Journalism Wanted: if you evacuate a plane and leave your belongings behind, what happens next?

If you're on a plane that crashes and you have to evacuate, you're supposed to leave your belongings behind. And every time there is a plane crash that makes the news, you hear about people trying to bring their belongings with them.

 

An easy way to prevent this would be to widely publicize what actually, in real life, happens to people who evacuate a plane and find themselves on the tarmac of a strange airport in a strange country with only the clothes on their back. (Which might not even include coat and shoes, because sometimes people make themselves comfortable on airplanes.)

 

What measures are in place to keep people safe? How do they avoid the pitfalls we can all anticipate, and those we can't?

 

Suppose your passport is on the plane. You're in a foreign country with no passport and no ID. Maybe it isn't your destination country and you aren't actually legally permitted to enter that country. What measures are in place to regularize your presence so you don't get arrested and imprisoned? What if the country you're in isn't safe for people of your demographic?

 

Suppose your wallet is on the plane. You have no money and no cards. How do you get all the things you need, including random incidentals like menstrual pads and eczema cream?

 

Suppose you lose your driver's licence in the plane crash and need to drive home from the airport. What provisions are in place to keep the cops from arresting you for driving without a licence?

 

What if your baby's car seat is in the plane? How do you safely and legally get, like, anywhere? 

 

To what extent are they assuming goodwill ("Don't be silly, the authorities won't arrest you for being in a foreign country without a passport if you've just been in a plane crash!") vs. having actual procedures in place ("This is your official internationally recognized Plane Crash Survivor card")?

If they actually want people to leave their belongings behind, they need to let people know what measures are in place to protect them. But I've never seen anyone report on this - it's always just "These plane crash survivors are Bad and Wrong for trying to collect their belongings!"

Saving for a down payment is not the only barrier to housing affordability

Discourse about homebuying affordability often focuses on saving up for a down payment - which, of course, is a major, time-consuming endeavour. (It took me 10 years, and I was buying at 2012 preconstruction prices!)

 

But another important consideration is how much mortgage you quality for based on your income. A 20% down payment is insufficient if the mortgage you qualify for is less than 80% of the purchase price.

 

An example of this fallacy is this recent Toronto Star article about "starter home" affordability.

Toronto in 2021

Time to save for down payment: 20+ years

What is Toronto’s starter home of this decade? In short, it’s further from the core, harder to attain and requires decades’ worth of savings.

Looking at properties that fell around 20 per cent below the average cost in 2021, there were still some bungalows in the mix, such as a raised bungalow that hit the market in the Scarborough neighbourhood of Birchcliffe-Cliffside. A property listing describes the house’s interiors as “well maintained but dated.”

It was offered in as-is, where-is condition, meaning the seller wouldn’t be making any repairs for the new buyer. “Buy to renovate or rebuild,” it suggested.

Like so many properties across Toronto last year, it sold for well above its listing price. Four days after records show it was listed for $699,900, it went for nearly $200,000 more, with a sale price of $875,000.

To reach a 20 per cent down payment, an individual or family would be tasked with tucking away a whopping $175,000. The median household income across the city last year was $84,000 — meaning this “starter” home would take more than 20 years of savings.

This is all true, but let's also look at the mortgage situation.

Median household income last year was $84,000.

Using Tangerine's "How much can I borrow?" calculator (because that's the one I find most user-friendly), with an income of $84,000, the $175,000 down payment calculated above, and all the other settings left to default, we get a total mortgage of $432,946.

 

$432,946 mortgage + $175,000 down payment = $607,946

$875,000 sale price - $607,946 = $267,054

$267,054 / $8,400 annual savings rate = 31.7921428571

 

So it would take an additional almost 32 years, on top of the 20 years calculated by the Star article, to save up enough of a down payment to fill in the gap between mortgage eligibility and sale price. That is a total of 52 years of saving up to buy your first home!

 

Alternatively, to qualify for a mortgage that would fill the $607,946 gap between the $175,000 down payment and the $875,000 sale price, you'd need an annual household income of $116,080 - 38% higher than the median. (I arrived at this number by fiddling with the inputs in the mortgage calculator. If you know a link to a calculator that determines the income needed to qualify for a given size of mortgage - or if you know the formula for calculating this - drop it in the comments so everyone can run the numbers themselves!)

 

So yes, saving up for a 20% down payment in an over-inflated housing market is a major challenge!

 

But it is not the entirety of the challenge. The average household would still be nowhere near able to afford a "starter home" with just a 20% down payment.

 

Discourse surrounding the challenges of the housing market needs to make it clear that a 20% down payment is not the only barrier to affordability.

Things that are getting worse

A strong narrative early in the pandemic was also if we do the right things, we'll be okay. Mask up, stay home, be kind, we'll get through this.

 

I've been noticing lately that this element of reassuring people it will be okay is gone from the narrative. They're removing protections, but there's no "It's okay now" to it.

 

I fully realize there was a propaganda element to the messaging that everything will be fine, but now it isn't even an element of propaganda. There seems to be no more interest by those in power in having people think we'll be okay. Early in the pandemic, much of my translation work was morale-related. I haven't seen any attempt to boost or maintain morale in a very long time.

***

A similarly strong narrative when I was growing up was the idea that if you do what you're supposed to, things will turn out well. Go to school, get good grades, get a good job, you'll be able to support yourself and build a better life for your family. 

 

I'm not seeing this narrative around lately. I've even seen some voices acting like it's unreasonable to expect to be able to raise a family or even support oneself on a given job. Those in power complain that no one wants to work, while disavowing the employer's end of the bargain.

Again, I know there's an element of propaganda to the messaging that if you work hard you'll be successful. I know from Thomas Piketty that the economic success this messaging promises is specific to a brief period in the mid-20th century. But, again, it's telling that they aren't even attempting this messaging any more, aren't even hinting that there might be something better or different. It's just "Work or you're Bad and Wrong."

