The "density creeps" who have been in the news lately remind me of one of the mysteries of Yonge & Eglinton: people who deliberately move here and then complain that the neighbourhood has characteristics that it has had since long before they moved here.
In the density creeps story, that characteristic is density. Directly across the street from the proposed development site are highrise buildings, which are part of the highrise cluster that was built in the 1970s, 20 years before the density creeps moved here. There are also four 4-storey apartment buildings that appear architecturally to date back to the 1950s on that one block alone.
In short, the kind of density they decry, along with the attendant impact on property values and population demographics, were well-established in the neighbourhood long before they even arrived.
(Which makes me want to flag a lot of the commentary on this story with #JournalismWanted - many commentators seem to be taking the density creeps at their word that this new development is somehow significantly denser or significantly cheaper than the established neighbourhood, when this allegation could be disproven with a simple google, or by going to the site (conveniently located just 4 blocks north of Eglinton subway station!) and taking a quick look around.)
But the density creeps aren't the only ones I've seen doing this. Far more frequently than you'd expect, mostly on the internet but sometimes just walking down the street, I hear people who live here and, based on demographics, appear to have moved here recently and to have had a choice in the matter (i.e. they're old enough and employed enough to live independently of their parents, but young enough that they definitely didn't move here before the 21st century) complain about things like density or highrises or chain stores or yuppies - things that have all been here since before the 21st century, and things whose presence you can easily detect by walking down the street. If you don't like those things, you can see that the neighbourhood isn't for you the moment you emerge from the subway.
The other thing is, this isn't the cheapest neighbourhood. If you want lower density or lowrises or fewer chain stores or fewer yuppies, there are other neighbourhoods that meet those characteristics and are cheaper to live in. So what are they doing here?
Despite the criticism from some quarters, this isn't the worst neighbourhood in Toronto. We're generally closer to the top than to the bottom for indicators such as amenities, services, accessibility, quality of schools, quality of housing stock, infrastructure, lower crime rates, etc.
I wonder if people in neighbourhoods that are worse in all these areas complain as much as the residents of Yonge & Eg, who, by all appearances, could totally choose to live elsewhere?
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Things They Should Study: do more apartments get too hot or too cold in shoulder seasons?
I was very happy to hear that the City of Toronto is consulting the public about indoor temperature bylaws for rental housing. I'm miserable for a week or two every May and September because the weather is hot but my landlord is legally required to provide heat (and, therefore, can't have the building's air conditioning turned on.) So I was all set to write a submission advocating for air conditioning to have precedence over heating during shoulder seasons with warm daytime highs and cool overnight lows.
Whenever air conditioning is available, I set my thermostat to 25 degrees, which is the highest it will go. And the air conditioning switches on nearly every single day.
In cool weather, I set my thermostat to 20 degrees, which is the lowest it will go. And the heating switches on an average of once per year. Some years it's one time, some years it's two times, some years it's zero times. Last winter, it was zero times.
Therefore, I strongly advocate for air conditioning taking precedence over heating in the shoulder seasons. Even if it gets cold in your apartment overnight, you can just snuggle up under an extra blanket. Certainly a fair price to pay for being comfortable during the day!
But as I was writing this, occurred to me that this could be studied comprehensively for a wide variety of housing types. Get residents of buildings of a wide variety of sizes, ages and constructions, with the sample including apartments with exposure in each direction (and corner units). Have the study participants agree not to use heating or air conditioning during the study period, and to using optimal temperature management practices otherwise (e.g. blinds open to let the sun in if it's cold out, blinds closed to keep the sun out if it's hot out, windows open if you want the indoor temperature to move in the direction of the outdoor temperature, windows closed if you don't, minimize use of electronics and appliances if it's hot, etc.) Then track the temperature inside the apartments, and have residents record their comfort level.
Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether heating or air conditioning should be prioritized. Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether more people and homes get too hot or too cold in the shoulder seasons in the absence of appropriate indoor climate control. Maybe there are patterns based on type or age of building, and bylaws that take that into account would be more appropriate.
We already know the current bylaw does not reflect the needs of our current climate and housing stock. We should take this opportunity to do research and identify what exactly our needs are, and write a bylaw that reflects that.
Whenever air conditioning is available, I set my thermostat to 25 degrees, which is the highest it will go. And the air conditioning switches on nearly every single day.
In cool weather, I set my thermostat to 20 degrees, which is the lowest it will go. And the heating switches on an average of once per year. Some years it's one time, some years it's two times, some years it's zero times. Last winter, it was zero times.
Therefore, I strongly advocate for air conditioning taking precedence over heating in the shoulder seasons. Even if it gets cold in your apartment overnight, you can just snuggle up under an extra blanket. Certainly a fair price to pay for being comfortable during the day!
But as I was writing this, occurred to me that this could be studied comprehensively for a wide variety of housing types. Get residents of buildings of a wide variety of sizes, ages and constructions, with the sample including apartments with exposure in each direction (and corner units). Have the study participants agree not to use heating or air conditioning during the study period, and to using optimal temperature management practices otherwise (e.g. blinds open to let the sun in if it's cold out, blinds closed to keep the sun out if it's hot out, windows open if you want the indoor temperature to move in the direction of the outdoor temperature, windows closed if you don't, minimize use of electronics and appliances if it's hot, etc.) Then track the temperature inside the apartments, and have residents record their comfort level.
Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether heating or air conditioning should be prioritized. Perhaps they could come to a definitive, evidence-based conclusion about whether more people and homes get too hot or too cold in the shoulder seasons in the absence of appropriate indoor climate control. Maybe there are patterns based on type or age of building, and bylaws that take that into account would be more appropriate.
We already know the current bylaw does not reflect the needs of our current climate and housing stock. We should take this opportunity to do research and identify what exactly our needs are, and write a bylaw that reflects that.
Saturday, November 01, 2014
A Ford family writing prompt
There's an interesting, non-politics-related, factoid about the family of Toronto mayor Rob Ford.
Rob Ford is one of four children of Doug and Diane Ford.
The names of the four children, in birth order, are: Kathy, Randy, Doug, and Rob.
Rob's brother Doug, as I'm sure you've concluded, is named after his father Doug.
But Doug Jr. is the second-born son. The first-born son is Randy, who isn't named after his father.
This is really interesting to me, because there's a story behind that! We don't know the story because it obviously isn't applicable to anything that's in the public interest, but there is a story. Either there was something so important about the name Randy that they had to name a child Randy before even naming a child after the father, or something changed between the birth of Randy and the birth of Doug that made them feel the need to name a child after the father.
I think this would make a good writing prompt. The firstborn son is not named after the father. The second son is. What's the backstory? How does this affect sibling relations?
