Friday 27 December 2013

Most Read/ Least Read Blog Posts & What Do These Lists Mean?

I promised in a tweet earlier this week to post a list of my most popular blogs to date.  Never did I expect that such an exercise would be so insightful. 

My advice to all who are planning to run in 2014 (incumbents and challengers alike), would be to pay close attention to what the general public is interested in. 

So since its inception, I have published 102 posts (including this one) to my Newmarket Town Hall Watch blog.  Here is a list of the top five most read postings:

  1. Evidence of Conflict of Interest (Posted on April 18, 2013)
  2. Something Stinks with my Drinking Water (Posted on August 21, 2012)
  3. The Era Gets the Story Wrong (Posted on January 6, 2013)
  4. Tom Vegh, You Must be So Damn Proud (Posted on Aug. 29, 2012)
  5. Dirty Tricks Have Already Begun (Posted on Dec. 2, 2013)

And for contrast, here is a list of the least read blog posts of all time:

  98.  Slessor Square Vote is a Game Changer for Newmarket
  99.  Finding Folly with Van Bynen's Finnish Flight of Fancy
100.  Following up with Councillors Charitable Giving
101.  The Mayor's Record for Keeping Promises (part 1)
102.  Regarding Council's Cultural Agenda

Here is what these numbers tell me as an objective observer of Newmarket politics:

1.  The top 5 blog posts share a theme that people are concerned that things are generally not running smoothly at Town Hall.  This feeds into the sentiment that two terms of Mayor Van Bynen's administration has been long enough and that its prime time for a change.  This perception spells bad news for certain incumbents including the Mayor.

2.  The least read posts are precisely the kinds of issues that I actually expected Mayor Van Bynen to base his re-election campaign on.  Namely:  a) how well he handled Slessor Square, b) his accomplishments with his trip to Finland, c) his involvement in the community via Belinda's Place and Inn from the Cold, d) his support of the Arts, and e) his "steady hand on the helm" leadership.  The fact that the public is least interested in reading about these items should send a cold shiver down the spines of the Re-Elect TVB campaign team. 

3.  The issue actually holding the public's interest is the perception that dirty business is taking place at the Town Hall.  This should be a sobering message to any campaign team that is planning on cheating, stealing votes, overspending, etc.  The public seems to be keenly tuned in to spot any dirty tricks once the election campaign begins. 

4.  This will disappoint some conspiracy theorists but none of these posts listed above is about Ward Six Councillor Maddie Di Muccio.  The idea that my blog is simply "propaganda" for her is dispelled by that fact.  I have already announced my endorsement for her as Newmarket's next mayor but there is a promise that my blog will also continue to hold her and all Newmarket council members to account whenever a bad vote occurs. 

5.  The Era newspaper has focused a lot on Glenway and Slessor Square but in my experience, I wondered why.  I noticed earlier on that whenever I write about these new developments, my readership volumes would drop.  I think it is safe to say that Glenway and Slessor are not going to be ballot issues in 2014.

6.  The fact that the most read blog is about a conflict of intererst allegation involving Regional Councillor John Taylor's too-close-for-comfort relationship with the Stronach family is interesting to say the least.  In 2010, the Stronach family was active in Newmarket politics both directly and through their affiliated Aurora based Neighbourhood Network organization.  There is already evidence that Neighbourhood Network is planning to be active again in 2014 as Newmarket's version of the Ontario Liberals' "Working Family Coalition".  Based on my findings, it seems highly unlikely that Newmarket voters will trust Aurora-based Neighbourhood Network and the Stronach family to choose our local government for us.  Stay tuned everyone, because I will be writing more on this topic in the new year.

7.  After seeing the results of readership interest levels, it is my opinion that the Newmarket Election ballot question will be, "Who do you trust?"  A lot has happened in the past 3 years to have shaken the public's faith in the current administration.  Can Mayor Van Bynen recover his footing over the next 10 months to save his job?  Or will a rookie councillor who has made a name for herself by championing openness and accountability stroll on to a landslide victory in October? 

There is one Newmarket race that matters in 2014 and voters will be asked to decide just one simple question: "Who do I trust to be Mayor of Newmarket?" 

The way I see it for Newmarket Votes 2014, any politician who fails to earn our trust will be left in the dust.

Monday 23 December 2013

An 8.4% Hike in Water Rates - Merry Christmas from your Mayor

Its not unusual for governments to take advantage of the Christmas season to dollop out a dose of bad news because ordinary people are busy with friends, family and festivities. 

Last week, Ottawa used the Christmas distraction to advise urban Canada that home-to-home postal delivery was ending.  While this was big news, it certainly did not create nearly the amount of outrage and scorn that would have occurred if they released this item in few weeks earlier. 

People are busy. 

Tony Van Bynen also takes advantage of the holiday season. 

In Sunday's Era, hidden on the 4th page, is a tidbit that our Water/ Waste Water rates are increasing by a whopping 8.4% next year. 

This announcement comes on the heels of another annual tax increase, user fee increases, a special reserve fund levy in March, new fees for businesses and so on. 

In fact, the Mayor seems to have dug more deeply into our pockets this year than ever before. 

And despite the Mayor's spun tales about affordability, many people - but especially seniors and people who are on fixed incomes - are starting to feel the pinch of being nickled-and-dimed by this administration. 

In the newspaper's account of the explanation justifying the rate hike, most ominous for residents is the use of that dreaded "Internal Loan" technique where money is taken from one of the Town of Newmarket's reserve funds and "loaned" to another reserve fund.  

When I run my business, I will often use funds that I've earmarked for "marketing" to something more pressing, like an emergency repair.  I won't use credit except as a last resort. 

But what the Town of Newmarket does differently from most households and businesses, (and it is what has most people scratching their heads), is the idea that the "loan" is paid back to the original reserve plus interest

How is the interest being funded?  You guessed it, through higher Water/ Waste Water rates. 

So by artificially creating this interest payment for funds being moved from one balance sheet to another, the Town of Newmarket has also artificially created a reason to increase your rates year after year. 

That kind of creative "hocus-pocus" accounting makes financial sense to Mayor Tony Van Bynen but I don't think it makes sense to you and your family's savings.

Saturday 21 December 2013

Holiday Gifts for Mayor and Council

It's Christmas time and that means the jolly old elf is packing his sleigh with gifts for all the boys and girls of Newmarket. 

And as Tony, John, Dave, Tom and Tom, Jane, Maddie, Chris, and Joe lay down their heads on Christmas eve and dream of tax increases, wasteful spending, and whatever else makes their little hearts glow, why don't the rest of us take a sneak peak into Santa's sack at the gifts he's got in store for them? 

Here's a box with a red ribbon marked "Tony".  Inside this package there are two items; a plush warm security blankie monogrammed TVB, and an adult-sized pacifier.  Apparently Santa has noticed how cranky the mayor has become lately and this practical gift hints that maybe Tony needs to take a regular nap time. 

What's this?  Is this a present for John?  Its a history book on Tammany Hall.  Santa wants to remind John that the Tammany Hall era in New York in the late 19th century isn't a blue print for Newmarket in 2014.  Next year's election promises to be an epic battle for the soul of Newmarket and finally the grip that team "Double Standard" has on our local government that is choking our community will be released.

Here is something fun for Tom H.  Its a soccer ball.  Isn't Santa clever?  He wants to give Tom a reminder of one of Council's dumbest decisions ever with the $2.8 million bailout of the NSC.  Tom can boot the ball around too after the inevitable booting from office he'll receive as the result of him  voting in favour of this bail out. 

