Lies, Damn Lies, and municipal politics

It wasn’t quite yet 7am, and the phone began to ring. I was reading the Classic Storybook to a certain someone (under 3 feet tall), and my wife was awoken by the telephone (the first born had been up for a couple of hours last night, so Mommy was trying to cram in the crucial power snooze). Hello? she says. “This is CBC Radio. Is this Mark McQueen’s house?”

So the day began.

It turns that The Toronto Daily Star had the deets about the Toronto Port Authority’s RFP for an Environmental Assessment regarding the potential for a pedestrian tunnel to the Toronto City Centre Airport — and the story had made the front page. The profile of the Star’s piece seemed to capture the attention of several Toronto media outlets, and this wasn’t something that I had prepared for.

Like you, the day was already going to be busy with the normal life and times of business in an urban city. As I soon found out, it was to be highjacked by a pack of television reporters driving around Toronto in search of the news story of the hour.

The CBC Radio “chase producer” was nice enough, despite the early morn. I’ve come to learn that a key skill of these types is to sound warm and chummy. I can only imagine that it is hard to get subjects into the studio if you come off as aggressive, particularly when you’ve woken-up someone’s family.

I was to go on the air with the man himself. Andy Barrie. The King of Canada’s “drive-time” morning men. But the CBC? They must know I’m a Tory appointee. Lambs to the slaughter, no? But not Andy I thought; he had Diane Francis on a month ago signing the praises of the TPA and its little island airport. Surely he’d run a straight-up interview. And he’s a Porter customer (as I found out later).

So I agreed.

In the lead-up to the show, three different people told me to call him “Andy”. And, as I listened to the show on the way to work, that’s exactly what the head of the Keele/Eglinton BIA did during his segment at 730am. He and Andy were on a first name basis. Listeners must love this familiarity. Tests well with the focus groups I suspect.

Our interview started off fine, and I dutifully called him “Andy”, despite us having never met before. Strangely, I kept getting “Mr. McQueen” from him, and his tone went from tough, to tougher. I think the low point in the interview was when “Andy” mocked the fact that Ornge, Ontario’s gov’t-contracted medevac provider, had written to Transport Minister John Baird in favour of the construction of a pedestrian tunnel. “Oh, they always bring up the organs”, says “Andy”.

I thought to myself: I guess no one in his family has ever had to use an Air Ambulance.

“Andy” pulled us back from the depths, but at that point it was too late to save him or us. The first call I received post-interview was from someone who knows this stuff inside and out. “You beat him on points.” Maybe. But if I had known it would be a boxing match I wouldn’t have entered the ring in the first place.

The Disney Classic Story book was too popular to set aside to dance for Andy’s audience. The luxury of a civic volunteer.

After the interview, I shared a bit of advice with the Chase Producer, who called to find the details of the Pollara polling data. Don’t tell guests to call him “Andy” if he’s going to refer to us by our formal surnames, I advised. It makes the interview subject seem as though he’s trying to imply a familiarity with the Great Man that doesn’t exist. Particularly when “Andy’s” tone and lines of attack suggest a certain frame of mind going into the interview.

The CBC radio coverage set the stage for the rest of the day. If any media outlets thought they could ignore the Star’s front page, they certainly were now forced to cover the piece themselves once the CBC got into the issue.

Radio-Canada, Global, City, CTV, The Sun, The National Pest, etc., etc. Everyone but The Globe and Mail. Some TV folks would try to come to the office for a quick interview, while others were kind enough to park their trucks downstairs on Bay Street’s sidewalk (I think the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives them that right under the “Freedom of the Press” sub-section).

But those aren’t the funny elements of the story. The belly laughs come from the lies that are spun by the few high profile people still opposed to Toronto’s City Centre Airport. Why should there be a tunnel? Good question.

• TCCA passenger volume increased 100% between 2007 and 2008, and is up another 46% in 2009 (versus 2008);

• a tunnel has practically no carbon footprint, despite being able to move one million passengers or more each year;

• unlike many infrastructure stimulus proposals, it would last for generations;

• although the working budget of $38 million 120 metre tunnel needs to be finalized, it compares well to the $44 million, 80 metre underpass that was just completed at Lower Simcoe Street in Toronto;

• according to Pollara’s polling data (referenced below), Torontonians want the TCCA to succeed as a commuter airport;

• the timing of the new $45-million terminal currently being built and financed by Porter Airlines would be accented by the pedestrian tunnel;

• the tunnel project could also serve as a conduit for needed water main and utility upgrades to serve residents and businesses on the Toronto Islands; and

• Medical patients and organs for transplants arriving on medevac aircraft are sometimes transported in open boats over choppy Western Gap water in very inclement weather. A tunnel would give paramedics and their patients safe, reliable, round-the-clock access to downtown Toronto hospitals.

Between 2007 and 2008, passenger traffic grew 100% at the TCCA. So far in 2009, it is up another 46%. Things are working. With the federal government’s call for worthwhile infrastructure stimulus project ideas, the TPA came up with about a dozen worthy ideas some months ago. One of which was the tunnel concept.

