Re-elected in a landslide victory, Layton pushes transit file

By Mike Layton

There is no silver bullet to Toronto’s transit woes.  Almost as rare is finding a transit plan that all Torontonians can agree with.

But though seldom as it is, it does happen on occasion.

Toronto needs a relief subway line to alleviate congestion on the Yonge-University subway line, there is no doubt about that. Putting trains underground in areas where surface trains are feasible, and are the preferred option, is a waste of money. Re-drawing transit plans that take transit away from deserving neighbourhoods in order to fund another scheme is a waste of time and is not fair to residents.

With the debate about Toronto’s transit future set to enter another round, one solution that City Council has consistently supported is better integration of existing GO Transit stations and lines into our TTC system.  Metrolinx has also showed support for this as did all mayoral candidates.

Toronto transit riders deserve to be better served by the six rail lines and 16 stations already running across the city centre, and there is a need for immediate relief to our existing system without spending a dime on costly improvements. Our provincial taxes already pay for them, so why aren’t they working better for us?

Liberty Village is a great example. This growing community is now home to 10,000 residents and 7,000 workers, and will continue to grow for the next decade. Liberty Village residents predominantly rely on public transit to get to work, which is evident in the number of riders on the overflowing King streetcar, the busiest surface transit route in Toronto.

There is a GO Train service on the Lakeshore West line with trains that stop every 30 minutes in Liberty Village, but it costs an extra five dollars for the seven minute ride to Union Station, making it the most expensive ride per kilometre across the GO Train network.  A transit ride will cost you eight dollars if you take the subway when you reach Union Station. The same trip on the King streetcar would take almost an hour when you take into account the four full streetcars that pass by.  If we integrate the fare, riders would save time and money while making their transit experience more enjoyable.

In cities across the GTA, Metrolinx works with local transit agencies and reduces the cost of fares for transit trips that involve both systems. In Milton, riders pay an extra 60 cents to get on local transit if they present their GO Train pass. Why not Toronto?

I, like many others, have recognized the potential of this and have written to Metrolinx as early as February 2011 asking for more use out of the Union-Exhibition track. This was followed in 2012 with a motion from council, seconded by me, in support of adding more stations to the Kitchener GO Train line. The motion passed council by a vote of 40 to 2.

Then on Oct. 23rd, 2013, the TTC was asked by its commission to work with Metrolinx on a fare integration strategy for GO Transit stations at Bloor and Exhibition Place.

All this is consistent with Metrolinx’s 2008 Big Move which acknowledged the importance of using the GO Transit lines for local travel.

If everyone agrees, why hasn’t anything been done? The Ontario government has been given a clear mandate by the residents of southern Ontario to fix our transportation system. Long-term solutions are still needed, but one of the easiest, fastest, and cheapest fixes would be to use existing infrastructure more effectively.

We all agree, it’s not a new idea, now let’s make it happen!

Mike Layton is the councillor for Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina.

It’s sad to see the students of Central Tech used as pawns to advance a singular solution to the problem of the school’s playing field. It’s a complicated issue and the students are being fed an easy-to-swallow pill about who is to blame for the state of their field.

On October 12th some classes at Central Tech mysteriously stopped and placards were available for students to march along Bloor. Teachers were positioned along the street to corral the throng, and police who happened to be in the neighbourhood tried to keep everyone safe. Had the small army of cops on bikes not coincidently been there to stop traffic, then personal injury to students was a real possibility. It was irresponsible for Central Tech administrators to have permitted this.

