The name “Mesopotamia” derives from a Greek term meaning “land between the rivers.” The Royal Ontario Museum’s latest major exhibit, which opens on June 22, takes this literally, as visitors flow between painted representations of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers on the floor.

Presented by the British Museum and rounded out with pieces from institutions in Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia, Mesopotamia: Inventing Our World covers 3,000 years of human development in the cradle of urban civilization. Most of the 170 artifacts on display have never been shown in Canada.

There are a lot of chefs in the kitchen for the Canadian premiere of Sarah Ruhl’s Passion Play, a triptych set in three time periods that tells the stories of amateur actors (played by real actors) involved in staging performances of the story of Christ. Three different Toronto independent theatre companies, all with reputations for innovative staging and creation in their past work, each tackle one of the three acts. Ordinarily, such a complicated arrangement would be to a show’s detriment, but not in this case. While you need to be prepared for a marathon of theatre (the show runs four hours, incluing two intermissions), you’re certainly going to get your money’s worth.

“A cross between Woodstock and the Algonquin Round Table,” is what Michael Redhill called it. Dorothy Parker grinding out an electric cover of “The Star Spangled Banner”? Well, not quite. Rather, Redhill, the literary curator for Luminato 2013, was describing A Literary Picnic, the annual festival’s celebration of storytelling, creativity, and the written word.

The 2013 Toronto Jazz Festival descends on the city this Friday with a huge “free for all” event. That means all of Friday’s programming at every Jazz Festival venue is, yes, completely free of charge. There will be concerts from local favourites Molly Johnson and Mary Margaret O’Hara, plus a show by Smokey Robinson and Martha Reeves, who will be launching the fest from its epicentre, Nathan Phillips Square.

Here’s a rundown of some of the shows worth checking out on Friday—and during the rest of the festival, when you’ll actually have to pay.

Folks who are planning on having a swim in the pool at Scadding Court Community Centre over the next few days may find themselves a little disappointed. Those who want to go fishing, however, will probably be ecstatic.

For the rest of the week, the Community Centre will be holding its annual Gone Fishin’ event, meaning its indoor pool will be an indoor fish pond. The pool has been drained, dechlorinated, and refilled with 2,000 rainbow trout, to be caught by local children and families.

It was only yesterday that Mayor Rob Ford proclaimed proposals for a Toronto casino “dead.” In the wake of the province’s foot-dragging on the issue, and reluctance to commit to giving the city the $100 million Ford thought was a “fair share” of the gambling revenue any new facility would bring in, the mayor abruptly cancelled the special city council meeting that had been scheduled to debate the issue on Tuesday, May 21.

Twenty-four hours later, a majority of councillors have signed a petition that will overturn the mayor and reinstate the meeting, ensuring that council holds its debate after all. The goal: clearly vote the casino proposal down, rather than follow the mayor’s preferred course and hold off on making any decision at all. Councillor Mike Layton (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina) called reporters together to announce the news late this afternoon. We haven’t seen the list of signatories, but he said the councillors on the list represent a range of political views on council, united by the desire to have a clear decision on the issue.

City council will meet as originally scheduled on Tuesday, starting at 9:30 a.m. The full text of Layton’s letter announcing the petition follows.

Councillor Reinstate Casino Meeting by Torontoist

Breaking with just about every precedent of his mayoralty thus far, Rob Ford has decided to call it quits on an issue he’s championed rather than fight it out (and lose) on the floor of the council chamber: today he proclaimed proposals to build a casino in downtown Toronto “dead” and cancelled the special meeting of city council that had been scheduled for Tuesday, May 21 to debate the issue.

Seeking to overturn his cancellation, just minutes later several councillors said they were going to try and hold the meeting anyway. Those councillors, all opposed to a casino, aren’t satisfied with a cancelled meeting: they want to make sure the matter is well and thoroughly settled, and decidedly vote against the proposal. Officially, it won’t be dead until and unless they do.

Speaking at greater length than he usually does, the mayor convened a press conference this afternoon to say that he remains committed to the idea that a major “entertainment complex” including a casino is a good choice for Toronto if it meets certain conditions, and in particular if the province guarantees to give the municipal government a “fair share” of the revenue it generates—at least $100 million a year. The province has been dragging its feet on confirming how much revenue Toronto would receive, however, and in the wake of today’s announcement by Finance Minister Charles Sousa that the province might not be able to commit to a hosting fee formula before city council met, Ford decided to cancel the debate altogether:

If the province won’t agree that $100 million then, folks, the deal is dead. We are not going to carry on with the casino debate.

