Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Tuesday: Political Jujitsu

Dowd tries something:

Mr. Dowd's bill demands that Mr. Ravenstahl release a draft of the proposed lease agreement -- outlining financial terms, parking rate increases and other details -- no later than June 21. (P-G, Smydo)

Or what exactly? Seriously, let's say Council passes the legislation, and let's say the mayor doesn't turn in a draft by June 21st. Do we get to throw him in prison?

"Oh, we're working on it, but this is a very complex deal, and we can't bend it to any artificial deadlines." // "Oh, you're stalling and you're ignoring our legislation, you're a schnook and this proves your deal is bad." // "Oh, I have a Solicitor here that says your legislation is faulty and useless, and you just want to kill pensioners." This program is in syndication already. I also would like the mayor to be more open and collaborative but I'm not clear by what mechanism this legislation will force anything.

Consider also:

The bill also would require that nine public hearings on the lease proposal be held across the city from Aug. 23 to Sept. 13; that legislation on Mr. Ravenstahl's lease proposal be introduced as early as Aug. 23; and that a final vote take place no later than Sept. 28. (ibid)

Nine public hearings? I'm all for public input, but ... nine? I'm guessing nine means one for each Council district. And I'm guessing this is a way to whip the public and media into a lather about probable rate hikes and make opposition appear as big and scary as possible. This legislation does seem designed to create an atmosphere this summer to destroy rather than coolly consider the deal -- which would be fine if we had a workable alternative to tear apart as well.


Didn't Burgess also just introduce a "six-year capital improvement plan"? Is it dead already? Does this bill by Rudiak replace it? Or are they compatible? What's going on? (P-G, Smydo)

Speaking of Burgess, it sounds as though his wife is about to be $4,000 or 4/7 of the way toward having her taxes paid once this deal goes through. Why not just deduct it from her tab? (P-G, Smydo)

I feel like the ADB is sharing an inside joke, and if anyone gets it let me know. (Angry Drunk Bureaucrat)

Have you seen the Toronto Globe and Mail's G20 site? It's filled with issues of global economic and social import, and then a little bit about the coming security complexities. Strangely little about how this is going to put Toronto on the map. Aren't they anxious to tell Toronto's story to the world, to optimize all that free advertising equivalent? Anyway, here is an article about an injunction being filed against the use of the LRAD sound cannon, or at least against its "beaming" function which is said to be clearly a weapon (LINK).


  1. Question: Why does Rev Burgess behave like the mayor's personal lapdog?

    Answer: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10166/1065626-53.stm

  2. because he is

  3. His latest bushwack at the meetings was a total "snake in the grass" move and a slap in the face to all of Council! His behavior is totally passive/agressive and I was offended by this outrages display! To insult Councilwoman Rudiak in such a divisive, public way regarding a duel bill was despicable. Does he slither through the halls down there too? Plus why doesn't he offer to use the CDBG money he just shook down from the city to pay for the gang "wrap around" program? Aren't they all from CDBG areas? As to him and Widdle Wukey being so close, you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas. Plus he's a tax dead beat, doesn't that top all. Taker, not a giver.

  4. "Why not just deduct it from her tab?"

    Bram, I tortured myself last night buy watching the council meeting & the exact same question occurred to me. Even if the city applied the $4000 to the tax debt they'd still have to pony up a couple more thou to be paid in full.