The Shotgun Blog
« "He who opens a school door, closes a prison." - Victor Hugo | Main | Johnny Depp surrenders in France »
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Great news from B.C.
Not only has conservative-leaning Sam Sullivan stopped the far-left Jim Green in the race for Vancouver's mayor, but the right-0f-centre Non Partisan Association replaced the far-left COPE party on city council and other city commissions.
I'm sure our B.C. readers will have a better analysis than my own, but I'm guessing that Vancouverites saw their city being led in the direction of Amsterdam, not New York, when it came to drug crime, and they decided to switch course.
UPDATE: Of course, crime is just one hotspot in Vancouver. Another reason is the general left-wing moonbattery of city council. Check this out.
Posted by Ezra Levant on November 20, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83424e8ee53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Great news from B.C.:
» Noses Held, Sullivan & NPA Win from The Vancouverite : Daily Hyper-Caffeinated Snarky News and Opinion
It was a close one, but Vancouver held it's nose, and returned the NPA to govern the city, electing Sam Sullivan Mayor. Generally those who voted across Vancouver opted to change horses and kicked out at least five incumbent... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-11-20 11:08:01 AM
» Vancouver Shifts Right from small dead animals
There's a political risk in leading the world in civic sensitivity to the drug community with projects like "safe injection sites". Your "base" ends up too stoned to vote.... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-11-20 12:20:37 PM
» Vancouver moving to the right? from Alberta Views
I usually don't find much to agree with over at the Western Standard's Shotgun blog, but for once, I think, we can agree on one thing: Vancouver has let things slide for too long. Vancouver was once a beautiful and [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-11-20 3:31:21 PM
Comments
Now if only Toronto could replace its incompetent mass-murderer mayor David Miller, responsible for 69 gun murders this year because he put corporate interests ahead of that of his people. I hope he is defeated and forced to flee for his life. The problem is knowing Easterners like I do, they'll actually find someone even worse.
Since Toronto's crime and decay makes it closer to "Sin City" now, we should call him Frank Miller (with apologies to him).
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-20 10:38:52 AM
Apparently Vancouver voters didn't want a November election since only 32% of them bothered to vote.
Posted by: TimR | 2005-11-20 11:01:54 AM
There's more drug related crime in Amsterdam than there is in New York?!? Can you site a source for that?
Posted by: Say that again? | 2005-11-20 11:07:57 AM
Going down to east Hastings in Vancouver is entering another world. The worst and equal that of any major city in the world. Has Sullivan the where with all to stand up to an entrenched culture of whining poverty pimps is the big question? Those whose livelihood has been made living off the backs of the helpless will not go away quietly.
Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-11-20 11:21:41 AM
I agree with most of story re:the loonely left presence on council but I do take exception with some of the accolates heaped on Mayor "Looney" Larry Campbell.
Campbell is as much a part of the policies on the past council as COPE. He spearheaded the injection site, supported special "decorative" manhole covers and the idiotic idea of ethnic entertainment at council meeting.
As far as Campbell getting tired of the machination of the left and leaving i think it has much more to do with the fat that Martin "MADE CAMPBELL A SENATOR".
What a useless dissgrace.
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad | 2005-11-20 12:09:28 PM
I agree with most of story re:the loonely left presence on council but I do take exception with some of the accolates heaped on Mayor "Looney" Larry Campbell.
Campbell is as much a part of the policies on the past council as COPE. He spearheaded the injection site, supported special "decorative" manhole covers and the idiotic idea of ethnic entertainment at council meeting.
As far as Campbell getting tired of the machination of the left and leaving i think it has much more to do with the fat that Martin "MADE CAMPBELL A SENATOR".
What a useless dissgrace.
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad | 2005-11-20 12:10:38 PM
Let's hope Sullivan and some new councillors can start turning things around. The "great" city of Vancouver is a mess.
I'm not too sure about Terry O'Neill's assessment of former mayor Larry ("DaVinci") Campbell. No doubt he was less of "moonbat" than the rest of his idiot council but he ran on a promise of "helping" the dope addicted underclass. As for his high-minded reasons for dropping out of the mayoral competition - he accepted a senate appointment from Paul Martin in return for endorsing the federal Liberals in the last election.
