We need a decision-making intervention

Anthony Novac.

This is my first blog post for the Star and I must admit that my mind is still on the Olympics.  Last night I pounded the clicker trying to find a channel that could deliver my Olympic fix. No such luck.  My beloved Raptors were losing by 20+ so I opted for an hour of Intervention. One episode was about a poor kid who was following his father's road to ruin - a destructive path of self-denial, self-delusion and bad decision-making (made so much worse by a pain-killer addiction).

Fast forward to this morning and an article in the Star caught my eye. It discussed the opportunity to privatize the management of the City's two ski hills. My first thought was, "really, the City owns two ski hills?" Ustinov's statement about Toronto being New York built by the Swiss also came to mind. 

I became stuck, though, on Councillor Joe Mihevc's apparent opposition to the use of a private ski hill management group which could save the City $800,000, saying that it is "deliberate policy to subsidize" this program.  He defended his position by arguing that the accessibility of recreation, not budgetary concerns, is "the goal of recreation." 

Like the addict on Intervention who convinced himself of a reality that did not exist (despite his steadfast assertions he was neither Italian, a music mogul, nor his father's best friend), Mihevc seems to have taken a position here based on something that simply cannot exist. I'm trying to picture city councillors mandating an $800,000 subsidy to Toronto-area skiers. I mean, is it really City of Toronto policy to have an asset undoubtedly worth millions (and likely 9-figure millions) sit on its balance sheet producing negative cashflow so that maybe a few hundred people who would not otherwise be able to get to the next nearest hill can learn to ski? 

It is an absurd statement by Mihevc.  And it highlights the sort of decision-making errors that evolve from dogma and the reverse-engineering of fact.  

The city owns two ski hills + it believes in recreation accessibility + it has run the hills at a loss = Mihevc skiing subsidy argument.  It's a logical fallacy. I think we deserve better.

About Anthony Novac

Comments

[Sylvia]

Indeed, I agree to disagree with your post. Firstly, it's not the CITY that owns property - it's US, we, the citizens of Toronto. It's ours. Not yours, not mine, not the city council's, but ours. Secondly, it's property that has to be kept for future generations. What if gasoline becomes really unaffordable, say, in 20 years. Wouldn't it be great to still have those hills that have belonged to us, the Torontonians, for over 250 years? Once it's sold... well, you get the picture. Thirdly, yes, keep it. Yes, for people who can't afford to go to some fancy places. For small people who need a leeway out. Who want to try something new (and exiting) for little money. Because - there is none. No money, not for skying. Not for small people. And not for some big adults, either. Fourthly, who says things aren't going to get better? No one is a prophet. But, once it's sold... well, you get the picture. Remember the street lightening, or Toronto Hydro, or the 407 ... well, selling any of our public property off didn't make life in Toronto any better, did it?

[mark.]

I'm not really following your argument about Mihevc (what's he saying? what's your counterpoint?) but let me propose something. The city owns a couple ski hills and they charge people to use them. We've now learned that they're running at an $800,000/year loss. It's been suggested that the city sell them to a private company who would run them at a profit, resulting in higher user fees. So, why doesn't the city just continue to run them, raise the user fee so that it breaks even? That would be less of a user fee increase than the private company would implement (it wants a profit, not just break even) and the city doesn't loose this asset.

[Hogtownboy]

The city Ustinov cited ended at Yonge and EG. This current state is the revenge of Mike Harris.
He has brought the destruction of the city and people he has always hated like most small towner.

Also the swiss don't run city like this as they are all also provinces (cantons) and have control over taxing,
'

[chris svir]

there is an alternative... why not just naturalize the area? the hill etc can then be easily maintained by volunteers. a trail network can be developed for mountain biking in the non snow seasons. you can even hold income generating events there. in the winter you can use the area for back country/cross country sking... once again all looked after by volunteers. examples of this are happening unofficially all over the gta by people who don't have recreation opprotunities in there neighbourhoods or who can not afford to pay recreation fees. sadly they are not supported by the city and excluded from sitting on stewardship committees. the limitations and lack of flexability of the trca forces these people underground to build trails for community recreation. at least these trails are free to use and well maintained...

[Patrick Smyth]

I know this park and know it to be an under-utilized City asset. The Star is encouraging citizens who have vision and we should be asking the same of Councillors and City staff. Being a Councillor is a part-time job at best but most Councillors devote too much time to petty politics. City staff, by all accounts, are not over-worked but well-paid. We would have a more powerful result if we focused on these two groups and challenged them to do the right thing.

[Rich Reist]

At first I was totally for selling the ski hills since I don't ski and didn't consider them to be the sort of thing a city should be involved in. However after reading Mihevc's rationale for keeping the ski hills as a recreational asset that provides more affordable skiing for Torontonians. I totally support that goal, perhaps some things can be changed about it, perhaps promoting it better, I didn't know we even had big enough hills for skiing on, and perhaps raising the charge for using them a bit to lower the cost to the city while still providing a more affordable recreational option. A great city is more than just a financial bottom line, a great city provides great opportunities for its citizens which is one reason so many people flock to Toronto.

