Being an academic myself, I always find it amusing when scholars draw broad conclusions based on a narrow set of data. Take Michael Keren, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Communication, Culture and Civil Society at the University of Calgary. In his book, Blogosphere: The New Political Arena, according to the CBC, he concludes that “individuals who bare their souls in blogs are isolated and lonely, living in a virtual reality instead of forming real relationships or helping to change the world.” I particularly love this tag line from the publisher about Keren’s book:

“Michael Keren compares bloggers to terrorists, arguing that while the methods advocated by the two groups are obviously very different, they both represent a similar trend, one of diversion by respected but disenchanted citizens from the norms of civil society to a fantasy world in which the excessive use of words—or bombs—would make everybody listen.”

or, similarly, from the horse’s mouth…

“Bloggers think of themselves as rebels against mainstream society, but that rebellion is mostly confined to cyberspace, which makes blogging as melancholic and illusionary as Don Quixote tilting at windmills.”

You would imagine that such lofty conclusions would be based on one of the most extensive studies of political blogs ever conducted, right? Well, no. He followed 9 bloggers to reach his conclusions. As an academic myself, I think Keren’s work is just bad social science. From a methodology perspective, it is simply impossible to make such broad conclusions based on a such a small data set. But, you can’t make money with wishy-washy conclusions, right? Better go bold! There’s a good reason why this book isn’t published by an academic press…

Since Keren uses such anecdotal evidence to draw his conclusions, I’d like to come up with 9 bloggers who aren’t just writing about things they don’t like about the world, but are rather very active in political involvement.

So here’s a challenge to all readers: give me a list of 9 bloggers (Canadian or otherwise) who are actively involved in real-world political action. I will put together a top 9 (or 10) based on the most often mentioned. Leave your list here or free feel to email it to me if you don’t want it public.

Every city inevitably confronts the often conflicting concerns of local communities with the broader public interests of a region. Toronto is no exception — we saw this with the St. Clair streetcar project, we’re seeing it along the avenues, where the city wants to allow more development, and we’re seeing in the Portlands and waterfront, where industrial workers are fighting for their jobs. How we deal with these local/regional conflicts reflects on all of us. No local community should bear the burden of regional concerns. But neither should local concerns prevent us from tackling regional problems. Instead of succumbing to either exclusively, we must find solutions that balance both. It’s more difficult and perhaps more costly, but it must be done to strengthen both local communities and the region as a whole.

One of most obvious local/regional conflicts in Toronto is Blue-22, the proposed rail link between Pearson airport, the Dundas GO station and Union Station (”22″ being the number of minutes it takes from end to end). But there are two big problems: 1) the rail line runs through Weston, home to the province’s second poorest riding, which only has grade-level crossings. Officials say increased rail traffic (an extra 140 trains per day, running at 100km/h instead of the current 60km/h, which would also increase noise and air pollution) necessitate closing those streets, thus splitting Weston in two; and 2) the initial project only connects Pearson to downtown, and not to other key population and employment centres, such as North York and Mississauga.

Regional Benefits
Blue-22 provides many potential regional benefits, but only if the above problems can be solved. Before addressing these problems, it might be useful to review some of Blue-22’s benefits. First, Blue-22 would reduce car traffic in and around the 401/427 interchange, and along the 427 and Gardiner Expressway. Many also argue that a Pearson-Downtown rail link makes the Island Airport redundant (not every agrees, of course), allowing it to be redeveloped into a public amenity for the city.

Given that the vast majority of traffic on the Gardiner is not through-traffic, many also argue that Blue-22 could facilitate taking down the Gardiner (at least through the Central Waterfront) — again, a controversial plan. With the Gardiner removed (replaced by Lake Shore Boulevard), proponents argue that we can finally lay new streets across the vast wasteland between Front Street and Queen’s Quay, build new neighborhoods, gain new public amenities, and connect the waterfront with the city (particularly if the Island Airport is redeveloped, which would link the Islands directly to the city). This would be strengthened by building over the tracks between Spadina and Yonge (for example, with a new central park).

The tax revenue that the city would gain by turning this wasteland into real neighborhoods would be enormous. If done right — with a mix of residential (including affordable housing), commercial and retail in relatively small blocks that are developed not by one developer at once, but by many over time — there is something for everyone to gain. That extra revenue could put the financially troubled city back on its feet. This would also make the Portlands neighborhoods more viable. For a region that is facing the prospect of a near doubling in population over the next 40 years, these new urban neighborhoods are critical.

