Thursday’s Headlines

41 comments

1. Not that anybody reads the Sun anymore but man they just don’t get it. They are still stuck in Reagn era rhetoric of union bosses and lefties….no wonder they are about to go under. I like this though….

   “Coun. Doug Holyday sat in gridlock as well yesterday. I caught him after he’d spent 27 minutes getting from City Hall to Spadina and Front.”

   Could it have had anything to do with the downtown at King and Bay being closed due to falling marble ? No it’s David Millers fault! He was too busy hanging out in New York with lefties like Republican Bloomberg.

   It must be really frustrating for Sun writers when the right and the left start to agree on something like climate change.

2. The First Canadian Place is another example of how the architecture in this city is completely out of sink. I always wondered why they put up those marble slates, not only does it look kitsch, marble is extremely porous to water. I think it is already stupid to put it in a bathroom, but putting it on the outside of a skyscraper exposed to the elements is simply idiotic. Just out of curiosity, are there any building with good architecture built in this city in the 60’s and 70’s? Maybe someone could let me know.

   As for the waterfront, I have already accepted that the place will be a crap hole filled with ugly building and condos right by the water. How is it possible that they are going to build a condo complex at the foot of Yonge? Incompetent people manage this city. When will something be done in Toronto that is for the public good instead for the developers’ profits?

   I don’t know how long I can put up with such stupidity in Toronto. Is there any hope that things will change? I have been waiting for 12 years since I moved back to my city, and when Miller was elected I thought this would be “it”, but senior levels of government are still milking this city and the local government still has no “cajones”, this city isn’t working the way it should be. When will we get a mayor that has the guts to do what must be done? Isn’t it time to ignore the OMB, and the Port Authority and pass a motion in city council that they have no more say in this city? Isn’t it time to stand up to the Province and the Feds? How about dismantling TEDCO? One can only dream, maybe it is time to move out…

3. ^ You’re right Carlos, there isn’t one good building from the 1960s and 70s. Just awful, a wasteland. How we’ve managed to carry on this far, I don’t know. Must be that protestant work ethic.

4. Shawn, the sad part is that I am not a Protestant and I have no work ethic. Maybe that is why things in this city are pretty harsh for me…

5. Carlos> I was being sarcastic. You’ve things to say, but you write like you’re doing up a letter to the Toronto Sun, which means all we see is hyperbole and none of the substance.

   There are dozens and hundreds of fantastic 1960s and 70s buildings in this city — one of the best collections in the world. Few cities embraced modernism the way we did.

   There is a book coming out in the fall called Concrete Toronto that celebrates just this.

6. I sent an email to Spacing last week regarding the Lansdowne “narrowing” question. Too bad the Star managed to pick-up the story and give the thread its initial public spin, a spin that is reductive and rather narrow itself. Embattled “residents group” actually translates to auto-mobile (i.e., car-using) land and home-owners in the area, people who primarily rely on vehicles and parking for their vehicles. Notably, part of the plan proposes to remove all parking on the east-side of the avenue; the street may be narrowed but the narrowing will be minimal because the Star neglects to inform readers about the addition of bike-lanes. Basically, one curbside of existing parking will be redistributed to enable bikers—who are now, brave rider aside, either forced on to the narrow sidewalk or are road-bound and in danger of concrete trucks (there’s a concrete plant just north of Bloor) and the erruption of pavement-splitting streetcar rails buried in the road.

   The Star story emphasizes the potential civic conflict – a primary discursive frame for news dailies – over the plan and detracts from the plan rather than addressing the plan itself, its benefits, and its logical outcomes (safer street/sidewalk/bike use, reduced traffic, traffic control features, new bike lanes, the planting of over 100 new carbon-eating, heat-absorbing trees). While many residents in the area rely on vehicles for work and labour (i.e., a heavy contingent and concentration of construction labourers), Lansdowne doesn’t need wall-to-wall parking. Most home-owners have garage access in their alleyways; as well, street-parking on any given overnight is far from capacity. When I applied last year for a temporary parking permit for a friend visiting for a weekend from Montreal, I was informed that it has been easy historically to find space on Lansdowne.