The students were carrying placards saying such things as “Why are my sports in your courts” and “Trustees get some balls so we can play with ours”. The first is a reference to the Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) decision to take the City of Toronto to court after the application to give the field to a commercial operator for 21 years was rejected. The operator, Razor Management, proposes to apply artificial turf and a winter dome to the playing field but this plan was rejected by the city’s committee of adjustment. If the deal comes to fruition, it’s not clear if the students even know that 70% of the available time they would not be allowed on the play surface, as the operator would be accommodating its commercial clients – primarily private sport groups. The TDSB did not ask the court to rule on the merits of that decision (because that is what the Ontario Municipal Board is there for) but rather asked the court to say that the city has no business applying the existing by-law, which was created to regulate development on school board lands. The court decided against the TDSB, who then appealed, and they again lost in a unanimous three judge decision. It is the TDSB that keeps bringing the apparently specious case to the “courts”, not the local community or the city. How much the TDSB is spending on lawyers when it could be fixing the field is not known.

The suggestion that “trustees need to get some balls” is a not so thinly veiled suggestion that the deal with Razor should be immediately consummated and damn the torpedoes with the city and the courts. In fact, interim trustee Briony Glassco tried just that in September. This would be a singularly irresponsible move, but it is consistent with the rash and reckless approach that the TDSB has taken to date on the matter.

Although it was quite a spectacle to witness the “spontaneous” student protest on Bloor, it was recently superceded by another. A small mob of students, again armed with placards, chose to crash Harbord Village Residents’ Association (HVRA) Annual General Meeting on November 3rd. That event was complete with television cameras and major daily media who somehow knew it would be happening. The major media outlets were all too eager to take the bait.

The HVRA is a stakeholder group that opposed the project. The Bloor Annex and the Harbord Street Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) supported it, each with their own conditions about mitigating community impact, specifically parking and traffic management. In a free and open democratic society that’s how it works. Fortunately, we have representative governments to decide what is best for everyone. Through the Committee of Adjustment, a determination was made that this project should not proceed. The ringleaders of the student protest are not taking them to city hall, where the decision was made, nor are they outside the courthouse where the TDSB was so soundly rejected. Both the city and the courts wield the real authority. The volunteers at the HVRA dared to espouse a contrary view, and even to offer alternatives, and now they have been vilified.

This latest chapter in the TDSB saga is indicative of their consistent lack of transparency, and it also represents their mounting desperation which is illustrated by them sacrificing student interests while allegedly acting for them.

University still to deliver updated proposal for Spadina-Sussex development following neighbourhood outcry

The northwest corner of Sussex and Spadina avenues is the site of a pending development of a student residence. Brian Burchell – Gleaner News

By Annemarie Brissenden

A private developer’s plans to build a 25-storey, 829-bed university residence on College Street between Huron Street and Spadina Avenue is casting a dark spectre on plans to develop another residence at the corner of Spadina and Sussex avenues.

“We don’t want a tall tower like the one on College Street,” said Julia Marsh, a local resident who has lived on Robert Street near the corner of Sussex Avenue for about five years. “We don’t want that cookie-cutter kind of approach.”

Kingstone Capital Management purchased the College Street site, only to sell it to the University of Toronto, and then lease it back with the intent of building and operating the residence. The university is following a different model for developing the proposed Spadina-Sussex residence, and is working with the Daniels Corporation, a company known for critically-lauded projects like Regent Park and 1 Spadina Crescent, the university’s future home for its architecture and design school.

Community members, however, remain unconvinced that the university is committed to working with them to develop a housing alternative that is palatable for everyone.

“The problem is the university at this point still has to demonstrate that it understands the broader community,” said Sue Dexter of the Harbord Village Residents’ Association (HVRA). “It responds to its own demands and needs as if they’re handed down from the mountain.”

Little progress has been made in recent months. University representatives admitted at a November 10 community liaison committee meeting that they hadn’t moved the file forward since an October 20 meeting in the office of Ceta Ramkhalawansingh, the interim councillor for Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina. At that October meeting between city planners, Robert Street residents, HVRA members, as well as representatives from the university and the Daniels Corporation, residents expressed their main concerns.

“The message is to dramatically lower the height of the project,” said Marsh. Under the current proposal, the building’s height stands at 22 to 25 storeys, which, said Marsh, “is still massive when it sits on the perimeter of a community like ours.”

