Vote or move to Hamilton?

Cheap real estate, the burgeoning of James Street North, the Art Crawl, a progressive labour movement, a strategy on poverty reduction, plans (already underway) to expand the transportation infrastructure, interesting leaders.

Forget Toronto for the next four years. I think I'm moving to Hamilton.

The terribly bitter taste of apathy

For a few days, I contemplated when the best time would be to post this.

I am sitting in front of my computer reading Tweets, blogs and Facebook status messages about an event that has become the largest grassroots celebration of creative young people in Toronto's recent history. The event in question was more than a one-day show-and-tell photo op with tokenized young people. It was a genuine expression of appreciation of community and creativity among peers.

And yet, not a mayoral candidate in sight.

Manifesto is a community arts festival that began with $3,000 and a young person's ambitious dream... four years ago. That $3,000 fuelled the masterminding of what is now one of the most memorable movements to touch the lives of youth across Toronto (and soon Jamaica). You see, unlike Nuit Blanche, TIFF and all of the other innovative arts and culture events Manifesto learned very quickly that youth live outside of the downtown core and decided to engage the entire city.

They broke down the downtown divide and invited Malvern, Rexdale, Jane/Finch and others to participate in a 7-day festival of politics, music, film and art by bringing events to them. Reaching out is the first step to effective engagement and when done right results in very successful results. For Manifesto, success was an 7-day festival that brought about 10,000 young people together (without any incidences of "disturbance") with more than 100 youth volunteers and staff. The Manifesto team is led by youth, who employ other youth (*gasp* what a concept) to run the entire show. Sure, they have help of adult allies, but adults don't dictate what will happen. In the most uptopian of uptopias, Manifesto epitomizes what true engagement is.

And it's for that reason alone that I wish there was at least ONE mayoral candidate present to take note.

With election day nearing, I can't help but reflect on my lack of reflection on these posts. Why, as someone who remains incredibly passionate about the municipal affairs of this city, have I been so painfully silent about the mayoral race?

I've written and deleted 4 or 5 posts, unsure of how to articulate my answer. However, after seeing ZERO political representation (save for some bickering about my article in the Manifesto Magazine (p 65) from certain candidates) at Manifesto's 7-day festival that even brought out the likes of the honourable Governor General, Michaelle Jean, I have come to the conclusion that I am experiencing the terribly bitter taste of apathy.

I just don't care. 

I don't care to engage in the slanderfest, laugh at the ribbing or decry the doom and gloom state of the city under a particular leader's rule. And I certainly don't care to pretend that our city has been sucked into a financial black hole with no way out. 

When did we become a city that spends more time on informal smear campaigns and trash talking than we do being 21st first century visionaries? Call me naive, but I believe that Toronto is on the path to something incredible; something that will further solidify our legacy as an international city with an abudance of creativity, amazing people and fresh ideas. Manifesto is one manifestation a multitude of great contributions to this city. So what do the candidates have to say about this?

Let's hope they address it at the arts debate this Wednesday.

About Tonika Morgan

What's the return policy on mayoral candidates?

If we don't like any of our options, can we "return" our mayoral candidates? You know, post them back on the shelf in whatever backroom they came from and find another option?

Don't get me wrong, our candidates are decent people, but I'm looking for something a bit better than "decent". After all, a "decent" mayor can't help Toronto forge into the future, can they?

A few nights ago, I was speaking to a friend about my recent travels to New Orleans and New York City. Like most conversations with 20-somethings who travel abroad ready to become consumed by a life that is similar but starkly different from their own, the conversation found its way to that inevitable path- Toronto vs. *insert cosmopolitan city here*

No, Richmond St. isn’t Bourbon Street and High Park will never be Central Park, but what about the cultures? The people? The spirit of the city?

Make no mistake that New Orleans and New York City are possessed by the spirit of innovation, creativity and resilience. After all, New Orleans is the birthplace of jazz and New York is the birthplace of hip hop. Both genres of music were created out of very oppressive, classist and even racist realities that forced people to turn lemons into lemonade.

