The Canadian National Newspaper: Toronto Votes 2006, Holly Carmell

It is a huge ward that crosses all socioeconomic boundaries. There are also the natural boundaries, like Lake Ontario and the Lakeshore Highway. Each area has it's own needs and it's own concerns. You might say that there is more to divide us than to unite us.

But the issues of this election make everything different. There is more activity occurring in our Ward to draw us together as a unit, no matter what our background or circumstance, than what divides us. We are heading into an awesome, unique and exciting ten to twenty years in the history of our ward. If we get it right, we will have a geographic unity in all parts of our great ward. It will be a beautiful, functional, and safe gateway to the center core of Toronto and it will open up the area of Queen's Quay and the Revitalized Waterfront.

This will be a daunting responsibility, but it can also be an exciting time, not just for the City but also for what we can contribute to our own Ward 28. Having said that, I must qualify my words by reminding us all of another responsibility - the election of a councillor in Ward 28 on November 13, 2006.

I want to be your Councillor.

I want to be your Councillor because I will not advocate the failed policies of the past. Goodbye to the ineffectual status quo.

I want to be your Councillor because I believe that I have the best ideas; ideas which translate into policies that will work for us now and into the future.

These policy challenges include:

- the reduction of area crime
- the Redevelopment of Regent Park
- the development of four new communities in the West Don Lands
- seniors only apartment building
- the overcrowding, unsafe conditions of an ever-expanding coterie of shelters
- bug infestations - the refurbishment of existing assisted and social housing
- the impoverishment facade
- with more police presence lower the tolerance for the "little" crimes
- Toronto Transit Issues
- the Gardiner Expressway
- the Island Airport
- The Portlands and Alternate Sources of Energy

The Redevelopment of Regent Park

I will reject the failed policies of 1948-1950 Regent Park. I will support and advocate hard for a policy of fairness, of safety, and of equality through the use of an integrated and an "internal mixed" housing policy for the Redeveloped Regent Park. Most particularly, I will do everything I can to get this policy in place before the first foundation is dug.

There is to be no unit with less amenities than any other unit regardless of size. No unit is to have a designation of "social", "assisted", or "fair market". Buildings will house 1/3 social, 1/3 assisted and1/3 fair market. No one, other than the person in charge of locating tenants according to their special needs and the housing authority is to know the financial arrangements for tenants. Each building or housing area will maintain as close as possible the percentile designations over time, but not the units themselves. No person may be discriminated against through warehousing, ghettoizing, or marginalizing

My policy will allow for even better enhancements and changes over time. The failed policies of the past leave us with no appropriate way to improve the human landscape without extensive refurbishment, or as is happening now, tearing down and starting again after another painful 56 years.

As an aside, it is interesting that our ward has some of the largest number of century old Victorian homes and cottages in the city. Most of these homes are in good repair and strong enough to withstand another one hundred years. We are tearing down Regent Park after only 56 years! Neglect and humiliation: that is what our failed old policies have created!

Seniors-only Apartment Buildings

I will advocate for an adult only building for mixed age groups and mixed economic backgrounds. I will reject the policy that warehouses our senior citizens in an apartment building that has little or no support services and which leaves them vulnerable to those who would want to intimidate them or steal money, goods and pension cheques.

The buildings that I speak of are not the fully serviced, retirement facilities we have in Ontario. These are merely apartment buildings. I would suggest that, under these circumstances, any gerontologist would agree that our seniors need to interact with people of all ages in order to remain vital, active and emotionally fit. That said, we must also recognize that, our seniors deserve and are entitled to a safe environment and quiet enjoyment of their homes. In fact, adults of any age who choose not to have children, or do not have children in their home have these same rights. There are a number of unsafe and bug infested senior buildings where the vulnerability of the seniors has left them in fear and in unsafe conditions. Why is the city planning a new seniors only building in the Redeveloped Regent Park? When do we start learning from failed policy? The time is now!

