Toronto Council meets today! Yes, there’s an election on, but this is important too. The deputy mayor has named a TransformTO net zero plan item as first order of business. Following that? Strap in. It’s time to debate multiplexes Streaming live here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAa2qoPCmJo
For a complete rundown of the agenda, including both key items AND some photos of a former councillor’s backyard chickens, I’ve brought you this week’s issue of City Hall Watcher. https://toronto.cityhallwatcher.com/p/chw226
New to the agenda: This answer from the City Manager on the MLSE/World Cup collab, indicating that the signed “letter of intent” (LOI) is a) binding; and b) “The specifics of the LOI were not made known to the Mayor, City Councillors or City Council” https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ia/bgrd/backgroundfile-236410.pdf (PDF)
Council starts with Deputy Mayor paying tribute to retiring Deputy City Manager Tracey Cook. A former cop, Cook has been controversial after overseeing encampment clearings. She’s popular with Council, though — two rounds of applause already, and the speech has barely started.
McKelvie jokes that these plaques given out in honour of retirements like Cook’s and other special occasions are “special limited edition” because they’re signed by her, the deputy mayor. There’ll be a new person signing ‘em after June 26.
City Manager announces that Tracey Cook will receive this year’s “pinnacle award.” It’s the city’s “most coveted and prestigious accolade” and “honours a leader who has not only contributed to success at the city, but to public service as a whole.” She gets a sculpture too.
Prolonged standing ovation from councillors and staff in attendance after Cook’s farewell speech.
Councillor Paula Fletcher’s Administrative Inquiry re: the MLSE/World Cup deal is RECEIVED by Council — they could have referred it to committee but decided not to. The signed letter is now attached to the item, if you’re curious. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.IA6.1
Council votes 20-3 to APPROVE installation of a pedestrian crossover at 400 Rockcliffe Boulevard in Councillor Nunziata’s Ward 5. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EY4.9
Councillor Perruzza — who is fired-up about the issue — times the debate on whether High Park should be car-free for first-thing tomorrow morning. Councillor Thompson times the Gardiner item for immediately after that, and the Scarborough transit item for after lunch tomorrow.
Given the length of the agenda, McKelvie moves to extend meeting tonight until 8 p.m. They’d normally wrap at 6 p.m. Perruzza protests, saying there’s a mayoral debate tonight. Vote to extend the meeting til 8 p.m. CARRIES 17-6, with all three mayoral candidates opposed.
After some housekeeping, the agenda is set. First main event item is the TransformTO net zero plan. The good news: the city beat its target for emission reductions for 2020. The bad news: that was almost certainly mostly because of COVID. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.IE3.3
Here’s a look at how COVID changed emissions in Toronto in 2020, with that whole pandemic thing. https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/environmentally-friendly-city-initiatives/transformto/torontos-greenhouse-gas-inventory/
On an item attached to TransformTO, Councillor Gord Perks moves to have the city manager conduct an annual review of how Toronto Hydro is helping — or not helping — the City reach its net zero emission targets. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EX4.2
Councillor Lily Cheng moves to have Toronto Hydro work with the City on a “TransformTO reporting dashboard” so we can keep tabs on how emission reduction is going.
Councillor Colle warns Council about TransformTO moves to try to get people off of natural gas for heating and other household uses. “If you get off natural gas, you’re gonna just go to nuclear!”
Councillor Stephen Holyday has a TransformTO motion. He wants to delete a recommendation that staff look at ways to “discourage the installation” of natural gas, and instead just look at ways to reduce the reliance on gas.
Councillor Holyday’s motion to delete the committee recommendation on TransformTO to find ways to “discourage the installation” of new natural gas hook-ups (and instead just look at ways to reduce reliance on natural gas) FAILS 9-16.
The TransformTO recommendation to look at ways to discourage the installation of natural gas CARRIES 20-5.
Councillor Perks’ motion to have the City Manager review and report annually on how Toronto Hydro is helping — or not helping — the City reach its TransformTO targets CARRIES 24-1.
Cheng’s motion carries via a show of hands. And that’ll do it for the TransformTO item.
Up next: multiplexes. But first: lunch. Council, and this thread, will return at 2 p.m.
Council is back and beginning their debate on whether to permit multiplexes of up to four units in areas zoned for residential, city-wide. Long time coming. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.PH3.16
Councillor Josh Matlow asks about the tree removal and replacement policy for people who want to convert a single-family home into a multiplex. Staff say the replacement ratio is 3:1 — for every health tree removed, three have to be planted.
An emerging theme in questions to staff on multiplexes is councillors wondering if there’s a way to ensure multiplexes lead to affordable housing. Chief Planner says this isn’t a “Capital A affordable housing” initiative and is primarily market-based, designed to add more homes.
One thing to keep an eye on as this debate continues is which councillors represent wards with growing populations, and which represent wards with stagnant or shrinking populations.
Another thing to keep an eye on: councillors saying the city doesn’t have the infrastructure or services to accommodate the population growth that would come with multiplexes, as if it’s someone else’s job to build that infrastructure and provide those services.
On questioning from Councillor Burnside, Chief Planner says the prov government is mandating allowing triplexes (three units) on all lots. Burnside asks why the City is recommending more than that. Lintern says the City’s policy creates more housing, as 4 > 3. Math checks out.
Burnside broaches idea of delaying the multiplex approval until after the mayoral election. “It’s two months. Would two months make a huge difference?” Lintern says any amount of time is important when it comes to building housing.
The buzz before this meeting was there would be efforts from some councillors to reduce the number of multiplex units permitted from four to three, and/or delay the whole thing until after the election. Burnside’s questions suggests those motions are coming.
I feel like the planning profession got pretty lazy with their naming scheme after duplexes and triplexes. Why “fourplex” and not “quadplex”? Then quintplex, and, uh, sexplex? Okay, maybe I figured out why.
Still on questions, Councillor Paul Ainslie asks if the planning department looked at imposing parking requirements for multiplexes. Chief Planner Gregg Lintern says council voted to eliminate all parking minimums last year.
