Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
31°/19°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
26°/16°

10 Comments

news

How We Make Decisions, Not Just What’s Decided, is an Environmental Issue Too

20100830enviro2.jpg
Traffic on Sheppard Avenue East. Photo by djp3000 from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.


Franz Hartmann is the executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance. In a series of posts leading up to the municipal election this fall, he’ll be discussing environmental priorities for the city and assessing the leading candidates’ environmental policies.

The way we make decisions and policies can be as important as the decisions themselves.
One issue that has been largely neglected in the upcoming municipal election is how we make decisions that end up affecting the environment. Consider: if a decision-making process increases the chance of making bad environmental policies, shouldn’t we avoid this process?
Some candidates hoping to become Toronto’s next mayor are promising to change key decision-making processes, which could lead to bad environmental policies. The best example of this is changing how the TTC makes decisions.


Right now, the TTC Commission (essentially the organization’s board of directors) is made up of city councillors. When the TTC is working well, people leave their cars at home, and that means less pollution. When it’s not working well, the opposite happens.
Currently, many candidates claim the TTC isn’t working well, and say that politicians making bad decisions is the key reason why. They claim the solution is appointing experts, not politicians, to run the TTC. At first glance, this seems like a good idea. But a more careful look suggests the exact opposite.
First, it’s important to identify what sort of experts the TTC needs. TTC critics point to the current Commission’s decisions about money, customer service, and transit technology. Obviously, Commissioners need financial, technological, and customer service expertise. But being a TTC Commissioner requires a lot more than just those skills. The TTC moves over 470 million people every year. Doing this properly means understanding public engagement, city planning issues, local economic development, and neighbourhood concerns, along with environmental priorities—which means TTC Commissioners should be experts in these areas as well.
Most importantly, TTC Commissioners need to be experts at balancing all the conflicting interests that inevitably arise when dealing with so many issues at once. For example, how do you balance the need for public input and involvement with the need for quick action? How do you balance the interests of a neighbourhood, which may not want another subway entrance, with the interests of transit users who need it?
It’s a tall order to find an expert who can do this. That’s why we have governments run by people we elect. Through the election process, we ask candidates to tell us what they stand for and why. Once they are elected, we expect them to make their decisions based on the values they presented to the public during the election. We also expect them to make decisions as transparently as possible and to involve the public in that decision-making process. And if we don’t like the decisions they make, we don’t vote for them again. That’s democracy.

20100830enviro1.jpg
Construction on St. Clair Avenue. Photo by Peter Grevstad from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.


That’s perhaps the biggest danger in replacing city councillors with experts: we would be eliminating democracy and replacing it with experts who aren’t elected by the public nor accountable to them. And because experts would have never been forced to run an election campaign, the public would have no idea what they stand for or how they would act on issues.
Without TTC Commissioners who are accountable to the public, we have no mechanism to ensure they will make decisions that are good for the public and the environment. Yes, unelected Commissioners might be environmentalists. Or, they may care about buying products or services that help their friends at the expense of the environment. Their decisions could be motivated by the public good and improving the environment, or they could be motivated by personal gain or a host of other factors that hurt the environment. Without public oversight, there is no way to ensure decisions that are good for the environment will be made.
The history of environmental activism in Canada teaches us that good environmental policies always come from public pressure. Take away that public pressure, and bad environmental policy almost always results. Having elected TTC Commissioners in no way guarantees good environmental policy, but it does ensure that the public has the opportunity to pressure politicians to make the right environmental choices. Having unelected TTC Commissioners takes away the only opportunity the public has to fight for good environmental practices.
As voters consider which mayoral candidate has the best environmental platform, it’s important to look beyond what they say about specific environmental issues like transit, climate change, smog, and waste management. We also need to look at how the candidates propose to make decisions about those issues. Those who want to replace democratically elected councillors with appointed private experts are not doing the environment a favour; privatizing decision-making of public bodies is a recipe for future environmental failure. For those who say, “Yes, but the current model isn’t working properly,” remember the famous words of Winston Churchill, paraphrased here: democracy sucks, but every other decision-making process sucks even more.
Get more municipal election coverage from Torontoist here.

Comments

  • http://undefined Cpt. Sunshine

    Do you work for the Federal Conservative Party? So we should make decisions based on the ideology of politicians rather than the sound advice of experts? Yep, you must work for the Conservatives.

  • http://undefined Christopher

    I don’t see how Cpt. Sunshine has made the analogy that because the write supports public overseers to manage the TTC as opposed to experts, that this makes the writer a supporter of the Progressive Conservatives, however I do agree that it’s time to let the experts in to properly manage a system that is woefully lacking in progress.
    We can give them a mandate for a set period of time, with progress reports given out every quarter.
    If people aren’t happy, we can fire them and get new ones, as opposed to allowing political morons continuously get in the way.

  • http://undefined JDurbs

    What a load of unmitigated shit. “Experts” – people who devote their time to studying, analyzing, dissecting, processing and understanding these *exact* issues are less qualified to make informed decisions than any random person off the street who runs for public office and wins in a popularity contest? Democracy is NOT a decision making process – it’s a popularity contest.
    I’m no liberal and I don’t love David Miller but he’s done a hell of a lot less damage than Mel Lastman. Rob Ford is a fucking idiot who happens to be leading in the polls and looking at his transit plans, it’s clear that he’s not qualified to wipe is own ass, nevermind make policy on the public’s best interest.

