I’m “all aboard with Ford,” but this latest suggestion has me scratching my head a little bit.

In a week that saw great suggestions about selling city assets – like some of the TCHC stock, we also saw articles and banter about selling the 100-year-old landmark.

My initial reaction was shock and awe, but you know what?  I’ve never been to Casa Loma…

I’ve been called a hypocrite before several times, but I can’t recall the last time that I called myself one.

When I first heard about Bobby Ford’s suggestion to sell Casa Loma, I was a little bit offended as a Torontonian.

It’s such a simple fix, right?  We’ve got a $774 Million budget shortfall, so why not just have a fire sale of assets?  Why not sell the C.N. Tower?

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I’ve never even been to Casa Loma!

Maybe I went there on a class trip when I was six years old, but I don’t remember.  And if I don’t remember, then it’s as if I was never there in the first place.  I do know that as an adult, I’ve never woken up one Sunday morning and said, “I think today I’m gonna head over to that historic castle on Austin Terrace!”

So if I’ve never been there, and I have no desire to go there, than isn’t it somewhat hypocritical of me to suggest that Rob Ford shouldn’t sell it?

I think so.

The City of Toronto just finished a $33 Million restoration of the exterior of the historic building, and I have to wonder – what good is that $33 Million for the average tax-payer?  Do I feel better knowing that Casa Loma is a bit shinier?  Not really.

As I’ve argued before with respect to the Fort York Bridge project – I love our city and I love its history.  I think we should strive to maintain every historical structure and site, and actively promote our city’s origins before we become a faceless metropolitan area with no definable culture and tradition.

But how much “good” does Casa Loma do for our city?  And at what cost to the tax-payers?

I’m on the fence about it, to be honest.  Call me somewhat indifferent.  If selling Casa Loma means that my property taxes won’t go up, then fine.  If selling Casa Loma means improving our antiquated subway system, then I’ll help hammer in the “FOR SALE” sign.

I think we need to keep an eye on the rearview mirror while moving forward, but we shouldn’t be throwing money away.

As for the decision to sell some of the rapidly decaying houses in the Toronto Community Housing Corporation’s portfolio, I’m insulted that there’s even debate.

I’m far from a socialist, but it seems to me that the only people against this decision are the anti-Fords, and it’s almost as if they didn’t think before they answered.

Let’s say, for sake of argument, that a house in Cabbagetown is worth $800,000 but it needs $65,000 in renovations to make it livable.  Instead of wasting that $65,000 so that a family of four can live in a subsidized home in a luxury area, why not sell the house for $800,000, and use that money to build a multi-unit dwelling in a not-so-prime area of the city that could house four families of four?  Doesn’t that seem like a better use of resources?

Well, I suppose it depends on which side of the political aisle you sit on.

The lefties will argue that I’m suggesting we divide and conquer or that I’m trying to boot poor people out of rich enclaves.

Well, if the poor people can afford to buy the $800,000 house or pay market rent, then they can stay.  If not, then in the words of David Spade, “Buh bye!”

At the risk of sounding insensitive, I really don’t care about the lady who, according to leftist rag, The Toronto Star, “has lived in and loved her modest two-bedroom Beach apartment with the million-dollar view.”

Really?  Is that what we’re trying to accomplish here?  Give people “million dollar views” and let others pay $250/month in rent for $1500 units?

I’m not an American Republican who believes that 1/10th of 1% of the population should control 99.999% of the wealth, nor am I saying “f*ck the poor” like Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and the like.

I do believe that as a country and as a society, we should pay to house, cloth, and feed the less fortunate. 

I do believe in social assistance and social housing.

But how do we go about doing this effectively?

How do we ensure that a tax dollar taken from a hard working lower, middle, or upper class Torontonian is being used to its fullest capacity?

Is it so wrong to suggest that selling off dilapidated houses in need of millions of dollars worth of repairs might provide funds to repair other dilapidated public housing units, or to help build new ones?  MANY new ones?

I disagree with councillors like Janet Davis, who recently said, “This approach says that poor people should not live in decent neighbourhoods, should not be able to live in houses, and that they should all live in high-rise apartments in the suburbs.”

Well Janet, if poor people want to live in Rosedale, then I totally agree with them!  Of course they should be able to live there!  But can they afford $2 Million for a house?  No?  They can’t?  Then what am I missing here?

Oh wait – you want hard-working, middle-class families to be taxed and have those tax dollars re-routed to the poor so that they can live in rich areas?

Sure.  That makes a lot of sense…..if you’re Adam Vaughan…

Marcus Gee wrote in last week’s Globe & Mail: “Mr. Ford’s opponents are so set against him that they oppose him even when he makes sense.”

Ford’s critics, ie. the lefties, don’t seem to add any value to discussions but rather they simply seek to slow down the process.

The Toronto Community Housing Corporation currently has a whopping $650 Million repair backlog, and yet I don’t see Ford’s critics offering any ideas on how to go about financing the repairs.  They’re just lined up to complain about Ford’s ideas, and I can’t imagine what they think about Case Ootes.

Mr. Ootes, who served as the interim public housing chief (you know – after all the scandals at TCHC caused half the staff to resign…), has suggested that the TCHC sell another 900 houses to net up to $400 Million that can be used to help repair almost 60,000 other properties.

It seems like we’re talking about quantity versus quality, doesn’t it?

What good are 60,000 properties if many are vacant and/or completely run-down?

Some of these properties need up to $125,000 worth of repairs each!

So there’s an argument to be made for both quantity and quality.

First, you want as many units as possible since the city has a massive waiting list for assisted housing.

Second, you want these units to be in livable condition or else they’re useless.

Now in a perfect world where the financial resources were endless, you could spend money to repair the uninhabitable units and keep adding other units to the portfolio.

But the city doesn’t have endless resources, and in fact, they have a massive deficit.

So if you have to sell twenty-two rundown houses to net $16 Million in order to repair a host of other rundown houses, then don’t you have to do that?

It’s simple, in my mind.  In fact, it’s a no-brainer.

But there will always be opposition because, well, have we ever seen a political utopia?

As for Casa Loma, I’m not sure what to say.

On the one hand, I’d hate to see a developer buy the property and turn it into condos, but on the other hand, I have no desire to visit the “attraction” nor do I feel like paying more taxes to subsidize the seemingly endless upkeep on the property.

It’s a tough call; one that balances our city’s history and our city’s future.

If they can turn Maple Leaf Gardens into a Loblaws, then perhaps we can turn Casa Loma into The Gap.

Let’s see how Bobby Ford plays this one…