[Anthony Novac]

To clarify, I did not advocate the sale of the ski hills. And neither did Smitherman. Smitherman suggested "management", not the hills themselves, be privatized. To be fair, he actually only advocated considering it. The theory is that private enterprise can better manage the hills and the on-going $700,000-$800,000 loss can be prevented. A debate worth having with good points on both sides. But my ire was not with City-run ski hills, but with Mihevc trying to argue that the "subsidy" (ie. loss) was a City mandate. This is of course nonsense.

[Sandra Cardinal]

I'd like to discuss something other than skihills if that's OK. I am one of those newly converted downtowners living in a condo and loving city life. As Chris Hume described us, we live in tiny spaces and use the city as our recreation room. Today, with beautiful spring weather we wanted to be outdoors, and to enjoy our neighbourhood park, Berczy Park, behind the Gooderham Flatiron Building. This part of Old Toronto was once known as Paris on the Lake, and in Berczy Park we have an opportunity to emulate Paris parks where all generations enjoy their afternoons, playing frisbee, listening to musicians or watching buskers, slurping gelato, sipping coffee, playing checkers or chess or cards, having picnics, reading novels, and so on. I envision adding to the existing seating (lots of metal benches lined up agaist brick half-walls) with some tables (maybe with chessboards inlaid) and chairs facing the existing ones. This would be so much more friendly than everyone lined up looking in the same direction! The space is ideal for buskers, with two small concrete stages, one at the west end, and another at the east end with the back of the Flatiron and its magnificent mural as a backdrop. (By the way, the mural depicts one of the beautiful old warehouses on Front Street which were designed in the Parisian style). The city could issue some licenses to buskers and a few chosen food vendors (but not in competition with the Tim Hortons and the Quiznos already existing on Scott Street.)Then, just imagine a lovely sunshiney day with the fountain spraying and people coming to enjoy the place, meeting neighbours, and spending quality time in their downtown neighbourhood.

This is the kind of low-cost idea that makes sense to me for enlivening the city. And one that I'd be willing to work towards. How about you?

[Patrick Smyth]

Sandra Cardinal has a good vision for her Toronto. It would take very little to have that vision realized. Two things though - no city can dictate these things, they must evolve and it would require a Council capable of helping such a vision take root.

Here's an example of what's wrong.

Yonge and Eglinton is home to a large number of condo dwellers. The open space there is important to their quality of city-life, right? Well, the City planners have just advocated closing-in that open space in favour of a 3 storey glass-enclosed grocery store addition!

Who can fathom that wisdom?

[Max Moore]

Re: Making Toronto Truly Great

What it would take to make Toronto truly great
in the eyes of the nation and the hearts of the world –

1. An Artcity Theme Park instead of an island airport.

2. Developing Toronto Island as Toronto’s Central Park, accessible on both ends.

3. A Waterfront Playground for everyone’s use, stretching from Harbourfront Centre to Ontario Place, The Ex and Liberty Village.

4. Publicizing Toronto as the Top of the World, and Ontario as a communications crossroads for America, Europe, Russia and China.

5. Suing the federal government in a class action suit, on behalf of all communities, for a fair share of national income tax revenues.

[Carl V]

I agree with Mr Novak's post. The City should own services that all citizens benefit from. Skiing is not enjoyed by all the taxpayers, probably only a small minority. I like go-karting, why doesn't the city have a subsidized go-karting track? (That was a joke)

[S.Avgerinos]

Sandra,

Great, I really thought you piece about Paris being re-invented in Toronto was an absolutely brilliant idea. The chairs would be so inviting. Since the St.Lawrence market is across the street, many people would want to stop on the way home for a coffee and enjoy "fountain spaying". I have to agree with you, and would love to see something like this happen is this area. We should make the best of our neighbours.

[Sandra Cardinal]

Having just returned home from holidaying in Mexico, I am more firmly convinced than ever, that we need to use our parks and public spaces more adventurously. This city seems so bland in contrast to other world cities where public spaces are made vibrant through a happy mix of small commercial enterprises with public amenities like walking paths, benches, tables, amphitheatres, sculpture and so on. City departments need to offer up permits to all kinds of quality food vendors, artisans, artists, and buskers to draw people out to our parks and squares for an afternoon or evening of social interaction. How about some comments from city candidates about this idea for adding vibrancy. We've already got the parks all over the city; we just need a bit of park furniture (likely funded through license fees from small vendors)and some encouragement through publications like The Star for people to get out there and enjoy our outdoor urban places. Berczy Park would be a great first go at this. Neighbours, how do we get this done?