Rob Ford Taken Down by Bad Law

2012 Photo of Rob Ford, by Alex Urosevic

 Back in September, I wrote that it would be sad if Rob Ford lost his job over his conflict of interest charges. Well, considering the coverage it's gotten around the world (let alone here in Toronto; there are no less than ten articles about it on thestar.com as I write this), you've probably heard: it happened. Rob Ford - barring an appeal - will be removed from office in two weeks.

My view on the matter hasn't really changed since I wrote that article two months ago; the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act looked to be a poor response to Rob Ford's transgression then, and it still does now. Even the judge in the case, Justice Charles Hackland, acknowledges that he did so not because what Rob Ford did was serious enough to turf him from office (" I recognize that the circumstances of this case demonstrate that there was absolutely no issue of corruption or pecuniary gain on the respondent’s part."), but because Act didn't give him any latitude to assign a lesser punishment:

"...the City should make every endeavour to persuade the provincial government to either modernize the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act or confer on the City of Toronto authority to create its own conflict of interest regime in place of or supplementary to that Act. Aside from the fact that the existing Act places legal impediments in the way of the City extending the concept of conflict of interest beyond the formulation in that Act, it is simply Byzantine to have a regime under which the only way of dealing legally with conflict of interest in a municipal setting is by way of an elector making an application to a judge and where the principal and mandatory penalty (save in the case of inadvertence) is the sledgehammer of an order that the member’s office is vacated."

- Justice Hackland's Ruling, Paragraph 46

 Like most "mandatory minimum sentencing" laws (and how ironic that one would take down such a noted conservative!), they provide only one tool (in this case, the "sledgehammmer") to fix all problems, when the nuances of each case often call for a different solution. What Rob Ford did deserves to be punished, perhaps through garnishing his wages, suspending him from council for a length of time, a public admonishment from a judge, or a public apology (or some combination thereof). Hackland notes that these are all potential tools that have been suggested, none of which were available for him to use.

Regardless of whatever you think Rob Ford, today we witnessed a politician get thrown out of office... over what? The small amount of influence and image he gains from the $3,150 in lobbyist donations to an arms-length charity from a time before he was mayor? That's his biggest "crime" in this whole mess, and one that will continue to go unpunished.

The $3,150 is pocket change for his family; his stubbornness was about principle (misguided or not). His actions in council were ignorant, but he neither needed to speak to, or vote on the motion to "forgive" him from paying back this pocket change. Clayton Ruby is right that the only one that Rob Ford has to blame is "Rob Ford", but that shouldn't shield the law that kicked him out from criticism.

That he might be ignorant, lazy, or stupid is irrelevent; lacking any of those qualities does (and should not) bar you from holding office if you can find a plurality of people willing to elect you anyway. We need not have respect for the politician, but we should respect the democratic process. As I said in September, to remove an elected politician from office, the charge must be serious, so serious that the only suitable remedy is vacating their seat. That Ford's action could lead to his unseating speaks less about the mayor's actions (as deplorable as one might find them), and more about how terrible the law itself is.

So now what? Our council won't be any more functional in his absence, likely even less so. We'll probably spend several million dollars on a by-election, to have whoever wins (perhaps, even Ford himself) limp on for two more years, with 380,000 voters disgusted that the man they chose was thrown out not because he committed a crime, or acted in a corrupt manner, but because a poorly-written law (that the judge himself agrees is bad) left no room for an appropriate punishment.

I wanted a new mayor... but not like this.

Transgendered in the Bathroom: Why Rob Anders has it wrong

Mea Culpa time.

 

Back when I went to UNB (this would have been over a decade ago), and before the days when I knew my twin brother was gay, and before gay marriage was even really an issue, I lived in the Lady Beaverbrook Residence on campus. Rumours were starting about a person who was looking to transfer into the house, and a meeting was called with university staff to address the issue. The problem? A person named Happy, who was (to our knowledge) a guy who dressed like a girl, wanted to transfer to the residence.

