Don't try to fight city hall

Long, long post . . . lots of reading --- on going dispute with Municipal Licensing Standards over the state of our home. I posted about this once before ... here is the whole story --- every email in the exchange, mine in regular text, the city's in bold, photos to follow.

From: me
To:crctier2 November 20/2011
Re: Invoice 1800069461

On April 18, 2011 we received a notice from the city saying that *the owner of land failed to clean and clear refuse that has been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited, including, but not limited to; All household waste, trash brush, boxes, furniture and any other item or thing that appears to have been discarded or abandoned.*

The letter said that if we did not comply, we would be charged $94 dollars per hour for the removal of the *waste* ... which, although we have no way of knowing for sure because of the non-specific nature of the letter, all we could assume it meant the tree limbs in our back yard which had been cut down in the fall, but which, because of the weather, had not been cut into smaller segments and taken to the curb. There was also an old freezer in our side yard. On the date of the letter it had been there just over a week and we were simply waiting for garbage day to put it out.

It took my daughter and son-in law about an hour to cut and bundle the branches and take them to the curb. The freezer went to the curb on our regular garbage day. This was all completed within the allotted time-frame of six days.

Then in June, inspector Suzette B. came to the door. She seemed to have no issues with the state of our home. She left without giving us notice of a fine or fee of any sort.

Now, here it is November, and on the 3rd we received an Inspection Fee Invoice of ...get this ... $94 + HST for a total of $106.22 for an inspection of our property by the city on June 6th.

I am a pensioner who asked a family member to help to rectify a situation that was going to cost me $94 if was not cleared up . . . and now you're charging me $94 + tax for a young woman in shorts and flip-flops to come to my door and have a five minute look around and find nothing wrong because I complied with the city's order.

Frankly, we don't even know for sure that anyone from the city came around in April to see the offending trees limbs in the first place. We believe our backyard neighbours, who put their house on the market in May, called the city to complain in order to ensure the view from their yard would be favourable for a sale --- You are not charging us for having inspected in April and no one from the city came to the door in April, and the *waste* in question was in a high wooden fenced yard behind the house. Because of this, we believe that that the city took the complaint at face value without an inspection. That would mean that if the complaint was an illegitimate nuisance complaint by a spiteful neighbour, we would have been charged for the June 6th compliance inspection anyway.

Either way, being charged in inspection fee in the exact same amount as the city would have charged to clear up the limbs and move the freezer, is excessive, unfair and absurd.

My son in-law telephoned your office on November 6, the day we received this notice. We were told that someone from the city would call us back about this matter the following day. To date, we have not received a call.

I am angry, frustrated and do not believe that this fee is justifiable, especially considering the so-called *inspection* took less time than it's taken to type this email and the inspector found that if there had been an issue, it was resolved. The city was unable to collect a fine, so now they are imposing a fee. This is wrong. How many people have you done this to? How many people have felt compelled to pay the inspection fee without questioning its validity?

I would appreciate an immediate response as I have waited in vain for two weeks for a reply to my son in-law's call. Your invoice indicates that if I fail to pay this in full by December 2, I will be charged 1.25 percent interest each thirty days and after 90 days, the amount will be transferred to my property tax bill and a further $50 will be added to the bill.

Signed

***************************************************

From: me
To: crctier2, To: mayor_ford December 14, 2011
Please see the messages below with regard to Accoutn No: 29990026

We phoned the Municipal Licensing Office on November 6 to dispute the charge on the *invoice* issued by the city on November 3rd. The person who answered said she'd pass on a message and that someone would call. No one did.

The email below was sent on November 20th addressed to crctier2, just as this one is. To date, no one has responded. On November 30th, with three days left before this ridiculous charge was due, we emailed Rob Ford. To date there has been no response.

Now we have received a "reminder notice", dated December 12.

The charge in question is unfair, unjustifiable and being disputed.

If you are unable to assist in the expunging of this cash grab, then please direct us to the department that handles disputed fees.

Thank you.

***************************************************

MLS Customer Response Centre 12/15/11
To: me, Mayor

Ms. XXXXX;
My apologies for the issues you are trying to resolve have note been dealt with in a timely manner. I am the supervisor for the Customer Response Centre and would very much like to follow this through for you. If you could call me it would best.

Deborah B.,
Supervisor Customer Response Centre, ML&S

***************************************************

From: Mayor Ford Mayor_Ford@toronto.ca 12/15/11
To me Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting Mayor Rob Ford, and I apologize for the delay in our response. I have contacted the District Manager at Municipal Licensing and Standards requesting follow up regarding your concerns for an inspection fee. If there is anything else we can assist you with, please do not hesitate to contact the Mayor's office at any time.

