City frets over declining revenue from parking tickets

For a city that claims parking and speeding tickets are all
about smooth traffic movement and public safety, there sure is a lot of concern
about the increasing number of cancelled parking tickets.

My city hall colleague Dave Rider reported Thursday that
633,108 parking tickets – about one-quarter of all tickets issued in 2012 –
were cancelled at the counters of parking tag operations offices, or in court.

The number of cancellations is up almost 140,000, or 5.5 per
cent, from 2011, according to a staff report prepared for city council’s
government management committee.

  If you were to subtract 25 per cent from the
$94 million value of all parking tickets issued in 2012, it adds up to more
than $23 million.

But the city and our police still maintain that the revenue
is incidental to the issuing of tickets.

Then why the hand-wringing about lost revenue? You can bet
that the discussion at the next meeting of the government management committee
will focus on the money, rather than the fairness of the system.

Here’s another bet: Somebody will propose that something
needs to be done to stem the tide of cancelled tickets. After all, people are
being paid to issue a lot of tickets that are not netting money.

One of the, uh, problems is the increase in the grace period
for overtime parking, from five to 10 minutes, which I have written about
several times. The other reason is that the public is now much better informed
about the grounds for cancellation.

It is only fair that people know the rules and use them to
their advantage. It’s among the reasons why we’ve been pushing to have the
grace period extended by parking enforcement officers, instead of making people
jump through hoops to cancel a ticket issued within 10 minutes of the expiry of
paid parking.

As for the reasons why radar speed traps have flourished in
the past half-dozen years or so, check out my Tuesday column and Wednesday
blog. It’s a money grab, and nothing more.

But when the city is always short of dough, taxes by another
name will surely be imposed.

Watch where you park, and keep your foot on the brake when
descending a long hill. 

 

 

Going to bat for drivers, in any form, angers some cyclists

 

I’d like to think otherwise, but some cyclists have a pretty
big chip on their shoulder.

My Tuesday column was about how I was caught yet again by a Toronto police speed
trap, set up in places where they can snare the most drivers in the shortest
time.

They have little to do with safety and everything to do with
revenue. The vast majority of speed trap tickets are for 15 k/ph over the
limit, just below the line for demerit points.

There’s nothing to gain by going to court, unless the
officer who laid the charge doesn’t show up.

They want drivers to plead guilty and pay the fine, but the
cops will always tell you they are writing it down to 15 k/ph over as a favour,
so you don’t get demerit points.

It creates a golden opportunity for insurers to stick it to
people who get caught in a speed trap two or three times in a year; even if a
driver has no demerit points and an excellent prior record, it can be used to
justify an extortionate premium increase.

The response to my column was huge, with virtually everyone
agreeing that speed traps are a predatory form of taxation, except for one guy,
who tried to twist it into something else.

“Just a comment on today’s column,” said Paul Stockton. “Why
is it that when a motorist sees a cyclist breaking the law, they’re a reckless
criminal, but when a motorist gets caught breaking the law, they’re a poor,
innocent victim?”

Here’s the reply I sent: “Answer:  The law is seldom applied to cyclists. And for
the most part, that’s okay with me. Why are you trying to turn this into a cars
vs. cyclists thing? Are you blind to everything but the cyclist’s perspective?”

The substantial enmity between cyclists and drivers is part
of the transportation landscape around here. I see it when I’m driving, a daily
requirement of my job, and in emails I get from both sides.

But this is one area where there is distance between the
interests of cyclists and drivers.

If police laid in wait for cyclists to blow through red
lights without stopping, like they ambush drivers at the bottom of a long hill,
you could argue that the rules of the road are more evenly applied.    

But they’re not. Cyclists almost always get a free ride,
when it comes to enforcement of traffic rules.

Drivers are preyed upon by police (Toronto
was ranked in 2010 as the worst city in North America
for speed traps) who use a radar gun to hold up otherwise law abiding people
for money.

And why ask me about other drivers? I don’t think most
drivers see cyclists as reckless criminals (okay, maybe a few), and I don’t
share that opinion.

