How Not To Be A City Councillor

Recently, a Scarborough community of about 12 households took their fight to City Hall over plans to install sidewalks along their street. Yes, you read that correctly. protestagainstResidents have been fighting the city over plans to install sidewalks.

This item, let us call it, first came to my notice when the local city councillor, Gary Crawford, tried to ix-nay hetay idewalksay at September’s Public Works and Infrastructure meeting. Rebuffed, it came back this month before finally being subdued and, hopefully, deep sixed for good last week after much commiserative mumbling from a few of the committee members. “I’m not a big fan of pavement myself,” said PWIC chair, Jaye Robinson.

How so very Joni Mitchell of her.

That the pushback even got this far along in the process is truly an abject lesson in pandering and How Not To Be A City Councillor. Listen to Councillor Crawford speaking up for his aggrieved dozen of households.

I fully support the construction of sidewalks, especially in my ward. I really do support sidewalks. But what I support is sidewalks that make sense. When you look at this particular little section, the community looked at the foot traffic and how busy that road is. They’ve indicated there’s very little foot traffic.

‘Sidewalks that make sense’.

Looking at this photo of Ramona Drive from the Scarborough Mirror, it’s hard not to conclude that, of course, there’s very little foot traffic. Who the hell would want to travel by foot along here? It basically screams, Stay Off My Lawn and Get In Your Car! RamonaDriveAfter the committee vote, the Globe and Mail’s Oliver Moore asked Councillor Crawford why he thought the sidewalk issue was so ‘divisive’. “It’s partly because people have become accustomed to having/using the road allowance,” the councillor responded.

In other words, the residents of Ramona Drive don’t need sidewalks because they use the road to walk on. But it’s not really that pleasant walking on the road, so, unsurprisingly, there’s very little foot traffic. Therefore, we don’t need no stinkin’ sidewalks!

Never mind the fact that the sidewalks would be put in on city property, so it’s not really up to residents to say yes or no to them. The installation is being coordinated with the replacement of watermains in order to keep construction time to a minimum and, hopefully, save some money in the process. Like it or not, this is just something that comes with living in a city. You want untouched bucolic where you collect your water from a stream and shit in an outhouse? There are places you can move to for that even without building a time machine to travel back to. Toronto, even Scarborough, isn’t one of them.johndenver

Another complaint from the residents was that the city didn’t consult enough with them beforehand, to come up with some sort of compromise, a more sensible sidewalk, I guess. This is often a legitimate complaint from people in dealing with the city about city plans but I do get the sense that on this one that from staff’s position what was there to consult about? They’re putting in a sidewalk, for fuck’s sake. Who’s going to have a problem with that?

Apparently, residents of Ramona Drive, Scarborough, Toronto. That’s who.

Interceding with and navigating the often times antagonistic dynamic between City Hall and city residents is part of the job of being a city councillor. That doesn’t mean always siding with the public because it’s the politically expedient thing to do. An angry constituent means a hostile voter. If people living on Ramona Drive weren’t notified in a timely fashion, the blame ultimately should lie with their councillor, and this whole ridiculous business feels like a councillor scrambling to the defense of his residents in order to keep up appearances. Councillor Crawford wants people to know he isn’t against sidewalks, in theory. gotyourbackHe’s just against this sidewalk, in practice, because these 12 households are against it.

Hedges have been built, Councillor Crawford points out. We can’t just bulldoze over front yards because people have been operating under the misconception that their property was their property even when it isn’t. People must be indulged, in other words, not enlightened or guided in the right direction. By doing just that, Councillor Crawford helps to exacerbate the animosity and feeling of alienation residents can feel toward City Hall rather than do his best to try and smooth over the relationship.

That wasn’t what he was elected to do.

submitted by Cityslikr

Are You Experienced?

Ron Moeser has been a Toronto and pre-amalgamated Scarborough city councillor for 24 of the past almost 27 years. A seasoned veteran, you might call him. sageA wise sage possessing deep, institutional knowledge. An old pro.

Or, watching his performance Tuesday as a member of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee, you could also conclude he’s just a crank.

