Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things!
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved
Live Green Toronto's Bright Idea
Stacks of Tracks (in the Stacks)
This morning at about 10 a.m., Ken Wood and some of the other residents living on Lansdowne Avenue heard buzzsaws.
Today was the day when construction on their street was to begin, with the aim of narrowing it down from four lanes to two. The move is already contentious: residents are unhappy about, as the Globe put a few days ago, "increased congestion and...a lack of consultation [with councillor Adam Giambrone]," and every other house, from Bloor south to College, now sports a "GIAMBRONE DON'T NARROW LANSDOWNE!" sign on their front lawn.
But this morning's buzzsaws, of course, weren't for the road itself, but for the trees that line it outside of West Toronto Collegiate. The move was a total surprise for the residents, as the narrowing plan called for more trees and flowers and seems to have mentioned nothing about removing the existing ones. So, in protest, the appropriately-named Wood grabbed a chain and wrapped himself and it around one of the trees that hadn't been cut down yet—the one south of him, bare of leaves and branches in the photo above, already had been. The protesters who joined him periodically throughout today (there were about five when we showed up at 3:30, but people had been dropping in and out) were a diverse group: some, like Wood, were actually for the street's reduction; others were against it; but all objected to the removal of the trees, as well as to the process that the renovation has taken so far, specifically the aforementioned lack of consultation between Giambrone and the residents. When one protester called the office today about the trees, for instance, she was told that they were being cut down because "they're sick," and that, in total, about seven to twelve trees are going to be cut down and replaced with saplings.
While today's protest had that typical air of Canadian niceness, with protesters offering the policeman standing guard a water bottle and residents from the street offering Wood another one as we talked to him, today was just the beginning. Wood says that he's willing to go to jail to protect the trees, and that the second he hears those buzzsaws drone tomorrow morning, he'll be back out again, chain and all.
Photo by David Topping.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Well good luck to him, but this is Toronto after all.
In High Park, the modus operandi of the Parks and Recreation Department is to chop down (or burn to death -- controlled burns my ass) all the healthy trees and leave the sick ones to blow over in a storm.
With the sheer amount of wanton destruction they've wrought, they should be renamed the Park Deforestation Department.
It's a little shocking -- cutting down what look like perfectly healthy trees (at least 10, maybe up to 30 years old) to widen the sidewalk. This is the "greening" plan?
The plan was approved without virtually any input from residents; they didn't even follow their own rules for approving it.
The residents must and will stop this. Thanks, Ken.
yipyip> As someone who as worked caring for trees for over a decade I can assure you that the controlled burn in High Park is an innovative way to replicate the grass fires that once frequently occured on this land enabling the black and white oak acorns to germinate. As for the trees cut down in high park, they were dying as a result of "oak decline" a serious threat to our remaining oak population. The city forestry department does not have the resources ncessary to cut down the structurally unsafe and dying public trees, let alone cut down healthy ones.
Not all the residents oppose it and the changes are also for the benefit of the larger community. I live in that community and support the narrowing.
Sometimes trees have to be cut down to do larger good. New trees will replace them so really there is no net loss.
That said, it does seem odd to me that I have not, nor would it seem have residents seen any kind of plan that would have alerted them to the tree removal.Usually a plan is circulated but I have yet to see one.
I noted that not all the residents support the narrowing in my article, scott: Ken Wood (the guy chained to the tree) actually supports it, while some of the other people out today didn't.
What a hero! God forbid they should cut down any trees as part of a process that will improve the street enormously.
These "protesters" don't seem interested in any kind of constructive dialogue - they just want to avoid losing a portion of their coveted street parking. Giambrone is right to stick to his guns.
good mine - Apparently the city isn't interested in any kind of constructive dialogue either: the residents weren't told the trees would be cut down.
Tree = Tree seems reasonable on paper, but a 2 year old from a tree farm isn't a 20 year old that has proven itself capable of growing at that location. Imagine if we burned down all the old growth forests and replaced them with saplings. There is a difference.