I believe in the I Share The Road approach, and have come to
think of James Schwartz, the guy who started that pro-cyclist campaign, as a
friend.

I will gladly go to bat for drivers on this issue, just like
I do for cyclists on so many others.

There’s room for everyone in my tent.

And if some cylists don’t like it, too bad.

 

 

 

 

Radar speed traps have an uncanny knack for finding me

I must be one of the unluckiest guys in the city, when it
comes to speeding tickets.

My Tuesday column is about my latest driving misfortune,
where I bumbled over the crest of a Highway 401 overpasson Brimley Rd. and descended a small hill at
a heart-pounding speed of 65 k/ph, according to the cop who clocked me on his
radar gun.

The speed limit went down from 60 to 50 k/ph on the incline
to the overpass, but I didn’t see the sign and had no idea I was endangering the public until
an officer in a bright green vest began waving at me.

At first I thought he was just saying a friendly hello. I
wasn’t speeding, or so I thought.

He said I was going 69 k/ph, but he’d write it down to the
minimum of 65, so I could avoid demerit points.

What a swell guy, offering me the same deal as a crown
prosecutor, if I go to court.

This steams me because I have been so careful these past few
years, after getting a whole bunch of tickets in the previous five years.

It got so bad that I had to go into the high-risk insurance
pool for two years, where I paid more than $4,000 annually for insurance on one
car, my wife’s elderly Plymouth.

I watch my speed like a hawk and keep an eye out for places
where the speed limit is likely to change, but they still manage to nail me.

It’s not like I am stunt racing. Only one of my tickets was
for more than 15 kilometres over, but the insurance companies don’t care, even
though I have never had an accident claim made against me for as much as two
cents.

Toronto
police are relentless about setting up speed traps near the bottom of hills and
around bends, where they pump up their batting average on people like me, going
15 to 20 k/ph, at most, over the limit.

I had gone nearly two years without a ticket – enough to be
bailed out of the high risk pool – when I was flagged down last summer on a
bend on Lake Shore Blvd.
by a cop who said I was going 75 in a 60 k/ph zone.

I took it to court, even though I had no grounds to fight
it, and got lucky when the officer didn’t show up.

I’ll also go to court on this one, but I’m not so sure
lightning will strike twice. That only happens for cops, at the bottom of a
hill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maintenance issues just part of the story at TCHC

A week of Fixer columns on maintenance woes at Toronto
Community Housing only scratches the surface.

Some of the other stories I heard from residents don’t fit
into that category, but speak to the difficulties of life in a public housing
high-rise.

Tenants of 200
  Wellesley St. E., whose troubles I wrote about on
Mar. 16, also told me about three drug dealers in apartments on the same floor
and the parade of sketched-out customers in the hallway.

When they don’t get what they want, they’ve been known to
tear baseboard heaters from the floor and pound at the door of their dealer,
screaming threats that eventually turn to pleas.

Others can’t wait to get high and mix up a hit in the
stairwell, sometimes leaving syringes on the stairs. I was ushered into the
stairwell near the apartment of the couple I wrote about, where I spotted the
plunger from a syringe just inside the door.

One of the dealers is apparently not such a bad guy. He
understands that traffic and noise outside his door draws heat, and is known
for putting up signs asking customers to respect his neighbours and keep it
down.

A woman who lives in the same building provided a link to a
blog where she posted photos of mice in her apartment, including one of a trap
she put on a windowsill overnight, with four mice in it.

“We live with at least 30 mice,” she said. “Every day we
sweep up from them at least twice.”

She also posted photos of food in cupboards that had been
torn apart, and blood on containers in her fridge, which the mice are somehow able
to squeeze into.

“I could write a book. A shooting at our door. Drugs dealt
everywhere. Defecating drug addicts.

“If it’s not bugs crawling in your bed, it’s mice, or fire,
or druggies wanting to rob you. Living in housing is horrific and many of us
have no choice.”

An 86-year-old woman developed breathing problems after
mould set into the walls of her apartment due to a water leak above. It got so
bad her doctor told her she had to leave right away.

She moved out for four months while the problem was fixed,
and was told by TCHC that about $2,000 in rent she paid would be refunded. It
wasn’t, and now she has to fight the housing company at the landlord-tenant
tribunal to get it back.