***

Another mid-20th-century narrative, often used in WWII, was the notion of sacrificing for the greater good. I keep thinking about this, thinking about how they used a sort of WWII narrative early in the pandemic, and how that contrasts with the current state of removing protections and asking people (especially school children!) to sacrifice for . . . nothing. 

 

Nothing is gained by allowing COVID to rip through society. It doesn't make anything better for anyone. Some people say that they're doing this for the economy, but it doesn't help the economy to have millions ill or disabled (or dead). They're actively removing protective measures that actually help the greater good, and instead making people sacrifice for nothing.

***

As a second-generation Canadian, the very premise of the origin story I was raised with was a better life for one's children. My grandparents' jobs were worse, my parents jobs were better. My grandparents' houses were smaller and older, my parents' house was bigger and newer.

But that dream stopped with my parents' generation. I've never been able to afford a house like my parents', even out in the small town where we lived. I was, for a brief period of time, able to afford a house like my grandparents', but in today's market I no longer can.

In fact, in today's market, I could no longer afford my actual condo that I actually live in if I didn't already own it. My salary is 25% higher than it was when I bought my condo preconstruction 10 years ago, but the prices of condos in my building have nearly doubled in the same period of time.

I was looking at a Twitter thread about this - people who can no longer afford to live in places where they previously lived, even though they now make more money. And there were some comments - which, as far as I can tell, were from regular people, not, like, real estate speculators - to the effect of "Welcome to real life, suck it up and get roommates."

So not only is a better life for one's children implausible, but a not-constantly-getting-worse life for oneself is so implausible that there are regular people who think it's unreasonable to be able to afford the same home you lived in when you were making less money.

***

Years ago, after I missed an unprecedented and never-since-repeated Eddie Izzard work in progress show here in Toronto, I set up a Google Alert for Eddie Izzard. I deliberately have it set to "all results" rather than "best results", which means the signal to noise ratio is not so good - it includes casual passing mentions of Eddie, not just items about her. (This blog post will probably show up in it.) But it only takes a second to scroll through in my feed reader, and I now don't have to worry about missing anything.

Recently, there has been a massive surge in transphobia in this Google Alert feed. When I started out, it often went months without any transphobia whatsoever. Now I'm seeing transphobia almost every day. Same transgender public figure, same wide-scope Google Alert, but tons more transphobia than a decade ago.

In 2010, advice columnist Dan Savage started the It Gets Better Project, with the goal of preventing suicide in queer youth by talking to them about how life will improve in adulthood. I agree with his thesis and it aligns with my experience (I can walk down the street and people ignore me!), but it also seems like it isn't happening any more, at least not on a societal/longitudinal level. Discourse is reaching me where queerness is being equated with pedophilia, which is not something I've heard since the 20th century.

This kind of thing should be an appalling horror story of the olden days that Kids Today cannot fathom, not an actual thing that's actually happening in reality!

 

***

There's a conventional wisdom that people's mental health is worsening. Some people are quick to blame remote work or online school, as though proximity to random people without regard for compatibility is some kind of mental health panacea.

But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the root of worsening mental health is that so many things are getting worse that the idea of things getting better has become so implausible that it isn't even part of propaganda.

How to get people to have more children

Recently in the news: a proposal to tax the childless in order to incentivize people to have children. 

 

That will never work.

 

Here are some things that will work:

1. Fix the formula shortage, and prevent it from ever happening again. Less than 100% of parents can produce enough breast milk to meet 100% of their baby's needs, and you can't be certain that you'll produce enough milk until you're actually doing it. People would be much more willing to bring a child into the world if they could be confident that the child won't end up spending their whole short life starving to death.

2.  Stop COVID, and/or cure Long COVID. We're in a pandemic with a novel airborne virus that causes a post-viral syndrome that turns out to be worse than we thought with every study that's released, and public health protections are constantly being removed despite surging case numbers. People would be much more willing to bring a child into the world if they could be confident the child will live a healthy and comfortable life, rather than spending their whole life stymied by fatigue and vascular damage.

3. Stop climate change. People would be much more willing to bring a child into the world if they could be confident that the world will remain habitable for the child's entire life.

4. Fix the ratio of salaries to housing costs to education costs. People would be much more willing to bring a child into the world if they could be confident that they will always be able to provide the child with a suitable home and suitable education - and that the child will be able to afford those themselves when they grow up.

5. Make family life affordable on a single paycheque. If you aren't able to provide a good life for a child on your paycheque alone, then you have to wait to have a child until you find someone who a) would make a compatible lifelong partner for you, b) who is compatible not just as a partner but as a housemate and c) makes enough money to make up for your paycheque shortfall. Each of these alone is a major challenge - it's a wonder anyone in the world can find anyone who meets all three requirements! However, if it's feasible to provide a good life for your child singlehandedly, you can have a child without having to worry about your partner's earning potential, or with a partner who wouldn't make a compatible housemate, or even with someone who wouldn't make a compatible lifelong partner. That would open up a lot more options for people who wouldn't otherwise be willing to bring a child into the world!

6. End hatred. Things like racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are on the rise, with the haters becoming bolder and more influential. People would be much more willing to bring a child into the world if they could be confident that the child isn't going to be subjected to hate crimes!

7. Make sure the terms and conditions of existence never get worse. After Roe vs. Wade was overturned in the US, a lot of people were talking about how shocking it is to suddenly live in a world where your children have fewer rights than you did at their age. Many people who chose early in the pandemic to carry a pregnancy to term likely did so on the assumption that those in power would continue doing what was necessary to protect us from COVID. When my parents made the decision to have kids, they had no idea that their children would not be growing up in the same economy they'd lived in their entire life.

   Like many people, I grew up constantly being told that everyone wants a better life for their children, so the idea that the terms and conditions of existence can change for the worse like this is terrifying. If those in power could prioritize preventing the terms and conditions of existence from changing for the worse, a lot more people would be willing to bring children into the world.
   

Cause and effect

In 2009, City of Toronto workers, including garbage collectors, went on strike because the employer was trying to take away their sick days and leave them with a much worse arrangement.