   While “congestion” may be a problem for habituated drivers, the congestion may serve to actually deter car use on Lansdowne – a strategy in itself that may make driving downtown generally less attractive. Besides, during rush-hour in the evening, Lansdowne is already rammed with cars, sometimes stretching from College to Bloor. Same on some Saturday evenings. And the public works hysteria about emergency vehicles is overplayed; it was a prominent argumentative feature of a small handbill circulated by the group, kow-towing to what I’d refer to as narratives of public hysteria regarding limit-events and security.

   Perhaps to be generous and to widen the scope of this controversy, the story needs to be read in the context not of battling visions for Lansdowne Avenue but as a response from a constituency in a community that is next on the gentrification chopping bloc. I don’t support the group’s challenge to the plan but I have a longer view as to why they’re pushing back; it’s political in the most strict sense.

   If the Lansdowne plan represents a “greening” move to re-articulate city spaces and places (as it been framed by its supporters), I think the residents group, whether they know it or not, see the plan as a symptom, a relay for the movement of redevelopment as it comes west across College and Dundas, redevelopment which they associate with change and transformation. Their challenge, on the idea of conserving parking and street access, is anachronistic; yet, they smell another problem (i.e., the neoliberal penetration of their neighbourhood riding on the back of “beautification” and a different regime of urban symbolic value) that is very much the flavour of the social and political day in this city.

7. Shawn, I didn’t say there weren’t any good building from the 60s and 70s, I was just asking if where I could find them in Toronto, because the First Canadian place is definitely not one of them. And so maybe you should have told me from the start about the book coming this fall instead of being sarcastic.

   Personally I don’t like modernism, but that is just a matter of personal taste, that doesn’t mean I don’t think there are good modernist buildings.

   By the way, I don’t read or write to the Toronto Sun. And I am sorry I write hyperbolically without any substance. For your sake I will keep it to a minimum from now on.

   Cheers.

8. Good buildings from the 1960s/1970s? There are a few. One of my favourites is the Toronto-Dominion Centre, as originally built by Mies van der Rohe was a symbol of Toronto coming of age. While in the much-maligned International Style, there was a true style to them, but the addition of new buildings since the concept (the Ernst and Young Tower and 95 and 79 Wellington) and the concourse renovations have marred this to a degree.

   Or how about Toronto City Hall, completed in 1965? Or Eaton Centre, a downtown mall that works (at least on the inside!).

   There’s certainly a few more, but yes, many buildings in that era (say at U of T, York and Ryerson, the 1970s hotel slabs, First Canadian Place) aren’t that great. But we came out of that era okay.

   Neil: Thanks for the heads up about Lansdowne. I figured bike lanes and street calming were part of the plan. I also find two lane streets with left turn lanes work about as well, sometimes better, than four lane streets, as at least you channelize the auto traffic better, and give up room for permanent parking spots, bike lanes, and so on. Dundas East, Cosburn or Harbord are great examples.

9. Don’t most of those houses in Lansdowne already have parking in the back alleys? If they do then why would they want parking in the street? Sean is right, Harbord is a great example for the kind of street you would want down Lansdowne.

10. Lansdowne> The narrowing of Lansdowne south of the rail overpass was one of the best things that ever happened. It tamed the traffic in a school zone and added green to what was a 4 lane highway. It made the crosswalk safer as well for all residents. Narrowing it in the north would be great as well. I pass Lansdowne every day and daytime parking does not seem to be a problem, overnight parking I have no idea. The fire response issue is a redherring because fire trucks have to go up narrow street as a rule not an exception and since two lanes of Lansdowne are parking anyway as it is, how will this narrowing actually make any difference?

11. Carlos, add the Ontario Science Centre, Toronto Reference Library, and Ontario Place to Sean’s 60s/70s building list. Even the Robarts Library — an ugly hulk on the outside — has a remarkable space inside, the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library.

