Some long time readers may roll their eyes when I get after Councillor Emanuel about his drinking and driving escapade. Honestly, I might be able to forgive an ordinary person for the crime and property damage. But Councillor Emanuel? No bloody way.
Let's review:
Councillor Emanuel attended the opening of a new business in Newmarket. He drank himself into a stupor. The establishment requested that he take a cab. He refused saying that he had a designated driver. The new business could have lost their liquor license and potentially their business because of his very selfish act of drinking and driving.
Councillor Emanuel, was "at work" when this happened. He introduced himself as "Councillor" in this video here (acknowledging that he understood that he was on the job: http://www.snapnewmarket.com/index.php?option=com_sngevents&id%5B%5D=290959 (skip ahead to the 1:05 mark of the video to see Councillor Emanuel at work).
While it's not actually a crime to be intoxicated while working, are there any situations where it could be considered appropriate? If the Newmarket Code of Conduct doesn't apply to public intoxication, (as Mayor Van Bynen says here: http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1050403--councillor-charged-with-impaired-driving), then the Code of Conduct needs to be updated. We can't have drunk councillors voting on how to spend money, approving residential and commercial construction projects, and enacting new bylaws. I'm certain that 100% of Newmarket residents would agree with me on that.
Since his conviction, residents have witnessed a lot of arrogance and very little remorse from Councillor Emanuel. It is extremely inappropriate for Councillor Emanuel to be speaking to school children about "Civics" (unless the topic is about the evils of drink). It is super extremely inappropriate for Councillor Emanuel to be involved in anything to do with violence against women (given the statistics between the crime and alcohol use). It is ridiculous that he continues represent Newmarket on the Fire Department Board (as indicated here: http://www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/committeeandboardmembership.asp?_mid_=921) given that our fire fighters are the front line responders coming face to face with the very real consequences of excessive drinking and many must be emotionally scarred by the carnage created by perpetrated by the likes of Councillor Emanuel.
What takes the cake is Councillor Emanuel allowing a charity group to call him a "Star".
- 300,000 people were injured by drinking and driving in 2009 according the MADD. A "Star" you say?
- Over $20 billion in actual damages caused by drunk drivers like Councillor Emanuel in 2009 says MADD. Money that should have be used to house the homeless, feed the hungry, and treat the sick is instead paying for needless injuries, deaths, and property damage. Yet Councillor Emanuel is a "Star"?
- How Star-like is Councillor Emanuel when academic studies show that 45% of domestic violence occurrences were directly related to the abuse of alcohol?
I'm not just angry at Councillor Emanuel. We all learned that he had no scruples when he refused to resign as the Newmarket Era called him to account: http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion/editorial/article/1070613--convicted-councillor-should-step-down.
Why are the Mayor and Regional Councillor allowing him to be called a "Star" by either promoting or attending the Dream Halloween charity event? I look forward to picking up the next edition Snap to see which other members of Newmarket Council attended. Their attendence sets a very poor example that drinking and driving isn't a serious offense.
For those who support Councillor Emanuel and who have argued with me that there is nothing seriously wrong with a drunken politician, I challenge you to learn the facts of what criminals like him have done to our community. Look at crime stats, victim statements, and the real costs of drinking and driving. Stop rolling your eyes and get informed. The injuries, pain, and costs are very, very real.
Friday 26 October 2012
Thursday 25 October 2012
How Invalid Logic is Becoming the Norm in Nwkt Twitter Wars
The fun thing about twitter is that sometimes its like peeling an onion. You need to uncover a few layers before seeing the truth behind some one's spin.
Case in point, here is something that Ward 1 Councillor Tom Vegh tweeted seemingly out of the blue:
Tom Vegh@tomvegh
@yorktxpyr hey Chris, I think there are some people looking for you. @dsmerek Perhaps our #newmarket ward 6 Councillor Dimuccio could fill you in as he was her "date" for Ford Fest in Sept.