And for Chris?  Its a book about trees.  Santa remembers how Chris wanted to have town employees visit each homeowner to make a list of every tree in town.  With the new book that Santa is giving him, Chris doesn't need to waste tax dollars on such an inane project.  He can do it himself with all the free time he has?  Free time, you ask?  Yes, because Santa knows that Chris never returns the phone calls or e-mails that he receives from his constituents so he has more free time than any other member of Council. 

Vroom vroom.  Santa has a garbage truck for Jane.  Ward 3 residents are always complaining that their garbage isn't being picked up on time and Jane can't seem to do anything about it.  With her shiny new garbage truck, Jane can go and pick up the trash herself.  What fun!

Santa feels badly for Dave.  With Internet voting being inexplicably rushed through council in time for October's election and having 5 nursing home situated in his ward, Dave must know that certain factions are plotting to unceremoniously dump him after decades of being a loyal friend and ally.  So Santa is bringing Dave a cord of firewood to burn as he campaigns his traditional "fireside chat" style.  He is going to lose but at least he will do it his way. 

Santa has something in store for Maddie too.  If it wasn't for Maddie, people would not know about the soccer loan, the mayor's outrageous spin on taxes, and many other issues.  In spite of all of Maddie's hard work, Santa was sad to see that her colleagues have punished her instead of congratulate her.  Yet even though the Town of Newmarket has decided not to pay her, Santa knows that she will continue to work hard to for open government.  So Santa is bringing Maddie a lucky horse shoe and a four leaf clover as symbols of luck for her 2014 campaign. 

In the first 18 months of this term, Santa was fooled into thinking that Joe was spineless because he rarely spoke.  But in the next 18 months, Joe spoke plenty and removed any doubt.  Being spineless on its own is tough but couple that affliction with being stupid and you have Joe's character wrapped up.  Santa is bringing Joe a wrapped but empty box as a metaphor of Joe's time in office. 

But the biggest parcel in Santa's sack is reserved for Tom V.  Everyone is gathered around to see what it is.  But before we get a chance to have a peak, Santa has come by and tied up his sack.  We'll just have to wait and see what Santa will bring him.  Everyone loves a mystery. Stay tuned. 

To all my readers, thank you for continuing to visit my page.  I want to wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. 

Wednesday 11 December 2013

Glenway's Pre-Hearing - Ice Bergs Ahead

The December 10th pre-hearing for the Marrianeville Development of the Glenway Golf Course property could not have gone worse for the residents of the Glenway community.

Ruth Victor, the outside consultant hired by the town but subsequently had her very reasonable recommendations rejected by council (namely 1) reject the without prejudice offer, and 2) keep negotiating with the developer) in a dramatic unanimous vote at the Newmarket Theatre, faced questions from both sides yesterday.

The result of the questioning saw the OMB decide to hear details of the without prejudice offers as well as a decision to hear what testimony from the Town's own staff planners.  The lawyer for the Town of Newmarket argued against both but failed to convince the chairperson. 

In his blog, Ward 7 Councillor tried to downplay these decisions by limiting his insight to just three sentences on the subject.  I am sure that Glenway homeowners will need a whole lot more detail from him to explain the potential impact of these most serious setbacks for the Newmarket side. 

Don't be fooled by the attempt at positive spin around right to argue the principle of development.  The Town of Newmarket lawyer will need a miracle to make that argument stick.  And based on how dastardly the council treated the well-respected Ms. Victor at the public meeting, I can't imagine too many professionals in her industry are lining up to take on what will almost certainly be akin to captaining the Titanic. 

The Town has approximately 90 days to get a case together.  This might seem like plenty of time but keep in mind, Ruth Victor's report took almost 2 years to create.  (Not to mention it was delivered approximately 6-months too late which is why this mess is in front of the OMB). 

I don't see a silver lining in yesterday's meeting.  Maybe those who think they do see one were confused by tinsel hanging with the Christmas decorations. 

There are ice bergs ahead and now is not the time for politicians like John Taylor and Chris Emanuel to downplay the significance of the evidential ruling. 

Tuesday 10 December 2013

Really? You want me to comment?

My daily blog visit numbers are going through the roof today

I expect that certain people are probably visiting my site multiple times to see if or when I'll comment on yesterday's proceedings.  I appreciate your interest. 

Three comments:

1) I didn't see the proceedings yet.  Unfortunately, I just couldn't get the on-line webcast to work for me.

2) Being the holiday season, I'm getting busy at work, (thankfully and on a side note, never mind the construction folks, Davis Drive shopping is still the place to be).  I'll have to watch your twitter feeds to keep me up to date.

3) From what I've heard, this masterpiece from Sue Dewar circa 2007 sums up my thoughts nicely. 


Stay tuned.  It's going to be a very long and arduous 2014 re-election campaign for multiple incumbents. 

PS - I got a ROTFL moment from reading Gordon Prentice's blog-o-tainment summary of yesterday's meeting when he chastised Maddie Di Muccio's children for reading a prepared script.  That's HILARIOUS because I bet they got the idea from Councillors Vegh, Twinney, Hempen, Sponga, et al.  These Councillor's have been reading lines written for them by "Double-Standard" (the team of Van Bynen/ Taylor) all term. 

Who says these Council members can't be role models for children? 

Saturday 7 December 2013

Dirty Tricks in Newmarket Politics Pt 2


Dear Gordon,

I want to wish you all the best of the holiday season to you and yours. 

I hope you don't take this as vanity when I tell you that people like me and Steve Berman in Collingwood are really good at what we do.  You should aspire to have a blog that achieves the standard that we have set. 

It takes great discipline to achieve this standard.  One place where I never cut corners is on fact checking.  You see, I have read poll results that suggest that many people don't have faith in bloggers because we are not seen as credible.  I take it as a personal challenge to change that perception.

I have great pride in the attention I pay to details.  You should too.  You are a very good writer but your blog needs to be more fact based.  Otherwise, you are simply entertainment for people like me.

I could very easily provide the link to Maddie Di Muccio's twitter post about fake twitter accounts -- but that would be like giving a man a fish as opposed to teaching a man how to fish.  I think you need to do a bit of the grunt work yourself.  (If you are inexperienced with Google searches, I'm sure that if you ask Ms. Di Muccio she will confirm this is a fake account for you).

Remember, to always check and then double check your source.  Don't trust the first answer you receive because it "fits" the narrative you want to write about.  And never ignore that contradicting piece of information you find because it will come back to haunt your credibility if you do.

I sincerely hope that you will use this advice to improve your craft.  I hope you continue to contribute to your blog but please do your best to step up your own personal standards. 

Yours in blogging,


Anonymous


PS - I trust that you will continue in your quest to unmask me.  I hope that this little mis-step hasn't discouraged you from this adventure.  I do very much enjoy this little game of "Guess Who".  And further more, I hope you also continue to read my blog for the latest on what is going on related to Newmarket Council and will become a better informed citizen as a result. Please feel free to use the comments section of my blog if you wish to join in the discussion of any posting.


Thursday 5 December 2013

"Free" WiFi service? Who benefits?

When is a new municipal service not really a service at all?

Yesterday. the Town of Newmarket and members of the council breathlessly announced a new "service" to residents.  "FREE WiFi" the twitter account of the Town of Newmarket exclaimed. 

Ah, but read the fine print.

Are they offering this WiFi in places where residents actually congregate and spend any amount of time?

For example, maybe they decided to install the "Free" WiFi at the Community Centre and River Walk Commons.  People seem to congregate there.  Sadly, no.

What about the Youth Centre, where kids with cell phones would certainly appreciate not having to use up their data minutes to text and play games.  No, there is no "Free" WiFi there either.