Marsh acknowledged that there is an existing tall building in the area at 666 Spadina Avenue, but “just because we’ve had bad design in the past, doesn’t mean we need to go forward with that in the future.”

She added that the neighbours also want to retain some access to the tennis and ball hockey courts, are opposed to having a cafeteria in the building as it would result in “trucks driving up and down the streets in the wee hours,” and are “vehemently against locating the building’s entrance on Sussex Avenue, as it would bring too many students into the neighbourhood.”

Finally, Marsh and Dexter are also unequivocal about preventing what they term a “monoculture” of first year students.

“Does it need to be that all the first year students end up at Sussex and Spadina?” asked Dexter. “[The university] has the Mississauga and the Scarborough campuses. It has lots of options.”

“Do you really want 550 first years running around the neighbourhood?” added Marsh.

Dexter would like the university to develop a different kind of residence, one that mixes first years with graduate students and students with families, which she believes would integrate better in the broader Annex community.

In her view, it’s still an open question, as there isn’t really a clear proposal on the table just yet.

“We’re neutral at this point rather than optimistic,” said Dexter. “There’s a possibility that we could do something inventive and neat. Daniels has a track record of doing neat things, but it’s too early to tell.”

Marsh, noting that “the university does tend to build beautiful buildings on campus” and that “it’s great to see what’s happened with Regent Park,” said she is heartened by the school’s association with the Daniels Corporation.

“We know [this residence] is going to happen,” said Marsh, “but can we find something that respects the tone of the neighbourhood more?”

In an e-mail to the Gleaner, Scott Mabury, vice-president, University Operations, for the University of Toronto, declined to comment on the project, saying only that he had no updates and that community consultation continues. Martin Blake, vice-president of the Daniels Corporation, refused to answer the Gleaner’s request for an interview.

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has signed a deal with a developer, Razor Management, which contemplates applying an artificial surface and winter dome over the Central Tech playing field. The current slate of school board trustees is at the end of their term of office. The newly elected trustees, together with the two city councillors for the area Mike Layton and Joe Cressy, wrote a letter urging the current board to hold off the decision since they felt that signing the deal was premature and was not a concept they supported.

Tim Grant, the chair of the Harbord Village Residents’ Association (HVRA), said he is “not surprised” by the decision, “but the outgoing board made a decision that is very disappointing. The wishes of the voters in this area were totally ignored. This issue was very much part of the city council election and school trustee election. There were ‘pro-dome’ candidates in each election, and in total, they got no more than 10% of the vote.”

Outgoing local TDSB trustee Briony Glassco, who voted in favour of signing a deal now with Razor, ahead of the planning approval, did not respond to a written request for comment.

The TDSB is currently being examined under a microscope by the provincial government as Education Minister Liz Sandals tries to respond to widespread reports of governance issues with the board itself. Sandals has appointed Margaret Wilson, a former registrar at the Ontario College of Teachers, to conduct an examination of “operational issues and focus on the TDSB’s governance structure”. Wilson’s report is due by Dec. 31st.

The proposal forms part of an application before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that appeals an earlier City of Toronto decision rejecting the proposal. If initial mediation fails between the city and the TDSB then a hearing will be held in June 2015 where the OMB can make a final determination. The HVRA and the Palmerston Residents’ Association are parties to the proceedings.

—Brian Burchell/Gleaner News

Energy efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit on the environmental front

 By Terri Chu

Everyone is waiting nervously to see what the future of Honest Ed’s will hold for us. In addition to the importance of onsite electricity generation which I wrote about last month, it would be fantastic if combined heat and power could be included in these plans too. Electricity generation produces a lot of waste heat. In a lot of places in the world, that heat is captured and put to use. That “waste” heat is often put into what’s called a “district energy system”.

District energy can often result in substantial energy savings thanks to higher efficiency heating and chilling equipment (in general, they are better maintained than those in stand-alone buildings). Only in Canada would we have an electricity generating station located beside a warehouse where one vents excess heat to the atmosphere while the other burns natural gas for space heating!

