|
Toronto Elections Oct 25 2010 - Who are YOU voting for? (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
i am surprised the poorer areas of scarborough also voted Ford. |
See post above. |
|
|
| 1dawoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
One can't have it both ways... one can't enjoy additional revenue available by the larger tax base and use it to govern for the benefit of the core on one hand and then declare the merging of the cities a failure when the balance shifts away from the core's favour. |
exactly....
The downtown core should have thought about implications of a larger voting population prior to the amalgamation of the city.
Can't have your cake and eat it too... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
From the Torontoist.
Just as I thought. The ing burbs chose our mayor. Not the city.
|
um the burbs are part of the city...... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intangible
megacity fail.
how the are the burbs suppose to know whats good for downtown.
Living downtown is MUCH different than working or visiting downtown. |
you could argue vice versa on this.
the anti car anti this anti that BS coming from downtown has the rest of the city fed up. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by 1dawoman
exactly....
The downtown core should have thought about implications of a larger voting population prior to the amalgamation of the city.
Can't have your cake and eat it too... |
??
The city was amalgamated by the Provincial government. A 1997 referendum canvassing the municipalities to be effected showed a 3:1 ratio against the proposal. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
you could argue vice versa on this.
the anti car anti this anti that BS coming from downtown has the rest of the city fed up. |
So maybe if the Harris gov't hadn't pushed through with amalgamation, this wouldn't even be a point of contention.
There's also the trend of drastic reduction of local representation in all this. We've gone from 106 councillors to 44, and now there's plans to reduce that number to 22 by 2014?
Having just a handful of individuals claiming to represent the interests of many is rarely a sound idea. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
So maybe if the Harris gov't hadn't pushed through with amalgamation, this wouldn't even be a point of contention.
There's also the trend of drastic reduction of local representation in all this. We've gone from 106 councillors to 44, and now there's plans to reduce that number to 22 by 2014?
Having just a handful of individuals claiming to represent the interests of many is rarely a sound idea. |
id like to see 22 at large councilors along with 4 separate boards that make up a quadrant of the the city. Perhaps this is how 44 should be split up. As it is now is inefficient. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
id like to see 22 at large councilors along with 4 separate boards that make up a quadrant of the the city. Perhaps this is how 44 should be split up. As it is now is inefficient. |
Oshawa just went with only councilors at large... I'd recommend seeing how that experiment goes before anyone else tries. |
|
|
| Special K |
If Toronto wants to become a truly world class city we should have our Mayor voted into office in a similar fashion to the other mega-cities of the world like New York, Los Angeles, Paris & London. In New York for exampke, the Mayor of New York can only be voted in by the constituents of Manhattan because they live in "the city" and are therefore the smartest. This in turn gives them the right to decide the rules of the city and it also prevents the uncouth people of the other 4 boroughs from having a say in how they can live their lives.
yeaaaaaaaaaaaa
:wtf:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
i am surprised the poorer areas of scarborough also voted Ford. |
Why? |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Why? |
because he is going to take away their social and community programs and not help their accessibility to their low paying jobs downtown which they have to get to via transit since they can't afford cars. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
because he is going to take away their social and community programs and not help their accessibility to their low paying jobs downtown which they have to get to via transit since they can't afford cars. |
Come on Margs... socialism has only ever really been popular with the people who don't need the welfare state but want to feel good about themselves. Those who can't afford to pay the rent tend to focus more on the small picture... like feeding their families; they probably bought into the argument that less waste and fewer pet projects for the champange socialists' causes will translate into lower taxes/fees and thereby make their lives a little easier. They may be entirely wrong; however, it's not hard to understand why they would vote Ford. Additionally, lower income generally corolates with lower levels of formal education... a simple message like "stop the gravey train" coupled with "more subways" is easily relatable. |
|
|
|
|
