Well folks, I've learnt during the first rendition of the this blog (some 26 posts in total), but the fact of the matter is I'd like to re-think and re-focus Toronto perspectives. This process has already started with "About this site."
So while I'm doing this I'll leave some of my first edition posts up for you to read...
Regards, Mark
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time to re-brand this blog I think...
In my previous post under "Being an armchair strategist" I talked about how hard it was to write about the issues facing Toronto without sounding like just another critic of city hall. It's not that I'm afraid of offering constructive criticism, it's just that city problems are complex and it will take time to learn all the in's and out's of each of the issues.
When I started this blog it was to be from the point of view of just commenting on the issues of the day. With an interest in city politics and not being directly involved, I thought a blog would be a good way to put down some of my ideas and thoughts and see what came back if any by way of comments.
But, given the complexity of the issues facing Toronto, and to do justice to any one of them, you need to focus on one, maybe two at most. Trying to comment on everything when you are on the periphery of the issues and not down at city hall on a daily basis is very difficult indeed. So over the coming weeks I'm going to re-think and re-focus my blog and then get back to adding new posts.
After all, one should never be afraid of questioning what you do or learning from your experiences!
When I started this blog it was to be from the point of view of just commenting on the issues of the day. With an interest in city politics and not being directly involved, I thought a blog would be a good way to put down some of my ideas and thoughts and see what came back if any by way of comments.
But, given the complexity of the issues facing Toronto, and to do justice to any one of them, you need to focus on one, maybe two at most. Trying to comment on everything when you are on the periphery of the issues and not down at city hall on a daily basis is very difficult indeed. So over the coming weeks I'm going to re-think and re-focus my blog and then get back to adding new posts.
After all, one should never be afraid of questioning what you do or learning from your experiences!
Sunday, April 15, 2007
NIMBY arguments will get Toronto nowhere...
Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti said recently “…he won’t tolerate any NIMBY arguments from residents…” when referring to Toronto’s largest affordable housing package (of 1500 people) in years. Well done Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti!
NIMBY-ism (or not in my back yard) is one of the biggest obstacles facing Toronto urban planners and city strategists. Whether it is affordable housing, dedicated transit lines or a train link to the airport, NIBY-ism can hold us back from doing the things we need to do to make this city great! When initiatives come down the “pipe” with important city wide economic and competitive implications, NIBY-ism has to be fought at all cost.
One idea may be to create a “strategic initiatives committee” that would only handle those issues flagged by city council vote as having city-wide “strategic importance.” The councillor membership (along with possible non elected experts and/or staff) would alternate according to each issue to avoid conflict of interest situations. The committees’ job will be to project manage the public consultation process based on a new strategic initiative deposition framework.
NIMBY-ism proponents will have to demonstrate to the committee how (1) stopping an initiative deemed strategic will have little or no effect on the city’s economic and competitive health and and/or (2) what alterations to the initiative will satisfy their major concerns. Once the consultative process is over the initiative along with any changes deemed constructive is sent back to council for a final go/no go vote.
Debate would be elevated to a city-wide strategic level and local NIMBY-ism arguments avoided. Over time people would start thinking about the big picture when it comes to strategically important initiatives, like a world-class rail link to the airport and NIBY-ism will be relegated to local non strategic issues.
It is the concept do-able? Well, the Ministry of Research and Innovation and the Trillium Foundation uses a similar idea in allocating financial grants to ensure process fairness and openness, and to insulate the organization from direct influence peddling and lobbying. So yes, I believe it is do-able in a form that would be consistent with city governance capabilities. The point is that somehow a process must be found to insulate our local councillors from the worst effects of NIMBY-ism on this city’s future development.
NIMBY-ism (or not in my back yard) is one of the biggest obstacles facing Toronto urban planners and city strategists. Whether it is affordable housing, dedicated transit lines or a train link to the airport, NIBY-ism can hold us back from doing the things we need to do to make this city great! When initiatives come down the “pipe” with important city wide economic and competitive implications, NIBY-ism has to be fought at all cost.
One idea may be to create a “strategic initiatives committee” that would only handle those issues flagged by city council vote as having city-wide “strategic importance.” The councillor membership (along with possible non elected experts and/or staff) would alternate according to each issue to avoid conflict of interest situations. The committees’ job will be to project manage the public consultation process based on a new strategic initiative deposition framework.
NIMBY-ism proponents will have to demonstrate to the committee how (1) stopping an initiative deemed strategic will have little or no effect on the city’s economic and competitive health and and/or (2) what alterations to the initiative will satisfy their major concerns. Once the consultative process is over the initiative along with any changes deemed constructive is sent back to council for a final go/no go vote.
Debate would be elevated to a city-wide strategic level and local NIMBY-ism arguments avoided. Over time people would start thinking about the big picture when it comes to strategically important initiatives, like a world-class rail link to the airport and NIBY-ism will be relegated to local non strategic issues.
It is the concept do-able? Well, the Ministry of Research and Innovation and the Trillium Foundation uses a similar idea in allocating financial grants to ensure process fairness and openness, and to insulate the organization from direct influence peddling and lobbying. So yes, I believe it is do-able in a form that would be consistent with city governance capabilities. The point is that somehow a process must be found to insulate our local councillors from the worst effects of NIMBY-ism on this city’s future development.
