction, and is an attempt to court the anti-Miller crowd more than anything noble or rational?
Why is this? If he was actually following the projects, he would know that Metrolinx has plans to OUTSOURCE the design and management of the construction for Finch and Eglinton. In other words, the St. Clair crowd will not be in charge.
Too bad Rossi spent all his time reading Toronto Sun columns, instead of doing his own research.
The TTC screwed up St. Clair. No one was held accountable and TTC management has not made clear how they will be changing.
Why should anyone trust them to build $8 billion worth of LRT? Why not wait until they demonstrate they actually learned something, and will do better next time?
Delaying Finch and Eglinton until the TTC becomes a competent agency is the only rational thing to do. Why throw good money after bad?
St Clair makes me cry comment: get an understanding of the process first; Metrolinx, not the TTC, seems to taking over the management of Transit City construction.
But St Clair is not a disaster: the process certainly was, but the actual line itself is good and exactly what that street needed. Unless you like poor urban design, illegal parking, cars not knowing which lane to drive in, a desolate streetscape (all of which describes St Clair pre the right-of-way) than St Clair is just fine. Nothing to write home about, but still a nice line and better service (as a regular user of the line).
Its not that the Transit City lines are poorly proposed, but its the spending and the process that has people/Rossi up in arms (or if you’re the anti-LRT and can only dream of subways). Rossi could argue that he would review the over-run costs (ALL, and I mean all projects go over budget from union or non-union companies) but doesn’t have to put the projects in jeopardy by delaying them. We need this system badly. And NOW. Even Rossi says we have a 1970s system — don’t delay the new projects then! Keep them coming!
Ask the people in Rexdale and North Scarborough if they care about the consultation process: some will say yes, but most just want reliable, permanent transit to their part of the city. Of course those poeple tend to be lower income, and vote is lesser numbers, so Rossi sees an opportunity to pander to drivers and continue to isolate people of minimal incomes.
Sadly, today’s elections are about politicking. not about making smart policy decisions. And Rossi understand that. Hopefully most will see thru his shallow ploy for campaign donors at the Empire Club.
Wow…I think Matt, Shawn and co. should feel honoured. Rocco Rossi is posting on the blog. Sure, he’s using the aliases “Rex” and “St. Clair makes me cry”…but it’s him nonetheless.
Smitherman’s response to Rossi’s comments makes me feel much more comfortable with his candidacy. As much as he represents a shift from Miller’s viewpoint, he at least understands the issues on the proper level.
Not to go too far off topic … I live near St. Clair, and the 512 is part of my daily commute. The new ROW is disappointing: slow, unreliable (I’ll frequently wait 10 minutes, at which point four cars show up at once), and ugly (among other reasons, the meandering tracks — debated here previously — rob the street of the sense of a grand boulevard, like Spadina).
So sure, Transit City might not be an in-house TTC design. But: if there were two things I could change about the St. Clair design, they would be to get rid of farside stops, and to implement proper traffic priority. Whoever is designing TC, we already know that farside stops will be a “feature” of the Sheppard line. These suck for the obvious reason of delaying the streetcar, as it usually has to stop twice (once for the light and again for the stop). However, I’ve found that there is another annoying (and unsafe) feature — when the streetcar stops, the light in the crossing direction is always red — so you have to wait for the light to change to (safely) cross to the curb. Aside from the delay, if you’re trying to catch a connecting bus — and the bus is in sight — there’s a very strong temptation to jaywalk as closely as possible in front of oncoming traffic. As far as traffic priority is concerned, this is a city issue, and Metrolinx will have nothing to say about it. It’s hard to tell if the TTC’s weak form of priority is working or not, but in any case, right now the signal timing inexplicably allows left turns before the streetcar is allowed to proceed, further slowing the line (and even more when some dumbass driver doesn’t quite make it in time and sits on the tracks after the advance left has finished).
Furthermore, operational standards (or poor ones, in the case of bunching) are all the TTC’s responsibility. They’ve been operating the streetcars the same way since before most of us were born, in spite of the complaints of community advocates. Without evidence to the contrary, there’s absolutely no good reason to believe that the TTC’s poor practices will change in the foreseeable future.
So the worst parts of St. Clair will be within the TTC’s control when it comes to Transit City. And if one views St. Clair as a pilot project, the broad consensus seems to be that it was a failure. Since the pro-LRT crowd’s main argument is “value for money”, it’s surprising to see a push to immediately green-light Transit City at 100 times the cost of St. Clair, with the flaws obvious, and the lessons apparently unlearned. Under the circumstances, a pause to reassess the plan is quite reasonable.
