The reconstruction of Lansdowne between College and Bloor is going forward as planned starting June 18, according to Councillor Giambrone. The reconstruction includes removing a lane of parking and distributing that space to the other lanes, a wider sidewalk and a boulevard.
I spoke to Councillor Giambrone at the Fresh Air Fair in Dufferin Grove about the community protests raised around the issue.
Giambrone claims he spoke with residents on Lansdowne between College and Bloor on the specific issue of the reconstruction during last November's municipal election. Some of the residents claim that there was no consultation. There's no way I can wade through this controversy as it's the word of Giambrone and his staff against the word of a handful of residences who claim to speak for all along the street.
Focusing exclusively on the consultation of the Lansdowne residents is avoiding the concerns of the wider citizenry. The role of a councillor is not to only represent the residences along one street but all the people in his or her ward as well as the city as a whole. In deciding what to do with Lansdowne, Giambrone said that he had to balance the needs of people who use the street with the people who live on it. Being a citizen who uses Lansdowne regularly as a cycling route I really appreciate that my needs are being taken into account.
Lansdowne is marked in the Bike Plan as an excellent choice for a bike route. It is a minor arterial without the heavy traffic of Dufferin but still has a long, direct north-south route. This is one excellent example of where the greater cycling community must be taken into account when addressing the local residents.
Upon returning home from the Fresh Air Fair I had a chance to reread the staff report (pdf) and find a tasty bit of info: parking along this stretch of Lansdowne hardly gets used! Out of 203 parking spots between College and Bloor staff found that there were 59 parking permits issued and that use outside of the permit period that there was still about a 75% vacancy! Even after the one side of parking is removed there will still be about 40% vacancy.
Notwithstanding controversy amongst some residents, there seem to be no victims and no real crime.
Giambrone: rebuild Lansdowne; make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians; and let's just get on with life.
Comments
Sam Galati (not verified)
Lansdowne Reconstruction a Go
Fri, 06/08/2007 - 00:34Herb,
I understand that you support this plan, but if you are suggesting that residents on this street are not entitled to the same due process and consultation processes that people on other streets are entitled to, then please be very up front about it. Don’t hide behind phrases such as the “wider citizenry” – just show your true colors and say that you don’t think people on this street were entitled to be consulted. But also ask yourself why it is that a community such as Dufferin Grove is entitled to have 2 public meetings about a public toilet in their local park but Lansdowne residents are not even entitled to this much with respect to an almost $2 million project that is happening on their door step?
More than a few people on this street are of the belief that the discrepancy in treatment that they are seeing has to do with the fact that one community (Lansdowne) is made up predominantly of immigrant, working class people, many of whom are not fluent in English while the other is not. Ask yourself why the many disabled and senior residents on the street have yet to see their concerns addressed regarding how the plan will impact on them. Regardless of whether you support the City’s plan or not, it is fundamentally wrong of you to suggest that the lack of consultation that people have seen take place here is a relative non-issue. Perhaps you have never experienced discrimination because of your racial or ethnic background, but to people who have, being treated like second-class citizens is not a non-issue. And it shouldn’t be a non-issue for you had any respect for principles relating to local democracy.
Whether you or the Councillor’s office (where you seem to have gotten most of your information from) care to acknowledge it or not, this issue has touched a nerve with people on the street regarding the patronizing treatment that believe that they have received from local politicians. Most of the people on our street (myself included) are not the type to be out their protesting anything – but they are out there and angry, not just with signs on their lawn but participating in cross walk demonstrations and rallies. The kind of protests that people on this street are taking part in doesn’t happen with just a handful of people. Please also know that there is no handful of people who are speaking for all of the street (where would you get such an idea?). The people who are angry are speaking for themselves.
You say that there are no real victims from the plan that the city is forcing through. I would say that before you can legitimately say this you need to talk to those who are angry (not just with the Councillor) and ask them why they are angry. Maybe you can talk to a family that lives a few doors down from me who have a 40 year old disabled brother who is a daily Wheel Trans User and will be losing their handicapped parking space. They told me tonight that since contacting Councillor Giambrone’s office in late 2006 with their concerns regarding how this plan will impact their situation, they have yet to have their concerns addressed by him. Maybe you can also talk to the many people on the street who feel that there concerns have just been ignored and that, once again, they have been shut out of the process regarding changes in their community. It’s not too hard to find these people – just look for a house a yellow sign on it.
As for your statements about the concerns of the “wider citizenry”, why do you think you know what their concerns are? Have you surveyed them? And even if you have, when have the concerns of the “wider citizenry” ever justify the fact that people (including many elderly and disabled folks) in a specific community are having their concerns ignored or not addressed? Herb, it is OK to be supportive of the City’s plan. Really it is. But don’t justify this support on the basis of the concerns of the “wider citizenry” because if you did survey them, you might find they are at odds with you regarding this plan.