Posted by: JR | 2005-11-20 12:29:46 PM
Will somebody please shoot Scott
Posted by: Duke | 2005-11-20 12:59:31 PM
Given this result, is it too much to hope that Conservatives might be elected across the city at the next Federal Election.
Posted by: The Fog is Clearing | 2005-11-20 1:52:01 PM
Duke: there you go again, blaming critics for speaking unpleasant truths. So you don't like what I say - it doesn't mean it's not true.
If you really want to blame someone, try those telling you it's nothing to worry about, like Mayor Miller and his Clique of rich white people getting rich while non-whites die. It's the classic Not In My Back Yard attitude - if it doesn't happen on my street, it's not my problem. Well if Ontarians won't do anything about it, nobody will.
Ontarians have to take responsibility for their own affairs, and now's the time.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-20 2:15:03 PM
Does this mean that the city run brothel isn't gonna happen ? Man, pretty soon a guy will have to go back to the streets for his drugs and hookers...
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-11-20 3:10:35 PM
New Yawk has been cited above. Damn Yankees. There oughta be a law against them. Lessee, since 1936: 2005 take away 1936 + 0 + 1 - Parrish = Bush? Sorry, forgot X in that equation; X =70 years +/-. >>>>
US on course for record run of profits
Posted by 1066AD
On 11/20/2005 5:02:35 PM PST · 3 replies · 44+ views
The Times (UK) Online ^ | 11/21/2005 | Gary Duncan
US on course for record run of profits By Gary Duncan, Economics Editor CORPORATE America is enjoying a record postwar winning streak. Booming profits have put blue-chip companies on track for their longest run of double-digit quarterly profit rises since at least 1936. Research by David Rosenberg, chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch, shows that US groups in the blue chip S&P 500 index have so far recorded a 16 per cent year-on-year rise in operating earnings per share in the third quarter, with just a few companies left to report results. Merrill’s analysis finds that this bullish performance.. >>
via freerepublic.com
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-11-20 6:19:38 PM
Not only has Sam Sullivan long been an advocate
of safe injection sights, he actually gave a crack
addict money to buy drugs with. And a paper like the "Georgia Straight" endorsed him because they
considered him to be to the left of Jim Green
Posted by: Brendan Kane | 2005-11-20 8:11:02 PM
It turns out that perhaps the only reason Jim Green lost to Sam Sullivan was the presence on the ballot of a certain "James Green" who scored about five thousand votes. Jim Green lost by about four thousand. It is widely assumed that not all of James Green's support was deliberate. So if Sam Sullivan is in fact anywhere to the right of Green, Campbell and COPE plus its new clone Vision Vancouver, which seems to be the case on many issues, then we have James Green to thank for this. Whoever he is, or was. ... On the drug question, I see it as a challenge for ideologies right, left and centre. Basically, the nation tends to believe that Vancouver encourages the drug trade. It's more of a case, I think, that the federal government (and to a lesser extent the provincial government) doesn't care very much, because many of the health and law enforcement issues are under their control more than the city's control.
City councils around greater Vancouver are all under pressure from citizens to do something, anything, to reduce the petty theft and street crime here (I live in Burnaby, a relative enclave of civil harmony). I believe that Sam Sullivan was in his formative political phase when he loaned money to the crack addict. He said in an interview that he regrets doing this now, but was overwhelmed by his effort to get closely involved in the street scene. I would imagine this would happen to many of us, because the thousands who get trapped in this lifestyle are so far gone that any concept of "snapping out of it" or tough love is more or less irrelevant. We don't have the police or social resources to deal with the problem or even manage it, but instead there are just half-effectual measures from time to time that may show mixed results. Essentially, it is the same as the rest of human frailty and weakness, only lived out on the streets for all to see, and with the added catch that private property is not recognized by this sub-culture in their mania to get a fix.
It does not mean that most relatively normal people around the province condone this activity or want social policies that enable drug abuse. However, at this point we would probably settle for almost anything that effectively reduces the crime wave, especially something with any kind of prospects of curing any percentage of the addicts over time. For you or me, or even Mayor Sullivan, to issue stern moral lectures to these people is about the same as Pat Buchanan calling for the people of Pakistan to go to church next Sunday. It might be a good idea in principle, but it isn't going to be heard, let alone acted upon.