Being an armchair strategist...
Now that I have a few posts under my belt being an armchair strategist is tougher then I thought! For one, you have to constantly guard against falling into the trap of being just critical. Regardless of whether you agree my views or not, I hope overall that my comments are at least constructive, my perspective interesting and that I'm focused on solutions and vision without appearing to be critical of our city leaders. About this site.
Dogs, doo doo, parks and pet waste...
An amazing 25% of all waste going into city park trash bins is pet waste, or about 2,500 tons per year, which the city doesn’t know what to do with over the long term according to a recent report by Jim Byers (the Star April 11th, 2007).
With 300,000 dogs in Toronto (the Star) the problem is defined as far too many people using parks as their back yards, in places where children want to play, and way too much dog waste landing in city park garbage cans. There is no room for it in the city's green bins and trucking it to Michigan is not an option so the parks and environment committee has now asked city staff to report back on potential solutions.
In the long term, restricting dogs to certain zones within city parks and banning them from school yards (understandably ideas sure to upset dog owners) seems the way to go. Special dog waste stations should be installed in each park zone (as found in Pickering city parks) and biodegradable bags provided. With centralized pet waste collection sites, disposal and bio treatment should be easier and less costly as you benefit from economies of scale. A public education and awareness program should also be factored into the solution.
The intent would not be to single out or punish dog owners, but to include them as participants in an overall garbage strategy and solution. An even bigger issue though is excessive packaging and fast food litter that the province will not regulate and will not make the manufacturers and producers of that waste pay for clean up. Which means Toronto property taxpayer have to pay for it and that just adds to our garbage problem!
With 300,000 dogs in Toronto (the Star) the problem is defined as far too many people using parks as their back yards, in places where children want to play, and way too much dog waste landing in city park garbage cans. There is no room for it in the city's green bins and trucking it to Michigan is not an option so the parks and environment committee has now asked city staff to report back on potential solutions.
In the long term, restricting dogs to certain zones within city parks and banning them from school yards (understandably ideas sure to upset dog owners) seems the way to go. Special dog waste stations should be installed in each park zone (as found in Pickering city parks) and biodegradable bags provided. With centralized pet waste collection sites, disposal and bio treatment should be easier and less costly as you benefit from economies of scale. A public education and awareness program should also be factored into the solution.
The intent would not be to single out or punish dog owners, but to include them as participants in an overall garbage strategy and solution. An even bigger issue though is excessive packaging and fast food litter that the province will not regulate and will not make the manufacturers and producers of that waste pay for clean up. Which means Toronto property taxpayer have to pay for it and that just adds to our garbage problem!
Friday, April 6, 2007
Weighting in the garbage debate...
Toronto’s looming imposition of garbage user fees or charging different rates for different sized garbage bins is now big news. However, when ever you start charging for one essential service you usually end up transferring the savings (or in this case extra revenue) elsewhere to deal with the knock-on problem that you have inadvertently created. For example, cut transit funding and you get more cars and gridlock; cut recreation centres you get more youth crime; charge garbage fees and you get more illegal dumping and rodents.
Clearly, we have to do something about the volumes of garbage going into landfill (including the 30% of landfill which is torn down building debris?) recognizing that people are trapped too by the excessive amount of packaging used with just about every consumer item. Here are some things I think we should do (not all of them new ideas ):
- Create neighbourhood recycling depots (as in Europe) to alleviated road side pick-up pressures and cost.
- Offer property tax relief to business who permit public recycling depots on their property (properly zoned).
- Hold frequent, more convenient, fee-based special collection access days at city garbage depots to stem illegal dumping (as there will never by enough dumping inspectors)
- Extend recycling regulations to all commercial and residential building.
- Introduce a garbage collection tax on fast food businesses.
- Ban plastic bag use in Toronto stores.
- Consider special disposal “pet waste bins” for parks and residential buildings.
- Introduce education programs that infer a social stigma on poor residential and business garbage management practices.
- Develop waste reduction incentive plans (not sure yet what all I would do here yet).
- Significantly increase business dumping fines into tens of thousands for businesses and thousands for individuals (Norwich, England fines up to $30,000 illegal dumping).
- Demand new sub divisions and business developments incorporate waste management plans (pick-up frequencies, materials handled, recycling depots, etc) in their designs to act as waste reduction and disposal incentives.
- Design or reconfigure local municipal garbage depots to accommodate public/private fee-based garbage disposal.
- Build new high tech incinerators (in Paris they are neighbourhood located and are tourist destinations) as a future replacement for current landfill options and sites.
- Develop a demolished building waste management strategy
- Press for a national and provincial packaging standards to reduce excessive waste by-products.
Are these ideas practical? Some are now being considered while some even have new business opportunities in them. Ultimately, tackling land fill waste problems will require a national, provincial and municipal coordinated strategy. Unlikely to happen in the near future, but sure to come. In the meantime a non fee based plan combined with education and waste management strategies may be the way to go
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
I've been away!
I've just got back from Tunisia (great place), but have some new ideas for posts coming soon...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