Toronto lives in a 21st-century reality where we have, as my friend put it, “an embarrassment of riches”. Decent housing, decent social safety net, decent culture and entertainment. What more do we need? As a city, we have the means to maintain a decent standard of life.

And herein lies our problem.

We are too satisfied with “decent”. We’ve been afforded the luxuries of the first-world modern economy: free public education, health care and a city that would never tolerate the kind of discrimination that was once tolerated our (yes, I’m implicating Canada in this) country's history. My goodness, we can even protest and demand inquiries into the misuse and abuse of power without a death threat or public execution in sight.

Sarah Thompson can hop on the political bandwagon under the tattered banner of second wave feminism because she has a decent business track record. George Smitherman can walk away from a provincial fiscal fiasco and run for mayor with decent chance of winning because he’s a warm, engaging and decent guy (nice to speak to too). Rocco Rossi is a decent fundraiser and influencer, which appears to be all that you need to run a decent city like Toronto. Rob Ford has spent a fair number of years on city council and is the only candidate who can speak to the the inner-workings of the city most intimately, which, combined with his ability to reach the common (wo)man makes him a decent alternative. And Joe Pantalone... well he’s just a decent guy, but that’s about it as far as the mayoral race is concerned.

So with all of this decency, what are we left with with? Forgive me for saying this, but this complacent satisfaction with decent has only resulted in a mediocre mayoral race. A few friends have said that I should hold my judgement until late fall, but dammit I'm tired of watching Smitherman kiss babies, Rossi lap it up at barbeques and Thompson's tweets about days at the cottage. It's a race for goodness sakes. RUN!

It didn’t take long for me to realize that both New York and New Orleans are cities that will not settle for mediocrity. Instead, people demand more. They fight. They create. They resist. They innovate. They push the city to its limits by challenging what was once considered decent rules, decent laws and decent regulations. The people did not settle.

For those of us who are less than satisfied with the selection of mayoral candidates, who do we blame for the lack of selection? Big business? Educational institutions? Ourselves? By living, working and playing in this city, we shape the legacy of this city for the future. If our legacy is one of mediocrity, then expect mediocre leadership.

Next election, we should get candidates to complete a "Are you decent?" questionnaire. Those who score as "highly decent" will be returned. And by returned I mean that they will be immediately thanked for their time and encouraged to stick to their day jobs.

However, those who make it past the questionnaire will be invited to a three-day political ironman/ironwoman challenge created by the people of Toronto. It would include all kinds of challenges like the budget challenge ("find $100M in 48 hours"), a safety perception challenge ("to fund or not to fund: increase police budget or increase grants to communities?"). We could even have a popularity contest on Twitter (how many new followers can you get in one day?). That would certainly push our candidates out of the prosaic box of mediocrity, wouldn't it?

Yes, the ideas are wild, ridiculous even. But we need something to ensure that we don't ever have a mayoral race that leaves me and my well educated peers more inclined to follow Kevin Clarke Twitter feeds than get civically engaged.

About Tonika Morgan

It's official: now we are 'world class.' Aren't we?

The G20 is over and the impact of the chaos and brief moments of nihilist anarchy have left us with a world class city.

Isn’t this what we wanted?

It's been a couple of weeks  since the G-20 officially ended and even a 4-day trip of New Orleans (more on that later) can't shake the dark cloud that has eclipsed the city.

A few days ago I heard someone at my hair salon remark with disgust about how embarrassed she was to call herself a Torontonian after witnessing the weekend's events. On Twitter friends and strangers alike traded “war stories” of the people on the front lines who were violated, silenced and denied their human rights.

There were those who cheered that rebellious faction of vandalizers for their "bravery to take on the establishment" (this prompted loud dissent among the small group). And of course there were the TTC patrons who were really just in dire need of information about when their favourite store, which was victimized by vandalism, was reopening so as not to avoid paying that additional 8% on their favourite goods. If there's one thing that I've noticed about the world it's that whether apathy or anger, world-class cities are always full of mixed opinions and experiences.

