As long as we coddle criminals, they win
By JOE WARMINGTON
Last Updated: 13th November 2008, 3:42am
"I am not going to snitch" and "My school is safe" are two amazing comments to come out of the latest C.W. Jefferys blood zone debacle!
The first was from a student, not exactly being helpful to police trying to catch an attempted murderer on the loose with a knife.
But the "My school is safe" remark was from C.W. Jefferys' principal, Audley Salmon, who made the comment as the manhunt was under way for the wouldbe attacker. The victim is "known to police" and was not a student but happened to be in the school's cafeteria.
Safe, eh! We'll have to take his word on it.
Once again so many heads are in the sand. Next we'll be hearing it's time for another study on youth and violence. Maybe Premier Dalton McGuinty can get Pinball Clemons to speak to the kids.
Or Mayor David "Hand Gun Ban" Miller can call for a national ban on knives. Or perhaps they'll all talk about disenfranchisement and how these marginalized kids come from poverty.
MONEY'S WORTH?
Speaking of that, in a year when Toronto has had 300 shooting victims, are we getting our millions' worth on the other programs set up to help them?
"Anybody know what happened to the youth and violence secretariat set up by the premier, which had former chief justice Roy McMurtry on it and former MPP Alvin Curling?" Toronto school board trustee Josh Matlow asked yesterday.
It was called the Review of the Roots of Youth Violence and was commissioned in 2007.
"I tried to find any recommendations but have not actually been able to find an office," Matlow said.
He even travelled to Queen's Park but couldn't find a desk or an employee.
I didn't have much luck, either. I put a call into an answering machine and have a request into the premier's office as well.
Turns out the youth violence report at long last is going to be released tomorrow at Queen's Park, Curling confirmed last night, adding that "people will be pleased even if that sounds self-serving."
And in the meantime there is a website to shed some light. It states that "our review involves many complex and long-standing issues, including how structural inequality, concentrations of disadvantage, and racism impact violence involving youth ... Our deep interest in finding responses to inequality, disadvantage and racism did not start with the premier's request to us, and it will not end when we submit our report to him."
To translate from politically correct to English: It's society's fault.
"Cost of McMurtry/Curling report so far -- $2 million." Conservative Leader John Tory said last night.
I wonder why they didn't just give the $2 million to the gangsters.
Now this committee is not to be confused with Julian Falconer's reported $1-million study or even the premier's 2006 Ontario's Violence Prevention Strategy, which had a $15-million Youth Challenge Fund, chaired by Pinball himself.
Of course there is no need for any of it. The solution is simple. Everybody knows a large part of the problem is gangs who seem to copy the same kind of violent gangland behaviour practised in Jamaica and the U.S.
DESTROY GANGS
You get rid of these gangs, which have members of all colours and origins, then you get rid of the drugs they sell, the weapons they will use and the damage and fear they cause.
No study is needed to understand we have good laws, good cops, a huge court system, lots of jails and the ability to search lockers, or students, if necessary.
As long as we kiss the gangs' butts they will kick ours.
Without taxpayer funding, intrepid Toronto Sun reporter Brett Clarkson dug up the shocking statistic that there have been 35 school lockdowns in Toronto board schools this year already and 60 last year.
We are still working on the figures of the number of students who won't "snitch" or how many systemic experts paid by the taxpayer are still insisting this is a "safe" city!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Green schemers run amok
Does Socialist Silly Hall have nothing better to do than attack good corporate citizens?
By SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: 13th November 2008, 3:27am
At today's planning and growth committee, councillors will be asked to approve an incentive program that will give commercial business owners money to install green roofs on their buildings.
That Eco-Roof program, according to the city report, will eat up some $1.07 million in precious operating and capital funds next year.
Let's not forget, either, that last Thursday, Mayor David Miller proudly presented the latest offering from the Politburo -- an $800,000 Pravda propaganda piece, er, "Our Toronto" newsletter, that is nothing more than a vehicle to shamelessly promote his wacky socialist mandate.
Yet, it seems, the city's green councillors are stubbornly refusing to spend $3 million to properly outfit their three recycling processing centres -- called Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) -- to sort recyclable paper coffee cups from their plastic lids.
Some $3 million -- the kind of money that is spent like water at King David's Empire on Queen St. W. -- is all that's needed next year to retrofit the city's MRFs with the kind of optimum sorting equipment that would allow the city to handle paper coffee (and tea) cups (minus their plastic lids) in the city's recycling stream.
Another $1 million in operating costs per year would also be needed to man the sorters, confirmed Geoff Rathbone, general manager of solid waste.
My point is in Miller's world, $4 million is chump change.
Instead it appears with its wacky, new in-store packaging initiatives, Socialist Silly Hall would sooner pick a fight with all of Toronto's coffee and tea chains trying to make a living in the city's competitive retail environment. Never mind that these companies pay huge taxes and provide real jobs.
In fact, as Nick Javor, senior v-p of corporate affairs for Tim Hortons noted, about 18,000 people are employed by their franchises in Toronto alone.
The availability of the technology notwithstanding, the socialists would sooner impose a ban on paper coffee and tea cups with plastic lids, claiming they're not "compatible" with the city's recycling stream. They'd sooner order the industry to create a special "Made in the Socialist Republik of Toronto" cup, as if coffee retailers have a safe alternative lid to transport their hot beverage at the ready (which they don't), and plenty of money to respond to council's whims.
It didn't seem to faze the green police one bit that the Tim Hortons cup and lid are accepted in either the blue box or green bin programs in cities across the province, including York Region, Kingston and Hamilton -- or that the company has been a good corporate citizen.
RISK OF LAWSUIT
The arbiters of all that's green (yesterday the strongest proponents were councillors Glenn DeBaeremaeker, Howard Moscoe and Gord Perks, who treated the industry reps with absolute contempt) think it's quite fine to impose a 20-cent discount on all coffee chains whose customers present a refillable cup and a 10-cent discount per bag on all retailers whose customers bring their own refillable bags -- ignoring the very real risk of a lawsuit against the city.
