Tuesday night at 7:30 PM, an info-mercial explaining the reasons to vote for J. David Core for Council at Large will air on Jefferson County Cable channel 9. If you miss that airing, it will be rebroadcast on Sunday afternoon, May 3, at 2 PM; and again at 7:30 PM on Monday May 4. Election day is Tuesday May 5, so please don't miss these opportunities to be a better informed voter.
Please take a moment and forward this message to as many Toronto voters as you may have in your mailing list.
Thank you.
A Fireside Chat With Toronto
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Free wireless access for all
A wireless mesh is a series of transmitters scattered around town which would each be connected to two other transmitters to boost the signal and establish a net of open-channel Internet access city-wide. This Wi-Fi network would cost approximately $60,000 per square mile to build. Toronto is just under two square miles in size, so an adequate Wi-Fi mesh would initially cost just over $100,000. The city could apply for grants and might be able to arrange the budget to pay for this initial construction, but under the plan I have devised it should not have to.
What I envision is a cooperative between the city, the chamber of commerce and the various public service groups around town. Each would either hold a fund raiser or would earmark a portion of the proceeds from an existing program to help fund the project. It might take a little over a year to reach the goal, but $100,000 is just 200 $500 installments. Then, since the model employed here is to rely on public service groups to fund the initial project, if technology should advance beyond what the city initially builds, there is no reason why the cost to revamp the system should prove prohibitive. We would simply have another round of fund-raisers, or make all of the fund-raisers annual events so that a war chest could be established for regular upgrades.
Once the mesh has been established, annual maintenance and provider costs would be just a fraction of the initial start up expense. Providers could be chosen on an annual competitive bid basis. What they would provide is a low-bandwidth availability city-wide. Users who are away from their normal source of connectivity – such as in a doctor’s office or in one of the city’s parks – would be able to open a laptop and go online almost any time day or night. In order to satisfy non-compete provisions in some contracts and to avoid restraint-of-trade claims, the system would go offline between the hours of (say) 11 PM and 6 AM.
Naysayers should be aware that such systems do exist around the country. St. Cloud, Florida, for example, provides totally free wireless access to anyone entering city limits. Tempe, Arizona also offers free Wi-Fi in its 2-mile downtown area. Portland, Oregon offers its residents free service as well, but their service is ad supported - an idea which Toronto may also be able to incorporate into our service.
The benefit of such a system is obvious. It is attractive to new residents and businesses. It provides remote access to instant information for fire-fighters, EMS and police. It establishes equity since, in this information age, this would bridge the “digital divide” between those who can afford home Internet access and those who cannot. Not to mention the fact that it would give Toronto bragging rights for being on the cutting edge of new technology.
What I envision is a cooperative between the city, the chamber of commerce and the various public service groups around town. Each would either hold a fund raiser or would earmark a portion of the proceeds from an existing program to help fund the project. It might take a little over a year to reach the goal, but $100,000 is just 200 $500 installments. Then, since the model employed here is to rely on public service groups to fund the initial project, if technology should advance beyond what the city initially builds, there is no reason why the cost to revamp the system should prove prohibitive. We would simply have another round of fund-raisers, or make all of the fund-raisers annual events so that a war chest could be established for regular upgrades.
Once the mesh has been established, annual maintenance and provider costs would be just a fraction of the initial start up expense. Providers could be chosen on an annual competitive bid basis. What they would provide is a low-bandwidth availability city-wide. Users who are away from their normal source of connectivity – such as in a doctor’s office or in one of the city’s parks – would be able to open a laptop and go online almost any time day or night. In order to satisfy non-compete provisions in some contracts and to avoid restraint-of-trade claims, the system would go offline between the hours of (say) 11 PM and 6 AM.
Naysayers should be aware that such systems do exist around the country. St. Cloud, Florida, for example, provides totally free wireless access to anyone entering city limits. Tempe, Arizona also offers free Wi-Fi in its 2-mile downtown area. Portland, Oregon offers its residents free service as well, but their service is ad supported - an idea which Toronto may also be able to incorporate into our service.
The benefit of such a system is obvious. It is attractive to new residents and businesses. It provides remote access to instant information for fire-fighters, EMS and police. It establishes equity since, in this information age, this would bridge the “digital divide” between those who can afford home Internet access and those who cannot. Not to mention the fact that it would give Toronto bragging rights for being on the cutting edge of new technology.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Championing the future
In my last installment, I suggested that grassroots movements might be able to accomplish a few truly great things for this town by petitioning to have the idea for a park linking the gazebo commons with the WWI monument area placed on a ballot for the citizens to vote on in a coming election, and by coming together to establish a city-wide wireless mesh. Such bold ideas would of course face some opposition, but I believe that all of the arguments against them could be easily met with reasonable counter-arguments.
