TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Permit required to walk in the park, Fines given out for swearing. Welcome to Toronto
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Permit required to walk in the park, Fines given out for swearing. Welcome to Toronto

quote:

Toronto demands seniors obtain permit to walk But city sees nothing wrong with forcing walking group to pay fee for park use TORONTO -- Members of a seniors group must pay to walk in a Toronto park, insists Councillor Mark Grimes. Grimes yesterday defended a controversial decision by the city to impose a permit fee -- $230 a year or about $30 an hour -- on a senior's group because its members walk in Humber Bay Park. As reported in the Sunday Sun, a zealous bylaw officer approached the group on Sept. 21 and demanded that leader Anne Wheatley produce a permit for walking in the park. "This is a business and money is changing hands," Grimes said yesterday. "I would love to let them use the park for free, but the policy is there for a reason." The councillor for Etobicoke Lakeshore said an investigation was launched into the Sept. 21 incident. Grimes added the seniors -- a group of 12 who take twice-weekly jaunts through the lakeside park -- admit to paying a small fee to take part in the walks. Wheatley told the Sunday Sun that the city bylaw officer followed and photographed the group after a permit wasn't produced. "The city requires a permit anytime there's commercial activity taking place in our parks," Grimes said. "It sounds heavy-handed but everyone else requires a permit." He said the officer was acting on complaints from residents that operators have been using the parks for organized businesses without permits. Grimes said charges for operating on city property without a permit are pending against the owner of the business if no permit is obtained. Councillor Doug Holiday countered seniors should be welcomed to our parks. "We should be encouraging them to use our parks more," he argued yesterday. "We should be utilizing all our parks more." He said city officials can use common sense and let seniors walk for free. "The parks are there all the time," he said. "I don't see anything wrong with letting our seniors use the park for free." Councillor Rob Ford called the fee a "scam and a shake-down" by city officials.' "This is a scam and they're robbing the seniors," Ford charged. "This is nothing but a shakedown against seniors." Humber Bay is maintained by the City of Toronto, and jointly owned by Toronto and The Toronto Region and Conservation Authority.

quote:

A stroke and a couple of car accidents have left Tracey Buck walking with a cane. So when the 40-year-old Toronto woman boards the Victoria Park bus, she needs to sit at the front, where the seats are reserved for the elderly, pregnant, and disabled. Buck estimates that out of every 10 times she boards a crowded bus, only five times will somebody get up and allow her to sit down. "It's getting bad," Buck said. "It's like New York City." It's that kind of behaviour that the TTC is attempting to crack down on -- with higher fines for a host of offences found in a bylaw that sets out the transit system's code of conduct for passengers. Fines are either $195 or $345, depending on the violation, said spokesman Danny Nicholson. But there's also the so-called victim surcharges of $35 for the lesser fine and $75 for the $345 penalty. Offences range from refusing to get up from a seat reserved for the disabled and putting feet up on a seat to littering or using an expired transfer. Others include smoking on TTC property, vandalism, littering, and entering a station illegally. What's new is that the TTC now has the power to issue fines against those passengers. Yesterday marked the first day of enforcement, with TTC special constables ending the grace period for the fine increases and new penalties -- which included handing out pamphlets and educating passengers -- and beginning to issue tickets. Buck, at Victoria Park station yesterday, said politeness is a rare commodity on the TTC. "I find that a lot of people are rude and inconsiderate," Buck said. Andrew Burnett, 22, also at Vic Park station, didn't see the point in levying fines against transit-goers who use profane language. "It still doesn't stop the main issue of robberies that go on in the stations, the fact that there's junkies sharing the same seat as your child and other people on the TTC," Burnett said. "They don't do nothing to stop that, but they want to stop swearing. Swearing is nothing, really." Burnett said seats on buses and subways are uncomfortable, which is why people put their feet up on seats. Kazi Islam, 29, said he doesn't find the majority of TTC users to be rude. He said the fines seem appropriate. "They are fine," Islam said. "They are not that strict." Last year, the special constables issued $600,000 worth of tickets.