Kim McKinnon, v-p Ontario of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, said her retail members will have to absorb $88 million in extra costs from the discount.
She added they have an opinion indicating there is "definitely an option" to move forward legally.
Are council's eco-wingnuts out of their cotton-pickin' minds, or simply drunk on their own green power?
In my view, the socialists have gone so far this time this plan has the potential to get the "Anybody But David" (Miller) election movement up and running pretty darn fast.
Miller has been suspiciously silent to date on this policy. He kept away from the heated committee meeting yesterday, although I did spot him in the City Hall cafeteria clutching a styrofoam clamshell (also to be banned in 2010), presumably containing his lunch.
(Hmmm. You'd think the King of Climate Change would use his own refillable containers. I do.)
At least there were enough cool heads at the public works committee -- Mark Grimes, Chin Lee and John Parker -- to have the plan banning coffee and tea cups and lids referred back for more consultation.
With good reason. Too bad it took nine hours of pleading from the industry.
Coun. Case Ootes called this whole program "surreal" and said his colleagues are "absolutely ridiculous" to take on good corporate citizens.
"It's because we have an NDP government in power that takes on business ... that's the forte, their issue in life," he said. "They hamstring people who create jobs."
By SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: 13th November 2008, 3:27am
At today's planning and growth committee, councillors will be asked to approve an incentive program that will give commercial business owners money to install green roofs on their buildings.
That Eco-Roof program, according to the city report, will eat up some $1.07 million in precious operating and capital funds next year.
Let's not forget, either, that last Thursday, Mayor David Miller proudly presented the latest offering from the Politburo -- an $800,000 Pravda propaganda piece, er, "Our Toronto" newsletter, that is nothing more than a vehicle to shamelessly promote his wacky socialist mandate.
Yet, it seems, the city's green councillors are stubbornly refusing to spend $3 million to properly outfit their three recycling processing centres -- called Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) -- to sort recyclable paper coffee cups from their plastic lids.
Some $3 million -- the kind of money that is spent like water at King David's Empire on Queen St. W. -- is all that's needed next year to retrofit the city's MRFs with the kind of optimum sorting equipment that would allow the city to handle paper coffee (and tea) cups (minus their plastic lids) in the city's recycling stream.
Another $1 million in operating costs per year would also be needed to man the sorters, confirmed Geoff Rathbone, general manager of solid waste.
My point is in Miller's world, $4 million is chump change.
Instead it appears with its wacky, new in-store packaging initiatives, Socialist Silly Hall would sooner pick a fight with all of Toronto's coffee and tea chains trying to make a living in the city's competitive retail environment. Never mind that these companies pay huge taxes and provide real jobs.
In fact, as Nick Javor, senior v-p of corporate affairs for Tim Hortons noted, about 18,000 people are employed by their franchises in Toronto alone.
The availability of the technology notwithstanding, the socialists would sooner impose a ban on paper coffee and tea cups with plastic lids, claiming they're not "compatible" with the city's recycling stream. They'd sooner order the industry to create a special "Made in the Socialist Republik of Toronto" cup, as if coffee retailers have a safe alternative lid to transport their hot beverage at the ready (which they don't), and plenty of money to respond to council's whims.
It didn't seem to faze the green police one bit that the Tim Hortons cup and lid are accepted in either the blue box or green bin programs in cities across the province, including York Region, Kingston and Hamilton -- or that the company has been a good corporate citizen.
RISK OF LAWSUIT
The arbiters of all that's green (yesterday the strongest proponents were councillors Glenn DeBaeremaeker, Howard Moscoe and Gord Perks, who treated the industry reps with absolute contempt) think it's quite fine to impose a 20-cent discount on all coffee chains whose customers present a refillable cup and a 10-cent discount per bag on all retailers whose customers bring their own refillable bags -- ignoring the very real risk of a lawsuit against the city.
Kim McKinnon, v-p Ontario of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, said her retail members will have to absorb $88 million in extra costs from the discount.
She added they have an opinion indicating there is "definitely an option" to move forward legally.
Are council's eco-wingnuts out of their cotton-pickin' minds, or simply drunk on their own green power?
In my view, the socialists have gone so far this time this plan has the potential to get the "Anybody But David" (Miller) election movement up and running pretty darn fast.
Miller has been suspiciously silent to date on this policy. He kept away from the heated committee meeting yesterday, although I did spot him in the City Hall cafeteria clutching a styrofoam clamshell (also to be banned in 2010), presumably containing his lunch.
(Hmmm. You'd think the King of Climate Change would use his own refillable containers. I do.)
At least there were enough cool heads at the public works committee -- Mark Grimes, Chin Lee and John Parker -- to have the plan banning coffee and tea cups and lids referred back for more consultation.
With good reason. Too bad it took nine hours of pleading from the industry.
Coun. Case Ootes called this whole program "surreal" and said his colleagues are "absolutely ridiculous" to take on good corporate citizens.
"It's because we have an NDP government in power that takes on business ... that's the forte, their issue in life," he said. "They hamstring people who create jobs."
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
World’s Oil Fields Drying Up at Frightening Speed
Breaking Energy Crisis News
26-Government Study Confirms:
World’s Oil Fields Drying Up at Frightening Speed
Even the keepers of official statistics can’t hide this alarming oil secret from you anymore…
Imagine if world oil production fell 38% in the next five years.
That’s like losing nearly all of OPEC.
Imagine the chaos. The shortages. President Obama ordering gas rationing. Fear and fighting in the streets. A world that looks more and more like “Mad Max.”
Think that’s far-fetched? Not so much:
The International Energy Agency is just out today with some shocking numbers. Numbers that confirm everything we’ve been telling you in this space for years.