Maybe seniors on fixed incomes would enjoy access to "Free" WiFi.  We all know that the costs of home Internet service is ever increasing so this would make good sense to help those on fixed means stay connected to the Internet.  But sadly, no that isn't where the "Free" Internet will be installed. 

The installation is going into a facility where ordinary residents rarely congregate and hardly ever visit -- The municipal office at 395 Mulock Drive. 

So if the Town of Newmarket is offering this fantastic new service for "Free" and investing reportedly $50,000 to make it happen, why is the service being installed in the one facility rarely every visited by ordinary residents?

Because the service isn't meant for ordinary residents. 

Like the $30,000 coffee budget, this money is just another perk of employment being offered to the employees of the Town of Newmarket although disguised as a expanded service for you and me. 

Town employees enjoy surfing the web like everyone else but they resent having to spend their own money to do it.  So, no more going on line via a cell phone data plan, these employees can now surf for free. 

Too bad that residents who use the River Walk Commons, Community Centre, Youth Centre, and Senior Centre aren't as fortunate.  For those folks there is no such thing as "Free" WiFi.

Welcome to Newmarket under the auspices of the Old Boys Club.  Free WiFI is a great idea.  So why not install it where ordinary people can access it?

Monday 2 December 2013

Dirty tricks have already begun in the Newmarket 2014 election

I am not sure if it resonated with my readers just how devious and, frankly unethical, it is to run a decoy candidate in a municipal election. 

Running a decoy candidate only makes sense in a municipal election because there are no parties.  In a municipal election, a candidate runs on his/ her good name. 

For a decoy to work, the decoy candidate accepts he/she has no chance in actually winning.  The decoy's only job is to create so much fuss as to distract from real issues to gang up on a legitimate candidate and ensure that person is defeated. 

Let's take Newmarket for example. 

Incumbent Mayor Van Bynen, doesn't like his chances when he comes face to face with the following real issues:

1. seven consecutive years of tax hikes under his administration
2.  unscheduled closings of a number of town owned facilities due to emergency maintenance repairs
3.  bloated staff numbers with extravagant "perks" that the average Joe doesn't get through private sector employment
4.  major traffic foul ups through VivaNext on Davis Drive and soon to be on Yonge Street too
5.  major employers have packed up and left town for greener pastures
6.  cost over runs with the Magna Centre construction and the Old Town Hall
7.  the fiasco of closed door meetings - particularly with the Soccer Club bailout
8.  York Region having the highest per capita public debt of any region in the country
9.  water rates rising beyond affordability despite community conservation efforts
10. tense labour issues at the NPL, Viva, and York Region

Instead, he gets a decoy to set up shop and has him start to sling mud at every perceived threat to Mayor Van Bynen's incumbency -- namely Regional Councillor Taylor and Ward 6 Councillor Maddie Di Muccio. 

The advantage of the decoy candidate is that Tony Van Bynen is one-person removed from any mudslinging going on.  He believes the decoy will preserve his image that he isn't personally involved in the dirty politics taking place.  In reality nothing is further from the truth as the decoy is very much under the thumb of his master.  

At the same time, this decoy is very careful to make sure that none of the mud being tossed about actually sticks to Tony Van Bynen.  The decoy refuses to make even the slightest sound of criticism of Mayor Van Bynen's record even though he shares the same side of many of the issues the decoy is critical of with the Mayor's opponents. 

And to a limited degree, the task of the decoy candidate has enjoyed some limited success.  In the case of Regional Councillor John Taylor, he immediately backed off announcing that he will not be challenging Tony Van Bynen at the next election. 

Astute readers will note that the decoy's attacks on Regional Councillor Taylor have greatly subsided since the Regional Councillor has made that announcement.  The reason for this is simple, it is not about winning the Regional Councillor election that has the decoy in the race, it is about making sure that Tony Van Bynen is re-elected. 

I think Maddie Di Muccio is made of stronger stuff though.  If I am reading the tea leaves correctly, Maddie is not likely going to back down so Newmarket residents can expect a fair bit of mud-slinging and dirty politics from Tony Van Bynen's corner.  I personally believe if Maddie sticks to the script and keeps the focus on the 10 items above, no amount of mud will save Van Bynen's campaign. 

On the weekend, the mudslinging turned nasty and it caused me to do some fact checking on the decoy's allegations.

Lets shed some light on the allegations being spread by Mayor Van Bynen's decoy candidate:

The Decoy Candidate tweetedThe Cybersquatting issue can be looked up and proven at anytime via whois. It is fact. Media reported on it with video

And also tweetedShe renewed the domains after getting caught cybersquatting and blaming her husband for it. Her baggage as bad as anyone.

And finally:  Could you please follow up with Councillor Di Muccio and see if Tom Vegh's domains ever returned to him?

I took the decoy's advice and checked on Whois to see for myself.  What I found was an abundance of domain names available for purchase.  It seems the allegations that domain names were renewed is just a lie

Here is a partial list of related domain names currently available for purchase by anyone interested.

 
tomvegh.net
tomvegh.org
tomvegh.info
tomvegh.biz
tomvegh.us
tomvegh.eu
tomvegh.co.uk
tomvegh.in
tomvegh.asia
tomvegh.bz
tomvegh.jpn.com
tomvegh.kr.com
tomvegh.no.com
 
tomvegh.mn
tomvegh.mobi
tomvegh.name
tomvegh.nl
tomvegh.pro
tomvegh.ru
tomvegh.sx
tomvegh.tel
tomvegh.tv
tomvegh.ws
tomvegh.gb.com
tomvegh.gb.net
tomvegh.gr.com
tomvegh.hu.com
 
tomvegh.xxx
tomvegh.com.au
tomvegh.net.au
tomvegh.me.uk
tomvegh.org.uk
tomvegh.co.in
tomvegh.net.in
tomvegh.org.in
tomvegh.gen.in
tomvegh.firm.in
tomvegh.ind.in
tomvegh.co.nz
tomvegh.net.nz
tomvegh.org.nz
 
tomvegh.com.cn
tomvegh.net.cn
tomvegh.org.cn
tomvegh.com.co
tomvegh.net.co
tomvegh.com.ru
tomvegh.net.ru
tomvegh.nom.co
tomvegh.org.ru
tomvegh.ae.org
tomvegh.br.com
tomvegh.cn.com
tomvegh.de.com
tomvegh.eu.com
 
tomvegh.qc.com
tomvegh.ru.com
tomvegh.sa.com
tomvegh.se.com
tomvegh.se.net
tomvegh.uk.com
tomvegh.uk.net
tomvegh.us.com
tomvegh.uy.com
tomvegh.za.com
tomvegh.com.de
tomvegh.pw
tomvegh.in.net
 
 
Here is another allegation made by Tony Van Bynen's decoy candidate:
 
The decoy candidate tweets:  Fact she attacks me, shows she cannot get along with anyone. One of the hardest people to get along with in North America.
 
Let's test that allegation too. 

By Newmarket standards, Maddie Di Muccio is a media darling who has been a commentator on every major network in the region:  CBC, Global, CityTV, TVO, SunNews, CFRB, and AM640 to name a few.
 
Being experienced with the media myself, I can tell you that you don't get to be a commentator by being a jerk.  TV and Radio stations want charming commentators who are engaging to their audience.  Jerks make viewers and listeners change stations. 
 
Certainly, Tony Van Bynen himself would find her to be "difficult to get along with" because she challenges him on his record.  But that doesn't mean she is a jerk.  In fact, I surmise quite the opposite based on her media exposure. So saying that Maddie is "one of the hardest people to get along with in North America", is just a lie.

Which brings me to the next allegation.

The decoy candidate tweets:  is a member of Newmarket Council. Doesn't even bother denying that accusation anymore. Author gave themselves away yesterday!