Overcrowding, Unsafe Conditions of Ever-Expanding Shelters

I will stop those who make the misfortune of being poor or disadvantaged our "feel good industry". It is time to insist that existing by-laws be enforced and, more importantly, it is time to stop playing word games in order to evade following the letter and spirit of the by-laws. A shelter is a shelter, is a shelter, is "transitional housing"?

When agencies, who are supposed to be helping people, add great wealth to their coffers by buying or acquiring prime land in the downtown core, and then knowingly disregard by-laws and use their ever expanding coterie of buildings to cram more and more people into facilities that do not have sufficient showers, toilets, wash basins and washing machines to keep the people safe from disease and bedbugs, then we must start questioning their legitimacy to operate.

When agencies set up prisoner halfway houses to take in many more residents than the by-law allows, or add more housing closer to housing already in operation and in contravention of existing by-laws, then we have to question the legitimacy of the elected representatives that tacitly accept the violations.

The agencies and City Councillors who condone this practice do not help the people they profess to help. They also expose the rest of the community to dangerous elements.

Bug Infestations

Currently, we have a serious infestation of bedbugs in shelters and many TCHC buildings in Toronto. The time to deal with this problem was yesterday! I will make sure that it is a priority today.

In buildings, it requires that the affected stacks be sprayed. Doing random apartments does not get rid of the problem. Where a building is seriously affected, any carpeting in halls should be removed and replaced with attractive wood finish or tile.

In shelters, no one should be allowed to go to bed without a shower. Their clothing should be washed, if needed. All bedding should be clean and the area should have been thoroughly disinfected and sprayed if necessary. Beds should be placed to allow the mandatory 3.5 metres (37.7 square feet) per person. These people need a hand up; not a hand out. Treating people like cattle does not help anyone. We can do better. We will do better!

Refurbishment of Existing assisting and social housing

I will push to stop building or otherwise acquiring any more housing, until or unless we start refurbishing, upgrading and cleaning the buildings we already have.

I will push to make sure that our buildings have proper superintendent services and security. It will be much less expensive in the end to keep buildings clean, safe, and upgraded then to be faced with tearing down and starting again, like Regent Park just down the street.

It is a disgrace how run down and bug infested so many of our social and assisted buildings are. Are the tenants supposed to thank the city for the misery they have to endure? The moment that we placed our first person into assisted or social housing, we took on a responsibility. We have somehow become so caught up in the numbers game, adding more and more units, that we have forgotten about the fate of the people we have already housed.

Impoverishment Facade

I will ask the City of Toronto departments of building, health (including noxious weeds), garbage, etc., to start working with owners of properties who either inadvertently or carelessly contribute to an overall state of impoverishment in our area. If that does not work then citing, doing the work according to what the by-laws allow, and then charging those who refuse to comply with the by-laws already in place should occur.

I don't consider that this is a real issue of impoverishment. In many cases, it just looks like it. Someone doesn't weed their lawn or garden; someone can't be bothered to tighten a porch railing; someone leaves garbage littered on their property. These kinds of things are easy to fix. It only takes a little time and a little pride of ownership, or "rentership". I hope that with the redevelopment that is going to be done in our ward, that we will all get together and show a little pride in where we live. Nonetheless, for those who can't be bothered, there are effective by-laws on the books. They just have to be enforced!

Lower Tolerance of "Little" Crimes

With the seriousness of the crimes we experience in our community, along with the understaffing of policemen in our division, we have had to overlook some of the petty crimes that affect our neighbourhoods. Two things:

- First, if we can agree that through effective and progressive policies we can eliminate the warehousing and vulnerability issues that plague some of our residents in Ward 28, then we will have an automatic diminution of some of the more serious crimes. The criminal element thrives on and in some cases recruits from the most vulnerable among us. If the vulnerable are not easily identified or easy to get to, the criminal element moves on. That being the case, then it stands to reason that some of our policemen and women can start enforcing some of the "little" or petty crimes.

- Second, Bill Blair, our Police Chief, has been increasing our police force throughout the city. He has been paying particular attention to those areas that have significant crime rates. Our division is to have 43+ officers assigned full time. Here again, there is every reason to believe that there is enough of a police presence in our ward to allow a lower tolerance of crimes.

