Toronto’s Anti-City Mayor Ousted

  • 28 Nov 2012
  • by
  • Architecture News
OccupyToronto: Evict Rob Ford March (November 19, 2011). Photo via Flickr User CC Jackman Ciu

Rob Ford, the Mayor famous for making enemies of “urban thinkers, designers and practitioners,” has been ousted from office for violating a conflict-of-interest act (he spoke and voted on a matter which allowed his own Football Foundation to financially benefit).

While Ford is still gearing up his appeal, which must be prepared by December 10th, many Torontonians are rejoicing in the hopes that Ford’s removal could signal a new era for Toronto. The Star‘s Architecture writer, Christopher Hume, sees Ford’s ousting as an opportunity for Toronto’s next mayor to leave behind the city’s car-centered policies and champion public space/transit.

As he puts it: “The problems that plague Toronto — and virtually every other city in the country — are built into a political system stacked against cities. Our next mayor has to join this fight, perhaps lead it, as the future prosperity of Canada depends upon a more equitable fiscal arrangement.[...] Toronto needs a mayor [...] clever enough to see that the city belongs to all its residents, not just drivers. Just as we must share the public realm, we must share the streets and open them up for cyclists and pedestrians, who represent the wave of the future.”

Story via The Star and The Atlantic Cities 

Cite: Quirk, Vanessa. "Toronto’s Anti-City Mayor Ousted" 28 Nov 2012. ArchDaily. Accessed 21 Nov 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=299125>
  • Toronto123

    FYI, the foundation in question is one in which benefitted under privileged teenagers in Toronto, providing them with costly football equipment. Not to mention he had no personal benefit from he issue, and the city had no lose. Say what you want about Mr. Ford, but the manner in which he has been ousted is because of a draconian law is unbelievable.

    • Toronto Arch

      He raised money through lobbiests for a foundation that he runs using City stationary for his private foundation. It does good work but the ends don’t justify the means. He certainly benefits from his foundation politically if not financially. He was thrown out because he voted in council on a motion that would have seen him have to pay back this money personally (i.e. it would have cost him $3000). How arrogant can you be?

  • James

    How is this architectural? Please keep your personal axe to grind at home.
    What politician who ALSO voted on the donation did not wish to gain personally as politician? City councils are always doing this sort of thing. In nearby Hamilton, the Mayor last year took $10,000 from his office budget and donated it to a charity. He happily stood by the big fat check to look good. Council did not even get to vote on that one! This mayor is still in office! No torch bearing crowds have asked for his head, well a few protested weakly, but he was not removed.