Council debate a clamour in a clamshell, August 22

I disagree profoundly with the tone and substance of Ms. DiManno’s comments. Premier Ford’s Bill 5 is an arbitrary, capricious and autocratic legislative act. No matter the outcome of council’s decision to oppose the new law in the courts, it rightly acted to protect local democracy.

It’s about principles, Ms. DiManno. We’ll go the wall if we have to in defence of representative democracy.

James G. Heller, Toronto

As usual, Rosie DiManno hits the collective council nail on it’s head by illustrating, with clarity and humour, how ridiculous and irresponsible it is to challenge Premier Ford in court.

As council has done so many times in the past, they ignored their expert advisers, the lawyers, and pushed forward their political agenda powered by our tax money. If 25 pie slices works for the province and the feds, why can’t it also work for our city?

I live in a ward held by a councillor who holds the record for years in office, which is 33 and counting. I understand: one gets used to the job and the perks in their comfy fiefdom, and holds on tight. But it should be about community service, not self-service.

Regardless of the outcome of this pricey tantrum, there will be many more legal challenges of the Ford government in the next four years.

Jeff Green, Toronto

Rosie DiManno’s article today illustrates how fragile our democracy is here in Canada. Democracy is messy, often noisy and contentious. Dictatorship is so much simpler and more efficient. Saves time and money, too.

If we value those more than the right to hold and express differing opinions, we are on a slippery slope. We already have an electoral system that rejects the principle of representation by population and that is designed to produce false “majorities” that make governing easier for the winning party.

Let’s not go further along that road.

Helen Riley, Toronto

Rosie has hit the nail on the head of the coffin, mixed-metaphorically speaking.

City council’s decision to pursue a legal challenge with the province at the taxpayer’s expense is woefully hoggish.

I may not be a fan of Ford and certainly didn’t vote for him or his party, but I’m fully backing his move to shake up this ingrained, self-righteous and self-promoting cabal of porkers on Hogtown’s council.

This city is riddled with crime, plagued by unaffordable housing, burdened by inadequate and unreliable public transit, suffocated by gridlock, overcome by failing and decrepit infrastructure and disfigured by ugly development and unsightly public art.

This squealing band of parochial frontier-town hayseeds, posing as “progressives,” comes across as nothing more than lamentable whiners bawling over their jobs in order to keep them ad infinitum.

Should these contriving and sanctimonious loudmouthed carpetbaggers, narrow-minded in aim and empty-headed of new ideas, succeed in their court case and are helped back into city hall, “Woe is us,” indeed!

Mario Godlewski, Toronto

I usually agree with Rosie DiManno. Not this time. In a few short months, Premier Ford has done his best to dismantle as many policy changes brought in by the previous government as he can: OHIP+, minimum wage increase, cap-and-trade, sex education update and now reducing the size of Toronto city council just before an election, with no consultation whatsoever.

Some of us thought, based on their statements during the PC leadership campaign, that the “progressives” would stand up to Premier Ford. We now realize they seem to have no influence on him whatsoever.

The court case to roll back the reduction of city council, with no consultation, may not win in court. But if we don’t stand up to the premier now, we will have given him permission to continue acting in this dictatorial fashion for the next four years.

Carol Libman, Toronto

The councillors who voted to take the province of Ontario to court are doing nothing more than wasting taxpayer money in a desperate attempt to save their positions at the public trough. Toronto’s solicitor has advised that there is no legal rationale or argument that would lead them to being successful in getting a court to overturn the Better Local Government Act.

Furthermore, while Toronto’s chief election officer has admitted that an Oct. 22 vote in the new 25 ridings is quite doable, going back to a 47-ward system no longer is. So what is the point?

Why are these councillors not paying for this court action out of their own pockets since they refuse to heed their own solicitor? Why are the taxpayers being forced to foot the bill for this foolishness?

Has no one informed these entitled (spoiled) councillors that if they desire to change the way the province operates, they should resign their Toronto council seats and run in the next provincial election? Or is four years away from the public trough going to be too long a period of time?

J.A. Brunins, Britt, Ont.

I recall reading in your paper how much time and thought (I believe it was four years) were spent in considering an appropriate number of councillors that would satisfy our democratic obligations.

No one suggested that mathematical precision was achieved, but an effort was made to act rationally. The process illustrated the difference between democratic and arbitrary governance. Mr. Ford could well have chosen the number five, or even three rather than 25, since the sole basis for his choice was that 47 were too many.

We are falling into the trap of believing that once you acquire power democratically you can become a dictator during your mandate. That is not only wrong, but unnecessarily dangerous.

Romain Pitt, Toronto

I am appalled that Mayor Tory would still pursue confronting Doug Ford on the issue regarding the size of city council. Tory’s own legal team has said it is a waste of time. Why spend hard-earned tax dollars on a losing proposition?

Wanda Hoffman, Waterloo