    You can visit many of these buildings during Doors Open in a couple of weeks — if you don’t mind dozens of architectural gems and tens of thousands of enthusiastic participants interfering with your cynical view of the city. 🙂

12. Matt, I haven’t decided which building I plan on visiting this year. I personally hate Robarts Library. I like the interior of the Reference Library over the exterior. I can’t talk about the Ontario Science Centre because I haven’t been to that part of the city for a long time so I don’t remember what it looks like. In Ontario Place there are many things that I like and many that I don’t. Pretty much agree with everything Sean listed that is good or bad. The bad thing about the Eaton Centre in my opinion is its bad connection to the outside and how they built all this crap around Trinity Church, which was the first Anglican church in Toronto.

13. Matt L: By “remarkable”, you mean “painfully silly in terms of usability and friendly navigation”, right?

14. Gloria: I think it’s interesting when the character of an interior is so different than its exterior. I’ve never made use of the books in the Rare Book Library, so I meant it in terms of the visual style. But the building’s exterior arrangement is rather serious, so if you say the interior is silly I guess that contrast would work too.

15. CFTO had a fairly one-sided story about residents (all older men) putting up anti-Giambrone yellow signs in protest against narrowing Lansdowne. They interviewed one mother that supported the proposal, in order to reduce traffic and make it safer for her children.

    The old men were complaining about more congestion, more pollution and a local survey that they claim never happened, and had the idea of complaining to the Integrity Commish. Made me angry, and reminds me of the “grassroots” protests up on St. Clair.

16. Whatever outsiders may think of the City’s plans for Lansdowne, people on the street are angry because Councillor Giambrone has backtracked on a written pledge he made to constituents to consult the community on this issue. If this were to happen in other areas, people would be more than a little upset. Just because this happens to be a predominantly working-class, immigrant community doesn’t mean that we have to tolerate this kind of treatment by our local elected official. We are not second class citizens – like residents in other areas of the City, we believe that decisions that affect us should be made in a way that is transparent and adheres to principals of local democracy.

    For almost a year now, Lansdowne residents have been expressing their concerns about the City’s proposed changes for this road between Bloor and College. Many are concerned that the plan will create more traffic congestion (and pollution), disadvantage seniors and disabled residents, as well as members living in extended family units who rely on street parking. We’re also concerned that narrowing the street will make it more difficult for emergency vehicles to service this stretch of road – a concern the City’s Fire department shares. On June 29/06, a petition with the names of over 300 people opposed to this plan was forwarded to Councillor Giambrone’s office. Residents were assured that the Councillor would respond in two weeks – which turned into four weeks, then two months and still no response.

    Then, on September 27/06, the Councillor sent residents a letter saying there would be opportunities for community consultation in 2007. We also had an email from the Mayor’s office saying they were assured by the Councillor that meetings on this issue would be held after the election. Flash forward to April/07, when we inadvertently learned that the construction tender on the project has been issued and the plan has been rushed through for Council’s approval at its April 23rd meeting. So much for community consultation. Residents asked that Council send this item back to committee until the Councillor had made good on his written pledge to consult the community. The request was denied. As a member of the Toronto Lansdowne Residents’ Association, I’d like to point out that we first became aware of the Councillor’s claims that he surveyed residents on this street on this issue in a story that appeared in the April 19/07 issue of the Toronto Star. The Star’s story said the Councillor referenced this survey in response to complaints by residents that they had not been consulted.