What many Torontonians also don’t realize is that Pearson is the gateway for people not only in Toronto, but a vast part of Ontario. If you live in Belleville, you pretty much have to use Pearson; connecting Pearson to Union Station also means connecting much of Eastern Ontario to Pearson, instead of having to drive all the way to Toronto, then navigate 401 gridlock. This would surely ease traffic along the 401 as well. It also opens up the possibility of using trains for Pearson cargo, lessening the impact of trucks on the 401. There are many other benefits (beyond the obvious conveniences for tourists and business travelers), but you get the idea. Not everyone agrees with them, but they are real — collectively, they would give the city a much-needed financial boost, increase quality of life for its residents, create new public amenities, ease gridlock, and reduce our impact on the environment.

Solutions
Despite its many regional benefits, no single neighborhood should be sacrificed for the broader public good. Surely we learned our lesson from Jane Jacobs and stopping the Spadina Expressway which would have destroyed the Annex. Without changes, Blue-22 could be the Spadina Expressway of our time. Weston residents are right. Splitting the neighborhood in two is unacceptable. The extra noise and air pollution is unacceptable. Likewise, we have to recognize that Toronto is a polycentric city — for example, as many people work in North York and Mississauga as do downtown. Clearly, Blue-22 must be part of a broader long-term transit initiative.

Problem: street closures in Weston
Solution: grade-separate the crossings by lowering the tracks. A more radical solution is to cover the tracks completely through Weston (a.k.a. the subway option), but the extra benefits of this probably don’t warrant the additional cost. Trenching would require a major investment since the tracks would have to slope between Eglinton and Kipling, which means other adjustments in between (including how the tracks span the Humber River). Costly, yes, but necessary.

Problem: noise pollution in Weston
Solution: line the trench with sound-absorbing panels and retrofit every building within a block of the tracks with new tripled-glazed windows. Believe me, with triple-glazed windows (like the ones I have in my place), you hear nothing. Literally, nothing. And, as a bonus, your energy bills go down.

Problem: air pollution in Weston
Solution: use electric trains instead of noisy and dirty diesel trains. While significantly more expensive, electric trains are more environmentally responsible. The short-term cost will pay off in the long run.

Problem: no service to other areas.
Solution 3: institute phases 2 and 3 that Pearson eastward and westward along a GO ring route. It must be clear that the Pearson-Union Station link is just the first phase. This extends well beyond simply connecting downtown with Pearson. It must be seen as a means of finally building the much-needed ring line for the GO Train network. In its present form, the GO network treats Toronto as a monocentric city — all lines lead to Union Station, which doesn’t reflect reality. It’s clear that, as a polycentric city, Toronto needs a ring line that could, for example, connect Oakville, Mississauga, Bramalea, North York, Scarborough and Pickering. That way you don’t have to travel to Union Station to use GO. With Toronto expected to nearly double in population by 2050, we need to starting building the infrastructure that we will need. Clearly, if traffic congestion is bad now, it will only get worse.

The Blue-22 plan needs significant changes if it is to balance local and regional concerns. The residents in Weston (including the Weston Community Coalition), the various provincial agencies (Ministry of Environment, for example), GO, and the Consortium must work together to find common ground; each side must compromise. Neither local nor regional concerns can dominate; both must be balanced. For if this balance cannot be struck, then everyone loses.

Born and raised in Ontario, Gregory D. Morrow was most recently Lecturer in Urban Studies & Planning at MIT and is currently completing his PhD in Urban Planning at UCLA. He holds professional degrees in architecture, urban design, and city planning, and has a forthcoming book on the history of urban planning in Toronto. He is also founder of democraticSPACE.com, one of Canada’s leading websites for political news and analysis.

With the Conservatives set to unveil American-style personal attack ads that portray Stephane Dion as a weak leader and a weak environment minister, I wonder how Canadians will respond? The old Liberals certainly dished out their fair share of attack ads, but it seems to me that they attacked the Reform/Alliance/Conservative ideology, portraying it as too right-wing for Canadians rather simply attack Stephen Harper as a person.