The IEA advises the governments of 26 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. So this is a big deal.
A team of 25 IEA experts just finished an exhaustive survey of the world’s 450 biggest oil fields. It’s an unprecedented effort. And the results are frightening.
“The findings suggest the world will struggle to produce enough oil to make up for steep declines in existing fields,” according to the Financial Times.
Here’s the big, terrifying number: The world’s oil fields are depleting at a rate of 9.1% every year!
To put that into some perspective: Current world oil production is 84 million barrels a day. Assume no one does anything to find more oil. According to the IEA’s numbers, production would fall off a cliff — to just 52 million barrels a day by 2013. That’s a 38% drop in five short years.
It gets worse. As it is, world oil demand is 85 million barrels a day. So we’re already using more than we’re consuming. And it’s not going to get any better. The IEA expects demand to grow 1.6% per year. Hold that against production drops of 9.1%, and you begin to see the problem.
But even if oil consumption stopped growing today…if demand held at 85 million barrels a day, we’d still be in trouble. There’s simply no way new oil discoveries can make up for a 38% drop in production from existing fields. None.
We could drill up every drop in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and it would supply the world for only six months. And that’s using the most optimistic estimate of its reserves.
Here’s another way you can look at it.
We Need to Discover “Four New Saudi Arabias”
The IEA report says the world needs to increase current production by 45 million barrels per day — just to keep pace with current levels of demand.
How much oil is that? The IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, says that means “bringing four new Saudi Arabias on stream” between now and 2030.
Again, that’s just to keep up with present demand. Add in growing demand from China, India, and the Middle East, and that 45 million barrels per day grows to 65 million — or FIVE new Saudi Arabias.
Do you think we’ll find five new Saudi Arabias by 2030? How about four? Even with aggressive exploration of deep ocean water and the Arctic? Didn’t think so.
Neither does our resident geologist Byron King.
Chances are you already know Byron from his many Whiskey & Gunpowder articles dating back to 2004. From the start, he’s been warning you about “Peak Oil” and its devastating consequences. Now his prognostications are finally going mainstream. In other words, the IEA is catching up to him.
Byron’s known for years about the frightening decline in Mexico’s Cantarell oil field, once the second largest-in the world. Production from July 2007 to July 2008 plunged 36%.
In fact, of the world’s four super-giant oil fields, three are in decline. Not just Cantarell, but also Burgan in Kuwait and Daqing in China.
And what about the biggest of them all? Well, we still don’t know the full story about Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar.
That one field accounts for 6% of world production. But for how much longer? Its reserves are a Saudi state secret. The IEA had to rely on computer models to analyze Ghawar. Not comforting, is it?
Even worse, the IEA report says the world’s smaller fields are declining at rates even faster than the super-giants.
Byron’s been warning about the decline of the world’s oil fields for years, both here and in the pages of his monthly research advisory, Outstanding Investments. And the IEA’s just-released numbers validate his warnings.
Yet what’s the story you hear now from the perpetually clueless mainstream media?
What the Mainstream Media Aren’t Telling You
You hear this: A global recession is killing energy demand. Oil prices are at a 20-month low today. Already gas is back to $2 a gallon in many places. Heck, SUV sales are up again. We don’t have to worry about energy shortages now.
Really?
Maybe you missed the story. On Monday, China unveiled its own “stimulus package” for the world’s fastest-growing economy. $586 billion to help build things like highways and airports. Which will be filled with cars and airplanes. Which use fuel. Lots of it.
Sure, China might not grow 10% a year anymore. But even if it slows down to 5%, that’s a lot of people giving up bicycles for scooters. And scooters for cars. They’re joining you and me among the ranks of the world’s big-time energy users. Permanently.
Bottom line: Energy use might be down in the developed world. But the developing world — China, India, the OPEC nations themselves — is more than making up for it.
Here’s something else the media aren’t telling you.
“Within Seven Days We’ll Run Out of Food”
Don’t look now, but U.S. gasoline inventories, according to Barclays Capital, are at 40-year lows.
That’s big-time vulernability. One big hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico next summer could knock out drilling platforms at sea, and refineries on shore.
That worries Matt Simmons, famed investment banker to the oil industry, the man CNBC calls “the ultimate oil insider.” He paints a dire picture of trucks with no fuel…and no way to deliver their food to stores.
“If we end up having gasoline shortages,” Simmons says, “the odds are about 90% that Americans will do what we always do: We'll top up our tanks. And in topping up our tanks, within three or four days we'll drain the pool dry and then within seven days we'll run out of food.”
President Obama ordering gas rationing? Doesn’t sound so far-fetched now…
26-Government Study Confirms:
World’s Oil Fields Drying Up at Frightening Speed
Even the keepers of official statistics can’t hide this alarming oil secret from you anymore…
Imagine if world oil production fell 38% in the next five years.
That’s like losing nearly all of OPEC.
Imagine the chaos. The shortages. President Obama ordering gas rationing. Fear and fighting in the streets. A world that looks more and more like “Mad Max.”
Think that’s far-fetched? Not so much:
The International Energy Agency is just out today with some shocking numbers. Numbers that confirm everything we’ve been telling you in this space for years.
The IEA advises the governments of 26 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. So this is a big deal.
A team of 25 IEA experts just finished an exhaustive survey of the world’s 450 biggest oil fields. It’s an unprecedented effort. And the results are frightening.
“The findings suggest the world will struggle to produce enough oil to make up for steep declines in existing fields,” according to the Financial Times.
Here’s the big, terrifying number: The world’s oil fields are depleting at a rate of 9.1% every year!
To put that into some perspective: Current world oil production is 84 million barrels a day. Assume no one does anything to find more oil. According to the IEA’s numbers, production would fall off a cliff — to just 52 million barrels a day by 2013. That’s a 38% drop in five short years.