Regards, Emily T. Assistant to the Mayor

***************************************************

From: Bill B. 12/15/11

To me , Mayor Ms. XXXXX
I reviewed the file associated with the property at ------------------ The inspector noted that on the day she attended the property to reinspect "the owners son was working on clearing the waste and requested more time". The inspector granted an extension to comply. The re-inspection fee was applicable due to non-compliance however it would appear that there may have been some confusion regarding the fee therefore I have requested that the fee be reversed. Please call 416-396-8221 if you have any questions.

Bill B. Manager,
Scarborough District Municipal Licensing & Standards

***************************************************

From me 12/15/11

To Bill B.

Dear Mr. B.,
While I disagree with the inspector's version of her visit in June, and wonder if / when the *reinspection* to verify compliance was performed, I appreciate your looking into this and reversing the fee.

Thank you,

***************************************************

From: Bill B. 12/20/11

To: me
Hi

The re-inspection was on June 6, 2011.

Bill B.
Manager, Scarborough District
Municipal Licensing & Standards

***************************************************

From: me 12/20/11

To Bill B.
The June visit is the only time we ever saw an inspector and if you read through my correspondence you will see I have noted that date. There was a conversation between the inspector and my son-in law. He believed we were in compliance based on the letter we received in April. She said she wasn't sure, that she would talk with her supervisor.

When was the initial inspection? Why did no one come to the door then? Just curious in case this should come up in the future for anyone I know. It seems strange that there was no knock on door in the first place back in April when the original letter was sent, if in fact anyone from the city came to view our property in wake of the complaint that precipitated this whole thing.

Thanks,

***************************************************

Suzette P. 12/21/11 To: me

Good Day, My Name is Suzette B. and I am the officer that attend your location. You can reach me between 8.30 AM to 10.30 AM and I will advise you of the outcome of my inspection also you can attend our office to see the photos in the file that was taken at the times of inspection. My phone number is 416-396-7069.

Thank You Suzette B.
Municipal Licensing and Standards Officer

***************************************************

From: me 12/21/11

To Suzette
Hello Suzette,
Thank you for the offer, and although I would like to take you up on that offer, there is no one available to visit your office during those hours.

I'd just love to hear when your initial inspection was which launched this whole thing. Were you here prior to June 6? Are the photos the ones that you took when my son-in law met you or was there a visit prior to that when the initial investigation began? The photos must be digital, surely you can upload them and send them to me?

I do appreciate the fact that the city has rescinded the fee for the *compliance inspection*. Your process remains of interest to me.

Thank you,

***************************************************

Suzette P. 12/22/11

To: me
Good Morning,

On April 12, 2011 I attend the location. A photo was taken of the waste on that day also. I am unable to send you this photo. if ever you are in the office you can have a supervisor show you the file. Mr. Bill B. my manager has request that I attend the location to complete this inspection to closed the file if the work is complete. If the work is not complete then the City will take action.

Please feel free to call me at any time

Suzette B.
Municipal Licensing and Standards Officer

***************************************************

From: me 12/22/11

To Suzette, Bill, Mayor
Formerly: Re: Unfair city charge --no reply by city staff

Good morning Suzette,
You will see that a copy of this email is being sent to your manager and to the mayor's office.

It appears to me that because I have questioned the sequence of events and asked to see photos, your manager, Mr. B. is sending you back to my property in order to find a way to reinstate the fee.

Is the city going to charge us for THIS re-reinspection as well? Is this a way to chastise me for daring to question your process? Because, until I questioned it, the case was considered closed according to an email from your manager, Mr. B. Then I dared question him. Now he has asked you to deal with me and I believe your email, commissioned by him, is a veiled threat and it is unconscionable. The plan to re-open my file is a not-so-subtle suggestion to me not to question your office's reasoning, your methods, your authority or even the veracity of the original complaint.

Did you do your due diligence in June or not? Apparently not if you're saying that you have to come back now in late December to find out if we complied . . . no wonder the city is in so much debt. When you left this property in June, you must have thought things were okay, because a clean up never took place by the city at a cost of $94/ hour. If you'd have found us negligent, you would have had a crew out instead of a *reinspection fee* in the same amount, five months later.

I also wonder that you have no electronic file where the photos you took are readily available on a server somewhere. In this day and age, is the city actually wasting trees and money processing film and filing photographs that are likely taken with a digital camera and could be easily uploaded and stored online? Seems yet another waste of time and tax payer money.

You do what you have to do. My next correspondence with your offices will also be cc'd to the newspapers. That is not a threat, it is a promise. Regardless of whether you and your office find me in compliance with the bylaw, I believe my fellow taxpayers might be interested to know how much time and energy your office is putting into this matter. Regardless of the state of my property, this excessive attention is somewhat disconcerting given that your manager initially acquiesced and agreed to rescind the unfair reinvestigation fee but is now suggesting more visits, more notices, more invoices.