She took us out onto her balcony, where we could look down
onto the roof of the portico above the main entrance. It was covered with
garbage tossed from the balcony above, including soiled diapers, food
containers, even a carpet.

A lot of people still think public housing residents have
it good. Too bad they didn’t have to try it.

 

 

 

 

Bright lights of a downtown casino are starting to fade

The chickens are coming home to roost on the OLG’s best-laid
plans for a downtown Toronto
casino.

Premier Kathleen Wynn says there will be no special deal
that would give Toronto
more of the take from a casino than any other city, and that a standard formula
will be evenly applied to all municipalities with a casino.

That should come as no surprise, but it has to be
disappointing for the OLG and the posse of casino lobbyists who have been
deliberately – obstructively – vague about exactly how much Toronto’s cut will be.

They have done nothing to disabuse casino boosters on city
council - most prominently the Ford Bros. - of the notion that a card trick of
sorts would be performed, producing a windfall far in excess of what could be
expected under the formula used to pay off cities with casinos.

Before the sobering news from the OLG that Toronto’s end would be in the range of $50 to
$100 million (which is still way too high; $40 million, tops, is more like it),
fantastical numbers as high as $200 million were floated.

It was enough to dilate the pupils of some politicians, who
giddily mused about subways built with loot from the shiny gambling hall, a $60,000-a-year
job for anyone who wants to be a blackjack dealer and free ice cream for all
the kids.

But Wynn’s clarification will take the wind out of the sails
of the peddlers of half-truths and illusion, who must be starting to sweat
about now. The chips aren’t falling their way, when they figured this would be
an easy game to beat.

City councillors on whom they are counting to vote for a
casino are now asking to be dealt out, saying that unless it nets Toronto a lot
more than it will under the formula, they'll keep their hands in their pockets.

And everyone pushing a casino knows the money just isn’t
there, at least for the city.

Here’s all you need to know: The gift of a casino for Toronto, or at least
somewhere in the GTA, is only about shoring up the OLG’s declining revenues, so
it can fatten up the wad (likely wrapped in elastic bands) it hands off to the
province.

It has nothing to do with what is good for Toronto. All this talk of a swell resort and
sushi and jobs, jobs, jobs and suitcases stuffed with cash is
nothing more than a swindle to persuade us that we really need a casino.

So where does it leave the lobbyists who have for months
played the city hall slot machines that were supposed to pay off big, without
ever getting up from their seats?

Ten cents from broke, and with a mess in their pants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all residents are critical of TCHC, but they are a rare exception

 

Many people who live in Toronto Community Housing don't have much good to say about it, but there are a few who aren't complaining, and at least one who insists his building is a great place to live.

The focus of my Fixer columns this week is on TCHC maintenance issues, and a walk through just about any building confirms there's a lot to be fixed.

To be fair, TCHC has slowly been starved of cash needed to keep up its buildings, with a state of good repair backlog of about $750 million. By falling so far behind, a lot of things won't be fixed any time soon, if ever.

It explains why so many people have grown indifferent to chronic problems in their building; when management knows, and you know that they know, but it never gets fixed, it furthers the sense that nobody cares.

And if the people in charge don't care, then why should the people who live there? How can they be expected to have pride in their building?

But there are exceptions to the rule, including buildings where residents say there isn't much that needs fixing.

Bonnie Booth emailed us about the recent departure of Chuck Dowdall as a TCHC vice-president, saying it's a shame because he was "phenomenal about responding to email and having issues resolved."

We emailed back to ask her to tell us about any problems in her building, at 20 Sanderling Pl., which prompted a suprising reply: "Actually no, we have no outstanding problems.

"I had a list of 10 problems I tried desperately to have resolved until (Dowdall) was hired by TCHC. Three months later ALL were resolved."

Robert Vinton signed onto SeeClickFix to tell us that TCHC "gets too much bad press. Maybe pass this on to a 'good news' reporter: I've lived in a TCHC seniors building for 15 years. Lovely location, between two parks. Very well served by TTC. Very quiet outside and inside. Multicultural. Always clean. I love it and appreciate it.

