|
Permit required to walk in the park, Fines given out for swearing. Welcome to Toronto
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
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. |
|
|
|
| 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...
it makes sense if the old people are all paying someone.. then that someone would need to buy the permit to run the program... |
|
|
| VDub |
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 ...
He stalked them afterwards and took pics of all of their license plates...
This city is really starting to piss me off... |
|
|
| chinamon |
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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| Stilez |
| 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. |
|
|
| slingshot |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 ING 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. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| 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 ING 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 . It's private property, not public. Hence the no smoking. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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 s 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 ing 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. |
|
|
|
|