Rob Ford is one of four children of Doug and Diane Ford.
The names of the four children, in birth order, are: Kathy, Randy, Doug, and Rob.
Rob's brother Doug, as I'm sure you've concluded, is named after his father Doug.
But Doug Jr. is the second-born son. The first-born son is Randy, who isn't named after his father.
This is really interesting to me, because there's a story behind that! We don't know the story because it obviously isn't applicable to anything that's in the public interest, but there is a story. Either there was something so important about the name Randy that they had to name a child Randy before even naming a child after the father, or something changed between the birth of Randy and the birth of Doug that made them feel the need to name a child after the father.
I think this would make a good writing prompt. The firstborn son is not named after the father. The second son is. What's the backstory? How does this affect sibling relations?
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Things They Should Invent: tournament-style mayoral debates
In this past election, Toronto had a ridiculous number of mayoral candidates and a ridiculous number of mayoral debates.
But, for the vast majority of debates, only the handful of candidates deemed "mainstream" by the media are invited, with the dozens and dozens of others being completely ignored.
This is a waste of perfectly good scheduled debate time! What's the point of having such a ridiculous number of debates if you aren't going to host all the candidates?
Therefore, I propose tournament style mayoral debates. During the first few months, candidates debate each other in a round robin sort of format, so as many people as possible debate as many people as possible. Then the people who have won the most debates move on to debate the other people who have won the most debates, until the top debates in the city are facing each other towards the end of the election period.
I'm picturing a sort of World Cup format for this, but it wouldn't be exactly the same because debates most often have more than 2 people. And a true round robin might not be possible, depending on the math. But, in any case, they should do whatever most convenient mathematically and scheduling-wise to get as many people as possible to debate as many people as possible.
So how do we determine who won a particular debate and gets to move on in the debate-offs? My first thought is an audience vote - perhaps just in person, perhaps both in person and online. But I don't know if that could be over-influenced by candidates stacking the audience.
Another idea is a panel of judges. But would they assess the candidates objectively, or would they favour the big names? Although, the existing system already favours the big names, so could it be any worse?
What if audience members are assigned tickets to a debate, but they don't know who's going to be debating at the time they sign up for tickets (which would make it impossible to stack the audience). But would enough people actually go to debates where they don't know who's debating?
Another alternative would be not to vote on winners of individual debates. Candidates round-robin, the videos are posted online, and online viewers can vote for which candidates they'd like to see debate some more. But, again, how could we prevent candidates from stacking the votes?
I haven't fully worked this out. But the fact remains: if we must have dozens of candidates and dozens of debates, all candidates should get to debate.
But, for the vast majority of debates, only the handful of candidates deemed "mainstream" by the media are invited, with the dozens and dozens of others being completely ignored.
This is a waste of perfectly good scheduled debate time! What's the point of having such a ridiculous number of debates if you aren't going to host all the candidates?
Therefore, I propose tournament style mayoral debates. During the first few months, candidates debate each other in a round robin sort of format, so as many people as possible debate as many people as possible. Then the people who have won the most debates move on to debate the other people who have won the most debates, until the top debates in the city are facing each other towards the end of the election period.
I'm picturing a sort of World Cup format for this, but it wouldn't be exactly the same because debates most often have more than 2 people. And a true round robin might not be possible, depending on the math. But, in any case, they should do whatever most convenient mathematically and scheduling-wise to get as many people as possible to debate as many people as possible.
So how do we determine who won a particular debate and gets to move on in the debate-offs? My first thought is an audience vote - perhaps just in person, perhaps both in person and online. But I don't know if that could be over-influenced by candidates stacking the audience.
Another idea is a panel of judges. But would they assess the candidates objectively, or would they favour the big names? Although, the existing system already favours the big names, so could it be any worse?
What if audience members are assigned tickets to a debate, but they don't know who's going to be debating at the time they sign up for tickets (which would make it impossible to stack the audience). But would enough people actually go to debates where they don't know who's debating?
Another alternative would be not to vote on winners of individual debates. Candidates round-robin, the videos are posted online, and online viewers can vote for which candidates they'd like to see debate some more. But, again, how could we prevent candidates from stacking the votes?
I haven't fully worked this out. But the fact remains: if we must have dozens of candidates and dozens of debates, all candidates should get to debate.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Voted
A non-descript fall day for a very descript municipal election.
As I've blogged about before, I have a superstition that I need to pet a dog on the way to vote in order to get a good election outcome. I had a couple of errands to do on my lunch hour, so I tucked my voting card into my purse just in case I met any auspicious doggies. But, to my surprise, I only even saw one dog, and it wasn't in a place where I could pet it!
Worried by this uncharacteristic shortage of dogs (I usually see 2 or 3 dogs at any time of the day or night), I started planning the route I'd take to the polling station after work, to maximize the chance of encountering a pettable doggie. The polling station is extremely close to my home - just a couple of buildings down the street, and then through a pedestrian pathway to the other side of the block. But surely walking down the actual street rather than along the pedestrian pathway is a perfectly reasonable act, right? Even if it increases the distance I had to walk by 50%? And when I worked in the office I'd always do my after-work errands before voting, so it's perfectly justified to do that today, right? And so on and so on until I'd justified walking at least three times the distance, possibly meandering through some side streets, in the hope that I'd encounter a pettable dog.
I needn't have worried. Directly en route to the polling station, I saw an adorable little dog who stopped walking and sat down on the sidewalk. "Awww, you don't want to go any more?" I squeed at him, and full-fledged petting ensued, with the doggie's enthusastic consent and the owner smiling. So then, my mission accomplished, I walked straight to the polling station, only to discover there was another doggie tied up outside the polling station! When I said "Hi doggie!" he thumped his tail and smiled at me, so I gave him a pet too.
Two perfectly organic dog pets, not contrived at all, would totally have happened if I'd been walking the same route without a superstitious reason to pet dogs. I hope that bodes well.
***
One actual election-related note: there are these security folders that we put the ballots in before they feed them into the ballot counting machine. Problem: the ballot is longer than the folder, so if you voted for one of the bottom few people on the ballot, your vote will be visible despite the security folder!
The strange thing is the ballot is so long in the first place because there are so many mayoral candidates. The mayoral candidates are divided into two columns, but there isn't an even number in each column - there's way more in the first column! If they'd made the two columns even, the ballots would have fit in the folder.
Alternatively, if there was some compelling technical reason why they couldn't have adjusted the format of the ballot, why couldn't they get longer folders?