I'm not going to sugarcoat it: I acted like a real prick. I spoke against her coming over because I was uncomfortable with the idea. I didn't understand why she dressed the way she dressed. I was afraid that her presence would disturb my happy little university life. There are a handful of events that I look back on and cringe to think about. This is one of them. Happy wasn't trying to put me in a dress. She wasn't trying to make me uncomfortable. She just wanted two things. A place to live, and to be treated with respect. And I failed horribly to give her either. 

I'm sorry Happy.

This article is dedicated to you.

Source/author unknown. Image from here.

Apologies for "skipping work" here for a week. I was going to blog about the new agreement that TTC, not a private company, will run the new LRT lines or maybe about the latest news about Toronto's plastic bag ban (still around), but something in the news got in my craw recently. Two articles in fact, in (you guessed it) the Toronto Star:

1) "Toronto school board introduces policy for transgender students, staff" by Karissa Donkin, and

2) "Transgender community outraged by petition launched by Rob Anders" by Laura Kane.

The number one rule about any articles involving such a sensitive topic about sexuality and gender is probably "don't read the comments", which I have of course, broke to be own despair. I am perhaps not the strongest person to be speaking about this topic, as being a straight male, society has no issue with either my sexuality or the gender I identify myself as. I can't even claim to have a transgendered friend. 

But, perhaps there are some people who might read this who don't understand why it is so important to not allow people to "be" their gender, even when it contradicts the fiddly bits below their waist. And while the subject in the above articles is specifically about transgendered individuals,this is about more than gender identity. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, intersex, transexual, asexual,- numerous others that I've missed in that short list, -this is really all about challenging the social norms that people have, and showing them that there is no bogeyman at the end waiting to turn them into some monster.

As some of my readers know, I have a twin who is gay (my story about that follows this post). When my brother came out to my dad (who was amazingly cool about it), my brother asked him if he had any questions. If you are LGBTQ or other, you've probably been asked this too: "why."

It's a simple question, but it's not an easy answer. My brother put it this way: he didn't choose to be gay. Why would someone choose to identify as a group which (despite progress) is still seen as a less-than-equal member of society? To be part of a group whose presence brings out hate and fear in some people, whether it be for religious reasons, politican reasons, -- or worse -- ignorance? No, my brother is gay because there is some part of him that tells him that is who he should be, not what others want him to be.

This is not to say my brother isn't proud to be gay; I doubt it was easy for him, but he has made a lot of peace with who he is. But he had to get there with a good portion of society telling him he was wrong for feeling the way he felt. I'm sure it takes its toll; it has taken a lot of time to get it in peoples' heads that being gay is not going to crash the stock markets of the world, that it's not some form of sexual "cooties" that spreads by being in the next urinal over, and that if society is serious about separating church and state, then marriage can't be an exclusive "straight only" club.

Yes, it will make people uncomfortable. But that lack of comfort comes from fear and ignorance; it does not come from rational behaviour.

So when the news hits that *gasp* people who identify as being female might want to use washrooms designed for women a lot of hate and anger pour out. Let me grab some actual comments:

"So let's see... as a male, all I have to do is walk along whistling Shania Twain's popular tune... "I Feel Like a Woman" and now I can enter any woman's washroom. Gee, thanks for that. Oh, by the way... Am I supposed to leave the seat up or down?"

"Have a penis? Use the men's washroom. Don't have one? Use the women's." 

" I don't want guys, who decide they are feeling like a woman today to decide they can use the same as my daughters or wife whenever they feel like it. I know there are legitimate transgendered out there but the right would also be used by the perverted. If it makes transgendered uncomfortable, that's unfortunate."

 

Let me break some of these arguments down:

1) "Perverts will use this as an excuse to be pervy". 

First of all, I think some people are overestimating the amount of people who are going to put on a dress or tell people they're transgendered in order to enter a women's washroom to get their jollies. There isn't currently any practical way of stopping a dude from pulling a Mrs. Doubtfire if they're determined enough; neither the TDSB policy or Rob Anders' bill will stop either.