Holyday: “Does all of this make detached homes more or less expensive?” He wonders if builders seeing potential for 4 income streams might outbid single families. Lintern: “That might be one of the outcomes, but I’d say that means you’ve housed 4 families instead of one family.”
Perruzza wonders if there’s a “religious rule of real estate” where you “up the density and generally the value follows, right?” Lintern: “…and the density is put to good use, creating housing.”
“Why are we doing this if we have no regulation in place to ensure it’s affordable housing?” asks Robinson. “Being more permissive about the amount of housing that can be built in the city over the long term inevitably will assist people in finding homes,” says Lintern.
Councillor Stephen Holyday is up first to speak. He has two motions. First refers (delays) the item until the fall. The second calls for the city to mail out a notice telling people they are considering allowing multiplexes.
Holyday says multiplexes will “overshadow and change the dynamic” of single-family homes neighbourhoods. “They are not happy with this particular policy.” He says this report “cancels” the “detached neighbourhood.”
Because Holyday moved a referral motion, the main debate stops and council enters a separate, mini-debate, only about the referral. Councillors have two minutes to speak on the referral (delay), if they’d like. Perks speaks first: “Members, just… don’t.”
“Deferring this because your conception of the world stops somewhere around ‘Leave it to Beaver’ is just not the right way to go forward. So vote ‘no’ on the deferral,” concludes Perks. Don’t think anyone had “Leave it to Beaver reference” on their Bingo card for this debate.
“This is the future of a green, inclusive, walkable, transit-oriented city that treats everyone fairly and creates the possibility that maybe my children will come back from Montreal,” says Councillor Bravo, noting her kids have left Toronto because it’s so darn expensive.
Councillor Perruzza says he supports deferring the multiplex item. He wants the city to hold more consultations on multiplexes, calling it a “downtown housing option” that is being imposed on the suburbs.
Perruzza’s motion to add more consultations as part of the deferral process FAILS 11-13.
That’s the deferral motion dealt with. Council will now return to the main debate about the item.
Crawford says he’s opposed to this item — his residents aren’t against intensification but are concerned about the “speed of it” and lack of infrastructure. Crawford, it must be noted, has been budget chief for nearly a decade, overseeing the capital plan for infrastructure.
“This is your typical downtown-kinda infill-housing-way-to-go-let’s-go-fast kind of approach,” declares Perruzza about allowing multiplexes. “You don’t even want to hear from the suburbs. You don’t even want to take a pause.”
Councillor Dianne Saxe has a motion asking for the city to track the number of trees removed as part of people building multiplexes, with a report back on ways to protect more trees.
Councillor Mike Colle has a motion. He wants: - To “prioritize” multiplexes in areas where there is limited intensification. - a report on “restricting multiplexes to main arterial and collector roads” - a report on incentives to make one of four units affordable.
The Council live stream is having trouble, but Council soldiers on. Councillor Lily Cheng moves a pair of motions: she wants the city to report back as soon as the 200th permit for a multiplex is issued, and also for TDSB/TCDSB to “review impacts related to school capacity.”
Council takes a break, hopefully and presumably to address these technical issues with the stream. Talk amongst yourselves. https://x.com/TorontoCouncil/status/1656406981849018372
Ace reporter in the chamber tells us that council is taking a break until 6 to deal with the tech issue and also eat some dinner. More speakers on multiplexes to come, then votes, then sleep. https://x.com/alysanmati/status/1656410572919918592
Council is back! And so is the live stream! Councillor Michael Thompson rises to say he’ll support the multiplex report. That’s a key vote for people hoping this will pass. (Which it almost certainly will at this point.)
“The horse has already left the barn,” says Thompson, noting that the province has already mandated triplexes so adding one more on top to make a quadplex shouldn’t really be seen as a huge deal.
Councillor Jamaal Myers, who took things a step further at committee and moved to look at allowing sixplexes in his ward, says one of the reasons he ran for Council was to secure this kind of zoning change.
Councillor Paula Fletcher moves to make sure the report back on multiplex permits also includes “the sale and rental price of the newly created units.”
As Councillor Brad Bradford gets up to speak on the multiplex study, someone yells, “less talk, more action!”
“Affordability means different things to different people. People need affordable options. And we don’t have enough options for people in the City of Toronto.” Bradford adds “there’s no one silver bullet to solve the housing crisis” and “we need 1,000 points of innovation.”
Councillor Mike Colle has revised his motion. It’s entirely a report request motion now.
Councillor Stephen Holyday’s motion to send out a City-wide mailout warning people that Council is allowing multiplexes and the doom that might befall us as a result FAILS 7-18.
Councillor Mike Colle’s motion to report on ways to get multiplex development in areas with low levels of development activity CARRIES 16-9.
Councillor Colle’s motion to report on “the provision of multiplex development on main arterial and collector roads” — whatever that means — CARRIES 18-7.
Oops, they’re redoing that one. On a revote, Councillor Colle’s motion for a report on provisioning multiplex development on main streets and arterials CARRIES 17-8.
Colle’s motion for a report on the potential for an incentive program to get owners to designate at least one of the units in their multiplexes as affordable housing CARRIES 22-3.
Toronto City Council votes 18-7 to APPROVE multiplexes of up to four units in areas zoned for residential, city-wide.
Cross another item off the list of reasons people offered for why Toronto needed strong mayor powers. Hell, council didn’t even need a mayor to get this done, much less a strong one.
All other motions to the multiplex item carried via show of hands, for the record, including Saxe’s motion for monitoring of the tree impacts and Cheng’s motion for the school boards to monitor impacts on their schools.
Council has now moved on to an item about the Housing Now program. There’s a problem with the Housing Now program, insofar as it is not resulting in any housing being built now. Construction has not started on any site. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.PH3.6
Staff have provided councillors with some confidential recommendations to kickstart the stalled Housing Now projects. Because the details are confidential, Council will probably need to get into private session to finish this item.
And Council indeed decides to go into private session to discuss Housing Now. They call it an “in camera” session but no cameras are allowed. I’ll never understand Latin. Anyway, they… could be back for more tonight. We’ll see.