Case in point, here is something that Ward 1 Councillor Tom Vegh tweeted seemingly out of the blue:
Tom Vegh
Arrest warrant issued in ON for Chris Scullino,Co-Founder York Region Taxpayers Alliance, for theft over $5k#newmarkethttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/christopher-scullino/31/970/137 …
On the whole, intriguing but without allusion to context, he left many residents wondering, "what is he talking about?"
Shortly afterward, ex-Newmarket Era crime reporter Joe Fantuzzi chimed in:
Joe Fantauzzi@jjfantauzzi
Scullino, who seems to be in Halifax, apparently worked on @KevinGaudet's Ontario PC bid http://bit.ly/P0MUPz #onpoli #cdnpoli
One layer of the onion peeled away. If that's where the story ended, all would think that Vegh was dog-hunting the star candidate for the Ontario PC party, Kevin Gaudet. After all, there was a news story that Ontario is going into an election in the spring so its about the time when Liberals start sniping Tories and vice-versa. Ontario Liberal Vegh is baiting Ontario PC Gaudet about his association with an alleged felon.
However, that's not necessarily the case because here's a tweet from the ratepayer's group, York Region Taxpayers Alliance:
York Region Taxpayer@yorktxpyr
York Region Taxpayers is NOT affiliated with Christopher Scullino @scully546 We hope he resolves his personal and legal issues.
Which was immediately followed by a tweet from Newmarket Ward 3 Councillor Jane Twinney:
Jane Twinney@JaneTwinney
Ah, so the onion is down another layer. It looks as though the two councillors are trying to implicate the YRTA into some nasty business by the Alliance's co-founder. Again, its not unusual for tax and spend politicians to squabble with ratepayers. So this seems like "politics as usual".
But here's the revealing tweet, from none other than the Ward 3 Councillor's husband of all people:
joe twinney@joetwinney
Ah ha. So that's it. It's yet another clumsy, fumbling shot at the hardworking Ward Six Councillor.
Despite Counillor Twinney later claiming not to be attacking anyone, her tweets in concert with her spouse's clearly reveal otherwise.
Let's test the logic behind what Vegh/ Twinney are implying:
Allegedly Christopher Sculliano is wanted by the police for theft; and
Christopher Sculliano once attended a picnic with Councillor Di Muccio;
Therefore, Councillor Di Muccio must also be involved in alleged criminal activity.
Obviously that's not true and we seriously question why Vegh and Twinney(s) are implying that there is a connection. Their implication makes no more sense than:
Members of Scouts Canada have been convicted of sex crimes involving children; and
Councillor Jane Twinney promotes Scouts Canada in her twitter;
Therefore, Councillor Jane Twinney must be promoting pedophilia via twitter.
Both arguments are invalid and not supported by the facts. I think Vegh and Twinney owe Councillor Di Muccio and the York Region Tax Payers Alliance an apology forthwith. I doubt we'll see one anytime soon (look at Vegh's past behaviour with the C-Word and W-Word to describe Di Muccio).
One last note: as the @yorktxpyr author points out correctly, here are some arguments that are indeed valid:
Councillor Emanuel is a convict; and
Councillors Vegh and Twinney support Councillor Emanuel and don't want him to resign;
Therefore, Councillors Vegh and Twinney support having criminals represent Newmarket
And
Councillor Emanuel is a convict: and
Councillor Di Muccio demanded his resignation because of his conviction;
Therefore, Councillor Di Muccio doesn't want criminals to represent Newmarket.
Despite Counillor Twinney later claiming not to be attacking anyone, her tweets in concert with her spouse's clearly reveal otherwise.
Let's test the logic behind what Vegh/ Twinney are implying:
Allegedly Christopher Sculliano is wanted by the police for theft; and
Christopher Sculliano once attended a picnic with Councillor Di Muccio;
Therefore, Councillor Di Muccio must also be involved in alleged criminal activity.
Obviously that's not true and we seriously question why Vegh and Twinney(s) are implying that there is a connection. Their implication makes no more sense than:
Members of Scouts Canada have been convicted of sex crimes involving children; and
Councillor Jane Twinney promotes Scouts Canada in her twitter;
Therefore, Councillor Jane Twinney must be promoting pedophilia via twitter.