Having lived in the U.S. for a while, the single most repugnant aspect of American politics is the absolute lack of policy debate. In the U.S., genuine policy debates have been entirely replaced with personal attacks and mudslinging. Canadian politics has traditionally been different — it has been possible to debate different approaches to different issues, whether it be health, the environment, trade, child care, education, etc. Canadians should be wary of any party that resorts to personal attacks. Is it fair game and an effective strategy to attack your opponents’ policies? Yes. Is it fair game and effective to use personal attacks? Despite the claims by party insiders, personal attacks usually end up driving as many people away as they attract. The Liberal attack on Cheri DiNovo backfired (despite claims by koolaid-drinkers that internal polling went up after they launched their attacks). PC attacks on Dalton McGuinty in 2003 proved impotent. And Conservatives know how well attacking Jean Chretien’s facial disability worked. At very best, personal attacks are a net zero. Most importantly, they send a message that you afraid to debate your opponent on substance. If Canada follows the American lead down the path of personal attacks, our public policy debates will suffer. Of that, there is no doubt. I hope Canadians won’t allow this to happen.

Was Dion an effective environment minister? I don’t know. Why? Because he never had the chance to implement his climate change plan because Paul Martin was paralyzed by the perpetual threat of an election and his own personal inability to set priorities and act upon them. He wanted to be everyone’s friend, and by doing so, he was nobody’s friend. Lots of promises, but few results. What I do know is that people who know the environment file — like Green Party leader Elizabeth May — deeply respect Dion and the work he did hosting the Montreal climate change conference and putting together a plan with teeth; she told me so herself. Would I trust an opposition party leader who is an internationally respected environmental advocate over an opposition party leader who has a history of denying the existence of climate change? You bet.

Is Dion an effective leader? Again, I don’t know. He has just been elected Liberal leader, after all. If leadership is about setting priorities and achieving results — qualities that Stephan Harper has (even if his priorities may not be highest on my list) — then I think Dion displays strong leadership. Unlike Martin, there is no doubt as to what Dion’s priorities are: 1) Economic Prosperity, 2) Social Justice, and 3) the Environment — and, importantly, the interrelationship of these three priorities. Dion must prove, however, that he is results-driven, not merely plan-driven. But he is surrounded by people like Gerard Kennedy, who are will push for results every chance they get (as Kennedy often says, “we will be judged not by what we say, but what we do”). So there is reason to hope that the New Liberals will do what they say they will.

Time will tell whether the Conservative attacks on Dion will pay dividends for Harper. I can’t help but think that launching a personal attack on an opposition leader when we aren’t even in the midst of an election campaign shows that the Conservatives are worried. How do you think Canadians will react?

P.S. Here’s one of the ads:

I can’t agree more with Peter MacLeod’s piece in the Globe and Mail this week. In it, he illustrates that the media and academic elites in Toronto have taken to attacking not only the idea of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, but its 103 members who have chosen to give up their weekends for a third of a year in order to find ways of improving our democracy. Among the elites cited are:

Toronto Sun columnist Christina Blizzard, who asked:
“we really want a bunch of people who have so little going on in their lives that they are prepared to spend 18 weekends discussing proportional representation deciding the future of democracy in this province?”

Toronto Star columnist Ian Urquhart, who said the Assembly members were just:
“looking for some excitement in their humdrum lives.”

U of T professor Nelson Wiseman, who said:
“it’s ridiculous to have the assembly members chosen more or less at random, with many knowing little about electoral systems before their tutoring began last fall.”

These responses are typical in a society that defers to authority, prioritizing the opinions of “experts” at the expense of listening to everyday people. It’s this same top-down attitude that nearly destroyed the Annex, one of Toronto’s most livable neighborhoods, if not for everyday citizens organizing to block the Spadina Expressway project in the early 1970s. Urban planning is a good case in point. Once a highly top-down exercise, today its best practices are those where citizens, developers, and planners sit down and find a compromise to each of their concerns. Ontario is slow to learn. But change is coming. And that’s what worries Toronto’s media and academic elites — that their privileged positions will be usurped by, god forbid, more democratic processes.