The extent of his questions and concerns amounted to little more than slight variations on ‘What are we agreeing to here?’ and ‘How much is this going to cost us?’ He seemed overwhelmed, complaining to the committee chair, Councillor Jaye Robinson, about having too much to do in too little time. There were moments when fellow committee members expressed a degree of impatience with Councillor Moeser’s, I can only describe it as, a certain obtuse stick-in-the-mudness.

Is this just the product of being too long in office, unable or uninterested any longer to grapple with the complexities of governing what is a sprawling, complex, 21st-century metropolitan city? Is Councillor Moeser simply burnt out, past his best before date, the poster child for term limits? Or… or… was Ron Moeser always a terrible city councillor?

It’s difficult to believe that such a radical transformation, from Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to Grandpa Simpson, is the explanation. mrsmithI’ve watched Councillor Moeser for 5 years now (some of which, to be fair, early last term, he was ill) and never witnessed any spark of policy proficiency or a city building initiative he picked up and ran with. An absent presence, I’d offer, a bump on the municipal log.

Lord knows, he’s hardly alone in the bad councillor category. His utter lack of contribution in any sort of sense probably disqualifies him as the worst city councillor currently occupying space at City Hall. Certainly not while the names Ford, Mammoliti, Karygiannis are tossed around. Councillor Moeser is benignly counter-productive rather than actively so.

But there’s something about the likes of that terrible trio that’s understandable in a perverse way. They’ve each found their calling in the low-expectation perception arena of municipal politics. Political bush leagues and backwaters, even here in the country’s largest city. The clown show, replete with clown princes’ like Rob Ford, Giorgio Mammoliti and Jim Karygiannis. Look at us! Look at us!!

Ron Moeser can’t even claim that status, though. He’s just a non-entity asking questions that have already been asked and answered, demanding to know little more than what we’re agreeing to and how much it’s going to cost us. manyellsatcloudsThis is too much work. We need to slow down and catch our breath. We need to do less and take more time doing it.

What does this say about voters in Ward 44 Scarborough East who’ve sent Moeser to City Hall in 5 of the 6 post-amalgamated elections, albeit usually with very slim margins? Is incumbency so heavy a stone to set aside at the municipal level that the deadest of dead weights becomes impossible to move? Avoid contentious issues, keep taxes low, basements from flooding, the garbage picked up, and you’ll do alright. Maintain as low a profile as possible for an elected official and maybe, just maybe, residents will continue voting for you because… they can’t think of any reason why not.

A non-angry electorate is not a change-y electorate. Familiarity doesn’t necessarily breed contempt, or content. Just a whole lot of m’eh. Things could be worse, I guess. Put the X next to the recognizable name.

Does that sound mean or patronizing? Probably. But I’m at a loss to explain how it is Ron Moeser remains a city councillor. Maybe he’s dynamite at the constituency level. Maybe. That’s a little hard to believe, difficult to bridge the gap between that possibility and his abysmal performance in the legislative aspect of his job.toomuch

What’s even harder to understand at this point is why Ron Moeser sits on what may be the second most important standing committee at City Hall after the Budget Committee. Public Works and Infrastructure is largely responsible for the physical operations of the city, the roads, sewers, waste collection. The nuts-and-bolts of city life, pretty much. It oversees billions of dollars in capital spending.

Just this past week, among the nearly 25 items the committee considered, were a couple doozies. Yet more options on the Gardiner expressway east. Contracting out waste collection on the east side of the city. The interim poverty reduction plan.

And Ron Moeser sits as 1 of 6 votes on the committee, struggling to stay on top of the work, the reports, the decisions. What are we agreeing to and how much is it going to cost is the extent of his contribution to the discussions and debates. We have to get through all of this? By 6 o’clock?!

You have to wonder as to the motivation of the administration that elevated him to such a key position. In the waning days of the Ford era, Moeser occupied a seat at the table of the Budget Committee under the then chief stickinthemud(and another mystifyingly out of his depth long serving councillor, Frank Di Giorgio). But by then, the Fords had burned through all their options, their allies scattered and in hiding.

