Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012

[King of Kensington]

I guess it boils down to whether the NDP has a better chance at winning Granville as currently configured as opposed to winning a riding composed of the northern halves of Granville and Quadra

I would think a "Point Grey-Fairview" riding would be quite Tory-phobic, given that it would be chock full of academics and urban professionals who are very socially liberal.   Given the state of the federal Liberals I think such a riding would be a good NDP target. 

Vancouver-Granville would be harder for them.

[King of Kensington]

A few comments on the Toronto map.  I think it looks good.

- Mount Pleasant looks like just about the safest Liberal riding in Canada at this point...Bob Rae would definitely run there if he runs again. 

- Church and Wellesley is cut in half between TC and Mount Pleasant, diluting its political influence.  Would it be possible to have a minor adjustment on the boundary?

- Why change the name of "Don Valley West" to "Toronto North"?

[King of Kensington]

I'm also wondering about the Liberal prognosis of Mt Pleasant--well, at least I can picture the Conservatives super-targeting it now that their vote isn't suppressed by the "unwinnable riding" psychological factor.  (And even more so in the event that the border is pushed further back from Church + Wellesley.)

I don't think Mount Pleasant is in play for the Conservatives.  It has more of the "too educated to vote Tory too rich to vote NDP" demographic than just about anywhere.

However the reconstructed DVW creates a seat that is harder to take back for the Liberals and would likely be the closest thing to a safe Tory seat in 416.

[King of Kensington]

I wouldn't be surprised if David Miller ran as a star candidate for the NDP in St. Paul's.

[King of Kensington]

There seems to be a lot of opposition to the new map in Eastern Ontario.  From what I understand it's basically an abandonment of the "county model" that prevailed since Confederation and instead linking towns along the St. Lawrence and separating them from rural areas, along an east-west axis.

[King of Kensington]

Yes, I stand corrected.

[King of Kensington]

I will be making a deposition at the Toronto hearings tomorrow.  For the central city, I think they did a superb job.  It's good to see Rosedale and Yorkville removed from TC, which was a horribly gerrymandered riding.  However the Wellesley boundary is problematic as it splits Church-Wellesley so I am proposing they move the boundary between Queen's Park and Yonge and then up Yonge to Bloor over Sherbourne and continue on with Rosedale Valley from there.  This puts Bay St. Corridor between Dundas and Bloor - which is more of a "midtown" community socially and economically - in Mount Pleasant and has all of Church-Wellesley together in TC.

[King of Kensington]

I spoke today at the deputations.  I argued in favor of the new boundaries in central Toronto for the most part but for a minor land swap, as Wellesley St. was a bad boundary and violated the community of interest principle.  I suggest moving the boundary down to Dundas west of Yonge, up to Bloor between Yonge and Sherbourne and then continue as planned along Rosedale Valley.

Under my proposal, the Bay St. Corridor ends up in Mount Pleasant.  It is more of a "midtown" community socially and economically.  Church and Wellesley is more of a "downtown" community and stays entirely in Toronto Centre.

Most of the deputations - including from Olivia Chow and Rosario Marchese - were about Trinity-Spadina.  I think the opposition is wrong-headed and didn't take into account the larger picture.  The argument was that the Annex "belongs" in Trinity-Spadina, that many U of T professors lived in the Annex and Seaton Village and the CPR tracks at Dupont represented a major physical barrier.  And that a waterfront riding should be created south of Queen or Front, rather than Mount Pleasant.  Or that TC should take in everything T-S below Front and east of Bathurst and Liberty Village going to Davenport (this was Olivia Chow's suggestion).

I argued strongly in favor of the new ridings (with the land swap).  I welcome the removal of the very wealthy area north of Bloor from the lower- and middle-income high density mostly tenant communities south of Bloor.  I also pointed out that this proposed waterfront riding wouldn't work because if you add up the population of census tracts south of Queen between Dufferin and the Don you get 80,000.  So it isn't that simple.  You'd have to go a bit further north.

Overall I'd prefer this Mount Pleasant riding and new map: eastern St. Paul's and northern TC right now are demographically similar.   And the demographic divide/community of interest between north and south of Bloor in TC is far more significant than between the Annex and St. Paul's.