Council comes back to public session, but the Housing Now item will have to wait. Nunziata wraps things up for the night. Tomorrow they’ll decide whether High Park should have cars in it, amongst other things. Council will return at 9:30 a.m. So will I.
A geographic look at today’s multiplex vote. Look, the “no” votes form two contiguous areas. https://x.com/KevinRupasinghe/status/1656472277364490240
Council is back for day two. After some housekeeping, the debate about whether High Park should have cars in it is set to begin. A debate about the Gardiner will follow. They’re going to be talking about cars a lot today. Streaming live here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGErXEI9FJc
Councillor Jennifer McKelvie moves to extend the meeting to 8 p.m. again tonight. No space-themed debates are on the schedule, so it’s not contentious this time.
The High Park debate begins. During COVID, the city started closing High Park to cars on weekends. Now some want to make the whole park car-free 24/7. Others want cars back 24/7. Staff have proposed compromise: some roads closed to cars & car free Sundays. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.IE3.7
Staff say a future with no cars is possible, but funding is required to design and build infrastructure and provide an accessible shuttle. Could maaaaaaaybe happen by 2027, if you’re a big optimist.
At committee, Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie moved to tweak the staff recommendation to continue going car-free in High Park all weekend long (not just on Sunday) and on holidays.
Councillor Lily Cheng asks staff about the loss of High Park parking due to this strategy. Staff say the number of spaces in the park will drop from 562 to 227. Cheng asks if they’ve considered adding more parking. Staff say no, because they want to protect green space.
Councillor Stephen Holyday displays a photo of the current High Park shuttle, which is a “trackless train” ride thing. “People are just supposed to wait for this choo-choo train?” he asks. Staff say the accessible shuttle they’re planning will be different from the train.
Perks, the local rep, is first speaker. He points out the plan keeps 200+ parking spots, that TTC runs bus service through the park in the summer, Wheel Trans access is maintained, and that disability advocates generally support removing cars, because cars are dangerous.
Councillor Perruzza, who put out a campaign announcement this morning supporting car access to the park, asks Perks if this strategy “kills Little League.” Perks points out the league has its opening day soon (on a Saturday), even with cars not allowed on weekends.
Some suburban reps seem to be working under assumption most people drive to High Park, but with only 562 parking spots, even if every car carried 4 people, that’s capacity for just 2,248 people. Even factoring in some street parking, usage is obviously WAY higher than that.
Correction on the date of High Park Little League Opening Day. Not having to worry about kids getting hit by cars does seem like an overall enhancement. https://x.com/Awn1980/status/1656673099033739266
Councillor Jon Burnside asks Perks about additional enforcement to crack down on speeding cyclists in High Park. Perks says the strategy includes separated bike infrastructure, and dedicated morning hours for “sport cyclists.” Perks prefers those strategies to more enforcement.
Councillor Holyday is up now. “Absolute rubbish! That’s what I’ve heard today!” He doesn’t like the plan. He says this is the work of the “anti-car lobby” and the “spandex crowd” and “activists who want to create a change for the sake of a change.”
Holyday dismisses the idea there have been conflicts between cars and pedestrians/cyclists in High Park. “I don’t know, build some sidewalks. Take the $15 million and built that if that’s what’s required.”
Holyday says this is about ideology, and people who want to “build a virtual wall for anyone that has a car and needs to use their car to move their gear into the park and their family — their multi-generational family — into the park.”
Holyday concludes by warning Council to keep their hands off Centennial Park in his ward. He does not want to see something similar happen to Centennial.
Councillor James Pasternak is also opposed to restricting car access to High Park. He says directing people to a shuttle service is “de facto charging for access to the park.” Council could just… make the shuttle free.
Councillor Shelley Carroll takes aim at the notion there could be room to add another big parking lot near the park. “If there is real estate near High Park for a 500-car parking lot, maybe that’s another place we could put some modular supportive housing,” she points out.
Councillor Jaye Robinson also opposes the plan to restrict cars in High Park. She says restricting cars cuts people off from the park and smacks of a “Not In My Backyard” approach which, uh, make your own joke here.
Saxe notes she took her grandchild to High Park and she couldn’t just let him go play because there were cars in the park. She says getting cars out creates freedom to play. She adds one park can’t serve 3 million people and council needs to add more green spaces & rec facilities
Councillor Anthony Perruzza moves to keep all roads in High Park open to cars seven days a week.
Perruzza says he has learned that this High park debate is about “Hate for cars! It’s ideological!” He says he’s an avid cyclist who loves “slipping into his spandex, feeling tight all over.” He describes his fav bike at length. But he says he is NOT a “spandex bandit.” Okay.
Councillor Paula Fletcher moves for staff to look at including shuttle services for other parks in the upcoming RFP process for the new High Park shuttle.
Councillor Lily Cheng says this is a tough issue. She says she runs a group called “North York Moms” and did a poll this morning where 71% of moms were opposed to restricting car access to High Park. She’s still “wrestling” with the issue and isn’t sure how she’ll vote.
Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie is the last speaker. She thanks Perks. She notes that she has Rogue Park in her ward, which is very popular but also simply can’t accommodate everyone driving to it. She’ll support the recommendations. She looks forward to taking the bus to the park
“Rouge Park”, not “Rogue Park” of course. Though that would be a cool name for a park.
Councillor Gord Perks’ motion to approve full closure to cars of High Park as the long-term strategy, and to keep High Park closed to cars on weekends/holidays CARRIES 18-7.
Councillor Fletcher’s motion to consider adding shuttle services for other parks to the upcoming RFP re: the High Park shuttle CARRIES 21-4.
High Park Movement Strategy as amended CARRIES 18-7. Staff will work to make High park car-free as the long-term strategy. Park will remain closed to cars on weekends/holidays in interim — open other times.