 

Media coverage at the time (including, bizarrely, the Toronto Star, whose stated principles explicitly include being pro-labour) villainized these workers, stoking public anger against them.

Rob Ford leveraged this anger to be elected as mayor.

Doug Ford leveraged Rob Ford's apparent popularity to be elected first as city councillor, then as MPP, and eventually as Premier of Ontario.

Where he took sick days away from workers in a pandemic, among many other disastrous policies.

Here in this third year of a pandemic that those in power have no desire to end, I wonder where we as a city and as a province would be if the City of Toronto hadn't tried to take away workers' sick days.

There wouldn't have been a strike. Rob Ford wouldn't have become mayor. Doug Ford would be running a label company (or would be city councillor at worst). Ontario would almost certainly have a government better suited to the task of getting us through a pandemic. (And also, Toronto municipal workers would have a better sick day regime and therefore be better able to avoid spreading COVID.) Toronto would likely have a different municipal government as well, since it was Rob Ford's mayorality that led to John Tory being considered even remotely palatable. (Remember in 2007 when Ontario rejected him for being too far right?)

***

On a personal note, there's one vital thing that would be different:

One change made under Rob Ford's mayorality was to contract out part of Toronto's garbage collection to Green For Life.

On February 17, 2018, at 2:30 in the morning, I was in bed fast asleep when I was frightened awake by a horrific noise.

I jumped out of bed, ran to the window to see what the noise was . . . and woke up on the floor with an enormous lump on the back of my head.

Every aspect of life has been more difficult since.

The source of the noise that frightened me awake? A Green For Life contractor seemed to think 2:30 in the morning is a good time to empty a dumpster into a dump truck.

Butterfly wings.

Grade 13

Recently in the news: a plan to bring back Grade 13.

 

We had Grade 13 (then called OAC, which stood for Ontario Academic Credit) when I was in high school, and what I found useful about it is it gave us an opportunity for greater independence within the high-school context.

 

About three quarters of Grade 13 students were 18 years old when the school year started in September, and everyone was 18 by the end of December. This is relevant because 18 is the age of majority, students over the age of 18 weren't subject to the same rules about care and custody (for lack of a better word - I think there's a specific term for this but it escapes me).

In practical terms, this meant that we could sign ourselves out of school rather than needing a note from our parents and we didn't need our parents to sign report cards or permission slips. In fact, our teachers were not legally allowed to meet with our parents without our permission!

 

OAC classes operated on the assumption that all their students were over 18. In practical terms, this meant that if the teacher was absent, class was cancelled rather than having a substitute teacher. There weren't any parent-teacher interviews. We were expected to manage our own education and our own time like adults.

 

At the same time, the societal expectation was that we were still high school students and our parents were still expected to care for and support us as such.

 

If a parent had kicked an 18-year-old high school student out of their home, other parents - even those who would have responded positively to kicking out an 18-year-old high-school graduate - would be just as appalled as if they had kicked out a 17-year-old

 

Young people who would have responded to a peer saying "I'm an 18-year-old first-year university student and I moved out of my parents' house!" with "Cool!" would have responded to "I'm an 18-year-old high-school student and I moved out of my parents' house!" with "Is everything okay?"

This meant that we were empowered like adults to manage our education and our time, without being expected to take on the full suite of adult responsibilities like paying bills and buying groceries and managing a household. It was a sort of training wheels for adulthood.

It also helped train our parents for our adulthood. Our educational structure moved away from parental permission or parental involvement even while we were living in our parents' homes, which prepared our parents for not having direct involvement in our post-secondary education - something that's even more important today when it's even more financially difficult for students and young adults to live independently from their parents!

 

I had an on-campus job in university when Ontario eliminated Grade 13, and I noticed an immediate difference in parental involvement when the first Grade 12 cohort arrived. Parents were contacting us directly or accompanying their kids in person even for mundane things like asking how to configure an email account, seemingly without any attempt by the student to do it independently. I was only a few years older, but that simply wasn't done in my cohort! 

So if they do end up re-introducing Grade 13, I hope they take into consideration that Grade 13 students are going to be legal adults, and create a system and structure that reflects that, rather than a system and structure that has young adults spending their first year as a legal adult being treated like a child.

***

Even though my own actual firsthand experience with Grade 13 is that it was positive and empowering (and even though my own actual firsthand experience is that I felt too young for university in my first year, even though I could handle it perfectly well), I think if I were a student who expected my high school only to go as far as Grade 12, I'd find it insulting that they want to keep me in high school and living with my parents for another year. 

 

Similarly, if I were an adult who had graduated high school after Grade 12, I'd feel insulted on behalf of the youth of today and tomorrow that they'd have their launch delayed another year. 

This is why it kind of surprises me that they'd put this in a platform with the presumed goal of winning votes for an election. I'd imagine there's a significant segment of the population who would see it as completely unnecessary and perhaps even verging on punitive - especially since it has always been possible for students to keep attending high school if they aren't able to graduate or get the courses they need in the allotted number of years (historically this has been called a "victory lap".)

***

A caveat: I've noticed in recent years that teens and young adults (or, at least, a big enough proportion of the teen and young adult voices that reach me for me to notice) seem to perceive being considered/thought of/treated like a child (as opposed to an adult) as more positive than I do. 

 

They seem to feel that if you're treated like a child, you're being protected and cared for. Meanwhile, my experience - even in retrospect - was that being treated like a child meant my agency being disregarded, with no increase in care or protection. (And often, in my experience, "care and protection" was the label given to disregarding my agency.)

 

So, because of this, it's possible that today's young people might not feel liberated by being treated like an adult as opposed to like a child.

However, I am also aware that adults all too often will read or hear something about Young People Today and use that to treat young people with less agency than they should. I can't tell whether I myself am falling into that trap.

So, as with all aspects of life, the important thing is to listen to the people actually involved - today's high school students and recent high school graduates.

Building a better Sunshine List

1. Remove all names.  

 

Lately, I've been seeing people talk about expanding the Sunshine List to include all public servants at all pay levels, or even all jobs in all sectors of the economy, arguing that this would be good for equity.