When compared to most of Europe, Canada seems very far behind in terms of energy efficiency. Part of that is no doubt thanks to our abundance of cheap and plentiful resources. It has been a bit of a mixed blessing. At the same time as cheap energy has allowed us to prosper, the resource trap we find ourselves in will severely curtail the next generation’s ability to do the same.

Ever since the oil crisis four decades ago, Scandinavia has been investing heavily to reduce their reliance on imported oil. Sweden in particular has led the way with district energy systems. As a primer, district energy simply refers to a thermal grid. It works much the same way as any other grid such as natural gas or electricity. In this case, we take large pipes and send hot and/or cold water down them for buildings to use for heating and/or cooling. When both heating and cooling is involved, four pipes are needed. Needless to say, the investment can be quite substantial.

Scandinavia has figured this out and has dramatically dropped their energy consumption. In Toronto, we have a few projects (notably Regent Park in Toronto and Enwave’s Deep Lake Water Cooling System), but growth of the systems has been very slow. Attempts to build such a system for the waterfront condos did not go so well.

Depending on who you ask, you will get a different story as to who is to blame.

District energy requires high density to be economically viable for us until we, like Sweden, can achieve economies of scale and build systems at a much lower cost. There are communities who are looking at incorporating district energy into neighbourhood plans. Project Neutral, a local group aiming to create net zero carbon communities, has been a very vocal proponent.

District energy systems need allies in the community. Residents need to be aware that there are alternatives to having natural gas furnaces burning in individual homes. We are so used to having them right in our basements that we have adapted to the risks that come with them. A natural gas leak can cause asphyxia and poor ventilation can cause carbon monoxide poisoning. These risks can be reduced by eliminating the furnace and taking heating energy from a thermal grid instead.

For me, it is frustrating to see Toronto, with all its density, take next to no political leadership in this area whereas communities like Guelph and Markham have already put many kilometres of pipe into the ground. Energy efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit on the environmental front. As residents of high density neighbourhoods, we should be championing innovative solutions that will make our homes and communities more energy efficient. For the benefit of our growing city, make sure your leaders understand that a low carbon future is important to you.

Long-time Annex resident Paul Martel (pictured at right) The
former Ecology Park on Madison Ave., just north of Bloor, has been
renamed in his honour. Through his efforts and the efforts of others,
an empty lot became an oasis of tall grasses, shrubs, wild flowers and
shade trees.
BRIAN BURCHELL/GLEANER NEWS

New Gleaner wine expert shares some local secrets

By Jason Nykor

This week I had the opportunity to sit with Pierre LeBoudec, assistant general manager at the University of Toronto’s Faculty Club. He is a Breton now living in Canada who never misses the chance to extol the virtues of French wines.

The club, at 41 Wilcox Street in the centre of St. George campus, was originally a social centre for faculty, but it is now trying to broaden its audience by offering a $30 “community membership.”

The yearly fee allows access to the Oak and Beaver Pub and to the newly renovated patio with a retractable roof.

Besides the great location, the club’s wine mark-ups are “lower than most restaurants,” says LeBoudec.

More importantly, he has also changed most of the wine list to feature more consignment wines, which are wines not available at the LCBO and which must be purchased from the local agent. Usually wines from the consignment program are from more unique, hand-crafted smaller wineries.

TIP: If you have a wine at any restaurant in the city that is not available at the LCBO, ask the sommelier or your waiter and they will gladly get you the information on how to contact the agent. Don’t be scared: wine agents are happy to have your business, and will usually deliver the wine free of charge in the GTA, right to your front door! Most have websites that make purchasing easy as well.

The Oak and Beaver has a robust wine list featuring imported wines from around the world, as well as Ontario VQA “Faculty Club Selections” and wine features that LeBoudec changes roughly every three months.