No wonder libraries are closing when the city is wasting money re-reinvestigating the aesthetics of a private home where no harm is being done --- not for non-compliance of a clean up order -- but for questioning the bureaucracy that my taxes support.

***************************************************

From: Suzette P. 12/23/11

To: me
Good Day,

Mr. B. is asking for me to re attend the location so we can close the file that is against your property not for any other reason. The file is an open active file that needs to be closed or acted upon. This is how we proceed with all files, In no way are we acting malicious towards you.

Thank You

Suzette B.
Municipal Licensing and Standards Officer

***************************************************

From: me 12/23/11

To Suzette, Bill, Mayor
Hello Suzette,

So the city is going to waste your time and your wage to see my property again, when Mr. B. clearly informed me that the reinspection fee would be reversed? Either Mr. B. has changed his mind and is proposing more action on my case, or he making ill use of taxpayers' money to see to a file that both he and the Mayor's office have assured me is closed. So, either there is malice, or an egregious misuse of public funds. Below is the text of the email he wrote to me on December 15, you can also find it in the quoted text below. I have highlighted the portion where Mr. B. appears to indicate the file is closed:

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bill B. wrote:
Ms. XXXXX
I reviewed the file associated with the property at ________________.
The inspector noted that on the day she attended the property to reinspect "the owners son was working on clearing the waste and requested more time". The inspector granted an extension to comply. The re-inspection fee was applicable due to non-compliance however it would appear that there may have been some confusion regarding the fee therefore I have requested that the fee be reversed.
Please call 416-396-8221 if you have any questions.
Bill B.

When Mr. B. is back in the office perhaps he will clarify which it is, malice or misuse of public funds.

***************************************************

From: Bill B. Jan 3

To me, Mayor, Suzette
Ms XXXXX

There is no veiled threat to re-instate any fees but there is a point of clarification required. This complaint folder was never considered "closed" since staff had not been back to confirm compliance. I waived the original re-inspection fee based on notes made by staff during a visit to the property where it would appear an extension was granted to bring the property into compliance.

Staff are still required to re-inspect and confirm compliance in order to close the file. If there is compliance no re-inspection fee will be charged therefore I would ensure any deficiencies identified in the Notice of Violation have been brought into compliance with the by-law standards.

Bill B.
Manager, Scarborough District
Municipal Licensing & Standards

***************************************************

From: me Jan 3

To: Bill, Suzette, Mayor

Dear Mr. B.,
You wrote to me on both December 15 and December 20th and neither time did you mention that the file had yet to be closed. Was that simply an oversight? I replied to both of your emails, asking further clarification of what initiated your process etc. You passed on the task of replying to mine of December 20th, to Suzette B. who emailed December 21. In that email, she made no mention of a new visit to my home to close this file. I replied to her on December 21 asking another question. The following day in response to that email, (Suzette) said that you had asked her to come out again to be sure we had complied.

Is that a simply a coincidence, or perhaps my continued questioning of events caused you to take a closer look at the file? Had we simply paid the fee when the invoice was sent, or accepted your reversing the fee without further question, would you have sent (Suzette) out again? I guess we'll never know.

Anyway, (Suzette) and an associate attended our property on Friday, December 30. Again, their expectations of compliance were vague. They did not seem to know what they were looking for or where on our property the initial complaint concerned. They did not seem to know what compliance would mean and could not determine on their own whether compliance had been met. They wandered into our carport which is not visible from the street and they opened the 6ft high back gate to our fenced yard. They asked questions but didn't seem to know whether the answers met with your office's approval. This is exactly what happened in June. (Suzette) could not ascertain your office's criteria for compliance to the bylaw.

On Friday, in person, my mother asked for copies of photos and (Suzette) seemed unaware that photos can be uploaded from a phone to a computer rather than emailed. My husband took photos of both the yard and the carport on December 31. An email will follow directing you to the site where you can view the photos if you like.

At any rate, I suspect you will handle this however you see fit.
I await the results of your re-reinspection.

***************************************************

ON JANUARY 12, 2011 WE RECEIVED A 2ND NOTICE FOR THE FEE DATED 11/1/11 WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED. I WROTE THE ORIGINATING OFFICE:

From: me Jan 16

To crctier2, Bill, Suzette, Mayor
Reference #11173005wst00iv

Please see the correspondence below between myself and other members of city staff. Look way, way down to December 15 and the email by Bill B. to me. This fee was supposed to be reversed.

