Greetings Good People,
Spring is beginning to spring here in what used to be called "Toronto the Good' and 'Toronto the Clean'. With a high of ten or eleven degrees Celsius yesterday and today, much of the snow and ice is beginning to melt, leaving behind an awful lot of... dirt. This isn't just normal dirt like the kind you used to dig up in your backyard as a kid. This isn't just bits of gravel or sand used by the snow clearing trucks when they're salting the roads. This is dirt of all kinds.
This is dog dirt that people thought they would just leave because it was cold and no one would notice anyway in the snow. It is actual garbage that people didn't bother to throw in a bin . It is cigarette butts, pop cans, fast food packaging, lost gloves, windshield fluid bottles, and probably anything else that you can think of. This is the kind of garbage that makes cities in developing nations smell (I know; I've been there). However, they are developing nations, we live in what is supposed to be one of the richest nations in the world. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world and we're throwing garbage around as if we live in a sty. Clearly I am not impressed with my fellow citizens lately.
This brings me to my point today: with spring springing and garbage polluting our rivers and lakes (and just about everything else in the GTA), it is time once again to start thinking about Earth Week, which happens once a year, and during that week, the World Wildlife Fund in Canada holds their major fundraiser for the year. They challenge people to raise money and climb the stairs in the CN Tower. There are 1776 stairs. This is (strangely enough) not quite as hard as it may sound. It's not easy, but it's doable. Even for me. I've done it probably ten times now. This year the team challenge is on Thursday, April 26th. Here is a link to the website if you'd like more info.
Some of you will be getting personal invitations to sponsor me (because you know me personally and I have your email addresses), however, if any of you who may not know me very well would like to sponsor me, I've included a link below.
It seems that everyone is talking about the environment these days. It has become a very popular topic, especially since Al Gore did his little presentation about it. The WWF has been working to protect wildlife and wild spaces for years. They have been fighting the reduction of wilderness; they have been fighting to protect the coral reefs; they have been working hard to protect spaces in which indigenous plants and animals may continue to exist without fear of extinction. This is not new to them. They've been working on this for years. They are not extremists, like some people believe Greenpeace and PETA are. If you'd like to review their record for yourselves, please visit their website www.wwf.ca.
This is a link to my page if you'd like to sponsor me: Please Sponsor Lesley. I would greatly appreciate any support (including emotional!) you may be able to give.
Drive safe peeps,
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Squatting in the City
Aloha good peoples,
I was watching a bit of City TV news last week and saw a piece on this guy who lives under the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto who was being 'evicted' by the city because the city had planned repairs to the expressway:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2952.aspx
For those of you who do not live in Toronto, the Gardiner is a raised freeway which runs across the bottom of the downtown core along the lakeshore. It would be prime real estate, if not for the monstrosity of the actual freeway.
The background of this story (such as it is) is that Chris, who goes by the last name of Gardiner, started to live under the expressway in 1988 and built himself a little three room home there. A couple of months ago, the city notified him that he would have to vacate the premises because of the planned repairs. He refused to leave claiming that no one should have to pay to live on God's earth, and that city officials would have to forcibly remove him if they wanted him gone. Homeless advocates and poverty groups banded together to protest alongside him, so that when the eviction date came and went, the police had to remove not only Chris, but several other protesters as well. Seven of the protestors were arrested. City officials have said they will find Chris somewhere else to live. For details you can click here:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2961.aspx
So, it seems that Toronto is the place to go to squat. This man lived rent free in downtown Toronto for 16 years before anyone did anything about it. I wouldn't mind living downtown, but I can't really afford a condo at Spadina and the Lakeshore. My place down there would cost at least $350K, plus maintenance fees, plus property taxes. This is why I don't live downtown; I like to have money for other things as well, like food and clothes. Granted, my place is a little nicer than his place looks. I have lots of amenities that he doesn't have (like hot and cold running water), but I pay for those amenities.
His argument is that people shouldn't have to pay to live on God's earth. That's a nice little argument, but it's impossible to prove. Let's not get into the whole 'does God exist argument' for the sake of argument, and stipulate that there is a God. How do we know that the earth belongs to God? How do we know that it doesn't belong to Bill Gates?
The bottom line is that we live in a capitalistic world whether we like it or not. This is not a choice. It's like suggesting that we have a choice as to whether or not we are born, or where we are born. We can protest capitalism and we can protest the nature of what society has become, but we can't simply deny it and expect everyone else to go along with it just because we want them to.