It gets worse. As it is, world oil demand is 85 million barrels a day. So we’re already using more than we’re consuming. And it’s not going to get any better. The IEA expects demand to grow 1.6% per year. Hold that against production drops of 9.1%, and you begin to see the problem.
But even if oil consumption stopped growing today…if demand held at 85 million barrels a day, we’d still be in trouble. There’s simply no way new oil discoveries can make up for a 38% drop in production from existing fields. None.
We could drill up every drop in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and it would supply the world for only six months. And that’s using the most optimistic estimate of its reserves.
Here’s another way you can look at it.
We Need to Discover “Four New Saudi Arabias”
The IEA report says the world needs to increase current production by 45 million barrels per day — just to keep pace with current levels of demand.
How much oil is that? The IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, says that means “bringing four new Saudi Arabias on stream” between now and 2030.
Again, that’s just to keep up with present demand. Add in growing demand from China, India, and the Middle East, and that 45 million barrels per day grows to 65 million — or FIVE new Saudi Arabias.
Do you think we’ll find five new Saudi Arabias by 2030? How about four? Even with aggressive exploration of deep ocean water and the Arctic? Didn’t think so.
Neither does our resident geologist Byron King.
Chances are you already know Byron from his many Whiskey & Gunpowder articles dating back to 2004. From the start, he’s been warning you about “Peak Oil” and its devastating consequences. Now his prognostications are finally going mainstream. In other words, the IEA is catching up to him.
Byron’s known for years about the frightening decline in Mexico’s Cantarell oil field, once the second largest-in the world. Production from July 2007 to July 2008 plunged 36%.
In fact, of the world’s four super-giant oil fields, three are in decline. Not just Cantarell, but also Burgan in Kuwait and Daqing in China.
And what about the biggest of them all? Well, we still don’t know the full story about Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar.
That one field accounts for 6% of world production. But for how much longer? Its reserves are a Saudi state secret. The IEA had to rely on computer models to analyze Ghawar. Not comforting, is it?
Even worse, the IEA report says the world’s smaller fields are declining at rates even faster than the super-giants.
Byron’s been warning about the decline of the world’s oil fields for years, both here and in the pages of his monthly research advisory, Outstanding Investments. And the IEA’s just-released numbers validate his warnings.
Yet what’s the story you hear now from the perpetually clueless mainstream media?
What the Mainstream Media Aren’t Telling You
You hear this: A global recession is killing energy demand. Oil prices are at a 20-month low today. Already gas is back to $2 a gallon in many places. Heck, SUV sales are up again. We don’t have to worry about energy shortages now.
Really?
Maybe you missed the story. On Monday, China unveiled its own “stimulus package” for the world’s fastest-growing economy. $586 billion to help build things like highways and airports. Which will be filled with cars and airplanes. Which use fuel. Lots of it.
Sure, China might not grow 10% a year anymore. But even if it slows down to 5%, that’s a lot of people giving up bicycles for scooters. And scooters for cars. They’re joining you and me among the ranks of the world’s big-time energy users. Permanently.
Bottom line: Energy use might be down in the developed world. But the developing world — China, India, the OPEC nations themselves — is more than making up for it.
Here’s something else the media aren’t telling you.
“Within Seven Days We’ll Run Out of Food”
Don’t look now, but U.S. gasoline inventories, according to Barclays Capital, are at 40-year lows.
That’s big-time vulernability. One big hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico next summer could knock out drilling platforms at sea, and refineries on shore.
That worries Matt Simmons, famed investment banker to the oil industry, the man CNBC calls “the ultimate oil insider.” He paints a dire picture of trucks with no fuel…and no way to deliver their food to stores.
“If we end up having gasoline shortages,” Simmons says, “the odds are about 90% that Americans will do what we always do: We'll top up our tanks. And in topping up our tanks, within three or four days we'll drain the pool dry and then within seven days we'll run out of food.”
President Obama ordering gas rationing? Doesn’t sound so far-fetched now…
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Fee freeze hurts taxpayers
Mayor's proposal to hold line on development charges would leave city residents on the hook
By SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: 11th November 2008, 4:27am
Terry Bryk, a north Toronto resident, put it most succinctly when he called yesterday Mayor David Miller's "Official Tag Day" for Toronto's deep-pocketed developers.
The retired market research consultant came to the executive committee to point out the unfairness of the mayor's proposals to freeze development charges at their ridiculously low levels while forcing property taxpayers to pick up the slack.
As he noted, this year the city is spending $308 million to create new municipal infrastructure (sewers, road, sidewalks, streetscapes, etc.) needed for new (condo and other residential) development.
Yet development charges to the industry will only contribute $31 million or 10% of the cost. The remaining $277 million (plus interest) will be picked up by taxpayers either through increased debt or through contributions from the operating budget to the city's capital needs.
"Do you seriously believe developers will stop developing in Toronto?" Bryk asked, noting development charges are three times higher in Oakville and higher in most other municipalities in the GTA.
"As a taxpayer I'd like to have a feeling I'm not being charged 90% of the development costs ... I don't think that's fair."
Coun. Cliff Jenkins, who feels development increases should be phased in 50% next year and 100% in 2010, said the intent of the fees are to ensure "growth pays for itself.
"It's not fair to be subsidizing an industry that is very, very profitable," he said.
Nevertheless, these reasoned arguments were quickly drowned out by protests from a selection of developers in their slick designer suits, their paid lobbyists from academia (two professors from Ryerson and York) and the councillors who swallowed their predictions of a soon-to-be-struggling industry hook, line and sinker.
Miller and his minions were only too happy to grant a request from The Developers and Co. to defer their whole decision until Feb. 2 to allow the paid academics to complete a study about the "development industry" and its "impacts on the city."