This month, the club is featuring two wines from Lodi California — a Chardonnay and a Cabernet Sauvignon — as well as a Pinot Noir from the Central Coast AVA of California. Lodi, known as the Zinfandel capital of the world, is just south of the famous Napa wine region. The Central Coast AVA runs from Santa Barbara in the south all the way up to the San Francisco Bay to the north.

The first featured Lodi wine is 99 Vines Chardonnay. If you are looking for an oaky Chardonnay, stop reading now. This Chardonnay is a crisp, clean wine. Aromas of citrus, melon, and a little butterscotch on the nose. The taste is crisp with good acidity. This wine would pair perfectly with the Oak and Beaver’s warm Ahi Tuna Taco or the Cobb salad. At home it will also go well with pasta and cream sauces, chicken either roasted or barbecued, and popcorn. Serve cold!

The second feature wine is the 99 Vines Cabernet Sauvignon. It has aromas of dark fruits, plum and cherry, and it tastes a little sweet at the beginning and the end tannins are quite tame. This wine would pair well with the Oak and Beaver homemade Black Angus burger, as well as the veal parmesan sandwich. At home, this wine works great with roasted and barbecued meats and sausages, pastas with tomato sauces, or on its own with as many friends as possible.

And last but not least, my favourite grape, Pinot Noir. The 2011 Ballard Lane Pinot Noir is an elegant wine. As with other Pinot Noirs, this wine is medium bodied and goes well with food or on its own. The 2011 Ballard Lane has aromas of plum and is very fragrant. The tannins are elegant and light. Enjoy this wine at the club with the Australian rack of lamb. At home, pair this wine with meats, cheeses, anything, even your husband or wife. It is as versatile as you will find.

All of these wines are available at the U of T Faculty Club for the next three-month feature or you can purchase them for yourself from grape.

Central Tech students rally along Bloor street on October 12 calling for
action to get their playing field back in action.
BRIAN BURCHELL/GLEANER NEWS

Question of city authority to rule on application hung in balance

By Brian Burchell

The fate of the plan to put artificial turf and a dome on the Central Tech field was again in the hands of the courts. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) had appealed the June decision of the Superior Court and has lost again at divisional level. This decision confirmed the right of the city’s building officials to rule what does or does not require a variance application for commercial development of school board lands.

The appeal was heard on August 22nd at Osgoode Hall by three Divisional Court justices. Gordon Petch, the lawyer in the matter for the TDSB, declined to comment until after the court decision and did not fulfill a request to provide the position it advanced at the appeal proceeding. Subsequent to the failed appeal bid, Petch did not respond to a request from the Gleaner for comment. The Harbord Village Residents’ Association (HVRA) was granted intervener status at the appeal, over the objections of the TDSB. Divisional Court Justice Ian Nordheimer had ruled on August 5th that the local impact of the dome project should be part of the information laid before the court.

The TDSB decision to pursue a legal challenge to the City of Toronto’s authority over its commercial development proposal is unusual. Normally, those whose development proposals are opposed by the city appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The avenue of the OMB remains open to the TDSB, and indeed this process was started and then stopped when the legal action was initiated.

Chris Bolton, a school board trustee and TDSB chair, resigned suddenly in June. This triggered a process to select an interim trustee. Briony Glassco was chosen to serve out Bolton’s term. Ms. Glassco also declined comment on the matter.

The Gleaner has obtained the arguments advanced by the TDSB and by the city at the appeal proceeding. At the heart of the TDSB position was that it is “as of right” able to proceed with the plan with no variance to the restrictive by-law required. Trustee Glassco wanted the TDSB to proceed with development ahead of the appeal ruling and tried to make a motion at a meeting on September 12th forcing TDSB staff to consummate the deal to proceed with the development. Upon hearing advice from the board’s lawyer the chair ruled the motion out of order. On September 8th, Glassco had distributed a newsletter which included a “Central Tech Championship Field Timeline”. Inexplicably, the timeline omits the very court proceeding and unsupportive decision that the TDSB is appealing.

One key issue before the appeal court is whether or not a variance is required when the “user” is not the school but the school board itself.

