Public Commons

• 2002

Part of PFR Strategic Plan 2002

Defining our vision, mission, and key priorities. A discussion paper for the Toronto Parks and Recreation strategic plan. November 2002

P.1 This is meant to fit in with: Council’s Strategic Plan, The Social Development Strategy, the Environmental Plan, the Economic Development Strategy, the Official Plan, and the Culture Plan.

p. 3 The staff’s “vision statement”: Toronto will be known by the world as the “City within a park” – a rich fabric of parks, open space, riveers and streams that will connect our neighbourhoods and join us with our clean, vibrant lakefront.

The world will envy and seek to emulate the healthy, productuve and balanced lives that the people of Toronto have achieved. Our parks and recreation services will signal to the world Toronto’s commitment to the best of all possible futures.

The Division’s mission statement:

The people in the diverse communities of Toronto will have full and equitable access to high calibre, locally responsive recreational programs, efficiently operated facilities, and safe, clean and beautiful parks, open spaces, ravines and forests.

P.4 The key priorities are: Child and youth development Lifelong health and wellness for all Environmental stewardship “Everything the Division does must relate to at least one of these priorities.” Then there’s a question: “Do you agree with these high-level priorities or deliverables?”

P.7: “It is important to teach children, youth and their families about the benefits of participating in recreation programs and using leisure as a lifelong path to healthy living.”

P.8 “The Division’s recent directions have been influenced by the Children and Youth Action Committee (CYAC) and the Children and Youth Advocate….” (Since 1998) Then there’s lots of quoting from their “Toronto Children’s Charter” which seems to equate improving children’s health and well-being with “adequate and equitable funding for children’s programs.” Also rests a lot on a CMAJ article from 2000 about children’s increasing obesity, using it to support: “three out of five children and youth aged 5-17 are not active enough for optimal growth and development….30% of adolescent boys are considered sufficiently active enough [sic!!] for optimal health benefits.” Page 9 worries about teenage sexual activity and stuff like this: “ in 1996-97, some adolescents reported low levels of self-esteeem, sense of mastery, and sense of coherence when compared to other age groups.” Page 10 admits that youth crime levels as measured have “decreased considerably” from the early 1990’s, but still “safety remains a significant concern for the majority of youth.”

P.11 sings the praises of “regular participation in physical activity”: it “helps build and maintain healthy bones, muscles and joint, helps control weight, build lean muscle and reduce fat [sic].” Then there is a long list of how it basically helps with every other kind of problem, ending in: “enables children and youth with psychological disorders to achieve the same level of social, physical and academic competencies as their non-disordered peers.” This breathtaking statement is attributed to Gina Browne et al, from McMaster.

P.13 “Lifelong Health and Wellness for All” is defined e.g. “wellness means an approach to personal and community health that emphasizes individual and collective responsibility for well-being through the practice of health-promoting lifestyle behaviours.” Another example: “For all means all individuals as well as allsocial groups and communities.”

pp.14-15 Then the Division decides to emphasize physical activity to promote “personal health and social development.” This is very challenging because the Division not only has to deal with “current levels of inactivity [which] are now a major concern for North American Health practitioners” but also the Division comments: “Securing an improved quality of life in Toronto – achieved by strengthening social cohesion, ensuring access to services and opportunities, and shaping a healthy and safe urban environment through investment in social infrastructure – is a complex task.”

p.17 section listing “the benefits of taking action”: “One of the major benefits of physical activity is that it helps people improve their physical fitness….helps build and maintain healthy bones, muscles, and joints. Helps control weight, build lean muscle and reduce fat…” and so on.

P.18 “Pursuing a renewed social development agenda within the division should generate a number of benefits:” and then goes on to list an astonishing number of consequences, grandiose in the manner of “providing an opportunity for adults to develop their full and holistic potential…producing leaders who serve their communities in many ways..”

p. 20 - 21: About the environment part: in “the coming years” the Division wants to be seen as the protector and enhancer of the environment. Lists P&R’s responsibilities: 7349 hectares of greenspace [sic], 1464 named parks, “also has stewardship over 3 million trees, 839 sports fields, 140 community recreation centres, and about 670 other recreational facilities including pools, golf courses, ski centres, greenhouses and ferries.” DOESN’T MENTION E.G. DOING THE LIBRARY PLANTING BUT NOT PLANTING ANYTHING IN THE PARK AND NOT EVEN PICKING TRASH OUT OF OUR PARK GARDENS Then gives a whole bunch of numbers about the environment that the Division has to keep in good order. E.g. “Toronto’s urban forest stored an estimated 900,555 Mg of carbon, sequestered 36,601 of carbon, caused 13,921 Mg of carbon to be avoided, and resulted in energy reductions of 53,838 GJ in 1998. Trees also removed a total of 997 MG of pollution from the atmosphere for a total associated value of $8,565,000.” Gives a reference (to a consultant report, maybe? P.21) but no definitions of any of the abbreviations. THE POINT IS JUST HAVING NUMBERSAROUND

p.24 Quotes the post that Toronto has one of the lowest rates of park space in Canadian cities (10 out of 13), measured in hectares per 1000 people. p.25 why take action on the environment, includes e.g. why forests are good to have, e.g. people can “walk, jog, relax, play, do nature appreciation, picnic, socialize and execise in helathy and inspirational settings,” e.g. “greenspace [sic] is highly valued in communities and hence, draws in investment,” e.g. e “environmental education programs show an increase in knowledge of the environment, an increase in levels of social interaction, a decrease in socially inappropriate behaviours and an increase in lifelong outdoor leisure skills.” No attribution but presumably a consultant’s report, as is this one (maybe): “A survey of ‘personal responses to nature contacts’ indicated very positive feelings about being in nearby natire areas: 85% found this relaxing (restful, soothing), 76% found it enjoyable; 40% found it a chance to ‘escape worries’; 32% indicated it gave them time to think and let thoughts wander.”

P.28 Appendix one, “Divisional profile” says that its recreation programs attracted 2.9 million participants to drop-in programs (no details given) although earlier it gives the population of Toronto as 2.48 million. p.31 whole page on the Environics survey, and in most cases adds up the “major and moderate” categories of answers, so that percentages of satisfaction and agreement appear very high. p.32: “With its broad business scope, large portfolio size, and high level of interaction with the people of Toronto, the Division’s greatest achievement is the fact that its facilities, programs, and services operate in a reliable, efficient, and responsive manner.” Then list various “initiatives” e.g. their staff training for dealing with homeless, “implemented phase one of a visual identity program for park signage”

ALSO: IT SAYS THEY DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED A THREE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN (2002-2004) FIND THIS.

ASK LESLIE ABOUT THE RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS PAGE (32)