THE WHOLE PICTURE
Tridel President Leo DelZotto, who led the charge for the deferral, said he wanted to make sure the whole picture was presented and the city was doing the right thing for everyone.
"If you put this bylaw in place, you'll start to turn off the development industry in the 416," he warned, noting he prefers partnerships with the city instead of the "concept of levies."
I guarantee you this sudden need to further study the issue was not precipitated by the proposed one-year freeze on fees but by the city's plan to phase in significant increases starting Feb. 1, 2010. I suspect the "partnership" The Developers will come back with is a case to maintain the status quo using the current credit crunch and a dismal fourth quarter as the excuse for their preferential treatment.
Yet at a briefing two weeks ago, city officials -- with some prodding -- said they've forecasted 11,000 building permits will be issued next year. That's the same number of permits that have been issued on average over the last 10 years.
So the idea the industry is suffering is simply untrue.
I very much resent that taxpayers are expected to absorb the shock of increase after increase. Even The Developers conceded yesterday the land transfer tax has added a "fundamental" cost to the bottom line. It certainly has impacted on home sales, as I hear repeatedly from real estate agents.
As for the Mayor and Co.'s decision to kowtow to developers all in the guise of keeping the city healthy and vibrant -- while picking fights with coffee companies, homeowners, vehicle owners and other entrepreneurs -- I'll repeat that this is payback for their support of the land transfer tax last year.
Comments from councillors Giorgio Mammoliti and Norm Kelly were equally offensive.
"When there's economic uncertainty, it's not a time to pick a fight with our industry partners," said Mammoliti.
"I'm looking forward to the report coming back in the new year," fawned Kelly. "The vehicle is an opportunity to consider the full extent of the partnership (with developers) in this city."
I wouldn't dare suggest that a long list of 2006 election contributions clouded these councillors' positions one bit.
A quick trip to the city's elections office revealed at least 11 donations to Kelly from developers and at least 18 developers contributed to Mammoliti's campaign.
Ah yes, forget about studies and deferrals. I'd suggest the "partnership" between The Developers and the Mayor's Team is already rock solid.
By SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: 11th November 2008, 4:27am
Terry Bryk, a north Toronto resident, put it most succinctly when he called yesterday Mayor David Miller's "Official Tag Day" for Toronto's deep-pocketed developers.
The retired market research consultant came to the executive committee to point out the unfairness of the mayor's proposals to freeze development charges at their ridiculously low levels while forcing property taxpayers to pick up the slack.
As he noted, this year the city is spending $308 million to create new municipal infrastructure (sewers, road, sidewalks, streetscapes, etc.) needed for new (condo and other residential) development.
Yet development charges to the industry will only contribute $31 million or 10% of the cost. The remaining $277 million (plus interest) will be picked up by taxpayers either through increased debt or through contributions from the operating budget to the city's capital needs.
"Do you seriously believe developers will stop developing in Toronto?" Bryk asked, noting development charges are three times higher in Oakville and higher in most other municipalities in the GTA.
"As a taxpayer I'd like to have a feeling I'm not being charged 90% of the development costs ... I don't think that's fair."
Coun. Cliff Jenkins, who feels development increases should be phased in 50% next year and 100% in 2010, said the intent of the fees are to ensure "growth pays for itself.
"It's not fair to be subsidizing an industry that is very, very profitable," he said.
Nevertheless, these reasoned arguments were quickly drowned out by protests from a selection of developers in their slick designer suits, their paid lobbyists from academia (two professors from Ryerson and York) and the councillors who swallowed their predictions of a soon-to-be-struggling industry hook, line and sinker.
Miller and his minions were only too happy to grant a request from The Developers and Co. to defer their whole decision until Feb. 2 to allow the paid academics to complete a study about the "development industry" and its "impacts on the city."
THE WHOLE PICTURE
Tridel President Leo DelZotto, who led the charge for the deferral, said he wanted to make sure the whole picture was presented and the city was doing the right thing for everyone.
"If you put this bylaw in place, you'll start to turn off the development industry in the 416," he warned, noting he prefers partnerships with the city instead of the "concept of levies."
I guarantee you this sudden need to further study the issue was not precipitated by the proposed one-year freeze on fees but by the city's plan to phase in significant increases starting Feb. 1, 2010. I suspect the "partnership" The Developers will come back with is a case to maintain the status quo using the current credit crunch and a dismal fourth quarter as the excuse for their preferential treatment.
Yet at a briefing two weeks ago, city officials -- with some prodding -- said they've forecasted 11,000 building permits will be issued next year. That's the same number of permits that have been issued on average over the last 10 years.
So the idea the industry is suffering is simply untrue.
I very much resent that taxpayers are expected to absorb the shock of increase after increase. Even The Developers conceded yesterday the land transfer tax has added a "fundamental" cost to the bottom line. It certainly has impacted on home sales, as I hear repeatedly from real estate agents.
As for the Mayor and Co.'s decision to kowtow to developers all in the guise of keeping the city healthy and vibrant -- while picking fights with coffee companies, homeowners, vehicle owners and other entrepreneurs -- I'll repeat that this is payback for their support of the land transfer tax last year.
Comments from councillors Giorgio Mammoliti and Norm Kelly were equally offensive.
"When there's economic uncertainty, it's not a time to pick a fight with our industry partners," said Mammoliti.
"I'm looking forward to the report coming back in the new year," fawned Kelly. "The vehicle is an opportunity to consider the full extent of the partnership (with developers) in this city."
I wouldn't dare suggest that a long list of 2006 election contributions clouded these councillors' positions one bit.
A quick trip to the city's elections office revealed at least 11 donations to Kelly from developers and at least 18 developers contributed to Mammoliti's campaign.