And If you used your real name you would be sued for slander. Avoiding lawsuits & sitting on Council is reason you are anonymous.

This one is easy to disprove.  As I post this, Council is being televised on Rogers channel 10.  The more observant of you will notice that none of the sitting council members seem to be in the course of writing this blog during their council meeting (unless they deployed the Saddam Hussein tactic of sending a look-alike to official events). 

This yarn goes way off into the realm of fantasy but perhaps the idea that someone on Council other than Tony Van Bynen has public support scares the Tony Van Bynen campaign team witless. 

Why would any council member be concerned with legal action when each enjoys limited privilege in the eyes of the law?  The decoy candidate has mixed up slander for libel (how precocious of him) but a municipal councillor is well protected under the law against actions of slander.  None of them have any need to be shielded by an anonymous blog should they be so inclined to want to cross that line. 

This too is just another obvious lie.

A streak of three malicious, bold faced lies over the course of just a few hours on a Sunday afternoon shouldn't go unanswered.  But what are ordinary citizens to do?

Here are a few of my suggestions:

1) Don't disassociate the decoy candidate from the person he works for.  If you catch the decoy candidate in the act of dirty politics make sure you lay the blame squarely at the feet of the one responsible -- Mayor Tony Van Bynen.  The public needs to see the "Wizard" hiding behind the curtain.  If Van Bynen intends to play dirty, it should only be him and not his proxy, getting the muck on his hands. 

2) If you have an issue with anything published by this decoy candidate, take it up with Mayor Van Bynen directly.  It only serves to Mayor Van Bynen's purposes for this decoy candidate be treated similarly to any legitimate candidate. 

3) Make sure that your friends, neighbours, and co-workers, and people who respect and cherish democracy are aware of the dirty politics being played in Newmarket by the Van Bynen campaign team.  Democracy is too valuable and fragile to let it fall underfoot of unscrupulous candidates.  The decoy candidate is one of the dirtiest tricks that can be played. 

4) Keep talking about real issues, like the 10 I listed initially.  These are the subject matter of our election and shouldn't be obfuscated by feigned drama and fuss.  We love our town.  We want it to become better. 

Saturday 30 November 2013

A pun making light of violence against a female isn't well informed nor entertaining

They say that puns are the lowest form of humour.  And if that is the case, then surely making a pun out of a person's name must be the basement level of humour.  No, let me re-phrase that: it is infantile. 

A recent example of this is the Glenway activist and Frank Klees inner circle groupie: Anne Leroux who recently tweeted:

Anne Leroux@anneleroux 23 Nov     
more 'Guess which Ward' game: If someone was mad, they would guess this one
 
 
Stupid, right? 
 
But what isn't stupid is when the pun crosses the line of good taste to something far more dark and insidious like this tweet from Aurora blogger and The Auroran columnist, Christopher Watts:
 
Christopher Watts@WattsTrending 29 Nov
Ah thnx. Heard it is DieMuch-io One of the pitfalls of remaining is lack of credibility
 
I'm sorry but "DieMuch-io"?
 
Are you kidding me?  Is there something funny about referring to a female as "Die Much"?
 
Violence against women is never an appropriate topic matter for even the lamest attempt of humour. 
 
I didn't see this tweet when it was posted last night.  I spotted it today when I was cc'd with an on-line discussion between Newmarket Councillor Di Muccio and Aurora blogger Watts.  Like Di Muccio, I have also taken offense to Watts' poor taste in humour.  My policy has been to Name it - Shame it when I see anti-female language on-line and certainly Watts has crossed the line by choosing his words terribly when referring to Di Muccio as "Die Much". 
 
Perhaps even worst judgment was displayed by Regional Council candidate Darryl Wolk who, subsequent to the Die Much tweet, Wolk made the regrettable decision to post this:
 
 
Darryl Wolk@darrylwolk 11h
and for some interesting coverage of politics in York Region. Both well informed entertaining writers.
 
Wolk, an aspiring "community leader" is instructing the public to follow a man who refers to a female as "Die Much" with the promise that such a sentiment is well-informed and entertaining.
 
That's not acceptable language in our day and age, Mr. Watts.  And violence against women isn't a community value that Newmarket residents aspire to, Mr. Wolk. 
 
The Internet attracts all kinds of outrageous opinions and perspectives. but there are lines that should never be crossed.  Violence against women, even when intended as a joking pun, is never funny and nor should it ever be tolerated or excused.     
 

Friday 29 November 2013

Integrity and your local "news" paper

Every couple of weeks, the Newmarket Era publishes a column by MPP Frank Klees on various local issues.  This week MPP Klees is writing about provincial versus federal boundaries.  At the end of the column, the following appears:

"This column is paid for by Frank Klees."

All is well and good.  If Mr. Klees purchases the ad space then like any advertiser, he can responsibly disseminate his political message to the masses. 

This week, Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen has a column in the Era as well under the sub-heading "Newmarket Notes".  Unlike Mr. Klees' column, there is no message trailer that his item was a paid advertorial (i.e. paid for by Tony Van Bynen). 

In fact, by all appearances it seems as though the Era has added Mayor Van Bynen on its list of columnists joining Dr. David Suzuki and others. 

Based on the poor quality of his writing, I am not sure if any aspiring opponent should be terribly concerned that Tony Van Bynen has been given space in the paper.  His writing style is best described as "pedestrian".  After reading it, I can't say I had any other impression other than YAWN.  After a few more columns like this, Tony Van Bynen will surely convince the community that he is the least imaginative, uninteresting candidate possible for the Mayor's chair. 

That said, I am concerned with the concept of fair play. 

Does the Era intend to make it public that the editorial position of the paper is to back a Tony Van Bynen mayoralty campaign?  If so, when will the Era make its position clear? 

Also part of the same media group as the Era, the Toronto Star makes its Atkinson Principle well known.  Toronto Star readers know that the Atkinson Principle skews the paper's bias towards the left of the political spectrum.  As long as the editors are open about it, I have no issue with a paper's position.  It is the responsibility of the paper's readers to read the paper with a critical eye.

Similarly, the Era is equally free to be biased about Mayor Tony Van Bynen.  I think Mayor Van Bynen's record speaks for itself and as I have written previously, there is little that would recommend him for re-election.  From the Magna Centre, to Glenway, to VivaNext and so on - he has displayed a clear record of bungling and bumbling.  But if Van Bynen is the one who the Era backs, its a free society. 

Yet as the only paper in town, the Era should have the basic integrity to admit to being biased and allow readers to decide what is news versus what is propaganda.  If Tony Van Bynen is the Era's preferred candidate and it plans on giving him free space to write about himself in hopes of getting re-elected, then the very least the publisher should do is to admit it.

Bottom Line:  Everyone has biases and admitting to holding a bias is what it means to have integrity. 

Tuesday 26 November 2013

Disappointed that the Glenway OMB vote was unanimous

The outcome of the long awaited Glenway vote was a foregone conclusion.  We have known for years that this council was determined to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars at an 8-week OMB hearing. 

Faced with the dilemma that growth was being shoved down our throats by the Province and York Region, many sane residents recognize that single family homes are preferable to condo high rise towers. 

If we have to choose between them, Glenway and its 750 homes should be developed but we would like give a pass on the Slessor Square and Clock Tower developments please.

I have often heard council members speak about the need to allow Newmarket to control development, yet I have never heard any explanation why the highrise residential towers are preferred by this council. 

It doesn't go unnoticed that the developers who build single family homes sell out their inventories within days while lots approved for high rise condos remain barren and desolate for a decade or longer.  Families moving to Newmarket overwhelmingly choose houses over apartment style residences.
 