    We were very surprised to learn about this door to door survey because we were certainly not aware of anyone who could recollect the Councillor coming to their door to ask their opinion. We asked the Councillor’s office to share with us some written analysis of this survey – we were told it couldn’t be shared. So, we decided to do our own survey of the 200 or so properties on this stretch of road. We started on May 5th with a team of people who collectively are able to speak in English, Portuguese, Vietnames, Spanish etc. since not all residents are fluent in English. To date, we have spoken to representatives of 182 households/properties, and not a single respondent has acknowledged being surveyed by Councillor Giambrone or his representative on this issue. Virtually all the respondents we spoke to have signed off on their survey statement. Many respondents acknowledged that Councillor Giambrone canvassed at their door during the 2006 Municipal Election campaign. However, respondents stated that if the issue regarding the road changes was discussed while the Councillor was canvassing at their door, it was because the issue was raised by the resident. Several respondents who said they discussed the proposed road changes with the Councillor when he was canvassing at their door said that the Councillor told them that he was finding that more residents supported the City’s plan than opposed it. Many of these respondents said they told the Councillor that his statements were not consistent with their experience. Also, several respondents said that they would have liked to discuss the proposed road changes when the Councillor canvassed at their door – but were unable to do so because of language barrier issues. In all, 148 of the 182 respondents said their household opposed the City’s plan.

    That people on the street are unhappy with the plan is abundantly clear from the number of protest signs now dotting this stretch of road. If there is evidence that the Councillor has done a door to door survey of residents here concerning this issue, we’d like to see it. In the mean time, we are asking that Council reconsider the circumstances of its decision on this matter.

17. By the way Neil, you seem to know a lot more about this plan than most of the residents who live on Lansdowne. It would have been nice if the Councillor had shared this much information with the many people who have been calling his office with concerns and questions.

18. For what it’s worth, the length of Lansdowne between College and Bloor is now awash in yellow Giambrone-hater signs, placed on the lawns of those protesting the “narrowing”. Nothing like spectacular politics.

    Sean: Yah, I hear you on the rather narrow “consensus” being explained away as a relevant polemic by local “residents”. Complaints about congestion and pollution would be addressed in a direct way by the plan. Conflating the plan with “narrowing” is a lame and utilitarian reduction, one seized on, swallowed, and left entirely without any kind of further consideration by our local news stalwarts over at CFTO. I’m at my wits end each day when I engage my neighbours on the street. Frustrating.

    One more thing: seeing as the complainers are – at least to my mind – conservative home-owners, I’m surprised that none of the city folks pushing the plan have taken an explanatory approach based on property-value. My partner and I, happy renters, have discussed this at length.

    If indeed this is, in some ways, part of a wider context pointing to gentrification and the tangible threat of change and transformation detected by residents in a neighbourhood that’s been a garrison for sometime, why not suggest that the proposed changes may in fact enable increased property valuations by speculators and would-be buyers seeking the next core ‘hood to hollow out and effectively suburbanize?

    I’m making a bit of a stretch: the process described above takes time; currently, the pilgrims are still arriving.

    Yet, intuitively, its seems like a property-value argument would be a tactical case to make, at least to see this project undertaken in the face of opposition.

19. Neil,
    residents on the street have been very aware that many protest signs have gone missing since they were first put up on Thursday. We anticipated this when the signs were put up — and, in fact, this has happened.

    Whether you agree or disagree with where people stand on an issue, I think you would be hard pressed to say that only some commmunities are deserving of transparency and consultation with respect to local government’s decisions that affect them.

    The bottom line is that we do not believe it is appropriate for elected officials to make claims about where public opinion lies on particular issues when no information or documentation that would back up those claims is forthcoming.

    If this were to be considered acceptable, then we run the risk of substituting a Councillor’s claims (whether truthful or not) about a community’s opinions for actual consultation with that community.

    If this were to be considered appropriate, we run the risk of seriously undermining any principles relating to transparency, accountability and consultation in the operation of our local government.

    In the interview with CFTO, Councillor Giambrone, stated by way of email that of the people who offered an opinion on this issue while he was surveying them, more people supported the plan than opposed the plan (this is a paraphrase). That really begs the question of whether he actually “ASKED” people their opinion about the changes when he canvassed at their door. It also begs the question of whether individuals who were unable to converse well in English felt able to express their concerns about the City’s plan — and hence be counted in any survey done by the Councillor. Neil, if you really do know this stretch of Lansdowne, you should know that there are a great many residents who are not fluent in English.

