Skip to content

Spacing

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered

Headlines

Thursday’s headlines

By

Read more articles by

MAYORAL RACE
• HiddenAgenda.com [ Now Magazine ]
• If any candidate has a better hat, I’ll eat mine [ Globe & Mail ]
• Blind PR agent is ‘man with vision’ [ National Post ]
• Toronto Timeline: A publicist seeks publicity at city hall [ National Post ]
• Smitherman leads mayoral race [ Toronto Star ]
• 2 more join race for Toronto mayor [ Toronto Sun ]
• Pantalone enters Toronto’s mayoral race [ Globe & Mail ]
• Pantalone launches bid, backs sale of Enwave [ National Post ]
• Mayor Pantalooney? No way [ Toronto Sun ]
• Finally, some poverty talk [ Eye Weekly ]
• LAYTON’S SON CONSIDERS BID [ Globe & Mail ]

CITY HALL
• Councillors, city sued over reimbursed legal fees [ National Post ]
• Where’s the money, councillors asked [ Toronto Sun ]

CITY PARKS
• Cabbagetown’s lawless dog park [ Eye Weekly ]
• City may relax off-leash rules [ National Post ]
• A glimmer of reason on skating ban [ National Post ]

OTHER NEWS
• This country is falling apart (really) [ Globe & Mail ]
• Gay strip on the block [ Now Magazine ]
• What’s Tory’s game? [ Now Magazine ]
• Medical waste dumped in Scarborough [ Toronto Sun ]
• Toronto rallies help for Haiti [ Toronto Sun ]
• Island airport on noise patrol [ Toronto Sun ]
• Mississauga’s cash reserves set to run out within two years [ Toronto Star ]
• Elderly drivers under new scrutiny [ Toronto Star ]
• Co-op takeover battle leaves residents with backs to wall [ Toronto Star ]

7 comments

  1. I find it really distasteful that people make fun of candidates’ names. I know it’s Sue Ann Levy, and we just expect it, but she tweeted this a few days ago and people were re-tweeting it like crazy – perhaps it was in irony.

  2. From “A glimmer of reason on skating ban”:

    After the meeting, Ms. Patterson — after admitting she has never seen Grenadier Pond — conceded that the 2007 pond skating ban is not very well thought out.

    How is that possible that this person who is a general manager of parks has never even been to High Park? If that’s the case, it raises the question of who we hire to take care of our greatest public spaces. People who are utterly indifferent it seems. No one the park is looking worse than ever with more bans on normal, age-old activities like pond skating.

  3. Clarification: Only the middle sentence in my comment above is the quote.

  4. Re: LAYTON’S SON CONSIDERS BID

    If anybody was curious about the barriers blocking fresh candidates from seeking office, have a look at this article. If Li’l Layton had actually joined the race, there might be a story. The fact that he is “considering it” is not. And please tell me, Globe and Mail: what exactly would Mr. Layton bring to the city? “I have ideas for Toronto.” Um, that’s your scoop?

    If you need to be the son of someone famous to be respected as a candidate in this city, no wonder it seems like an Old Boys (and their sons) Club.

  5. Re Mark: Here is what I commented on The Sun’s website:

    I’m confused… you’re calling the suicide barriers on Bloor a waste, yet The Sun just did a whole expose on suicides on TTC platforms. When the TTC installs platform doors at subway stations, is The Sun gonna go after them because it costs money?

    You complain about the garbage strike, yet when the city negotiates a settlement (each side compromised), you complain still. The Sun wants its Bear Patrol, but doesn’t want to pay taxes for it…

    I can think of a number of reasons not to vote for Joe, Sue. But your “editorial”, like everything you write, is on par with an internet forum troll. The only people you convinced not to vote for JP are those with a grade 4 education and maybe the mentally ill. Maybe.

    —

    (You’ll never see Soo-Damn Loony write a piece propping up the pharmaceutical companies, them crazies is what keeps her in business!)

  6. Looks like most press is missing the point about the Heaps’ Legal Bill issue. James article on issue in Star is somewhat more complete but still misses.

    Yes, it is illegal and Council should not reimburse him for an act committed when he was not a Councillor; yes, the City is paying out for damages Heaps paid after pleading guilty to Libel which makes it worse; yes, Heaps just like Councillor Bussin before him is a Miller supporter and the process looks tainted by political favouritism; yes, it looks like Councillor Fletcher pulled a fast on by sneaking in the Motion without including relevant information and not following standard procedure and getting the City Solicitor to review the legality and yes it is all made worse by the fact that the Solicitor repeatedly made it clear that the Payments were illegal, giving the appearance that Councillors think themselves above the law and us ordinary citizens.

    But the bottom line to put the issue in perspective has to be the incredibly bad precedent this sets for the quality of public debate going forward. If Candidates are caught in the act, committing a ‘dirty trick’ and an illegal one at that during an election and the political powers that be of whatever political stripe can bail them out at public expense then what happens in the next election and the one after that. This is how corruption gets a foothold just like the recent Montreal construction scandal where the most common excuse heard was basically, “well everybody else does it.”

    If Heaps is indeed hard done by financially and like any candidate is stuck with election related debt then the time old tradition is his friends and allies hold a fundraiser to help him out. For Heaps to think it justified that Council breaks the law to bail him out for breaking the law is the type of twisted logic that leads to a downward spiral in civic values and debate.

    The whole issue of who gets reimbursed for legal bills should be taken out of the politicians’ hands and managed by the Integrity Commissioner and the City Solicitor under a clear set of rules.