Here I will list the arguments against the park I have heard along with the counter-points to those arguments.
In my next installment, I’ll delve further into the idea of the wireless mesh.
Here I will list the arguments against the park I have heard along with the counter-points to those arguments.
The park would require the closing of a city intersection.This park, if it were to come about, would be a major asset to the residents of the third ward as well as the city as a whole. And by placing it on the ballot, it would not be something government was pushing on the city’s people, but rather would be a chance for the people to make their voices heard.
This is true, however, a traffic study was done on that particular intersection, and it was found that very few people actually use that particular section of road. In fact, so few do that a traffic light was removed since all it did was cause unnecessary delays for those traveling on the more heavily traveled cross street. Moreover, there are two other intersections to the south which suffice for traffic needing to turn to either the east or west.
Access to Newburg Landing will be more difficult for emergency vehicles and boats in tow.
According to both fire department and EMT personnel, their vehicles will have no difficulty making the turn from River Avenue onto the road to Newburg Landing. As for boats in tow, the road leading to the landing has two other sharp turns. If a boat can't make the turn from River Avenue, then it won't make these other turns either.
The park would impact the neighborhood.
True again, but the biggest impact would be most likely a probable increase in property values.
There are gas and water lines and probably power cables running under that section of ground which must be accessible.
This would be accounted for by the engineers designing the park. In fact, these could be the most easily accessible cables and lines in town by simply bundling them in a vault with a ground level access point.
Somebody has to pay for the park.
When the idea was last brought to the table, there was a local corporate sponsor. There are also grants as well as private contributions and fund-raisers which could help make the park a reality. Additionally, the idea of additional stimulus money in coming years has been floated in Washington, and I suspect that they will be a reality. This is exactly the type of project that could bring those stimulus funds into Toronto.
In my next installment, I’ll delve further into the idea of the wireless mesh.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Build it and they will come
Imagine a Toronto where people travel by river and bus and RV to spend part of their vacations. A Toronto with a bustling downtown, an active water-front in the summer and which is known as a destination for all sorts of sportsmen and history buffs and romantics year round. This Toronto is a place where our children not only want to stay to raise their own families, but which also is attractive to "new blood."
What would it take to make this Toronto a reality? Better schools? Increased job opportunities? More choices in leisure activities? Well, I believe all of this is possible with a simple adjustment in some outdated attitudes.
Toronto has been playing it safe for years, and where has it gotten us? We are losing job opportunities, losing population, and losing time to turn things around. If we don't change things quickly, we will have to consolidate school systems soon, and possibly lose our status as a bonefide city. According to the most recent census, Toronto barely qualifies as a city as it is. By 2010, at the current rate of attrition, we will be downgraded to a village after the next head-count.
So how do we fix this? Obviously no single step is going to turn things around. It will be a complicated process, and it will require the involvement and cooperation of government, businesses, civic groups and the population in general. But it does have to start somewhere, and I think the best place is with a grass-roots movement to create a larger and more user-friendly downtown commons area.
Twice now an effort has been initiated to build a park unifying the gazebo commons with the WWI Soldiers and Sailors monument. The proposed park would close-off a little-used segment of Market Street, and would make the commons area more accessible to foot traffic. Both times this idea was suggested in the past, it was given no serious consideration by the powers-that-be in the city building, and it died unceremoniously. I think it is time to try a different approach.
I believe that a petition should be circulated demanding that the park idea be placed on the ballot for the public to decide. Then a media blitz demonstrating public support and corporate sponsorship should be launched to create interest in the project. This is how they built the Milsop, and there is no reason we can't do it here in Toronto as well.
Once the park is built, cross-promotion of the historic landmarks of our town, our strategic location for fishermen, water sports and hunters, and our beautiful downtown could quickly increase tourist traffic, and begin the revitalization of Toronto for ourselves and our posterity.
In addition to the park, a community-wide project utilizing civic groups, government and interested businesses working in tandem to create a wireless mesh to provide free Wi-Fi city-wide would also help promote Toronto to business and to both maintain and potentially increase our population base. In my next installment, I'll explain how the objections to the park can be overcome with simple logic and quiet reasoning, and how the Wi-Fi plan would work.