Ah yes, forget about studies and deferrals. I'd suggest the "partnership" between The Developers and the Mayor's Team is already rock solid.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
THE REAL STORY ON HOW ALL THOSE CRIME GUNS GOT ONTO TORONTO STREETS
PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun
DATE: 2006.01.25
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: 6
BYLINE: MARK BONOKOSKI
COLUMN: Page Six
WORD COUNT: 816
ILLUSTRATION: 1. photo 2. photo of DAVID MILLER Not quite half
of guns on the street. Despite what the mayor and the recently deposed PM would have us believe, the numbers don't add up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE REAL STORY ON HOW ALL THOSE CRIME GUNS GOT ONTO TORONTO STREETS -- AND THEY'RE NOT FROM THE HOMES OF LEGITIMATE OWNERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having invoked the fear factor that half the guns used to bathe Toronto in blood last year were stolen from law-abiding collectors and shooters, Prime Minister Paul Martin went to the polls Monday vowing to ban all handguns in Canada -- if constitutionally viable, that is, a caveat he later had to add when he misfired on the facts.
Toronto Mayor David Miller sang the same statistical tune, despite contrary evidence in a report tabled last month by his own police service -- a report obtained through access to information that shows, if not twisted, that no more than 16% of "crime guns" in Toronto were obtained through the robbery of legitimate owners.
And that is a far, far cry from the loud headlines Mayor Miller recently created when he claimed "almost half" the blood guns came from the break-ins of homes where guns were legally registered and stored.
But politics is politics. And Mayor Miller, without question, wanted the Liberals back in power.
Back on Jan. 10, Saskatchewan Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz, the most vocal critic of $2 billion-plus poured into a dysfunctional national gun registry, issued a press released based on an academic analysis of Toronto gun-crime statistics prepared by Dr. Gary Mauser, a professor at the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at British Columbia's Simon Fraser University.
And it got virtually no media attention.
The office of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, however, must have seen the inevitable coming when it received an access for information request from Dr. Mauser regarding a Toronto Police Service report to the police board dated Dec. 1, 2005.
For this was what appeared in the preamble.
"The information that Chief Blair received was not based on a scientific analysis of raw data, but rather the estimate of an experienced police officer," the writer stated, his name and position blacked out.
RAISE TENSION
The writer was also quick to note that Chief Blair received this information "verbally."
It was this document, however, which Mayor Miller obviously used to raise the pre-election tension levels.
The file Dr. Mauser analyzed -- and Mayor Miller used to invoke the fear factor -- consisted of a review of the 214 handguns which fell into the hands of the Toronto Police guns and gangs task force during 2004.
Of those guns in police possession, 82 were confirmed as traceable to the United States, 26 were not registered (meaning they had not come from legal gun owners), six were deemed "too old to trace," and 65 were categorized as "unknown status, serial (number) removed."
That's 179 of the 214 guns seized.
The remaining 35 -- or 16% -- had been reported stolen, as required by law, by law-abiding citizens who had legally purchased and registered their weapons.
So how did Mayor Miller, through this report, come up with "almost half" the crime guns in this city as coming from domestic break-ins?
Well, the six guns supposedly "too old to trace" were given Canadian origins, as were the 26 "not registered," as were 36 of the 65 guns supposedly deemed to have an "unknown status" because they had their serial numbers filed off.
Add to that the 35 legally-registered handguns that responsible and law-abiding collectors or target shooters had reported stolen, and its adds up to 103 guns.
STATS SKEWED
That's how Mayor Miller got his "almost half" -- by using the Toronto Police Services Board's report and giving Canadian citizenship to 68 weapons of dubious or uncertain origins when, in fact, only 35 of the 214 handguns seized in total can be honestly traced to being stolen from a legitimate handgun collector or target shooter.
Without those 68 weapons, however, there is no fear factor to trigger, and therefore no self-serving politics to put into play as part of an election platform.
And so the stats found themselves getting skewed.
According to Dr. Mauser, what rarely -- if ever -- gets reported is the number of weapons with military or police origins which fall into criminal hands.
But, through Access to Information, this is what Mauser discovered, and published in his study.
On July 4, 2002, an RCMP report listed 409 firearms that had been either lost or stolen from the Canadian military, a list that included 218 Lee Enfield rifles and a number of machine guns.
But there were also 17 sidearms reported stolen or missing -- all Browning 9mm pistols, a preferred street piece.
None of this ever made the news.
A year earlier, according to the most-recent information obtained by Mauser, the RCMP itself had to confess to 16 handguns being stolen, and two handguns being lost.
As it stands today, the police -- regardless of jurisdiction -- are not required to register their guns and the Department of National Defence is totally exempt from all registration requirements.
Nor is the RCMP or the Canadian Firearms Centre required to collect information on the number of firearms either stolen or missing from any police force in Canada -- from Victoria, B.C., to St. John's, Nfld.
In his report, Mauser said it was unfortunate that the Toronto Police Service report provided no information regarding how many "crime guns" had their origins either at some military armoury or at a Canadian police service.
VICTIMIZED
"This is especially disturbing in the light of international reports that a large percentage of 'crime guns' have been diverted from police and military supplies," wrote Mauser. "The Canadian government reports are incomplete, but partial figures show that the Canadian police or military have reported that they have lost or had stolen over 500 guns."
In the meantime, legitimate gun owners who have been victimized by gangs and bandits continue to make the headlines as if they are the criminals, with the main men wanting to bring them down with pre-election rhetoric being the prime minister of this country and the mayor of this city.
The election, however, is now over. Wait to hear if silence will now follow
and this
NEWS RELEASE
January 10, 2006 For Immediate Release
NUMBER OF LEGAL GUNS STOLEN IS NO MORE THAN 16% - NOT 48%
“It’s time to make criminals pay a heavy price for stealing guns,” says Breitkreuz.