In this case, the TDSB proposes that Razor Management would be the developer and operator of the site for twenty-one years, using the site as a rental facility outside of school hours and all summer.

The TDSB argued that the “use” for “teaching or instruction” (required in the by-law) would be effectively fulfilled by Razor and that the city is mixing up “user” and “use”, when only the latter matters. Furthermore, the TDSB argued that the proposal falls within the “accessory use” exemption of the by-law a point it feels the initial court ruling did not accurately address.

The city disputed the notion this is confusing with words “use” and “user”. In the city’s submission to the appeal proceeding, it quotes the application made by Razor Management, done under the authority of the TDSB: “the existing soccer field is currently zoned for school use only. We are proposing a change of use [emphasis added] to allow outside private community user groups to the sports field after hours (local soccer clubs, academies).”

The TDSB argues that if the proposal fails the by-law test that school board lands be used “only for teaching and instructional use” then it ought to be regarded as an “accessory use”, which is exempted in the by-law. The city in rebuttal recalled the Chief Building Officer’s (CBO) initial determination which observed that “the proposed use was as a private recreational facility and would operate as such 70% of the time. Such a use could not be considered incidental to, or subordinate to, teaching or instructional purposes.” Justice Corbett, whose ruling the TDSB is appealing, concurred with the CBO’s assessment and added that “the proposal could not be considered accessory or incidental to the principal use of the lands because it would change the overall nature of the use of the premises as a school.”

While the parties awaited the Divisional Court’s ruling on the appeal, the HVRA has filed numerous freedom of information requests with the TDSB seeking disclosure of environmental assessments (related to the contamination of the field), contracts (with the proposed developer and operator Razor Management), and tender requests (including contamination amelioration).

Ex-candidate for federal seat eyes city seat

By Joe Cressy

Toronto is a great city. Survey after survey ranks Toronto amongst the top cities in the world.  And we have much to be proud of: unique and engaged neighbourhoods; a diverse population; financial and innovation hubs; a thriving arts and cultural industry; and green spaces that rival those anywhere in the world.

And yet, and yet … there are so many problems still to be resolved: gridlock, ageing infrastructure, lack of affordable housing, high youth unemployment, and the challenges of preserving a healthy environment.

Sadly, during the four years of Rob Ford’s tenure as mayor, none of these problems have been tackled with any consistency. Instead, Toronto’s reputation has been sullied and we have been forced to fight against short-sighted ideas like downtown casinos, cuts to valuable services, and jets at the island airport.

It’s time to re-engage our communities in tackling our big issues, and to invest in city-building once again.

One of the exciting things about local government is the ability to incubate new ideas, pilot new projects, and make changes that directly affect people’s lives.  If you can see it, smell it, touch it, or feel it, it’s municipal. And it’s why I’m running for city council: I want to work with our community to make changes now. Here are just three examples:

Transit.  We can get our city moving again by investing real dollars from real government commitments into buses, street cars, and light rail transit. But, it’s got to be done based on research and expert advice – not political calculations and slogans. In downtown Toronto 41% of residents walk or bicycle to work, 34% take public transit, and only 25% drive. In our downtown communities, we can reduce congestion not by building more roads, but by investing in pedestrian and cycling lanes that are safer and more convenient.

Affordable housing. That shouldn’t be a dream but, right now, it feels that way. The average house price is over $1 million. The average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment is $1,700/month. And, according to Statistics Canada, 45% of Toronto adults aged 20-29 live with their parents, many because they cannot afford to move out. What can we do? Well, we can continue the transformation of public housing like the Alexandra Park revitalization project. And we can make sure that new developments have affordable housing included.

Environment. Yes, Rob Ford and Stephen Harper have their heads in the sand around climate change. But, in our local neighbourhoods, we have already experienced the effects of a changing environment, and the Annex Residents’ Association has already acted to improve the situation. Their TreesPlease program works to survey, protect, and expand Toronto’s tree canopy thereby providing more shade, removing industrial emissions from the air, and increasing property values. This is a win-win situation, improving our environment and beautifying our neighbourhoods in the process.