 

One major problem with this plan is privacy. You can google a person - not even looking for their salary! - and you'll find their sunshine list entry. I googled the couple who bought my parents' house, and the first thing that came up was the husband's salary. Surely there's no reason for the daughter of the people you're buying your house from to know how much money you make! More importantly, your abuser or your stalker can also find your pay information!

 

Listing position titles without names will help keep private personal information private and, at the same time, remove much of the arguments and incentives against expanding the Sunshine List to include all jobs. 

 

I'd also be okay with including equity information if equity-seeking groups think this would be helpful.

 

2. List all information that goes into determining compensation. 

 

What is the position title and classification? How much education and experience does this person have? How much overtime did they work? How many people do they supervise? How consequential is their work? Do lives depend on them? Maybe also provide a link to their job description (what even is a "systems analyst"??)

In addition to making it clear that the jobs actually involve, this would also help with the Sunshine List's actual stated intent of determining whether good use is being made of public funds. For example, if a particular department is paying the equivalent of five full-time jobs in overtime, maybe that's a sign they need to hire more people? If everyone in a particular department has over 30 years of experience, maybe it's time to start recruiting some new trainees before everyone retires?

It would also be useful to include temporary and contract workers working for or on behalf of the government. How much do the outsourced office cleaners make? How much do substitute teachers make? How much do the extra nurses brought in to staff the ER during the pandemic make?

 

3. Include thresholds for how much housing each salary can buy.

 

Many people (including me in an old blog post that I now can't find) have pointed out that the Sunshine List threshold hasn't changed since its inception in 1996, and it really should be indexed.

 

But I have a bolder option in mind: include multiple thresholds on the list corresponding with how much housing that salary would buy in the current market, local to the location of the job.

 

For example, "This job makes $X per year in a location where you can buy an average 1 bedroom if you earn $0.8X and an average 2 bedroom if you earn $1.2X." 

If a job doesn't pay enough for a home big enough to raise a family in, or even for a 1 bedroom apartment, that information needs to be front and centre.

As an example of why this is important, a 1-bedroom in my decent but unremarkable condo building in my decent but unremarkable Toronto neighbourhood recently sold for 150% of the mortgage amount you could get for $100K in the current market. So someone could be on the Sunshine List and, at the same time, not be able to afford a 1-bedroom condo just like mine! (If you're just tuning in, I'm not on the Sunshine List - I bought preconstruction a decade ago when prices were drastically lower.) 

 

Conversely, if the job pays so much you can afford, like, multiple detached houses, that would also be highly informative - far more informative than just a big number!

Why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Currently, there seems to be a shortage of political will to lock down to stop the surging omicron variant of COVID-19.

What I don't understand: if they're unwilling to lock down now, why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Usually if you ask this, people answer "because capitalism doesn't care about people's lives."

But we had the same capitalism in March 2020. And in March 2020, lockdowns were unprecedented - I don't think most ordinary people would have faulted the government for not locking down, because that just . . . wasn't a thing that we did. And in March 2020, we didn't know about Long COVID yet. (Or, at least, ordinary non-medical people whose lives hadn't yet been affected by post-viral syndrome didn't.) And in March 2020, it was less commonly known that COVID is airborne. 

 

Even if we think about it solely from the point of view of capitalism without regard for human decency, in March 2020 we didn't have so many people out sick that it was causing staffing shortages, closing nearly half of library branches and cancelling GO Transit trips.

 

As far as the general public could tell, capitalism could have chugged merrily along in March 2020 without issue, whereas the impacts are visible and tangible and undeniable in the omicron era.

So why were they willing to proceed with lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020?

To be clear, I'm not saying that they were wrong to do lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020. Rather, I'm saying that the argument for lockdowns and restrictions is far more compelling right now, and we're all old hands at it now. We all know how to zoom and pivot to takeout-only and choose the optimal grocery pickup slots.

So why were they willing to take then-unprecedented measures in March 2020, but aren't willing to take well-established measures now?

Vaccine conspiracy theory conspiracy theory

If I were to assemble the elements of the current situation into a conspiracy theory, that theory would be that people in positions of power were contributing to the spread of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and/or not working to debunk these theories to create conditions where those in positions of power would have to be at the front of the line for any vaccine roll-out in order to set an example.

If vaccine reluctance wasn't a thing, there would be no reason to vaccinate politicians and public figures ahead of front-line workers, health workers, food workers, etc. But now that vaccine reluctance is a thing, politicians and public figures can very publicly go straight to the front of the vaccine queue, be photographed getting their vaccine, and be lauded for setting a good example.

Journalism Wanted: where does Courtney Love get her COVID tests from?

Recently tweeted into my feed: Courtney Love says that wealthy people have had access to home COVID tests for months.

The article that was tweeted into my feed and others I've been able to google up basically reiterate the content of Courtney Love's original instagram post. 

But there a lot of questions here that some mild investigative journalism should be able to answer - or, at least, pinpoint the non-answers.

Who manufactures these tests? Who sells them? Are they out of reach to the general public because of price? Or because the test company will only sell to famous people? Or some other reason? How did Courtney Love and others like her find out about them in the first place? When Courtney Love wants to buy a COVID test, exactly what steps does she take? What would happen if a regular person who isn't rich and famous took those exact same steps? If someone asked Courtney Love where exactly she gets these tests from, what would her answer be? Would she decline to answer because they'd deny her tests if she leaked? Or for some other reason? Is manufacturing capacity limited? If so, what would it take to scale up?

Courtney Love's post flagged a problem, but didn't pinpoint what exactly the problem is. It could be anything from the utterly banal "home COVID tests cannot be produced at a sustainable price point" to the utterly terrifying "some malicious actor is trying to make sure only the rich and famous survive COVID by concealing the existence of convenient tests from the rest of us".

The job of journalism is to tell people what exactly the underlying problem here is, not just to transcribe Courtney Love's instagram posts. With a bit of investigative journalism, this would be a very interesting and probably very important story. But without the investigation, it's nothing but a celebrity gossip feed.