While European solutions may seem offensive, the floor is definitely open for solutions, period. It's a widespread perception that nobody is really doing a whole lot of anything right now on this file. One other point, Larry Campbell is to Dominic da Vinci as Tie Domi is to Wayne Gretzky, if ya see what I mean.
Posted by: peter o'donnell | 2005-11-20 11:24:53 PM
If the spoiler candidate "James Green" hadn't run, the imcumbent Jim Green would have undoubtedly won. Neo-cons won through fraud, once again showing themselves to have no values. Not a surprise.
http://www.frogstylebiscuit.com/index.php?articles_function=show_detail&name=articles&id=150&tag=shot
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 1:50:14 PM
Voters can't remember the name of the person they want to vote for and it's a neo-con plot? Riiiight.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-11-21 2:02:46 PM
So Mark, let me get this straight. The outcome you wanted did not occur so therefore there was conservative fraud? It seems no matter where an election happens in North America these days this same old whine is brought out.
Even by your own numbers, all 'James' Green needed was for 527 of the people who voted to have intended to have voted for him, to have the same result. While the numbers may be suspicious, in your eye anyway, you have no proof to show, except your deeply held beliefs that you must be right, that the election would have had a different result without James involved. At least Peter, while acknowleding the possibility of problem of the confusing names does not outright accuse the right of fraud.
You personally may not like the man, but that doesn't mean others don't. You can link to all the articles showing how he may not be the best and brightest businessman but that doesn't mean he won't get people voting for him. Just look at the Federal elections for all the proof you need of that.
Posted by: Bic | 2005-11-21 3:35:32 PM
Kathryn: "Voters can't remember the name of the person they want to vote for and it's a neo-con plot? Riiiight."
James Green's name was before Jim Greens on the ballot and many people had no idea that an independent named James Green was even running, given James Green's previous non-involvement in regional politics.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that James Green is, in this scenario, going to gain many of Jim Green's votes. But then again, I wouldn't expect an idealogue such as yourself to grasp the glaringly obvious. As expected, you cheerlead fraud and show your lack of respect for democracy.
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 3:44:44 PM
Bic: It is highly unlikely that an unknown such as James Green would get more than 500 votes. It is also unlikely that James Green wasn't an agent of Sullivan's supporters given that James Green was donated office space by the same people who donated office space to Sullivan.
Instead of condemning fraud, idealogues like you defend it. It doesn't bode well for your credibiltiy to feign ignorance of the obvious.
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 3:49:48 PM
First, as a quick reply to your "lack of respect for democracy" quip you like to make. As far as I can see, no one, except you, is calling for the outright banning of a candidate just because they share a similar name to a candidate you favour. The ability for anyone, regardless of race, creed, sex AND name, to run for civic office is what democracy is all about. Nowhere can you show that in any way were ballots altered, people discouraged from voting or anything else that would constitute real fraud.
Point two, as to my feigning ignorance. I didn't say that there wasn't some confusion over the names, and I strongly suspect there was, but also you have failed to show that minus that confusion, the results would have been any different.
Also, assuming Jim Green knew James Green was running, don't you think it would have been prudent on his part to ensure his supporters knew that there were two candidates with similar names and to vote for the one they truly wanted. If he had done so, they I would have to build on Kathryn's earlier statement that people who cannot remember the name of their choosen candidate might not be the best group of people to rely on to elect your guy.
Either way, I have no vested interest in the results of the election either way as I live no where near BC. I just really hate the instant shout out of "FRAUD!" whenever certain people don't get their way. Even by your own claims, the most your could shout out is "CONFUSION!".
If this is the height of Canadian elections 'fraud' I think we're doing ok.
Posted by: Bic | 2005-11-21 4:05:42 PM
I'll concede that Jim and James may cause some confusion, BUT if someone is going to cast a ballot, they should damn well know the name of the candidate they want to vote for or their party affiliation, if applicable. It's called making an informed choice.
You have presented no evidence of fraud and neither did your linked article. Just because you say it is fraud doesn't mean it is. Now hang to your socks - if it is fraud, I will be first in line to call it such and demand a new election and criminal charges. That's because I'm such an ideologue, I believe in the rule of law and free and fair elections.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-11-21 4:09:11 PM
"The ability for anyone, regardless of race, creed, sex AND name, to run for civic office is what democracy is all about." Give me a break... this extends to running candidates with nearly identical names to split the vote is not what democracy is about? Please.
