Pie Palace

Bay Ward candidate GJ Hagenaars doesn’t seem to be a fan of the Ottawa Public Library. Apparently the $40 million budget is too rich for his blood. In a letter to David Reevely he says:

what we truly need are small, local libraries, with one librarian (making less than six figures) 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 (i.e. not enough interest), one full-time librarian is already too much.

I disagree.

I’m not sure if Mr. Hagenaars has had the opportunity to visit a branch of the OPL recently, but they offer much more than book lending: language instruction, room rentals, internet access, children’s programs, computer classes, and classes for recent immigrants (with titles like “How to Get an Ontario Driver’s Licence”). Libraries are community hubs, just like sports arenas and community centres. The OPL’s classes, programs, and resources help people get engaged with their city.

On top of that, our libraries get a lot of use. According to Elizabeth from Library Reference, the OPL’s usage for 2009 was:

Total uses:	27,608,868
Borrowed items:	10,692,133
In house use of materials	2,415,200
Visits:	5,005,050

The provincial government provides statistics from 2007: 4,286,900 visitors; 10,083,595 items lent; 8,485 programs; and 195,569 program enrollees.

It’s hard to see Mr. Hagenaars’ 31 paid staff keeping up with that load. I have an even harder time imagining people volunteering to push mops, book room rentals, fix water leaks, wire up computer networks, teach French/English/Mandarin/Arabic, or amuse a room full of other people’s screaming wonderful children. Perhaps Bay Ward has a more civicly minded population than Centretown.

Our libraries do a pretty good job. I’m sure there are improvements to be found, but arbitrary pronouncements like “one librarian and volunteer staff from the community” don’t help. If Mr. Hagenaars does get elected, I hope he takes some time to understand our city before he tries to fix it.

Image Credit: GJ Hagenaars website and the Bytowne Museum

I knew that OC Transpo had been making their route/schedule information available to Google Maps for a while, but I wasn’t aware that the information was publicly available. Even better: the spec is available too! (via DataOtt.org)

Today’s a good day for Capital Ward. The incumbent councillor isn’t running for re-election, which opens the field for newcomer David Chernushenko.

I’ve volunteered with David in the past, and I’ve been impressed by what I’ve seen. He’s good at building consensus and working with others, and exudes competence. Over the past few years, David has extricated himself from the federal Green Party, been appointed to the National Round Table on the Environment, and produced two documentaries. He gets stuff done. And non-Glebe residents of Capital Ward (yes, we do exist) will be pleased to know he’s from Old Ottawa South.

The current councillor, Clive Doucet, is running for mayor. Even though I agree with some of his ideas, he’s the wrong candidate for the job. He was right to argue that we should consider multiple routes for the O-train, and he was right that OSEG should have had to compete against other bidders for redeveloping Lansdowne. But both of those pushes were hampered by Doucet’s inability to build a coalition around his ideas, and apparent problem with deadlines. As a councilor, he’s been a poor representative of the Ward: he consistently doesn’t show up to his public meetings at the Wild Oat (according to his column in the Glebe Report), and his previous election pamphlets have taken credit for work done by community organizations.

I hope that Doucet’s exit from Council will make it possible for David to win. But I worry that Doucet will split the anyone-but-O’Brien vote.

If you had $27.44 burning a hole in your pocket, what would you buy?

An awesome pair of scuba fins? A smoking hot picture of Pamela Hannam (National Bodybuilder) with a sword? A bitchen’ pair of pliers?

Sadly, you can’t get any of those. Your $27.44 has already been spent on a riot:

The federal government spent $933 million on security for the G8/G20 talks in Toronto, which works out to a little over $27 per Canadian. The amount is seems excessive, especially given the amount spent on security for previous G8 meetings:

(Note that the graph above is a dramatic low-ball, as it assumes that half of the $933 million was spent on the G20 summit)

It’s too bad that vandals that showed up with the legitimate protesters. They’ve provided a post hoc justification for a mind-numbing waste of money.

Next time perhaps they could consider renting a cruise ship and buggering off to the middle of the Atlantic. Or maybe head to Kannanaskis again?

Oh dear. Folks at the British Medical Journal have released a report that slams the World Health Organization’s pandemic plan and the declaration of the H1N1 pandemic – the authors/experts appear to have conflicts of interest with vaccine manufacturers. At the same time, it questions the value of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and Relenza (zanamivir) and notes that neither drug proved effective during FDA testing.