Here is an interesting juxtaposition in this news story...

So you get fined and charged for everything under the sun.. except stealing a billion dollars it seems.

quote:

Premier Dalton McGuinty has rejected a call for a public inquiry into the eHealth Ontario scandal. While accepting criticism that his government was "lax" in overseeing the billion-dollar initiative to generate electronic health records, McGuinty said new accountability measures will prevent a repeat of the fiscal fiasco. "We have the rules in place now, there's no more sole-sourced contracts for consultants, for example," McGuinty said yesterday during a visit to Mohawk College in Hamilton. But PC Leader Tim Hudak said only a full public inquiry will answer serious questions raised by Auditor General Jim McCarter's special report on eHealth last week. "A close read of the auditor general's report strongly suggests that there may have been deliberate price fixing and bid rigging at eHealth -- bid rigging is criminal behaviour," Hudak said. "If the law was broken, the people of Ontario deserve to know ... what's going to be done about it." McCarter's auditors found that favoured firms were able to secure contracts easily, even if at times their bids were higher than the competition. The auditor warned of the dangers in overusing the same consultants, but found no evidence party politics or personal benefit played any role in the awarding of contracts. It was clear that Liberal-friendly firms had an inside track at eHealth and the health ministry, but the auditor's role and resources did not extend to examining those political links, Hudak said. "I think one person's favouritism is another person's political ties," he said. McGuinty suggested it was typical opposition politics that was driving Hudak's call for a public inquiry. The independent expert -- the auditor general -- has made several recommendations in his eHealth report that the government intends to fully implement, the premier said. Former health minister David Caplan resigned on the day McCarter delivered his report. The eHealth issue goes well beyond Caplan, to former health minister George Smitherman and Premier Dalton McGuinty -- and both those men still have their jobs, Hudak said. The auditor also identified difficulties and delays he encountered while wading through an apparently recalcitrant bureaucracy in his audit of electronic health records, and it's still unclear why that happened, Hudak noted. "We know this government will not give up its dirty secrets willingly," he said. "Only a full public inquiry will provide the answers that the people of Ontario deserve to see." McCarter's report concluded that Ontario's nine-year, $1-billion effort to digitize health records spent too much on consultants and produced too little for taxpayers.

for the old people in the park ---> isn't it just saying that you have to have a permit to run an organized group there? Like you need a permit to have a hot dog stand... so you need a permit to organize (a make profits from) a old person park walk...

it makes sense if the old people are all paying someone.. then that someone would need to buy the permit to run the program...

Who the FACK charges seniors for an organized walk in the park???

And this officer was on a MAJOR power trip and was treating seniors like shit...

He stalked them afterwards and took pics of all of their license plates...

This city is really starting to piss me off...

i dont see a problem with it.
the person who organizes the walks does it commercially so it is an enterprise and they should buy a permit to use the park like all other businesses.

quote:

Originally posted by sugar_sparkles for the old people in the park ---> isn't it just saying that you have to have a permit to run an organized group there? Like you need a permit to have a hot dog stand... so you need a permit to organize (a make profits from) a old person park walk...

There's a subtle difference here, which is that a hot dog stand is actually transacting business right there on the public property, whereas I'm going to assume that this "walk in the park" is all pre-arranged. Even if it isn't, the "business" would all be happening within the span of seconds and certainly isn't bothering anyone else.

This is almost reminiscent of the recent case where they fined a truck driver for smoking in his truck, alone, because it was used for business and hence constitutes a "workplace" environment. All of these cash grabs are using a very, very loose definition of the word "business."

The original spirit of the law was really just to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from peddling on the street like it's some kind of bazaar. I'll admit that if the group's organizer is collecting money then the city does have the legal right to impose a fee, but to me this is just another case of a law/bylaw that's entirely too vague, being interpreted way beyond its actual intent by political opportunists more concerned with filling their coffers than maintaining public order.

