Letter to the Toronto Star, published September 30, 2016
To the Editor:
While I sympathise with Mayor Tory’s desire to keep costs down, it is false economy to do so at the cost of good government. While voter parity is important, both the Supreme Court of Canada and Elections Canada are on record as recognizing that important factors such as geography, community interests, and community history are more important. Voter parity must not be implemented where it destroys neighbourhood identity and interests.
And that’s what the 44 ward option does to my community, Leaside. It contradicts the City’s consultants’ own guidelines by dividing Leaside into two separate wards, with two separate councillors, ignoring Leaside’s historical, geographic, and social connections, established since 1913 and continuing to the present day. It would inflict damaging results on our community, and possibly throughout the city. The alternate option, which calls for 47 wards, preserves proper representation by preserving us as a single community within one ward. We strongly support this option.
You quote Councillor Pasternak, whose ward would also be harmed by the 44 ward option, as saying, “To just erase the ward as if there’s no history and meaning there is terribly misguided.” He is right. The value of the 47 ward option far outweighs its cost.
Carol Burtin Fripp
Co-President
Leaside Property Owners’ Association, Ltd.