If there is a NEW fee because of a new investigation, it should be sent out separately and not associated with this Invoice dated 11/1/11

I would appreciate a response from you or your office, since you have been emailed or cc'd in much of this correspondence and yet you are still sending second notice threatening to put us on your *Debtors Watch List*.

***************************************************

From: Bill B. Jan 18

To: me, MLS, Mayor, Suzette

The first fee was waived since I decided that perhaps you, or the occupants of the home, did not understand the requirements of the by-law and the officer had agreed to an extension of time to comply.

My staff advise that the property still has not been brought into compliance therefore any future inspections may be subject to fees or alternately, action may be commenced by the city to ensure compliance. If you have any outstanding questions re what is required to bring the property into compliance you can communicate with (Suzette) who is included in this response and she can provided you with additional clarification if required.

Bill B.
Manager, Scarborough District
Municipal Licensing & Standards

Oh, happy day.
canadianna

Anyone hiring? Lol

For four years, I've worked at a crappy, physically demanding, minimum wage job with no room for advancement, no prospect for more responsibility or more money . . . so, in December I applied for another job. It's a union job, government actually, same kind of thing as what I've been doing, only part-time and overnights. Not exactly what I want to be doing forever, but as with all government jobs, it would mean pay hike after six months and then get first crack at the opportunity to post out to grander things.

The day of the interview I was required to fill out an application. It said that I must put the name and contact information of my direct supervisor or my application would not be considered, but there was a box you could check that said *don't contact my present employer*.

The interview and testing went well. I know this, because a week ago Thursday, my present supervisor told me that the HR department at this government department called her to ask her opinion of me and my work. Ooops. So much for the box I checked. Anyway, my boss was none-too-pleased . . . I know this because my job is a five day/week job. During slow periods, occasionally a person will be put *on-call* meaning they needn't come in. It goes in a rotation so that no one person loses too much pay. My partner and I were on-call in December so we wouldn't be due for another off day until May or June this year. I was put on-call the Monday following my supervisor being asked to provide a reference. My partner was not. There are still other people who've yet to have an on-call day, and yet I was told it wasn't punishment. Right.

The fellow from the the government later called me and said he was having difficulty getting a hold of my other references, could I supply the phone numbers again or perhaps new references. It took me until Tuesday to provide two more references. I left their names and numbers on his voice mail. So far, these new references haven't heard from the HR guy. Neither have I, so I'm supposing I took too long, wasn't a fit ... whatever.

So, I came home from work on Thursday and was ill. I won't go into details, suffice to say, I don't call in sick often or unnecessarily, but Friday, I felt compelled to. My company doesn't have *sick days*. We lose a substantial amount of money if we miss a day, more than just a day's pay . . . we lose our driving bonus for the whole week and another allowance that is dependent on perfect attendance. Needless to say, as the sole provider in a household of six, I don't take this sort of thing lightly. My job requires that I drive up to 140 km/day and provide services in people's homes. Some of my clients are elderly and/or in frail health. Beyond my own feeling horrible and questioning how safe it would be for me to drive, I believed it unfair to go into customers' homes and possibly infect them. I suppose my boss must've figured I was going on a job interview . . . because suddenly I've been put on call this coming Monday.

I write this just to point out to those who will ask why people stay under-employed, this is why . . . sometimes it's just easier to stay where you are because trying to climb out just knocks you down. Hoping for better has now put my crappy job in jeopardy and obviously it wasn't worth it.

canadianna

Anyone else wonder . . .

. . . why they built all those crazy bike paths complete with traffic signals all through Toronto and presumably throughout surrounding areas?

When I first saw the paving begin in hydro fields in my area, I thought it was some stupid project started by the previous city council. Then . . . I noticed the signs *Action Plan* . . . which reads to me *government sponsored make-work project* and I realized it was the federal government . . . the supposedly CONSERVATIVE government of Canada.

I'm sure there must be some literature spelling out the great reasons for doing this . . . even if I could be bothered, I doubt there would be a good enough reason to have carved a multitude of adjoining bike paths which will likely be little-used and benefit no one.

Weird. I don't get it.

canadianna

Warren Kinsella a closet conservative

It's true!

How else do you explain that the study he writes about that determined that whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned little kids grow up to be whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned, politically conservative adults. Kinsella MUST be a conservative -- he fits that description to a 'T'.

Warren manages to act all smug and self-righteous just like a true liberal . . . he even gets all giggly and tingly when he thinks he's done a *gotcha* just like liberals do. He's all bitter about his team's losses, picking at the scabs, looking for blame all over the place and all negative about any idea that doesn't emanate from his side in a way that would make any liberal proud. He mocks and ridicules those who are not in line with his world view, like any card carrying Liberal would.