Up now: the Gardiner. Matlow wants staff to pause entering into new contracts for the Gardiner East project until more analysis can be done. Given 2 major mayoral candidates — Matlow and Chow — want to change the plan, there’s a good case for it. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.DM6.4
Councillor Jon Burnside, questioning staff, tries to paint picture of a surface boulevard replacing the Gardiner East as creating a dangerous situation for pedestrians and cyclists, as if the Lake Shore status quo isn’t already very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
On questioning from Councillor Myers, staff say about 4% of cars use the Gardiner and the highway rehab project is taking 34% of the Transportation Services capital budget over next decade.
City Solicitor Wendy Walberg confirms that contracts specific to the Gardiner East have not yet been issued, so the City wouldn’t be risking exposure if they held off on signing contracts to conduct more analysis.
Before they can get to speaking and voting, Council breaks for lunch. Back at 2 p.m. Post-lunch sched: 1) introduction of members’ motions, 2) rest of Gardiner debate, 3) Scarborough busway debate.
Council is back — a little late, as always. They’re about to run through 43 “member motions.” These generally need a two-thirds vote (unless deemed urgent by Nunziata) to get added to the agenda. They can then either be adopted immediately or held for debate.
But first, a quick vote on holiday shopping. Carroll’s motion to NOT immediately designate Yorkdale, STC and St. Lawrence Market area as tourist areas exempt from holiday shopping rules and instead report back on criteria for exemptions CARRIES 25-0. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EC3.17
Council votes 21-4 to authorize the relocation of a Bingo hall. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.5
Council votes 24-1 to APPROVE Councillor Mike Colle’s motion to report back on the possibility of building a statue honouring Gordon Lightfoot. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.9
Councillor James Pasternak’s motion to request the provincial government deem councillors ineligible for jury duty CARRIES 15-10. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.12
Councillor Paula Fletcher’s motion that council “oppose any new power generation proposal involving increased burning of fossil fuels, including natural gas, in our City” gets added to the agenda and held for debate (by Holyday). They’ll come back to it. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.13
Councillor Paula Fletcher’s motion to evaluate the Unilever soap factory building for heritage protection CARRIES via a show of hands. Current East Harbour plans call for it to get demolished. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.14
Councillor Malik’s motion to “recognize over eight decades of queer history, community, and the importance of placekeeping at Hanlan’s Point Beach” and for the Parks division to engage with advocacy groups about the queer history of Hanlan’s CARRIES 25-0. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.22
Councillor James Pasternak’s motion to proclaim Nov 17 as Gordon Lightfoot Day CARRIES 24-1. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.25
Councillor Jamaal Myers’ motion to report on ways to diversify appointees to the TTC board, and also to look at whether city could look at Presto card data to see how often board members are using transit gets referred to Executive Committee. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.33
Councillor Matlow’s motion to use Section 37 money to rebuild the community garden that was destroyed by TCHC CARRIES 24-1. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.35
Matlow’s motion to request the Ombudsman investigate the TCHC’s destruction of the community garden CARRIES via a show of hands. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.36
And that’s it for member motions. There are now 38 items left on the agenda. Time to go back to the Gardiner. Council has been debating this expressway for so long that it feels like there’s a constant Gardiner debate. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.DM6.4
On questioning from Councillor Bradford, staff say there’s limited opportunity to build an at-grade boulevard replacing the Gardiner East (about 240 metres) unless the section that’s already been rebuilt between Jarvis and Cherry gets knocked down. That project cost $340 million.
Councillor Paula Fletcher asks if it’s “not impossible” to stop the Gardiner East Project, conduct a new EA and replace the Gardiner with a boulevard. “It’s not impossible,” confirms Transportation GM Barbara Gray.
Councillor Josh Matlow rises and asks staff to correct the record about the Gardiner East usage. Earlier staff had indicated it wasn’t the lowest-use section of the expressway. They correct that now, confirming it is in fact the least-used section.
Councillor Matlow is the first speaker on the Gardiner East item. He calls the decision to rebuild the expressway “1950s planning.” He says he sees this as an opportunity to build 8,000 new homes on freed-up land and save hundreds of millions of dollars.
“Even if you want to move ahead with the elevated version — which I think is so fundamentally wrong — would you not want to have the current data, the current information?” Matlow asks. He says cost estimates presented in a memo from Deputy Mayor McKelvie were way out of date.
On the notion of sunk costs related to the Gardiner rebuild, Matlow says, “I don’t think a smart idea is to keep making the same mistake over and over again. If you’ve lost money on a bad investment, you don’t keep throwing money at it.”
Matlow says there’s no harm in waiting to sign more contracts because construction on this section isn’t set to begin until 2026. Councillor Morley backs Matlow, saying it’s important to get up-to-date info on the Gardiner project. A lot of figures are based on 2013 dollars.
Councillor Chris Moise moves to request the provincial government upload the cost of rebuilding and maintaining the Gardiner and DVP.
Matlow asks if Moise has any optimism that the Ford gov would take on the Gardiner/DVP costs, given they’ve rejected this idea already. “Times continue to change and evolve,” notes Moise. He hopes they’ll reconsider. He agrees with Matlow that the motion is “aspirational.”
Holyday says he fears “damage is done” regardless of outcome of this vote, saying businesses who might invest in T.O. are watching and probably laughing after hearing council might flip-flop on the Gardiner (They’re probably not watching. This YouTube stream only has 280 viewers)
Holyday says the Gardiner is one of the “last remaining opportunities” to get into downtown efficiently. He says people in Etobicoke are now reluctant to “cross the Humber River” given congestion — his constituents are no longer going to sports games and are just watching at home
Councillor Burnside again says replacing the Gardiner with an at-grade boulevard will just create a dangerous situation for pedestrians and cyclists. I await his enthusiastic support for a plan to remove lanes on Lake Shore and make it a safer cycling/pedestrian route.
Councillor Alejandra Bravo has a motion. She wants a report to the June 28 meeting of the Infrastructure & Environment Committee on future maintenance costs related to the elevated Gardiner.
“This is not a decision that 20 years from now we’re going to be proud of, like, ‘yeah, I’m so glad we rebuilt the Gardiner,” notes Councillor Jamaal Myers. But regardless, “We should at least have the courage to know what this actually costs.”
