
Someone random on Flickr posted this photo today, of me, Chris, and Agnes (the blurry ponytail) at the
Political Party last night, a mayoral 'debate' put on by Spacing Magazine and Eye Weekly. Hosting a political debate in a bar full of hipsters turns out to be a very good thing. It wasn't really a debate, more of a showcase of the top two candidates, Jane Pitfield and David Miller. They each had 25 minutes of questions from a panel of three people, and were never on the stage at the same time, thus avoiding any fighting and allowing them to give some real answers to some great questions. I wasn't as put off by Jane Pitfield as I expected to be, and I was even more impressed by David Miller than I thought. The crowd was very slanted towards David Miller though, so where Jane Pitfield got booed when she started dodging questions or saying things the crowd found suspect, this didn't happen to David Miller due to the crowd's bias for him. It was a great event (totally packed!).
Points that I liked:
- Jane Pitfield has expanded the tree canopy in her riding by initiating a program where every household without a tree in their yard receives an opt-out form for the tree program. If they don't opt out, then a tree is planted in their front yard. This is such a great way to capitalize on laziness. If it were an opt-in program, I'm sure it wouldn't be half as successful.
- David Miller will not place tolls on the Gardiner or QEW highways, citing two main reasons: 1) The reason this works so spectacularly well in London is that they have a superior bus and subway system, which people can choose to take instead of their cars. We do not have such a system, so this would be penalizing people without a choice to take public transit, rather than inspiring people who
do have a choice. 2) The way this question was posed presupposes that Miller has failed to raise other income for the TTC. It's true that the levels of provincial and federal funding for the TTC are vastly below what they were years ago (pre-Harris government), but they are much higher than before Miller stepped into office, so progress is being made, and so he doesn't feel the need to resort to tolls just yet.
Point I Disliked:
- Jane Pitfield wants to focus homeless funding on making temporary housing, ostentatiously so that people don't STAY homeless, and are transitioned into a better life. Great theory, but it ends up giving us a system that kicks needy people out of their subsidized housing before they're ready, because we only have funding for
temporary housing. People aren't staying low-income just because we're housing them. There are a few more factors to it than that, and we need a strategy that takes them into consideration and works on alleviating those problems.
Take-Home Impressions:
- Pitfield says she loves Toronto but then talks at length about how people are scared to live here (umm... I'm certainly not!) and how crime is so bad (even though it's gone DOWN and was low to start with), and doesn't tell us
why she loves Toronto. Of course there are problems to fix. But tell us why you're crazy about this city, what gets you excited about living here?
- Miller, on the other hand, speaks passionately about what makes Toronto a great place. He acknowledges that we can improve on all of these things — parks, diversity, opportunity — but revels in the fact that these things are characteristic of this place. That's why I'm voting for him, because not only has he done a lot in the last few years to work on improving this city, but he sees our strengths and speaks proudly about them. Pitfield's running on dissatisfaction, where Miller's running on pride and vision, and for me, vision wins hands down.