It was also pointed out by another deputant (representing the TC NDP!) that the opposition to the physical barrier in TC was if anything more insurmountable than on the T-S side - yet nobody was objecting to the inclusion of Rosedale (south of the tracks) in Mount Pleasant.  And for that matter the Davenport NDP was arguing to keep the riding together - north and south!  

It's a good question: why do the CPR tracks matter so much above Christie, Bathurst or Spadina but not so much elsewhere?

Yesterday I learned there were 11 deputations in North York about Eglinton-Lawrence, where the western boundary would be moved from the CNR to Keele.  Now that is an example of a true physical barrier!

[King of Kensington]

The Trinity-Spadina and Davenport NDP strategy is bizarre.  The former want to take the Annex and Seaton Village out of St. Paul's and the Davenport NDP want to take the very NDP sliver between Winona and Oakwood out of St. Paul's.

[King of Kensington]

Interesting.  I knew that Irwin Cotler and Stephane Dion were not happy what happened to their ridings, and from what I heard I think they had a real case. 

Is this proposal publicly available?

[King of Kensington]

Yes, Dan Harris spoke as well as some other Scarborough reps and yes, they have a "Scarborough strategy."  Scarborough is tricky because it is entitled to 6 ridings but there isn't enough population north of the 401 for three full ridings there.  I'm pretty sure the bulk of Scarborough East though lives south of the 401 however as the northeast corner of Scarborough is largely made up of Rouge Park, the Zoo, etc.

The irony of the whole thing is that experienced MPs Olivia Chow and Carolyn Bennett gave the most incoherent deputations of the politicians who spoke while rookie MPs Dan Harris, Craig Scott and Matthew Kellway were far better.

Whether Chow wanted Liberty Village to go to Davenport or Parkdale-High Park wasn't clear and it made no sense why it "belongs" in P-HP more than T-S.  

The population south in the census tracts south of Queen between Dufferin and the Don is 73,825 according to the 2011 census (census tracts 8-17).  That's not enough for a waterfront riding and the "projected growth" argument doesn't cut it.  

The creation of Mount Pleasant makes eminent sense.  

[King of Kensington]

Olivia came across as really unprofessional - it really came across as if she was trying to gerrymander Trinity-Spadina to her liking!  And yes, Trinity-Spadina remains totally winnable for the NDP: it not only loses the Annex/Seaton Village but also the University to Yonge zone below College.  So their share of the vote doesn't change much at all.

But again a "Toronto South" doesn't even fall within the quite generous quota for Southern Ontario. So I think it's a non-starter.

[King of Kensington]

Here is Pam McConnell's letter to the Commission:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Toronto Centre deputation, written by John Goyeau, is also available online (google "John Goyeau NDP")

[King of Kensington]

In Vancouver too, the NDP worked together.  Libby Davies and Don Davies for instance argued for their riding boundaries to be stretched a bit west to Ontario St., the historic divide between the east side and west side.  In Vancouver the Commission ended up with very similar population numbers for the 6 ridings.  The shift proposed by Davies and Davies would add a modest population onto their ridings but it wouldn't be all that much and still within quota but better reflect the community of interest principle.

If it were up to me though, I'd get rid of that Granville monstrosity.  It looks like those old strip wards in Toronto, and have the west side divided instead on an east/west axis rather than a north/south one.    Maybe call the northern one Vancouver-Point Grey and have Quadra go south of 16th.   Should have sent a submission to the BC Commission as well.

[King of Kensington]

The Ontario Commission is still accepting written submissions.   There's still a few more days.

[King of Kensington]

Population south of Front St. and the CNR tracks: 39,839

Population south of Queen between Dufferin and the Don: 74,723

Ontario riding quota: 106,213

25% deviation (minimum): 79,660

This condo/waterfront riding idea isn't going to fly...

[King of Kensington]

I agree with Wilfred Day.  I attended the hearings and there too many "rep by pop" types with their talking points.  