What would it take to make this Toronto a reality? Better schools? Increased job opportunities? More choices in leisure activities? Well, I believe all of this is possible with a simple adjustment in some outdated attitudes.
Toronto has been playing it safe for years, and where has it gotten us? We are losing job opportunities, losing population, and losing time to turn things around. If we don't change things quickly, we will have to consolidate school systems soon, and possibly lose our status as a bonefide city. According to the most recent census, Toronto barely qualifies as a city as it is. By 2010, at the current rate of attrition, we will be downgraded to a village after the next head-count.
So how do we fix this? Obviously no single step is going to turn things around. It will be a complicated process, and it will require the involvement and cooperation of government, businesses, civic groups and the population in general. But it does have to start somewhere, and I think the best place is with a grass-roots movement to create a larger and more user-friendly downtown commons area.
Twice now an effort has been initiated to build a park unifying the gazebo commons with the WWI Soldiers and Sailors monument. The proposed park would close-off a little-used segment of Market Street, and would make the commons area more accessible to foot traffic. Both times this idea was suggested in the past, it was given no serious consideration by the powers-that-be in the city building, and it died unceremoniously. I think it is time to try a different approach.
I believe that a petition should be circulated demanding that the park idea be placed on the ballot for the public to decide. Then a media blitz demonstrating public support and corporate sponsorship should be launched to create interest in the project. This is how they built the Milsop, and there is no reason we can't do it here in Toronto as well.
Once the park is built, cross-promotion of the historic landmarks of our town, our strategic location for fishermen, water sports and hunters, and our beautiful downtown could quickly increase tourist traffic, and begin the revitalization of Toronto for ourselves and our posterity.
In addition to the park, a community-wide project utilizing civic groups, government and interested businesses working in tandem to create a wireless mesh to provide free Wi-Fi city-wide would also help promote Toronto to business and to both maintain and potentially increase our population base. In my next installment, I'll explain how the objections to the park can be overcome with simple logic and quiet reasoning, and how the Wi-Fi plan would work.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Vision for the future
The unfortunate reality is that Toronto has not adapted to the shifting economy. Not that Toronto stands alone in this. The entire state of West Virginia seems to have conceded that there is no future except for gambling, and most of Ohio seems to feel that the western part of the state is the future. I happen to think there is another way.
The Ohio River is a crucial American waterway; both in the historical sense and in the fact that it is evolving both ecologically and visually. It has recently been observed that Yellow Creek is undergoing renewal. Species of fish and flora which have been gone for decades are seeing a resurgence. This will soon begin to spread to the river as the new administration expands EPA governance which has been cheapened during the last administration. As this happens, the river could become a tourist destination for all sorts of water activities, and Toronto sits uniquely poised to capitalize on this potential boon. But we have to start now.
There is talk across the river of creating a new shipping port in Weirton. This represents an additional boon in river tourism and commercial traffic on our waterway. With two beautiful marinas, a downtown within walking distance of a gorgeous river-front park, and several historic markers, T-town could be on every Fodor's list in the tri-state. This means attracting new business, outside income and a new and even better reputation. And it all starts with a new push for the park linking the gazebo commons with the WWI monument. In my next post, I'll explain how and why I think this matters as well as how I think it can be accomplished.
The Ohio River is a crucial American waterway; both in the historical sense and in the fact that it is evolving both ecologically and visually. It has recently been observed that Yellow Creek is undergoing renewal. Species of fish and flora which have been gone for decades are seeing a resurgence. This will soon begin to spread to the river as the new administration expands EPA governance which has been cheapened during the last administration. As this happens, the river could become a tourist destination for all sorts of water activities, and Toronto sits uniquely poised to capitalize on this potential boon. But we have to start now.
There is talk across the river of creating a new shipping port in Weirton. This represents an additional boon in river tourism and commercial traffic on our waterway. With two beautiful marinas, a downtown within walking distance of a gorgeous river-front park, and several historic markers, T-town could be on every Fodor's list in the tri-state. This means attracting new business, outside income and a new and even better reputation. And it all starts with a new push for the park linking the gazebo commons with the WWI monument. In my next post, I'll explain how and why I think this matters as well as how I think it can be accomplished.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Preventing urban blight
A few years ago Toronto lost a significant business in Sav-a-Lot. For the residents of the third ward it was a convenience, and for all of Toronto's citizens it was a budget-friendly way to buy groceries. Unfortunately, they closed their doors when the building began to fall into disrepair as their rent was increased. As a result, the building has sat vacant and boarded up for the past few years with no sign that any new business is going to come in and take its place.