    We are not saying that Council should be making decisions solely on the basis of the public opinion. But if a Councillor does make very specific claims about a community’s views, as Councillor Giambrone has been reported as making concerning Lansdowne residents, then we believe that these claims should be capable of being substantiated. In fact, you should know that the City has a very rigorous process for determining what a neighborhood’s opinion is on particular issues.

    Neil, people often have differences of opinion on particular courses of action. That’s life. But do you really think that people who have different views than yours are less deserving of fair treatment, consultation and transparency in how decisions are made about their community?

20. Sam > you say “Councillor Giambrone has backtracked on a written pledge he made to constituents to consult the community on this issue.”

    But practically in the same breath, you say “For almost a year now, Lansdowne residents have been expressing their concerns.”

    I emailed Giambrone to ask about it and in his response he says he also held a community meeting about it.

    Was there consultation, or wasn’t there?

21. Sandra, Councillor Giambrone held his “community meeting” in May of 2006. That was when the proposal was unveiled to residents.

    Then September 27/06, he sent residents a letter (in both English and Portuguese) saying that there would be opportunities for community consultation on this issue in 2007. Many believe that the Councillor sent out this letter because the proposed road change was likely becoming an issue for him during the election campaign. We also received an email from the Mayor’s Office on October 5/06 saying they had been reassured that meetings on this issue would take place after the municipal election. We’ve kept a paper trail of all this for anyone who wants to look at it. To claim that the Councillor has made good on the pledge regarding community consultation that was made in September/06 by referring to a meeting that took place months before is beyond preposterous.

    I will also point out that in the November 10th issue of the Villager, Councillor Giambrone acknowledged that “residents were extremely unhappy so city staff has taken back those drawings.” (That’s the quote from the Councillor in this article.)

    So, to be perfectly clear, there was a meeting in May 2006 at which residents learned of this plan. However, the Councillor has still not made good on his written pledge of September 27, 2006 regarding community consultation in 2007. Is this clear now? If you want, I will gladly forward you the paper trail.

22. The residents are protesting even though it will make the area look better, raise property values, possibly add trees to the canopy….

    There are always goig to be good and bad NIMBYism. Spadina expressway and Blue 22 NIMBYism = good. Reacting to someting the residents seem to know very little about NIMBYism = bad.

23. ^ That’s a bit of a simplistic way to put it, because I think for the most part, there are good interntions in most NIMBYism. Many of the NIMBYs who opposed the Spadina Expressway did so to protect their land values in the Cedarvale and Forest Hill areas. Meanwhile, some of the NIMBYism against “good” project is based on legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, as was seen on St. Clair and now here, the media usually

    That said, as I pointed out, a two car-lane street with left turn lanes usually works as good as four unassigned directional lanes for auto movement – less weaving around stopped right and left-turning cars. Plus there will be bike lanes, a great local benefit. I’m sure that like Cosburn (even with an anti-bike councillor) or Harbord, fire trucks will still be able to use the street, as well as the TTC buses (which both Cosburn and Harbord have).

24. Stef,
    Are you occupying some exalted place that enables you to decide what is good and what is bad NIMBYism — or are you stating your opinions?.

    You suggest that the residents who are complaining know very little about this plan. Maybe they might say the same about you. In any case, that’s not a discussion — that’s a dirt fight. And there is no purpose in that.

    What residents have been asking for is an open process in which the concerns people have can be addressed. Making claims that can’t be substantiated concerning where public opinion on this issue lies can in no way be described as a transparent process.

    It would not be tolerated in most parts of the city — and just because this area is made up predominantly of working class, immigrant people doesn’t mean that it should be tolerated here. We are not second class citizens no matter how wrong-headed you may think we are in our views.

    Again, the Councillor did make a written pledge to residents on September 27/06 regarding community consultation on this issue in 2007. You and others on the site are entitled to your opinions that residents are wrong on this issue.

    But the issue here is whether citizens — all citizens — are entitled to transparency and consultation in local democracy.