You strongly suspect there was "confusion over the names", yet your acknowledgement of the obvious doesn't extend to this being an effort to defraud.
Jim Green did, obviously, make efforts to inform supporters James Green was running as a spoiler. And there was a small amount of media coverage of the matter. But, OBVIOUSLY, not everyone supporting Jim Green was on his phone tree and saw the media coverage.
"If this is the height of Canadian elections 'fraud' I think we're doing ok." I'm glad to see you are willing to accept, and make excuses for, American-style dirty tricks in Canadian electoral politics. I doubt that your values, however, are those of the mainstream.
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 4:19:48 PM
Kathryn: "...if someone is going to cast a ballot, they should damn well know the name of the candidate they want to vote for or their party affiliation, if applicable. It's called making an informed choice." More excuses for fraud. If someone isn't aware that a spoiler candidate is running, it's hardly surprising they'd mistake a "James" for a "Jim" seeing as they are different forms of the SAME NAME. Too complex for you to understand?
"You have presented no evidence of fraud and neither did your linked article. Just because you say it is fraud doesn't mean it is. Now hang to your socks - if it is fraud, I will be first in line to call it such and demand a new election and criminal charges. That's because I'm such an ideologue, I believe in the rule of law and free and fair elections." Ah... so it's only wrong if it's illegal? Once again, you uphold the moral high ground and uphold a high standard for our politicians. ;)
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 4:23:38 PM
For just this post, I'll concede that Jim Green was brought in merely to torpedo James Green's chances. Or was it the other way 'round?
How does that absolve the voter of knowing the name of the candidate they want to vote for?
"Ah... so it's only wrong if it's illegal? Once again, you uphold the moral high ground and uphold a high standard for our politicians. ;)"
Help me out here. What does this mean?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-11-21 4:32:04 PM
"How does that absolve the voter of knowing the name of the candidate they want to vote for?" *sigh* Again, James and Jim are different spellings of the same name. If a voter didn't know the existance of the spoiler, it's obvious to anyone with any common sense that it would mislead some of them. Is it really that difficult to understand?
"Ah... so it's only wrong if it's illegal? Once again, you uphold the moral high ground and uphold a high standard for our politicians. ;)" What did I mean by this? Bic was saying that he saw no evidence of putting forward a spoiler candidate as being fraud, legally. To this I would say "so what". Most people would agree that something that is wrong should be condemned if it is morally wrong, whether it is technically legal or not.
Defending fraud doesn't help your credibility.
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 4:40:07 PM
This is an opportunity to congratulate the citizens of Vancouver for winning a chance to turn the Declining City around. With all of the wealth an economic potential of Vancouver the urban scene has been getting steadily more putrid. The reason for this decline is directly attributable to the misguided policies of allowing crime to go unpunished.
Lets hope the new mayor can prevail against the cabal of Self Righteous fools that have been supporting the doctrine of turning a blind eye lawlessness and giving a free ride to addicts.
Posted by: PGP | 2005-11-21 4:58:50 PM
Which leads to the question...How bad do things need to get before any changes get made?
Posted by: PGP | 2005-11-21 5:01:23 PM
PGP: A free ride to addicts? Rhetoric seems to trump reality in your analysis: your facts are completely wrong. Under Larry Campbell, policing got more funding and police presence in the drug dealing areas increased dramatically. Before Campbell, the NPA had pretty much left the Downtown East Side to the dealers.
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 5:04:14 PM
Mark, I'm still stuck on exactly how a candidate with a similar name running in the same race constitutes fraud?
To even begin to make a case for immorality, which repeat after me "does NOT mean fraud!" you would have to show that James Green, having absolutely no interest in local government whatsoever, was coerced to run by the secret neo-con cabal you are so fond of blaming for everything.
Even if many of the same people who support Sullivan support him, you have done absolutely nothing to prove that he is anything more that an average citizen excercising his free right to run for public office, END OF STORY. All else is merely conjecture on your part and while good for a few interesting headlines, really has no staying power.
Speaking of US politics, this type of story has played out there, especially during the last election, and while the names were in fact different, the Democrats were very much following your line of thought. In almost every state where the numbers were at all close, they protested, often leading to court hearings, Ralph Nader's name being put on the ballot. In that case, local Republican group often helped him drum up support to ensure his name was added. Even so, the Democrats often got their way and Nader was left off the ballots in several States accross the country.