Both arguments are invalid and not supported by the facts. I think Vegh and Twinney owe Councillor Di Muccio and the York Region Tax Payers Alliance an apology forthwith. I doubt we'll see one anytime soon (look at Vegh's past behaviour with the C-Word and W-Word to describe Di Muccio).
One last note: as the @yorktxpyr author points out correctly, here are some arguments that are indeed valid:
Councillor Emanuel is a convict; and
Councillors Vegh and Twinney support Councillor Emanuel and don't want him to resign;
Therefore, Councillors Vegh and Twinney support having criminals represent Newmarket
And
Councillor Emanuel is a convict: and
Councillor Di Muccio demanded his resignation because of his conviction;
Therefore, Councillor Di Muccio doesn't want criminals to represent Newmarket.
Tuesday 23 October 2012
Council gets it wrong on the Farmer's Market
I'll admit that I may not have all the facts on this & welcome comments from anyone who can set the record straight. What I'm writing about is based on the scant information provided by twitter, www.newmarket.ca, and www.newmarketfarmersmarket.com. To be truthful, there isn't much information out there and perhaps that too is a problem. (Like so many other issues, the Newmarket Era doesn't report on this matter. It just re-confirms why blogs like this are so important to people who want local news coverage).
Newmarket Council voted yesterday to waive extra fees for vendors. While this may be "good politics" it really is a "bad government" move. The Newmarket Farmer's Market has been in existence for more than 10 years. It is a viable business model that doesn't require government subsidy. It is no longer in the start-up phase of its existence.
The vendors who maintain booths at the Farmers Market are private enterprises. They are there to make a buck. Very few of these vendors are based locally. By contrast, we have local grocery stores, owned by local residents, and who employ many hundreds of employees. I was saddened to see a grocery store on Leslie St. north of Davis being shuttered and jobs lost recently. Who is offering to waive their business related fees?
Some Councillors have said that the Newmarket Farmers Market is essential to create economic growth for the Town. I say that is a crock. If they are referring to jobs, well the Price Chopper on Leslie provided the Town with more employment than the half-day a week, seasonal jobs that may be produced by the Farmers Market. Yet, there was no special Council action taken to prevent those job losses.
If the Councillors believe that the Newmarket Farmers Market creates tourism, then I think they are wrong on that account too. Each of our neighbours, Stouffville, Aurora, East Gwillimbury, have their own weekend farmers market. There is no evidence that people are bypassing those communities to drive specifically the one in Newmarket. Let's be honest and admit that the people shopping at the Newmarket Farmers Market are predominantly locals.
What gets my goat is that this is a government hand out for a group of "for profit" businesses. Let's contrast this with the Heart of York Soccer Tournament that the Newmarket Soccer Club hosts each year. The Newmarket Soccer Club is a "not-for-profit" club. The HOY tournament brought 197 youth soccer teams to Newmarket this past August. Assuming each team has 15 players, that means a grand total of almost 9,000 visitors for each of the two-day tournament, (assuming each player travels with 2 parents or 45 visitors associated with each team). Likely, these visitors bought gas, ate lunch, visited the mall and so on in between games. The economic spin-off for the local economy is in the $100's of thousands. Keep in mind, these are visitors not local residents. Despite all of this economic benefit, I didn't find any Council involvement to waive fees for the Newmarket Soccer Club.
When local residents buy at the Farmers Market from people who have businesses based elsewhere, that hurts our local economy. You are taking consumer money that would have otherwise been spent in a Newmarket grocery store and giving it to a business that contributes no taxes, no fees, no jobs to our Town. All these Farmers Market businesses do is take, take, take.
When we use taxpayer dollars to fund non-local farmers, the Council is engaged in depleting our local economy. Its a dumb move and all residents should be outraged by their "photo-op" motivated decision.