If this is true, then we did it, Toronto. We finally became a world-class city. We finally got our chance to prove what Torontonians have wanted the world believe all along; Toronto is the place to be in the 21st century. We hosted the world’s 20 most influential leaders as they deliberated over strategies to change/improve/damage our collective futures and the world watched it happen. Toronto got the international attention that we've been waiting for and for the right reasons. As a display of democratically sanctioned global domination, the G20 brought cheers and jeers from across the city and beyond. Still we got it done and it only cost us $1.1B plus damages, 900+ arrests, a few rubber bullets and a demoralized population.

After tallying all of the reciepts and accounting for all of the damages, what has the G20 really cost us, Toronto?

I've thought about this answer for a few days and even had a few conversations with friends about it. While many feel like they personally lost $1.1B ("those were my tax dollars down the drain, you know!"), it seems that my peers and I agree that Toronto has lost its identity.

The G20 forced a number of realities on us.

First, it confirmed that we’re not the city we thought we were. Instead we were forced to snap out of our fantastical illusions of Toronto as a progressive and inclusive city.

In addition, many of us have now been forced to choose a side; In not so many words we are being faced with an ultimatum: You’re either with Toronto, or you are an anarchist. After all, if you dislike the that rebellious faction dressed in black, then it follows that you support the $1.1B efforts of the police force, doesn't it?

This issue has put many of us (myself included) at odds with our municipal leaders who continue to shower praise and deny the injustices that happened on the weekend. Indeed, we have become a divided city that is now home to the bitter, angry, resentful and hurt. I keep wondering if anyone has anything positive to say about Toronto’s role in the G20 without pausing and then regretfully shaking their head in shame? 

On the topic of impending global economic, environmental and political matters of tomorrow, we've had to let go of our usual lines of defence (our multiculturalism, our position as the economic engine of Canada, etc.) because they don't make sense in this discussion.

Does our multiculturalism really help us make any political statements if we keep reducing it to the variety of ethnic restaurants in this city? And as the economic engine of Canada, are there any fiscal policy agendas we pushed that would make Toronto and Canada proud?

In short, no.

Instead we politely protested. Personally, the weakness of our mobilization tactics made us look politically inept and socially disconnected with the innovative strategies of political organizing. In other words, polite chanting might work among polite Canadians, but on the world stage requires a more elaborate or strategic kind of production. In the end, it looks like Toronto failed the test of world-“class-ness” and instead have been reduced to a Canada-class city. 

But world-class is what we wanted, wasn't it? When my fellow writers and I began writing on the Your City My City blog back in March, many of our first entries talked about Toronto as a world-class city. Now in the aftermath of the G20, perhaps we should’ve been more careful for what we all wished for- or better prepared.

Today we are left in the wake of a tornado of political and media-driven hoopla. And for what? Bragging rights? I've spoken to a few friends and watched the commentary of the post G20 events. And while it's hard to see now, I think an opportunity has emerged.

The G-20 has finally given our upcoming election substance its been lacking.

Our candidates are now better positioned to speak directly to us about a matter that touched all of us. We can finally stop the political rhetoric and talk about some real issues. Our global initiation on to the world stage was humiliating for many Torontonians and left us wondering what went wrong. If our municipal leaders want to make a compelling case for why they should be mayor, they need to answer this:

Mr or Mrs Mayor, in light of the G20, what lessons have you learned and how can we apply them to future events (in ways that wont humiliate us again)?

About Tonika Morgan

The progressive silence is deafening

Today's entry is inspired by my last post and leaves me wondering where Toronto's progressive voice is in this mayoral race. My last post left me rambling about something that a reader was kind enough to seek clarification about:

“Hi, Tonika,

while I heard a lot of rhetoric in this piece, and agree with the general sentiment that we should give our seniors more help, I don't quite get the specific issue you are complaining about.”

To be clear the “rant” was about 3 things:

1. As a first generation Canadian, I appreciate the work that my grandmother put in to ensure that my father and subsequently, I had a better life

2. Toronto needs to acknowledge that a newcomer who retires, is not like a Canadian-born retiree through an innovative taxation system

3. This innovative system should be part of a larger seniors strategy that is inclusive and includes the experiences of seniors like my grandmother (who is not sitting on a $500,000 nest egg)

I read the comment three times and then read my post. After the third time I regretfully conceded that the reader was, in fact, correct. My point was lost somewhere between my passionate story about grandma and the end. It really got me thinking about this in a larger context.