In early June, the Toronto Star editorial board came out in favour of the idea via a published editorial. In July, a Pollara poll said that Torontonians were 2-1 in favour of the tunnel, and 4-1 opposed to devolution of the TCCA to the City of Toronto (as David Miller, Adam Vaughan and Olivia Chow advocate).

Seems like a head of steam to me; except for the few in municipal politics who believe the 70 year existence of TCCA is akin to defacing the Mona Lisa, Mount Rushmore and Mount of Olives all in one fell swoop. Tell that to the ~500,000 passengers who’ve been through the TCCA so far this year.

That’s the problem when governments ask business people to tackle a topic like growing the TCCA into a profitable and sustainable venture. We, well, we tackle them.

As anyone in the venture capital or investment business would do, you size up a company and you set out to help it grow. Remove barriers. Feed the strengths. Fix the weaknesses if you can. Is the growth plan working? Feed it some more. Raise capital. Invest in the physical plant.

The very things that entrepreneurs and business leaders do each and every day.

But, when municipal politics are involved, the simple rules of successful business seem to matter less; if at all. Telling tales. Shouting at the top of your lungs. Getting media attention, even if the facts are wrong. These are valuable and accepted techniques. Sadly, the media rely on it to get their own customer’s attention.

Solving a business challenge? Creating jobs? Growing the economy? That’s something that is barely on the radar screen for some of the folks I’ve come across to date.

How do I know?

Here are the top four myths, lies, and damn lies that you’ll read about in your paper tomorrow (in no particular order):

1. Why would taxpayer dollars be used to subsidize the private sector via a pedestrian tunnel?

A. In Ottawa, London, Windsor, Thunder Bay, etc., access to every airport, bus depot and train station has been financed by public funds. Was Air Canada sent a bill for the highway exit in London, Ontario? Did Westjet have to pay for the offramp in Thunder Bay? Does Greyhound Bus Lines pay for Dundas or Edward Streets to be paved? Of course not. Passengers need access to their transportation infrastructure, and government authorities provide it.

2. Although Pollara’s July 2009 poll says the Torontonians are in favour of the pedestrian tunnel, that’s not because they want infrastructure funds to be utilized for the project. If you’d have asked THAT question, they’d be against the concept. (This was Olivia Chow’s favourite attack line with the media).

A. Not true. Question #25 of the poll (posted on the TPA website) covered the “are you in favour of the tunnel” question. Question #29 specifically asked about the Fed’s infrastructure stimulus funds: “I’d like to read you some statements about the proposed pedestrian tunnel. For each, please tell me if it makes you much more supportive, somewhat more supportive, somewhat more opposed, much more opposed, or has no impact upon your support or opposition to building this pedestrian tunnel to the Toronto City Centre Airport. How about – The tunnel’s construction costs are eligible to be covered by the federal government’s infrastructure stimulus program?”

As poll questions go, it sounds pretty clear to me. The result? 56% were “more in favour” if it was eligible for federal stimulus funds. Only 19% were “less” in favour. In essence, Torontonians were about 3-1 in favour of the pedestrian tunnel if it could be built using infrastructure stimulus funds.

Listening to Ms. Chow and Mr. Vaughan today, you’d think that these figures don’t exist, and that this isn’t how Torontonians feel. But they do. Unfortunately, the media let them get away with it.

3. “The City of Toronto is focused on revitalizing the Waterfront and a commercial airport is not compatible with that revitalization.” This is David Miller’s new line.

A. If you read the data from Pollara, Torontonians don’t agree with the Mayor on that point either. The TPA even put out a press release yesterday to be sure no one missed the point. According to their survey, 64% of respondents believe recent “changes along Toronto’s waterfront are headed in the right direction.” Only 14% of respondents believed the waterfront was headed in the “wrong direction,” while 22% didn’t have an opinion.

TCCA commercial passenger traffic doubled between 2007 and 2008. It is encouraging to see that Torontonians believe the success of the airport is compatible with the direction of Toronto’s waterfront redevelopment strategy. Why else would 64% of Torontonians think the Waterfront is on the right track, with only 14% disagreeing? Moreover, the TPA has worked diligently to ensure that the passenger growth at the TCCA complies with a “good neighbour” policy. Over the past 12 months, noise complaints have dropped 61%.

With these results, how exactly is the TCCA not compatible with where the Waterfront is headed, Your Worship?

4. The project can’t be completed in time for March 2011.

A. Councillor Adam Vaughan ran with this line. Mr. Vaughan doesn’t believe the engineers who say that work on the tunnel can begin soon enough, nor that it could meet the substantial completion date of March 2011 — all Federal infrastructure stimulus projects must be close to completion by that so as to have the biggest impact on our country’s economic recovery. I was asked by The Star what the response was. That was simple: “which engineering school did Mr. Vaughan graduate from?”

—–

To sum up, all of you should stick with your day jobs. Avoid the siren call of volunteer “public service”. Don’t try to bring a business perspective to anything that treads on the world of municipal politics. Bolt from anything that might attract a call from the “City Hall Bureau”.

While we in business might make decisions based on facts and financial statements and customer trends, that mindset cannot be easily transported to the world of our town council.

And the best part is, your family will avoid those pre-7am wakeup calls.

MRM
(disclosure – this blog, as always, reflects a personal opinion and in no way represents the views of the TPA, its Board/Staff or the federal government)