While the Republicans were definately not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, in my opinion, the attempt to prevent someone from running for office is a much more aggregious transgression than the adding of additional candidates, even if they may split votes.
As always, it is up to the electorate to ensure that they cast their vote for the candidate of their choice. If they had read the ballot and noticed two similar names they should have stepped back and either asked for assistance or if no one there was able to help them (I'm not sure of the legal restrictions on poll workers aiding potential voters) called someone they trust, which could include the local representatives campaign headquarters.
Once again, if with all the help available, you can't manage to vote for the correct candidate, maybe you should just pull yourself out of the voting pool. But in a democracy the choice is yours.
Posted by: bic | 2005-11-21 5:16:03 PM
"it's obvious to anyone with any common sense that it would mislead some of them. Is it really that difficult to understand?"
Is it really that difficult to understand that Jim and James are related names, but not the same name? Is it really that difficult to understand that someone who campaigned as Jim will be identified as Jim on the ballot, particualrly when there are similiarly-named people running in the election? Is it really that difficult to understand that responsible voters will seek out the name of the candidate they want to vote for?
Or are you saying that some people are too dumb to vote?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-11-21 5:16:38 PM
bic: "Mark, I'm still stuck on exactly how a candidate with a similar name running in the same race constitutes fraud?"
Similar name? Try the same name, spelled in a different way. If you don't think running a spoiler candidate is a fraudulent tactic you have a strange notion of the concept of fraud. Look fraud up in the dictionary:
Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
Fraud: A piece of trickery; a trick.
You don't think running a spoiler candidate with the same name is deception or trickery? Please. Keep making excuses for fraud... it shows your values.
"To even begin to make a case for immorality, which repeat after me 'does NOT mean fraud!' you would have to show that James Green, having absolutely no interest in local government whatsoever, was coerced to run by the secret neo-con cabal you are so fond of blaming for everything."
Ah... so office space was donated to James Green by Sullivan supporters and that's not evidence that he's an agent of Sullivan's supporters? Again, please. Use some common sense. Your pretend naiivity does not wash.
"Even if many of the same people who support Sullivan support him, you have done absolutely nothing to prove that he is anything more that an average citizen excercising his free right to run for public office, END OF STORY. All else is merely conjecture on your part and while good for a few interesting headlines, really has no staying power."
LOL... So James Green, who has have no involvement in municipal government decides to run for mayor all of the sudden and just happens to have the same name as Jim Green? And office space is donated to him by Jim Green's opponents? It doesn't take "conjecture" to arrive at the obvious conclusion. I don't believe you are as thick as you're pretending to be. It doesn't hurt to call a dirty trick a dirty trick.
As for your effort to divert discussion to US politics, that's another topic entirely... but perhaps you also think electonic voting without receipts is a legitimate practice that should be started in Canada?
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 5:25:45 PM
Kathryn: "Is it really that difficult to understand that someone who campaigned as Jim will be identified as Jim on the ballot, particualrly when there are similiarly-named people running in the election?"
Is it really that difficult to understand that voters not aware of the presence of a spoiler candidate named James Green would confuse him with Jim Green when his name is the first on the ballot? Again, it's not rocket science... your feigned lack of comprehension of the obvious is not credible.
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 5:28:33 PM
Complain all you want but you still seem to be avoiding both mine and Kathryn's assertion that it is the responsability of the voter to ensure that they cast their vote properly. Take some responsibility for yourself.
If you don't bother to read the entire ballot before voting STAY HOME or live with the results. Stop trying to blame others for decisions made by people who are too lazy to properly exercise their democratic rights.
As almost every teacher I've ever had has stressed, you should read the entire test before beginning. If it's important enough for a grade 6 math test, it's important enough for your vote.
Posted by: bic | 2005-11-21 7:17:58 PM
"...it is the responsability of the voter to ensure that they cast their vote properly. Take some responsibility for yourself."
Very unrealistic. So voters are to blame that a spoiler candidate was put on the ballot ahead of the real candidate? If you have ANY experience in business or politics, where large number of people are involved, you'll know that people are easily confused. And deliberately confusing them, as has obviously occurred in this case, will bring about the inevitable result: disenfrashisement. The fact that you have no problem with this shows either an ignorance of how things work or a belief that prevents you from acknowledging the glaringly obvious.