Nunziata suggests Morley isn’t representing her constituents with her support of the Matlow motion, saying most Etobicoke residents want to be able to drive on the Gardiner. Morley rises to say she ran on responsible management of resources, and that’s what she’s advocating for.
Morley isn’t happy with Nunziata’s comments about her not representing her constituents. Deputy Speaker Stephen Holyday rules Morley doesn’t have a valid point of privilege. Morley challenges the ruling. Vote to uphold ruling FAILS, 11-14.
Councillor Paula Fletcher moves for a report to the June 28 infrastructure committee meeting on updated costs of hybrid versus boulevard options, plus any impacts of delaying project timing on Waterfront LRT.
Councillor James Pasternak says the original council decision to keep the Gardiner East was made in the context of needing to keep the DVP and Gardiner connected to allow for the collection of road tolls. That… does not ring true for me.
Council’s decision to adopt the hybrid Gardiner East design was made in June 2015. John Tory didn’t publicly propose highway tolls until November 2016.
Councillor Brad Bradford calls this “more talk, less action” and says it represents the worst of City Hall. He urges Council to vote down all the motions, saying we don’t need more deferrals and delays. He calls this “an ideological proxy war for hyper-partisan politicians.”
“Let’s move on it with it!” says Councillor Robinson, echoing the comments of a bunch of councillors. But thing is that the Gardiner East project is nowhere close to finished and there’s almost definitely news of major cost escalation coming. Might as well find out about it now.
Councillor Paula Fletcher’s motion to report to the June 28 Infrastructure Committee meeting on updated costs of hybrid versus boulevard Gardiner East FAILS 7-18.
Councillor Chris Moise’s motion to request Doug Ford upload the Gardiner and DVP CARRIES 21-4. (Robinson says she voted incorrectly, but isn’t requesting a redo.)
Councillor Bravo’s motion to report to the June 28 infrastructure committee meeting on future maintenance costs of the Gardiner and to confirm estimates of maintenance costs of hybrid versus boulevard FAILS 9-16.
Councillor Fletcher’s motion for a report to the June 28 infrastructure committee meeting on impacts to the Waterfront East LRT if Gardiner East plans are changed FAILS 8-17.
Council votes 10-15 to REJECT Josh Matlow’s motion to pause entering into new contracts related to the Gardiner East project until more analysis and cost estimates are produced.
Up now: Scarborough transit. Riders were told when the SRT shuts down this fall, there’d be a dedicated busway coming to offer better service while the subway gets built. But lack of funds means staff are now suggesting an on-street alternative. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EX4.10
On questioning from Councillor Michael Thompson, staff say they’re committed to finding the $2.9 million needed to complete design work of the busway, but there’s still about $55 million in construction funds they’ll need to try to get from the province or elsewhere.
Councillor Jamaal Myers asks if a recommendation added to this item in committee requesting the province provide $2.9 million to complete the busway design work is still relevant or necessary. Staff say no. The TTC has found the cash now.
Councillor Lily Cheng asks TTC CEO Rick Leary if the TTC ever looked at updating the SRT to prolong its life. Leary says yes, and it’d cost about $500 million to keep it running until 2030.
TTC CEO says the SRT “shuts itself down automatically in the hot weather, when it snows, when it rains.” Not ideal for a transit line. He says the TTC now shuts it down in advance of inclement weather because it’s so unreliable.
Councillor Michael Thompson has a motion requesting the TTC proceed with busway design work and to report back on costs in Q4. Also amends the request to the province for $2.9 million so it’s now a request for reimbursement.
Councillor Anthony Perruzza has a motion to proceed with construction of the busway while a funding source is investigated.
“I am going to have to rule your motion out of order and the reason is: because we don’t have the money,” Nunziata tells Perruzza. “My motion is NOT out of order,” Perruzza. This whole damn chamber is out of order.
Councillor Thompson’s motion to request the province reimburse the $2.9 million being spent on Scarborough busway design work CARRIES 22-0.
Perruzza is still frustrated and yelling. “You think you’re screwing ME? You’re screwing SCARBOROUGH,” he says. Nunziata asks security to remove Perruzza.
The security guards start walking toward Perruzza but then Nunziata decides to call the dinner break. Okay then. That was an interesting burst of action. Back at 6:35 p.m.
Council is back. Will the ~drama~ return with it? TBD. Wrapping up the Scarborough subway motion, Councillor Thompson’s motion to proceed with design work on the busway and report back on costs in Q4 CARRIES 16-0.
Scarborough transit item as amended CARRIES 18-0. Having miraculously found $2.9 million, the TTC will proceed with design work for the dedicated busway. Full construction funding still a problem to be solved later.
Back, finally, to the Housing Now item. Remember that? It’s the city’s housing program that has yet to build any housing. Council had a private session to discuss the confidential parts of the report last night. There’ll be some speeches and then a vote. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.PH3.6
Councillor Mike Colle speaks about changes to development charges threatening the future of the Housing Now program. He’s not a fan. It’s kind of fun that he now exclusively refers to Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark as “the former mayor of Brockville.”
Councillor Anthony Perruzza was apparently allowed back into the chamber. Also, he’s got a motion. He moves to stop the Housing Now program and instead “develop alternate housing programs”
Deputy Mayor McKelvie moves to send the former mayor of Brockville a list of the unfunded Housing Now sites that won’t be built if Toronto isn’t fully reimbursed for the impacts of the development charges changes in Bill 23.
Perruzza’s motion to end the Housing Now program and look at alternatives FAILS 2-20.
McKelvie’s motion to forward a list of Housing Now sites at risk from Bill 23 changes to the provincial gov CARRIES 21-1.
That’s it for Housing Now. Up next is a deferred item from last meeting, with Councillor Paula Fletcher requesting a report on lowering TTC fare evasion fines so that they’re more in line with the fines for parking violations. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.DM6.2
On questioning from Holyday, the TTC’s Angela Gibson says fare inspectors currently aren’t able to see payment history — they only see whether someone has tapped for current trip and not, for example, where someone has paid every day for years and just made an honest mistake.