***
Despite my attempts to find my councillor candidates, no platforms for any of the challengers ever emerged. I got like a hundred hits a day on that post - far more than the rest of my blog combined - so I'm certainly not the only one looking for them. Their target audience is ready and waiting, but they still won't show themselves. And so the question remains: why did they bother?
***
Edit, since I always record the campaigning that reaches me:
Signs seen: 1, for the incumbent councillor, plus one bus shelter ad (unfortunately negative) for mayoral candidate Oliva Chow
Robocalls: 2, for mayoral candidate (and eventual victor) John Tory. I disapprove of robocalls
Flyer: 1 in my mailbox for mayoral candidate Doug Ford, 2 under my door for the challenger trustee candidate, 2 under my door for the incumbent councillor, one of which was accmpanied by a knock on the door (which I didn't answer, because I don't answer the door to strangers, which is yet another reason why people should announce themselves as they knock on the door)
As I've blogged about before, I have a superstition that I need to pet a dog on the way to vote in order to get a good election outcome. I had a couple of errands to do on my lunch hour, so I tucked my voting card into my purse just in case I met any auspicious doggies. But, to my surprise, I only even saw one dog, and it wasn't in a place where I could pet it!
Worried by this uncharacteristic shortage of dogs (I usually see 2 or 3 dogs at any time of the day or night), I started planning the route I'd take to the polling station after work, to maximize the chance of encountering a pettable doggie. The polling station is extremely close to my home - just a couple of buildings down the street, and then through a pedestrian pathway to the other side of the block. But surely walking down the actual street rather than along the pedestrian pathway is a perfectly reasonable act, right? Even if it increases the distance I had to walk by 50%? And when I worked in the office I'd always do my after-work errands before voting, so it's perfectly justified to do that today, right? And so on and so on until I'd justified walking at least three times the distance, possibly meandering through some side streets, in the hope that I'd encounter a pettable dog.
I needn't have worried. Directly en route to the polling station, I saw an adorable little dog who stopped walking and sat down on the sidewalk. "Awww, you don't want to go any more?" I squeed at him, and full-fledged petting ensued, with the doggie's enthusastic consent and the owner smiling. So then, my mission accomplished, I walked straight to the polling station, only to discover there was another doggie tied up outside the polling station! When I said "Hi doggie!" he thumped his tail and smiled at me, so I gave him a pet too.
Two perfectly organic dog pets, not contrived at all, would totally have happened if I'd been walking the same route without a superstitious reason to pet dogs. I hope that bodes well.
***
One actual election-related note: there are these security folders that we put the ballots in before they feed them into the ballot counting machine. Problem: the ballot is longer than the folder, so if you voted for one of the bottom few people on the ballot, your vote will be visible despite the security folder!
The strange thing is the ballot is so long in the first place because there are so many mayoral candidates. The mayoral candidates are divided into two columns, but there isn't an even number in each column - there's way more in the first column! If they'd made the two columns even, the ballots would have fit in the folder.
Alternatively, if there was some compelling technical reason why they couldn't have adjusted the format of the ballot, why couldn't they get longer folders?
***
Despite my attempts to find my councillor candidates, no platforms for any of the challengers ever emerged. I got like a hundred hits a day on that post - far more than the rest of my blog combined - so I'm certainly not the only one looking for them. Their target audience is ready and waiting, but they still won't show themselves. And so the question remains: why did they bother?
***
Edit, since I always record the campaigning that reaches me:
Signs seen: 1, for the incumbent councillor, plus one bus shelter ad (unfortunately negative) for mayoral candidate Oliva Chow
Robocalls: 2, for mayoral candidate (and eventual victor) John Tory. I disapprove of robocalls
Flyer: 1 in my mailbox for mayoral candidate Doug Ford, 2 under my door for the challenger trustee candidate, 2 under my door for the incumbent councillor, one of which was accmpanied by a knock on the door (which I didn't answer, because I don't answer the door to strangers, which is yet another reason why people should announce themselves as they knock on the door)
Saturday, October 25, 2014
All Toronto municipal candidates should publicly post their Vote Compass results
I was pleased to see that there's a Vote Compass for the Toronto mayoral election, but I was disappointed that it only compared your position with that of the three candidates that the media is treating as "mainstream". There are 65 candidates for the position of mayor alone, to say nothing of all the councillor candidates whose platforms could also be charted on the same compass.
I suspect the Vote Compass people limited themselves to the top three simply for logistical purposes. They have to analyze platforms, break them down into issues, place them on the scale, validate them with the candidates and the public...it would probably be impossible to do it for 65 candidates, even with our ridiculously protracted municipal elections.
So as an interim measure until someone can design a vote by issue that can accommodate dozens of candidates, I propose that all candidates should take the Vote Compass quiz and post their results publicly. Then voters whose positions on the various issues don't coincide with any of the top three candidates can see which of the many other candidates actually meet their needs.
It would be extra awesome if someone could compile all the candidates' answers in one place. It's a bit late for this election, but maybe next election the Vote Compass people could do this!
I suspect the Vote Compass people limited themselves to the top three simply for logistical purposes. They have to analyze platforms, break them down into issues, place them on the scale, validate them with the candidates and the public...it would probably be impossible to do it for 65 candidates, even with our ridiculously protracted municipal elections.
So as an interim measure until someone can design a vote by issue that can accommodate dozens of candidates, I propose that all candidates should take the Vote Compass quiz and post their results publicly. Then voters whose positions on the various issues don't coincide with any of the top three candidates can see which of the many other candidates actually meet their needs.
It would be extra awesome if someone could compile all the candidates' answers in one place. It's a bit late for this election, but maybe next election the Vote Compass people could do this!
Friday, October 10, 2014
Toronto Ward 22 Councillor candidates Sarfraz Khan, Bob Murphy and James O'Shaughnessy
Attention Sarfraz Khan, Bob Murphy, and James O'Shaughnessy:
I am a Ward 22 voter, and I don't feel I can vote for the position of councillor unless I know about more than one candidate's platform.
I haven't been able to find any of your platforms. They aren't listed on the City of Toronto Elections website, googleable, or findable on social media.
So please post your platform somewhere online, and inform the City of Toronto Elections people of its location so they can add it to their website. If you create a twitter profile with a link to your platform, and put #topoli and #Ward 22 in the description, your electorate will find you. (Also, if you post it in the comments here, it will become googleable within a couple of days.)
By doing so, you'll be giving the people of Ward 22 an alternative to simply voting for the loudest person by default.
I am a Ward 22 voter, and I don't feel I can vote for the position of councillor unless I know about more than one candidate's platform.
I haven't been able to find any of your platforms. They aren't listed on the City of Toronto Elections website, googleable, or findable on social media.