Nope. It appears that study he cites must be skewed. Warren Kinsella is a liberal.

Get 'em while they're young

When did kids stop being kids, and become nothing but future workers?

A new study says all children should be *entitled to early education from the age of two.*

Entitled -- all children ARE entitled to early education from the age of two. All parents are ALLOWED to place their children in Montessori nursery schools, daycares that provide more than just diaper changes and snacks . . . the choice exists already . . . so, what then, is the study suggesting?

The study says that children would benefit because their graduation levels, future earnings and health would be better. And lucky mothers would be able to enter the workforce faster, which would benefit the economy. From the Canadian Press article (title link):

The study said more children are involved in early education than ever before.

However, it noted the split between oversight and delivery still requires too many parents to piece together arrangements to cover their work schedules.

"The results are stressful for children and parents alike, but also negate the wonderful payback that comes from delivering early education in a way that simultaneously supports children's learning and their parents' work," it said.

*Simultaneously supports children's learning and their parents' work.*

What about bonding? What about family life? What about just being a kid?

This study is worrying because it's just sinister enough to spark all the enlightened lefties out there who already think the state is a better parent than parents.

canadianna

If they can't get it one way . .

The City of Toronto will get it another.

Has anyone else had this happen?

A relative received a NOTICE OF VIOLATION from the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards based on the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548, Littering & Dumping of refuse.

Here is the response from my relative:

On April 18, 2011 we received a notice from the city saying that *the owner of land failed to clean and clear refuse that has been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited, including, but not limited to; All household waste, trash brush, boxes, furniture and any other item or thing that appears to have been discarded or abandoned.*

The letter said that if we did not comply, we would be charged $94 dollars per hour for the removal of the *waste* ... which, although we have no way of knowing for sure because of the non-specific nature of the letter, all we could assume it meant the tree limbs in our back yard which had been cut down in the fall, but which, because of the weather, had not been cut into smaller segments and taken to the curb. There was also an old freezer in our side yard. On the date of the letter it had been there just over a week and we were simply waiting for garbage day to put it out.

It took my daughter and son-in law about an hour to cut and bundle the branches and take them to the curb. The freezer went to the curb on our regular garbage day. This was all completed within the allotted time-frame of six days.

Then in June, inspector ___________ came to the door. She seemed to have no issues with the state of our home. She left without giving us notice of a fine or fee of any sort.

Now, here it is November, and on the 3rd we received an Inspection Fee Invoice of ...get this ... $94 + HST for a total of $106.22 for an inspection of our property by the city on June 6th.

I am a pensioner who asked a family member to help to rectify a situation that was going to cost me $94 if was not cleared up . . . and now you're charging me $94 + tax for a young woman in shorts and flip-flops to come to my door and have a five minute look around and find nothing wrong because I complied with the city's order.

Frankly, we don't even know for sure that anyone from the city came around in April to see the offending trees limbs in the first place. We believe our backyard neighbours, who put their house on the market in May, called the city to complain in order to ensure the view from their yard would be favourable for a sale --- You are not charging us for having inspected in April and no one from the city came to the door in April, and the *waste* in question was in a high wooden fenced yard behind the house. Because of this, we believe that that the city took the complaint at face value without an inspection. That would mean that if the complaint was an illegitimate nuisance complaint by a spiteful neighbour, we would have been charged for the June 6th compliance inspection anyway.

Either way, being charged in inspection fee in the exact same amount as the city would have charged to clear up the limbs and move the freezer, is excessive, unfair and absurd.

My son in-law telephoned your office on November 6, the day we received this notice. We were told that someone from the city would call us back about this matter the following day. To date, we have not received a call.

I am angry, frustrated and do not believe that this fee is justifiable, especially considering the so-called *inspection* took less time than it's taken to type this email and the inspector found that if there had been an issue, it was resolved. The city was unable to collect a fine, so now they are imposing a fee. This is wrong. How many people have you done this to? How many people have felt compelled to pay the inspection fee without question its validity?

I would appreciate an immediate response as I have waited in vain for two weeks for a reply to my son in-law's call. Your invoice indicates that if I fail to pay this in full by December 2, I will be charged 1.25 percent interest each thirty days and after 90 days, the amount will be transferred to my property tax bill and a further $50 will be added to the bill.

Does this practise by the city seem fair and reasonable? Just wondering.

canadianna

Negative 3rd party ads didn't buy an election

In today's Toronto Sun, John Snobelen writes:

But the Working Families ads go beyond the normal limits. The nasty (why are teacher unions, of all people, always so nasty?) ads we all endured during this election were not intended to make a point or raise a policy. They were designed to kneecap Hudak. The unions did the heavy lifting for the Liberals during the campaign.