Secondly, if criminal deviants are abusing policies designed for accommodation in order to get their jollies, then we've got legislation on the books to *gasp* throw them in jail. Assuming that women won't be able to tell the difference between a person who identifies as female using the toilet, and the person who is only "pretending" to be female, and instead using the washroom to sexually objectify someone is an insult to women. It won't even stop people from "harming" children, unless you make the claim that currently, no men prey on young boys, nor women on young girls (in which case the logical conclusion is to have seperate washrooms for minors).

Regardless, the point is that you can't use criminal behaviour as an excuse to not pass legislation. Such logic dictates that people shouldn't drive motor vehicles is dangerous because car chases happen and that woodchippers be banned because.... well, you saw that scene from Fargo.

2) "Gender is a physical construct".

No. Most everybody is born physically male or physically female. This is one's "sex". But that's simply one's outer shell. This "shell" is something completely out of one's control. Certainly, if I had the choice, I would have picked a body that would have given me Chris Murphy's hair. 

But we're dealt the body we're dealt. My "sex" is male, because I've got that particular organ. But (and this is important) sex is not gender. Gender is what one feels they are, whether they feel male or feel female. This "gender identity" often lines up with one's sex, but not always. Much like someone who identifies as being gay, this is not a choice.

What it means, is that if you believe you're female on the outside, but male on the inside, that you do not wake up and say to yourself "gosh, I think I'll be a dude today" any more than I do in the morning.

Imagine if you were told that "new rule, you must use a washroom opposed to your gender". Heck, just think back to those days when your mom/dad would come with you into public washrooms, whether they were for "your gender" or not. Imagine how uncomfortable it would feel to be in a space that is not for you (to get a different experience, but similar feeling, walk in the middle of the road). Now put your feet of the shoes of someone who identifies as male, but is forced to use the women's washroom.

3)  "If this makes transgendered people uncomfortable, it must for the greater good."

When is shaming and making a group of people uncomfortable ever for the greater good? This is the most ridiculous argument, the classic "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" commandment from Animal Farm. You can't apply human rights on a scale that takes into account one's gender, sex, race, colour, or any other numerous variables that people can "be".

There are generally three reasons to infringe human rights. 

1. The first is as punishment for a crime; a person harms another, and is punished monetarily, or finds their freedoms taken away because of it. Robbery and murder come to mind, but let's also not forget libel and slander.
2. The second is to prevent behaviour that is deemed undesirable, even if the immediate impact does not necessarily harm another. This is stuff like preventing store owners from selling cigarettes to minors, and drinking and driving.
3. The last reason you do it is because it protects a greater right. This is stuff like making the possession of child pornography illegal, on the basis that children are vulnerable members of society, and allowing such material to be distributed only encourages the creation of more child pornography.

To make the argument that allowing a transgendered person to use the washroom their gender associates with would "harm another", or should be deemed "undesirable behaviour", or that it somehow "violates a greater right" is laughable. Any way you slice it, to make such a case you have to claim that someone who is transgendered should be punished in our society. 

I'm sorry, I'm a bit uncomfortable at such a suggestion.

So props to the TDSB for not ostracizing people whom face ridicule and shame daily -- especially children -- for something they had no control over. And slops to MP Rob Anders for using fear and ignorance to ostracize Transgendered Canadians. Shame on you sir.

- Eddie

*Amendment: How a Poker Game made me a LGBT-Q Ally

I sent this post to my brother to read first, to try and make sure I wasn't misrepresenting him. He asked that I talk about my own experience with coming to understand homosexuality, which I've written about below.

When my brother came out to me, I'd like to say that I had some inkling of it coming, but I totally didn't. I have the worst gay-dar in the world (I seriously went to school with two classmates that I saw four times a week and didn't have a clue they weren't straight until I saw one with his boyfriend, and the other talking about a girl she was seeing). I want to say I was all class when my brother told me, but the truth was that my brain shut-off for a while. I spent a good couple of weeks in a kind of shock. Oh, don't get me wrong; it wasn't because he was gay, but rather because I thought that I might be gay. I mean we're identical twins right? Isn't that how it works?