Mayor Tory tapped Ron Moeser right from the outset of his time in office, with plenty of other, better choices at his disposal if his main concern was having the best and the brightest in the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee room. He went in another direction, however. A direction that suggests the mayor, just like the last mayor, is more about politics than he is good governance.

dimly submitted by Cityslikr

Dear Councillor Crawford

Cityslikr
All Fired Up in the Big Smoke
The Internets
September 23, 2015

 

Councillor Gary Crawford
City Councillor, Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest
City of Toronto
100 Queen Street West, Suite A11
Toronto, Ontario   M5H 2N2

 

Dear Councillor Crawford:

As an avid city council watcher, I couldn’t help but notice your appearance at yesterday’s Public Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting. Actually, that’s not entirely true. I barely noticed your appearance, coming as it did just after the lunch break when you attempted to get some quick item passed by the committee. Turns out it wasn’t that quick and got shuffled off to the next meeting of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee in a flurry of what seemed to me at the time to be much baseless and niggling procedural wrangling.

Frankly, I’d forgotten the entire incident until a few hours later when the Torontoist posted this piece, Scarborough Sidewalk Skirmishes March On. It fleshes out your item PW 7.15, Midland Avenue Sidewalk Construction in more interesting detail. Allow me to quote the staff summary of the item as I’m sure it’s just one of many you have to deal with during the course of a day in the life of a busy city councilor.

In late July, my office was contacted by a number of residents on Midland Avenue who were disheartened to learn that, in accordance with City policy, a sidewalk would be constructed on their street in conjunction with area watermain replacements. In this case, while the watermain replacement stretches as far north as Kingston Road, the construction of sidewalks is limited to the west side of Midland Avenue from Fishleigh Drive to Romana Drive.

I have received a petition demonstrating that all thirteen homes on the west side of Midland Avenue from Fishleigh Drive to Romana Drive are opposed to the installation of sidewalks in the currently planned location.

“A number of residents…were disheartened to learn that…a sidewalk would be constructed on their street.” What? “I have received a petition demonstrating that all thirteen homes on the west side of Midland Avenue…are opposed to the installation of sidewalks in the currently planned location.” Surely, this must be some sort of joke. Opposed to a sidewalk?

In the letter, you go on to state that the source of this complaint is that the city’s sidewalk construction policy is not being applied fairly. If I understand your thinking correctly, other parts of the area in question are not getting sidewalks, so in the fairness, residents of these “thirteen homes on the west side of Midland Avenue” believe they too should not receive such fancy civic amenities as a sidewalk either. Perhaps, I am not properly reading between the lines.

Interestingly, in her Torontoist article, Sarah Niedoba points out a previous Scarborough sidewalk kerfuffle not far from this one. In that, Ms. Niedoba writes the opposition to sidewalk construction wasn’t so much a question of fairness as it was about the negative impact a sidewalk would have on the “rural” feel of the area. Rural? Scarborough? I had to check my calendar. Yes. Indeed, it was 2015 not 1815.

I don’t know how much of the ensuing social media chatter you followed but one point made which I think bears repeating, especially if you missed it. “So we’re building subways to a place too rural for sidewalks,” Mr. Alex Colangelo asked. We want our mod-cons to whisk us back and forth from our country homes.

In other words, Councillor Crawford, you cannot demand Manhattan while wearing a John Denver vest.

In other other words (and I believe this requires an ALL CAPS emphasis), YOU CANNOT ADVOCATE FOR A SUBWAY IN SCARBOROUGH AND STAND OPPOSED TO BUILDING SIDEWALKS THERE. I mean, obviously, you can and you are but that would be pandering at its worst. It is a refusal to accept the realities of living in a big, big city in the 21st-century at the same time demanding all the advantages of doing so.

Records indicate that you won re-election in Ward 36 last year by more than 4000 votes. Surely you don’t feel so insecure in your position that you’re compelled to rush to the defense of 13 misguided residents. Is anti-sidewalk sentiment so strong in Scarborough Southwest that it could make any electoral difference to you in the future?

Even if it did, this is a question of leadership, Councillor Crawford. Leadership means not putting your own self-interest, or that of a precious few, ahead of the best interests of the city. Leadership means championing good public policy not kneejerk, reactionary nimbyism.

All the best.

 

Yours civic-mindedly,

 

Cityslikr