[King of Kensington]

Not only that but some idiot got into an argument with Judge Valin about the definition of Northern Ontario.  He pointed to Parry Sound-Muskoka (!) as an example of how Toronto was being shortchanged by "rural ridings."  When Valin said that this was a NORTHERN riding the deputant proceeded to insist that it wasn't and it was really at the French River.  Valin said he was a resident of Northern Ontario all his life and Parry Sound and Muskoka have long been considered part of the North.

[King of Kensington]

There is a debate, yes...but it's clearly not example of a "rural Southern Ontario riding" to point to when trying to argue that Toronto is being shortchanged.

[King of Kensington]

As we have until Wednesday to write the Commission, I am sending additional remarks, in light of the debate that has occurred over the condo riding idea for Toronto and the attention it is receiving in the media.  I am emphasizing the following points:

- The population numbers are insufficient.  Nor are condos a homogeneous bloc and the various communities are more oriented north-south in terms of social activities, shopping, etc.  Condos are an increasing part of the urban fabric and it is better to have them united with established communities than contained in an isolated strip along the lakefront.  And given the insufficient numbers they would have to go further north to obtain enough territory, and exacerbate the problem of lack of community of interest into neighboring ridings.

- The north-south divide along Bloor in the currently configured TC cannot be overemphasized.  North of Bloor is made up of a majority of homeowners and incomes are far above the GTA average.  In contrast south of Bloor is mainly lower- and middle-income tenants in high rises etc. and the southeastern part of the riding that constitutes ward 28 has the highest poverty rate of all city wards.

- Given that some territory south of Bloor has to go to Mount Pleasant, put in the Bay St. Corridor down to Dundas, rather than splitting the community of Church-Wellesley.  

- The difference between the Annex and the neighborhoods to its north and south represent a gradual divide rather than a dramatic one and thus I have no objection in principle to either the CPR/Dupont boundary or Bloor.  Although it is mixed-income and has ties to U of T, housing prices (in excess of $1 million) and incomes are high, putting it more in line with the wealthy neighborhoods to the north.  Given that T-S is overpopulated, sending the Annex to St. Paul's makes sense.  

[King of Kensington]

Rob Salerno describes the farce that went down very well:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://robsalerno.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/freelance-a-day-at-the-electoral-boundaries-commission/

[King of Kensington]

Wow, you gotta wonder if the Commission decided to screw Olivia Chow for her stupid antics at the boundary hearings:

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/on/now/reports/19map-REPO-CITY-OF-TORONTO.pdf

Now there's Spadina-Fort York and the stupid riding of University-Rosedale.  The TC/Mount Pleasant and St. Paul's/Trinity-Spadina splits made far more sense. 

[King of Kensington]

Isn't Olivia running for mayor?

Not sure...but maybe this map represents the unofficial beginning of her mayoral campaign. 

[King of Kensington]

Yup, the proposal made more sense (except dividing the Church-Wellesley neighbourhood) to me too.

But, for Olivia remember she wanted (i believe so) a Harbourfront communities focused riding. she fought to have the areas north of Bloor street (annex neighbourhood) kept as one community.
She's played it cool not committing to running for mayor; like i said she'd win pretty safely Spadina-Fort York and i think she'd even eek out a win in University-Rosedale. It combined the NDP heavy polls around the University with the Liberal polls of Rosedale, with no Bob Rae and with Olivia's high profile i think she'd win.
I suspect these ridings will change at the next boundary commission anyway, since the DT/waterfront area is one of the fastest growing neighbourhoods. They expect 50,000 or more to be in the core within 10 years.

In other words, be careful what you wish for: you just might get it!

[King of Kensington]

Yes, the rurban Sask. ridings were an absolutely STUPID thing for the NDP to back.

As for Olivia, one perhaps could say she would have won Spadina-Fort York easily.  That's true, but she would have also won the previously proposed Trinity-Spadina south of Bloor easily as well and it didn't stop the Trinity-Spadina NDP from freaking out about it and wanting to get rid of "condos" instead.  And *if* she runs for MP again, it seems to me that she'd rather represent the northern half of T-S. 

And Rosario Marchese...who barely squeaked through last time on a more favorable riding, is screwed in either of these proposed ridings.