I have said it a number of times......Comrade Miller is nothing but a panhandler in a button down suit and he has an affinity for begging. Please tell me of a time when Miller proposes/says he going to do something his remarks aren't prefaced with "Hey buddy do you have any loose change!"
Who needs a study on panhandling?
Another summer will be gone before action
By SUE-ANN LEVY, TORONTO SUN
I guess the reason Mayor David Miller won't even consider an anti-panhandling bylaw for this city is because he'd have to curtail his own incessant pleas for handouts from the public trough.
Yes, Toronto's chief panhandler -- our mayor -- does indeed have an affinity with the pesky beggars who ply their trade on every downtown street corner.
He may wear sportier attire but his less than remarkable campaign to claim 1 cents of the federal GST -- plus the many creative ways he intends to suck money from Toronto taxpayers -- have grown far more wearisome, I dare say, than the phalanx of beggars that line the city streets with their signs and their caps.
My theory might sound farfetched. But it's no less ridiculous than a report that will be before Miller's handpicked executive committee tomorrow to supposedly "address panhandling" in specific areas of the downtown core.
In typical socialist fashion, the report proposes that passive panhandlers -- who are housed but nevertheless ply their trade in an area bounded by Spadina, Dundas, Jarvis and Queen's Quay -- be studied by a team of city outreach workers from July 3 to Sept. 17 to find out their needs.
I kid you not. According to the report, even though they have a place to live, passive panhandlers may beg because they are hungry, they need to support loved ones or they need to fuel drug or alcohol addictions.
Shelter housing general manager Phil Brown said his outreach team will be engaged in an intense "social service response" -- which is "definitely" more than just studying the passive panhandlers. "We want to help them improve their circumstances," he said.
Asked how his team would deal with people who panhandle because it's a lifestyle, he was at a loss for words. "I can't comment on that ... I think people panhandle to meet needs," he said.
The aggressive panhandlers -- those deemed to be using abusive language or threats -- are virtually dismissed in the report as a police matter under the Safe Streets Act, even though I know full well the police won't touch them unless there is the political will to do so from the Millerites.
Quotes like this one seem to suggest otherwise. "As a compassionate city, Toronto can provide assistance that is more appropriate than punishing people for their poverty and need," the report says.
Yikes! Why don't we all just hug them while filling up their caps with loose change and be done with it.
But the report goes even further in its madness. It proposes that businesses and entertainment venues be asked to "formally document" and track the financial impact of panhandling on their establishments -- including the loss of repeat customers -- in the event a bylaw is actually pursued (not that it will be). It also suggests that business owners, their employees and the general public be educated about the tools and strategies they can use to address panhandling without requiring a call to the police.
Asked what that means, economic development general manager Don Eastwood said they'll be establishing a dialogue with the downtown business operators to give them an "awareness" of the dimensions of the problem. (Yeah, right. I suspect they'll try to indoctrinate businesses so they'll appreciate why panhandlers are parked outside their doors.)
Needless to say, Councillor Case Ootes, who has courageously tried to revive the idea of an anti-panhandling bylaw, is "disappointed" and "frustrated" with the report.
"I want action ... the summer will pass before anything will happen," he told me last week. (If anything does happen.)
As far as Ootes is concerned all three major downtown business associations, the Toronto Entertainment District Association, tour guides and restaurateurs who contribute to the city's economy have already come together and made a case that "panhandling is detrimental to their business." But they, along with the public who patronize these establishments, seem to be forgotten in the report, he said.
Councillor Karen Stintz agreed the issue needs urgent attention with a proper bylaw. She doesn't understand the difference either between aggressive and passive panhandling.
"Both represent sidewalk intimidation," she said. "Residents and visitors to Toronto shouldn't be interfered with by people begging for money."
No comments:
Post a Comment