I had planned to tell you today how I [intended to] recommend council allocate that revenue… The full $100m we could put towards transit: more specifically, [to] what council adopted last week, a subway extending the Bloor-Danforth subway line to the Scarborough Town Centre and north to Sheppard, and extending the Sheppard [line].

(According to all estimates this would provide only a fraction of the needed money.)

Ford also said that he had planned to move a separate motion which would see any additional property tax revenue generated from a casino put towards Toronto Community Housing’s major repair backlog, and another that would require any casino operator to “commit at least $4.5 million a year to a Toronto community benefits fund that would be divided up equally between every councillor and ward in the city…for improvements to their parks and public spaces.”

Painting a casino complex as a major economic boon to Toronto, Ford blamed the premier for dashing his hopes: “I don’t think the premier gets it.”

Context and Background: A Toronto Casino?

New-ish premier Kathleen Wynne has certainly been far cooler to the idea of expanded gaming in Toronto than her predecessors. (By contrast, former Finance Minister Dwight Duncan waxed enthusiastically about a “golden mile” on Toronto’s waterfront, anchored by a casino development.) Given that a clear majority of city councillors had already confirmed that they’d be voting against a casino proposal when the time came, however, Wynne’s reluctance may not be causing them much distress.

Not Over Yet

In light of all this, the mayor said that instead of holding a special meeting next week the casino item will be added to the agenda of the next regularly scheduled council meeting, at which point he’ll recommend that councillors simply go through a basic procedure that would see them receive the major staff report about a potential casino for information, but take no action.

One consequence of that: the issue wouldn’t actually be dead, since council wouldn’t have decidedly voted against a casino at all.

Just moments after Ford finished speaking, news broke that a petition was circulating among city councillors to override the mayor and hold next Tuesday’s meeting anyway. (A simple majority of city councillors—which is 23 of them—can trigger a meeting on a particular issue by signing a request that gets forwarded to the City clerk’s office.) Some councillors learned yesterday that the mayor was thinking of cancelling the casino meeting, and began talking amongst themselves about whether to proceed despite him. “It’s not up to him to make that decision,” Mike Layton (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina) told us shortly after the mayor spoke, saying that this debate has gone on for too long already and that many councillors want to have the issue settled one way or another for good: “we should be saying with conviction what we think should happen.” Several councillors told us that they do believe the required support exists to convene that special meeting, and that it is likely to go ahead on Tuesday despite the mayor’s announcement.

The Hosting Fee Question

Also right after Ford spoke came this response from the provincial finance minister, via a spokesperson: “The City of Toronto should make its decision based on the various characteristics of a casino. We appreciate the Mayor’s comments but we’ll put out the formula when we’re ready and are confident that it is fair to all municipalities.” In short, if Ford’s idea was to try to pressure the province into committing to a hosting fee, they’re not biting.

Meanwhile, Layton said, the hosting fee isn’t actually a decisive consideration for many councillors. “This has much more to do with what we’re hearing from our constituents, that this will overwhelm infrastructure and suck money out of the local economy,” he concluded, “and that the people of Toronto don’t want to be raising government money off of addiction.”

The question may well be moot: the Toronto Star is reporting that they’ve learned the proposed hosting fee for Toronto, including both a downtown casino and the existing Woodbine site, would be $53.7 million—far short of the $100 million needed to secure support from the mayor and most of the swing votes on council..

City council’s executive committee, composed of many of Rob Ford’s closest allies, has endorsed a strong pro-casino stance at the end of a two-day special meeting dedicated specifically to that topic. Though there were some dissenting votes, as a whole the committee voted to go further than City staff recommended in terms of potential casino locations, and are sending a clear message to the province that they are eager to open the door to expanding gambling in Toronto. So great is their enthusiasm for a casino that they didn’t even consider the one stipulation most observers expected them to pass: including a minimum hosting fee as a condition of allowing a casino to be built.

Those recommendations will need to be supported by full city council if they are to carry any weight, however, and based on reaction to today’s decision, the casino proposal is very likely to be killed when it comes to council for that final vote.

