|
News and Articles>
SOS Bulletin
Mar 25, 2009 --
1. Construction Update
Anyone attempting to navigate St.Clair Avenue is well aware of the continuing disruption of the street. The work in the Corso Italia section, Phase 2, started in October 2007, is not yet completed. The City/TTC have announced the opposite, but the ROW is in fact blocked off, not even the TTC buses are using it. Pedestrian lights are not connected, and several other items are yet not done.
The section between Vaughan and Westmount, Phase 3, has experienced construction activities since early last year. First the hydro wires were undergrounded. Next watermain replacement commenced. As the ROW work now moves forward, the street is restricted to one lane of traffic east and west. Traffic congestion, mess, dirt, and noise are constant, and the businesses on the street are especially affected. The number of closures is significant. The undergrounding and the watermain replacement project are much needed, but I still cannot understand why the City cannot coordinate all construction activities to take place at the same time, instead of in series.
Right-of-way construction work on Phase 4, that is from McRobert to Gunns Road (Caledonia to Keele), is now being tendered and is to commence later this spring, by the end of April. The watermain replacement work there is underway and for some reason a portion of the street is being re-dug up. Sidewalks on both sides of the street are being dug up at the same time. The sidewalk cuts will be very significant in this area, so this portion of the project includes full sidewalk and road reconstruction. The rest of St.Clair has seen significant sidewalk cuts, but generally these are located at the signalized intersections, therefore there was no sidewalk and road reconstruction at mid-block.
Apparently Mayor Miller, Councillor Giambrone and company are very anxious to have this work completed by the end of 2009. This target date is pretty unrealistic. Remember, Phase 2 was to take only eight months, and did not include the watermains, - these are yet to be replaced. Phase 2 is now at 16 months and counting. It seems that these politicians want St.Clair 'clean and tidy' before municipal elections get underway in 2010; they do not want evidence of their blunders so plainly evident on the street. Second, the City is now going forward with other exclusive streetcar lane projects, e.g., on Lakeshore Blvd. and it must be difficult to use St.Clair as their model, especially in its current condition! The businesses on Sheppard East, expecting an LRT project, have already declared (Globe, March 7, 2009) that they do not want to be "the next St.Clair Avenue West".
But here we are, suffering this project and its fall-out. Unfortunately, there are now about 34 vacant store fronts on the north side of St.Clair Avenue, from Vaughan Rd to Earlscourt. Some fear as many as 100 businesses on St.Clair are now closed. The duration of construction disruption is really taking its toll on the community.
More anecdotal information is being reported regarding the continuing difficulties experienced by emergency vehicles in the areas where the ROW barrier has been installed. In some instances, fire trucks have travelled in the wrong lanes to try to reach their destination. Local reports speak of trucks travelling eastbound in westbound lanes because the trucks cannot safely 'hump' over the ROW barrier. Official silence continues.
Finally, after a long absence, the next meeting of the St. Clair Avenue West Construction Liaison Committee will be held on Friday, April 3, 2009 at 8:00 a.m. at the site office, 883 St. Clair Avenue, but actually located on the east side of Alberta Avenue, just south of St. Clair. There is a "Domti Engineering" sign on the storefront entrance on Alberta Avenue. These meetings are public, and all construction related matters can be discussed.
2. Ombudsman Decision
In January we received the decision of the Ombudsman's office. They conclude that, "the Ministry has responded to your concerns and is satisfied that the Project is being properly implemented." I can hardly express how frustrated I am with this brush off. I worked in environmental assessment for about 20 years and I am one of those 'Pollyanna's" who thinks that environmental assessment is a good thing and contributes to better planning, if done properly. Here we have a Ministry colluding with the City/TTC undermining the integrity of the EA process and making the whole relationship between the proponent and the Ministry a farce. The worst example of this farce is the response to the issue of emergency service on St.Clair. This issue was raised from the very beginning of the environmental planning process. The City/TTC responded that they would mitigate with rolled mountable curbs. The EA report committed to this mitigation measure. Then, after the Project was approved, arbitrarily the City/TTC reneged on this commitment. The Ministry informed me that this change is acceptable because design revisions are expected during the detailed design work following approval. This explanation is disgraceful. Public safety is a critical matter. When the City/TTC eliminate the only mitigation measure offered to ensure that emergency response would not be negatively affected by the raised ROW barrier, public safety is compromised and it should not be considered 'proper'. The explanation is pure political bafflegab. The answer from the Ombudsman's office raises the question, what recourse do citizens have when their representatives fail in their duty?
3. Decision for Justice Matlow
In December the Canadian Judicial Council decided that, although Justice Matlow demonstrated"serious flawed judgement", he should not be removed from office. The article in the Toronto Star (December 4, 2008) stated the following:
And while Matlow's failure to recuse himself from the St.Clair case could be considered seriously bad judgement, he had no obligation to step down as long as he honestly believed there was no danger he would appear biased against the city.