I mean, they don't teach you to be tolerant in school back in the 90s. We both grew up Catholic, but despite the whole "church" thing not sticking, you combine that with a childhood divided between Cape Breton Island and Northern Alberta, and you don't really meet people who are gay - at least not openly. There was no conversation (that I can remember) where a person of authority (family member, religious figure or teacher) that said "you can't like gay people!" But that doesn't stop you and your friends from getting your own ideas that being "gay" is something you don't want to be. I sometimes wonder that some people misunderstand homosexuality not because someone misinforms them, but because there is no one there to try and educate them differently.

Needless to say,  I don't think I was a very good cheerleader for LGBT-Q issues immediately after my brother's revelation. It didn't help that I wasn't in a very good point in life (but that's a different story). I think my brain shut-off about the whole subject. I figured out that yes, I'm not gay, but I couldn't really go any further than that mentally.  I put the whole subject in a box in my mind and put it aside to be examined later. 

It would take over four years, But I finally opened it during a poker game.

My dad works in the oil patch in Alberta, and had several of his friends over for a game that I was participating in. I don't want to paint all Albertans with this brush, but these were the kind of people who probably didn't have gay friends. One of them mentioned that there was going to be a gay pride parade happening somewhere soon. One of them suggested that "they get in their truck and run a few of them down."

I snapped.

It was one thing to read on the news about someone being assaulted or jailed because they were gay. It was literally quite another to be across the table from a man who just suggested that gay men - men like my brother - deserved to be killed. I'd like to say I tore a strip off that guy, but he probably just walked away frustrated, not embarrassed.

But it changed me.

In (small) defense of Rob Ford

2011 Photograph by Tara Walton, for the Toronto Star.

The big news from City Hall last week was Rob Ford's "conflict of interest" hearing, where "star" lawyer Clayton Ruby grilled him on the stand, trying to convince the judge that Toronto's mayor had violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. If the judge finds Mayor Ford "guilty", the minimum penalty is his removal from office.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. Additionally, I will tell you that Rob Ford was not my choice for mayor. However, in my opinion, I feel that the potential punishment against Ford does not match the "crime" he committed. I certainly think he should be punished, but that removing him from office would be extreme. Let me lay out what I know to be true about this case:

1. While a councillor, the defendant solicited donations to a charity being run by the Toronto Community Foundation (the "foundation" bears the defendant's name, but he does not run it), from lobbyists and corporate donors. The defendant used city letterheads to do so.
2. The integrity commissioner for the city warned the defendant that such activity was improper, and that the defendant should repay the donors. The defendant didn't repay the donors, arguing that the money went to charity (note: by this point, the defendant had become the mayor of the city).
3. The issue was brought forward to city council, and in February of 2012, he spoke to and then voted to overturn the "order" from council to repay the money (the vote was passed, 22 to 12). A few points: a) the motion didn't require his vote to pass (and he probably didn't need to speak to it either); b) he did not declare a "conflict of interest" on this vote; and c) this is the action that the defendant is on trial for.

I think that last point is key here. We're not debating whether Rob Ford improperly solicited donations from lobbyists. We're not debating whether Rob Ford's vision for Toronto is bad for cyclists and pedestrians. We're not, as much as many of his enemies want to, debating whether Rob Ford is a bad mayor. Certainly, the "solicitation of donations" is the "conflict of interest", but in my opinion, there needs to be some nuance to the punishment.

There's been some impulse if you read the comments section of any major paper here in Toronto, that "finally, we can kick this horrible person out of office". That we can punish him for reading while driving, punish him for the Port Lands fiasco, and punish him for "ending" the war on the car by removing the "Vehicle Registration Tax", no matter how effective it may have been.

Was what Ford did, wrong? Yes. unquestionably so. Does Ford realize that (even if he didn't, at the time)? Yes. But is "removal from office" fair punishment?