Newmarket taxpayers are going to pay approximately $30 per household towards the legal costs to keep Glenway "green space"; a luxury for the very few people whose homes back on the old golf course to continue to enjoy their view, (keep in mind that not one single resident will actually be using the Glenway lot because it is still private property). 

And for the rest of us, enjoy your idling time, stuck in gridlock traffic along Yonge and Davis as more and more cars and construction snarl our major thruways. 

 With Mayor Van Bynen's bloc remaining standfast behind Glenway, we had no hopes of winning the Glenway vote. The best that any of us could have hoped for would have been a split decision. It would have been nice to see this vote break 5-4 to show residents that members of Council actually gave this matter some serious consideration.

I am disappointed with the unanimous vote. 

If a 5-4 split vote was the best we could have hoped for, I expected at very least an 8-1 vote. 

I recognize that Councillor Di Muccio has been on record for supporting Slessor and being against Glenway.  But I also know that she and Councillor Twinney  have been publicly wary of the high-risks associated with Tony Van Bynen's "no negotiations" stance with the Marrianeville developer. 

With Councillor Twinney, her past voting record would indicate that she wouldn't break from the pack.  Her vote is obvious because she has never publicly displayed the fortitude it takes to stand on her sole convictions. 

Councillor Di Muccio, on the other hand, has stood alone on principle many times before. 

Why did she go along with Tony Van Bynen's hard line approach? 

Anyone who plays poker knows that the difference between winning and losing is knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.  Glenway residents have been dealt a bad hand.  The best course of action would be to negotiate and see if you can't get your parks, school, and a reduced size for the condo tower.  Instead, the Glenway are going to get a front row seat to the original Glenway proposal when they lose their stakes at the OMB. 

Maybe it is wrong for me to take umbrage with Councillor Di Muccio's vote while letting the 8 others who voted similiarly off scot-free.  But it wouldn't be honest of me to say that I am not disappointed with her vote. 

There will be no honour in losing this high stakes game at the OMB.  And make no mistake about it, losing is the only outcome that I expect when the 8-week OMB hearing wraps up. 

Sunday 17 November 2013

$100's of Millions Later - The Buses are Still Empty

"The buses are empty!"

When people are asked about public transit in Newmarket, that is the typical response received. 

Personally, I think we have an excellent public transit system locally.  Due to our population density and size of town (approximately 20 square kilometers in all), its easy to get around town by bus.  It is only the cost of a bus trip relative to what I pay for the convenience of owning a car that keeps me behind the wheel at all.  If the YRT could figure out a way to make the cost of transit a bit cheaper, I would be one of those who would give up my car in favour of the bus. 

But like many in Newmarket, I fail to see the "upgrade" we are getting with the Davis Drive rapidway (termed VivaNext locally) relative to the $100million tab being spent on the project. 

Who is going to ride this route?

And that is the question that must be answered before the mistake is repeated along Yonge St. (between Davis Drive and Mulock).  Before we spend another $100million+, why don't we take a few months to determine if the local commuters want this service? 

As it is, VivaNext is planning to proceed with the Yonge bus rapidway starting in early 2014.  You can read all about the next steps in the project here:  http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/4207578-next-phase-in-vivanext-work-in-newmarket-to-begin-in-spring/

I don't know who is driving this project ahead without due diligence but we do know who sits on York Region's Transportation Services Committee -- Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen. 

Like so many of his other projects (Magna Centre, Old Town Hall just to name a couple) spending tax payer money frivolously and without prior knowledge of public demand for the intended services seems to be the hallmark of his term as Mayor. 

How much longer will Mayor Van Bynen continue to spend without any regard for the taxpayer's ability to pay? 

Why are we building rapidway bus lanes that lead to nowhere? 

How much longer are taxpayers going to abide with spending hundreds of millions of public funds toward empty buses? 

Friday 15 November 2013

Confirm or Deny Town of Newmarket, How committed is the NSC to pay back its loan?

Gossip is a guilty pleasure for most people. 

There is one piece of juicy gossip making the rounds these days that perhaps someone at the Town of Newmarket's office can confirm or deny. 

If the little birdies who told this news to me are to be believed, it seems that while the Newmarket Soccer Club was cozying up to certain members of Council to secure their $2.8 million bailout from local taxpayers, the NSC was also selected to participate in the Magna Hoedown as a beneficiary of the company's popular annual fundraiser. 

All participating groups are assigned to sell a requisite number of event tickets and raffle tickets by the Magna Hoedown organizers.  The story gets interesting because there is word that the Newmarket Soccer Club had failed to meet its obligated quota for sales. 

So what does that say about a commitment by the Newmarket Soccer Club board if they can't help themselves when they are given an opportunity?

Apathy is a dangerous attitude for any organization.  I can only imagine that the public funds loaned to the the NSC are at even greater risk now if this rumour is true.

The Magna Hoedown is a private venture so its organizers have no obligation to make this news public. 

But doesn't the Town of Newmarket have someone on the Newmarket Soccer Club Board that supposedly is charged with the responsibility for watching out for us taxpayers?

If the NSC Board failed at the Magna Hoedown fundraiser, I think this Town of Newmarket board person has an obligation to make this information public.  Especially considering that much of the discussion regarding this bail out was done in secret by Council. 

The secrecy needs to stop. 

Come clean Town of Newmarket and let us know if the NSC is as committed to paying its debt as you would like us to believe. 

Will the NSC board member representing the Town of Newmarket provide confirmation to Newmarket residents as to whether or not the Newmarket Soccer Club has met its Magna Hoedown ticket sales (both event and raffle)? 

Stay tuned. 

Monday 11 November 2013

Election 2014 Prediction

Many in the media like to gaze into their crystal balls and prognosticate about how voters are feeling and more specifically, how they are likely to vote. 

In Newmarket, it doesn't take any expensive scientific polls, voodoo magic, or supernatural abilities to determine how 2014 is going to turn out. 

Let me be the first to call it - in 2014, Newmarket Ontario will have its first ever female mayor, Maddie Di Muccio.

Full disclosure, I have never spoken to Councillor Di Muccio and I don't know whether she is actually interested in running for the mayor's chair.  I am only saying that if she wants the job, it is her's for the taking. 

And I have the facts to back up this assertion.

Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen has been at the helm for two terms and has been on council for four terms in all.  Every government has a 'best before" date and Van Bynen's has come and gone.  He has run out of steam and he looks tired.  Several times this term, he has been made to look utterly stupid by Councillor Di Muccio and his latest Integrity Commissioner investigation makes him look weak, (at best), and/or childish, (at worst). 

Looking back at his two terms in office, there are very few accomplishments that would recommend Van Bynen to convince voters to give him a third time at bat. 

The issues are many:

1) The number of times town facilities had to close because of emergency repairs in the past three years
2) The mess on Davis Drive with construction and the coming storm of building the same on Yonge Street
3) The Magna Centre lawsuit that cost Newmarket dearly
4) The repeated abuse of closed door meetings this term which Councillor Di Muccio has cleverly described at "secret meetings"
5) And the way Councillor Di Muccio has masterfully framed the 2014 voter question on Mayor Van Bynen's track record for hiking taxes and related spin from him saying that these tax increases no big deal. 

Van Bynen is dead wrong about that. 

Is there any proof to back me up?  I recognize that Newmarket is too small to have any voter intention polling taking place.  Yet there is a report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses that signals what ordinary folks are feeling. 

Here are the specific poll questions that torpedo Van Bynen's chances for re-election:

  • When Newmarket small business owners were asked to rate the value-for-money of public services, 50% of respondents said "Poor".
  • When asked about reasonableness of property tax levels, 49% of Newmarket small business owners responded with "Poor". 
  • And when asked about how effective the mayor's administration was at controlling government wage levels, a whopping 85% of these respondents said, "Poor".    

