Friday’s headlines

20 comments

1. To repeat…

   A picture is worth at least a thousand words.

   On one side every ‘official’ says it’s safe for these poor victims to go back home.

   On the other side you have every ‘official’ worker in the area wearing special suits with breathing apparatus.

   Who’s kidding whom?

2. Isn’t it reasonable to suggest that official workers would wear special suit when looking for the bad stuff as a precaution, because they might find it, but when they don’t find the bad stuff, they say it’s safe?

3. It’s a nice rationalization, however when the ‘official’ word is it’s safe and they are sending people into homes you would expect them to remove their suits if they want to be believed.

   Optics my friend.

4. When a workman comes into my house he usually wears steel toe boots, as a precaution. My house is safe though, and I don’t wear steel toe boots, but I’m happy that he is. He’s doing a job and is equipped to do that job.

   Optics? I think you need a soother.

5. It’s well established that our friend Jeff will find (or fabricate) any excuse in the world to make the City look bad. He must think David Miller ran over his dog.

6. A day after Sept 11th I was wading through severely damaged properties awash in debris adjacent to Ground Zero on animal-rescue missions, and later, I was involved in managing the repair and return of residents to these properties. I can tell you that there is no easy way to handle such situations. Tensions are inherently high and there is no way for “officials” to avoid being blamed for everything. If you let people return, you are accused of ignoring their health and stuck defending air-quality reports that the public is not trained to understand. If you keep people away, you are accused of disrupting their lives and causing financial hardship when the danger is not evident to the casual eye. It is simply a bad situation which only time, goodwill and lots of effort will help resolve.

7. “On the other side you have every ‘official’ worker in the area wearing special suits with breathing apparatus.”

   Of course they are, because asbestos is carcinogenic when you’ve been exposed to large amounts over time. These workers will be exposed to a lot and need protection every time they risk exposure because the fibres build up in the lungs. The homeowner may never be exposed to that much of it.

8. Sorry Kevin I have never owned a dog.

   If you would like to hear about city staff who I’ve had the pleasure of working with just let me know. They aren’t the ones whining or trying to grab headlines.

9. Whether these people are right or wrong in how they interpreted the fact that workers were wearing full protective equipment, the context for their ongoing suspicions is that they have just through a major evacuation when the “official” line has long been that such propane facilities have been established within “safe” distance from residential homes. An act like this shakes one’s faith in “officials” at all levels — especially given that residents complained about this facility before it was built.

   I can’t understand why the media isn’t coming down harder on Dalton and company for this. Yes, Mike Harris created the initial regulatory mess — but sufficient time has passed to fix it. That said, I think the Councillor for the area and the city also have a lot of explaining to do as to why resident’s concerns were not taken more seriously when this plant got its approval in 2006. At the very least, they should have been advocating on behalf of the residents — as they have done for other parts of Toronto. As for Councillor Augimeri’s outburst, can’t help but think that there’d be a mile of catty comments here if the words had come out of Rob Ford’s mouth.

10. Sam, I think you make good points. The only thing I would contest is the “catty” comments: Ford has a long list of being extremely disrespectful to constituents, city staff, and fellow politicians. Augimeri does not (she’s been pretty good at saying next to nothing, but that’s another issue). And knowing the context in which she made the comment (directed at a local political rival who high-jacked a press conference) is important and something that the TV clips seem to ignore.

11. Actually Matthew, in some circles, Councillor Augimeri is quite noted for being very disrespectful in terms of her public comments…but that really is another story. Was her press conferenced hi-jacked? Awww, isn’t that to bad… maybe next time she will be less likely to grand stand when she and her staff seem to have been AWOL for days since the incident happened.

12. sam

    so Councillors must essentially never leave Toronto during their term? This was hardly a foreseeable event.

    That said I think it was poor form for Hizzoner to return to his vacation, not remaining for the fireman’s funeral and then going back to B.C.

    Maybe the family did understand but I don’t.

13. I’m surprised the propane explosion and aftermath story isn’t getting more coverage on Spacing – the rotten art tree story got 2 blog entries. Because it happened north of Eglinton?

    I think the folks in charge of emergency management look pretty bad on this one. With a big explosion shouldn’t it be assumed a lot of asbestos is released? Asbestos is very common in old buildings and industry. Yes it would have been an unpopular decision not to let people back into the area, but when dealing with the probable release of a carcinogen its best to use the precautionary principle. Especially for children – children’s bodies are smaller and still developing – its well accepted that exposure to carcinogens in childhood is not that well researched/understood.

    Post 9/11 we were supposed to have ramped up emergency response and management – how this incident was handled doesn’t appear to be proactive or well coordinated.