In any event, these officers and spokespeople are likely going to find out that they picked the wrong group of citizens to harass. Seniors as a collective wield a great deal of political power and have an unofficial protected status, perhaps even more so than ethnic minorities.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut In any event, these officers and spokespeople are likely going to find out that they picked the wrong group of citizens to harass. Seniors as a collective wield a great deal of political power and have an unofficial protected status, perhaps even more so than ethnic minorities.

+1 yup
that idiot officer just opened a can of whoop ass that has now gone as high as the PM who has promised to review and change the law to prevent this in the future and use more specific wording to define what is and is not considered an infraction.

So if a bunch of friends or family get together and give an individual money to supply food for an afternoon in the park...does that require a permit? Because technically a transaction is taking place and thus could be argued that it is a commercial operation.

of course some people agree with this..

thats why we have such a nanny state right??


And what about fining people for swearing? Id FUCKING love for them to fine me for that. It would be a supreme court case.

1) Define swearing. What exactly counts as a swear word? What about swearing in foreign languages?

2) Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want that is not slander or hate.

3) i love how in one story they said they would make exceptions for those who are new to the country or those who have a problem with english.. Riiiiight.... double standards live!!

The most the TTC should be allowed to do for swearing is ask you to leave the property, if in fact the TTC is deemed to be private property. If it is public property they dont have a leg to stand on.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 of course some people agree with this.. thats why we have such a nanny state right?? And what about fining people for swearing? Id FUCKING love for them to fine me for that. It would be a supreme court case. 1) Define swearing. What exactly counts as a swear word? What about swearing in foreign languages? 2) Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want that is not slander or hate. 3) i love how in one story they said they would make exceptions for those who are new to the country or those who have a problem with english.. Riiiiight.... double standards live!! The most the TTC should be allowed to do for swearing is ask you to leave the property, if in fact the TTC is deemed to be private property. If it is public property they dont have a leg to stand on.

The swearing part is ridiculous but it's on their property. Also, if it ever gets that bad, I will just swear in another language, they won't understand shit. It's private property, not public. Hence the no smoking.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut ... The original spirit of the law was really just to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from peddling on the street like it's some kind of bazaar...

and right there is the end of this dumb thread.

every authority figure interviewed has essentially admitted that this is a case of overstepping the flavour of the law.

it's CLEARLY meant to keep commercial enterprises from occupying public space. you need a permit to operate a hot dog stand or any other business on the sidewalk, so it makes PERFECT sense that a permit is required for anything outside of 'personal use' in a public space.

there's a clear, distinguishable difference between an individual profiting by charging 20 to participate in a yoga class 5 days a week in a park vs. a seniors 'walking through it'.

unfortunately, the dumb fucks in public service positions such as bylaw enforcement aren't the sharpest lot and so we run into cases of overzealous enforcement because they can't use their fucking head and realize that this sort of behaviour is not what the bylaw is meant to prevent.

fine. be more specific with the law so that the neanderthals in enforcement can do their job.

it doesn't mean the flavour of the legislation is flawed...just the actual wording and, particularly, its enforcement.

I'm so glad I live in a normal city and don't have to deal with weird bullshit like this lol

how about dog walkers? they should be charged too since they do this for a fee to the dog owners...

bump

I'm outright disgusted by toronto's shit as of late, i'm not going to be living here for much longer... poorly run and full of shit heads who think with their dicks.

lol I used to be such a Toronto advocate five years ago, things change I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 And what about fining people for swearing? Id FUCKING love for them to fine me for that. It would be a supreme court case.

I would looooove it if a cop wrote me a ticket for swearing, I cant imagine the fun generated from the case.

wow, Toronto really does seem like it's going back to its presbyterian heritage.... LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Anas Attia I would looooove it if a cop wrote me a ticket for swearing, I cant imagine the fun generated from the case.

It's not in public, just on TTC's private property. Even so that still is completely laughable imo...

quote:

Originally posted by Endlesswave It's not in public, just on TTC's private property. Even so that still is completely laughable imo...

It's not only laughable, it's legally contradictory.

My position would be that it is technically public property because it is wholly owned by a government entity, and therefore constitutional protections apply (freedom of speech). However, if they want it to be treated as private property, where they can make any rules they want, then as the owner of private property they have no legal authority to impose fines against its occupants - they most they can do is what any private citizen or company can do, kick you out or sue you for trespassing if you refuse to leave.