Our ancestors decided many moons ago to form the society of which we are now a part. If we want to change society, we can do that too, but not by simply not following the rules of society. I know I seem to harp about this a lot, but we agree to the terms of the social contract for many reasons. This man was benefitting from the shelter of the Gardiner Expressway, and benefitting by being a member of society (albeit a fringe member by choice) but was not contributing in the same way that is expected of every other free citizen who has reached the age of majority. That behaviour does not uphold the social contract. Once people stop meeting their obligations to the social contract the fabric of society will disintegrate. (I know, that seems extreme, this is only one guy who wants to live under a freeway, but I'm trying to make a point.) It's as though he's saying 'I'll obey some of your rules because they fit in with my lifestyle, but I don't really like these other ones, so I won't bother with those, but you guys can still provide me with the same benefits'. If every member of society picks and chooses which norms to follow, we will have chaos and society will revert to a state of nature.
And, as we know from Thomas Hobbes, life in a state of nature is 'nasty, brutish, and short.'
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/item/books-978039396798/0393967980/Leviathan?ref=Search+Books%3a+'thomas+hobbes'
I don't want that... do you?
Until next time peeps, peace out
I was watching a bit of City TV news last week and saw a piece on this guy who lives under the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto who was being 'evicted' by the city because the city had planned repairs to the expressway:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2952.aspx
For those of you who do not live in Toronto, the Gardiner is a raised freeway which runs across the bottom of the downtown core along the lakeshore. It would be prime real estate, if not for the monstrosity of the actual freeway.
The background of this story (such as it is) is that Chris, who goes by the last name of Gardiner, started to live under the expressway in 1988 and built himself a little three room home there. A couple of months ago, the city notified him that he would have to vacate the premises because of the planned repairs. He refused to leave claiming that no one should have to pay to live on God's earth, and that city officials would have to forcibly remove him if they wanted him gone. Homeless advocates and poverty groups banded together to protest alongside him, so that when the eviction date came and went, the police had to remove not only Chris, but several other protesters as well. Seven of the protestors were arrested. City officials have said they will find Chris somewhere else to live. For details you can click here:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2961.aspx
So, it seems that Toronto is the place to go to squat. This man lived rent free in downtown Toronto for 16 years before anyone did anything about it. I wouldn't mind living downtown, but I can't really afford a condo at Spadina and the Lakeshore. My place down there would cost at least $350K, plus maintenance fees, plus property taxes. This is why I don't live downtown; I like to have money for other things as well, like food and clothes. Granted, my place is a little nicer than his place looks. I have lots of amenities that he doesn't have (like hot and cold running water), but I pay for those amenities.
His argument is that people shouldn't have to pay to live on God's earth. That's a nice little argument, but it's impossible to prove. Let's not get into the whole 'does God exist argument' for the sake of argument, and stipulate that there is a God. How do we know that the earth belongs to God? How do we know that it doesn't belong to Bill Gates?
The bottom line is that we live in a capitalistic world whether we like it or not. This is not a choice. It's like suggesting that we have a choice as to whether or not we are born, or where we are born. We can protest capitalism and we can protest the nature of what society has become, but we can't simply deny it and expect everyone else to go along with it just because we want them to.
Our ancestors decided many moons ago to form the society of which we are now a part. If we want to change society, we can do that too, but not by simply not following the rules of society. I know I seem to harp about this a lot, but we agree to the terms of the social contract for many reasons. This man was benefitting from the shelter of the Gardiner Expressway, and benefitting by being a member of society (albeit a fringe member by choice) but was not contributing in the same way that is expected of every other free citizen who has reached the age of majority. That behaviour does not uphold the social contract. Once people stop meeting their obligations to the social contract the fabric of society will disintegrate. (I know, that seems extreme, this is only one guy who wants to live under a freeway, but I'm trying to make a point.) It's as though he's saying 'I'll obey some of your rules because they fit in with my lifestyle, but I don't really like these other ones, so I won't bother with those, but you guys can still provide me with the same benefits'. If every member of society picks and chooses which norms to follow, we will have chaos and society will revert to a state of nature.
And, as we know from Thomas Hobbes, life in a state of nature is 'nasty, brutish, and short.'
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/item/books-978039396798/0393967980/Leviathan?ref=Search+Books%3a+'thomas+hobbes'
I don't want that... do you?
Until next time peeps, peace out
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Docks vs the Toronto Island Residents
Greetings friends,
I was chatting with a friend today and she pointed out a bit of news that I had missed (not surprising really, I often miss Toronto news because I tend to read the world news more).
She and her colleagues had had a rousing discussion about it at lunch and she wanted to know my opinion. Well, I am almost never at a loss for an opinion, especially if asked, so I immediately went to the CBC (my source for news) and found this article:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/07/25/docks-liquor.html
Essentially, a large and very popular nightclub (The Docks) has lost its license to sell liquor due to complaints about excessive noise from local homeowners. When my friend first told me about this, I was a little surprised because I didn't think anyone lived near The Docks, it having been built in the former Toronto shipyards (hence the catchy name). Well, real estate development being what it is, there are now condos not too far from The Docks, but more serious complaints originated not from those condo-owners, but from homeowners on the Toronto Islands in Lake Ontario. Apparently, these homes are less than a kilometre away from the nightclub, and since it's on the lake, there's really nothing between them to buffer the sounds of frivolity and party-making late into the night.