The Obvious solution to the, letting a private company make money off public data, problem is to just open up the data entirely.
The commission would then not be picking winners and losers and whoever made the best proverbial mouse trap would have a good chance of making a buck on it.
(And yes I know that I am mixing metaphors)
Metrolinx is financing most of transit city, but the design and operation will be done by the TTC, as well as some of the construction management. Privatizing the construction will not fix the problem. The TTC cannot design an LRT system (far side stops, centre poles) and cannot operate an LRT line (transit prioritysignals, bunching of streetcars). And they won’t admit they have a problem.
Why give them eight billion when they are planning to make the same mistakes again, ruining our best chance at light rail. Fix the TTC first , then build transit city.
The TTC schedule data can be downloaded at http://www.Toronto.ca/open. It’s free to anyone.
There seem to be an awful lot of people who think that anyone who is/was against the St.Clair ROW is somehow anti-transit. I’m very pro-transit, and I’m actually supportive of a ROW on St.Clair…but I also think that there were other areas that should have been ranked higher up in terms of priority. St. Clair was picked as the place to spend this money not because was the area most in need of $100m in transit improvements, but because it was considered the best ideological battle-ground. Given that it was an ideological battle-ground, one would think that the City/TTC would have made an extra effort to ensure that the project unfolded smoothly, rather than proceed in a long, drawn-out, chaotic way. That didn’t happen — so what you have are many pro-transit people who are justifiably suspicious of the City/TTC’s abilities to deliver the goods. That these concerns are being raised on the eve that the TTC’s Chair Councillor Giambrone is set to announce his bid for Mayor may be inconvenient for Councillor Giambrone. But the concerns are not inappropriate. One doesn’t expect a Chair to manage these projects… but one does expect him to exercise appropriate oversight rather than being management’s top cheerleader. And it seems that he didn’t. (Can one imagine if an archeological dig took place without anyone person or group in control? Like we’d really about past cultures if that was the case.)
On a side note… if TO was really serious about improving transit, it would first focus on the north-east and north-west parts of this city. To all those people whining about how the downtown relief line is needed NOW, I suggest they make a trip by transit into some remote parts (remote from the downtown of course) of the inner suburbs. I tried it last week — and it was about 4 hours of hell.
error in last post — Like we’d really LEARN about past cultures if that was the case.)
samg wrote: St Clair was chosen because it “was considered the best ideological battle-ground.”‘
I’d read the rest of your comment if its wasn’t misguided: St Clair was imagined before Miller came to power; it was under the guise of Mayor Lastman in the summer of 2003, 3 months before Miller took power.
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/transportation/st_clair_w_transit/
That’s not to say your comments are wrong, just your thesis for the ROW’s origin (and your hate-on for Giambrone).
The ROW was added to St. Clair at this time because the tracks needed to be rebuilt and rebuilding them without a ROW would mean waiting decades until the next reasonable opportunity to add a ROW.
“if TO was really serious about improving transit, it would first focus on the north-east and north-west parts of this city.”
Sheppard East and Finch West will be the first Transit City lines completed.
Matthew could you explain just how samg’s comment is misguided?
I contend that Transit City itself is misguided and ideologically based. Looking at the report “Opportunities For New Streetcar Routes” the TTC found that expanding Streetcar service, even using existing rolling stock, was not feasible. Of note was the finding that replacing bus routes on routes with less than 6,000 riders per hour during peak times was not recommended. No bus routes in the city exceeded that level.
So what does the city do, it ignores it and designs a transit expansion that is even more costly.
PS. You should also note that the report correctly acknowledges that to reach cost effectiveness requires both population and employment growth. Employment growth is one area where the city has certainly not been focused. Until Toronto can show otherwise, monies should be spent on regional transit.
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/opportunities_for_new_streetcar_routes.pdf
Mathew,
I don’t have a “hate-on” for Giambrone — and quite frankly, I find your comment a more than a little over the top. Expecting the TTC Chair to exercize effective oversight (oversight as distinct from project management) might be a “hate-on” in your books. But it’s expectation that most members of the public have of the Chair. It’s also an expectation that many Spacing commentators have, as several of them (including Steve Munro) have made comments that Commissioners too often see their roles as apologists for TTC management rather than as holding them to account on the public’s behalf. Pointing out that someone is doing a less than adequate job of fulfilling their duties is not the same as having a “hate-on” for that individual.