Yorkton – Today, Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville, released an academic analysis on the number of ‘crime guns’ stolen from law-abiding gun owners that brings into question claims by the Mayor of Toronto and data recently released by the Toronto Police Services. “According to Professor Mauser’s analysis the number of legal firearms stolen from law-abiding gun owners ranges between 2 and 16 percent - not 48 percent as claimed by Mayor Miller and reported in the media,” revealed Breitkreuz.
Professor Gary Mauser, Ph.D., of Simon Fraser University, reported the following results based on his analysis of the following published data (see link to his full report at the bottom of this page):
1. Toronto Police Services Board report dated January 22, 2004: 16 (9%) of the 183 firearms (11 registered and 5 reported stolen) came from lawful Canadian owners.
2. Toronto Police Service report dated December 1, 2005: 35 (16%) of the 214 handguns were stolen from law-abiding Canadian owners.
3. Peel Regional Police, Project Gun Runner report dated December 21, 1994: 14% of firearms used in crime in Toronto had been registered at some point in the past.
4. Toronto Police Services Annual Report for 2000: 2% of the firearms came from Canadian owners.
5. Statistics Canada Homicide Report for 2004: 16% of the firearms used in homicide were in the registry.
But, criminals will steal guns from anyone and anywhere including the police and the military. Professor Mauser noted in his analysis that published reports typically do not identify the number of firearms used in crime that were reported stolen from the police and the military. However, thanks to the Access to Information Act, a few numbers have been uncovered:
• On July 4, 2002, an RCMP report listed 409 firearms reported lost by or stolen from the Canadian Forces including: 218 Lee Enfield Rifles, 17 Browning 9mm pistols, an FN Browning .50 calibre Heavy Machine Gun, an AK47, an FN Browning Canadian C9 Service Light Machine Gun 5.56mm, a Colt AR15A2 .223 calibre, etc.
• On September 3, 2003, the RCMP reported 16 handguns and 1 shotgun stolen, 2 handguns and 1 shotgun lost; and 88 more firearms being traced by the RCMP armourers.
Neither the RCMP nor the Canadian Firearms Centre collects information on the number of firearms stolen or missing from other police forces in Canada. The police are not yet required to register their guns and the Department of National Defence is totally exempt from the registration requirements of the Firearms Act.
“Law-abiding gun owners, who have had their homes and businesses invaded and their safely stored firearms stolen, are victims of a crime wave instigated by a decade of Liberal mollycoddling of violent criminals. Now, the Liberals want to victimize these law-abiding citizens again by banning their guns. It’s time to make criminals pay a heavy price for stealing guns, and that’s exactly what a Conservative government intends to do,” vowed Breitkreuz.
Professor Mauser’s Analysis:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006_new/45.doc
and this:
•
The January 22, 2004 Toronto Police Services Board Minutes reported that of the 183 identified
crime guns (all types) recovered by Toronto Police, only 5 (all types) were reported as stolen.
We have to be sure that the chief is not using stats later than the ones above. Does he now have 2007 and 2008 stats? If he does, and we respond to his latest press release by using older stats, then we've been had. Stats without dates are useless.
DATE: 2006.01.25
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: 6
BYLINE: MARK BONOKOSKI
COLUMN: Page Six
WORD COUNT: 816
ILLUSTRATION: 1. photo 2. photo of DAVID MILLER Not quite half
of guns on the street. Despite what the mayor and the recently deposed PM would have us believe, the numbers don't add up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE REAL STORY ON HOW ALL THOSE CRIME GUNS GOT ONTO TORONTO STREETS -- AND THEY'RE NOT FROM THE HOMES OF LEGITIMATE OWNERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having invoked the fear factor that half the guns used to bathe Toronto in blood last year were stolen from law-abiding collectors and shooters, Prime Minister Paul Martin went to the polls Monday vowing to ban all handguns in Canada -- if constitutionally viable, that is, a caveat he later had to add when he misfired on the facts.
Toronto Mayor David Miller sang the same statistical tune, despite contrary evidence in a report tabled last month by his own police service -- a report obtained through access to information that shows, if not twisted, that no more than 16% of "crime guns" in Toronto were obtained through the robbery of legitimate owners.
And that is a far, far cry from the loud headlines Mayor Miller recently created when he claimed "almost half" the blood guns came from the break-ins of homes where guns were legally registered and stored.
But politics is politics. And Mayor Miller, without question, wanted the Liberals back in power.
Back on Jan. 10, Saskatchewan Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz, the most vocal critic of $2 billion-plus poured into a dysfunctional national gun registry, issued a press released based on an academic analysis of Toronto gun-crime statistics prepared by Dr. Gary Mauser, a professor at the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at British Columbia's Simon Fraser University.
And it got virtually no media attention.
The office of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, however, must have seen the inevitable coming when it received an access for information request from Dr. Mauser regarding a Toronto Police Service report to the police board dated Dec. 1, 2005.
For this was what appeared in the preamble.
"The information that Chief Blair received was not based on a scientific analysis of raw data, but rather the estimate of an experienced police officer," the writer stated, his name and position blacked out.
RAISE TENSION
The writer was also quick to note that Chief Blair received this information "verbally."
It was this document, however, which Mayor Miller obviously used to raise the pre-election tension levels.
The file Dr. Mauser analyzed -- and Mayor Miller used to invoke the fear factor -- consisted of a review of the 214 handguns which fell into the hands of the Toronto Police guns and gangs task force during 2004.
Of those guns in police possession, 82 were confirmed as traceable to the United States, 26 were not registered (meaning they had not come from legal gun owners), six were deemed "too old to trace," and 65 were categorized as "unknown status, serial (number) removed."
That's 179 of the 214 guns seized.
The remaining 35 -- or 16% -- had been reported stolen, as required by law, by law-abiding citizens who had legally purchased and registered their weapons.
So how did Mayor Miller, through this report, come up with "almost half" the crime guns in this city as coming from domestic break-ins?