So, should the homeowners on the islands win the motion in court? So far, they have won. The nightclub owners have filed an appeal and are hoping to be able to stay open in the interim. As of press time, I don't know the result of that request. The question here is, should the nightclub get to keep its license (and essentially remain viable)?
This is a slightly tough decision folks... on the one hand, I would not necessarily want to be a homeowner on the island and have a nightclub practically in my backyard (although I can't say exactly how loud it gets across the lake). On the other hand, The Docks is more than just a nightclub; it's a concert venue, a special events venue and a beach volleyball venue (among other things). It's become sort of a downtown Toronto landmark in the summer time. It is very big and fairly popular. What will happen if it has to close because it cannot serve liquor? What kind of message will that send around the world about Toronto as a cosmopolitan city? Are we world class or are we middle-aged?
Some of the more staid, conservative types might immediately respond that anything that negatively affects property values is a bad thing and thus should be shut down. However, as a homeowner, and (at times) slightly conservative in my financial dealings, I think it's important to look beyond the immediate here. As far as I know, the image that Toronto is trying to project around the world is vibrant and alive, diverse and cultured. Culture doesn't mean just the stuff in the ROM. Culture includes all of a city's diverse pastimes. If the city doesn't have a nightlife, we won't attract tourists. And if we're closing nightclubs because of noise then that sends a bad message. Where will those people go? New York maybe? Someplace you can go to clubs and not worry about having a good time?
I don't have a solution that would make the homeowners happy. I know that numbers are often the least just way to solve anything, but are we not ignoring the numbers of the situation here? How many homeowners are dissatisfied and how much revenue is being generated by this club (which isn't even open year-round)? How many tax dollars? The city will lose those tax dollars if The Docks is forced to close.
So, I think my opinion on this one is clear: The Docks should keep its liquor license if the only reason it lost it is because of noise complaints from the people across the lake. Sorry to the people across the lake.
Peace out,
I was chatting with a friend today and she pointed out a bit of news that I had missed (not surprising really, I often miss Toronto news because I tend to read the world news more).
She and her colleagues had had a rousing discussion about it at lunch and she wanted to know my opinion. Well, I am almost never at a loss for an opinion, especially if asked, so I immediately went to the CBC (my source for news) and found this article:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/07/25/docks-liquor.html
Essentially, a large and very popular nightclub (The Docks) has lost its license to sell liquor due to complaints about excessive noise from local homeowners. When my friend first told me about this, I was a little surprised because I didn't think anyone lived near The Docks, it having been built in the former Toronto shipyards (hence the catchy name). Well, real estate development being what it is, there are now condos not too far from The Docks, but more serious complaints originated not from those condo-owners, but from homeowners on the Toronto Islands in Lake Ontario. Apparently, these homes are less than a kilometre away from the nightclub, and since it's on the lake, there's really nothing between them to buffer the sounds of frivolity and party-making late into the night.
So, should the homeowners on the islands win the motion in court? So far, they have won. The nightclub owners have filed an appeal and are hoping to be able to stay open in the interim. As of press time, I don't know the result of that request. The question here is, should the nightclub get to keep its license (and essentially remain viable)?
This is a slightly tough decision folks... on the one hand, I would not necessarily want to be a homeowner on the island and have a nightclub practically in my backyard (although I can't say exactly how loud it gets across the lake). On the other hand, The Docks is more than just a nightclub; it's a concert venue, a special events venue and a beach volleyball venue (among other things). It's become sort of a downtown Toronto landmark in the summer time. It is very big and fairly popular. What will happen if it has to close because it cannot serve liquor? What kind of message will that send around the world about Toronto as a cosmopolitan city? Are we world class or are we middle-aged?
Some of the more staid, conservative types might immediately respond that anything that negatively affects property values is a bad thing and thus should be shut down. However, as a homeowner, and (at times) slightly conservative in my financial dealings, I think it's important to look beyond the immediate here. As far as I know, the image that Toronto is trying to project around the world is vibrant and alive, diverse and cultured. Culture doesn't mean just the stuff in the ROM. Culture includes all of a city's diverse pastimes. If the city doesn't have a nightlife, we won't attract tourists. And if we're closing nightclubs because of noise then that sends a bad message. Where will those people go? New York maybe? Someplace you can go to clubs and not worry about having a good time?
I don't have a solution that would make the homeowners happy. I know that numbers are often the least just way to solve anything, but are we not ignoring the numbers of the situation here? How many homeowners are dissatisfied and how much revenue is being generated by this club (which isn't even open year-round)? How many tax dollars? The city will lose those tax dollars if The Docks is forced to close.
So, I think my opinion on this one is clear: The Docks should keep its liquor license if the only reason it lost it is because of noise complaints from the people across the lake. Sorry to the people across the lake.
Peace out,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)