I'll say it one more time. Hudak's campaign managers *kneecapped* Hudak.

Blame unions, 3rd party spending, blame all you want. Hudak deserved to lose that election because he never said what he would do differently or how he would do it. If people are going to vote for *change* they want to see plans, not platitudes. We didn't get that. We got vitriolic ads from the PC campaign, we got promises to keep some of the most contentious, expensive, stupid Liberal programs (all day kindergarten) and not much else.

I'd love to say the union ads pushed Hudak over the edge because I think their form of propoganda is wrong . . . but Hudak crashed and burned all on his own. If the ads had been effective at all, I think we'd have seen a Liberal majority.

So long as conservatives look outside their ranks for people and things to blame for this major disappointment, they will never find a positive way to move forward . . . the best defence is not always a good offence . . . sometimes, it's just having a plan and executing it. The PC Party had a plan, or so they said. They failed to execute. Their fault. Now . . . pick up what's left and move on.

canadianna

Sanity prevails

When the verdict came down, I couldn't believe it--- Melissa Lewis carried a knife in her purse as she rode in the back seat of the car her victim was driving --- and she stabbed him to death.

The woman brought a knife in her purse. Who carries a knife in their purse? And who, while sitting in the back seat of a car, feels so threatened by the person driving, that they reach into their purse, grab the knife they just happened to bring along, and thrust the knife into the driver's neck?

How on earth could she have believed she was in imminent danger, even if her victim, the driver of the car, WAS reaching for a gun? How does a jury acquit that person of murder and say that the killing was *justifiable*.

If you feel that threatened by a person, maybe your shouldn't be in a car with them ... instead Melissa Lewis figured she'd just bring along a knife and get rid of the threat forever. If she'd been a man, I don't think she'd have been acquitted no matter HOW threatening the victim might have been in the past or seemed at the time.

Justice should be the same regardless of gender. Thankfully, the Crown is appealing.

canadianna

The Gospel According to Warren

Warren Kinsella is now channelling Jesus. Funny, that.

Kinsella says :

But the Occupiers are the first truly populist, progressive movement to seize peoples’ imaginations in a long, long time. In this way — and I know this will anger some conservatives, but too bad — the Occupiers are a bit Christ-like.

*Christ-like*? Huh?

What is it? The ignorance? The arrogance? The haughty demeanour? The self-righteousness? The lack of direction and purpose? What is it exactly that Warren sees as *Christ-like*? Warren explains:

As noted most memorably in Matthew 25:31, when Judgment Day arrives, the ones who will be admitted into the Kingdom are the ones who have done the most for “the least” among us — the hungry, the sick, the poor.

They also serve, who only stand and chant? I don't buy it. What exactly have the occupiers done for the *least* among us? How are they serving their fellow man? By trying to affect change? What change? We live in Canada. Poverty, Toronto-style is not what you'd find in the 3rd world or in biblical times. The occupiers have no raison d'être . . . they are not trying to help others . . . they are not trying to shine a light on the plight of the underclasses . . . they are standing chanting for themselves, each saying *poor, pitiful me*.

Christ-like, my ass.

Warren goes on to say:

If you strive to know Him, like some of us do, there can’t be much doubt that the rabbi named Jesus Christ was no capitalist. Nor is there any mystery WWJD with the Occupiers, this past weekend.

He’d be right down there with them, chanting against the bankers and the politicians who do the bankers’ bidding.

I don't believe Jesus would stand with the bankers, but neither do I think he'd be standing along side the occupiers. You see, the bankers and the occupiers are the same kind people, one set rich, the other not so much - but both are selfish. Neither bankers nor occupiers see anyone but themselves as deserving. Both bankers and occupiers believe the world owes them a living and that the work of others should enrich their lives. They see each other as parasites and while both are right on that score, the poor parasites aren't somehow *better people* simply because they aren't wealthy.

Kinsella says:

God, said Christ, chooses the poor because they are “rich in faith.” They are the ones who deserve support.

Despite what the bible says, the poor are not *rich in faith* by default, neither are they good or deserving just because they are poor. Poverty, financial poverty is an earthly state. It doesn't elevate your soul, it doesn't make you saintly. The poor are in need of support by virtue of their circumstances. They are deserving of pity or charity because they are human . . . but this inane belief that all poor people are good and rich people are evil is silliness.

And to suggest that the occupiers hold some sort of high ground because they are *poor* is completely without merit. They are well-fed, unsheltered by choice, and fully clothed. Many of them are well educated in a system heavily subsidized by taxpayers, including those dreadful corporations. If they were out there saying *I'll work . . . find me a job* maybe I could respect their cause . . . Instead, I see people saying *they're rich and I'm not . . . it isn't fair* which is not a cause -- it's a tantrum.