So please post your platform somewhere online, and inform the City of Toronto Elections people of its location so they can add it to their website. If you create a twitter profile with a link to your platform, and put #topoli and #Ward 22 in the description, your electorate will find you. (Also, if you post it in the comments here, it will become googleable within a couple of days.)
By doing so, you'll be giving the people of Ward 22 an alternative to simply voting for the loudest person by default.
Friday, October 03, 2014
My municipal election voting dilemma
There are currently 4 candidates for city councillor in my ward: the incumbent and 3 challengers.
The incumbent has the expected online presence. But I can't find any trace of any of the 3 challengers. I've googled with multiple combinations of keywords, I've searched social media, I've looked up possible matches on LinkedIn (multiple possibilities for each name, none of whom say they are running for city councillor). Even the City of Toronto elections website that lists all the candidates for each ward doesn't have any contact information for them - not even an office phone number, just their name and ward number. None of the organizations and media outlets that send questionnaires to each candidate have gotten responses from any of the challengers (if they were in fact able to get in touch with the challengers). None of the organizations that endorse candidates have endorsed in my ward. I not only find no evidence of any of the challengers running a campaign, I find no evidence that anyone else has been able to get in touch with the challengers in their capacity as candidates.
If this situation persists, I'm left with a dilemma: should I vote for the incumbent, or for no one?
The incumbent's record is decent enough that I don't see a reason to try to unseat him, but it's quite plausible that there could be another candidate who aligns more closely with my views. (There was in the last election.) It's also quite plausible that none of the other candidates would align as closely with my views. It all depends on what the other candidates' platforms are.
I don't think that simply showing up should be enough to win my vote. Earlier in the race, the incumbent was the only council candidate for the ward. I googled around the question of whether we'd still vote for councillor if there's only one candidate (wasn't able to find out conclusively), and decided during this process that I wouldn't vote for a candidate running unopposed. I'd be okay with them winning, of course, but I wouldn't give them a vote just for being the only one there.
So, on one hand, I feel like I similarly shouldn't give a candidate my vote just for being the only one visible. But, on the other hand, they've clearly run the best campaign. But, on the other other hand, what if they're not actually the best candidate? But, on the other other other hand, how would I ever know?
Things They Should Study: why do people get themselves put on the ballot but not run a campaign?
The incumbent has the expected online presence. But I can't find any trace of any of the 3 challengers. I've googled with multiple combinations of keywords, I've searched social media, I've looked up possible matches on LinkedIn (multiple possibilities for each name, none of whom say they are running for city councillor). Even the City of Toronto elections website that lists all the candidates for each ward doesn't have any contact information for them - not even an office phone number, just their name and ward number. None of the organizations and media outlets that send questionnaires to each candidate have gotten responses from any of the challengers (if they were in fact able to get in touch with the challengers). None of the organizations that endorse candidates have endorsed in my ward. I not only find no evidence of any of the challengers running a campaign, I find no evidence that anyone else has been able to get in touch with the challengers in their capacity as candidates.
If this situation persists, I'm left with a dilemma: should I vote for the incumbent, or for no one?
The incumbent's record is decent enough that I don't see a reason to try to unseat him, but it's quite plausible that there could be another candidate who aligns more closely with my views. (There was in the last election.) It's also quite plausible that none of the other candidates would align as closely with my views. It all depends on what the other candidates' platforms are.
I don't think that simply showing up should be enough to win my vote. Earlier in the race, the incumbent was the only council candidate for the ward. I googled around the question of whether we'd still vote for councillor if there's only one candidate (wasn't able to find out conclusively), and decided during this process that I wouldn't vote for a candidate running unopposed. I'd be okay with them winning, of course, but I wouldn't give them a vote just for being the only one there.
So, on one hand, I feel like I similarly shouldn't give a candidate my vote just for being the only one visible. But, on the other hand, they've clearly run the best campaign. But, on the other other hand, what if they're not actually the best candidate? But, on the other other other hand, how would I ever know?
Things They Should Study: why do people get themselves put on the ballot but not run a campaign?
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Why was Rob Ford able to kill Transit City unilaterally?
On his first day as mayor, Rob Ford came into work early and killed Transit City.
With all the other things that happened since then, I've forgotten how this happened and why it was possible. I was under the impression that it needed to be voted on by Council, and googling around the idea I see lots of people saying that he shouldn't have been able to do it unilaterally and it should have been voted on by Council.
But he did it and, at the very least, set transit back a year until Council was able to reinstate it a year later. Why was he able to do that? Why did it take Council a year fix it?
I feel like I should understand this before I vote for the next mayor. Will the next mayor be able to do similar things unilaterally?
With all the other things that happened since then, I've forgotten how this happened and why it was possible. I was under the impression that it needed to be voted on by Council, and googling around the idea I see lots of people saying that he shouldn't have been able to do it unilaterally and it should have been voted on by Council.
But he did it and, at the very least, set transit back a year until Council was able to reinstate it a year later. Why was he able to do that? Why did it take Council a year fix it?
I feel like I should understand this before I vote for the next mayor. Will the next mayor be able to do similar things unilaterally?
Monday, June 23, 2014
How the library can improve its automatic return system
I should be happy about my library's automatic return system, since it's yet another example of one of my inventions materializing in real life, but I'm seeing some problems that can make it very inconvenient from time to time. Here's how I'd improve it:
1. Let it accept more than one item at once. The self checkout and scan multiple items at once (my personal record is six large hardcover books), but the return slot can only handle one at a time. This is irritating when the person in front of you is returning a lot of things at once. The other day I was behind a lady with two small children who were returning a total of 20 items. This is a reasonable number of children's picture books to check out for two children over a 3-week loan period, but it takes for-fricking-ever to scan them all in one at a time. A massive line formed behind this family, and there was nothing that could be done to expedite the process.
2. Continue to have a manual return slot. I've seen manual return slots at other libraries that have automatic returns, but mine doesn't have one. So if there's a line for the automatic return or the automatic return is malfunctioning, there doesn't appear to be any alternative. (I recently learned that you can also hand the book to the person at the circulation desk, but there's no signage or anything to that effect. And if the automatic return is malfunctioning, the circulation desk person is probably in the back room trying to fix it.) If we could just pop books into a manual slot, we wouldn't be getting stressed and frustrated when the automatic return malfunctions or the person in front of us has 20 items. (Or maybe they wouldn't even be in front of us because they'd just pop their 20 items into the manual slot and be out of there in 30 seconds.) I think most people would continue to use the automatic returns because they verify that your item has in fact been checked in - plus, they're fun! - but simply making them optional would vastly reduce frustration.