Regarding St. Clair, I still don’t think this was the best way to spend $100m to improve transit in the city regardless of whether or not the tracks needed to be replaced. (Sections of road with streetcar tracks seem to get ripped up every 4-5 years so work on these lines is constantly immanent.) As I said, I actually support the idea of a ROW on St. Clair — but think that it should have ranked much much lower in terms of priority for a capital expenditure of this size. Perhaps the reason wasn’t “ideological” though I’m not sure what you’ve said proves that it wasn’t … but I still think there was an error made in terms of priority when money was spent on this project as opposed to something else.
Samg: you said St Clair was ideological. Who’s ideology? the TTC or Miller and co? If you mean the TTC then I don’t understand; the TTC’s job is to think of transit. Transit is their ideology so you can’t fault them for that.
If you were blaming “ideology” Miller you were wrong since the St Clair ROW was thought-up under the Lastman leadership. But please note that I wasn’t disagreeing with your commentary about the TTC; you just seemed to want to tie the ROW’s inception to Gimabrone and Miller when it clearly wasn’t. Its implementation has been, so that is fair game.
Glen: read my comment; it wasn’t about Transit City, it was about St Clair, I believe what I’ve stated in this comment answers some of your questions.
I would argue that you are only finding fault with the cost of service to the TTC and not tying it to any value the investment of permanent transit infrastructure. Developers do not build condos and housing around bus nodes but they certainly do for permanent things like LRT and subways. I’m not arguing that the St Clair ROW overrun costs are justifiable, but ignoring the other intangibles (an the revenue that comes from those) is tunnel vision (sorry for the bad pun).
Matthew,
You are making the same mistake that city hall does. You see the ‘revenue’ from new condos and housing yet ignore the expenses. In Toronto, the city provides more services (before PD/CS ones) to residents than it receives back in revenue. Adding more residents only compounds the city’s fiscal dilemma.
As Don Drummond recently said, Torontonians need to start paying their way.
Mathew:
You said at 3:35 pm. “you just seemed to want to tie the ROW’s inception to Gimabrone and Miller when it clearly wasn’t. Its implementation has been, so that is fair game.”
Mathew, I don’t mind someone commenting on what I’ve said. But I do mind when someone wants to attribute to me statements that I didn’t make or feelings that I don’t have (your remark about my “hate-on”).
I never suggested that the St. Clair ROW’s inception should be tied to Councillor Giambrone (or Miller). What I actually said was that as TTC Chair during the major part of the St. Clair ROW’s construction, Councillor Giambrone had a duty to provide effective oversight — and in my view (and in the view of many others), he didn’t. What I also said, was that in terms of the transit priorities facing the city, there were better ways to spend this money — whether the inception of this project occurred on Lastman’s or Miller’s watch wasn’t mentioned at all.
Regarding the point about St.Clair as an ideological battleground, I backtracked a little in my post of 11:48… but only a little. The fact that bureaucrats can state reasons for WHY a project should go ahead or not, and HOW it should proceed, doesn’t mean that the decision or process wasn’t an ideological battleground (to some extent, it always is). As for the specific “ideological battleground” I had in mind, it wasn’t the common ones that most people here seem to want to limit the discussion to — “left vs right”, “pro-transit vs cars” or “progressive (as defined by some not all) vs. conservative”. The specific “battleground” I was referring to was of the bureaucrats/technocrats/politicians on one side telling people they know best and members of the public who were largely ignored (and this includes both those who opposed the project and those who supported it but had concerns about specific details). When bureaucrats, technocrats and politicians operate with a patronizing,”we don’t care what you think because we know best” attitude, that is pure ideology … because their certitude about how infallible they are is never bourne out by the finished project (a point frequently made by Jane Jacobs).
Matthew,
On further reflection, I again have to take acception to your contention about the intrinsic value of Transit City.
Lets look at Spadina and Dundas to put your argument to the test. Did the Spadina LRT increase development on Spadina, No. Dundas has had a streetcar for generations, yet it has most certainly not provided any impetus for increased housing or commercial development. Adding a right of way and removing parking certainly will not tip the scales.
This ‘build it and they will come’ attitude, despite concrete examples to the contrary, only reinforce samg’s argument about the ideological underpinnings of the TTC, and city. This city needs a large dose of pragmatism.
Glen: whatever.
If you ananlyse one road that crosses Spadina you can make all the assumptions you want. But if you look at Spadina south of Dundas, which you conveniently ignore, and since the ROW came the strip has seen massive development all the way down to Lake Shore. It also happens to be the strip I see each and every day.
But I’m happy to watch you continue to write about the cost of everything and see value in nothing.