Three problems. Three good ideas to start solving the problems. And always ones that involve local residents.

Like many of you, I’m proud to live in Toronto. I’m also proud to live in downtown Toronto. Together, we can tackle the big issues at the neighbourhood level. It will take political will, an engaged and supportive community, good ideas around generating revenue, and a commitment to invest in our city again.

As residents and citizens — not just consumers and taxpayers — we are all participants.  We all have a role to play in shaping and building our city.

So, let’s get started. Let’s build our city again.

Joe Cressy is a candidate for city council in Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina. He is a former senior advisor at the Stephen Lewis Foundation. He lives in the Annex with his wife, Nina.

A seven-point checklist for councillor selection

There are over 20 registered candidates running to represent Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina, as city councillor. It’s a large and diverse pool, and we play homage to all those who have put their names forward, as they contribute to our democratic process and make our city a great place to call home. That said, with such a sizeable pool of candidates, it’s virtually impossible to feature each of their views on the municipal issues. Further, this ward cuts a wide swath through the readership area of the Annex and Liberty Gleaners; roughly from the train tracks at Dupont Street all the way to the harbour, and from Bathurst Avenue in the west to University Avenue in the east. And the list of issues facing the ward is as large as the ward itself. So instead of a round-up on each candidate, we have prepared the following checklist to keep in mind while you consider who should earn your support to be this ward’s next city councillor.

Are they one-issue wonders? Ward 20 has a lot of files that the sitting councillor must carry. So, if the candidate is only on about hot dog carts, bike lanes, or building blimps to get us to and from Pearson Airport, then perhaps you should give them a pass.

Do they understand that Toronto, and the ward itself, is a collection of neighbourhoods, divided in more ways than we can list? Most of these neighbourhoods include main streets, where the intersection of residents and small (and large) businesses matter. Maintaining diverse business strips to serve the needs of residents helps keep our communities liveable. Do they know that business property taxes are too high?

Does the candidate “get” city building? This encompasses a lot of files: transit, congestion, efficient energy management, the Billy Bishop City Centre Airport, the Pan-Am Games, and more. Each of these comes with down and upsides for specific neighbourhoods, but on the whole what’s good for the city is generally good for us all in the long run.

Listen to the loudest voices with a grain of salt. We live in a representational democracy. Interest groups ought not to dictate the councillor’s actions, though they should inform his or her views. The successful councillor should possess courage of conviction. There will be another election in four years. So what. Too many councillors live in fear of that judgment day. This fear renders too many politicians impotent throughout their terms, unable to take effective action for fear of reprisal of the voters. If at all possible, you should select a candidate who is prepared to lead in the spirit of his or her conscience.

Is the candidate a team player (and the team we refer to is Team Toronto)? For the most part the business of municipal governance is not a left-right game, though somehow this has been entrenched as an accepted reality in the city council chambers.

The successful candidate must “play” on both sides to try and get what is best for the ward and for the city as a whole. Sometimes that will mean that a “left-leaning” politician should support private garbage collection, while at other times it will mean that a “right-leaning” one must support building more affordable housing. In each case, it will be because it’s the right thing to do.

The successful candidate ought not to be afraid of change. The only constant after all is change itself. In a city so widely rich in diversity the real challenge is how to embrace it. Opposing it is counterproductive.

In a meeting with business improvement areas, mayoral candidate John Tory noted that “some councillors employ rope-a-dope,” a technique used by former heavy weight boxing champ Muhammad Ali: assuming a protective stance, Ali would lean against the ropes, which in turn would absorb most of his opponent’s blows, eventually causing his opponent to punch himself out. In Toronto, some councillors lean on the bureaucracy, and avoid having to ever take decisive action. Avoid that candidate.

That may be a tall order, but hopefully you choose someone that meets at least some of these criteria.