"Transit Talk"

I’ve heard that there have been significant changes to Burlington Transit routes.  Living well outside the GTA/Hamilton, as I do now, it is hard to keep track.  This week I got a better idea of what the changes entail.

There is a new schedule for one.  That is the third new schedule in 2013. That doesn’t bode well for riders and businesses looking for some consistency in planning how to get around.

I listened to a tape of the CFMU show Unusual Sources where the Transit Talk show presented a discussion on some of these changes.

As far as how these changes are being promoted Transit Advocate James Smith put it this way:

“They are saying the right things but when the rubber hits the road that’s just not the case.”

Fairview/Plains enhancements are a good thing but, as host Doug Brown pointed out, they are offset by reductions elsewhere.  Burlington Transit’s extremely small fleet of 52 buses now covers 33 routes.

One of the most surprising changes is the elimination of Mapleview Mall as a pick up and drop off point for BT routes.

On the positive side James talked about improvements that Mississauga is making with a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.  In one year, they achieved a significant reduction in car trips. 

TDM is a term used to describe strategies that improve transportation efficiency. TDM emphasizes the movement of people and goods rather than motor vehicles.  The term Mobility Management is now replacing TDM as a more useful descriptor.  (Learn more about Mobility Management at http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm51.htm)

Perhaps Burlington could learn something from Mississauga.

You can find the CFMU show (it lasts about 20 minutes) by clicking here http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=726427&songID=12571313&showPlayer=true

TRANSIT FORUM

Are you happy with your transit service in Burlington?

The Burlington NDP wants to know.  They are hosting a meeting Tuesday (November 12th) at the Seniors Centre in Burlington to discuss this issue.

A couple of speakers will lead the discussion.

One speaker is Rosario Marchese, the NDP MPP from Trinity-Spadina.  Marchese is a long time MPP first elected in 1990 and re-elected five times since then.  He is the party’s Urban Transportation and Government Services Critic and Caucus Chair. 

Marchese speaks English, Italian and French and is conversant in Portuguese and Spanish.

Here is Marchese speaking on the need for a strong Metrolinx with a clear vision for transit and transportation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CKHgKLhpT8

The other speaker is Burlington’s Doug Brown, the Chair of Burlington for Accessible Transit (BFast).  I don’t think there is anyone more knowledgeable about Burlington Transit than Doug is. 

Here is a video that was put together by Graham Wood a couple of years ago where Doug talks about some of the issues facing Burlington Transit.  There is even a picture of the Pier before it was complete in this video for those who have forgotten what that looked like.      
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GbertmAUg

As Burlington decision makers continue to make cuts to the transit system I’m hoping this meeting will help give voice to those who know how important public transit is for a community.

Oakville Transit Fare Increase

All we want are the facts, ma'am"

Joe Friday

Making decisions in municipal politics and in all facets of life, I suppose, requires having some facts.

Some politicians, Rob Ford comes to mind, just make these facts up.

Others seem to have an incredible ability to absorb and /memorize relevant bits of information and pull them out when necessary.

Most municipal politicians depend on staff to gather and present these relevant facts so that that policy decisions can be made by the policy makers and the rational for those policies be understood by the public.

It goes without saying, then, that the facts need to be accurate.  With that in mind the Crack Research Team (CRT) here at When the Mayor Smiles was deployed to look at the following statement contained in a recent Town of Oakville Media Release.

"Oakville Transit fares, even with the proposed changes, continue to be among the lowest when compared to other similar sized transit agencies in the GTA."

Oakville staff are proposing to change i.e. raise fares.  If approved the new rates will be:

$3.50 for a cash fare
$105 an adult monthly pass
and $50 for a Monthly pass for those over 65.

With these new rates will Oakville continue “to be the “among the lowest?”

CRT has compared prices around the GTA.  We’ll leave out Hogtown.  By our count we’ve got Brampton, Burlington, Durham, Mississauga Oakville and York to look at.

Comparing the cash fares of these six properties and using Oakville’s proposed new fares we find the average cash fare is $3.39.  That’s lower than Oakville’s proposed $3.50.  In fact, only York has a higher cash fare.

As far as monthly adult passes Oakville’s proposed new rate ($105) is below the average of $109.67 and their seniors’ monthly pass is right at the average of about fifty bucks. 