"I feel sure there are thousands of TCHC residents who like and look after their apartments. Why not report on them more often."

Vinton has a point. Now, if I could only find a few of those thousands of people.

 

 

 

 

Story about life in TCHC building provokes strong reaction

 No matter how you tell a story, there is no pleasing some people.

The Saturday Fixer kicked off a week of columns about problems in Toronto Community Housing with a story about the abuse that Steven Peacock and his partner, Stephan Premdas, have taken from neighbours in the apartment above them at 200 Wellesley St. E.

Their balcony was showered many time with feces and urine, washed down by bleach, from the balcony of the two-bedroom apartment above, which is occupied by 15 to 20 people, far more than the TCHC allows.

Things that were lit on fire, like rags and toilet paper tubes, were also lobbed onto their balcony  from above, while a stream of verbal abuse was shouted at them and thumping and screaming constantly goes on late into the night.

We offered it as a slice of life in a TCHC building, but some readers responded that they felt  no sympathy for them, or anyone else who lives in community housing.

"What a stupid story to write," said Frederick Moore in an email. "The answer to their problem is called - MOVE.

"What are these two people doing living off taxpayers' money anyway? Move and get a job."

As for the upstairs tenants causing the problem, "well, what do you expect from ignorant immigrants, which I bet is what they are, and I could likely tell you from what country.

"Public housing for the most part in this country is a big joke. Most of the people living there should not be. You cannot expect people used to living in mud huts and filth to all of a sudden know what dirt looks like."

How about that for good 'ol Canadian tolerance?

Carlos A. Coimbra's email said the story "seems to display a xenophobic, racist attitude," because it mentioned "tirades shouted in a foreign tongue," and that a woman in the upstairs apartment "spoke a rapid-fire foreign language to a boy."

"Please note that my comment...concerns itself only with the obvious perception that you,  the writer,  show aversion to any language other than English.

"Shameful words," he said, adding that "There's more than one way to say 'a language not known to the listener,' but here you embarrassed the Star."

By making reference to  foreign language, we were trying to politely convey information about the people in the upstairs apartment without identifying their ethnicity,  but Coimbra sees racism in it.

I wonder what he'd have thought if I been more direct?

 

 

 

 

Whatever happened to Toronto’s police helicopter?

The announcement that Durham Regional Police is the proud new owner of a heavy duty Tactical Rescue Vehicle reminded me that Toronto never did get the police helicopter we were told was an absolute necessity.

Durham was the first police force in Ontario to get its own helicopter, and can now add the seven-tonne TRV, which it describes as “a new tool to deal with dangerous hostage taking and barricaded person calls” to its arsenal.

It was donated by General Dynamic Systems of London, Ont., but is more widely used by armed forces as an armoured personnel carrier, with the ability to withstand the blast of an incendiary explosive device.

I wonder if Toronto police are as envious as they were when Durham got its helicopter in the late 1990s, prompting an angst-ridden campaign by Julian Fantino, Toronto’s police chief from 2000 to 2005, to get one of his own.

Fantino was on the warpath early in his tenure about the need for a helicopter, and managed to get the city to fund a six-month pilot project, which gave police a taste of the high life.

Some people remember Chopper One for incessantly hovering over residential areas late at night, where the noise kept people up and made them uneasy about a constant police presence in the air.

I covered city hall for the Star when he was chief and remember hearing a story about the chopper hovering for hours above a neighbourhood where a prominent local politician lived. He allegedly lost his cool over the noise, got on the phone to police late at night and told them to take their helicopter and flock off.

After city council pulled the plug on the project, Fantino went ratcheted up the offensive, insisting that a major city such as Toronto would be vulnerable without one, especially in the post-911 era.

When it became clear that the police services board would never approve the expenditure, he began courting private donors to pay for it, along with senior levels of government.

Concerns were raised about what donors might want in return, as well as increasing the perception of a police state. Fantino accused the quibblers of being paranoid and questioning the integrity of police (his usual response to questions he found impertinent).