Even if we have an issue with the election process (or perhaps more accurately, who was elected), we still have to respect the process. One of the main reasons we have elections is to give legitimacy to the individuals who win. To remove someone from office, the reasons (in my opinion) need to be severe enough to break that legitimacy. We're not talking about having to leave office for reasons of illness or death; rather, it's felt the politician has abused their power for personal gain, so much so that the only removal from office is considered an appropriate punishment.

As any critic of mandatory minimum sentencing knows, not all crimes are worth putting a blanket sentence over. Mandatory sentences remove the ability of a judge to use the nuances of the case to punish an individual as the actual offense might entail. I feel the same way about the punishment dictated by the Municipal Conflict Act; there's just too big a gap between the "minimum" punishment, and no punishment at all.

As I said before, I'm not against punishing Rob Ford for what he did; I just disagree that his "crime" (voting on a matter he had an interest in that was going to pass in his favour anyway, in regards to his soliciting donations from lobbyists for an arms-length charity) is worth kicking him out of office. If the Municipal Conflict Act had an option to fine (such as by forcing him to pay the $3150 he was told to pay back) or otherwise punish Mayor Ford -- short of removing him from office -- I would be cool with that.

A few people I've talked to have worried that not punishing him will create a precedence. I don't see it; a precedence for what? Soliciting donations to an arms-length charity (and again: not really even what he did "wrong")? Ford is taking a pounding from both sides of the media over this (remember: all he had to do was not vote on a matter he was going to "win" anyway to avoid all of this). Coupled with the headache that Hurricane Hazel is dealing with over in Mississauga, any future "loose cannon" on council is going to take the "councillors handbook" to heart when to declare a conflict of interest to heart.

The only way Ford comes out "on top" in this is, ironically, if the judge decides that what the mayor did was worth kicking him out of office. If that happens, expect him to start campaigning early for the next election, backed by the same wave of sympathy (over such things as his weight and minor criminal matters in the United States) that helped elect him in the first place.

Let's respect the democratic process, and "punish" the man for what he's on trial for, not the culmination of offenses (perceived or otherwise). It might be irritating to let Mayor Ford "off" for this offense, but if the choices are between "not punishing him" and "kicking him out of office", then I can't in good conscious recommend the latter. If you want Rob Ford to lose his job as mayor, then do it the democratic way: vote him out in the next election.

A Few Words on Electoral Reform

2011 photo by John Woods, Canadian Press. From the CBC article, "Can internet voting boost turnout without risk?"

No urban planning today! Well, at least not directly. The combination of the US Presidential Election, the recent Quebec election, and especially the recent proposal to switch Toronto to a ranked ballot system for 2018 has got me thinking about electoral reform. There is obviously some connection between who we elect and what we build, but that's politics. And politics shouldn't be confused as being synonymous with elections (although certainly, elections are influenced by politics). Er, wait, let me start over here.

Since the time that Stephen Harper was elected back in 2006, I've heard a relatively steady chorus of complaints against the "first-past-the-post" system that is the dominant electoral system in North America. The complaints are thus: many times, a politican (or their party) will be elected to their respective position(s) with a seat count that is inflated/deflated (compared to their percentage of the popular vote) because only a plurality of votes (not a majority) is the requirement to "win". It's too easy for your vote to be "wasted". This combination is said to be making people disengage from elections.

There are several options that stand out as solutions, at least in the Canadian context:

First-past-the-post: What we have now. As the name suggests, it's about reaching the "finish line" first, not necessarily about doing it gracefully. If you gain a plurality of votes, you win.

Proportional Representation (PR): Generally in a PR system, voters elect parties, not individuals. Seats are divided up based on the percentage of the popular vote, filled from a party "list". This system ensures that your vote counts, but it also makes it nearly impossible to determine who represents you/your "riding".

Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP): Seats are divided into two categories, with voters picking both an individual in their riding, and a party. The first category of seats are filled through plurality votes for a candidate in the riding, as normal. The second are filled based on the percentage of the popular vote that a party gets. It's more complicated than that, but the end result is that you end up with a direct representative for your riding, and each party gets a percentage of the seats in government roughly equal to the percentage of voters who picked their party on the ballot.

Single Transferable Vote (STV): Voters "rank" candidates in order of preference, with multiple people able to represent a particular area. A "quota" of votes is established based on the number of votes and the number of seats to fill. Whoever "meets" the quota gets elected to the area, and any "extra" votes for a candidate (the ones that weren't needed for that candidate to "win") are distributed to the remaining candidates according to second choices. If this allows other candidates to reach the quota, they're elected, and the process continues until the seats are filled. Otherwise, the person with the fewest votes is dropped, and the "second" choice votes are added to the remaining candidates. Repeat until you fill all the seats for a riding. Potentially confusing to figure out who represents you.

Instant-runoff Voting (IRV): Voters "rank" candidates in order of preference. First picks are tallied, and if no candidate ends up with 50% of the vote, the person who ended up "last" in :first picks" is removed from the ballot, and anyone who voted for the last-place candidate has their votes "changed" to their second pick. This continues into one candidate receives 50% +1 of the popular vote, at which point they are the winner. Can allow for "compromise" candidates who are not really the voter's "first choice", but potentially their "second".

There are dozens of other methods, many of which are even more convoluted to explain. The point to take out is that each has advantages and disadvantages. Did you read one of my descriptions above, and still not understand how the method worked? That's a disadvantage! But while most usually create new problems, each tries to solve at least one problem with first-past-the-post.

Stephen Harper was not the first politician to be criticized because his party did not manage to grab more than 50% of the popular vote (fun fact: he and his mentor, Tom Flanagan, published a piece called "Our Benign Dictatorship" that argued for electoral reform back in the Chrétien era). The cries for electoral reform resurfaced when Rodney MacDonald was elected as Premier of Nova Scotia in 2006 (the Liberals got 23.5% of the vote, but only 17.3% of the seats), and when Harper was reelected in 2011 (claiming 39.6% of the vote, but gaining 53.9% of the seats).

The criticism can get even more extreme, such as when Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford garnered 47.1% of the popular vote to win the mayoral race, but because only 53.2% of eligible voters turned out, technically he became the mayor of the entire City of Toronto despite only about 1 in 4 of Toronto's citizens actually putting an "X" next to his name on the ballot. I hang around mostly left-leaning social circles, so the fact that all of these politicians are conservative should come as no surprise (but I'm sure the right complain to each other about how broken the system is when their guys lose too).

Let's not mince words: the "first-past-the-post" system absolutely benefits a government like Stephen Harper's (just as it did for Jean Chrétien's Liberals in 1993, 1997, and 2000), so politically there is little reason for him to "reform" the system. Additionally, it's also true that many elections are held when university students (an NDP leaning bunch in general) are away from their electoral districts (putting an additional barrier up that may cause them not to vote). Heck, I'm sure you could find evidence of voter suppression and fraud too, and yes, the electoral turnout decay is an issue, as are the benefits for incumbent candidates. But when most people talk about electoral reform, they're usually saying "The person I don't like was elected, we should reform the system so my person has a better chance."

That's fair! What is electoral reform other than hoping to make your vote count? But electoral reform is more than just politics. It's about fundamentally altering the way citizens elect their representatives, in a way that usually entails making voting a more difficult and time consuming choice (and the results, often more complicated, and potentially problematic).

Yes, electoral reform is often championed by proponents who believe it will help fix voter turnout (short answer: it would likely have a small effect; studies of a proportional representation system found about a 3-7% increase in voter turnout).

Yes, electoral reform could result in your vote "counting", creating a system where "majority" of voters elect a particular candidate rather than a plurality (although the chances of the electoral population as a whole actually voting in a candidate with a majority would still be slim; and depending on the system used, your vote still has a chance at being "wasted" in the current sense).