But the media release talked about “similar sized transit agencies in the GTA.”

In our view, the comparator group drops down to Burlington and Durham as Brampton, Mississauga and York are all much larger than Oakville.  Two is hardly much of a comparison.  So let’s look at the seven other Ontario cities closest in population to Oakville.

They are Kitchener, Windsor, Richmond Hill, Burlington, Greater Sudbury, Oshawa and Barrie. 

Average cash fare for the seven is $3.05. 
Oakville’s proposed cash fare is $3.50

Average adult monthly pass for the seven is $89.91.
Oakville’s proposal is for $105.00

Average monthly senior pass for the seven is $50.86 
Oakville is $50.00

We conclude, then, that Oakville’s current fares would seem to be more in line with similar places.  The proposed increase would make them among the more expensive.

Transit advocate Doug Brown reminds us that this is not the first time fares and costs have been “misrepresented” to justify higher fares in Oakville and Burlington.  

“In 2010 both Burlington and Oakville used the downloading of Halton's financial contribution to GO from the Region to the lower tier municipalities to create the false impression that there had been a large increase in local transit spending,” Doug notes.

Of course, decision makers need to look at more than just fares.  The quality of the service needs to be factored in as with any product your purchase.

I wonder, is the service improving?

Tenants Benefit from Quickest Ever Class Action Resolution

A class action lawsuit launched against Toronto Community Housing and Greenwin Property has been settled.

“Class actions are lawsuits in which the claims and rights of many people, defined as having common but no identical interests, are decided in a single court proceeding brought by representative plaintiffs, or representatives of the class.”  (See http://www.classaction.ca/about-siskinds.aspx for more about class action lawsuits)

The action came about following a fire that took place on September 24^th 2010 at 200 Wellesley East in Toronto.

Six hundred tenants will share 4.85 million dollars to compensate for property damages and injuries.

The fire was caused after a discarded cigarette landed on the balcony of a 24^th floor unit.  That unit had an excessive amount of combustible material on it.  The unit’s occupant, who was identified by investigators as a hoarder, had previously complained to property management that someone was tossing cigarette butts on his balcony.

 It is reported that the case is the fastest to be resolved in Ontario history. 

The Ontario Class Proceedings Act came into effect twenty years ago.  According to Brian Shell, lawyer for the tenants: 

“It was designed to bring access to justice to people who otherwise would not be able to get any,” Shell said.  “It was not designed for lawyers to make huge amounts of money and for many thousands of people to recover $40,” Shell told the Star.

Read the Toronto Star story at http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/09/30/200_wellesley_st_fire_600_tenants_to_share_in_485m_compensation.html

 

(This story was originally published on September 30 at www.hamiltonjustice.ca)

Court Won't Hear Right to Housing Challenge

Earlier this year I wrote about how social and economic rights are becoming increasingly important.  http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.ca/2013/02/social-and-economic-rights.html

In that piece, I made reference to the “right to housing.”

Recently we had a case in Ontario where the idea of federal and provincial governments were challenged from that perspective.   Here is what happened.

(This story originally appeared on www.hamiltonjustice.ca)

--------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Superior Court Judge Thomas R. Lederer ruled on Friday that the courtroom is not the proper place to resolve the issue of homelessness and inadequate housing in Canada.

The Judge’s comments came in a decision in, what has been called, the Right to Housing Challenge. Individuals and housing advocates were trying to make the case for a court order. That court order would require that the Federal and Provincial governments implement a national housing strategy.

Lawyers from the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) and filed a case three years ago. Their argument is that Canada and Ontario have violated individuals’ rights under section 7 and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by creating and maintaining conditions that lead to and sustain homelessness.

Put simply, Canadians have the right to adequate, affordable housing.

Lawyers for the governments of Ontario and Canada argued that the case shouldn’t even be
heard.

Judge Lederer agreed with the government lawyers.

Peter Rosenthal, one of the lawyers for the applicants, offered this comment:

“The decision reflects a narrow view of the Charter that seems to be applied when the poor seek judicial relief.”

The judgment will be appealed.

You can read more about the Right to Housing Challenge on the website of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants of Ontario (ACTO) at http://righttohousing.wordpress.com/

Physician Believes Poverty Reduction is Essential for Good Health

(This story originally appeared at www.hamiltonjustice.ca on August 19th.) 