The former Tory government promised him $1 million in temporary funding, but when it lost the 2003 provincial election, the Liberals cancelled it.

That was the last gasp for the helicopter, and with none of the dire consequences Fantino predicted.

I think we’re getting along just fine without it, and I’m not sure  Durham will wear out its TRV any time soon by responding to calls for “dangerous” (is there any other kind?) hostage takings.

 

 

 

   

       

 

 

 

 

            

    

  

         

 

          

  

 

  

 
   

 

   

   

 

Traffic safety is far down the list of reasons for speed traps

 Here’s some advice for Toronto drivers: On a warm spring day, keep a close eye on the speedometer when heading down a long hill.

If the weather is sunny and visibility is good, it’s 50-50 that a Toronto police officer is standing part way up the other side of the hill, with a radar gun trained on your car.

Police like to tell the public that the prime motivation for enforcing speed limits is traffic safety. I am here to tell you they are full of it.

A story in the Star last year noted that of all cities in North America, Toronto is the speed trap capital. I’ve seen a lot of evidence to support that theory, as recently as Sunday.

I was driving east on Ellesmere Ave., starting down the long hill west of Neilson Rd., when I noticed that a friendly bus driver headed my way was flicking his headlights on and off.
Sure enough, as I started up the other side of the hill I saw a cop standing by a utility pole, which partially obscured him from oncoming traffic, pointing a radar gun at traffic coming down the hill behind me.

It was no problem for me; I kept my speed at 60 k/ph, but it was like shooting fish in a barrel for him. Who hasn’t descended a long hill and noticed they were going 15 or 20 k/ph higher than the limit?

That’s more than enough to get a ticket.

I continued east to Morningside Ave. and turned right to go south. A long hill on Morningside bottoms out near Ellesmere then climbs steeply, on the way south to Kingston Rd.

Part way up, I spot another cop pointing a radar gun at traffic coming down the hill. Two speed traps in five minutes, only a couple kilometres apart.

Traffic was light, the weather was clear and sunny and there was no reason for them to be there, except to top up a ticket quota.

I have often seen Toronto police clocking vehicles coming down a long hill, the most likely place for even careful drivers to slightly exceed the limit.

Aren’t there more important things for police to do than fish for speeders in the most likely places for law-abiding drivers to go just fast enough to qualify for a ticket?

Aren’t there a hundred other places where traffic safety might be more of an issue, but the fishing may not be nearly as good?

 

   

     

    

  

         

Hospital parking could break people with no choice but to pay

 Is it just me, or is does anyone else feel like the victim of a stickup when paying for hospital parking?

My mother-in-law, who’s 89, was admitted to Rouge Valley Centenary Hospital a week ago, for injuries suffered when she fell in her apartment.

She’s making a good recovery, due in part to the support of my wife and her two sisters, who’ve been at the hospital every day since she went in.

My son and I decided to pop in on Grandma on Sunday, and pulled up to the machine that dispenses tickets at the entrance to the Centenary parking lot. A sign said $4 for each half hour, up to a maximum of $16.

Now I knew what my wife meant when I heard her talking on the phone to her sisters about car pooling.

Each of them has been driving to the hospital every day and maxing out on the parking charge, a total of $48 daily. One of them has been there twice on the same day, a couple of times.

They’ve paid at least $300 in parking fees so far, and will likely pay nearly as much if their mother stays another week. You can only do so much car pooling.

A one week parking pass is available for $70, or two weeks for $90, but my wife pointed that it isn’t an option for a lot of people, if their situation is uncertain.

Centenary is on Ellesmere Ave., at the bottom of Neilson Rd., a wide-open suburban area, but there is zero on-street parking and nowhere else to go. Hospital visitors who gamble on getting away with parking in a plaza on the north side of Ellesmere are ticketed and towed every day.

I stayed just over an hour and paid $12 to park in a lot only one-third full. It felt extortionate, and had me feeling sorry for people who have to go to the hospital every day, for weeks or months at a time, to be with a sick or dying family member.

It’s the same at hospitals all over the city. Some parking lots are even pricier.

For people on a tight budget and dealing with a family health crisis that involves a long hospital stay, it must be crippling.