1. Let it accept more than one item at once. The self checkout and scan multiple items at once (my personal record is six large hardcover books), but the return slot can only handle one at a time. This is irritating when the person in front of you is returning a lot of things at once. The other day I was behind a lady with two small children who were returning a total of 20 items. This is a reasonable number of children's picture books to check out for two children over a 3-week loan period, but it takes for-fricking-ever to scan them all in one at a time. A massive line formed behind this family, and there was nothing that could be done to expedite the process.
2. Continue to have a manual return slot. I've seen manual return slots at other libraries that have automatic returns, but mine doesn't have one. So if there's a line for the automatic return or the automatic return is malfunctioning, there doesn't appear to be any alternative. (I recently learned that you can also hand the book to the person at the circulation desk, but there's no signage or anything to that effect. And if the automatic return is malfunctioning, the circulation desk person is probably in the back room trying to fix it.) If we could just pop books into a manual slot, we wouldn't be getting stressed and frustrated when the automatic return malfunctions or the person in front of us has 20 items. (Or maybe they wouldn't even be in front of us because they'd just pop their 20 items into the manual slot and be out of there in 30 seconds.) I think most people would continue to use the automatic returns because they verify that your item has in fact been checked in - plus, they're fun! - but simply making them optional would vastly reduce frustration.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
My farmer's market dilemma
There is a farmer's market in my neighbourhood. I'm glad there is, because it's only a very recent development. For most of the time I've lived here, we haven't had a farmer's market.
However, most of the booths aren't really farmers. They're selling baguettes or macrons or local organic vegan lunch. I prefer the few booths that are farmers - I want to be able to buy fresh produce from someone who can have an informed conversation about the quality of the produce and the realities of growing it.
The problem: the quality of produce available from the actual farmers at the farmer's market isn't as good as the quality of produce available from small neighbourhood stores like Summer's Best, or sometimes even the quality of produce available from the local Metro supermarket.
The asparagus at the market is wimpy and skinny, whereas Summer's Best and its peers have nice fat asparagus. The varieties of apples at the market are non-yummy, whereas the greengrocers and the supermarkets at least have McIntosh. And the farmer's market is never cheaper, and is often more expensive.
I'm torn. I want to support the farmer's market so there will continue to be a farmer's market right in my neighbourhood. I want to support the farmers selling fresh produce so farmers will continue to sell fresh produce at a farmer's market right in my neighbourhood. But I also want the better produce. I want to buy the better produce in order to create demand for the better produce and incentivize produce sellers to sell the stuff that I like right in my neighbourhood. Plus, of course, I want to eat the yummiest possible food.
I do get that the farmer's market might need some time and TLC to take off, and I want to give it the opportunity it needs. But where's the threshold?
However, most of the booths aren't really farmers. They're selling baguettes or macrons or local organic vegan lunch. I prefer the few booths that are farmers - I want to be able to buy fresh produce from someone who can have an informed conversation about the quality of the produce and the realities of growing it.
The problem: the quality of produce available from the actual farmers at the farmer's market isn't as good as the quality of produce available from small neighbourhood stores like Summer's Best, or sometimes even the quality of produce available from the local Metro supermarket.
The asparagus at the market is wimpy and skinny, whereas Summer's Best and its peers have nice fat asparagus. The varieties of apples at the market are non-yummy, whereas the greengrocers and the supermarkets at least have McIntosh. And the farmer's market is never cheaper, and is often more expensive.
I'm torn. I want to support the farmer's market so there will continue to be a farmer's market right in my neighbourhood. I want to support the farmers selling fresh produce so farmers will continue to sell fresh produce at a farmer's market right in my neighbourhood. But I also want the better produce. I want to buy the better produce in order to create demand for the better produce and incentivize produce sellers to sell the stuff that I like right in my neighbourhood. Plus, of course, I want to eat the yummiest possible food.
I do get that the farmer's market might need some time and TLC to take off, and I want to give it the opportunity it needs. But where's the threshold?
Monday, May 05, 2014
Summer's Best (a.k.a. where to get Cortland apples in Toronto right now)
Summer's Best is a small store selling produce, flowers, and an assortment of other foodstuffs.
I feel moved to blog about them because they not only have Cortland apples (yes, now!), but these apples are decent-sized and smell like apples (yes, now!)
(Apples often lose their smell in the off-season, probably as a result of however they store them, so when fall rolls around and the first apples of the new fall harvest appear in the farmer's market the first thing I notice is that the apples smell like apples again.)
Neither Metro nor Loblaws nor any of the other small produce stores I've passed by have Cortlands, but Summer's Best does.
So if you're in the Yonge Eglinton neighbourhood and looking for Ontario produce that's still available and yummy even though it isn't in season, try Summer's Best. It's at 2563 Yonge St., just north of Sherwood.
Update: As of May 8, they seem to be out of Cortlands :( I still recommend the store though.
I feel moved to blog about them because they not only have Cortland apples (yes, now!), but these apples are decent-sized and smell like apples (yes, now!)
(Apples often lose their smell in the off-season, probably as a result of however they store them, so when fall rolls around and the first apples of the new fall harvest appear in the farmer's market the first thing I notice is that the apples smell like apples again.)
Neither Metro nor Loblaws nor any of the other small produce stores I've passed by have Cortlands, but Summer's Best does.
So if you're in the Yonge Eglinton neighbourhood and looking for Ontario produce that's still available and yummy even though it isn't in season, try Summer's Best. It's at 2563 Yonge St., just north of Sherwood.
Update: As of May 8, they seem to be out of Cortlands :( I still recommend the store though.
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
Journalism wanted: why aren't Hydro workers electricians?
I just blogged that Hydro workers should be allowed to reconnect homeowners' equipment in order to facilitate power outage recovery.
Then I read an article about what the Hydro CEO was doing during the outage, which mentions in passing:
So why aren't Hydro workers electricians? They're working with electricity. They're connecting bigger wires than electricians usually work with, so it seems like they should be able to be electricians. Are they actually unable to do the work of electricians? Or is this merely a certification issue? Or is it a jurisdiction issue?
What would it take for Hydro workers to be electricians? Would they have to learn new skills? Or just get an additional certification?
I hate it when I walk away from a newspaper article with my questions than I went in with.
Then I read an article about what the Hydro CEO was doing during the outage, which mentions in passing:
(My emphasis.)Meanwhile, workers report that, after finally restoring power in many neighbourhoods, they are being forced to disconnect some houses because of damage done to stand pipes, the hollow masts usually mounted on rooftops that serve as a conduit for power cables to enter a dwelling. A bent or broken stand pipe poses a risk of fire, and it’s the homeowner’s responsibility to have it fixed by a qualified electrician.Hydro workers are not electricians.