"Poor.  Poor.  Poor."  That pretty much sums up Mayor Van Bynen's track record over the last two terms. 

What these results show is that people don't feel that Newmarket is well run and aren't happy with the level of taxes.  That clearly means that Tony Van Bynen is toast in 2014.  People want change and Councillor Di Muccio represents that change. Who else but her has worked hard to be the voice of fiscal restraint on council and established her bona fides while fighting to end the rampant spending and creative accounting taking place under Van Bynen? 

Some connected insiders may be quick to dismiss Councillor Di Muccio because of the Integrity Commissioner controversies.  My own research shows that opinion is wrong.  My discussions with many people gives me certain confidence that people see these antics for what they are -- politics.  Rather than be concerned about her professionalism, in fact many are impressed that the Councillor has thus far refused to back down when challenged. 

"Who would you rather have fighting on behalf of residents," is a rhetorical question that I have heard often.

Political insiders marvel at Toronto Mayor hanging on to a 45% approval rating despite his admitted issues with alcohol and drugs.  They forget that there is a significant portion of the population that is committed to the "stop the gravy train" message despite the behaviour of the messenger.  The approval rating is reflective of Ford's platform and not necessarily to the man himself.

In Newmarket, the "respect for taxpayers" Councillor doesn't carry any of the baggage as Rob Ford.  Despite plans by Van Bynen and Taylor to try to paint her with the same brush as Ford, they have a failed strategy on their hands.  The more that Van Bynen and Taylor (forever dubbed "Double Standard") attack Di Muccio, the more ridiculous they look simply because they did not address Chris Emanuel's DUI.  Most people that I speak to recognize this clearly as hypocrisy.

If Ford can garner 45% at this point in his scandalous term, I have no doubt that Di Muccio can win the mayoralty chains with 60-65% of cast ballots.  While that prediction may seem bold to some and yet it is hard to imagine any scenario where Di Muccio doesn't romp to an easy victory in 2014. 

Two terms of Van Bynen has been enough.  Now it is up to Di Muccio to step forward and take charge. 

Friday 1 November 2013

Sports Fees, Farmers Markets, and the Last Gasps of the Old Boys Club

Its funny how two seemingly unrelated events can collide over the course a week.

User Fees for Sports Leagues

Earlier this week, Councillor Di Muccio posted a blog about an ambitious plan to phase out user fees for minor sports leagues (hockey, soccer, baseball etc).  This of course comes on the heels of a City of Toronto initiative to do the same thing.  The difference between the two initiatives though is that Councillor Di Muccio wants to phase the fees out over time (she suggested 10 years) whereas the proponents of the Toronto plan want it done immediately. 

I agree with the phase out and I think it is less likely to affect taxes if the phase out occurs over several years.  In Newmarket, Councillor Di Muccio suggests that the municipal government could easily find $100,000 annually to trim from its budget to accomplish this - an amount she says that would equal 0.1% of the overall municipal budget. 

As long as it is done as trimming the budget (as opposed to increasing our taxes), then why wouldn't everyone support this idea?

The benefits speak for themselves and Councillor Di Muccio pointed out a few:

1) Healthier lifestyles
2) Teaching kids about fairness and teamwork
3) Reducing public health costs associated with kids being overweight
4) Reducing crime rate among youth

and so on. 

This plan, while bold, seems like a no-brainer to me. 

User Fees for Farmers Market Vendors

This morning I noticed a tweet from the President of the Newmarket Farmers Market attacking Councillor Di Muccio.

Interesting,

It is interesting because, unlike our sports teams, the Newmarket Farmers Market vendors actually don't pay any user fees for their booths.  And ironic because Councillor Di Muccio advocates in favour of them not paying user fees so these vendors are biting the hand that supports their free ride. 

On the other hand, I have been on record for being very much opposed to these businesses getting everything for free so I have no issue with biting them back. 

I think the businesses associated with the Farmers Market have been sponging off the Newmarket taxpayer for far too long. 

Here's why:

1) Unlike the minor sports leagues, which are non-profit organizations, the Farmers Market vendors make a significant amount of money each week in profit.  Almost all of the transactions are cash based, which is not to say that anyone is cheating the CRA but merely to point out that there is an opportunity there to do so.  Yet the non-profits, like the Newmarket Soccer Club, are run into near-bankruptcy by exorbitant user fees charged by the Town of Newmkarket (the town's user fees are among the highest in the region according to others).  The vendors should pay their fair share. 

2) There is zero economic benefit to the local economy.  The money these farmers make at the market leaves town with them.  None of these farmers are located and reside in municipalities from other regions (outside of York Region).  These vendors don't shop here.  They spend their money closer to home. 

3) The Farmer's market kills job opportunities for local youths.  Our local grocery stores employ young people.  I get hopping mad whenever I see a Newmarket Council member tweet something about supporting a local farmer because none are from Newmarket.  Yet the local grocery stores, those that employ local youth and pay taxes to the municipality and even sponsor local minor sports teams, rarely, if ever get a mention at Council. 

4) The name for the Farmers Market shouldn't include Newmarket.  I would like their name changed to something that actually reflects reality, such as "These Vendors Are Not From Around Here Farmers Market". 

And Last Gasps

I recently followed a conversation Robb Derkatz was having with someone on Twitter when he said something that resonated with me:  In Politics, when you are explaining, you are losing.

Nowhere does the wisdom behind these words hold more water than with Tony Van Bynen's social media attack on the person that I expect will be his 2014 challenger, Councillor Di Muccio, earlier this week. 

It seems clear to me that the Mayor has tested which way the public opinion wind is blowing on his personal vendetta against his opponent and has come to the conclusion that his own image is suffering. 

His "Open Letter" is badly written, overly long, and frankly boring to read.  It is no wonder that it has garnered nothing more than a yawn from any circle other than his most ardent supporters, such as Councillors Taylor, Emanuel, and Vegh. 

We are witnessing the last desperate gasps of the Old Boys Club as their network slowly unravels before our eyes. 

Remember that Mayor Van Bynen and Regional Councillor Taylor both faced "paper" candidates in the 2010 election who still attracted approximately 1 in 5 voters.  In 2014, it is unlikely either of them will be facing another Cascione/ Richman-type candidate.  I'm guessing next year will be quite different for both men. 

Monday 28 October 2013

Newmarket's Next Municipal Election

Someone in my twitter feed reminded me that Jerry Springer was once the Mayor of Cincinnati. 

If that image doesn't inspire taxpayers to get out and vote, I'm not sure if anything would.

Just a year away, 2014 will be a pivotal election for the Town of Newmarket. 

Due to the consequences of the Places to Grow Act, Newmarket has no option but to welcome intensification.  Do we have the men and women in Council that we can trust with this transition?

If you are like me, someone who grew up in this town, then I expect that 10-15 years from now you'll wonder, "what ever happened to the Newmarket of my youth?". 

Where once there was farmland, you will see high rises.  That is a fact of life.

But the Places to Grow Act can't be used as an excuse to sell the Town of Newmarket out to the highest bidding developer.  We need to recognize that there are properties that should be preserved for future generations to enjoy. 

While I have heard various members of this council give lip service to preserving green spaces in Newmarket, like many others, I question their sincerity. 

Glenway Golf and Country Club is such a property. 

Members of council have been very outspoken about the fact that this property should remain unspoiled.  Yet why is it we can't trust them at their word?

