|
Government bungling - the results years later Pitbulls and Homeless shelter
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Two examples of feel good government intrusiveness that has done nothing, cost a lot of money and disrupted lives.
Item 1: the homeless shelter, dare i call it, scam! And trust me i dont use that word lightly here.
| quote: | The city’s Peter St. shelter is not on budget and it’s not close to being on time.
The shelter now will cost $10.6 million and, according to Cindy Bromley of the city’s finance and administration department, is expected to be completed by June 15.
The opening date of the multimillion-dollar facility in the Entertainment District has been a moving target since missing its projected target of late 2008. As of December 2009, it was set to open this March. When March rolled around, the Sun was told it would open at the end of May.
While the cost had ballooned close to $10 million in December, shelter services staff confirmed Wednesday it has now crept closer to $11 million.
Patricia Anderson, manager of partnership development and support for shelter services, said in an e-mail the cost is now $10.6 million.
The former nightclub at 129 Peter St., which will house the 40-bed shelter, cost $4.7 million to buy along with a $4.9-million construction contract, $300,000 for a green wall and $700,000 for other expenses including the architect, Anderson said.
The original council-approved plan committed to spend only $560,000 on renovations.
Anderson said costs will be covered mostly by the federal government’s Homelessness Partnership Initiative.
The building will devote 60% of its square footage to assessment and referral services but will include a 1,500-sq.-ft. smoking area on its roof.
Interview requests to Phil Brown, general manager of shelter support and housing administration, and local city councillor Adam Vaughan were not returned.
The candidates vying to be Toronto’s next mayor had plenty to say about it.
Councillor Rob Ford said you could buy beautiful downtown condos for the homeless for the price of the “way over budget” shelter.
“It has been completely mismanaged,” Ford said. “That’s why we need to clean house.
“Every single project the city does goes way over budget.”
Ford said no private company would tolerate that.
“I guarantee when I’m mayor, I won’t be opening any more shelters in the Entertainment District,” Ford said, adding if the shelter isn’t completed by the fall election and he wins, he’ll consider selling it.
Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone said he is committed to a review of how the city tackles major construction projects if he becomes mayor.
“There’s obviously a problem here,” he said. “We’re hurting business people along such strips (as the St. Clair Ave. streetcar right-of-way) ... we’re hurting taxpayers, nobody wins.”
Candidate Rocco Rossi called it a “bad management issue.”
“It’s another example of not being able to manage anything of consequence on time and on budget,” Rossi said. “Imagine how many shelters that money could have been spent building.”
Along with the St. Clair fiasco, Rossi pointed to a Sun story this week on the bungled Bloor St. revitalization.
Rossi said it’s time for a political outsider, like himself, to take the reins at city hall.
“There just seem to be no consequences for bad results,” he said.
Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti said he’s not sure it makes sense to put a shelter in the Entertainment District.
“Talk to any owners of nightclubs, they’ll tell you it’s absolutely ludicrous, he said.”
Mammoliti called for shelter services and Toronto Community Housing to fall under one umbrella so people in need of housing, regardless of the type, would have a one-stop shop.
Candidate Sarah Thomson said the city shouldn’t be in the shelter business and accused it of squeezing out non-profit shelters.
Candidate George Smitherman could not be reached for comment |
item 2: the pitbull ban that has done absolutely nothing to stop dog attacks
| quote: | Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: THS
One of the pit bulls outside Queen's Park for a protest against the pit bull ban on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009.
Updated: Wed Apr. 28 2010 12:26:20 PM
ctvtoronto.ca
Ontario's controversial pit bull ban has not resulted in a significant decrease in the number of dog bites in the province, the Toronto Humane Society claims in a study.
The pit bull ban, passed as an amendment to the Ontario Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, banned the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls.
The ban was introduced as a public safety tool after a series of pit bull attacks in the province.
In announcing the plan to ban the breed, then attorney general Michael Bryant said in 2004 that pit bulls were "inherently dangerous animals" and "ticking time bombs."
