Free Toronto

Just a few months ago it would’ve been hard to imagine that we could have a new mayor, not to mention a different provincial government, by the beginning of summer.

Change is in the wind, but Toronto needs more than a switch-up in political leadership. While the mayoral emergency has gotten all the attention in the last few weeks, two recent defeats for local empowerment show that the city is badly in need of alterations to its mandate.

I’m speaking of the vote in council last week that killed the plastic bag ban in response to a legal suit by the plastics industry. The industry’s legal advantage primarily came from the fact that provincial laws don’t clearly give Toronto the power to enact such legislation.

Restrictive provincial laws were also the basis for a judge’s ruling last week striking down the democratically enacted and environmentally sound shark fin ban.

Cities around the world that are less organized and participatory than Toronto have far more sweeping powers to regulate basic quality-of-life issues. Indeed, in most large municipalities in the U.S., such bans and regulation are allowed, and similar policies have been made. Clearly, we need local powers exceeding those in the City Of Toronto Act.

Now is a perfect time to talk about this as we contemplate a changed political landscape. The most pressing concern is over authority to raise revenues, but there are many legislative tools that would allow municipalities to better service residents.

Most of our existing laws and regulations originated at a time when the only full-time government with substantial policy and enforcement capacity was the province. When these structures were set up in the 19th century, Ontario was 90 per cent or more rural.

Cities were legally created as the children (literally “creatures”) of the province, and the rules gave them little jurisdiction over anything but basic services. Things have moved on, and it’s time our laws followed suit.

In many areas, more permissive legislation would allow us to improve quality of life. Over the last few years, for example, residents have voiced concern about the concentration of bars and restaurants in certain neighbourhoods, most recently Parkdale. There have also been complaints that liquor licensing is inflexible in its operations.

Of course, the province controls how the licensing regime works and what can be regulated. It also directs licensing through the LCBO, an antiquated process dating to the first half of the last century, when Ontario was doing away with Prohibition.

Many cities across North America have much more control over licensing, allowing them to work with residents to achieve a balanced approach to neighbourhood change.

Even the enforcement of a good noise bylaw is compromised by the City Of Toronto Act, which instead of granting wide powers and restricting only certain ones, does the opposite: it restricts everything unless specifically permitted.

Most people assume that Toronto controls local roads, yet the City Of Toronto Act only designates regulations like exactly when snow removal should occur (depending on the snowfall level.) Tables delineate how and when the city should go about repairing cracks. These surely could be left up to capable city staff.

Instead of being a broad, enabling piece of legislation, it is paternalistic and cumbersome. Surely, professional city staff can insure that roads are kept in good order, especially with councillors and the mayor concerned about re-election keeping the pressure on.

The city even has to periodically request special permission to adjust speed limits, and has no authority to set up speed cameras and control vehicle movement. If Toronto could use cameras to enforce transit-only lanes on streets like Eglinton and Bay, we could cost-effectively expand the bus lane networks and make them effective.

This would be a much quicker and cheaper way to get our streets moving than building separate bus or streetcar lanes.

Permissive laws could also lead to dramatic changes in the building industry. People comment on our bland architecture and how many neighbourhoods fail to include mixed-income housing or different uses.

Cities like New York, Chicago, Vancouver and Montreal have full control of their planning process and over the years have adopted regulations that allow the community to influence changes.

The result is inclusive zoning in NYC to promote more affordable housing, more mid-rise developments in Montreal that respect neighbourhood characteristics, and enforceable design review policies and panels that lead to higher-quality architecture.

In Toronto we’re under the thumb of the unelected Ontario Municipal Board, which can and does overrule the city. We can’t even control the building code, which could be a lever to achieve more sustainable, environmentally friendly and safe construction. With broader powers, we could require higher energy-efficiency, green roofs and the inclusion of sprinklers in all multi-unit residential buildings.

At the end of the day, the province has an obligation to all of us to insure municipalities follow procedures to that are open and transparent (although the province has not always set the best example for this). Beyond this, it’s time for a complete overhaul of legislation that enables instead of restricts local control.

Original Article
Source: NOW
Author: Adam Giambrone