Comments for John Michael McGrath

Comment on The RCCAO’s strange argument on fares by Joe MacDonald

Joe MacDonald — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:59:01 +0000

I agree John. The community I grew up in, Alderwood, was built up mostly from 1950 on. The QEW was just about in place and, granted, the long Branch street car was available after a very long walk (Mimico, New Toronto and Long Branch were also in place well before a subway). For years we paid a two zone TTC fare. When you transferred at the Humber Loop either way you paid another fare.

With the extension of the subway west, into neighbourhoods that, in many cases were mature, bordered on the city limits, the zone fare system was scrapped. The sprawl north of the 401 was complete well before transit was available. Now, as you say, those who need it most and can afford it least live farther from the city core.

A distance fare may help, but it won’t cure our transit needs. The province has to belly up and we have to face the fact that if we want transit, we all have to pay for it because, ultimately, we all benefit.

Comment on The RCCAO’s strange argument on fares by john

john — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:49:21 +0000

Adam, that’s certainly a more workable scenario. There are similar examples in the east end you could point to as well, but historically it’s unclear to me whether transit drove settlement, or simply added value for developers selling homes they had already started building. (Though you could argue there’s not too much space between the latter and the former.)

Comment on The RCCAO’s strange argument on fares by GIPoo

GIPoo — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:45:55 +0000

I feel like this whole discussion is based on the idea that fares would go UP for people travelling farther. But I think a reduction in fare for shorter distances would be more appropriate.

It’s funny that the quote suggests people are over-paying in the core and under-paying in the sprawl. The core pays $3/trip to not have to walk or ride a bike in traffic. The folks in the sprawl pay $3/trip because they have no viable alternative.

To me this amounts to extortion of suburbanites and a luxury tax on downtowners.

Comment on The RCCAO’s strange argument on fares by Adam C-F

Adam C-F — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:43:03 +0000

Given how little greenfield could possibly be built in Toronto right now I agree. But it’s worth noting that there was a time when that RCCAO’s theory might have been a little more practical. One example is that the St. Clair West community, as I understand the history, was built from about 1913-1935. The construction of that neighbourhood was the result of the St. Clair streetcar beginning construction in 1913. The area was residential though sparsely populated prior to the streetcar but the streetcar created more demand for housing in the area which resulted in large plots of land being subdivided into the neighbourhood we have today.

Comment on Getting #FordCourt right by A Preview of Rob Ford’s Conflict-of-Interest Appeal | politics | Torontoist

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:33:44 +0000

[...] dealt with these arguments in my previous post, so I won’t repeat myself here, but I will note that Lenczner made an argument on Wednesday [...]

Comment on Getting #FordCourt right by john

john — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:49:28 +0000

Adam: Ford reiterated in court that he thought it was ridiculous that he should have to pay money back out of his own pocket. Hackland accepted Ruby’s argument that this was evidence that the money was not insignificant to Ford’s vote.

I’m just clarifying that people aren’t taking one quote from council out of context–Ford’s own statements have been consistent, though perhaps not what he intended.

Comment on Getting #FordCourt right by Adam

Adam — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:07:44 +0000

If I’m beating a dead horse here let me know,

“The other major defence, insignificance, isn’t simply a matter of “oh well that’s pocket change, he obviously wasn’t being bribed”, at least not according to case law. Rather, Ford had to demonstrate that he was voting on the matter for some reason having nothing to do with the money. Instead, in his remarks to council that night, he said explicitly he thought it was absurd he would have to pay back this money himself.”

I haven’t read the transcripts but it seems to me that the significance ascribed to Mr Ford’s comment is being incorrectly interpreted. I believe the significance for him was the fact that he was helping underprivileged kids not that he couldn’t pay the cash back. There seems something disingenuous to me about a judge that can imply that all of the facts of a case are inconsequential and yet simultaneously move to disenfranchise almost 400,000 voters. To me the appeal ought to be a slam dunk but I am not a lawyer either.

Comment on Getting #FordCourt right by Extra, Extra: Portable Bike Lanes, Caretaker Mayors, and Angry Birds | One Stop News Stand

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:20:44 +0000

[...] John Michael McGrath just wants to clear up all your misconceptions about Ford’s court [...]

Comment on Getting #FordCourt right by Extra, Extra: Portable Bike Lanes, Caretaker Mayors, and Angry Birds | news | Torontoist

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:48:49 +0000

[...] John Michael McGrath just wants to clear up all your misconceptions about Ford’s court [...]

Comment on No, Rob Ford’s re-election isn’t certain. It’s not even likely. by Nikki Thomas

Nikki Thomas — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:01:39 +0000

Good analysis, but I still worry what will happen if two or three stubborn candidates on the left all run in the election. What I’m really hoping for (and I can’t believe I’m actually writing this) is that Mammoliti throws his hat into the ring. He’s sure to siphon votes away from Ford, as might John Tory (the perennial candidate) or perhaps Karen Stintz (who might actually not be a bad choice).

However, we can never discount the possibility of a candidate running up the middle; Stephane Dion’s surprise win at the Liberal leadership conference a few years ago is a perfect example of what can happen when multiple flawed candidates spilt the moderate voters in unexpected ways.