There are some lingering questions:

1) Why didn't the Town of Newmarket bid to purchase it as parkland when it came for sale?  I position this question against the $2.8 million given to the NSC, the $8.4 million assigned to purchasing LED lighting, and the $5 million cost over runs on the Old Town Hall.  What if residents were allowed to vote for these three items vs. investing similarly into a Glenway park in a referendum? 

2) These same council members who were once rallying to fight at the OMB are now quietly admitting that this route is a fool's errand.  Yet council members orchestrated the events that gave the developer the right to make the OMB appeal by delaying their decision on the Marrianeville plan to November 25, 2013 months after the deadline had passed.  Why?

3) And why, just a few weeks after voting in favour of establishing a heritage district are members of Council so eager to ignore their designation by approving a high rise that replaces Main Street's historic clock tower?  Despite the fact that Main St already has limited traffic flow and even more limited parking, last week's Council meeting left no doubt that various council members are salivating over the idea of this project.  It makes no sense. 

4) And if we can't trust their word on Glenway or the clock tower, how can we trust them on their "Secondary" plan which designates certain areas as green spaces?  If Glenway and the clock tower can be developed, then rest assured, all properties in Newmarket are at risk of the the developer's bulldozers. 

There is a very simple solution. 

We need to toss out of office anyone who hasn't earned the public trust.  Any politician that has said one thing publicly but voted oppositely has to go.  So too are those politicians who continually block attempts to keep government open and transparent. 

My hope for Newmarket in 2014 is to have the most open, transparent, and accountable government in the Province of Ontario. 

I am looking to elect people who meet these criteria:

1) People who have no established alliances with special interests; including friends or family of current/ past councillors, no members of current town related committees or the chamber of commerce, and certainly no one affiliated with any of the Yonge/ Davis car dealerships (who are keenly interested in selling their lands to high rise developers).  The reason why political parties are discouraged at the municipal level is to encourage members to reach across the table to compromise.  We've seen this term the brutal effects "bloc voting" can have.

2) Candidates that have a plan to make government more accessible.  I am not sure what form that will take but if smart men and women run for office, let's hear them out about what it will take to make your government accountable to you. 

In just over 10 weeks, the first few candidates will be submitting their nomination papers.  We owe it to future generations of Newmarket residents to make sure we scrutinize them before we elect them. 

Tuesday 22 October 2013

Playing Euchre with Jane Twinney

In the past, Councillor Twinney had tweeted numerous times about how she enjoys playing Euchre with her friends. 

At last night's council meeting, she "Euchre'd" Tony Van Bynen.   

Mayor Van Bynen has a clear majority of votes that he can count on no matter the issue.  He also has a local paper that has never, ever written a critical editorial about any policy he has championed.  If Councillor Di Muccio, without any allies of her own, is able to grind the legislative process to a standstill, then that is more a reflection on Mayor Van Bynen's weak leadership than on her behaviour.  Van Bynen believes that using the Code of Conduct will make him appear as a strong leader in the eyes of the public but he has badly missed his mark.

Last night Council voted unanimously to proceed with a code of conduct matter.  Not being total idiots, Council was at least somewhat aware that tax dollars shouldn't be used to assuage the Mayor's fragile self-esteem. 

The Mayor's original motion was altered through a series of add-ons proposed by Councillor Vegh. 

The first change, aptly named Item A, (to which the Mayor declared a "pecuniary interest" on), says that if his complaint is not proven, then the Mayor will need to "voluntarily" reimburse the public coffers the cost of the investigation. 

The second change, named Item B, (which nobody declared a pecuniary interest, although Councillor Di Muccio was absent), says that if the complaint is upheld by the integrity commission then Councillor Di Muccio is asked to "voluntarily" reimburse the coffers (note:  it is voluntary because applicable legislation provides she can't be forced to pay for it.  Vegh's proposal reminded me of certain communist totalitarian regimes where the families of executed prisoner traditionally receive an invoice for the cost of the bullet). 

The obvious question is, "what if no one volunteers to reimburse the public?"

Not to worry because Councillor Twinney has a contingency plan.  She revealed that she has met with her Council colleagues and they have agreed that if Councillor Di Muccio is "unwilling/ unable" to reimburse the funds, that collectively the others will contribute money towards the costs.  

When she spoke about this plan, Twitter erupted with a number of tweets expressing incredulity and distrust.  (Apparently its hard for the gang of 8 to appear credible and trustworthy these days after many of the antics that they have pulled lately). 

No member of Council, nor any member of staff contradicted Councillor Twinney's words.

Mayor Van Bynen's original motion, as well as the two endorsements were passed unanimously. 

There are significant issues with what Councillor Twinney spoke about that go the the very core of the Integrity Commission process.  All members of Council now have a pecuniary interest because they are potentially all on the hook to fork over the dough when the investigator submits his/her bill.

In my opinion, there is no way that this integrity commission can be conducted that will satisfy the appearance that money somehow influenced the outcome.   

If the integrity commission finds Di Muccio violated the code of conduct, then very plausibly, (like she did with last year's Integrity Commission findings), Councillor Di Muccio can argue that the scope of the investigation was too restrictive. How can these members of council defend against the idea that things were done "on the cheap" because these council members were concerned about their own potential out of pocket expense? 

I get the impression that Councillor Di Muccio is itching to have a discussion on the topic of misogyny while the gang of 8 want to avoid that topic like the plague.  However, if the scope of the investigation does not include the question on whether Tony Van Bynen is a misogynist, then it is very plausible to say that the investigator wasn't allowed to be thorough in his/ her reporting.   

If the Integrity Commission finds against Tony Van Bynen, then he too can argue that the rest of Council stacked the cards against him to avoid paying the bill on their own.

Either way, the public isn't well served when Council has decided to "muddy the waters" on what should be an open and transparent process. 

Bottom line: the "integrity" of the integrity commision process has been tainted by Councillor Twinney's meddling.

Saturday 12 October 2013

Reducing Barriers to Serving in Public Office in Newmarket

A fairly prominent person within the political circles affiliated with the Newmarket-Aurora Liberal Party of Canada riding association was recently overheard complaining about the dearth of what he considered to be "ideal" candidates for next year's municipal election.

To paraphrase the comments:
- Local politics have become "too mean"
- People who would previously be considered shoo-ins are not interested in running for election because of personal attacks
- The quality of people on council will suffer because of what he considered inferior candidates were going to win

Oh my.

It sounds like we're in for a whole lot of trouble. 

What will ever become of our beloved community when:
a) we don't have a council dominated by wealthy business men (such as former bankers), or the sons/ daughters of previous mayors?
b) when ordinary people with regular, everyday common sense take centre stage at Town Hall and pass budgets and enact legislation that reflect the needs of residents?

It sounds just terrible, (No, not really). 

Personally, I am just pleased as punch to see that the elite are finding so-called barriers to public life.  I am a true democrat through and through which means everyone has the right to participate in politics, not just those privileged by wealth or birth. 

I promised to provide advice (free of charge) to the Town of Newmarket about reducing barriers to political life.  Here is my list predicated upon the idea that municipal politics is intended to be a part time job for everyone other than the Mayor. 

More community involvement via committees - We need to reform how volunteer-based advisory committees are used.  Many staff reports should be submitted to the appropriate committee, debated and then have a recommendation sent to Council to accept or revise.  When the committees are not used effectively, there is a greater burden upon the part time council members. 

Oppose reducing the size of Council - A larger council means it is easier for a candidate who is not as well funded as others to campaign on a relatively level playing field.  One candidate was elected in 2010 after receiving just a few hundred votes.  That wouldn't have been possible in a small council scenario.  Yet this particular Councillor has made such a significant impact to the way Council functions in terms of transparency and accountability that its hard to imagine what it would be like if she hadn't won.  People who want to reduce the size of Council want to reduce opportunities for all except the well funded candidates.

