Pie Palace

A couple of weeks ago, I noticed that Second Cup started sporting a Fair Trade logo on their signage. Being the kind of person that thinks people should be paid a reasonable wage, and knowing that coffee workers can be treated like serfs, I started stopping by Second Cup to grab the occasional cup of java. Then I started wondering. When I order myself a caramel corretto®, is it really fairly traded?

So I sent an email to Second Cup’s customer care. Their response was a little disappointing:

Thank you for your email and your interest in the Second Cup. I have included below our Fair Trade Coffee available through Second Cup. Currently this is the only coffee in our series that is certified. Please do refer to our website at www.secondcup.com to review our selection and how we are making a difference environmentally and socially.

So, even though Second Cup says “24 fairly traded coffees available every day”, they really mean they have one fairly traded coffee.

It’s back to Bridgehead, and their fully fair trade menu for me.

Remember the prorogation kurfuffle? No, not the one in 2009 one. The first one.

It looks like history is about to repeat itself.

Mr. Harper has announced that he wants to eliminate government subsidies for political parties. So far he’s only said that he wants to use that as a Conservative plank in the next election, but I’m betting that it will appear in bill form sometime before early March – just before a budget would have to be brought down.

Why? The first time the government tried to eliminate subsidies, the opposition parties freaked out and botched forming a coalition. This time around, instead of proroguing, Harper is going to force the vote and allow the government to fall on this handy dandy wedge issue. In the subsequent election, he can paint the other parties as pigs at a trough, and say “there are already generous credits and incentives in the tax system to encourage people to give to political parties today.” Oh wait. He just did.

I can pretend the move is antidemocratic: the subsidy means that everyone’s vote has value. In a donation-only system, only people who have spare cash can donate, so they’ll donate to parties that pander to their wants meet their needs. Poor folks (who can’t wait until tax time for their tax credits to be returned) won’t be represented as well.

But, in my heart of hearts, my main reason for supporting the subsidy is that it benefits the Green Party. The subsidy forms a substantial part of the our budget, so any reduction of the subsidy would cripple the federal party. I tend to think of that as a bad thing, but others would probably disagree.

David Chernushenko was elected as Councillor for my ward last night. Not only did he win, he rocked the ballot box with 41% of the vote.

My voting career has spanned almost two decades now. I think this vote was the first winning vote I’ve ever cast.¹ It’s good to know that I’m in the majority largest single voting block for once.

I was only at the victory party briefly, but there seemed to be a degree of shell shock. Lots of the folks in the room had supported David’s previous campaigns, and we didn’t quite know what to do when our candidate actually won. I’m glad that we got to see it.

Congratulations to David, his campaign team, and his volunteers. You all did a great job.

1. I believe that I may have voted for a winner in a decorate-your-office-door-for-christmas contest in 2001, but I don’t think that’s on quite the same scale as electing a representative. (back)

One of the few things I miss about my Citizen subscription is being able to read Dan Gardner’s op-ed pieces. They’re everything the main stream media should be: well thought out, well researched, and slightly contrarian. Add his blog to your feed reader. You won’t regret it.

Even though Canada lost the race to join the UN Security Council, the government was able to break one notable record. They succeeded in making a statement so bizarre and self-serving, it actually parodied itself. According to Harper’s communications director:

A big deciding factor was the fact that Canada’s bid did not have unity because we had Mr. Ignatieff questioning and opposing Canada’s bid.

And according to our Foreign Minister, Lawrence Cannon:

Not being able to speak with one voice as a country had a negative impact on Canada’s bid.

The Conservatives are actually saying that Canada lost its bid to sit on the Security Council because of the Liberals. They apparently think Canadians are stupid enough to believe that a guy less popular than Stephen Harper was able to convince fifty-some governments to vote for Portugal.

I asked a Muslim coworker what he thought about the new Islamic community centre proposed for downtown New York. His response: “I don’t see what the big deal is. Nobody is complaining that the Americans built an embassy in downtown Baghdad.” Zing.

The Web 2.0 dream is to be able to give something away while still making a living on it. That may work for Cory Doctorow, but for most of us, it’s untenable. The only mechanism I’ve seen for paying open source peeps for consumer-grade projects is donations. Paypal and Amazon both provide an ability to donate to a project, as does Pledgie, but I haven’t seen anything that makes donating easy.

Then I found Flattr. It allows donors to give micropayment-style donations to anyone with a web page (and a Flattr account). It makes life easier for donors because they choose how much they will give a month, and that amount is divided amongst their donees.

It isn’t perfect. The Flattr community is pretty sparse, and there’s no way to set a recurring Flattr, but they’re 90% of the way there. It’d be great if Canonical, vim, Parcellite, Google Chrome, kdenlive, and Guake accepted Flattrs.

If you’re looking for an invitation, hit me up with the contact form and I’ll hook you up.