It is my understanding that the city has had to bill the owners on several occassions for such services as applying weed killer to the property so the area did not become over-run with foliage that might serve as a respite for vermin. This is something which I feel the people of Toronto cannot abide. Something must be done and done soon.
Toronto underwent a renaisance a few years ago under former Mayor Wilson. New sidewalks and streetlights made the downtown a potential showplace. Add to this the fine work done by the Beautification committee on the landscaping of the area, and the addition of Newburg landing, and our downtown could be a huge draw for new business as well as a river-based tourist trade. But this is unlikely to happen so long as delapidated buildings and cracked and litter-strewn lots make up a sizeable portion of a central city block.
Pressure must be put on the owners of the parcel in question to either renovate or abandon claim on the property so that a new owner can be found for it, and that city block can be incorporated into the vision for Toronto's future.
It is my understanding that the city has had to bill the owners on several occassions for such services as applying weed killer to the property so the area did not become over-run with foliage that might serve as a respite for vermin. This is something which I feel the people of Toronto cannot abide. Something must be done and done soon.
Toronto underwent a renaisance a few years ago under former Mayor Wilson. New sidewalks and streetlights made the downtown a potential showplace. Add to this the fine work done by the Beautification committee on the landscaping of the area, and the addition of Newburg landing, and our downtown could be a huge draw for new business as well as a river-based tourist trade. But this is unlikely to happen so long as delapidated buildings and cracked and litter-strewn lots make up a sizeable portion of a central city block.
Pressure must be put on the owners of the parcel in question to either renovate or abandon claim on the property so that a new owner can be found for it, and that city block can be incorporated into the vision for Toronto's future.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Responsible budgeting to benefit all of our seniors.
In November of 2005, the issue of a .5% city income tax increase was placed on the ballot. I felt then (and still do) that the increase was justified. At the time, the wording of the issue included programs that the money would be used for. A hand-out was also circulated showing how the finance committee supposed the money would be distributed. A certain percentage was promised for "senior services" both in the wording of the ballot initiative and on the hand-out.
On October 26 of that year, I attended a public meeting where I inquired about this particular aspect of the proposal. I wanted to know how the senior services funds would be distributed. Would it be spent on renovating the senior center at the Roosevelt building? Would it be spent on flu shots? Meals-on-Wheels? Home energy assistance grants for the elderly?
No. In stead, the entire portion of the income tax increase earmarked for "senior services" would be added to the money already given to Toronto's two senior citizen social clubs.
After the levy passed, I again approached council to ask if it was possible to reconsider that determination. Perhaps - I suggested - the money could be placed in escrow and used at the end of the five-year term of the tax increase on something more permanent and beneficial to all of Toronto's seniors.
No, I was told, since all seniors are eligible to join these organizations, they felt that this technically satisfied the spirit of the levy. I was also told that the council would not lie to the citizens of Toronto. Which, by the way, I found a particularly odd thing to say since I had not asked council to lie at all. In fact, all that I was asking was that they consider other options that might also benefit those seniors who are not members of a club. Seniors who are - say - infirm or busy or who might otherwise be disenfranchised by a decision to gift their share of the city's money to clubs they do not choose to join for whatever reason. Besides, I was not asking that none of the money be used to support the social clubs; just that some also be used to benefit Toronto's seniors who were not club members.
As councilman, I would consider options that would benefit all of our parents and grandparents; a precedent I hope our children and grandchildren will follow as well.
On October 26 of that year, I attended a public meeting where I inquired about this particular aspect of the proposal. I wanted to know how the senior services funds would be distributed. Would it be spent on renovating the senior center at the Roosevelt building? Would it be spent on flu shots? Meals-on-Wheels? Home energy assistance grants for the elderly?
No. In stead, the entire portion of the income tax increase earmarked for "senior services" would be added to the money already given to Toronto's two senior citizen social clubs.
After the levy passed, I again approached council to ask if it was possible to reconsider that determination. Perhaps - I suggested - the money could be placed in escrow and used at the end of the five-year term of the tax increase on something more permanent and beneficial to all of Toronto's seniors.
No, I was told, since all seniors are eligible to join these organizations, they felt that this technically satisfied the spirit of the levy. I was also told that the council would not lie to the citizens of Toronto. Which, by the way, I found a particularly odd thing to say since I had not asked council to lie at all. In fact, all that I was asking was that they consider other options that might also benefit those seniors who are not members of a club. Seniors who are - say - infirm or busy or who might otherwise be disenfranchised by a decision to gift their share of the city's money to clubs they do not choose to join for whatever reason. Besides, I was not asking that none of the money be used to support the social clubs; just that some also be used to benefit Toronto's seniors who were not club members.