Ephesians 4:28 says:

Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labour, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.

Read *steal* as *take* in that verse.

Maybe the occupiers should be looking for better ways to serve the poor. The rich will find their own rewards in heaven . . . Instead of shouting *look how bad I have it* -- maybe the occupiers could look outside themselves and find a way to produce and share and serve. I think that's what Jesus would do.

canadianna

Undecided

Four days to the vote, and I remain undecided . . . not about which party to vote for, but rather, whether to vote at all.

The PC Party of Ontario had an opportunity here to live up to their *Changebook* and blow the stale and bloated Liberal government out of the water. Instead, I haven't even heard the word *Changebook* since maybe May or June? You pick up a few bits and pieces in the news over the weeks, like the fact that the PCs are prepared to maintain the status quo on many of the Liberal promises and screw ups. I'd have loved to hear something of the change that book might have planned . . . but I'm busy . . . I'm not interested in having to search out their agenda . . . this is election time . . . they should have told me. They haven't.

The Howarth ads are positive and engaging . . . appealing even to those of us have no inclination to vote for the NDP. There still hasn't been one positive, affirming PC ad. They're sticking with the anti-McGuinty ads . . . which are so off-putting that the Liberals don't seem to be bothering with ads at all anymore. Just watch the PC Party do the nasty, and the Liberals can sit back and know that the PC party operatives have failed in every possible way. They might have convinced many voters not to vote for Dalton, but they've done absolutely nothing to convince us to vote for them.

There are a number of things that might have lured me to the voting booth . . . cancelling all-day kindergarten, or if that's too radical, repealing the Health Care Premium. They could've told us their plan for newcomers to Ontario, rather than screaming about the ill-conceived Liberal one. What are their plans for post-secondary students? How do they intend to create jobs? What will they do about the Samsung deal?

The PC Party is hoping that we'd hate Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals enough to vote for them by default. That isn't the way it works. People might not like the status quo, but many are content to accept the devil they know . . . and those who'd rather vote for change will look for it somewhere positive, especially in these low economic times.

I see a pretty big increase for the NDP this Thursday. If voters are going to choose change because they hate the party in power, many might see Horwath as the only option available in the absence of anything positive from Hudak.

Sad really. This was his to win.

canadianna

Ooohhhh . . . now I get it

See the new PC ad? Finally . . . NOW I get it . . .

"Dalton McGuinty, higher taxes . . . lost jobs

Tim Hudak, lower taxes . . . new jobs"

Wow! What an informative ad. So inspiring. So unique. So convincing. Finally, the PC war room is getting the point across . . .

Dalton bad.

Tim good.

Now we know. Now I feel like an informed citizen.

Thank you PC Party, for giving me a solid reason to vote.

(Btw, do you think maybe you could give me an ad where you DON'T mention Dalton McGuinty? Just one? And maybe you could actually say HOW you'd lower taxes and HOW you'd create jobs ... too much to ask? If it is, then maybe the trek to the voting booth is just a bit too much to ask of me, if this is all you have to offer).

Also, *sneaky eco-tax* was more fun than *under-handed eco-tax* so the one cool thing you had in your ads, you dropped. What are you thinking??

canadianna

The Ontario PC's failure

Truth is, the Ontario PC Party failed me out of the gate when they said they'd continue to implement the universal daycare plan disguised as *all day kindergarten* -- and pay teacher's wages for the daycare worker's job.

That said, I was still hoping to be persuaded to vote in the upcoming election. I won't be voting Liberal, but unless I find a reason to wander over to the polls on October 6, I won't be voting. And yes, I will still have the right to complain. I'm a citizen who finds the sitting government contemptible, but who is being offered no viable and reasonable alternative.

Just saw the taxman ad again. It was funny the first time --- *sneaky eco-tax* and all that . . . but seriously . . . does Tim Hudak know there's an election going on?

The PCs are still invisible.

Even when I'm looking, all I'm finding is them ragging about Dalton the taxman -- much as I hate what Dalton McGuinty has done -- people still elected him a second time after he'd done most of what he's done wrong. Obviously Ontarians don't mind being taxed. Move on. Tell me what you'd do different . . . what you'd do better . . . for goodness sake! Tell me anything about yourselves.

Why vote PC? I'm still asking... so are a lot people (who haven't fallen asleep with the tedium of this campaign). Those who don't find an answer will likely just stay home. If Dalton wins again, it won't be our fault . . . it will be the fault of the geniuses in the PC Party who've failed to even try to engage us.

I'm asking . . . I want a reason to vote for you, Tim . . . not a reason to vote AGAINST Dalton.

