AdamCF
-
@ Haha...Gotta say I don't recall that one. If you can find a link, I'd enjoy it.
about 4 hours ago
via UberSocial for BlackBerry
in reply to JacobLouy
-
If this is his happy, I'd hate to see Rob Ford's sad:
about 5 hours ago
via web
-
@ They liked it so much that they went with it even after Matlow did the right thing.
about 6 hours ago
via web
in reply to JohnLorinc
-
@ @ Have you considered denying requests like this until Astral at least meets the minimum terms of the contract?
about 7 hours ago
via web
in reply to TorontoComms
-
.@'s Rick MacInnes-Rae interviews TorStar's @ about being a young globetrotting journo
about 10 hours ago
via web
-
Great rapport between Jesse and MacInnes-Rae, a veteran award-winning foreign correspondent, on challenges, changes and on-the-job trauma
about 10 hours ago
via web
-
@ It seems like it might be worthwhile for the City to get some outside legal perspective on where these arcane regs can be cut.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to RobSilver
-
@ I don't know enough about legal liability to say but from a common sense perspective, street hockey seems like lawyers run amok
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to RobSilver
-
@ I agree the hockey ban is unnecessary but its been upheld for so long because pols have been convinced of liability issues.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to RobSilver
-
@ @ @ Of course. Which is why there needs to be a fulsome discussion of how much risk we're willing to take
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to thekeenanwire
-
@ Or council could have a debate about what/how much risk is acceptable to decide systematically which regulations can be cut
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to RobSilver
-
@ @ @ The debate should be about how much risk it is reasonable for the government to assume.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to thekeenanwire
-
@ @ @ Right. But we've decided we're willing to manage that risk at some cost. And that's fine.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to thekeenanwire
-
@ Yeah, so my question was simply, "What price are we willing to pay for being exposed to this liability?"
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to RobSilver
-
@ There are a few in the city but a moratorium has been placed on them for a couple years now, even tho council approved them.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to GraphicMatt
-
@ @ @ @ Yes, the City is concerned it could be held liable for a non-narrow interpretation.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to lifeonqueen
-
@ @ @ If I was going to sue a driver for hitting me, I'd name the City and any other maybe-liable party too
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to JohnLorinc
-
@ @ @ No, on the principle that the City has an obligation to maintain safe infrastructure for road users.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to thekeenanwire
-
@ @ @ ...cycling infrastructure is (starts/stops arbitrarily, etc), it's not hard to imagine.
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to JohnLorinc
-
@ @ @ Absolutely the cyclist can sue the City. Whether it's successful is TBD but given how spotty...
about 14 hours ago
via web
in reply to JohnLorinc
|
- Name Adam C-F
- Location Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Web http://www.adamcf.ca
- Bio Advocate for strong communities and accountable government. Non-profit exec. Young professional. Part-time public admin student. New homeowner. Baseball fan.
|