It’s worrisome that (a) it took a specialist journal like the BMJ to track down the conflicts of interest, (b) the WHO is circling the wagons in the face of this criticism, and (c) there’s no coverage of the story in Canadian media (as of the evening of Sunday, June 6).

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.

The City of Ottawa has released its first open data. It isn’t too exciting – just maps of rec. facilities. But it’s a step in the right direction. I look forward to seeing financial info up there.

I was skimming through OpenParliament.ca, when I ran across a discussion of bill C-4, (aka “An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts” or “Sébastien’s Law”). For the uninitiated: it’s the Conservative push to reform the young offender act.

The thing that got me about it was Bloc MP Serge Ménard‘s comments. That dude has something to say. He starts by pointing out that Quebec has had a youth crime rate half that of the rest of Canada, and then he goes on to describe how QC applies “the right measure at the right time.” As far as I can tell, it involves parents, psychologists, and specially trained judges. After saying his bit, he goes on to outline exactly the parts of bill C-4 that suck. With quotes. The only way this guy could be more excellent is if he spoke with footnotes and had X-ray vision.

The exchange between Ménard and Conservative Ed Fast is interesting. Ménard makes an argument based on experience, describing what has worked well in Quebec for the last 25 years. Ed Fast makes an argument based on aspirations – saying how their changes are intended to behave, but without any apparent evidence. Even the Liberals and NDPers (between verbally high-fiving each other) make arguments based on what has been shown to work.

I could draw conclusions about the relative merit of the arguments, but I’ll leave that up to you, dear reader.

For the past few days, Ontario conservatives have been all abluster about the government’s sex ed proposal. The new curriculum has been described as “unconscionable” and “bordering on criminal” by one set of wackos and “the biggest issue facing the Catholic Church in Ontario” by another. So, like any curious 12 year old, I set out to find the offensive bits:

Human Development and Sexual Health
C3.3 describe how visible differences (e.g., skin, hair, and eye colour, facial features, body size and shape, physical aids or different physical abilities, clothing, possessions) and invisible differences (e.g., learning abilities, skills and talents, personal or cultural values and beliefs, gender identity, sexual orientation, family background, personal preferences, allergies and sensitivities) make each person unique, and identify ways of showing respect for differences in others

Teacher prompt: “Sometimes we are different in ways you can see. Sometimes we are different in ways you cannot see – such as how we learn, what we think, and what we are able to do. Give me some examples of things that make each person unique.”

Student: “We all come from different families. Some students live with two parents. Some live with one parent. Some have two mothers or two fathers. Some live with grandparents or with caregivers. We may come from different cultures. We also have different talents and abilities and different things that we find difficult to do.”

Teacher: “How can you be a role model and show respect for differences in other people?”

Student: “I can include others in what I am doing, invite them to join a group, be willing to be a partner with anyone for an activity, and be willing to learn about others.”

(Excerpted from the original proposal on the Government of Ontario’s website and mirrored here)

That’s it? Saying that some kids have two moms is “bordering on criminal”? According to the nutbars cited above: “To cause confusion in a young child’s mind about being male or female is evil.” O rly?

This argument strikes me as thinly veiled homophobia.

Instead of overt queer-bashing, the “family values” crowd is now saying that they want to hide homosexuality from their kids. Their homophobia is suddenly a parental right. They don’t want to openly dis queers, they just want to pretend that gays don’t exist. One gentleman from the Sault is quoted as saying “a child is taught to comply, answer the right questions in school, and at home he’s taught this is not right behaviour, [...] Is that fair to the kids?” That’s right. Teaching kids that homosexuality exists is unfair to them. Presumably because they’ll have to rectify their parents’ bigotry with society’s openness.

I’d like to say that this issue does matter. But it does. Some of the “family values” types will have gay kids. And those kids are going to have a rough time growing up. I can’t help but think that a brief admission that homosexuality is okay in Grade 3 might save those kids a measure of hurt growing up.

(Edit: Changed the title)

Finally! Someone’s implemented a Canadian TheyWorkForYou. You can find it at OpenParliament.ca. Frigging awesome, if you ask me. (H/T to Darrell for pointing this out)