Here’s a breakdown of today’s executive committee recommendations…

The executive committee is recommending that city council:

Support a casino downtown or at Exhibition Place. This is the one everyone expected, based on the mayor’s strong support for a casino.

Support the expansion of the current gambling facility at Woodbine. Also expected, this is much less controversial than a downtown casino—in part because a gaming facility is already there, and in part because the surrounding area isn’t as densely built up. Moreover, many recognize that casino expansion in the Greater Toronto Area, combined with changes to the horse-racing industry, endanger the viability of Woodbine and risk major job losses; allowing expansion is a way of trying to protect the existing site.

Allow Ontario Place to be included as part of a casino development. Moved by the mayor, this motion was unexpected. It goes beyond the locations that we have been discussing thus far, expanding the scope of a potential Exhibition Place casino to also include development at Ontario Place.

Discuss the possibility of “consolidating the Metro Toronto Convention Centre and the Direct Energy Centre into a single, world-class exhibit and convention facility.” Nobody, frankly, knows what this means. It’s another motion moved by Rob Ford, and it appears to be in response to City staff’s finding that the biggest limit on the convention business in Toronto is that our existing facilities aren’t large enough to accommodate the biggest conventions. That’s why many people have suggested that a casino complex include a massive new convention facility, or that existing facilities be expanded. Ford’s motion, however, tries to join up the MTCC, which is located just south of Front Street by the CN Tower, and the Direct Energy Centre, which is at Exhibition Place. Given how far apart those two facilities are, it’s not at all clear what Ford had in mind when he suggested they be consolidated.

Include the Port Lands among the list of potential casino locations. Another surprise, this one goes directly against City staff advice. From their final report on a potential casino: “The vision for the Port Lands is for a live-work community developed with a compact urban form serviced by a network of fine-grained public streets, and parks and open spaces. A large, integrated resort complex would be inconsistent with the emerging vision for the Port Lands.” The executive committee considered, and rejected, a motion that would exclude the Port Lands from any future casino development.

Make any casino developer also build a major convention centre. This one was expected: in their report City staff recommended that a casino be paired with a major convention site, and found that a major new convention complex might be an even better driver of economic development than any casino itself.

Make any casino operator sign a labour peace agreement. This would mean that casino operators invite workers to be unionized from the outset (rather than a union coming in from the outside to organize the workers); in exchange, the union would offer favourable terms to the casino, like promising not to strike.

Make any casino operator commit to a “residents-first local hiring policy,” incorporate gender and diversity equity in their hiring, and also have a policy that includes “rehabilitated gamblers.” This was moved by Cesar Palacio, and while the first two clauses are perfectly sensible and standard, the rationale for making a point of hiring recovering gambling addicts to work at a new gaming site is…perplexing. (The language of the motion notes that those workers wouldn’t be specifically in “the casino portion” of a new complex, though it’s still unclear why targeting recovering gamblers is a good thing for a casino complex to do.)

Give Toronto the final right to choose which location to build at, and give Toronto at least two proposals each for developments at Exhibition Place and the downtown core.

Conspicuous by its absence: a hosting fee stipulation. Every city that allows a casino gets a certain percentage of that casino’s revenues from the province in exchange. Called a hosting fee, this amount has been the subject of much dispute for months. When Rob Ford first tried to convince us that a casino would be a huge prize for Toronto, it was largely on the strength of the money it would put into the municipal government; at various points in time the mayor floated several numbers between $100 and $200 million a year. Those numbers would be a major aberration though: the province usually gives only a fraction as much to municipal governments, and new premier Kathleen Wynne has been very clear that there will be no special deals for Toronto. We’re still waiting for a final number—today the OLG’s Rod Phillips told reporters the finance minister would have it at the end of this month—and so many expected that councillors would attach a specific minimum hosting fee as another condition for a casino.

As is the case with all of the conditions the executive committee wants to attach to a casino, it’s unclear whether the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (the provincial agency that manages gambling) would be legally obligated to adhere to those stipulations in any negotiations. Immediately after the vote OLG president Rod Phillips held a press conference in which he said that the agency was not interested in building a casino against a community’s wishes. He was adamant that if they couldn’t find a developer to build a casino that met the City’s specifications, a casino wouldn’t be built at all.