14. Yes Ted, because it happened north of Eglinton, good that you noticed our geographic apartheid policy.

    Our contributor Sean Marshall gave a report last week about living in the near-blast-zone, but otherwise the 4,567 articles in the media seem to have covered it fairly well, and not sure what we could add to it, other than providing space for debate, which has happened in the various headlines posts this week.

    Would happily take your donation so we can hire a reporter to write missing article 4,568. You can find the address to send the cheque by clicking on “about us” below.

15. Mark,
    Nobody said that Councillors were not allowed to go on holiday. But to show up 4 days after an event of this nature — and then proceed to hold a press conference merely pointing blame at the province (when enquiring minds want to know what YOU are going to do and why YOU haven’t taken this issue seriously previously), that amounts to granstanding. Whether or not the person she went “off message” at was a political rival or not, he had every right to ask his questions and make those points in that forum. And then to claim to have apologized “to the world” but not the individual her comment was directed to? That’s martyr complex material. Generally, I admire Councillor Augimeri and the positions she takes on behalf of her constituents. But on this issue, I think she has so far been off base, particularly if it is true that she brushed off concerns when the propane site was going up 2006.

16. okay sam

    let’s pretend you are Councillor Augimeri. Give us the action plan you think the Councillor should have made, and please ensure it only encompasses what is legally allowed to a City Councillor and the City of Toronto under the COTA and is something somebody out of the city could have reasonably come up with. I’m not defending Augimeri but I think if a higher standard is being expected then we should hear what she should have done.

17. Mark,
    I’ve already mentioned what I think the Councillor should have done — advocated on behalf of her constituents more strongly. Yes, she did not have the power to prevent the facility from being put in at that site… but she had plenty of scope to be a more forceful voice on behalf of this community. In case you haven’t noticed, plenty of councillors do that all the time with respect to issues over which they do not have final control over. Decision-making is not the only lever that councillors (or the city for that matter) have at their disposal to try to affect change. Again, I usually admire Councillor Augimeri’s stances, but I think she was off base in this instance. It does seem to me like you are defending her — and that’s perfectly ok. But I don’t agree with you.

18. Sam

    “A forceful voice”? I thought that’s what she’s was criticised for at her press conference.

    But what would the advocacy have resulted in? Do we know, for a fact, that complaints had been made to her about the facility in the past? Rob Ford, who is known as being a very ward-focused guy, had no idea he had two such facilities, so it’s quite likely that Augimeri didn’t have a high awareness of Sunrise.

    I am NOT defending Augimeri and please don’t try and paint me as an apologist to get yourself off the hook, I have never met the woman or anyone connected to her – what I am doing is asking what kind of advocacy you would have done AND what the result of that would have been – i.e. how would the situation look now if Councillor Sam was in office.

    Irrespective of the merits of Sunrise per se, rail connected depots may be safer than bringing in a stream of large propane trucks from the 905 through city streets.

    We need safer depots – eliminating them is possibly the less safe option. The problem is that with developers eating into industrial land, and other parties setting up public facilities like churches in industrial estates in East York, it is going to be very difficult to find suitable sites now, since plainly Sunrise will not be replaced as a depot given its location and the political imperative on Queens Park to allow municipalities to restrict such operations.

19. Mark,
    I’m not sure what “hook” you are talking about. We have a difference of opinion but I still stand by my earlier comments regarding what action could have been taken by municipal level politicians. As I’ve said, the province deserves the largest share of the blame in my books. However, I still feel the Councillor (and the City) had more than ample room to bring forther concerns about this facility and advocate on behalf of constituents back in 2006 when it was being established. Apparently, for whatever reason they chose not to do so — even though there are any number of things beyond the City’s jurisdiction that local politicians (and the City as a whole) advocate for. Would advocacy have changed the situation? Maybe, maybe not. But I still think it would have been the right thing to do. The fact that advocacy may or may not succeed is not an excuse to avoid doing it.

    Mark, you don’t have to agree with me on this, but I stand by comments. I noticed that the Star’s Royson James (who I sometimes agree with) made a similar to mine in his column today:
    http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/481023

    Anyways, that’s really all I have to say on this topic.
    PS. Since I have no intention of running for council, my thoughts on this topic are offered solely based on my expectations regarding those who hold local office.

20. PPS. Regarding Councillor Augimeri’s “forceful voice”… yes she certainly seems to have one. But the point I was trying to make was that it would likely have better served her constituents if she had used it BEFORE the propane facility was set up — rather than waited for an explosion of this magnitude to take place.
    Anyways, that really is all I will say on this.