So why aren't Hydro workers electricians? They're working with electricity. They're connecting bigger wires than electricians usually work with, so it seems like they should be able to be electricians. Are they actually unable to do the work of electricians? Or is this merely a certification issue? Or is it a jurisdiction issue?
What would it take for Hydro workers to be electricians? Would they have to learn new skills? Or just get an additional certification?
I hate it when I walk away from a newspaper article with my questions than I went in with.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
To what extent is the media responsible for Rob Ford being mayor of Toronto?
Very little about this Rob Ford saga has surprised me.
I mean, I wouldn't have guessed crack and cunnilingus specifically, but, extrapolating his public behaviour before becoming mayor, I was completely unsurprised by drunkenness, drug use, sexual harassment, and anger issues. When rumours of organized crime affiliation first reached my ears (shortly after Gawker first reported on the crack video story - long before the official police reports started coming) my first thought was "That would explain everything!" When the video of him ranting and raving and threatening to kill someone came out, I was rather surprised that there weren't already similar videos in public circulation. He strikes me as having enough anger issues that this wouldn't be an unusual occurrence. (Although maybe that's why there's no video - perhaps it's business as usual Chez Ford?)
Basically, everything that has come to light has been within the range of what I would have expected of him back when he was running for mayor.
So why did so many people not see this coming?
And to what extent it this the media's fault that they didn't?
Heather Mallick has written that perhaps the media has been too polite to Ford. But I think it's eve moreo than that. I think the problem was that the media was automatically treating him as a frontrunner in the 2010 mayoral election. As I blogged about during the last Toronto election, there were some 40 mayoral candidates, but the media treated only a handful of them as remotely viable candidates. And this handful included Rob Ford.
With 40 candidates, surely any viable position must be duplicated in there somewhere. And, with 40 candidates, surely there must be a few people who are less problematic individuals than Rob Ford.
Should the media have been covering others more prominently and treating them more seriously rather than treating Ford as a front-runner (and for far longer than a municipal election even deserves to be covered for) just because, like, they've heard of him?
But they did treat him as a front-runner, which may have led some voters to think that he must be a viable and reasonable candidate. Toronto is a city with a lot of newcomers - both from other countries and from other parts of Canada. We're probably more dependent on the media to contextualize our elections than other communities with fewer newcomers would be. How many people weren't completely up on Ford's history but were led to believe that he would be a reasonable candidate because the media had placed him in the top 5 out of 40, and then in the top 30 out of 40?
Lately I've been seeing articles being tweeted into my twitter feed proposing various people as candidates for the 2014 mayoral election. I'm not happy about this, because the last municipal election lasted way too long and it's even earlier now. But this also has me wondering whether this premature coverage is leading to the same kind of premature declaration of frontrunners that may have given us Ford in the first place...
I mean, I wouldn't have guessed crack and cunnilingus specifically, but, extrapolating his public behaviour before becoming mayor, I was completely unsurprised by drunkenness, drug use, sexual harassment, and anger issues. When rumours of organized crime affiliation first reached my ears (shortly after Gawker first reported on the crack video story - long before the official police reports started coming) my first thought was "That would explain everything!" When the video of him ranting and raving and threatening to kill someone came out, I was rather surprised that there weren't already similar videos in public circulation. He strikes me as having enough anger issues that this wouldn't be an unusual occurrence. (Although maybe that's why there's no video - perhaps it's business as usual Chez Ford?)
Basically, everything that has come to light has been within the range of what I would have expected of him back when he was running for mayor.
So why did so many people not see this coming?
And to what extent it this the media's fault that they didn't?
Heather Mallick has written that perhaps the media has been too polite to Ford. But I think it's eve moreo than that. I think the problem was that the media was automatically treating him as a frontrunner in the 2010 mayoral election. As I blogged about during the last Toronto election, there were some 40 mayoral candidates, but the media treated only a handful of them as remotely viable candidates. And this handful included Rob Ford.
With 40 candidates, surely any viable position must be duplicated in there somewhere. And, with 40 candidates, surely there must be a few people who are less problematic individuals than Rob Ford.
Should the media have been covering others more prominently and treating them more seriously rather than treating Ford as a front-runner (and for far longer than a municipal election even deserves to be covered for) just because, like, they've heard of him?
But they did treat him as a front-runner, which may have led some voters to think that he must be a viable and reasonable candidate. Toronto is a city with a lot of newcomers - both from other countries and from other parts of Canada. We're probably more dependent on the media to contextualize our elections than other communities with fewer newcomers would be. How many people weren't completely up on Ford's history but were led to believe that he would be a reasonable candidate because the media had placed him in the top 5 out of 40, and then in the top 30 out of 40?
Lately I've been seeing articles being tweeted into my twitter feed proposing various people as candidates for the 2014 mayoral election. I'm not happy about this, because the last municipal election lasted way too long and it's even earlier now. But this also has me wondering whether this premature coverage is leading to the same kind of premature declaration of frontrunners that may have given us Ford in the first place...
Friday, August 23, 2013
A public apology to Eddie Izzard
Dear Eddie Izzard,
During one of your May 2010 shows at Massey Hall in Toronto, you asked the audience who or what Massey Hall was named after. Various people shouted out various things, and, to our utter delight, you picked up on our answer of "Vincent Massey." You asked who he was, we replied "Governor General", you asked what that was, we replied "Queen's representative", and then you segued neatly into your thoughts on the monarchy, pausing only to remark that some guy on the other side of the audience kept randomly shouting out "Tractors!"
I've only just learned we gave you completely incorrect information. Vincent Massey was in fact Governor General of Canada, but in the 1950s. Massey Hall was built in the 1890s, before Vincent Massey was even born. Its construction was funded by Hart Massey, Vincent Massey's grandfather, with a family fortune made by, among other things, manufacturing tractors.
I apologize unreservedly for giving you incorrect information and causing you to repeat it publicly as though it were fact. All I can say is that it simply never occurred to us that Massey Hall might not be named after the most famous Massey, after whom so many other things are named. Obviously I should have been more careful. When we see you again in November, if you should choose to pose any questions to the audience, I promise to only answer if I'm certain, not if I just think I have a logical extrapolation from common knowledge.
I would also like to apologize profusely to the people who were saying "tractors". You were completely right and we were completely wrong, and yet we stole your moment from you and made your Eddie Izzard experience less perfect. I truly do hope you'll be able to get your own moment in November. Maybe Eddie will ask the same question again (it seems like the sort of thing that might be part of a standard show-opening arsenal), and you can give your answer and we'll all get a different choose your own adventure.