It’s no secret that I would count myself among the politically progressive. These circles often consist of advocates, activists and sometimes radicals who enjoy jumping on their soapbox. However, I often find that many of my peers get so passionate about illustrating their point that they lose it. In turn, our conservative counterparts, who often don’t share our fire, desire and compassion use these moments to discredit our views on the basis that we can’t clearly state them in 30 words or less.

The progressive voice in this mayoral race is missing. Why? Is it because overzealous storytelling trumps the utility of the story itself? Can the progressives in this mayoral race just get to the point?

About Tonika Morgan

Death and taxes: A vision For Toronto's seniors

Is what they say about death and taxes true? Until recently, I accepted both as the predetermined irrevocable course of life and never thought to question it. That is until I thought about my grandmother.

Nothing beats my grandma’s cooking. You name it, she can cook it. In fact, every time I’m at her house being fed, yet another helping of chicken, macaroni pie or rice and peas I ask her how she does it. Her response is always the same, “I’ve been doing it all my life”. The truth is my grandma cooks like her life depends on it because there was a time when it did. Today it’s the kind of reality show that would have made networks millions; think Survivor meets Iron Chef, but instead of losing your chance at millions, you get deported or lose your work permit.

As a young mother in her 20s, my grandma left Jamaica to build a better life for her children. She left her tiny island and her tiny tots in the care of her siblings and prepared for a new life in Canada. Her first job was as a domestic in Nova Scotia where her cooking talents eventually led to a stable job in Toronto. During that time she would send money back home, working towards the day when her kids (my dad and aunt)would be by her side. Then in 1976, with her stable employment and understanding of the Canadian way of life, my dad and aunt arrived to Canada.

My grandma worked hard to make sure her kids did well. And what repayment will she get for her years of service? Death and taxes. In the spirit of non-discrimination, this seems to be the “gift” every senior receives, even the ones who don’t have the adequate means to live a dignified life. It’s too bad you can’t regift bad government decisions. Or maybe you can.

Could Toronto introduce a revised taxation system that uses property taxes to make life better for low income seniors? Wait, we do that through the Ontario Fair Assessment System, but let’s take that step further. Almost 10 per cent of Toronto’s population lives in social housing. And that number will double in the next few years. Municipalities like ours need to take a leadership role and design a plan that ensures that seniors who weren’t able to afford a house in our expensive city can still have a chance at a life of dignity.

The statistics are alarming. More than 20 per cent of Toronto’s seniors live in poverty and the number continues to grow in this city. Many impoverished seniors live alone, without many social networks. Family and supports are sporadic at best, and with the unstable funding of many non-profit organizations, community programs are only in “just visiting” status; long enough to say hello, but just as quick to say goodbye (Aside: is this what they mean by “socially liberal and fiscally conservative?”).

Currently Toronto’s poverty rate for seniors is 50 per cent higher than the national average. If the predictions are right and this population increases by 50 per cent by time 2031 rolls around, what does that mean for us?

If we do nothing, then it means nothing. Life will remain as is. Seniors will continue to suffer in silence, living in social and economic exile, confirming their existence through up-to-date tax records. Meanwhile, the cost of living (especially food, shelter, transportation) will continue skyrocket to stratospheric levels at the same time that quality of life plummets to embarrassingly, no, shamefully substandard levels.

By revising our taxation system for low income seniors, Toronto would be making a bold statement: that seniors deserve a life of dignity.

Currently the income supports for impoverished seniors are a guarantee that they will die poor and forgotten; Poor because of their struggle to pay for taxes on a very limited income and forgotten because living in poverty often is a life of isolation for seniors. When you’re a poor senior, there’s no afternoon brunch and social clubs to frequent. That’s a luxury afforded to the affluent.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that social clubs open their doors to destitute seniors. What I’m suggesting is that our government take a leadership role in recognizing that as Toronto becomes home to more and more seniors and the poverty becomes an inevitable reality, we should look at the taxing impact of the taxation system on impoverished seniors.