    Say what you will, it is profoundly anti-democratic for anyone to suggest that people who have views different from their own are not entitled to respect, consideration and transparent decision making processes in local government. I hope you are not suggesting such a thing because I believe that would discredit those who are supporting the City’s plan. And I truly believe that an open and honest discussion is needed regarding this plan.

25. We are seeking to directly contact Sam Galati and the new Lansdowne Residents Association.

    Sam, please contact us at thetorontoparty@yahoo.ca. Our party’s transportation committee has reviewed the city’s plan to narrow Lansdowne and finds it to be counterproductive.

    We also have other issues of concern with respect to the project.

26. I am 100% behind the narrowing of Lansdowne. As a recent homebuyer in the area I can only see the positives of a calmer street with a new pedestrian crosswalk and more trees. I plan to one day raise a family in the area and see a great benefit to having a beautified street that is safer. I’m not even looking at the possible increase in home values as a plus but I am seeing the huge increase in community value. I really don’t see any drawbacks whatsoever to the plan. I’ve read the blogs and have heard from both sides and I still am in total support this thing. However I was actually quite disappointed to see so many future neighbors opposed to this issue.

27. Webber,
    Welcome to the neighborhood. I can appreciate that you support the City’s plan. I would also hope that you can support the idea that community consultation, due process and transparency must be essential ingredients in decision making that affects local communities. These should be regarded as essential ingredients regardless of whether we support or don’t support the plan that the City has put forth. If we don’t are unwilling to see these as essential for all, then we are being less than respectful of some of our neighbors — and less than respectful of democratic principles.

28. Please go to this link to find out what some cyclists in Toronto who us Lansdowne think about the “narrowing of Lansdowne”

    http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/237

29. “Reacting to someting the residents seem to know very little about NIMBYism = bad.”

    isn’t that the problem here though? if the city wants to make changes in a neighbourhood, it is the city’s responsibility to make sure the residents know about the plans. of course residents are going to react badly to changes when they haven’t been consulted and informed.

30. They knew it was coming, what they have little knowledge of is planning a streetscape. I think that is what the above commenter meant.

31. “what they have little knowledge of is planning a streetscape.”

    Matthew, don’t you think you are being a bit judgemental? How would you know whether residents on the sreet have little knowledge of planning a streetscape? Have you gone out and asked them? Have you listened to any of their concerns about why they don’t agree with the City’s plan?

    It sounds like there are many good intentions behind the City’s plan but this wouldn’t be the first time that good intentions have turned out to be disastrous for the community they were forced on. Are we all supposed to bow down and hail as glorious everything that comes out of the City’s planning department? Sorry, but I don’t exactly think they have a great track record.

    Just because people may have different ideas than you about what public space should be does not mean that they have no sense of whether something serves their needs or not. You might want to refer to the work of Jane Jacobs for whom community consultation was an important theme. Other big themes with her were that ramming changes through in a top-down fashion does not work and that those who often have to use a street most intimately are sometimes likely to have a better sense of what features it should have than some technocrat who will rarely have to use the space.

32. Matthew,
    BTW, residents on the street did not know this project was coming when it did. In fact, Councillor Giambrone sent out a letter on Sept 27/06 stating that community consultation on this issue would take place in 2007. His office also committed to keeping residents appraised of the different decision making points on this issue. Then on April 5/07, we learned that the item had been sent to tender and the project was to be considered by Council at their meeting in late April. So much for the promised community consultation.

33. Sam

    I live on Lansdowne at Queen. I know the benefits of a narrowed street. Commmunity consultation is great, but a group of resident *can* be wrong.

    I have heard the reasons why they don’t want to narrow Lansdowne and I think they are wrong.

    This will not be “disastrous.” Where I live is not a a mess. There will be a bike lane, more trees.

    I agree that more consultation is needed, but the p;lan is right and your assertions are NIMBYism at its worse.

34. Hi,

    I’ve been owning a house on Lansdowne for over six years.

    The city might have screwed up the presentation of this idea, as they do many things. But I welcome this. It will turn this street around. I talk to neighbours and when we actually TALK about what’s going to happen, we like it. It’s good for us, kids etc.