And yes, electoral reform could break the "two-party systems" that are seen in the United States and many riding in Canada, but they could also cause immense fragmentation, and the election of fringe parties with more political extreme views than we normally see elected (do you want the Christian Heritage Party or the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to have a chance at seats in the House of Commons?).

Just to be clear: I would love electoral reform. I'm personally in favour of some sort of PR system, particularly a Mixed-Member Proportional system (perhaps surprisingly, I love the idea of minority governments). But we can't deny that there are benefits to first-past-the-post. It's easy to understand, it's fast to tabulate, and as a voter, it's clear who you're voting for. Most systems can't make those claims. It isn't too surprising therefore that referendums to switch to a different systems such as MMP in Ontario, and STV in British Columbia) were defeated.

And we also can't forget that there are other solutions than electoral reform to solving some of first-past-the-post's problems. Fixed election dates, new and easier voting methods (e.g. internet voting) , and even rethinking voter engagement (particularly the youth vote)  can bring tangible results without the need for a referendum on how we vote.

That said, first-past-the-post has had a good run here in Canada. I think getting some exposure to new voting systems, particularly at a municipal level, would be a good exercise. The proposal to switch to an "IRV" system here in Toronto is being reviewed, and I hope it's well received.

What a Church and Strip Club have in Common

Some buildings require extra special attention while zoning to account for traffic. Take this one for example:

July 2009 image of the Bloor Lansdowne Christian Fellowship. Copyright 2012, Google.

This is a church just west of the Bloor/Lansdowne intersection in Toronto (as if the sign on the building didn't give that away...), and has been here for about 70 years. According to their website, they spend a good deal of their time feeding some of the city's homeless, which is aces in my book. There are three congregations in this building that use it throughout the week; along with the Bloor Landsdowne Christian Fellowship, the Maranatha Fellowship Church Of The Deaf and Igreja do Evangelho Quadrangular de Toronto (Portuguese) have services here too.

Churches are somewhat interesting compared to businesses, in that their "clientele" come nearly all at once, a few times a week. This usually creates a number of logistical problems; a traditional business sees clients dispersed throughout the week (and throughout the day!) rather than in large "clumps" at specific times. For many older churches, this isn't a problem; they'll generally plan their location to have a parking lot that their congregation can use. This church however, has no space for a parking lot. I suspect they rely on the Bloor-Danforth subway to ferry worshipers here on Sundays, and on the nearby Value Village parking lot for whatever car traffic they get (although this would conflict with the store's hours, and there is nothing on the church's website to suggest that people park there). 

Here's another example of a land "use" that is wildly different than a traditional business:

July 2009 image of Club Paradise. Copyright 2012, Google.

This is, if the sign didn't properly indicate, a strip club, not a gym (oh, how I was once young and foolish in Toronto...). This place is also located near the Bloor-Danforth subway. I don't know exactly how long they have been at this location, but it has been several years at least.

Whereas some business are looking at closing once 5pm hits, that's just when this place is opening. Parking is likely a much different matter than a church, in that it is relatively consistent in volume, but likely doesn't compete with other establishments for parking. A club dedicated to naked dancing ladies is not likely to endear itself to a neighbourhood, but at the same time it does bring a bit of night-life to the area, and both a grandmother looking for Jesus and a gentlemen looking for a lap dance are both eyes on the street.

While the website for this establishment is mum, all reviews of this place suggest that yes, this place does serve alcohol, so that's another blow against needing space for parking, when taxis can do the job just fine. Most clubs have issues with noise complaints, but I can attest that I have walked by this place during its hours of operation, and didn't hear a peep of loud music (I have a friend who lives nearby, I swear!). The second floor is residential, so there is likely some excellent sound proofing between club activities and the people who live above.


And for the reveal:

July 2009 image of two PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE *cough* land-uses. Copyright 2012, Google.

Sometimes Toronto, you make me smile.

(Dec 17th Update: I was asked to make a note that these are two different buildings on two different properties. I apologize if the image above makes it seem otherwise!)