Toronto needs to remove snow not just from sidewalks, but from the areas around sidewalks

I was particularly disappointed to see that the City of Toronto isn't extending sidewalk snow clearing to areas of the city that don't yet receive this service, because that's a giant step in exactly the wrong direction. In a pandemic year we need even more than sidewalk snow clearing. To maintain physical distancing, we need areas around the sidewalk, like curb lanes and boulevards and the edges of lawns, to be cleared as well.

Pedestrian physical distancing isn't just a question of two "lanes" that need to be six feet apart. Faster walkers also need to pass slower walkers. Some people are walking dogs or herding children. Some people insist on walking two or three abreast. Some people are carrying bulky grocery bags. People with wheelchairs or walkers or fragile ankles need to be able to avoid walking on the curb cut.

To physically distance through all these variables - especially on older residential streets with narrow sidewalks - we need to use not just the sidewalk, but also lawns and curb lanes. The sidewalk on my own street is just barely six feet wide, so I'm always stepping off the sidewalk onto the street, or onto a lawn or driveway, so I can stay six feet away from other people. I probably step off into a curb lane or onto a lawn about three to five times in a typical block of walking.

And in snowy weather, curb lanes and lawns aren't available because they're covered in snow. The curb lanes are full of snow plow windrows, and lawns are, at a minimum, unshovelled, and, more often, covered in snow banks from sidewalk snow clearing.

What the City of Toronto needs to do is clear not just sidewalks, but also curb lanes and at least 3 feet of lawns that are adjacent to narrow sidewalks. (Q: Won't that damage the lawns? A: The City can replant the lawns in the spring. Lives are more important than lawns.) They need to truck away windrows that end up in the curb lane, and go around making sure sewer grates are clear so gutters don't fill up with water.

In the Old City of Toronto - the portion of the amalgamated city where sidewalks aren't cleared - all these sidewalk-related needs and pandemic-related needs are exacerbated. There is higher population density, more people walking as a primary form of transportation, and more people who don't have cars. Older sidewalks tend to be narrower, buildings tend to be closer to the sidewalk, and the curb lane tends to be right next to the sidewalk (rather than there being a boulevard between the sidewalk and the curb lane). Grocery stores and other necessities are more likely to be within walking distance, so more people are carrying bulky packages and rolling bundle buggies. More streets have businesses with patios and lineups and those signs that they put out on the sidewalk. 

In short, there are more people trying to physically distance in less space as the second wave of COVID balloons around us. The City needs to help its residents stay safe by extending snow clearing not just to all sidewalks, but to the areas around the sidewalks.

Disillusionment (Part 1)

This post contains descriptions of transphobia.

I never really thought about transgender before I became an Eddie Izzard fan.

I'm not transgender myself, my formal and informal education didn't include notions surrounding transgender, I didn't knowingly know any trans people, I'd never had to translate about anything remotely related to transgender . . . it was just one of the many subjects that wasn't on my radar.

Then, nearly 13 years ago, a google search took me to an Eddie Izzard video, which took me down a youtube rabbithole, which led me to my very first hero, role model, and inspiration. Eddie gave me a huge portion of what I needed to grow up from an insecure, uncertain young woman to a more confident, more competent middle-aged woman.

And, along the way, got me thinking about transgender.

I listened to what Eddie had to say in standup and in interviews about gender identity, googled some concepts that were new to me, and then let the ideas gently simmer while I went about the business of growing up.

As these ideas simmered, some realizations bubbled up.

I came to be able to discern my own gender identity, as separate from biology and socialization.

I came to recognize thoughts and feelings and reactions dating back to childhood that support this.

I came to see parallels between some of the experiences of trans people and some of my own experiences, which led me to stop seeing trans people as Other and start seeing them as people basically doing the same thing as I am, just from a slightly different starting point.

I became aware of trans people in my online and real-life communities.

I became aware that I should be listening and learning when people talk about their firsthand experiences, rather than boldly opining.

I became aware of non-binary, of ways to write and ways to make policy that are all-inclusive, not just masculine or feminine.

By the time transgender came up in my translations, I had a general idea of potential linguistic pitfalls and what I should verify with reliable sources, and was able to guide my colleagues accordingly.

Politically, I've become increasingly aware of how policies I'd previously thought innocuous (and sometimes didn't even recognize as policies - I just thought "that's the way the world is"!) could cause disproportionate harm to trans and non-binary people.

And, most importantly, I've learned to listen to and believe trans and non-binary people (and other marginalized groups) rather than thinking I need to be an expert myself.

I'm still very much in the listening and learning phase of my journey (since my starting point was zero, I've had a lot of catching up to do!), but I've been slowly and surely becoming more and more informed since that fateful google 13 years ago pointed me towards the path I need to be on.  It's been a gradual, painless meander in the general direction of the right side of history.


And that's why I'm both baffled and gutted by Heather Mallick's recent column, in which she describes a transphobic talk as "a feminist event", describes the trans women who were protesting the talk as "enraged men", and parallels these trans women with the perpetrator of the Montreal Massacre.


You see, that google 13 years ago that brought me to Eddie Izzard was inspired by Heather Mallick's writing. Her book title and her Eddie Izzard fandom brought me to Eddie, which changed every aspect of my inner life for the better, including setting me on my journey from being completely ignorant of transgender to being less and less assholic.

I have been very grateful to Heather for this ever since. I even considered walking up to her at an Eddie Izzard show (I recognized her from her column headshot) and thanking her for introducing me to Eddie's work, but I wasn't confident that I could do so without coming across as creepy.

And now I feel disgusted with myself for having - for years! - carried around positive feelings about someone who could say such horrible things.

And I'm also completely baffled that someone could start at the same starting point as me - could, in fact, direct me to the starting point when I didn't know where it was - and then head in exactly the opposite direction.

And then I'm wondering if, because this was my starting point, I might somehow unknowingly be transphobic myself???