Newmarket Council voted yesterday to waive extra fees for vendors. While this may be "good politics" it really is a "bad government" move. The Newmarket Farmer's Market has been in existence for more than 10 years. It is a viable business model that doesn't require government subsidy. It is no longer in the start-up phase of its existence.
The vendors who maintain booths at the Farmers Market are private enterprises. They are there to make a buck. Very few of these vendors are based locally. By contrast, we have local grocery stores, owned by local residents, and who employ many hundreds of employees. I was saddened to see a grocery store on Leslie St. north of Davis being shuttered and jobs lost recently. Who is offering to waive their business related fees?
Some Councillors have said that the Newmarket Farmers Market is essential to create economic growth for the Town. I say that is a crock. If they are referring to jobs, well the Price Chopper on Leslie provided the Town with more employment than the half-day a week, seasonal jobs that may be produced by the Farmers Market. Yet, there was no special Council action taken to prevent those job losses.
If the Councillors believe that the Newmarket Farmers Market creates tourism, then I think they are wrong on that account too. Each of our neighbours, Stouffville, Aurora, East Gwillimbury, have their own weekend farmers market. There is no evidence that people are bypassing those communities to drive specifically the one in Newmarket. Let's be honest and admit that the people shopping at the Newmarket Farmers Market are predominantly locals.
What gets my goat is that this is a government hand out for a group of "for profit" businesses. Let's contrast this with the Heart of York Soccer Tournament that the Newmarket Soccer Club hosts each year. The Newmarket Soccer Club is a "not-for-profit" club. The HOY tournament brought 197 youth soccer teams to Newmarket this past August. Assuming each team has 15 players, that means a grand total of almost 9,000 visitors for each of the two-day tournament, (assuming each player travels with 2 parents or 45 visitors associated with each team). Likely, these visitors bought gas, ate lunch, visited the mall and so on in between games. The economic spin-off for the local economy is in the $100's of thousands. Keep in mind, these are visitors not local residents. Despite all of this economic benefit, I didn't find any Council involvement to waive fees for the Newmarket Soccer Club.
When local residents buy at the Farmers Market from people who have businesses based elsewhere, that hurts our local economy. You are taking consumer money that would have otherwise been spent in a Newmarket grocery store and giving it to a business that contributes no taxes, no fees, no jobs to our Town. All these Farmers Market businesses do is take, take, take.
When we use taxpayer dollars to fund non-local farmers, the Council is engaged in depleting our local economy. Its a dumb move and all residents should be outraged by their "photo-op" motivated decision.
Friday 19 October 2012
Finding Folly with Van Bynen's Finnish Flight of Fancy
Last week, the National Post wrote a tongue-in-cheek review of Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen's recent foray into international trade. See the article below:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/11/forget-chicago-newmarket-mayor-looks-to-finland-for-trade-links/
The trip to Finland and Estonia comes on the heels of recent news about other trade missions by prominent politicians; notably Toronto Mayor Rob Ford travelling to Chicago, and Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty announcing a trade mission to China in January.
The question at the outset of the National Post article was also the one that was on the top of my mind: Finland? Estonia? Why?
According to the IMF, China's economy is the world's second largest in terms of GDP. If Chicago were a country it would rival the Swiss economy at around 35th place. Finland's economy is about half of Chicago's GDP and ranks 54th in the world. Estonia is in 106th place and just a fraction of Chicago.
It's important to highlight Newmarket's proximity to major multi-lane highways which connect us to the GTA with a population of more than 6 million people living and doing business in 25 municipalities. Newmarket can also trade beyond the GTA because we have excellent access to rail, air and waterway transport all within under an hour's drive of Newmarket that connect us with the United States and to the world. We have a number of major universities, a provincial capital, and the heart of Canada's banking and financial sectors headquartered right at our doorstep. What this means is we don't have to travel far to find opportunities for our community.
By comparison, Finland's population is 5.3 million and Estonia 1.3 million or approximately the same population as the GTA but these markets aren't within an hour's drive. It's a twelve hour flight with a stop over in either London or Paris between Toronto and Helsinki. That's a long way for the Mayor to travel to find new jobs for Newmarket.