It is a bit odd that not paying a fare is called “fare evasion” while not paying for parking isn’t calling “payment evasion” or whatever.
It’s notable that GO recently lowered their fine amount for not paying a fare to $35 (on first offence). Typical TTC ticket for same thing still runs around $235, staff say. https://www.gotransit.com/en/dealing-with-a-fine
In further questioning, TTC says current practice (since fare inspection resumed) is to generally ask people who haven’t paid to tap. Gibson mentioned that this is actually more beneficial to TTC, as they don’t collect the fine revenue, but do get the revenue from the tap. Weird!
TTC’s Angela Gibson says the TTC has targeted fare enforcement in the downtown area because they know a lot of “professionals” aren’t paying, and have the means to pay.
TTC says since the resumption of fare inspection ticketing in March the TTC has only issued just 110 tickets, as the process has been to simply encourage people who haven’t paid to tap their Presto card, instead of immediately issuing a ticket.
Gibson says the TTC has recorded a late of fare evasion in the financial district. She agrees with Councillor Mike Colle that the people getting caught for not paying are often “people in suits” and the assumption that it’s low-income people getting tickets isn’t really true.
Deputy Mayor McKelvie says she doesn’t think this item is particularly controversial — it makes sense to look at fine amounts for both non-payment of fares and parking. She moves for the report to come back in July.
McKelvie moves to extend the meeting to complete this item. Nunziata isn’t so sure about that, given the list of councillors in line to speak. She tries to get councillors to remove their names, but no dice. Motion to extend CARRIES 17-6.
Councillor Paula Fletcher moves to call the question, skipping the rest of the speakers and proceeding directly to the vote. That FAILS 15-8. It needed two-thirds to pass.
Nunziata does not like this. She quickly declares a recess for the night, because the speakers’ list is too long to get through in reasonable time. There’s some question about whether she’s allowed to do that. Procedural confusion!
Nunziata says she’s only declared a short recess for 10 minutes, adding that if councillors leave and they lose quorum then, well, that’s just the way it goes. This is, um, atypical.
Some councillors appear to be ready to leave, but are hanging back to see what happens. Feels like a good time to remind you this is the elected government of the largest city in Canada.
Okay, well, they’re back. Councillor Stephen Holyday speaks, saying that by even having this debate council is “creating a narrative or an expectation that it’s okay not to pay” TTC fares. He says the fine has to be set at a high enough level to be a deterrent.
Councillor Lily Cheng says the difference between fare evasion and getting a parking ticket is a question of intent. People choose not to pay their fares, but with parking tickets maybe they just ran out of time on the meter.
Time to vote. Deputy Mayor McKelvie’s motion to report back on TTC fare evasion fines versus parking fines at the July council meeting CARRIES 14-4.
Council votes 15-3 to “express its support for the principle of fairness in fines related to City services.” Not sure why anyone would vote against this.
Council votes 10-8 to request the TTC CEO consider taking steps to reduce fare evasion ticket fines to a rate more in-line with parking tickets
Council votes 13-4 to confirm their request for a report on TTC fare fines versus parking fines at the July council meeting.
And that’s all for tonight. There are 32 items left on the agenda and presumably many councillors will want to get home early tomorrow so they have time to play the new Zelda game. We’ll see how it goes. Dawn of the final day, tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
Day three. Council is back. We start with Councillor Morley wishing Councillor Lily Cheng a happy birthday. Cheng gives a shout-out to all the moms. Nunziata reminds us there’s a hockey game tonight. All this total non-stop action, streaming live here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmJjPlpxgp4
First vote: backyard chickens! Staff are recommending Council end the pilot project permitting people to keep hens, citing concerns about avian flu. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EC3.4
Councillor Lily Cheng’s motion to report back in Q2 2025 with an update and potential recommendations to resume the backyard chicken program once Avian flu is no longer a risk CARRIES 13-5.
That’s the only action Council opts to take on backyard chickens. The pilot project is over. People with birds will be allowed to keep them until they pass on to the great coop in the sky, then no more chickens.
We learn that Councillor Paula Fletcher voted incorrectly on the Housing Now item yesterday, specifically Perruzza’s motion to end the program. On a re-vote, motion to end the Housing Now program FAILS 2-16.
Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie moves to extend the lunch break, so it’ll last from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. There’s an event during that time to unveil a memorial sculpture for the late councillor Pam McConnell.
Up now: a motion requesting the federal gov extend the repayment period for emergency business loans granted during COVID, and forgive $20K of the loan amounts. Long list of businesses have written in support. Holyday says he’ll oppose. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.1
Holyday worries that businesses who didn’t get loans during COVID will see it as unfair if other businesses get loan relief. Fletcher argues that COVID isn’t over for many small biz, and current requirement to repay loan by Dec ’23 could mean some businesses close.
Councillor Fletcher’s motion that the federal government offer loan relief to businesses for emergency loans received during COVID CARRIES 17-1.
Up now: A Fletcher motion that Council “oppose any new power generation proposal involving increased burning of fossil fuels, including natural gas, in our City.” Councillor Holyday rises to say he will not support this. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.13
Fletcher’s motion that Council oppose any new power generation proposal for Toronto that uses fossil fuels CARRIES 16-3.
Fletcher’s motion that council request the province invest in programs that encourage alternatives to fossil fuels CARRIES 19-1.
Up now: Councillor Dianne Saxe wants the City to report on the possibility of requiring couriers using e-bikes and e-scooters to have a license plate. She says there’s a big problem in her ward with couriers feeling entitled to rise on the sidewalk. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.DM6.3
Saxe’s original motion called for the police to crack down on couriers using e-bikes and e-scooters. She’s now moved to strike that, and instead request a report on enforcement options.
Councillor Mantas says in his ward there’s also a problem with non-ebikes using the sidewalk. He asks if Saxe would be okay with also looking at license plates for regular bikes. Saxe says she’s focused on e-bikes/scooters, but Mantas could move a separate motion if he likes.
It was inevitable that some councillors would see this motion as an opportunity to push for broader bike licensing. And here we are: the inevitable has arrived.