What do you even do with this???

***

That was an awful lot of hundreds of words about my own feelings - what with this being a personal blog and all - but the real problem here is not about me at all.

The real problem is that this is a column in a high-circulation newspaper.

Newspapers are tools of information, so they have to be particularly mindful of serving the ignorant.

Having a columnist who is transphobic but somehow comes across to ignorant people (like me) as an ally of trans people is a disservice to ignorant readers. It exacerbates my ignorance. In fact, it conceals my ignorance from me, which is the exact opposite of what I need my newspaper to be doing - I need my newspaper to be enlightening me about areas where I didn't even know I was ignorant!

I can't tell if, when the Star hired Heather Mallick, they thought (as I foolishly did at the time) that she was a trans ally, or if they could tell that she wasn't and hired her anyway, or if they didn't care.

If they could tell or if they didn't care, they need to smarten up!

And if the Star was under the same mistaken impression I was, they need to find people who saw it coming.

As I've been picking through my emotions and slowly piecing them together into a blog post, it also came out that J.K. Rowling is transphobic, and it came to my attention that people have been flagging this for years. (I must start following some of them on Twitter!)

There must have also been people who could see years ago that Heather Mallick was transphobic, even back when I still thought she was an ally. The Star should consult with them when hiring people to write their columns.

Or, better yet, find some trans people who saw it coming and hire them to write columns!


I became aware of this protest, and of the nature of the speaker being protested, because of the trans people and allies I follow on Twitter. Similar things happen as I follow disabled people, and people of different races, and people from different countries, and people who speak different languages. As people talk about whatever's on their mind, information of which I was previously ignorant effortlessly reaches me, and the path towards the right side of history becomes just a touch clearer to me.

The Toronto Star, as a tool of information, should also be serving this function. It should be finding the voices that historically haven't reached its readers - especially readers who are ignorant like me - and putting those voices right where they will reach us effortlessly, nudging us away from our ignorance and in the general direction of the right side of history.

Things the City of Toronto Should Invent: natural gardens as of right

When I read this recent story about how the City of Toronto doesn't allow lawns made of artificial turf, my first thought was to wonder if there are City by-laws unintentionally incentivizing artificial turf, perhaps by having strict aesthetic standards for lawns.

So I went a-googling, and discovered that if you want to have a natural garden (as opposed to a lawn), you have to apply for an exemption.

I think that's bass-ackwards.

In addition to the drainage issues that the ban on artificial turf is trying to address, a natural garden would help with pollinators, native species, and biodiversity. Growing food in residential yards would also boost the city's food sovereignty and sustainability (as well as urban biodiversity, and probably pollinators too.)

In contrast, a lawn is...green and flat.  And that's about it.

It's monoculture, it doesn't contribute to biodiversity or pollination, I think it might even be an invasive species. 

If the City's priority is green and flat, they should allow artificial turf.

If the City's priorities are environmental, they should allow natural gardens as of right, so people don't have to apply for an exemption, they can just go ahead and have a natural garden - including by neglecting their lawn and letting it revert to nature in its own time.

But let's be brave and bold and take this a step further: what if we make natural gardens the default, and require an exemption for lawns?

"But lawns are important!"

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption - just apply for an exemption telling them about why it's so important.

"How do you propose we transition existing lawns to natural gardens?"

I'm a huge fan of benign neglect myself. But when it comes to designing actual policy, a good starting point would be to look at how transitions are normally handled when there's a change in property standards, identify weaknesses in past transitions, and adjust to eliminate those weaknesses.

How to calculate a personal cost-benefit analysis for the Ontario Library Service

Short version:

To calculate how much actual money you pay to support the Ontario Library Service, multiply line 428 of your tax return * 0.00003181673.

Full version:

Last year, I calculated a personal cost-benefit analysis of the tax dollars that I, personally, pay in support of my local public library.

In the wake of recent cuts, I was going to write up a personal cost-benefit analysis for the Ontario Library Service, but before I could do so, the Toronto Public Library announced that these cuts wouldn't affect their services.

However, there is much more to Ontario than just Toronto, and the differences in population and population density mean libraries in many other parts of Ontario have smaller collections (and therefore need more interlibrary loans) and smaller municipal tax bases (and therefore are more dependent on provincial funding.)

So, for everyone else in Ontario, here's how to calculate your own cost-benefit analysis of the Ontario Library Service.

Ontario's total revenue for the 2017-2018 fiscal year was $150.6 billion.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's 2017-2018 funding for Ontario Library Service North was $1,645,800, and for the Southern Ontario Library Service was $3,145,800.

$1,645,800 + $3,145,800 =  $4,791,600 in total funding for the Ontario Library Service.

$4,791,600 / $150.6 billion = 0.00003181673.  This is the portion of your provincial taxes that support the Ontario Library Service. (If you prefer percentages, that's approximately 0.003%)  

The amount you paid in provincial taxes can be found on line 428 of your tax return.

Therefore:

To calculate how much actual money you pay to support the Ontario Library Service, multiply line 428 of your tax return * 0.00003181673

To calculate the amount saved by the recent cuts, divide this number by 2.

Then you can look at the resulting dollar amount and see how it compares with the library services you use over a year.

You can also look at how this will add up over your lifetime, and how that will compare with the library services you use over your lifetime.

If you don't want to do the math yourself:

I, personally, pay $0.15 per year towards the Ontario Library Service, so the announced cuts would save me $0.075 per year.

A single TTC fare is currently $3.25, which is 43 years of OLS cuts. In 43 years I will be 85, and 3 of my 4 grandparents died by that age. So if I ever, even once, have to leave my neighbourhood to fetch a book because it is not available by interlibrary loan (for example, if it can only be sourced from a library that's affected by these cuts), I will not have gotten my money's worth.

Mailing a book would cost even more than that.  And buying a book would cost even more than that. 

So basically, if I am ever, even once in my life, inconvenienced by these cuts, I will not have gotten my money's worth.