    Those signs up and down the street, they don’t speak for me. I’m starting to talk to people about this, we need the opposing voice.

35. Matthew,
    I will point out that the section of Lansdowne south of Dundas gets much less traffic then our section. Also, it is not the same shotgun of a road with no intersections of streets that much of the stretch between College and Bloor is, and there are vast sections of that route that don’t have housing. That said, I also know many people who live on that stretch who do not like what was done there even if you do.

    Can residents be wrong? Of course. Anyone can be wrong, even you (which may or may not come as a surprise to you). Can the City be wrong? They have been known to be. I will also suggest that RIGHT and WRONG may not be the best categories to use when deciding streetscapes, since these suggest a very rigid mindset that may work against looking honestly and openly at the needs that should be met.

    6.2
    I am glad you are talking about this with your neighbors, but the discussions that are taking place among neighbors need to take place in an open and transparent forum. That is what would happen if a project such as this was implemented in another area. And it should happen here as well. What has taken place, in my view, demonstrates a complete lack of respect for a predominantly immigrant community. Just because you are ok with that doesn’t mean other people have to be. The signs that are up may not speak for you … but they speak for a lot of people.

36. 6.2> It is also a lack of respect for your group to use “the immigrant card.” You don’t know me, or where I’m from. I acknowledge it be done transparently, but I am saying not supporting this particular initiative is backwards.

37. 6.2,
    I don’t understand your comment about the “immigrant card”. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, most of the residents on the street are of immigrant background. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, a good number of people on the street feel that the lack of consultation that has taken place has been because this is a predominantly immigrant area. If you talk to your neighors as much as you claim to have, I’m sure those points have been made to you — unless you are speaking to only a very narrow cross section of people. Whether you and others want to see this as people playing the “immigrant card” doesn’t take away from the fact that people have a legitimate right to be concerned about what has taken place here.

    For you and others to insist that it is a lack of respect to bring these concerns up, is just arrogance. When did you become the arbitrer of what concerns can be legitimately raised?

    It is not playing the immigrant card to insist that people should not be treated as second class citizens when they in fact see themselves being treated like second class citizens again and again. Injustice and discrimination take many forms. It’s not always as obvious as it is/was in South Africa, but that people’s concerns aren’t legitimate.

    The issue shouldn’t be whether you or I may think people are wrong in supporting a particular project. The issue should be whether ALL people are entitled to due process and proper consultation for projects that affect their communities. People on Lansdowne deserve this as much as the folks over in High Park and Dufferin Grove. And it may interest you to know that the folks in the Dufferin Grove area had TWO meetings about a public toilet in their park which is more than Lansdowne residents got for their street reconstruction. If that does not strike you as being a bit odd, I seriously question your sense of justice and fairness.

    BTW, who said anything about where you are from?

38. By patontizing me with the immigrant line, is where I got upset, and figured you didn’t care where i’m from.

    How many other parts of Town have our bureacrats dropped the ball by not properly consulting with the neighbourhood. by immediately saying it’s because our neighbourhood is “immigrant” is completely your unfounded opinion and shows a lack of understanding in how universal city bureaucrats do not do the proper thing. I think the city of Toronto civil servants are dissapointing across the board.

    HOWEVER this proposal is good for our neighbourhood, and it’s your very vocal and SIGN able group that temps me to wish the ‘crats had all the power to override this sort of nimby thinking. let’s stand up together when there are real issues to fight, not ones that will benifit this good neighbourhood.

    if you were honest about wanting due process, the signs would say “we want due process” and not be directly against this people/kid friendly plan. this is why i dont’ trust you or those signs. i do trust my neighbours who want the best for this community and in time enough of us will come out and support this plan. and when it’s done you will still be able to park your car.

    so either be completely for due process, or stop using it as an excuse because you dislike things that are good for neighbourhoods and maybe less good for cars.

39. 6.2 years,

    I am completely for due process AND I also have objections to this plan. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Why would you even suggest they are? Also, why do you think you are the one who gets to decide what is and isn’t a real issue?