This also raises a bigger questions: Do we have an equitable vision for aging in Toronto? Yes, the old adage about death and taxes is true. They are inevitable, but they should not be related.

About Tonika Morgan

Note to boomers: The future belong to us

Today’s post is not directly related to Toronto, but can have some serious implications for this city. I joined fellow bloggers, Pat Capponi and Rev. Jim Parker to learn about a province wide movement so compelling that the former president of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, decided to participate in the discussion. (Aside: Toronto, who would come to our table if we called them?)

The discussion began as many do, chronologically. However, I wasn’t interested in that. I wanted to hear ideas.

While there were a few good ones, there was one really bad idea that even now I still can’t shake out of my head; no caps on tuition fees. As in, no limits on how much a university or college would charge a student to be ordained by the ivory tower. As in debt for 40+ years. As in your child will live in your basement until the ripe old age of 50.

Who would propose such a ludicrous idea? Apparently it was Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.

When I first heard it, I wrote it down to ensure that I heard it correctly. Then I read it to myself. Then I read it again. And again. As everyone else continued to speak in what suddenly sounded like muffled sounds, I wrote to myself in my notebook, “Did Roger Martin really say that there should be no cap on tuition?”

As a student of both U of T and Ryerson, I couldn't help but feel a fiery mix of anger and confusion welling up inside of me. Why do our city’s decision makers and key influencers continue to throw stones at the millennial glass house? Have any of these old people ever been stoned (and by stoned I mean hit by rocks)? Do they not realize that they are setting up a younger generation to collapse under the pressure of the bad decisions of the past?

Like many other questionable ideas I’ve heard before, Mr. Martin, a Baby Boomer, seems to live in alternative reality. So I’ve taken it upon myself to write a letter to Baby Boomers to shed some light on what its like to be a millennial today:

Dear Baby Boomers,

This is just a short note to say that you are not the life of the party -- we are. Your future relies on how well we do in the present. To that end, this letter is a request to stop making silly sweeping judgments and rash decisions about our future without truly thinking about the future implications on our precious lives.

When we entered this world, we had no choice but to trust you. We believed that with time, you would mentor us to become the leaders that we thought you were. That is until you decided to squash any chance of us enjoying the fruits of our collective labour.

Speaking of labour, thank you for everything that you’ve done with the labour movement. You’ve managed to create stable jobs with benefits in a number of sectors to benefit yourselves and us. When you retire at, oh wait, no cap on retirement. Well, at least we can rely on one-year contracts.

I guess there is no time like the present.

Thanks for creating world-class institutions. While economies across the world wallow in their own recession-induced self-pity Canada has become a model for excellence in avoiding financial meltdown. In fact, many of you are at the helm of leadership in organizations that are shaping the way my friends and I live. And by live I meant, at the mercy of OSAP.

But at least mortgage rates are under control, right?

Don’t get us wrong, you have done a tremendous amount for our generation. But at what cost? In 2020, our world will look different as many of you hit retirement age. I can’t help but imagine you in the getaway car, while we hold the baggage of the last 20-30 years; a deteriorated social safety net, “free market” universities with tuition equivalent to the cost of a house in Rosedale, and education and training that is irrelevant for a changing economy. A heavy load indeed.

These ideas are not unfounded. In fact, some of your peers are addressing similar issues and others. In fact 250 of them (and a few millennials) got together last month to address these very issues. If someone had told me in February that a group of leaders from the financial sector, labour movement, academia, government and the community sector were getting together for a generative conversation about the future of our state (and the state of our future), I would have keeled over laughing in anxious denial.

However today, sitting in front of Frances Lankin, CEO of United Way, Warren “Smokey” Thomas, president of OPSEU, Mitzie Hunter, CAO of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Len Crispino, CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce I learned about the 2020 Steering Committee and saw with my very own eyes that Boomers do care.

As the story goes, a group of usual and unusual suspects came together to discuss what Ontario would be like in 2020. Radical ideas from the left and the right were put up for discussion, and apparently everyone lived to tell the tale. Actually, many agreed to meet again for another conversation. Whowouldathunkit?

