Right-wing bloggers certainly complain enough about the Toronto Star, but they aren't the only ones. Warren Kinsella regularly bashes some of their columnists, and Paul Wells recently joined in to brilliantly take down a Traversty of a column. (He was thankfully above punning, however.)
Although I find it to be an irreplacable source of local news, and although it does have some good columnists, I've certianly had my reasons to complain about the Toronto Star. Rabid support for Toronto amalgamation was the big one that had me cancel my subscription, but they have continually backed bonehead ideas.
Today, however, when I read a headline from yesterday's Star editorial section, I thought I was in for a positive surprise. It read "Extending Front must be cut back". I was hoping that this would be a call to cancel, or radically amend the Front Street Extension. The first few paragraphs had me thinking I was right:
However, in the end, the Toronto Star did come out in favour of the Front Street Extension. Worse than that, they advocated building it with the $50-million savings that could be enjoyed if the original roadway plan is revived. I.e., if the new Front Street flies over the railway tracks (between Bathurst and Strachan) as a Gardiner-esque elevated highway.
I say that the Front Street Extension would then be still too expensive, and the Toronto Star's "improvement" would make the thing much more damaging to our city. There are many, many better things we could spend our money on.
What bothers me most is the hard sell that the extension's advocates are laying on. A week ago in the Globe and Mail:
Waterfront? Please! To try to tie this in with the waterfront revitalization is entirely bogus now that everyone has given up pretending that this is the first step in dismantling or burying the Gardiner. This is just a road extension. A very, very expensive one that we don't need and can't afford.