During one of your May 2010 shows at Massey Hall in Toronto, you asked the audience who or what Massey Hall was named after. Various people shouted out various things, and, to our utter delight, you picked up on our answer of "Vincent Massey." You asked who he was, we replied "Governor General", you asked what that was, we replied "Queen's representative", and then you segued neatly into your thoughts on the monarchy, pausing only to remark that some guy on the other side of the audience kept randomly shouting out "Tractors!"
I've only just learned we gave you completely incorrect information. Vincent Massey was in fact Governor General of Canada, but in the 1950s. Massey Hall was built in the 1890s, before Vincent Massey was even born. Its construction was funded by Hart Massey, Vincent Massey's grandfather, with a family fortune made by, among other things, manufacturing tractors.
I apologize unreservedly for giving you incorrect information and causing you to repeat it publicly as though it were fact. All I can say is that it simply never occurred to us that Massey Hall might not be named after the most famous Massey, after whom so many other things are named. Obviously I should have been more careful. When we see you again in November, if you should choose to pose any questions to the audience, I promise to only answer if I'm certain, not if I just think I have a logical extrapolation from common knowledge.
I would also like to apologize profusely to the people who were saying "tractors". You were completely right and we were completely wrong, and yet we stole your moment from you and made your Eddie Izzard experience less perfect. I truly do hope you'll be able to get your own moment in November. Maybe Eddie will ask the same question again (it seems like the sort of thing that might be part of a standard show-opening arsenal), and you can give your answer and we'll all get a different choose your own adventure.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Eddie Izzard Canadian tour (and how to convince Massey Hall to sell you tickets)
Eddie Izzard is touring Canada in November and tickets just went on sale with the presale code BEES.
To buy from Massey Hall, you need to go to the Massey Hall site (not Ticketmaster), create an account, and log into the account with BEES in the presale field. Then navigate through the calendar to the date you want (November 13-16) and that's where it will give you the link to buy.
It wasn't working earlier today when the presale started, but it just worked for me.
On a personal note, this is very exciting for me because I'm completely unspoiled for this show. For Stripped, I was convinced he wouldn't come to Canada so I sought out bootlegs, and by the time he finally came here I knew the material already - but I was still belly laughing for three hours straight! This time I have no idea what's coming, so I'll be seeing new Eddie Izzard material for the first time in five years (!) and I'll be seeing it live and in person!
To buy from Massey Hall, you need to go to the Massey Hall site (not Ticketmaster), create an account, and log into the account with BEES in the presale field. Then navigate through the calendar to the date you want (November 13-16) and that's where it will give you the link to buy.
It wasn't working earlier today when the presale started, but it just worked for me.
On a personal note, this is very exciting for me because I'm completely unspoiled for this show. For Stripped, I was convinced he wouldn't come to Canada so I sought out bootlegs, and by the time he finally came here I knew the material already - but I was still belly laughing for three hours straight! This time I have no idea what's coming, so I'll be seeing new Eddie Izzard material for the first time in five years (!) and I'll be seeing it live and in person!
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Things They Should Invent: emergency information robocalls for power outages
My power didn't go out in the storm earlier this week, but, being a bit of a Twitter stormwatcher, I did occasionally look at Toronto Hydro's Twitter feed to watch the show. However, as many people have noted, using the internet for primary method of communication during a power outage is problematic. People's personal internet access is going to be out, so only those whose cellphones have internet (and haven't run out of battery yet) and those who aren't currently in the power outage area can access the information. This means that the information is going to be less available to more vulnerable people (elderly, poorer, etc.) who are also likely to be less resilient to difficulties of a power outage.
Here's a simple solution: if there's a power outage, Hydro automatically robocalls affected customers telling them the status, the size of the area affected, and the ETA for power restoration. When the status has changed significantly (ETA has changed, or area affected is significantly smaller), they send out another robocall.
People could opt in or out of emergency robocalls, so those who do have smartphones without landlines wouldn't have to use up valuable battery life fielding phone calls that give them no new information.
Perhaps they could also have mass text messaging (for people who don't have data plans - or if data isn't working due to the outage) since that's less of a drain on the battery than a ringing phone.
In any case, methods of immediate and automatic information distribution that aren't dependent upon electricity do exist. They should make use of these during power outages.
Here's a simple solution: if there's a power outage, Hydro automatically robocalls affected customers telling them the status, the size of the area affected, and the ETA for power restoration. When the status has changed significantly (ETA has changed, or area affected is significantly smaller), they send out another robocall.
People could opt in or out of emergency robocalls, so those who do have smartphones without landlines wouldn't have to use up valuable battery life fielding phone calls that give them no new information.
Perhaps they could also have mass text messaging (for people who don't have data plans - or if data isn't working due to the outage) since that's less of a drain on the battery than a ringing phone.
In any case, methods of immediate and automatic information distribution that aren't dependent upon electricity do exist. They should make use of these during power outages.
Friday, June 07, 2013
Why board up houses when you're going to tear them down anyway?
A group of houses on my street have been bought by a developer who plans to tear them down to build condos. I have no objection to that - it's a highrise neighbourhood. However, they've boarded up the windows of the houses, which makes them look run down and derelict and creates a dead zone on the street. (This is particularly frustrating since they hadn't even submitted their development application to city hall when they started boarding the houses up, so they created this dead zone without making any progress towards renewal.)
Why would you board up houses that you're going to tear down anyway? Are you worried that someone will break in and start wrecking them before you can start wrecking them yourself? Why not just put plain solid white cheap blinds/curtains in the window (or even board them up on the inside with a piece of wallboard or something else white) so they won't look so conspicuously abandoned to passers-by? That would actually probably reduce the likelihood that people would mess around with them - if you see a house with the blinds closed and no one going in or out at that exact moment, you assume someone is home and just not going in or out at that exact moment. You'd have to pay close attention and perhaps even stake it out to notice that it's empty, whereas the boards make it look abandoned from a distance.
I don't care that they're tearing down houses or that they want to build a big condo tower, but I really resent that they're doing this in a way that makes it look so empty and abandoned. My neighbourhood feels very safe at all hours of the day and night, and this is because it's alive. There are people walking around, going in and out of homes and shops and restaurants. When I'm walking around alone after dark, if I ever feel unsafe, I can duck into any of the many businesses that are still open or even into another residential building if I can manage to follow someone in. If a bad guy is following me, they don't know where I might be going, which door might have witnesses behind it who are expecting me. But these boarded-up houses are clearly not where I'm going. They clearly don't have someone inside waiting for me. They're just a dead zone that doesn't contribute to the life of the street.
Why go to all the trouble of boarding up the houses and making them look derelict when you could just do nothing and leave them looking unremarkable?