But a statistical survey completed by the THS, which opposes breed-specific legislation and euthanizing animals, suggests that the ban on the breed has not reduced the number of dog bites in the province. It said the number of dog bites in the province has not significantly decreased since the ban came into effect.
"Countless" pit bulls and Staffordshire terriers have been euthanized because of the ban, the humane society said.
And a spokesperson for the humane society said targeting specific dog breeds is not the way to reduce dog attacks.
"If we want to reduce the number of dog bites, we have to address the root cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals," Ian McConachie said in a news release. "It is clear from these figures that the BSL aspects of the Dog Owners Liability Act has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites."
According to the humane society's study, there were 5,428 reported dog bites in 2005, the year the ban came into effect. Here are the numbers since then:
2006 - 5,360
2007 - 5,492
2008 - 5,463
2009 - 5,345
The study does not show the number of dog bites compared to the number of dogs in the province. Nor does it adjust for changes to the province's population or for the severity of attacks.
McConachie said the information about dog bites comes from the local health networks, while the number of licensed dogs is tracked by individual municipalities and is not accessible without filing access to information requests.
“It’s possible the number of dogs could have gone up,” McConachie told CTV News. “It’s also possible the number of dogs could have stayed the same.”
The provincial Liberals have stood by their decision to introduce the ban. Premier Dalton McGuinty said last fall that the ban was based on public safety.
"It's about public safety," he told reporters last fall. "We got the best advice we could, and put in place legislation which we think upholds public safety."
This is not the first time that the pit bull ban has come under fire.
Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby unsuccessfully mounted a challenge of the ban in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The ban was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal in an October 2008 decision.
"The total ban on pit bulls is not 'arbitrary' or 'grossly disproportionate' in light of the evidence that pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation," the court said in its decision.
"This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls."
Last fall, Toronto NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo introduced a private member's bill to overturn the ban, saying at the time that fatal dog attacks had gone up since the ban went into effect. DiNovo did not give specific numbers. |
But hey, i guess government knows best eh? |
|
|
| The Highroller |
Absolute BS about that homeless shelter.
Calls from Adam Vaughan's office not returned? Hmmm... typical. |
|
|
| Intangible |
Pitbull:
| quote: | | Nor does it adjust for changes to the province's population or for the severity of attacks. |
If it was about dog bites then they should have banned ALL dogs.. this was about the severity of the pitbull's bites...it also put police at risk as well.
This article does NOTHING to prove the point that this ban was useless... |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intangible
Pitbull:
If it was about dog bites then they should have banned ALL dogs.. this was about the severity of the pitbull's bites...it also put police at risk as well.
This article does NOTHING to prove the point that this ban was useless... |
but when they introduced this ban they didn't say its because pitbull bites are more severe then other dogs. They led people to believe that pitbulls were more dangerous and you were more likely going to be bit by a pitbull then a cute little puppy wuppy. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
item 2: the pitbull ban that has done absolutely nothing to stop dog attacks |
No sherlock. It's a pit bull ban, not a dog ban, DUH! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
No sherlock. It's a pit bull ban, not a dog ban, DUH! |
yup.. and they need to get rid of this ban asap |
|
|
| gilboman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
yup.. and they need to get rid of this ban asap |
why??
I'm all for it. pitbull ban was not supposed to reduce/stop dog bites. why would you think that? |
|
|
| malek |
| How about a dog ban? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by gilboman
why??
I'm all for it. pitbull ban was not supposed to reduce/stop dog bites. why would you think that? |
you are being sarcastic i hope |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
you are being sarcastic i hope |
Dude, it's the most retarded article. |
|
|
| VDub |
This ban was completely ineffective also in that it didn't stop anyone from getting Pit Bulls...
My ghetto neighbors have gotten 3 in the past year!!! |
|
|
| mute79 |
| Can you post the source of the first article? I can almost feel it's The Sun |
|
|
|
|