Children constantly test the limits on what they do to see how far they can go before parents say, "enough!" Adults are no different. We push the envelope by parking in no parking zones, by not stooping and scooping when walking our dogs, by dumping, by littering instead of using refuse containers, etc., well, you get the picture. These are the kinds of laws that I will ask the police to start enforcing.

Children learn from us. If we don't have respect, or show respect, then they won't either. It is important to teach our children to respect the law. I believe that we would all prefer to see a child being told "enough" before he/she tests the laws with a gun.

I will also encourage the police to continue making yearly appearances in the schools to discuss, policing; why we have a system of laws; and why the police, rather than being feared, can be their best friend in a crisis.

1.
We need a city government that upholds the framework of openness and honesty. I totally reject the practice of awarding a contract with no tender. Why on earth was the city so afraid to offer this contract for tender?

I am not at all sure that Torontonians favour having everything outsourced. A German company said that it could have saved Canada one hundred million dollars if they had been allowed to tender for the TTC train contracts. Sounds to good to be true, doesn't it?

Outsourcing does not employ Canadians. Outsourcing does not keep a company fiscally viable, hiring workers and paying taxes. Outsourcing does not have working Canadians paying taxes. Outsourcing does not have Canadians who will keep the economy going through shopping in Canadian stores. Once all of the numbers are crunched, there might well still have been a financial benefit to the German contract. That benefit would be immediate and temporary, whereas, the long term benefit to Canada and Canadians and in particular, Torontonians, would remain for years.

City government ought to try the truth instead of insulting the intelligence of Torontonians. We really can grasp the issues and the larger picture! We could have discerned the difference between two tender submissions. We might even have accepted the Bombardier tender that, instead, you thrust upon us as a done deal. Shame on you!

2.
a) Reinstate a policy that offers TTC fares to persons down on their luck who are attending job interviews out of the area, or attending classes to upgrade skills.

b) Encourage and work with those persons who are hired for permanent jobs out of the area and help them to relocate, with their benefits, if they wish.

As was reported in the Toronto Star, on September 11/06, we should be aiming to "cut commutes by building homes near jobs". Not only is expanded time spent with the family unit healthier, it is also away of trying to prevent "two-way rush hours" which would "rarely end"

3.
I will ask that the TTC label the first 10 seats, approximately, in every conveyance for the use of senior citizens. It does not mean that others may not use the seating. It does mean that they must surrender their seat to a senior when there are no other seats available. I have seen how effectively this has worked in New York City. It builds respect and courtesy toward our seniors. I have seen the rule there become automatic and extend automatically to other areas.

The Gardiner Expressway

The most logical approach is to maintain the Gardiner Expressway. For the foreseeable future it is what we can afford.

Bury the Gardiner so that there would be a clear, unobstructed view of the Revitalized Waterfront, minus the hotel tower and condominiums, of course. But, you say, it would preserve the pathway through the lower part of the city without impacting on already snarled roads.

You got me. If it were monetarily feasible, this, of course, would be the ideal solution. In fact, I seem to recall that this option was offered to Toronto free of charge a number of years ago and Toronto declined. I confess, I do not know what favour might have been floated as a return on that investment

However, I ask you to consider the following. The main impetus in bringing more density into the city is because we can no longer sustain urban sprawl. Our system of roads and highways cannot stand the impact and we cannot grow the roads any further. There are ideas being advanced regarding the encouragement for people to live, or relocate to homes in and around where they work. While this will help, it is only part of the solution. It was felt that, if the city can no longer grow out, it must be allowed to grow up. To that end, the city has negotiated with both the Provincial and Federal governments to aid in developing the new neighbourhoods in the West Don Lands, the East Don Lands and the Port Lands.

We cannot hope to persuade the Ontario and Federal Governments to provide the money for burying the Gardiner Expressway, and Toronto certainly cannot afford to do such an expensive project alone.