Come on Hudak war room -- you still have time.

canadianna

I tried, but I can't help it . . .

Everyone says to ignore Warren Kinsella, but it's like trying to ignore a mosquito. I both appreciate and despise THE SUN for giving him a voice.

Doesn't Kinsella know that there's a difference between a newspaper owner issuing a vendetta against a sitting PM and promising to destroy him electorally, and columnists in a newspaper expressing opinion on the poor governance of the sitting premier?

Who knows what made people keep voting for Chretien ... maybe it was The Star which still seemed vaguely relevant back then, when they kept insisting there was no alternative to the Liberals and that the Liberals had a natural right to govern. Hmmm . . . The Star endorsed the Liberals, they won. They endorsed the NDP and look what happened. ... just kidding. Anyway, get weirdly gleeful all you want that some smart person says editorials don't matter, but one has to hope that in the end, the huge tax burden being faced by voters thanks to Dalton McGuinty-- will matter -- even to those who don't bother reading newspapers.

I think it's probable that while Conrad Black's anger at Chretien's pettiness didn't translate into election defeat, it's hardly because of voter backlash against the National Post . . .instead it likely had more to do with the mocking of the fundamentalist Christian leader of the Canadian Alliance by a cynical spin doctor. The ridicule created a sense that the leader of this new and unproven party might be stupid. Truth never mattered. It was all about spin and the clever way those spin masters demean their targets. Funny how Warren is forgetting his role in the Alliance defeat now that it's inconvenient to his column thesis.

Anyway, I really wrote this piece to say: The idea of Warren Kinsella getting all *tingly* over anything -- is really creepy and made me cringe.

Yuck Warren. Just yuck.

canadianna

Where is the Ontario P. C. Party?

Why vote P.C. ?

Seriously? Does anyone know?

On Thursday, Christina Blizzard said exactly what I've been thinking. How exactly do Tim Hudak and the rest of the invisible Progressive Conservatives, differ from the status quo? Besides standing right along side Dalton, where does the P.C. Party stand?

If I want all-day kindergarten, I just won't bother to vote . . . why would I? I'm not voting NDP, that's just a given. And I won't be voting Liberal given that they never promised all-day kindergarten, a health premium, the HST, the eco-tax and yet now we have them -- costing us billions. But why do the P.C.s deserve my vote if they're keeping almost all of the stupid that Dalton decided was good for us?

Fact is, despite not being brave enough to ditch much of the garbage the Liberals have dumped on Ontario, the P.C.s have some okay ideas. For example The Home Energy section of the P.C. website was really informative --- I didn't know the debt being paid by the Debt Retirement Charge on your hydro bill had been paid off, but that the Liberals extended the fee for another 8 years anyway -- and because I didn't know that, I didn't know that the P.C.s would be removing that from our hydro bills ---- but I shouldn't have to go the website to find it out.

Message to Tim Hudak and . . . whoever else might be out there for the Conservatives: If you want my vote, work for it! Show me what you've got and don't make me me seek out the good things you plan to do. Most of the time I'm just too lazy -- and this is coming from someone who is actually interested in politics. The average voter hasn't heard a thing you have to say . . . that is, if you've said anything at all --- because besides yapping something about *foreign workers* I don't recall hearing you.

Oh, and if you wanted me to vote for you because the Liberals are promising something stupid ($10k for hiring immigrants) then instead of saying how asinine *they* are, I'd have rather heard your plan. Instead, I just heard *gotcha!* and tuned you out. Whoever has been doing your spinning, has just been spinning their wheels.

Sorry to be so negative, but hey . . . if you want positive reviews, do something to earn them.

canadianna

What do these three pictures have in common?

Three election ads ... three different MPPs ... not one mention of their party. If you didn't already know, you might not know these MPPs are Liberals (okay, the red is a clue, but I've never seen election advertising without a party logo etc.)

Hmmm . . . scared of their own brand maybe? If the provincial Liberals were at all certain of their own record, the national party's crash in May wouldn't affect their advertising (that is if the national disaster is their reasoning for the conspicuous absence of the Liberal name and logo).

Also of note, all of the supporting data for the *good news* they're touting, is from the Ministries involved in providing those services. No independent sources available?

Not to mention Andy's mom is selling him short --- if he's only one in a million to her, there's gotta be 11 just like him in Ontario alone. Just sayin'.

The ads are kinda cute, kinda clever, but absent the party name, they're telling us more than what they intended.

canadianna

btw -- Sorry for the poor quality of the first photo -- my passenger took it with my cell phone. I haven't the name of that MP, it isn't clear enough and I can't be bothered looking it up, but it was taken at McCowan and Sandhurst Circle in Scarborough.