So Baby Boomer, with your wealth and your privileged experience, it’s not too late for you. You had your time in the '60s and '70s. While you are no longer the life of the party, you can still be an amazing party planner. Embrace that. But what good is a party if you keep throwing stones at our glass houses?

Sincerely,

A Mellennial

Am I being dramatic? Maybe. But the point is that today’s political/institutional agenda continues to be driven by a Baby Boomer’s self-interest. Doing this would allow us to have difficult conversations about the state of our future, much like the folks at the 2020 conference did. Toronto prides itself so much on inclusivity and diversity that it's taken for granted and consequently excluded from very important conversations about where our city is headed in the next 10 years.

If I learned anything from the recent presentation from the 2020 Steering Committee, it’s that a lot can be accomplished when we remove self-interest and start thinking about each other.

As much as we want to believe it, I'm not sure if Toronto is ready for that.

About Tonika Morgan

City hall needs a shakeup

Could changing our electoral system help the Toronto of tomorrow?

On Council it’s no secret that we have left- “leaning”, right- “leaning” politicians. The fact that we know they’re leaning means that we are associating their ideas with the political ideology of a political party in other levels of government. We just need to say names: Rob Ford, Karen Stintz, David Shiner, Joe Pantalone, Paula Fletcher, David Miller. We know from the ideas they promote to the provincial candidates they endorse, that they are either left or right.

The voices of Toronto are becoming increasing diverse, culturally, economically and experientially. Over the last few weeks the views and opinions on this blog have made three things perfectly clear:

1. we want this city to be recognized as world-class;
2. the new faces of Toronto are a melange of various cultures and ethnicities, and will represent 60 per cent of the population by 2020 and;
3. the issues and challenges faced by this burgeoning population are not being represented through political leadership

Can our current electoral system address any of this? In a word, no.

Here’s an idea: Scrap the current system and replace it with one in which: a) Politicians must publicly align themselves with a political platform and; b) Proportional representation will be introduced to ensure fair representation of Toronto’s 2.5M residents.

If you’re balking at the idea, then present a better suggestion, because as it stands, the “status quo” is just not cutting it for me anymore.

The reality is that city council is fraught with an underrepresentation of voices and experiences. There aren’t enough women, not enough youth, not enough people of colour and the list goes on. Imagine what a new voting system would do to 20-plus year “career politicians” in our municipal government.

First, it would force them to grab the wheel and turn off the cruise control to retirement. Secondly, it would force them to build stronger relationships with their constituents. Most importantly, it would introduce a level of accountability that guarantees that a career in politics is no lifetime guarantee.

Let’s be real here. To pretend that our municipal system is really non-partisan is to pull the wool over our own eyes. And doing that is frankly doing a great disservice to our democratic process. There needs to be a groundswell that will shake up the look of council by 2020 when the population pendulum swings; only two elections away.

Changing our electoral system to introduce proportional representation might just be the opportunity Toronto needs to reposition itself as world-class.

About Tonika Morgan

Panhandling licence an attack on the poor

I knew that it would only be a matter of time before a ridiculous notion was neatly tucked between eloquent words and antiquated conservative rhetoric.

Okay, let me get this straight. I’m walking down Queen St. West, taking in the fashion, the art, the food and the beautiful sunshine. Suddenly I see a non-threatening individual holding out a cup, soliciting change from passersby. I look for their licence. They don’t have one. I report them to the police, who pick them up, hold them overnight and fine them for not having a licence.

The panhandler is now in the system for not having a panhandler’s licence. However, now they have this fine to repay. So it’s back to Queen Street they go, where they hold out a cup. Then, as luck would have it Mr. Bordonali sees this individual, asks for their panhandler’s licence and alas a downward cycle impoverishment begins.

What kind of city are we when we start licensing the poor? Are we also going to do credit checks on Ontario Works applicants to ensure that they’ve exhausted every possible avenue for income?

How about we ensure that the disabled do a physical with a city-approved doctor to confirm that they are, in fact, disabled and worthy of ODSP? Or better yet, let’s do language tests for non-English-speaking newcomers who need use settlement services? And if nobody makes the grade, we should charge them for fraud. If I could find an eloquent way to say this I would, but this idea is stupid. It’s also offensively primitive. We’re missing the root causes of this whole issue: the widening gap between rich and poor.