Well, the six guns supposedly "too old to trace" were given Canadian origins, as were the 26 "not registered," as were 36 of the 65 guns supposedly deemed to have an "unknown status" because they had their serial numbers filed off.
Add to that the 35 legally-registered handguns that responsible and law-abiding collectors or target shooters had reported stolen, and its adds up to 103 guns.
STATS SKEWED
That's how Mayor Miller got his "almost half" -- by using the Toronto Police Services Board's report and giving Canadian citizenship to 68 weapons of dubious or uncertain origins when, in fact, only 35 of the 214 handguns seized in total can be honestly traced to being stolen from a legitimate handgun collector or target shooter.
Without those 68 weapons, however, there is no fear factor to trigger, and therefore no self-serving politics to put into play as part of an election platform.
And so the stats found themselves getting skewed.
According to Dr. Mauser, what rarely -- if ever -- gets reported is the number of weapons with military or police origins which fall into criminal hands.
But, through Access to Information, this is what Mauser discovered, and published in his study.
On July 4, 2002, an RCMP report listed 409 firearms that had been either lost or stolen from the Canadian military, a list that included 218 Lee Enfield rifles and a number of machine guns.
But there were also 17 sidearms reported stolen or missing -- all Browning 9mm pistols, a preferred street piece.
None of this ever made the news.
A year earlier, according to the most-recent information obtained by Mauser, the RCMP itself had to confess to 16 handguns being stolen, and two handguns being lost.
As it stands today, the police -- regardless of jurisdiction -- are not required to register their guns and the Department of National Defence is totally exempt from all registration requirements.
Nor is the RCMP or the Canadian Firearms Centre required to collect information on the number of firearms either stolen or missing from any police force in Canada -- from Victoria, B.C., to St. John's, Nfld.
In his report, Mauser said it was unfortunate that the Toronto Police Service report provided no information regarding how many "crime guns" had their origins either at some military armoury or at a Canadian police service.
VICTIMIZED
"This is especially disturbing in the light of international reports that a large percentage of 'crime guns' have been diverted from police and military supplies," wrote Mauser. "The Canadian government reports are incomplete, but partial figures show that the Canadian police or military have reported that they have lost or had stolen over 500 guns."
In the meantime, legitimate gun owners who have been victimized by gangs and bandits continue to make the headlines as if they are the criminals, with the main men wanting to bring them down with pre-election rhetoric being the prime minister of this country and the mayor of this city.
The election, however, is now over. Wait to hear if silence will now follow
and this
NEWS RELEASE
January 10, 2006 For Immediate Release
NUMBER OF LEGAL GUNS STOLEN IS NO MORE THAN 16% - NOT 48%
“It’s time to make criminals pay a heavy price for stealing guns,” says Breitkreuz.
Yorkton – Today, Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville, released an academic analysis on the number of ‘crime guns’ stolen from law-abiding gun owners that brings into question claims by the Mayor of Toronto and data recently released by the Toronto Police Services. “According to Professor Mauser’s analysis the number of legal firearms stolen from law-abiding gun owners ranges between 2 and 16 percent - not 48 percent as claimed by Mayor Miller and reported in the media,” revealed Breitkreuz.
Professor Gary Mauser, Ph.D., of Simon Fraser University, reported the following results based on his analysis of the following published data (see link to his full report at the bottom of this page):
1. Toronto Police Services Board report dated January 22, 2004: 16 (9%) of the 183 firearms (11 registered and 5 reported stolen) came from lawful Canadian owners.
2. Toronto Police Service report dated December 1, 2005: 35 (16%) of the 214 handguns were stolen from law-abiding Canadian owners.
3. Peel Regional Police, Project Gun Runner report dated December 21, 1994: 14% of firearms used in crime in Toronto had been registered at some point in the past.
4. Toronto Police Services Annual Report for 2000: 2% of the firearms came from Canadian owners.
5. Statistics Canada Homicide Report for 2004: 16% of the firearms used in homicide were in the registry.
But, criminals will steal guns from anyone and anywhere including the police and the military. Professor Mauser noted in his analysis that published reports typically do not identify the number of firearms used in crime that were reported stolen from the police and the military. However, thanks to the Access to Information Act, a few numbers have been uncovered:
• On July 4, 2002, an RCMP report listed 409 firearms reported lost by or stolen from the Canadian Forces including: 218 Lee Enfield Rifles, 17 Browning 9mm pistols, an FN Browning .50 calibre Heavy Machine Gun, an AK47, an FN Browning Canadian C9 Service Light Machine Gun 5.56mm, a Colt AR15A2 .223 calibre, etc.
• On September 3, 2003, the RCMP reported 16 handguns and 1 shotgun stolen, 2 handguns and 1 shotgun lost; and 88 more firearms being traced by the RCMP armourers.
Neither the RCMP nor the Canadian Firearms Centre collects information on the number of firearms stolen or missing from other police forces in Canada. The police are not yet required to register their guns and the Department of National Defence is totally exempt from the registration requirements of the Firearms Act.
“Law-abiding gun owners, who have had their homes and businesses invaded and their safely stored firearms stolen, are victims of a crime wave instigated by a decade of Liberal mollycoddling of violent criminals. Now, the Liberals want to victimize these law-abiding citizens again by banning their guns. It’s time to make criminals pay a heavy price for stealing guns, and that’s exactly what a Conservative government intends to do,” vowed Breitkreuz.
Professor Mauser’s Analysis:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006_new/45.doc
and this:
•
The January 22, 2004 Toronto Police Services Board Minutes reported that of the 183 identified
crime guns (all types) recovered by Toronto Police, only 5 (all types) were reported as stolen.
We have to be sure that the chief is not using stats later than the ones above. Does he now have 2007 and 2008 stats? If he does, and we respond to his latest press release by using older stats, then we've been had. Stats without dates are useless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)