Councillor Bravo says she can’t support the Saxe motion. She worries about enforcement efforts targeted against a class of workers that have very few employment protections and are low paid. “Why would we target a particular group of workers?”
Councillor Stephen Holyday offers his compliments to Saxe for bringing this motion. He says he was almost hit by a bike courier on University Ave this morning. He thinks adding a “unique identifier” like a license plate creates a layer of accountability.
Councillor Saxe’s motion for a report on requiring couriers using e-bikes/e-scooters to “bear a unique identifier” like a license plate and also on an enforcement strategy CARRIES 12-8.
Up now: drinking in parks! Councillor Matlow moves to request a report to the July meeting of Council on considering allowing booze in parks between 11 a.m. and 9 p.m.
Matlow doesn’t think a report is necessary, but acknowledges that’s the way things tend to happen at city hall. He doesn’t want a limited pilot where there are “wet wards” and “dry wards” though — just wants to go for it.
Holyday asks Matlow if he thinks allowing alcohol in parks will lead to more littering. Matlow says he thinks people who litter will litter regardless. “Do we have the money to do this?” Holyday asks. Matlow says city needs more money generally to improve standards in parks.
Carroll asks Matlow if his motion fails, and Council instead opts for a limited pilot approach, will Matlow volunteer to have parks in his ward participate in the drinking-in-parks pilot? Matlow says he doesn’t like the idea of ward-specific pilots, but says yes.
Councillor Jaye Robinson asks Matlow if he thinks allowing drinking in parks will lead to an increase in impaired driving. Matlow says no, pointing out that the CafeTO program also allows people to drink in public spaces and he doesn’t think it’s led to an increase in DUIs.
Robinson wonders if people will drive to the park with picnic baskets and alcohol and then drive home. “Most people don’t take their kids and their toys and go to a park and get drunk and then drive off,” says Matlow.
Councillor Shelley Carroll moves an alternative motion, where Council gets a report in July on allowing a pilot project for alcohol in parks in 2024 — next summer.
Carroll says she likes Vancouver’s approach to drinking in parks, where it was done as a pilot in a limited number of parks and then gradually expanded.
Councillor Bravo asks Carroll if she’d be opting any parks in her ward into the drinking-in-parks pilot. Carroll says yes. There’s a park in her ward she thinks could be a good fit.
Councillor Crisanti asks Carroll if she’d be okay with including additional enforcement efforts in the report about drinking in parks. Carroll says absolutely, and that she knows staff will be commenting about enforcement as part of reporting back on this.
Saxe asks Carroll about a scenario where only a few wards opt-in into the pilot, and the few parks that allow drinking become magnets, drawing crowds from all over the city. Carroll says she thinks it’ll be more than just a few parks opting in — she says more than four, at least.
Dates in Carroll’s motion have been revised again — now it doesn’t read 2024, but rather a drinking-in-parks pilot that would run from August 5, 2023 to October 9, 2023, assuming Council endorses the report in July.
Fletcher asks Carroll if she’d be okay with an amendment to her motion stipulating that the drinking-in-parks pilot be city-wide, rather than opt-in/out-out by ward. Carroll says no, though Fletcher could move a separate motion asking for the report to look at that as an option.
“Alcohol is a drug,” notes Holyday, saying it has been “traditionally consumed in private settings.” He argues this will lead to a slippery slope, where council starts with parks, then moves to allow drinking in parkettes, on benches, and on streetcars.
Holyday warns that allowing drinking in parks is an “opportunity for government to expand even larger” because the city will need to hire more people to collect cans and bottles, add park washrooms, etc.
Robinson says she’s uneasy about drinking in parks, but Carroll’s motion is making her feel more comfortable. But Robinson says the comparison to CafeTO isn’t right, because servers are trained to keep an eye on how much customers are drinking.
Councillor Nunziata, who is now wearing a Leafs jersey, says she doesn’t like the idea of drinking in parks, arguing that her ward already has problems with people having parties and drinking in parks.
Councillor Perks is disappointed that “we end up debating this based on personal political ambitions.” He says this drinking-in-parks debate shouldn’t be about who’s running for mayor or wants a headline. He thinks this should have been done as part of a harm reduction strategy.
“The only way out of this mess we’re in is to support Councillor Matlow’s motion,” says Perks, saying it makes sense to get a report from staff that provides a comprehensive strategy for alcohol in parks. He’s not enthusiastic about any of this, but he’ll vote for it.
Councillor Ausma Malik moves to delete the part of Carroll’s motion calling for a pilot project, and instead moves for the report to just consider allowing drinking in parks this summer, starting in August.
Council stands down the debate on park booze for now. Before the lunch break, Council votes 21-0 to request the province require at least 20% affordable housing in new transit-oriented community at Gerrard & Carlaw being built by Choice REIT (Loblaws). https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.TE4.37
And that’s lunch. Back at 2:30 p.m. to finish the drinking-in-parks debate. There are 13 lucky items left on the agenda.
Council returns. Before they get back to the drinking-in-parks item, Councillor Jaye Robinson’s motion calling for a report on recent DUI stats and a public education campaign against drinking and driving carries via show of hands. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.7
They’re also going to have a quick vote on warming centres, apparently, with no debate. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EC3.13
Councillor Josh Matlow moves for a report in September on “a strategy to fund the opening of additional Warming Centres prior to the 2024 budget.”
Matlow’s motion for a report in September on a strategy to fund more warming centres CARRIES 22-3.
Motion to declare a homelessness emergency in Toronto and prioritize the opening of more 24/7 respite centres CARRIES 24-1.
The remainder of the warming centre item carries via a show of hands. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EC3.13
Councillor Chris Moise’s motion to review streetcar and RapidTO bus routes for opportunities to reduce delays — like banning left-turns at more intersections — CARRIES 23-2. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.17
Back on the wagon. The debate on allowing some drinking in parks continues. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.DM6.5
Councillor James Pasternak, reading some CAMH stats showing alcohol issues are more predominant among lower-income people, asks Malik if her motion “challenges that view.” Malik says she agrees with CAMH, which is why she’s looking for a report on optimal outcomes.