The executive committee’s recommendations will be debated at a full meeting of city council, expected to be scheduled shortly.

The Metro Toronto Convention Centre; photo by gorbould from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

Following City staff’s final report on a proposed casino in Toronto—a report which neither endorsed nor rejected the suggestion that we permit one—Mayor Rob Ford is touting the facility’s potential to boost the city’s economy.

“Toronto has been presented a golden opportunity, folks,” Ford said a a press conference this afternoon, “an opportunity that creates jobs, stimulates our economy, and makes Toronto a preferred convention destination.”

In his remarks Ford repeatedly described his support for “a new convention and gaming” facility. His focus on convention space component of the proposed complex, rather than the casino itself—the jewel of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission’s expansion strategy—is a shift for his administration. Many concerned community groups, including a coalition of religious leaders, have condemned the proposed expansion of gambling facilities in Toronto.

City Staff Release Final Report on a Casino in Toronto

When asked why a new convention centre needs a casino to thrive, Ford replied, “you want to have something to do after your meeting or convention. You want to have a place like a casino to go with your spouse or business partners.”

Ford repeated his claim that a casino would earn the municipal government as much as $150 million in revenue—an estimate is based City staff’s hope that the province will give Toronto a much more generous revenue deal than other municipalities with casinos receive, and in defiance of Premier Kathleen Wynne, who earlier today reiterated that there would be no special deals for Toronto. Ford described the estimates in today’s staff report as accurate, but added it “might be off by a few million here or there.”

Ford conceded that he didn’t have any indication from the premier that Toronto might receive a special revenue sharing agreement. “She has to look out for all of Ontario,” Ford said of Wynne. “I have to look out for the people of the city…I’m going to fight for the citizens like I always have.”

A complete transcript of Rob Ford’s remarks—

Toronto has been presented a golden opportunity, folks, an opportunity that creates jobs, stimulates our economy, and makes Toronto a preferred convention destination.

Toronto currently ranks 33rd in North America as a convention destination, but we are the fourth largest city on the continent. We should be in the top 10 at least in conventions. We need a new, bigger, full service convention and exhibition facility to achieve that. A new convention and gaming complex in Toronto would create 10,000 good-paying union jobs for the hard-working people of this city—good quality jobs with an average salary of approximately $55,000. That’s important because Toronto’s unemployment rate has been higher than the rest of Canada for far too long. In addition this project will create between seven to eleven thousand constructions jobs—that’s on top of the 10,000 permanent jobs, folks. That’s great news for Toronto and Ontario. More people working means more people paying income tax to the province and buying goods and services from Toronto businesses.

A new convention and gaming complex will attract 130,000 new business visitors to Toronto each year, and generate $392 million in direct spending, and inject $1.2 billion into Toronto and Ontario’s GDP. That’s good news for Toronto and Ontario: more spending means more taxes collected by the province and a boost to our overall economy.

Soon, council will have to decide on whether or not to permit a new convention and gaming complex in Toronto. I believe we should say yes, absolutely yes, on terms that work for Toronto. This opportunity should be assessed on the facts—on the facts, folks—not on emotion or political rhetoric, like you heard this morning.

The fact is gaming is not new to Toronto. The fact is Toronto needs more good-paying, quality jobs, and this will create 10,000 good-paying union jobs, like I said before. The fact is this is a golden opportunity that may not come up again. A convention and gaming complex in Toronto could generate about $150 million for the city each and every year. This is money that could be used to fund rapid transit and infrastructure while keeping Toronto an affordable place to live, work, and play.

Toronto is not asking for a special deal; we are asking for a fair share. Any city that can attract a $2 billion-plus investment, that will produce well over a billion dollars in annual gaming revenue should get a fair share of that revenue. Any city that shares the risk with the province, as we will, any city that has skin in the game as we do, should receive a fair share.

The fact is OLG has been clear: there will be a new casino, guaranteed folks, in the GTA somewhere. If it’s not in Toronto it will be right on our border or right across the street. The fact is, if they build a casino on our doorstep, which they will, the province won’t benefit as much and Toronto won’t benefit as all.