Toronto is heralded as powerful centre for commerce. It’s true that we are enviously regarded as the economic engine of Canada. However, this is also a city where youth unemployment is more than twenty percent and the number of people claiming employment insurance skyrocketed from 22,000 to more than 42,000. In true, survival of the fittest fashion, panhandlers seem to be taking matters into their own hands.

People don’t panhandle for the perks. Contrary to conservative belief, there is no real upside to being poor. Tempting as it is to believe, the many, many, many perks that come with sitting on the concrete all day, holding out a cup with hopes that someone will drop a toonie, rather than the pennies, nickels and dimes that many of us prefer to leave, don’t add up to very much.

And more importantly, what would it take to implement something like this?

I will assume that there will be no more surprise surpluses or bailouts any time soon, which means no new revenue streams. So this program would probably be paid out of tax dollars. So what is the cost to taxpayers?

I suppose there needs to be administrative staff monitoring the panhandler master list and the licences. There also needs to be someone responsible for issuing and collecting fines and maybe even some staff to co-ordinate information sessions on “how to get a panhandlers licence." Sounds like a typical municipal program, except for one thing: an assumption of compliance.

Do we really think that panhandlers will be falling over themselves to comply with licensing requirements? Chances are they won't, and then what? What happens to non-compliant panhandlers? Will they be fined, or worse, detained? To do so would put further strain and result in nothing productive. In Ontario it costs upwards of $140 every day to detain someone and $25 per day for alternative measures like probation. This doesn’t include the cost of policing the streets to find the insolent culprits who managed to dodge the first warning. Is this where we really want our tax dollars to go?

I have an idea: stop poor bashing. Licensing the poor won’t make this city socially or financially rich. Long term commitments in what this city really needs (i.e. housing, childcare) is where we need to shift our focus.

About Tonika Morgan

We're misfiring at the TTC

Should living in Etobicoke, Scarborough, Rexdale, Malvern or North York increase your TTC metropass to $231 a month? Apparently the TTC thinks so. Don’t be upset. It’s not their fault.

While I'm not new to the suburbs, I have never lived in the suburbs as an adult making adult decisions. These include thinking about the distance to the nearest subway that would take me to work, locating the nearest grocery store (because downtown there’s a 24hr Metro everywhere) or finding a restaurant that doesn’t close before 10 p.m.

Last week was my first official week in suburbia, and I decided to tackle the issue of commuting time to work.

I expected there to be a complex route that included, bus, streetcar, bus, then train.

Fortunately, I learned that six blocks from my house, a TTC express bus drives directly into the downtown core (Queen Station).

To confirm this information, I called the TTC's info line at 416-393-INFO. Not only did the woman on the other end of the line confirm that the bus existed, but she pleasantly informed me that I can take it for an extra $2.50 each way at one of the three scheduled times.

I felt the left side of my body go numb and the right side tried to join it.

I did the math in my head, and was in disbelief. So I pulled out my calculator. Both numbers turned out to be the same; $121 for my metropass plus $110 to take the express bus every work day for a month equals $231. My numbness soon turned into a wave of indignation directed squarely at the TTC.

I thought, where does Toronto get the nerve to call itself a great, livable city if it costs me $230 a month to take the TTC to work? And then it dawned on me. It’s not entirely the TTC’s fault. City council is to blame too.

TTC isn’t just the issue of the Mayor or the TTC chair. It’s an issue for all of us, which means we need to make our elected officials speak up. After all, TTC ridership is up to 473 million rides annually, breaking the previous record of 466 million. Ridership is steadily increasing. Doesn’t that count for something? I’d hope so.

Let’s put the issue in front of our city councillors. We want them to know that we’re concerned, angry, irritated by the service of an underfunded system. It's time that they take our concerns and insert themselves into a transit subsidy strategy.

As for the future mayor, I have one question: As our city continues to grow, what strategies (creative or otherwise) will you employ to address the issue of subsidizing our transit system with the appropriate levels of government?

About Tonika Morgan