Scot:
Regarding your comment that "it does seem odd to me that I have not, nor would it seem have residents seen any kind of plan that would have alerted them to the tree removal.Usually a plan is circulated but I have yet to see one"
So you admit that this does seem odd to you? Well guess what? There's a lot about this whole thing that seems odd to a good deal of people. I know that a lot of people support some of the changes that the City has planned -- and a lot of people don't. But the people who have been saying that they have not seen due process followed and proper consultation take place, have not been playing the "consultation" card as some people have accused them of. What has happened with these trees is for me, another indicator that the City is not interested in consulting with this community. People here have not been asking for special treatment -- they've been asking for fair treatment. Why is it that many of the "net"-erati (the supposedly educated types who post comments in response to online stories) seem to be Ok with the idea of a community being railroaded by City Hall?
After drifting into accusations of negligence against the "neterati" (a powerful and ominous group I'm sure), I'm going to try to put this discussion back on a productive track.
What specific changes would those opposed to the current plans like to see?
hey Sam,
regarding your statement:
" "net"-erati (the supposedly educated types who post comments in response to online stories) "
i don't think possessing the ability to type qualifies as "educated" . all it means is you can move your fingers and spell .... whether what gets spelled out is intelligent or not is a different issue ...
Mine,
i'm not sure here but based on the guy chaining himself to the tree, i would think NOT CUTTING THE TREES DOWN.
The street will surely be nicer after the reno, but I hope they find a way to save the mature trees.
I just wanted to comment to the person who said the protesters dont seem interested in any kind of constructive dialogue.
Thats exactly what the protesters are trying to make happen. So far, no one on the Citys side is listening. All other avenues have been tried, appealing directly to Giambrone, after having received a promise from him just prior to him being elected that he would have further discussions with the community, to the Mayor who for unknown reasons is just parroting Giambrones statement that consultation took place, to all the councillors voting on this matter, to the Integrity Commissioner, to the media to raise awareness, to the community to raise awareness.
If you have any other ideas as to how a community is to get its voice heard under these circumstances please put them forward. They would be most welcome.
As far as there being no net loss to cutting down 35 year old trees and replacing them with saplings goes, simply to move a piece of sidewalk to be right next to the roadway, it will take another 30 years for the new trees to be as large and beautiful as the existing ones even supposing that they all survive. Until that time everyone will get to benefit from a handful of twigs.
And in the end there will be a net loss of those trees that have been killed. They are alive today, when the plan is done they will be dead.
Are you trying to suggest that killing living things is justified if we replace them with more? Would it be OK to kill a handful of people as long as new ones came to take their place?
(Just an update: Ken's back on Lansdowne again today.)
I live on Lansdowne. Here is a very important point that no one seems to understand.
The People of Lansdowne have worked hard and paid lots of money to own homes on the Street. So now the City is coming in and is going to LOWER the property value of all the house which is the same as STEALING from us. Just remember if people don’t help us stop this your helping the city STEAL from us with your silence. PLEASE HELP US. I would help you if the situations was reverse, please take 2 min and send an e-mail to the below asking them to reconsider the narrowing. And please post this info anywhere you can.