Matthew,
Just what massive developments have happened on Spadina that can be attributed to the LRT? The Hudson? City Place? The Morgan? The building you are in (Robertson) bought for less than the cost of the partial restoration that took place?
Furthermore in a city that is near tops in condo development, do you really it needs more stimulus? Doing so is akin to having Loblaws wanting to sell more milk, which it does so at a loss.
Unlike you I have provided links to information that backs up my arguments. Lets see you back up your contention. After years of ‘city building’ and ‘investing for the future’, where are the results? Why is the city’s fiscal situation getting worse, not better? When and how will we see a return on these investments?
Whatever indeed.
Samg: what constitutes a hate-on? I think its when someone continuously states something negative about a person and never finds a positive. I think we could do a search of your comments about Giambrone and see such a pattern. Maybe you don’t have one, but I’ve yet to see you write a word that praises any of his actions. While he is certainly not the best councillor this city has, I do think he has done some good things. And just to be clear, I stated I didn’t disagree with your points yet you seem to want to continue to argue with me.
Glen: You must be right; none of the 20 condos that have sprung up within 2 blocks east or west of Spadina over the last 10-15 years have nothing to do with the ROW. Nor do all of the buildings converted from warehouse to work spaces. Also, many thanks for all of the link in this post backing up your position (I counted zero, besides the one link to Transit Toronto).
(followed by sarcastic sigh)
No matter what position I seem to have, you take the other side. So there’s not much use in discussing this stuff with you even when empirical evidence demonstrates a flaw in your argument (such as the development south of Dundas). You’ve never conceded an inch and try to fight me on another topic (such as this, which started as a comment noting a flaw in samg’s comment).
Yes, I am correct. None of those buildings have anything to do with the LRT. To believe otherwise is to accept that the LRT was stimulative around Spadina yet not on Spadina. I cannot agree with that. Far more of the changes in the area can be attributed to changes in zoning than anything else. And again, what about Dundas? Where has its higher level transit produced development?
My remarks about backing up my arguments with facts and links was in reference to all my points here at Spacing. I don’t think any other poster has provided more. Insofar as this thread is concerned, I am sorry I cannot find any links to projects that do not exist.
I am sorry if you perceive me as being stubborn. I am certainly opinionated. I have researched the issues that I opine on. If I am in error I will gladly accept it. The evidence to do so must be convincing though and must reconcile with my own observations though. “Trust me” “just wait” are the phrases that politicians use to keep us in the Limbo Huxley warns about…….
” There is a wonderful truth in that saying. Next to being right in this world, the best of all things is to be clearly and definitely wrong, because you will come out somewhere. If you go buzzing about between right and wrong, vibrating and fluctuating, you come out nowhere; but if you are absolutely and thoroughly and persistently wrong, you must, some of these days, have the extreme good fortune of knocking your head against a fact, and that sets you all straight again.â€
Well, we disagree. To say the ROW has nothing to do with it, in my mind, is just blind. Surely, there are other factors — such as the rezoning of King warehouses — but those happened in conjunction with the ROW and came as a package. Spadina north of Dundas does not have the room for the development in the same way as south of it. The urban form is different and has allowed for greater improvisation of land use.
And since the ROW is only 13 years old, we can’t yet wholly judge its successes or failures. North of Dundas is getting more attention from real estate junkies.
Matthew’s comment… “Samg: what constitutes a hate-on? I think its when someone continuously states something negative about a person and never finds a positive.”
Sorry Matthew, but your definition of “hate-on” (never making a positive comment about someone) is just plain silly. If there’s anything positive to be said about Councillor Giambrone, I tend to find that others have already said it — and in terms far more positive than I think he actually deserves. Yes, it’s true I haven’t made positive comments about him — just as I haven’t made positive comments about Mike Harris or McGuinty or Councillor Rob Ford. But I haven’t noticed you accusing me of having a “hate-on” for those individuals or any others I might disagree with. (And for the record, I’ve never seen you make a positive comment about Harris or Ford either, but I don’t accuse you of having a “hate-on”.) Whatever you might want to think, I don’t have a “hate-on” for Councillor Giambrone (or any other political figure). But I do think he is vastly over-rated and the positive glow that many (such as you and several on this site want to attribute to him) is not bourne out by his actual record of accomplishments. Also, I’m not the only one on this site who doesn’t comment positively about Councillor Giambrone about him — and I don’t see you accusing those people of having a “hate-on”. Again, I’d suggest you comment on what people say, rather than the feelings you want to attribute to them.