Based on the facts, I believe council should support 10,000 good-paying union jobs. Council should support $150 million annually for rapid transit infrastructure instead of doing the easy thing, and that’s just to raise taxes. Council should support a $1.2 billion influx into our local economy, which creates more jobs, and council should support a new convention and gaming facility in this great city for businesses and tourists for years to come.

And his full reply to that question from a reporter, asking why the city doesn’t just pursue a convention centre project without attaching a casino to it—

People who go to a convention, you want to have the restaurants, you want to have something to do after your meeting or convention, you want to have a place like a casino to go with your spouse or with your business partners. You don’t just go to a convention and go back to your hotel room. You want to do something else.

We could do it, but that’s not the type of city we want. We want a vibrant city.

This morning Toronto’s top civil servant released a long-awaited report on the prospect of allowing a new casino in Toronto. That report is an exercise in diplomacy—or hedging, depending on your point of view—and comes to no conclusions about whether we should permit a major gaming complex downtown. (The report does recommend expanded gaming at Woodbine.) But there are, lurking in the report’s details, many of the pieces of information councillors will need in order to make a decision.

The bottom line: the City’s planning department recommends that if council permits a new facility it should be “a scaled-back casino,” one that is less than half the size originally envisioned. City staff are further recommending that council only green-light a casino if we were to get a minimum of $100 million a year in hosting fees (that’s the share of the gaming revenue a municipality gets from the province in exchange for allowing a casino). Staff calculate that at that scaled-back size, and if the province were to consent to a 50-50 split of tax revenue with Toronto, we would get $111 million a year in hosting fees.

Two major snags: at that scaled-back size, a casino won’t be able to support an accompanying convention centre that staff says we need to make the whole thing make economic sense in the first place. Moreover, we also have no reason to believe the province will give Toronto a hosting fee that is anything like that large. As measured both by economic impact (in metrics like job creation) and direct money into the municipal government, the math on a casino is not adding up.

Here, step-by-step, are the key findings in the report—

“A standalone casino is not supported by staff.”

Both the municipal government and the developers who have been angling to build in Toronto have said from the outset that Toronto shouldn’t get just a straight-up casino, but rather a large facility that includes hotel and retail space, as well as other amenities.
 

“It is critical that a [downtown casino]…include the development of a top-rate convention and trade show infrastructure to improve Toronto’s competitiveness in attracting the largest class of events.”

City staff say, specifically, that Toronto would do best if a new downtown casino was part of a large convention centre complex. “A convention centre expansion is probably more important than a casino” Pennachetti told reporters at a briefing, emphasizing that the economic impact from a major new complex would come, in significant part, from convention facilities rather than the gaming floor. One indication of how important that convention centre is, in staff’s analysis: 46 per cent of the 10,000 new full-time jobs the entire venture would create are expected to be “spinoff from new convention delegates.”

In its report the City did not provide an economic impact analysis of just a convention complex without a casino; Pennachetti said he wasn’t aware of any developer who wanted to build one.
 

“City Planning has indicated that a new casino in the Toronto C1 zone should be appropriately sized to the unique urban context of the downtown area.

All those who want to build a casino in Toronto have also proposed huge complexes; the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s own estimate once had the associated gaming floor at 250,000 square feet. This, say planning staff, is far too large. A scaled-back casino would have “an improved fit and compatibility within the overall diverse urban character of the downtown area.” It would also mitigate the impact on traffic and infrastructure, and on existing local businesses that would face new competition from the casino complex.

This is perhaps the biggest policy hurdle in the whole report. The City’s planning department has come to the conclusion that in order to fit into Toronto’s existing landscape, a gaming floor should be a maximum of 135,000 square feet. However, in order to support the kind of convention complex City staff think is crucial, a casino would need to be bigger—at least 175,000 square feet. Smaller than that, and the whole thing may just not get off the ground.

To summarize: in order to generate the economic impact staff thinks is desirable, we’d need to allow something much bigger than staff thinks is prudent. We cannot build a casino that is both an appropriate size for downtown and that will generate sufficient economic benefits.
 

“The City tabled terms with the OLG indicating Toronto receive a hosting fee from gaming revenues equivalent to the amount the Province receives through the OLG… [and] no less than an annual minimum of $100 million… City staff strongly advise that the revised municipal hosting fee formula must reflect the unique opportunity of a potential Toronto C1 casino.”