mayor_miller@toronto.ca; councillor_giambrone@toronto.ca; councillor_davis@toronto.ca; councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca ; sbussin@toronto.ca; councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca; councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca; councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca; councillor_ootes@toronto.ca; councillor_pantalone@toronto.cacouncillor_perks@toronto.ca; councillor_rae@toronto.ca; councillor_walker@toronto.ca; councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca; councillor_ashton@toronto.ca; councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca; councillor_carroll@toronto.ca; councillor_cho@toronto.ca; councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca; councillor_delgrande@toronto.ca; councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca; councillor_feldman@toronto.ca; councillor_filion@toronto.ca;councillor_ford@toronto.ca; councillor_grimes@toronto.ca; councillor_hall@toronto.ca; councillor_heaps@toronto.ca; councillor_holyday@toronto.ca; councillor_jenkins@toronto.ca; councillor_kelly@toronto.ca; councillor_lee@toronto.ca; councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca; councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca; councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca; councillor_minnan-wong@toronto.ca;councillor_moeser@toronto.ca; councillor_moscoe@toronto.ca; councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca; councillor_palacio@toronto.ca; councillor_parker@toronto.ca; councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca; councillor_saundercook@toronto.ca; councillor_shiner@toronto.ca; councillor_stintz@toronto.ca; councillor_thompson@toronto.ca
What I'm reading here is mostly just the same innuendo and lack of ideas.
Chris: thanks for your thoughtful ALL CAPS comment about the trees, it really brought the tone of the discussion up.
Steve: so far I've seen zero evidence that property values will go down on Lansdowne after this plan is implemented, and you haven't provided any. As someone who keeps an eye on asking prices in the area, I get a sense that values are actually up where they made changes further south, near Queen. Are you suggesting values will go down because there'll be less street parking?
Gypsybird: I commend you for adding some reasoned points to the discussion. What steps would you like to see now? If you get your wish and construction is paused, what form would the consultation take, taking into consideration that the atmosphere is so combative?
What bothers me about debates in TO over projects like this one is that thoughtful residents who are willing to contribute their ideas and debate the tradeoffs are drowned out by loudmouths opposed to any change. And the opponents always seem to emerge at the last minute. . .
Don't any of the opponents attend their community council meetings? If this was truly hidden from public debate then I'm willing to side with people like Gypsybird - Giambrone should have knuckled down, taken the abuse, and listened then. But I have a feeling that most of the opponents just emerged to fight against change, instead of contributing to the plan in the first place.
I'm going to repeat my question: What specific changes would those opposed to the current plans like to see?
good mine, I thought that Chris answered that the last time you posed it, all caps or not: they don't want the trees cut down.
When I spoke to them, they were pretty clear that they thought that if the road were to be narrowed (or otherwise adjusted; I believe that the section where the trees are right now is going to be a pull-in space for buses?), that it should accommodate the existing trees.
good mine,
For me, their is a distinction between "opposed to the current plans" and raising opposition. I can not support or oppose a plan that has not been revealed fully(as evidenced on June 18). I don't own a car, I walk my daughter to school in the morning and then I walk to work. The physical changes are not an issue for me. But I have been raising opposition and protesting.
I'm willing to be seen as ridiculous, I know its naive - I don't think its right for a community to be treated the way the people of this community have been, no matter what the plan looks like. That might seem silly to you. For me there is no excuse for it.
What should community consultation look like - I would want it to at least fulfill the following two objectives
• "The local government should undertake to:
........................................
..• Produce clear and concise consultation processes and documents;
......................................
..Ensure that the needs and interests of minorities and socially excluded groups are included;"
(Supporting Civic Engagement in Ward 14:
A Community Compact
Roncesvalles-Macdonell Residents' Association)
If you can find a way to include these on the architect drawings, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Yes, it is true there was no public debate even though it was promised. And there were many attempts by residents to get that to happen before this story hit the media and the general public became aware of it.
I dont know how many of you have attended community council meetings yourself. At that level, decision making is often a farce. The open voting system only ensures that everyone usually agrees with the member bringing an item forward when it is a local matter. There is an assumption that the member has already done his/her homework on it and taken appropriate measures and/or members dont want their own items quashed in retaliation later. Not everyone is even required to vote, they only have to be sitting in their seats. The public can make deputations until they're blue in the face and it doesnt matter. I have sat through council meetings where one item has been debated for 8 hours or more and deputations against it go on and on. When the voting time comes, a few may participate, ho-hum, many others are looking at their watches and wondering when they can get out of the meeting to prepare for their garden party or whatever is going on that day at home. Next minute because a few councillors raised their hand in favor the item gets passed. (Yes this is a cynical view. I have personally witnessed this on more than one occasion though.)