More than 3/4 of Canadians (77.2%) want to see Elizabeth May in the next leaders’ debates. Moreover, less than 1 in 10 Canadians were against (9.6%). The Core Strategies poll (a Green Party pollster) of 1,500 Canadians between Jan 8 and 14 (margin of error of 2.6%) shows the following:

Strongly in favour — 27.3%
In favour — 49.9%
Neither in favour nor against — 13.2%
Against — 6.4%
Strongly against — 3.2%

Perhaps not surprisingly, Conservative Party supporters were the least supportive, but even a super majority — 66% — supported the Green Party’s inclusion. After Green Party supporters (97%), Bloc Quebecois supporters were most supportive at 84%. NDP and Liberals supporters were on par with the Canadian averages, at 81% and 77% respectively. More than half of Canadians (51.3%) thought May’s participation would improve the debates, while less than 1 in 20 (4.3%) thought it would make them worse.

The poll also found that health (25%) and the environment (24%) were the two most important issues facing Canadians. Canadians also believed that the environment (39%) would dominate the next election, well ahead of health which was second at 17%.

This is just one poll, but with such overwhelming support for including Elizabeth May in the leaders’ debates, how can the media consortium who controls the debates (CBC, CTV, Global and TVA) show such callous disregard for the wishes of Canadians and continue to exclude her?

Many people are worried about the continued rise of condos in Toronto and the lack of rental units being built. I stumbled across this thread at Babble, which links to a couple of articles here and here. Here’s my response:

The problem is not condo ownership (many of which are themselves rented out, which makes the condo/rental argument a bit artificial). The issue is affordability and diversity (and by diversity here I mean a mix of incomes including very low incomes, and social diversity of all kinds). Vaughn worries that when the 20- and 30-somethings with no kids get older, combined with a dip in the next generation’s demographics, we’ll see people leave downtown. So he wants to keep people downtown. Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn’t address the underlying problem that the market will supply what is a) most in demand, and b) most profitable. Certainly there is a demand for more affordable housing, but it cannot be made affordably given some of Toronto antiquated zoning by-laws. These same zoning requirements are what encourage large-scale whole-block development, at the expense of mid-rise urban infill (which I would argue is more sustainable — it provides density without towers, and doesn’t require wholesale demolition of entire blocks, which is at the root of gentrification). Unfortunately, most progressive people aren’t critical of zoning — they have been lead to believe that zoning protects the little guy, when the evidence suggests that it really helps a) those with the power, money and time to resist development (i.e. NIMBYs) and b) those with power, money and time to navigate the time-consuming and expensive approvals process. Smarter regulations are necessary to create the affordability and diversity that we want.

Let me give you an example of the kind of zoning requirements that encourage the development of large-scale towers. Toronto remains wedded to the idea that any building on any street must step back after 6 stories (until it gets to the centre of the block, in which case it can go very tall). That may well be a good idea on small streets, but it’s foolish on wide streets, which are most often the major transportation corridors (density should be greater along these routes, plus the width of the street requires taller buildings for it to create a sense of space). The consequence of this is that it is impossible to do mid-rise housing economically — the more expensive top units in 8-12 story mid-rise buildings get chopped away at each floor it goes up due to the stepback requirement. These are the pricey units that allow developers to have more affordable units on lower levels. So if you chop them off, you don’t get the more affordable units. And this is true whether they are co-owned (i.e. condo) or rental.

Secondly, instead of allowing buildings to negotiate agreements with adjacent office buildings to share garage space, Toronto requires that all building provide enough parking on site. Given the current parking requirements, this means that the only way to provide the necessary on-site parking is to dig deeper into the earth. If so, then you have to build bigger to justify the cost of deep foundations and garages. But because heights are constrained for mid-rises, it leads developers to assemble the whole block (buying out cheaper buildings), tear everything down and build towers.

These are just a couple examples. Developers are of course motivated by profit, but then again most of us who earn a wage are too. So there’s no revelation there. What we need to do is ensure that our regulations aren’t actually preventing us from building more sustainable kinds of housing. If we reform our zoning to allow more sustainable practices (which also happen to allow developers to make more money!), then we can start asking developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units (what many call “inclusionary zoning”). And you can do this where there is great demand — you see this in progressive U.S. cities like Cambridge MA, Santa Monica CA, San Fran CA. Do that and you start to address the underlying problems that condos symbolize — affordability and diversity.

Andrew Coyne has an interesting piece up this week about the state of conservatism in Canada. A few quotes:

“After a year of Conservative rule, it is now clear, conservatism isn’t just dying — it’s dead. And it’s the Conservatives who killed it.”