We cannot expose the city to even more gridlock by tearing down the Gardner. While it allows ingress into the city, it most importantly provides a bypass for people going through the city without stopping. The volume of traffic in and around a major city demands that we have a Gardiner to the south; a 401 and 407 highway to the north; a highway 427 to the west and a Don Valley extension to the east.

The last, and least acceptable idea is to replace the Gardiner with grade-level roadways. First, the number of lane ways suggested would take up far too much land. Second, they would provide a pedestrian nightmare to try to cross. And third, what is aesthetic about a number of lane ways of traffic zooming back and forth? With all the buildings surrounding this roadway, the tunnel effect noise would be horrific!

The Island Airport

We have to deal with what is; not with what we wish were the facts.

I will seek a commitment that the Island Airport shall never allow anything larger than a small jet to use the airport. I will negotiate that, since jets are noisy, their hours of operation be limited to 7:00am in the morning to 7:00pm in the evening in order to provide quiet enjoyment of residents living in and around the airport. I will insist that the 500ft. fly rule be enforced. Currently, there are too many helicopters and small planes that seem to think that 200 to 300 feet ought to be okay. It is not!

The Island Airport has been in operation since 1939. I would venture to say that everyone who moved to Ward or Algonquin Islands were aware of the existence of the airport. I would further venture to say that those people who moved to the condominiums along the waterfront, were also aware that there was an airport in operation.

The fact that the Pickering Airport project was abandoned years ago, pretty much assures the continued operation of the Island Airport. It's logical. I need not go on. However, how it operates is very much an issue. No one wants to stop anyone from earning a living, but that living cannot be made at the expense of residents absolute rights to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. Honest negotiations, fair play, and mutual respect should result in an equitable arrangement for all.

I have been told, by Hydro, that the winds in the Port Lands may be perfect for a Wind Farm because they are out of the direct influence of the island. I will propose that an assessment of the area be made, and if it is viable, that we apportion and support land for this venture.

According to Toronto Hydro Windshare, "Wind energy is a proven technology, viable and competitive on a large scale." "Wind turbines produce no air pollution, no water pollution, and use very little land. They are safe for birds and generate very little noise." (Wind Turbine: torontohydro.com)

According to the City of Toronto's CENTRAL WATERFRONT PART II PLAN, page 40, C) Promoting a Clean and Green Environment

The third principle of the plan is aimed at achieving a high level of environmental health in the Central Waterfront. A wide variety of environmental strategies will be employed to create sustainable waterfront communities. The following "Big Moves" will showcase the City's commitment to a clean and green waterfront that is safe and healthy and contributes to a better environment for the city as a whole.

How is it then, that the Toronto Energy Coalition has found out that "the Provincial government's proposed large waterfront power plant (Portland Energy Centre) would be sited in the middle of people without a full environmental assessment that looks at cumulative air pollution impacts, as recommended by Toronto's Medical Officer of Health. It would reindustrialize Toronto's waterfront, needlessly damaging future development. "

Over the past three to seven years, Toronto allowed the building of 19+ condominium/residential buildings. They neglected to plan for the added electricity demands. Now we have been asked to conserve our energy. I don't know about you, but I am using the same energy now that I used some 10 or so years ago.

I certainly understand the increased demands because of air conditioning the new buildings, elevators, unit lights, cooking, heating, etc. And now, we are going to increase the demand even further with 1/3 more unit capacity in the Redeveloped Regent Park. Even though the four new neighbourhoods of the West Don Lands will be 'green power" communities, Toronto will still use more and more electricity. And. let 's not forget to mention the buildings already under construction.

It was my understanding that the Provincial Government was to use the existing nuclear plants to keep our supply up, until we could come up with more viable solutions. If it weren't so sad it would be funny. I heard David Miller say that because the Port Authority would not close the Island Airport, the Waterfront Revitalization would not be as successful. Excuse me? Are we really going to allow a power plant in the Port Lands? Now that really does destroy Waterfront Revitalization, does it not, Mayor Miller?

More Alternative Sources of Energy

I will propose that we look into a solar power initiative to provide low cost loans for people who could benefit financially from the use of solar power, which will in turn, save the city energy.