Undercurrent in debate so far is that some councillors seem to believe the current prohibition on drinking in parks is effective at reducing the rate of alcohol consumption overall. If it were allowed, I guess the theory goes, some people would be like, “OK, time to try a beer.”
Councillor Stephen Holyday spins a hypothetical where a baseball team playing at a park in his ward stick around after the game for a “tailgate drink” near neighbouring houses. “What do I tell the parents of the kids who live in that house?” he asks Malik.
Malik says there are already rules against unruly behaviour. The idea here is to create a program that allows people to enjoy a drink responsibly.
Councillor Paula Fletcher has a motion that staff seek advice from the Medical Officer of Health as they put together their report on allowing some drinking in parks.
Fletcher also moves that staff provide a list of parks “most suited” to being part of a drinking-in-parks pilot.
Councillor James Pasternak says allowing drinking in parks is a “high-risk venture that is more likely than not to produce negative outcomes.” He says no one has ever told him they’d like to see more alcohol in parks.
Pasternak adds that allowing drinking in parks would take away business from restaurants and bars, and that Toronto has no money for additional bylaw enforcement.
Time to vote. Matlow’s motion to dispense with the idea of a pilot project and just report on allowing people to drink alcohol responsibly in parks city-wide FAILS 10-14.
Malik’s motion to amend Carroll’s motion so that it no longer calls for a limited pilot, but rather a city-wide report on allowing drinking in parks, FAILS 12-12. Loses on a tie.
Carroll’s motion to report to the July meeting of Ec Dev Committee on a ward-specific pilot project allowing some drinking in parks, which would kick in between August and October, CARRIES 21-2.
Councillor Fletcher’s motion that the report on drinking in parks should include some consultation with the Medical Officer CARRIES 21-3.
Fletcher’s motion that staff provide a list of parks “most suited” to a drinking-in-parks pilot project CARRIES 16-8.
And the drinking in parks item, as amended, CARRIES 19-5. A report will be released in July with recommendations for a potential pilot limited to specific wards and parks, that would run between Aug 5 and Oct 9. Council will need to approve.
Six items left. On an item about educational property taxes, Councillor Perruzza moves to request the provincial government allow Toronto to keep 100% of the money currently collected on the property tax bill for education. It’s about $2 billion a year. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EX4.3
Perruzza’s motion to request Queen’s Park let Toronto keep all the money collected on the property tax bill that currently goes to education CARRIES 14-9. Guess it never hurts to ask.
Council has moved on to an item about collecting data related to the health of homeless people. City recently switched from monthly reports on the number of homeless deaths to a twice-a-year schedule. Councillor Matlow moves to revert to monthly. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.EC3.16
Councillor Bravo says that she agrees with the spirit of Matlow’s motion, but citing conflicts between numbers reported by the Shelter division and Toronto Public Health, she says it’s important to take more time to validate the data. She moves for quarterly reporting, for now.
Matlow’s motion to revert to monthly reporting of deceased unhoused Toronto residents FAILS 10-13.
Bravo’s motion to report homeless deaths on a quarterly basis for now, while a better reporting process is worked out, CARRIES 23-0.
Up now: Councillor Dianne Saxe wants to reduce the speed limit on Avenue Road from 50 km/h to 40 km/h and to look at ways to improve pedestrian safety. Councillor Holyday has concerns. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.TE4.66
Holyday says he’s “very passionate” about this subject and will not be supporting. He’d rather wait until staff report on infrastructure changes to Avenue Road. Saxe says community has been pushing for six years for lower speeds and safer sidewalks.”It’s time to do this.”
Saxe’s motion to reduce the speed limit on Avenue Road and continue to work on infrastructure improvements to protect pedestrians CARRIES 20-2.
Up now: Councillor Holyday’s motion to review the city’s partnership programs, with an eye toward looking for “potential new revenue opportunities or other benefits for naming rights” like renaming City Hall the Doritos Cool Ranch Extreme Crunch Poli-Dome. https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM6.26
On questioning from Matlow, city staff say they’ve already been working on the partnership program, and could be back with a report sooner than Q1 2024. Don’t rule out potential naming rights deals like McDonalds Park or Burger King Park.
“Imagine if we had renamed this place ‘Rogers Hall’ instead of Toronto City Hall?” says Matlow, speaking about his concerns about slapping corporate names on everything.
“My wife and I have successfully raised a daughter over ten years that still says ‘SkyDome’,” Matlow points out.
Councillor Gord Perks moves that no public building be named for a donor unless every resident of Toronto and public employee is also part of the name.
“This is an impractical motion,” says Nunziata, of Perks’ motion to put every single Toronto resident name on a sponsored building along with the named donor. She rules the motion out of order. Perks challenges the ruling. Chair is UPHELD, 16-7.
Councillor Chris Moise is not a fan of this corporate naming rights idea. “For a corporation or a rich body to come and put their name on it like they own the damn thing pisses me off,” he says.
“I think this motion just reeks of desperation,” says Councillor Jamaal Myers, saying it basically says Toronto is so poor that we’re willing to sell anything.
Councillor James Pasternak says Council will show itself to be “out of touch” if it votes against this corporate partnership item. “Government alone cannot function on its own,” he says, citing an example of Canadian Tire building a playground in his ward.
Canadian Tire’s “Jumpstart” playgrounds are designed to look like their corporate logo.
Holyday says the Scotiabank Arena naming deal was worth $800 million. He says city may not have anything as valuable, but there’s opportunity there. “But if we’re not open to looking for revenue streams like this, then how the HELL do you go to taxpayers and RAISE their taxes?!”
Holyday’s motion to report back in Q1 2024 on the city’s partnership program, with an eye toward selling naming rights, CARRIES 13-9.
And, at long last, Council’s May 2023 meeting is OVER. We learned. We laughed. We loved. I guess. Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this thread and found it useful, I’d love it if you would consider subscribing to @cityhallwatcher — my weekly newsletter. https://toronto.cityhallwatcher.com/subscribe