“The more the party has chased the middle, however, the faster it has seemed to recede; with each abandonment of its principles, the opposition and the media, those arbiters of the status quo, simply yawn and move the goalposts a little further down the field.”

“Quebec, missile defence, China, health care, regional development: it’s very hard to tell what the Conservative position is any more, or how it differs from the Liberals, or what it will be a week from now. And the result? 31% in the last poll. Sell your soul, you’d think you’d at least get paid.”

What do you think? Is Conservatism in Canada dead?

I have put together a revised electoral reform model. Here are the basic characteristics:

CHARACTERISTICS
1. 2/3 of MPPs represent local ridings (one member per riding).
2. Local members elected by first-past-the-post (winner takes all).
3. 1/3 of MPPs represent one of Ontario’s regions (multiple members per region).
4. Voters cast two votes: one for their local, and one for their regional MPP.
5. Voters mark an ‘X’ beside the candidate of their choice on both ballots.
6. Total seats in a region is proportional to a party’s or independent’s vote share.
7. Party or independent share in legislature is proportional to their votes.
8. Regional candidates, just like local candidates, are nominated by their parties.
9. Regional “lists” are unranked (open-list); voters decide who wins.
10. This type of electoral system is called mixed-member proportional.
11. Legislature is restored to pre-1999 size and adjusted for population growth.
12. Ratio of MPP to people: 1 to 85,500 approx. (2001 population est.).
13. Legislature size = 139 seats.
14. # of Local Seats = 88 seats (64%).
15. # Regional Seats = 51 seats (36%).
16. # of Regions: 9
17. Avg region: 10 local + 6 regional = 16 total seats

BREAKDOWN OF SEATS

	LOCAL	REGIONAL	TOTAL
Northern Ontario	11	3	14
Ottawa-East	8	5	13
Limestone-Quinte-Kawartha	6	4	10
Simcoe-Upper Grand-Huron	10	6	16
Southwestern Ontario	9	5	14
Hamilton-Niagara	8	5	13
York-Durham	9	6	15
Peel-Halton	10	6	16
Toronto	17	11	28
TOTAL	88	51	139

MAP OF REGIONS

So what would an election look like under this system? Here is a simulation/re-calculation of the 2003 election (obviously, this doesn’t account for any changes in voter behaviour, it just takes the previous election results and shows how the system would would translate the votes):

SIMULATION/RE-CALCULATION OF 2003 ELECTION

	LIB	PC	NDP	GRN
LOCAL SEATS	55	26	7	0	0
REGIONAL SEATS	10	23	14	4	0
TOTAL SEATS	65	49	21	4	0
% OF VOTES	46.5%	34.7%	14.7%	2.8%	1.3%
% OF SEATS	46.8%	35.3%	15.1%	2.9%	0%

So, as you can see, representation in the legislature is proportional to how Ontarians voted. And importantly, it creates caucuses and government that is well-represented across all regions, thus encouraging parties to cater only to its “base” but rather across all regions. In fact, all three major parties at least one MPPs from all regions. Here is a breakdown of each party’s representatives.

BREAKDOWN OF CAUCUSES BY REGION

	LIB	PC	NDP	GRN
Northern Ontario	7	3	4	0
Ottawa-East	6	5	1	1
Limestone-Quinte-Kawartha	5	4	1	0
Simcoe-Upper Grand-Huron	6	7	2	1
Southwestern Ontario	7	4	3	0
Hamilton-Niagara	6	4	3	0
York-Durham	7	7	1	0
Peel-Halton	7	7	1	1
Toronto	14	8	5	1
TOTAL SEATS	65	49	21	4

We’ve set up individual pages for the 3 Ontario Provincial By-Elections, to be held on 8 February 2007. Feel free to post your thoughts and observations on the races.

A new Decima Research poll shows that Canadians of all political stripes, including Conservatives and Albertans, strongly prefer a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate in the 2008 Presidential election. Among the highlights:

– 47% prefer Democrat, 12% prefer Republican, 42% had no opinion
– Republicans favoured by just 5-8% among women, francophones, retirees, Atlantic Canadians
– Albertans prefer Democrats 43% to 21%.
– Conservative prefer Democrats 41% to 24%.
– Clinton favoured by 31%, Gore 16%, Obama 8%, Edwards 6%.

The poll surveyed 1,028 Canadians from Jan 4-8 with a margin of error of 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Hat tip to Scott Tribe.