The point is that community council meetings are not a substitute for community consultation and are not a viable forum for the public to express opinions and concerns with any real hope of affecting outcome.
I think Luiga says it well when she says we need to actually see the full, complete plans before we can say what changes we'd like to see overall.
Obviously we dont want the trees to be cut down for starters. We dont need the sidewalk moved over to the road. It is prettier and safer where it is. There is a buffer both physically and visually between the space where people are walking and the traffic. The trees are already there and have the lovely character of a space that has evolved over the last 30-40 years and more! Lets preserve it, not tear it down in the name of beautification and greening. Concrete planter boxes and a tidy mathematically precise new little row of baby trees is not everyones idea of beauty, especially at the cost of killing the existing trees. This 'greening' plan is appearing more and more to be someones opportunity to use a lot of taxpayers money to no good purpose and someone elses opportunity to lay claim to revitalizing a neighborhood, which is instead just feeling frustrated, disengaged, disrespected, angry, hurt and discouraged.
How does the City expect to encourage residents to recycle, reuse, reduce, respect the environment, when in its own vision, everything is seen as expendable?
here's a suggestion.
Every ward should have its own web page on toronto.ca (not on the councillor page, they pimp themselves enough). It should list every project the city has a hand in in the ward (TTC streetcar rail rebuilds, new trees/cutting down trees, new transit shelters, road widening/narrowing, water mains, new parks, library refurbishment etc. etc.) and provide direct links to project documents and flag updates to the plan or to delivery dates.
That way people can simply consult the page (preferably with an RSS feed) to find out if something new is planned or if a change has been made to plans already proposed.
As for Adam Giambrone, I hope that when he plans future projects he has his staff keep better consultation records on his surveys to avoid "he said/he said" wars as has happened between him and Mr Galati - he's not a rookie councillor any more and as Chair of the TTC consultation is a word he's going to become very familiar with as Transit City progresses.
Mark,
Your suggestion that each ward have its own page on toronto.ca, would certainly begin to address the issue of transparency.
The issue of consultation, which I think has to do with not only keeping people appraised, but with actually allowing peoples input on a project, could possibly be addressed by the city actually legitimizing the process.
I don't think a proper consultation process, would have prevented Lansdowne from being narrowed, but I certainly do think it would have seen some amendments to the plan. To me thats the purpose of consultation.
That the city seems to think that it can pick and choose what is proper consultation depending on the area being affected?
I don't know what to say?
What justification is there for that kind of behaviour?
Mr. Giambrone, sent out a letter to all lansdowne residents, Sept. 27/06 stating there would be further community consultaiton in 2007 regarding this project. The mayors office backed this up Oct. 05/06. This is not "he said/he said" with Mr.Giambrone and Mr. Galati. These are documented facts. No consultation meetings ever took place after residents recieved these correspondence.
Does it have to be all one way, either the residents are up in arms about banning a project, or who cares about the residents the corporation of the city of toronto is going to do what it wants. What we have been lobbying for since day one is proper consultation.
As for Adam's phantom survey, that is not a forum to allow residents input on a project.
Yes there are residents on the street who don't want it narrowed (and I don't think Adam's touted numbers add up here), there are residents who do want it narrowed, there are residents who wanted proper consultation before implementation - ie. Mr. Galati, and there are residents like Mr. Wood who agrees with narrowing, and now realizes how lack of proper consultation impacts an issue he is passionate about, trees. And there are others, who don't care either way.
This is not a mystery, any area across the city implementing a project has varying views from the community. Thats why consultation is mandatory in some areas, ie ward 14. So Why is it mandatory in some areas and not others?
Suggestion: all areas, should see the same level of consultation.
(mark I usually don't post this lengthy a comment. I just wanted to say thanks for being so provocative)