Why would you board up houses that you're going to tear down anyway? Are you worried that someone will break in and start wrecking them before you can start wrecking them yourself? Why not just put plain solid white cheap blinds/curtains in the window (or even board them up on the inside with a piece of wallboard or something else white) so they won't look so conspicuously abandoned to passers-by? That would actually probably reduce the likelihood that people would mess around with them - if you see a house with the blinds closed and no one going in or out at that exact moment, you assume someone is home and just not going in or out at that exact moment. You'd have to pay close attention and perhaps even stake it out to notice that it's empty, whereas the boards make it look abandoned from a distance.
I don't care that they're tearing down houses or that they want to build a big condo tower, but I really resent that they're doing this in a way that makes it look so empty and abandoned. My neighbourhood feels very safe at all hours of the day and night, and this is because it's alive. There are people walking around, going in and out of homes and shops and restaurants. When I'm walking around alone after dark, if I ever feel unsafe, I can duck into any of the many businesses that are still open or even into another residential building if I can manage to follow someone in. If a bad guy is following me, they don't know where I might be going, which door might have witnesses behind it who are expecting me. But these boarded-up houses are clearly not where I'm going. They clearly don't have someone inside waiting for me. They're just a dead zone that doesn't contribute to the life of the street.
Why go to all the trouble of boarding up the houses and making them look derelict when you could just do nothing and leave them looking unremarkable?
Friday, January 11, 2013
Why would you write a newspaper article if you don't have enough to say?
Recently in the news: school board director Chris Spence plagiarized parts of an article he wrote for the Toronto Star.
Here's what I don't get: if he had to resort to plagiarism, why was he writing a newspaper article in the first place? Unlike students who plagiarize, he didn't have to write an article. It wasn't an assignment. He wouldn't flunk if he didn't do it. Unlike Margaret Wente, it wasn't his job. He has a whole job that, I'm sure, keeps him fully occupied. How did it even occur to him to write an article if he had so little to say that he had to plagiarize?
I'm pretty sure that people have to proactively submit op-eds to newspapers rather than the newspaper soliciting them, so he could have just not done it and no one would have noticed. Even if the paper did solicit an article from him, he could have just said "I'm terribly sorry, but I'm afraid I'm just too busy with my duties as director of TDSB to write an article. However, I'd be happy to give an interview."
So why did he do it?
Here's what I don't get: if he had to resort to plagiarism, why was he writing a newspaper article in the first place? Unlike students who plagiarize, he didn't have to write an article. It wasn't an assignment. He wouldn't flunk if he didn't do it. Unlike Margaret Wente, it wasn't his job. He has a whole job that, I'm sure, keeps him fully occupied. How did it even occur to him to write an article if he had so little to say that he had to plagiarize?
I'm pretty sure that people have to proactively submit op-eds to newspapers rather than the newspaper soliciting them, so he could have just not done it and no one would have noticed. Even if the paper did solicit an article from him, he could have just said "I'm terribly sorry, but I'm afraid I'm just too busy with my duties as director of TDSB to write an article. However, I'd be happy to give an interview."
So why did he do it?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Why do paper grocery bags exist?
Picture a paper grocery bag:
They're terribly inconvenient, aren't they?
You can carry a maximum of two, and you'd have to put them down every time you want to do up your coat, open a door, swipe your metropass, answer your phone, or get your keys out of your purse. If a bottle leaks or it's rainy or snowy out, a paper bag disintegrates. (And, again, if you have more than one bag, you don't have the option of carrying an umbrella.) It's extremely difficult to do another errand after groceries, because you'd have to put down your bags to select something off a store shelf or reach for your wallet. Because you're limited to two bags, the likelihood of your peaches getting squished increases.
And yet, they persist. Someone invented them, someone approved the idea, and the idea is common enough that if you do a google image search for "groceries", a good number of the images are paper bags so brimming full that, in real life, some of your produce would end up on the subway floor.
The first day after paper bags displaced plastic at my the LCBO, I wasn't able to leave the store with my purchase. I was already carrying several shopping bags which were too full for me to add bottles. The LCBO cashier handed me my purchase in a paper bag, and I couldn't carry it along with all my other shopping. There just wasn't room in my hands and arms. I had to have them do a return on my purchase and give me my money back, because it wasn't physically possible for me to get my purchase home that day.
And yet, enough people think these things are a reasonable replacement for plastic bags that they got all the way through whatever approval process the LCBO has. And now people are acting as though they're reasonable replacements for all plastic bags when the short-sighted, ill-conceived city-wide ban on plastic bags goes into effect. (The most frustrating thing was when I wrote to elected representatives encouraging them to vote against the ban and telling them about my idea of using biodegradable plastic bags, which will make environmentally optimal behaviour effortless for citizens, and they wrote back "reassuring" me that paper bags would still be permitted.)
What are these people doing that they find paper useful for anything other than ripening fruit?
They're terribly inconvenient, aren't they?
You can carry a maximum of two, and you'd have to put them down every time you want to do up your coat, open a door, swipe your metropass, answer your phone, or get your keys out of your purse. If a bottle leaks or it's rainy or snowy out, a paper bag disintegrates. (And, again, if you have more than one bag, you don't have the option of carrying an umbrella.) It's extremely difficult to do another errand after groceries, because you'd have to put down your bags to select something off a store shelf or reach for your wallet. Because you're limited to two bags, the likelihood of your peaches getting squished increases.
And yet, they persist. Someone invented them, someone approved the idea, and the idea is common enough that if you do a google image search for "groceries", a good number of the images are paper bags so brimming full that, in real life, some of your produce would end up on the subway floor.
The first day after paper bags displaced plastic at my the LCBO, I wasn't able to leave the store with my purchase. I was already carrying several shopping bags which were too full for me to add bottles. The LCBO cashier handed me my purchase in a paper bag, and I couldn't carry it along with all my other shopping. There just wasn't room in my hands and arms. I had to have them do a return on my purchase and give me my money back, because it wasn't physically possible for me to get my purchase home that day.
And yet, enough people think these things are a reasonable replacement for plastic bags that they got all the way through whatever approval process the LCBO has. And now people are acting as though they're reasonable replacements for all plastic bags when the short-sighted, ill-conceived city-wide ban on plastic bags goes into effect. (The most frustrating thing was when I wrote to elected representatives encouraging them to vote against the ban and telling them about my idea of using biodegradable plastic bags, which will make environmentally optimal behaviour effortless for citizens, and they wrote back "reassuring" me that paper bags would still be permitted.)
What are these people doing that they find paper useful for anything other than ripening fruit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)