“Tabled terms” just means the City’s negotiating position. It does not reflect any agreement.

Effectively, the City is projecting a hosting fee—the amount of money Toronto would get each year in virtue of agreeing to a casino—based just on what it thinks we deserve, and not any deal it has reached with the province. City staff have estimated what they believe to be fair based on the premise that Toronto, because of its size and the lucrative nature of building here, represents a “unique opportunity” and therefore should be rewarded accordingly. This position has been explicitly rejected by the premier, who reiterated today that all municipalities needed to benefit from any casinos they might host equally.

Results of the Public Consultations on a Casino

Over the past few months the municipal government asked Torontonians to share their views about a casino. According to today’s report a total of 17,780 feedback forms were completed. The City also commissioned a poll with the following results:

To what extent do you support or oppose the possibility of a new casino in Toronto?

Strongly support: 16%

Somewhat support: 26%

Mixed feelings: 8%

Somewhat oppose: 14%

Strongly oppose: 36%

Don’t know: 1%

Also according to that poll, opposition to a casino is strongest among residents of the former municipality of Toronto (where a downtown casino would be located): 59 per cent are either somewhat or strongly opposed. In the former municipalities of North York, York, East York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough opposition ranges from 43-52 per cent.

Among those who filled out a feedback form opposition to a casino was higher: 71 per cent rejected the idea.

What’s Next

City council’s executive committee, comprised of Rob Ford’s closest allies, will hold a special meeting to discuss a casino on April 15-16; members of the public will be able to address the committee and share their views at that time. After that debate is concluded, the executive committee will issue a recommendation on whether to permit a casino in downtown Toronto; that recommendation will form the basis of a debate of full city council, expected to be called for early May.

More than 250 religious leaders from across the GTA released a statement today, expressing their shared opposition to the prospect of expanded gambling in Ontario, and in particular to a new casino in Toronto. The leaders, representing Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Jain, and Christian coalitions, as well as numerous congregations across Toronto, also took their message directly to City Hall, holding a lunchtime press conference on the main floor of the building.

Today’s statement was part of a final push by anti-casino activists; city council is expected to vote on whether to allow a casino in Toronto at their meeting next month.

The full text of the religious leaders’ statement:

We, the undersigned faith leaders and representatives in the Greater Toronto Area, stand united in opposing the expansion of casinos proposed by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and support the anti-casino campaign led by www.NoCasinoToronto.com.

We represent diverse faith communities with unique perspectives, principles, sacred texts, traditions, and teachings that form the basis of our opposition to expanded gambling. We are unified in our position that gambling is contrary to the ethical norms of our traditions because it negatively impacts our faith communities and the wider public.

We are convinced that casinos contribute to family breakdown, depression, addiction, bankruptcies, and crime, and thus are antithetical to our mission as faith traditions to strengthen individuals, families, and communities.

Our faith traditions teach us that our governments should maintain order, preserve justice, and promote the common good. We believe that our governments must take a stand to promote the values of education, hard work, social justice, and the dignity of labour, and reject the illusion of easy money, for both individuals and public coffers.

Our governments should protect the most vulnerable in our society from casinos that exploit human weaknesses and addictions. We therefore call upon our governments to reject gambling expansion and reject this predatory industry as a solution to economic and fiscal problems.

We strongly urge our Municipal City Councils to vote against any new casinos in the Greater Toronto Area. We further urge our brothers and sisters in our faith communities to become informed about this issue and voice their opposition to expanded gambling to our elected officials.

The TTC’s new streetcar is going to be out on the town.

• Last night’s on-street test run was just the first of many for the TTC’s next-generation streetcar. The test vehicle will continue to make appearances on Toronto streets at various locations and times over the next few months, the TTC now says. What’s more, the next test is scheduled to happen tonight, on Bathurst Street between the TTC’s Hillcrest yard and the Exhibition loop. The streetcar is supposed to leave Hillcrest sometime after 2:30 a.m., but everything is “subject to change.”
• A new trailer for Kick-Ass 2 shows off some fleeting glimpses of Toronto scenery. (That, of course, is because it was filmed here.)
• When Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis yesterday, the world took notice. Also, a local man’s life as a dude with a weird name began.

Like Torontoist? Send us tips, get involved, or follow us through Twitter, Facebook, or RSS.