The point is, if the Mayor is actually interested in economic development, there are a lot of places much closer to home to visit to bring jobs to Newmarket. Still, if the Mayor feels that it is important to travel abroad, why didn't he arrange to be included in the Toronto Mayor's trip to Chicago or the Premier's trip to China? If you are looking to bring new opportunities to Newmarket, certainly these destinations would provide greater opportunities for our business sector.
The Mayor claims this was a economic development trip but he travelled with people from the university, the hospital, York Regional government as well as people representing the Town of Newmarket. All of these are public sector representatives. That is not to say that Newmarket couldn't expand it's economy by public sector growth but it seems unusual that the Mayor would be focus on growing more "government jobs" during a time when the governments here are contracting and implementing cost containment measures.
I just don't see the sense in the Mayor's junket and apparently neither did National Post reporter Graeme McNaughton. I'm sure the trip was a lovely diversion for the Mayor and maybe he picked up a souvenir or two. I sincerely hope that it was worth it considering the roughly $5,000 that this "business" trip cost Newmarket taxpayers. Still I doubt Newmarket taxpayers will ever re-coup the $5,000 cost of the trip via new tax revenue generated by this visit but, hey, Mayor Van Bynen got his passport stamped and his photo in the paper (and the rest of us get a chuckle at his expense).
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/11/forget-chicago-newmarket-mayor-looks-to-finland-for-trade-links/
The trip to Finland and Estonia comes on the heels of recent news about other trade missions by prominent politicians; notably Toronto Mayor Rob Ford travelling to Chicago, and Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty announcing a trade mission to China in January.
The question at the outset of the National Post article was also the one that was on the top of my mind: Finland? Estonia? Why?
According to the IMF, China's economy is the world's second largest in terms of GDP. If Chicago were a country it would rival the Swiss economy at around 35th place. Finland's economy is about half of Chicago's GDP and ranks 54th in the world. Estonia is in 106th place and just a fraction of Chicago.
It's important to highlight Newmarket's proximity to major multi-lane highways which connect us to the GTA with a population of more than 6 million people living and doing business in 25 municipalities. Newmarket can also trade beyond the GTA because we have excellent access to rail, air and waterway transport all within under an hour's drive of Newmarket that connect us with the United States and to the world. We have a number of major universities, a provincial capital, and the heart of Canada's banking and financial sectors headquartered right at our doorstep. What this means is we don't have to travel far to find opportunities for our community.
By comparison, Finland's population is 5.3 million and Estonia 1.3 million or approximately the same population as the GTA but these markets aren't within an hour's drive. It's a twelve hour flight with a stop over in either London or Paris between Toronto and Helsinki. That's a long way for the Mayor to travel to find new jobs for Newmarket.
The point is, if the Mayor is actually interested in economic development, there are a lot of places much closer to home to visit to bring jobs to Newmarket. Still, if the Mayor feels that it is important to travel abroad, why didn't he arrange to be included in the Toronto Mayor's trip to Chicago or the Premier's trip to China? If you are looking to bring new opportunities to Newmarket, certainly these destinations would provide greater opportunities for our business sector.
The Mayor claims this was a economic development trip but he travelled with people from the university, the hospital, York Regional government as well as people representing the Town of Newmarket. All of these are public sector representatives. That is not to say that Newmarket couldn't expand it's economy by public sector growth but it seems unusual that the Mayor would be focus on growing more "government jobs" during a time when the governments here are contracting and implementing cost containment measures.
I just don't see the sense in the Mayor's junket and apparently neither did National Post reporter Graeme McNaughton. I'm sure the trip was a lovely diversion for the Mayor and maybe he picked up a souvenir or two. I sincerely hope that it was worth it considering the roughly $5,000 that this "business" trip cost Newmarket taxpayers. Still I doubt Newmarket taxpayers will ever re-coup the $5,000 cost of the trip via new tax revenue generated by this visit but, hey, Mayor Van Bynen got his passport stamped and his photo in the paper (and the rest of us get a chuckle at his expense).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)