(h/t Raphaël Hertzog)

So far, I’ve gotten two comments saying that I’ve missed the point of GJ Hagenaars library policy. On the off chance there are other readers who feel that I’ve missed the boat, here’s my response:

Mr. Hagenaars made an unexpected proposal for the city’s libraries. He proposed replacing the existing OPL staff with 33 librarians (one at each branch) and a staff of volunteers:

In my opinion, what we truly need are small, local libraries, with one librarian [...] and volunteer staff from the community to keep them going. Let people vote with their feet if they want library services. If there are no volunteers [...], one full-time librarian is already too much.

His proposal didn’t explain who would maintain the OPL’s physical assets (lending materials, buildings, computer networks, website, bookmobile, and archives), nor did it explain the effect of cutting over 8,000 classes that have an annual enrollment of roughly 190,000. Perhaps worst of all, he proposes cuts without an indication of the savings they would provide.

This suggests that Mr. Hagenaars either:

1. knows about these services and didn’t bother to mention them in his proposal; or
   
2. made a policy proposal without understanding the issue.

My concern is that Mr. Hagenaars didn’t know what he was suggesting. My fear is supported by a question in his original letter “Where are the volunteers at the libraries, if people think they are that important?” Obvious answers aside: Ottawa has 555 library volunteers. It’s worrisome when a blogger with a couple of hours on his hands digs up more information about an election issue than a candidate.

Proposing a solution is easy. Proposing a useful solution is much harder.

In his response to my original post, Mr. Hagenaars seems more focused on the proposal for a new Main Branch rather than laying off 419.46 employees¹. This is good – Mr. Hagenaars doesn’t reiterate his call for a dismantling of the existing OPL and its programs.²

I hope that his original suggestion was nothing more than an overzealous cost-cutting proposal. If that’s the case, I would much rather that he said that, rather than continuing to avoid its mention.

Update: Cleaned up wording.

1. I can only assume that the .46 of an employee refers to .46 of a full time position, rather Eric the Half a Librarian. (back)
2. Ironically, I agree that delaying the construction of a new Main Branch is a reasonable way to save money, given that the existing Main Branch is still functional. (back)

PiePalace reader Gawp offered a fantastic comment on my post about GJ Hagenaars‘ assertion that the city should have exactly one staffer in every library branch. He starts out: “I know, lets use Mr. Hagenaars’ argument for other city services. They make just as much sense!”

what we truly need are small, local SNOW REMOVAL, with one SNOW REMOVAL PERSON (making less than six figures) and volunteer staff from the community to keep SNOW REMOVAL going. Let people vote with their SHOVELS if they want SNOW REMOVAL. If there are no volunteers (i.e. not enough interest), one SNOW REMOVAL PERSON is already too much.

Not to keep harping on Mr. Hagenaars, but I thought that was funny.

Over the past couple of weeks the proposals for Lansdowne Park’s have dribbled out. First, we got an idea of what the park portion would look like and now the proposed layout of the stadium area has been released.

The proposal for the commercial areas includes of blocks of multi-story glass residential buildings perched on seven blocks of retail, a cinema, and an office tower. The Aberdeen Pavilion and Horticulture building are furthest from Bank Street, tucked behind the rest of the development.

It’s bland. It looks like an uninspired corner of Carleton University: cement, glass, featureless facades, and lots of right angles. The two dominant thoroughfares are designed for cars, with pedestrians relegated to sidewalks partially-obstructed by cement planters. The plazas are cement blocks. If there’s any theme it would be “cement”. Meanwhile, the new buildings are three to seven stories in height, obstructing views of the Aberdeen Pavilion.

The view of Aberdeen Pavilion from Holmwood Avenue

OSEG's proposal features wide roads with sidewalks partially blocked by planters

I’d like to say that it isn’t all bad – that there are some highlights that redeem the plan. But there aren’t. The two features that caught my eye were the medians on Bank Street, and the “Lord Grey’s” building. The medians proved to be lipstick on a pig: the Bank Street entrance still looks like the asphalt afterthought it is today. Similarly, even though the dramatic overhang of Lord Grey’s looks interesting in the rendering, the detailed image makes it look more like a walled off gas bar.

Does it have to be so boring?

I don’t think so. If commercial is included (which is fair – it’s a money maker and it would offset the cost of the park), then it should be built around public spaces. A good example of a public space can be seen in one of the old pictures of Lansdowne: a gently curving pedestrian-only street that leads past the Aberdeen Pavilion, with single-story commercial structures on either side. A modern take would be a curved pedestrian street with stepped buildings facing the Cattle Castle – they would provide retail space and somewhere interesting to walk.

Another alternative would be to go to the extreme: build an iconic structure that would dominate the commercial portion of the site and would contain all of the retail. Ottawa’s new convention centre is a striking example. Yes, it’s ugly, but it’s like a chihuahua – it’s so ugly that it goes beyond simple everyday ugliness to a weird kind of beauty.

It’s disappointing that OSEG didn’t use the commercial portion of the design to present something attractive. Instead, they’ve designed a boring streetscape that could be any poorly planned city centre in North America. City Council should send OSEG back to the drawing board or find another proposal.