Lawn signs and election ads signal Toronto’s mayoralty is coming down the wire. Here’s what we need to hear now from the candidates

The signs are up, ads are hitting the airwaves and the race is truly on.

Granted, Toronto’s mayoral by-election has been in full swing for a long while now, but for many voters who haven’t been following the contest closely, and even for some who have, last week’s official introduction of political signs to front lawns and gardens marks the true launch of the campaign.

Not only are candidates appearing at multiple debates (sometimes multiple times a day), but now their names line our streets in big bold letters; the signs themselves unavoidable reminders that an election is underway and that each of us has a choice to make.

Candidates began plastering the city with their names late last week: Purple for Olivia Chow, blue for Josh Matlow, keylime green for Ana Bailão and a contentious statement in navy blue from Brad Bradford.

The latter candidate raised eyebrows when he erected a campaign sign that reads, “You don’t have to move to Hamilton.” The message being that Bradford is the candidate who will solve the housing crisis that currently forces people to move elsewhere more affordable housing.

However, the sign offended some online who believe it is insulting to Hamiltonians (not to mention odd, as Bradford was born and raised in the city).

But read another way, the contentious message is further proof that Toronto’s problems are so numerous they’re showing up everywhere: on our subways, on our bank statements and even on our front lawns.

The truth is that whether or not one approves of Bradford’s sign, its message is based in truth: Torontonians are struggling with affordability. The city itself is facing a budget crisis with a billion-dollar hole.

The question for voters is which candidate seems best able to address those challenges and the many others that confront Toronto? And in the final weeks of this campaign, what do we want to learn from those candidates that they haven’t shared with us already?

The answer, from where we sit, is details.

At this point we have a general sense of what the candidates want to achieve.

But how exactly — to the dollar — will they do it? Some, such as Mitzie Hunter and Matlow, have provided specific plans about how they intend to pay for their promises.

Others, such as frontrunner Chow and high profile candidate Mark Saunders, are more vague.

Recently, the Star pressed Saunders about what exactly he will cut in order to save the city money amid the city’s dire financial picture. The former police chief told the Star he wants to find efficiencies at city hall. But he has so far refused to get specific about what those efficiencies are.

Meanwhile, Chow has dodged question after question from her opponents about how high she is prepared to raise property taxes. The candidate said her tax hike would be modest but has refused to cite an exact number. Some reasonably argue that citing an arbitrary number before she is elected is neither possible nor useful.

That may be true, and yet, Chow’s tactic of routinely deflecting the budget question in debates does nothing to inform voters. If the question is fundamentally flawed she should explain why that is, and clearly, to Torontonians.

Finally any candidate who claims they will get a better financial deal for Toronto by working with higher levels of government must be specific about how they will do this. Being on great terms with the premier or the prime minister is not an action plan. It’s a friendship.

Three weeks remain until voting day. The candidates have showered the city in signs. Now it’s time for them to shower voters with details of how they would lead, together with a dash of inspiration to drive home the great potential for Toronto.