As councilman, I would consider options that would benefit all of our parents and grandparents; a precedent I hope our children and grandchildren will follow as well.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Transparency in government
Today, I write about my belief that it is necessary for government to work in the open as much as possible. I believe that since our elected officials are there to represent our interests as our proxies, that it is beholden upon them to act in a way that we can hold them to account. In my post where I documented the issues I hope to address as councilman, I wrote, "As a former journalist, transparency of government is very important to me. I would make it a point to air the issues in the open, and not to hide behind conveniently written 'rules' of order to railroad through controversial legislation before it has been given a fair public hearing." When I wrote this, I was talking about two trends I have noticed in attending public meetings. "Rules" are invoked frequently to:
Public meetings are public for a reason; to give the citizens the opportunity to scrutinize how their business is being conducted. When legislators go into executive session, it closes the door on their deliberations, and the public is left guessing about what exactly is going on behind the closed door. Except in cases where council is considering private matters, it is my belief that the public has a right to see their business being conducted. Therefore, I would vote against closing the meetings to privately discuss the public's business in almost every instance.
•adjourn to executive sessionThese trends are not unique to Toronto by any means. They do it in Steubenville and Follansbee and many other municipalities. I've seen it done numerous times in numerous places; and not just in city government - but in school boards as well. First, I should note that when this is done, it is perfectly legal. Nonetheless, it is often done for reasons that strain the intent behind the right of council to do it.
•bypass the requirement that new ordinances be read publicly on three separate occasions.
Public meetings are public for a reason; to give the citizens the opportunity to scrutinize how their business is being conducted. When legislators go into executive session, it closes the door on their deliberations, and the public is left guessing about what exactly is going on behind the closed door. Except in cases where council is considering private matters, it is my belief that the public has a right to see their business being conducted. Therefore, I would vote against closing the meetings to privately discuss the public's business in almost every instance.
Monday, March 2, 2009
A more interactive council
In my previous post, I mentioned that I would like to see council be more active in community action groups. This idea is not original to me. Current council president, Tom Thomas, suggested the idea a few years ago, but I agree with him whole-heartedly. Mr. Thomas went so far as to suggest that council develop an outreach program which would be chaired by one of the sitting council members as an ad hoc commitee of council. Representatives of the various service groups around town would be invited to join the committee to better coordinate community events and to increase the support pool for each member service group.
As a participant in one such group, I can easily see the value of such a co-op. I am a member of Focus in Toronto. We have worked with the Chamber of Commerce over the past few years in organizing the July Fourth weekend Community Day events and the annual holiday parade, and recently, we took over organizing the annual Arts Festival. I feel that the network involved in co-ordinating our plans with the city could have been much more easily streamlined had Mr. Thomas' plan been in place. Furthermore, we could have also communicated more easily with other groups like the Bridge Builders and the Beautification Committee just in case any of our plans conflicted with theirs.
As your councilman, I would embrace any opportunity to build community and foster inter-organizational co-operation. In fact, I have a proposal in mind wherein council would coordinate fund raisers with the various groups and the money raised would be put to use to provide free wi-fi service all over town. This would make the entire city a hot-spot so that citizens and businesses could go online using any laptop computer no matter where in the city they happened to be. Other communities have done this successfully, and it can be a very effective selling-point when attempting to lure both new business as well as an incentive to attract new residents.
As a participant in one such group, I can easily see the value of such a co-op. I am a member of Focus in Toronto. We have worked with the Chamber of Commerce over the past few years in organizing the July Fourth weekend Community Day events and the annual holiday parade, and recently, we took over organizing the annual Arts Festival. I feel that the network involved in co-ordinating our plans with the city could have been much more easily streamlined had Mr. Thomas' plan been in place. Furthermore, we could have also communicated more easily with other groups like the Bridge Builders and the Beautification Committee just in case any of our plans conflicted with theirs.
As your councilman, I would embrace any opportunity to build community and foster inter-organizational co-operation. In fact, I have a proposal in mind wherein council would coordinate fund raisers with the various groups and the money raised would be put to use to provide free wi-fi service all over town. This would make the entire city a hot-spot so that citizens and businesses could go online using any laptop computer no matter where in the city they happened to be. Other communities have done this successfully, and it can be a very effective selling-point when attempting to lure both new business as well as an incentive to attract new residents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