    You say that bureaucrats across the board drop the ball on issues. That’s true, they do. But in this case, we are not talking about bureaucrats, we are talking about Councillor Giambrone, the elected official. This is the same Councillor Giambrone who seems to bend over backwards for the folks at Dufferin Grove and the folks at 48 Abel. Yet when it comes to the folks on Lansdowne, people are supposed to be satisfied that he claims to have done a door to door survey. We have not seen him provide any evidence that this survey took place. And he has provided NO explanation as to how he was able to consider the views of those not able to speak in English. When people see all these things, that’s why more than a few of them tend to think this is about an immigrant community being treated like 2nd class citizens by their COUNCILLOR, an elected official, not the bureaucrats.

    Yes the signs say “Don’t Narrow Lansdowne”. I didn’t make those signs up — if I had, they would have said something else. However, within certain bounds, people are free to put whatever they want on a sign. Last time I checked it was a free country, though it seems that some people don’t like the idea of a certain politician being embarrassed.

    You say that the plan is people friendly/kid friendly. Great, let’s discuss that. But without proof, that’s just rhetoric, the same kind of rhetoric that the Councillor seems to be using. Why should people be persuaded by this rhetoric when it is coming from the same Councillor who sent a letter to residents last September saying that there would be opportunities for community consultation in 2007 on this issue — and then backtracked on this commitment? Do the words “credibility” or “trustworthiness” mean anything to you?

    If this plan is so family and kid friendly as you claim, then I’m sure there should be no problem with getting these facts out in a transparent consultation process.

    Personally, I don’t agree with all the objections people have to this plan. BUT, I don’t buy your line about it making for a safer neighborhood. Who in there right mind would think that pedestrian safety is promoted by putting the sidewalk right next to a moving lane of traffic on an arterial road that gets 17,000 vehicles a day. That’s right folks, a sidewalk right next to a busy moving lane of traffic. Also, the City’s own traffic calming policy is very clear that traffic calming measures are not appropriate for streets that have traffic levels of over 8,000 vehicles. One of the reasons for this is increased congestion and pollution from vehicle emmissions.

    It would be great if you actually had some evidence to back up your claims this is a family-friendly plan. And it would be better for all of us if we could discuss these issues not on some internet site but in an open and transparent consultation process — just as the folks over in High Park, Dufferin Grove, and Rosedale seem to be able to do.

    Again, you keep insisting that the plan is good for the neighborhood as if yours is the only opinion that mattered. It would be nice if you could back your opinion up with some evidence.

    I know your mind is set on this. And that’s OK. But regardless of whether you support this plan or not, regardless of whether you are right in your opinions or not, it is not right for you to try to pretend that people have no basis to be angry about the lack of consultation that has taken place here. And it is less than neighborly on your part to accuse people of using the “immigrant” card when there is ample evidence to suggest that there would have been a much more robust public consultation if this project had taken place in another area.

    6.2, I know you have strong feelings about this issue — and I don’t mean to offend you with anything I’ve said. I believe in speaking frankly. If I am taking the time to respond to you it is because I have several neighbors who don’t have the luxury or language skills to come on these sites to make their views known.

40. Sam I think our talk has gotten our of hand, I did not mean to be so strong maybe it is this blog writing makes you talk quick.

    I am actually happy you are organized, maybe this all is the start of a good neighbourhood community network, which those places like dufferin park and the queen neighbourhoods have, and demand to be listened to, and they are able to get things done. i think it’s organization that is key, immigrant or not.

    my fear is after seeing those signs that this was a nimby reaction, all for cars. i am glad you would have done the signs differently. i know i don’t speak for everybody, but there are many who would like change for the better.

    so now i am sure they will listen and consult, lets make sure we get what’s best for the community. this is a good start, we won’t all agree, but we all have to live here, and i like it here.

41. 6.2 years
    When you say you would like change for the better, I think you are speaking for everyone. No matter where we stand on this plan, I agree that we need to work to get what’s best for this community. Glad to have you as a neighbor.