Both Spacing Magazine and Eye Weekly should be commended for making the The Political Party Possible. The ingredients to an informative political discussion:

1. Take two of the front runners in the upcoming election.
2. Give each one of them the floor to explain their vision (in this case in relation to improving Toronto’s public spaces and quality of life).
3. Add a panel to ask pointed questions. (John Lorinc (urban affairs journalist for Toronto Life, Globe and Mail, Spacing Votes), Ed Keenan (Eye Weekly City editor), and Dale Duncan (Spacing managing editor).

This was not a debate. The Candidates stood on their own and had to shoot from the hip once the questions were thrown from the panel. The crowd was as diverse as you would expect with suit and ties, students, the young and old taking it all in. It was a packed house and for the most part everyone was well behaved - no outrageous booing, cheering or jeering… Both Jane Pitfield and David Miller could be heard. There was no drama or theatrics either on stage or in the crowd, a clean scene. (Not that some in the crowd didn’t have favourites or foes or moments where someone grumbled something out).

Jane Pitfield had the floor first, a short intermission, then it was David Miller’s turn.

Here’s a synopsis (as well as I can remember…):

Both candidates had great ideas regarding Community based planning and bike lanes. Pitfield wanted more town hall meetings, Miller opted for Community first meetings (rather than have the Community debate items already assigned to their neighbourhood). Where they differed most was Transit, Garbage, Housing/Community Living.

Pitfield
On Transit - Subway expansion (funded by Public Private Partnerships). This would mean Corporations could “sponsor” or advertise more at stations stops to offset the TTC’s cost. Open to rejecting the St Clair right of way. Though she originally voted for it she would like to address the concerns of residents and cancel the project now even though it’s a third of the way through. (Better to quit $20+ million in than complete it at over $60 million)

On Garbage - Incinerators are OK. London Landfill is OK but not the longterm solution to Toronto’s waste issues. Power Generated by Incinerators will offset costs to build them. More efforts to recycle and take advantage of green technology (Green Roof) to reduce wasted energy.

On Housing/Community - Mandate new development to require a portion set aside as “affordable housing”. Iinitiatives to allow those will low incomes to buy rather than rent (if they qualify for the proposed program i.e. a household income of $40,000 - even with no downpayment).

Miller
On Transit - Provide level of service within budget restraints (Buses/Streetcars cost about 1/10th of a subway.) For the St. Clair right of way as with Spadina the end result should be good for residents and business. Pick up were the Feds are dropping the ball on Kyoto and continue with initiatives like the biodiesel TTC buses. Continue partnerships with Provincial/Federal government as was done with Immigration and the Gas Tax to help pay for Infrastructure.

On Garbage - Incinerators are NOT OK. Incinerators depend on waste that should be reclaimed/recycled and cost tax payers more than landfill (used Brampton as an example). Will allow for further assesments but not convinced that “clean incinerators” are free of dioxion emissions. Reduce waste and landfill versus Incinerate and hike taxes (as much as 3%) in order to pay for Incinerators.

On Housing/Community - Affordable housing a priority but not necessarily a developer mandated % or number. Rental organizations should be under more pressure to accomodate low income housing (not just an issue for new development). Focus should be on at risk neighbourhoods to be revitalized. Both affordable housing and youth programs will help to eliminate the seeds of gangs and crime. Infrastructure funds from Feds/Province.

I’m probably missing something but you’ll have full coverage on YouTube from SPACING…(coming soon)

It was all as perfect as one could have hoped for - just the candidates and their “vision”. Who won? Toronto won. The fact that this event happened is proof positive that were headed in the right direction. Like the Spacing button says - VOTING IS HOT!

(While this event focused on two candidates feel free to check in with the competition…)

Related posts:

1. It’s Political Party Time
2. Rebuilding Regent Park
3. Post Vote Banter
4. Down with Ad Agencies
5. Whither Our Garbage?