  • rek

    If you want your suit tailored or your shoe repaired, do you go to an expert or…?

  • http://undefined EricSmith

    “Experts” – people who devote their time to studying, analyzing, dissecting, processing and understanding these *exact* issues are less qualified to make informed decisions than any random person off the street who runs for public office and wins in a popularity contest?

    Experts are experts in their fields. I think that the point of this article is that someone who’s really smart about transit projects in general is not necessarily going to be able to tell what’s best for a given neighbourhood. Our current systems of government assume that elected representatives are the “neighbourhood” experts.

    The appropriate, traditional arrangement is for trustworthy experts to give valuable advice to elected representatives, who can then split any differences that need to be split in some degree of consultation with their constituents.

    It’s easy to argue that the current imitation of public consultation, in which some civil servants show up at a more or less obscure event with some posters, mumble about their plans, and then proceed with whatever it was they were going to do anyway, needs to be improved, but it is equally deficient if the decisions are coming from transit experts or politicians.

  • http://undefined rek

    I would hope said experts would refrain from weighing in until they’ve done some sort of research or study on the idiosyncrasies of the neighbourhood in question.
    On the flip side, being an ‘expert’ in what residents want does not qualify one to deliver a transit model that will actually work for the neighbourhood or with the wider system.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    That’s perhaps the biggest danger in replacing city councillors with experts: we would be eliminating democracy and replacing it with experts who aren’t elected by the public nor accountable to them. And because experts would have never been forced to run an election campaign, the public would have no idea what they stand for or how they would act on issues.

    So does this mean a chief city planner for Toronto should be elected by citizens and subsequently held to political standards expected of a councillor or mayor, enabling a councillor to hold hostage the planner’s job when a planning decision doesn’t go her or his way?
    Isn’t this what almost happened with the Old Woodbine Racecourse at Greenwood Raceway when then-councillor Tom Jacovic opposed the city’s official plan (to re-develop the massive site into a higher-density neighbourhood) by putting together a cherry-picked advisory committee from the Beaches to oppose new neighbourhoods built so closely to their existing enclave? Were it not for the non-partisan, non-elected role of then chief city planner, Paul Bedford, then the outcome would have been dramatically different — and not for the better of the city.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    Wow, I’m sorry I didn’t read this earlier.
    The argument presented is against a straw man and makes a foolish, unnecessary attack on the role of expert advice in planning.
    It is patently obvious that democracy cannot be dispensed with in the interest of speeding up transit development. Whichever unnamed candidate suggested that is an idiot. That the decisions should be ultimately made by elected officials is entirely proper. But the tone here borders on suggesting that the councillors who sit on the Commission should aim to make their decisions in an atmosphere of total ignorance.
    Consider the recent controversy over the 2011 census. Statistics Canada employees, including the Chief Statistician, gave their reasonable, expert advice to the Minister of Industry, who tossed it out the window. The outcome is bad policy; but at least we (the public) know that good policy could have been made, with a sane person in the Minister’s seat who wasn’t inclined to disregard his advisors. As with any other government department, StatsCan’s capacity to provide advice that allows elected officials make good decisions is nearly as valuable as its ability to conduct the census.
    On the other hand, it is clear that the Commissioners are not getting advice from a body with the credibility of StatsCan—if indeed they are getting advice at all. They need experts badly. If one is concerned about the environment, these should be advisors with environmental expertise. If one is concerned about welcoming, compact urban development, then etc. Finally, the Commissioners need to suppress the reflex to ignore this advice in favour of mere politicking.

  • http://undefined jem

    What we need clarified here is that experts ARE needed, ON STAFF. What we are seeing, to take a current example, in the controversy over second exits for the Donlands and Greenwood stations, is staff being given the impossible task of working directly with emotional citizens who accused them of trying to ram something through without consultations. Those staff were just doing their jobs. It was the TTC leaders, top layer of staff, elected commissioners and the local lame duck councillor, who failed to pave the way with residents.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    What a lot of people seem to forget is that experts in a field are there to provide expertise, not to make policy decisions. We elect city council to listen to the experts and make informed policy decisions for us.
    City council itself doesn’t even do this as a single body. The number of decisions and the variety of experts needed is too large. Instead they work through committees that try to break down the problems into manageable pieces. So we have committees for transit, the environment, public health, etc..
    The full council meets to keep the various committees working in the right direction.
    So far as leaving things up to “experts” goes. That is a recipe for disaster. Experts have their own biases the same as anyone else. Moreover, their areas of expertise don’t map well into the public domain, where things like transit policy have to mesh with environmental and social policy tempered by the need for fiscal prudence within an industrial strategy.
    In this last regard we see decisions made to buy Canadian to keep manufacturing jobs rather than ship them to China where lax labour and environmental standards make the products cheaper.
    Would a transportation “expert” be able to consider these factors? Of course not. He would be constrained by the same narrow focus that forces corporations to ignore the environment in their quest for short term profit.
    The current process isn’t perfect but it’s vastly better than shoving decisions off to people who have no democratic accountability. You’d think our experience with P3s and LHINs would have taught us that.