Earlier this year I attended the annual Ontario Project for Inter Clinic Community Organizing (OPICCO) conference.

This gathering is put together for Community Legal Clinic staff who are involved in and want to learn more about community development work.

One of the really interesting speakers at this year’s conference was Dr. Gary Bloch.

Gary is a family physician who works out of St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto.

His presentation focused on the social determinants of health. The twenty-minute talk zeroed in on one particular social determinant of health – i.e., poverty. Gary told us “poverty accounts for 24% of person years of life lost in Canada.” That figure is second only to 30% of person years of life lost for cancers.

One significant resource Bloch made us aware of was a four pager called a Clinical Tool for Primary Care in Ontario. This is a resource for family docs that will help them in patient diagnosis. It will help physicians to keep in mind that poverty is a health condition that needs to be treated like other medical conditions. (http://www.ocfp.on.ca/docs/default-source/cme/poverty-a-clinical-tool-2013-(with-references).pdf?sfvrsn=0 )

Bloch has a unique approach to practicing medicine. In a Globe and Mail story, he wrote earlier this year emphasized the importance of tax filing. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/as-a-doctor-heres-why-im-prescribing-tax-returns-seriously/article9981613/

A patient named Rena told Bloch he could make her better by getting her more money. But Gary determined that Rena had not always filled out her tax return.
“Suggesting Rena fill out her tax return is prescribing income. And prescribing income can be just as powerful as prescribing medications for her blood pressure or her mood,” wrote Bloch.

Bloch wrote about another patient in a story in the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gary-bloch/income-inequality-and-health_b_2003259.html

Tom is a 46 years old skilled carpenter who hurt his back in a car accident 8 years ago. He has been forced to live on social assistance.
“For him, social assistance has not been so much a safety net as it's been a fish net -- a trap of indignity from which he has been unable to wriggle free,” said Bloc.

Similar to the views of the Clinics, Bloch believes that there should be a level of social assistance support that allows for a dignified standard of living.

“Forcing people to live in squalor and survive on less than a pittance only worsens the health impacts of their low income. While this may appear to save money up front, it likely ends up being spent elsewhere, through higher use of physical and mental health services down the road.”

While Gary Bloch views may stand out as unique for a physician, the ground is shifting in the Canadian medical world. The Canadian Medical Association has just completed a consultation. Their conclusion is that poverty is the main issue that must be addressed to improve the health of Canadians.

Why we need the Ontario Municipal Board

Lately there has been talk about reforming or even getting rid of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

The contention is that municipalities know best how to plan for their communities.  So, who needs the OMB?

That’s a crock.

When it gets down to decision making in municipalities local politicians have the final say.  They aren’t planners.  In fact, in a lot of cases the extent of their planning experience is the scheduling of a day to declare when they are running for re—election.

Take as Exhibit A the recent OMB hearing brought about when the City of Hamilton blocked an attempt by a non-profit agency to consolidate its programs under one roof.

I’ve written about this before.  Last September’s piece talked a bit about the ideas of distance separation by-laws. (http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/local-governments-and-distance.html)   That is the tool that Hamilton used at first to block Lynwood Charlton’s Centre’s (LCC) move.

Then the City changed their “planning” argument   claiming that the LCC program represented an “institutional” use.  I wrote about it again http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.ca/2012/10/more-nimby.html

At the end of the day OMB member Makuch basically ruled the City had no good planning case.   The Board was satisfied that the proposed development was “consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as well as the City’s Official plan.”  (You can find the August 23^rd decision at http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/english/eDecisions/eDecisions.html)

 Lynwood Charlton Centre suggested Council’s refusal of the application “was based on the negative reaction from the community.”   The Board, however, heard “no evidence to support any of the concerns expressed to City Council.”

With the traditional planning issues being resolved, there was no need to carry on to human rights matters.  The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) had standing at the hearing.  If given the chance, they would have said that Hamilton’s refusal of the application is considered discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

That position had been forwarded to Hamilton Council some time ago.  Most Councillors apparently believe that the fact that they were popularly elected gives them license to override human rights concerns.

Sure, the OMB needs to be reformed.  But cases like this one demonstrate why we need a body like Ontario Municipal Board as a safeguard to local idiocy.