Sam Galati
herb
both sides of story
Fri, 06/08/2007 - 08:32Having run into Giambrone I thought it was timely to get his side of the story. This was after having read a few posts by Sam Galati and others. Really, I haven't seen any proof by either side regarding the consultation so I can't make any comment on that.
As far as the wider citizenry I think I can make some reasonable assumptions of the wider cycling community and I would say their needs have not been met in this area of town.
The point regarding the "wider citizenry" is that elected representatives can't just survey the residents of a local street, they need to also create larger plans of how the city will be shaped. Since the new Official Plan and the Bike Plan are in agreement in providing more space for cyclists, Lansdowne is a good place to implement these plans.
It can't be that a couple parking spots makes or breaks the entire deal; there should be accommodation of people's special needs not just going with the status quo.
Just tonight I rode up Lansdowne enduring the crappy road and the squeeze between the parked cars and the cars driving by. My quick survey of the parking confirms what the city staff found: only about 58 cars were present and there were a lot of patches where nobody was parked. I have no idea how parking can be a serious concern for residents. Having to cross the street to your car could hardly be considered "victimizing" (as someone's comment had characterized themselves).
I predict: consultation or not, once the reconstruction is done the whole issue will die a quiet death.
Sam Galati (not verified)
Yeah, but you are only looking at one side Herb
Fri, 06/08/2007 - 20:29Herb,
My first comment would be not to equate the "wider citizenry" with the "wider cycling community" because the two are certainly not the same. If you want to speak about th needs of the broader cycling community, fine. But please don't pretend that the views of the wider cycling community are equivalent to the views of the wider citizenry. I think you are well aware that they are most definitely not.
You seem to be using an argument about the "wider citizenry" trumping the rights of those who live on the street. I imagine that you would be less pleased if the argument was framed in terms of the "wider citizenry" trumping the rights of the "wider cycling community" but that would be the logical outcome of the type of argument you put forth.
Does that mean that I think the needs of the cycling community should be ignored? Of course not, since I count myself as part of it. But I also would agree with the comment made on another thread on your blog that with respect to lansdowne, the solution that would probable work best for all involved is a route down one of the side streets.
You may be right about the official plan and the bike plan call for more space for cyclists. But I would still say to you that objective should be achieved in a way that doesn't trample on the needs of the elderly and the disabled. You may be seeing just a "couple of parking spaces" at stake. I would suggest that your insistence that this is all that is at stake means that you have made no effort to understand residents' concerns. It is your choice to see things this way -- but it doesn't mean that how you see things actually represents the facts.
Maybe if we were committed to thinking more creatively about how the needs of various constituencies could be met and less focused on ramming through one-size-fits-all changes on particular communities, we would be better able to balance needs in a less confrontational way.
As for your "quick survey", you are likely on the street on a very infrequent basis. If you did happen to spend a great deal of time on the street, you would likely acknowledge that parking demand ebbs and flows as it does on several streets. For most residents on the street, the parking report does not seem accurate except for certain periods of the day.
Darren S (not verified)
Wow. Seems like desperation
Sun, 06/10/2007 - 19:37Wow. Seems like desperation to turn this into an immigrant issue. Funny, seeing that most new immigrants are short on cash so they get stuck on transit or cycling if they can afford a bike.
Wheeltrans. They can stop anywhere unimpeded by most no parking/stopping signs. So the Wheeltrans issue seems like a non-starter.
I do not know why the city has to subsidize parking for private vehicles. Half of the people of Toronto do not own cars but are still paying for those who do.
Sam Galati (not verified)
Darren, You're wrong about Wheel Trans ...it is a starter
Thu, 06/14/2007 - 09:31Darren, this may come as a surprise to you, BUT my disabled neighbor has been told that when the changes take effect, he will only be picked up across the street from his house. Why? Because it takes about 10-15 minutes for him to get picked up and 10-15 to be dropped off and the proposed changes don't leave any room to stop on the east side of the street. Of course on a quiet residential street this would not be an issue but they have been told that it would not be feasible to hold up traffic on a busy route like Lansdowne for that amount of time. Now this daily Wheel Trans user is a heavyset man in a wheelchair, who also happens to be blind and speech incoherent. It is his frail, 76 year old mother who wheels him to and from the Wheel Trans each day. She is having a hard enough time now -- she really is dreading the prospect of having to wheel him across the street during rush hours, especially when the weather starts getting nasty.
Maybe some of the visitors to this blog who seem so enamored of the City's plan and who think there is no basis to residents' concerns, can committ to coming out and helping her a few times a week after the changes are completed.