It would seem that the idiots fine folks at the TTC want to have their cake and eat it too.

quote:

Originally posted by Aleks_B wow, Toronto really does seem like it's going back to its presbyterian heritage.... LOL

Sadly..

we had 2 good decades... the peak being the 90s. But 2 main figures altered the course of toronto. Fantino and Miller.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's not only laughable, it's legally contradictory. My position would be that it is technically public property because it is wholly owned by a government entity, and therefore constitutional protections apply (freedom of speech). However, if they want it to be treated as private property, where they can make any rules they want, then as the owner of private property they have no legal authority to impose fines against its occupants - they most they can do is what any private citizen or company can do, kick you out or sue you for trespassing if you refuse to leave. It would seem that the idiots fine folks at the TTC want to have their cake and eat it too.

Ah yeah. Forgot it's partly owned by the Gov with all the 'help' they're getting.

LOL I love how the second one about disabled people on the bus has a quote saying "its like NYC" when no one gets up for you.

Horrible example as our buses *require* people to get up for disabled in certain seats. And if you dont get up on you own accord, the bus driver will get out of his seat on come let you KNOW that you have to get up.

The driver wont pull off the crub otherwise, and will often notify police. So, people just do it (whether they do it out of common courtesy, or because they are being scolded is a whole other issue, but most people are nice enough to do it).

Government should be afraid of the people. Not the other way around. Bottom line is that ignorance and apathy create a society where the government can do whatever it wants. Which is exactly what is happening.
Worst part is we have even been trained to start accepting it as normal.

Too much power in the hands of government always leads to corruption.

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/new...-and-apartments


Smoking ban urged for Peel condos and apartments
October 19, 2009

Madeleine White

STAFF REPORTER

Related
Map: Ontario smoking rates



Peel's top public health officials are lobbying to ban smoking from apartments and condos in an effort to limit second-hand smoke inhalation.

If their push is successful, apartment dwellers would not be able to smoke in their own homes.

The region's council is going to examine a report co-authored by Commissioner of Health Services Janette Smith, and Dr. David Mowat, Peel's medical officer of health.

Their report says that Peel Public Health has received complaints from apartment tenants about smoke seeping into their homes.

"Tobacco smoke can seep from various openings in a multi-unit dwelling, including electrical outlets, plumbing, ductwork, ceiling light fixtures, cracks in wall, floors or doors and through common areas, such as hallways," wrote Smith and Mowat in the report. "Some units may share ventilation or heating systems, which can further spread the smoke throughout a building."

Their findings prompted an investigation into whether the city has the authority to ban smoking inside apartments.

Under the Municipal Act of 2001, Peel can invoke a bylaw preventing tenants from smoking, but Smith and Mowat suggest the best route would be to persuade Queen's Park to enact a province-wide ban.

The province's current ban on smoking applies only to enclosed public spaces, as well as elevators and hallways in apartment buildings. But it does not stop people from smoking in their homes.

"I don't actually think that we need to be asking the province because I think it's already happening," said Pippa Beck, a policy analyst for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. "We have market forces on our side, landlords are recognizing the financial benefits, which are not insignificant, and there is more and more demand for smoke-free living."

Beck noted several municipalities in Ontario, including Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton, are taking steps to ban smoking in residences.

This month, councillors in Kitchener-Waterloo decided, starting in April, new tenants in apartments owned by Waterloo Region would not be allowed to smoke at home.

The region had been receiving an average of five calls a month from tenants complaining about second-hand smoke seeping into their dwellings from other units and open windows. Those calls represented about 20 per cent of all tobacco-related complaints received by the region, according to a regional report.

In Peel, individual landlords of apartments are also choosing to make their buildings smoke-free.

In July 2006, a smoke-free 53-unit housing complex opened on Cummer Ave. in North York. In 2008, the owner said one tenant had left because of the policy.

Peel's council votes Thursday on whether to approach the province about the recommendations.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.