"Stop trying to blame others for decisions made by people who are too lazy to properly exercise their democratic rights."
You're remarkably eager to blame the victim. Why can't you simply call sleaze sleaze? Why do you insist on defending fraud? That kind of attitude simply paves the way for a decrease in electoral integrity and shows questionable values.
Posted by: Mark Cabal | 2005-11-21 7:41:53 PM
My view basically comes down to this Mark, in a free and democratic country, everyone has the right to run for office. Only extrodinary circumstances should prevent someone from being able to run; this would include their current legal standing or immigration status.
If it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt (and your wishing it to be, does not make your 'proof' any more substantial) that a candidate is being run by a group for the sole purpose of confusing the electorate, then even in that case it would be hard to remove the 'spoiler' from the ballot as long as he complies with the law (but a court may decide otherwise). The problem here is all you can show is that Sullivan supporters also offered some support to James. You have absolutely no evidence that James Green was put up to running by the Sullivan camp, just your opinions and while they may have some substance, should not prevent this man from running if he so chooses.
Part of the system is that everybody has to play by the same rules. When you start making special exemptions for specific candidates you forever corrupt the democratic system. Can no one with the last name Green run, just in case? Or how about Greer? Or are all Sullivan's now barred from running in BC until Sam retires?
Even if you don't like the result, your case that James Green was merely a spoiler candidate is circumstantial at best. He has run for public positions before when he was elected to the Delta School board, so has shown at least some interest in the idea of holding office.
The fact that Jim Green was fully aware of both the candidicy of James Green (they had met when James declared his intentions of running) and the possible confusion, and had even agreed on James (who also goes by Jim) to campaign as 'James' Green puts the onus on Jim to get the word out about the names (although his campaign flyer/emails calling James Green an imposter candidate was probably a bit much but I'm sure you approved).
As I said in an earlier post, I don't really care who won in some Mayoral election in BC, no matter which city it was, I just don't like people who instantly blame the winning parties for winning because of their preconcieved outcome didn't come to pass. The election was held, people voted, Sullivan won, get over it. Complain about how he is as mayor but let the election go. You lost, deal.
I may complain about the federal Liberals compaigns with the entire $30 billion vote buying system and constant smear of anything conservative (until they adopt all their policies when it suits their needs) but when they get elected, as they so often do, I don't go on and on about how they are illegitimate. I may not agree with their tactics, but more people voted for them then for the other guys so they get the seats. It's the manner of the beast.
Posted by: Bic | 2005-11-22 9:33:06 AM
And speaking of Toronto Mayor David Miller.......
Toronto group to crown 'Lord of the Slums'
Fri Nov 25, 2005 4:36 PM ET
TORONTO (Reuters) - To coincide with the world premiere of the "Lord of the Rings" musical in Toronto in February, a city tenants' group will crown a "Lord of the Slums."
The group also wants slumlords to line up for a chance to win the "Golden Cockroach" award, and is eyeing a "Slums Unlimited" safari for tourists.
The campaign by the Parkdale Tenants Association, which represents residents of a down-at-the-heels west end neighborhood, is taking aim at the city of Toronto and the government of Ontario over what it says are sub-standard living conditions for low-income renters.
"When the city and province brag about spending C$3 million on bringing tourists in, we thought we'd use it as an opportunity to show this dirty little secret," association representative Bart Poesiat said on Friday.
When the "Lord of the Rings" opens, the association will offer a tour of Toronto's worst slums, which it hopes will shame governments into taking action to improve conditions.
The group will choose a "Lord of the Slums" from those it deems most responsible for "deplorable rental conditions plaguing hundreds of thousands of Torontonians."
Ontario's housing minister and Toronto's mayor are two of the nominees.
"We already had five or six requests to attend the tour from across the world... as far away as Scotland," Poesiat said, adding his group is trying to "...speak for the people that can't be heard."
===========================================
What was on tv was even more interesting.
Toronto Mayor Miller mayor_miller@toronto.ca in his efforts to defend himself against the site www.torontoslumtourism.com was slagging our neighbors to the south particularly attacking the slums of Chicago and New York mentioned in the website.
Posted by: Bart Poesiat | 2005-11-28 2:32:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.