Considerations:

The Ontario fiscal year runs from April to March, so the 2017-2018 numbers are from April 2017 to March 2018. I've used these because I couldn't find the 2018-2019 public accounts. The tax return numbers I've suggested using for your own salary and taxes paid are from January 2018 to December 2018 (assuming you used your 2018 return).  If anyone can provide a source for more current numbers, or for numbers that cover the exact same time period, please post in the comments.

Things I Don't Understand: objecting to assisted dying when you don't mind if people die

This post was inspired by, but is not directly related to, this op-ed outlining how the new provincial government's policies could kill people.

Policy can kill people.  Politicians who enact such policies and other proponents of these policies either don't care if people die, or see people's deaths as acceptable collateral damage.

What's weird is the intersection between not caring if one's policies kill people, but being opposed to medically-assisted death. If you don't care if people die, why would you object to people dying?

Some people hold the idea that people should contribute to society rather than being a burden to society.  Others refute argue against this idea, saying that your value comes from who you are as a person rather than what you can contribute.  (I actually don't hold either of these ideas - I don't feel it's my - or anyone's - jurisdiction to go around insisting others contribute to my satisfaction or accusing others of being a burden, but I also don't feel that every human being has intrinsic value for the simple reason that I can't perceive any intrinsic value in my own essential humanity.)

So I also find it weird when people who hold the "contribute to society or you're a burden" idea are opposed to assisted death. In a paradigm where it is possible for a person to be a burden, why would you be opposed to someone saying "I'm too much of a burden, so I'm going to get out of the way now.

One reason I have heard for objecting to medically-assisted death while not objecting to death itself is that if you can do it yourself, you don't need medical assistance.

But the benefit of medically-assisted death rather than suicide is it doesn't leave a mess for other people to clean up.  Currently, we don't have any non-medical method of suicide that doesn't leave a carcass in a place where it's inconvenient to others for there to be a carcass.

In contrast, in medical settings where people die, they're fully trained and prepared to move a dead body and hygienically clean up afterwards. (In my grandmother's long-term care home, they have whole procedures in place for this eventuality!) Until we have Suicide Place, medical contexts are our only option for people to die without being an undue burden upon others.

So it's really strange to me that people who don't mind that their policies might kill people are opposed to people choosing to die.

Things They Should Invent: notwithstanding clause penalty box

The notwithstanding clause enables provincial and territorial legislatures to override Canadians' Charter rights and freedoms.

This is a big deal, so there should be some kind of dissuasive measure to counterbalance it. Improper use of the notwithstanding clause can be an abuse of power - placing the rights and freedoms of Canadians at the mercy of the whims of those in power - so the dissuasive measure should require those who invoke the clause to place their power at the mercy of the whims of the people whose rights and freedoms they are overriding.

A couple of preliminary ideas, to inspire further brainstorming:

- When the notwithstanding clause is used, an election must be called within a fairly brief period of time.  (Three months? Six months? One year?)
-MPPs who vote to use the notwithstanding clause are not permitted to run in the next election (at any level of government). They can run in the one after that.

The flaw of both these ideas is they suggest rights are subject to majority rule - they only incentivize politicians to make sure the majority agrees with them, which could still create a situation where the majority cheers for infringing upon the rights of the minority.

So feel free to use this as a starting point and improve upon this, to come up with something that disincentivizes use of the notwithstanding clause when it's not in the people's best interest, while incentivizing its use when it is in the people's best interest.

Civic Holiday should be Emancipation Day

I'm 37 years old, I've lived in Ontario my entire life, and it's only this year that I learned a) August 1 is Emancipation Day, b) Caribana is a celebration of emancipation, and c) John Graves Simcoe, after whom Simcoe Day is named (Civic Holiday technically being called Simcoe Day), was instrumental in abolishing slavery in Canada.

This information has always been available, it just never reached me.  In my life some people have been pedantic about calling Civic Holiday "Simcoe Day", but I was like "Yeah, yeah, yeah, another politician from history, whatever", and didn't bother to actually look at his legacy.  And with Caribana, I was like "Yeah, yeah, yeah, cultural tradition, whatever", without bothering to look into its origin and meaning because it isn't for or about me.  I never even realized that they're related and that the backstory is of interest!

This needs to be made more glaringly obvious.  Because the end of slavery is definitely worth celebrating and being celebrated by everyone, and not everyone knows that this is what is being celebrated.

Solution: rather than calling the Civic Holiday "Simcoe Day", we should name it "Emancipation Day".  It can either be celebrated in August 1 or on the first Monday of the month - people more knowledgeable of the nuances can make this decision.

But they should put Emancipation Day right out front, printed on our calendars on the day people get off work, so even clueless idiots like me will notice what it's marking!

Things They Should Study (or publicize, if they've already studied it): to what extent do social programs make life easier for employers?

I am truly terrible at washing my windows.  Every time I wash them, they end up covered in streaks - basically I'm just rearranging the streaks a couple of times a year.

I've considered on and off hiring someone to wash my windows, but I have no idea how to hire someone good. I'd be happy to pay well for completely streak-free windows, but if they're just going to rearrange the streaks, that isn't worth anything to me - I can do that myself.

The problem, of course, is that all window-washers and any number of random odd-job people are incentivized to say "Of course I can give you streak-free windows!"  They need money.  They need to hustle.  Conventional wisdom is that you should apply for jobs even if you aren't confident you can do them.

But this makes it much harder to find someone who actually is good - especially if, like me, you're unaccustomed to hiring people - so I end up hiring no one.

I have heard small business owners make similar complaints - they're often in the market for skilled, competent help before they're in a position to put resources into long-term development, but, because they don't have much experience with hiring, they have trouble finding/identifying people who actually are skilled and competent in and among all the gumption/desperation applicants, so they often end up not hiring at all.

In the shower the other day, it occurred to me that basic income might improve this situation.  An effective basic income program would eliminate the desperation factor, so employer and prospective employee could have a straightforward conversation about their needs and abilities.

So I could say "What I really want is completely streakless windows. A cleaning job that results in streaks has no value to me. Are you able to guarantee streaklessness?"