Too bad we can't roll back the clock!
4. Councillor Giambrone's Lack of Regard for Local Democracy
An article (Globe, February 7, 2009) discussing the proposed changes on Jarvis Street (eliminating the middle traffic lane and over 800 parking spots, widening the sidewalk and 'beautifying the street") included the following remarks by Councillor Giambrone. I forward them to you as the best, most recent summary of what Miller and his gang really think of the public who elected them.
Councillor Adam Giambrone, who oversaw a contentious street project in his own riding (the narrowing of Lansdowne Avenue, completed last year), says disputes over street alterations follow a familiar arc. Locals get upset at the proposed change, seethe as the bulldozers go to work, then gradually come to terms with the revised street after it's completed.
The Lansdowne project ran into opposition that was, to say the least, spirited: One local chained himself to a tree, and a residents' association filed a lawsuit against Mr. Giambrone and the city, charging that the project would divert traffic onto their streets.
Mr. Giambrone says most residents now accept the changes, which have resulted in a process known as "traffic evaporation," wherein the number of cars falls following changes that increase congestion. "People adapt," he says. "They stop using their car, or they take another route. Either way, the traffic goes down."
He says a few locals are still angry, but he accepts that as the inevitable cost of change: "Few projects are ever as good, or as bad, as people think they'll be," he says. "That's the reality."
It's nice to know that he never considers the possibility that the local citizens might be right in their concerns, and that he might have it wrong. It's too bad that we are the ones who get stuck with 'the inevitable cost of change'.
5. I can't help myself, another Mihevc 'gem'
I couldn't help but laugh at Councillor Mihevc's justification for keeping his pay increase. According to the Toronto Star, (January 27, 2009), he declared the debate itself, (whether councillors should respond to our tough economic times by refusing their scheduled pay increase) as undermining elected office! Then he said that those raising this topic were simply seeking "public brownie points". Then he compared his salary to the non-elected city administration (for which, apparently, we cannot even ask how many staff there are and what they are paid), and said he deserves more. Finally he said that this debate undermines democracy! Wow! Methinks the councillor doth protest too much! (Afterall, he 'earns' $96,805. plus expenses.)
I think Royson James got it right, (Star, January 31, 2009):
So it's about more than the money.
We have created a system where councillors view their job as a lifetime appointment. They're ensconced for four years; expense accounts endow them with huge spending budgets that almost guarantee longevity and repels opponents; and before long they see a $100,000 salary as chicken feed.
6. Attack on Local Democracy now a matter of Public Policy
The recent statements from Premier McGuinty are very upsetting. In introducing his proposed new Green Energy Act, he said that the government will not be stopped from developing its' projects because they are in everyone's best interest; nimbyism will not be tolerated. The problem with this attitude is that it denies the possibility that any community has anything of value to add to government planning; the government alone knows best.
The Premier's statements really continue his attack on local democracy, an attack that started in earnest when the environmental assessment process for transit projects was truncated to six months. The time constraint isn't really the key problem; the problem is that public 'involvement' does not commence until after the preferred alternative is chosen. In other words, the public's input will be sought at the back end of the planning process, instead of at the front end. This approach institutionalizes 'decide and defend' planning, like we experienced on St.Clair. They are saying, "Look, we are going to build exclusive transit lanes on this street, regardless, and we will listen to your ideas about the colour of the public notice boards."
The clock has been turned back, and over 30 years of progress in public involvement in planning has now been reversed. It should come as no surprise to read about Metrolinx's draft communications strategy obtained by the Globe through a Freedom of Information request. (Metrolinx's formal name is The Greater Toronto Transportation Authority.)
From the Globe and Mail, February 27, 2009:
Under the heading "Consultation Process," it reads: "Our consultation period needs to be tightly structured and telescoped. The last thing we need is for this to be hijacked by nimbies or local politicians on the make. These should be mainly informational briefings. We should salt the sessions with supporters. An orgy of consultation will mire this in controversy and delay."
Although Metrolinx is now trying to back-pedal on this strategy document, it is interesting that one of their board members reflected the same disparaging attitude recently in the press.
From an article in the Toronto Star (February 14, 2009) on Nimbyism:
But sometimes it's tough to sort the NIMBYs from rational opponents to bad ideas, admits Toronto's former chief planner Paul Bedford, who sits on the Metrolinx board. "Many NIMBY folks I have run into seem possessed with their cause regardless of any new facts that surface during the course of the debate. They have a mission and seem to cling to it, and often are not able to seek a consensus position," he said. Opposition tends to be local rather than big-picture, which often leads to inertia, he said.
It's odd, but I think that Mr. Bedford's description is very apt for the City and TTC representatives I have met on these projects.
Best,
Margaret
|