And my prospective window cleaner would have the leeway to say "You know, I don't think I can do a job that could make you happy." Or to quote me a ridiculously high price since I'm so needy and demanding, which I can then accept or reject depending on what it's worth to me.

And my prospective window cleaner would be far less likely to be a person who's bad at cleaning windows, because people who are bad at cleaning windows aren't going to be going around looking for window cleaning jobs.

I did one brief, cursory google and couldn't find much on how basic income interacts with the hiring experience from an employer's point of view.  So I started looking into the logistics of Ontario's basic income pilot, to see whether it could produce relevant results . . . and, that very day, the government cancelled the basic income pilot.

***

In recent discussions of introducing pharmacare, I was surprised to see the idea raised of pharmacare covering people who don't already have a drug plan through work.

That seems like an administrative nightmare. (How will the government know who does and doesn't have drug coverage through work?  Will pharmacare cover my the large co-pay in my workplace plan? Do we have to worry about coverage gaps if we lose our job?)

But it also seems like it would be a lot more convenient for employers if pharmacare were universal.  Employers wouldn't have to administer or pay for drug plans any more. Employers who don't provide drug plans wouldn't lose quality employees who can pick and choose to other employers with better benefits. And employers who already provide good benefits would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.

***

When they were talking about creating an Ontario pension plan, they were also talking about having it apply only to people who don't have pensions through work.

Again, it seems like it would be far more convenient for employers if the public pension plan covered everyone, for exactly the same reasons. It would save employers the trouble of administering a pension plan, employers who are unable to provide a pension plan wouldn't lose out on quality talent, and employers who already provide a pension plan would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.

***

Discourse about social programs tends to focus on what it can do for regular people, which is, of course, where the focus in planning and delivering social programs should be. 

However, I've noticed a strong correlation between people who are opposed to social programs and people whose roles involve hiring.  I also remember seeing things from time to time where organizations representing small businesses object to the fact that government employees receive benefits, presumably because their tax dollars are supporting providing benefits that they can't offer their own employees.

It would be useful to have the data to quantify how social programs can make life easier for employers, in addition to making life easier for ordinary people.

Let's talk about sex (in 1998), baby!

In the wake of the Ontario government's shameful decision to revert to the 1998 sex ed curriculum, many people have already commented on the deficiencies in that 20-year-old curriculum. It doesn't reflect the existence or needs of gender and sexual minorities, it doesn't talk about consent, it was written when many people had only dial-up internet (if they had home internet at all).

But even if you didn't care about all those things, the fact of the matter is that medical knowledge has evolved. For example:

• The HPV vaccine did not yet exist.  (I myself either hadn't heard of or had forgotten about HPV, despite my sex education having covered every other STD that my adult self has heard of. I can't tell you whether this is a result of the state of medical science or the state of the curriculum.)
• PrEP did not yet exist. (I don't know any more details about how HIV treatment has evolved since then, but I'm sure there's lots of other relevant and important stuff in there.)
• Essure did not yet exist. The only available method of female sterilization was tubal ligation, which is an abdominal surgery and therefore far more drastic.
• Nuvaring and contraceptive patches had not yet been invented. 
• Norplant existed, but many of the issues that led to its subsequent reduced availability/withdrawal from the market had not yet come to light.
• The morning after pill had not yet been approved for use in Canada
• Medical abortion was not yet available in Canada (I don't know whether or not it existed.)
• I don't know if home ovulation tests existed, but I didn't hear about them until well into the 21st century.
• I don't know if puberty blockers existed, but I only heard of them in the past few years.
• We were nearly a decade away from the first male pregnancy.

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head, in my capacity as someone who isn't a medical professional and whose sexual health needs would have been served perfectly well with 1998 medical knowledge.  I'm sure there's tons more!

Everyone would be appalled if 20-year-old Geography or Physics or Computer Science were being taught in schools, because the subject matter has evolved.

Everyone would be appalled if they were given cancer treatment or antibiotics or a weight-loss regime that didn't take into account the last 20 years of medical developments.

If nothing else, everyone should be appalled that they're deliberately reverting to a curriculum in which some technical information is obsolete.

Shelter

There are several places in my neighbourhood where developers have bought houses or lowrise buildings and boarded them up, waiting for approval to tear them down and redevelop.

And meanwhile we're having a brutal cold snap and the City of Toronto doesn't have enough shelter spaces.

Something has to be done with this.  Perfectly functional buildings are sitting empty for the convenience of developers, and people can't find shelter in lethal weather.

My first thought was some kind of fine for leaving buildings unused, but I'm worried that that would incentivize developers to tear down buildings faster. Then I had the idea that developers have to fund shelter/housing for as many people as the old building would house until such time as the new building is actually under construction.  But I'm not sure how that would go over, because the approval process takes time and is outside of the developer's control.

I can't figure it out.  But someone has to do something! There are empty buildings, there are people who need shelter, and the weather is lethal.  This needs to be fixed!

I do have a very early, provisional, inadequate idea that could be implemented immediately with very little effort:

Rule 1: if a building is empty and the owner's stated intent is demolition, the owner is prohibited from locking the building or preventing entrance to the building.
Rule 2: squatting in an unoccupied building that is slated for demolition is henceforth legal.
Rule 3: owners of empty buildings slated for demolition are not liable for any harm that comes to people squatting in them as a result of the building not being maintained.

This is obviously not good enough.  Abandoned buildings don't have heat or electricity or water. They might be structurally unsound. These rules might create a loophole where a malicious owner of an empty building could set up booby traps to harm squatters with impunity. There's no mechanism to connect people in need of shelter with abandoned buildings.  Basic human decency requires sheltering people in functional buildings under safe conditions.

But doing it would be better than not doing it.  Enabling people to shelter in buildings that happen to be empty is better than the buildings sitting empty and the people needing shelter.

 Survival issues are really something where we need a "Yes, but..." vote. We need to be able to take "better than nothing" measures while continuing to work towards adequate measures and perfect measures.