Hold meetings in the evenings or on Saturdays/ Sundays - The fact that currently there is such a heavy time commitment involved during the regular work day means that ordinary people can't run for office.  Only those who are retired or own their own well established businesses can afford to be at a mid-day meeting.  There are times during the seven-day week that most people can be available, (including time for when members of the public who would like to observe can have a chance to do so).  Let's remember that Council is supposed to work for us so they should work the hours that are convenient to us (and not them). 

Going to Galas and Fancy Dress Parties are not part of the Council Members' job - There has to be a way to prevent incumbent council members from using their tax funded expense account to attend these parties.  It is a significant barrier for aspiring politicians, (who don't have a tax funded expenses account), and especially women, (who frankly don't have the time after family commitments).  If the Era really cared about "Women In Politics" as much as they say they do, then the publisher needs to make it the paper's policy not to publish photos of politicians at these events in his paper.  Such a policy by the Era would actually make it easier for aspiring female candidates to recognize that they can contribute equally on Council on the real business of the town while not be penalized for not having the time to attend some unimportant gala.     

These very simple measures don't require any significant changes to legislation etc.  I'd like to see these items be adopted and enacted right away so those people who are considering running in 2014 can be assured that there will be balance in their home/ work/ and political life should they be chosen to lead. 

Monday 7 October 2013

Want to Investigate Di Muccio, Mayor? Then be prepared to investigate Emanuel.

Something has stuck with me about the Era reporting of Councillor Di Muccio calling Mayor Van Bynen a misogynist. 

Councillor Di Muccio called the Mayor as misogynist as she was leaving the meeting. 

This detail was repeated three times in three different news pieces.  

And the distinction is critical. 

Two years ago, when Councillor Emanuel admitted to drinking and driving, the Mayor argued that the Council Code of Conduct wouldn't apply to his binge drinking during the time he represented the town.at a VIP party held at the Pickle Barrel Restaurant.  And many people, including myself, were dumbfounded that even though Councillor Emanuel gave a video greeting to Snap magazine that clearly showed he attended the party in an official capacity, the Mayor stuck to his guns saying the Code doesn't apply to "private matters."

If Councillor Di Muccio had left the meeting and then called the Mayor a name, then just like Emanuel's DUI (although its laughable to compare the two - a criminal offense is far more serious than a name calling), it is a "private matter", and protected as free speech. 

I think this is why the Era is repeating over and over again that the name calling didn't occur while Di Muccio was participating in the meeting but subsequently while she was leaving. 

A few months ago, Councillor Jaye Robinson gave a press conference urging Toronto Mayor Rob Ford to "take time off to deal with his “personal issues,” to “clearly and definitively and without question,” address ongoing questions about his alleged substance abuse.

While Jaye Robinson got into hot water with the Toronto Mayor when he fired her from the city's executive committee, her words were not subject to an integrity commissioner investigation.  Although she could have been had she said these same words during a Toronto Council meeting.  In the world of integrity commission investigations, it is location, location, location. 



Tuesday 1 October 2013

John Taylor's Performance At Council Last Night

"NwktTownHall you are wrong again. Anonymous and inaccurate - great combo. Now go ahead and do another hatchet job on me In retaliation."  -- Regional Councillor John Taylor via Twitter


The funny thing is that I don't have to do "another hatchet job" on the Regional Councillor.

Last night he did a well executed hatchet job to himself. 

Like many interested viewers, I watched the broadcast of council (you can watch here: http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&rid=70&sid=3183&gid=118247) tuning in especially to see how Regional Councillor Taylor would behave now that evidence was posted on Councillor Di Muccio's blog showing that Mayor Van Bynen has been busy scheming against him. 

How did he react? 

Like a person with the self esteem of a boot-licking worm. 

If being betrayed and having it exposed in such a public fashion hurt the Regional Councillor's feelings in any way, he didn't show it. 

Instead he was his usual sycophantic self. 

A word to the wise, Mr. Taylor.  If you want people to believe that you will fight on their behalf, you should take an opportunity to show that you have the ability to at least fight for yourself.  The kowtowing on display in the video shows that you haven't any fight in you. 

Saturday 28 September 2013

A Shakespearian Plot at Newmarket Council?

It makes marvelous theatre.

Maddie Di Muccio peeled back the curtain on the gruesome twosome's supposed alliance yesterday in her blog suggesting that there are some big cracks in their relationship. 

It seems that Mayor Van Bynen has been carrying on some serious plotting with the adept use of the magician's sleight of hand. 

If I were Regional Councillor Taylor, I think I would much rather deal with someone who is out in the open about any political disagreements as opposed to have a so-called ally who publicly agrees with me but is secretly scheming behind my back. 

In fact, if I were in his shoes, I would be questioning why I've been doing the man's dirty work - such as taking on the heat for the soccer club bailout - while the mayor has been quietly strategizing against me. 

Lastly, after all the work the Taylors did to get Jane Twinney elected in 2010, if I were John Taylor, I don't think it would go unnoticed how closely the words of the Ward 3 councillor's e-mail resemble those of Jackie Playter (apparently a close ally of the mayor).  In fact, the words are almost verbatim.  Has she been plotting too?  (It would seem so based on who was quoted in the Era defending the mayor).  Et tu, Brute?

It's rather theatric that our antagonistic mayor is complaining that he finds Councillor Di Muccio's behaviour "difficult" all the while he is juggling a set of knives that he is planning to shiv the Regional Councillor with. 

Friday 27 September 2013

Disappear into the ethernet?

I thought my work was done here. 

I thought I could just disappear into the ethernet. 

The reason for writing this blog was very personal to me.  Before I began writing this blog, the news being reported in the Era was rather milque toast at best.  The Era was a ready resource if you wanted to read about some child getting good marks in school, or who attended the latest event at the Senior Centre, but it wasn't the place to find actual news about our local government. 

In fact, Toronto papers, like the Toronto Star did a much better job of telling people like me what was going on in Newmarket than our own local Era. 

And the Era suffered for it some cases.  In Aurora, after a flurry of blogging activity surfaced, a second newspaper, The Auroran, began publishing and diverted significant advertising dollars

This past month, I noticed a real difference in the Era around the matter of the soccer facility.  The reporter did a very good job at making details known publicly that others were trying to hush up. 

When the facts were known, the public was able to make up their own minds. 

A week later, what was once optimism about the changes at the Era have devolved to pessimism. 

This jaded feeling comes from the reporting of the recent dispute between the Mayor and Ward 6 (although reported as Ward 7) councillor Maddie Di Muccio. 

Is the Mayor a misogynist?  I've watched my share of council meeting videos and the man is certainly a bully.  Not only to the Ward 6 councillor but also to members of the public who come before council to make a statement.  I don't think there are too many who speak in front of council that don't walk away from the experience thinking, "Geez louise, that mayor is an a$$hole". 

But whether he is a misogynist or not will have to be an argument for another day. 

Today's debate is whether the newspaper reported the facts fairly. 

Here are some items that I think were missed in the story:

1) The Era reported to have been in receipt of an e-mail from the councillor and quoted her as demanding an apology.  Fortunately the Councillor made that same e-mail public earlier on her web page.  Here is a quote from Maddie Di Muccio's e-mail that should also have been included in the Era article:

I refer you to the August 28, 2013 Community Services – Recreation and Culture, Closed Session Report #2016-36 (page 6 of 7, item x). This item will verify what I stated in council chambers today concerning the amount of staff time spent on meetings, research and reports with regards to the Newmarket Soccer Club loan.

Without knowing what is in this report, (because it isn't posted on line for some reason), it is extremely relevant because it shows that the councillor was reasonable to reject the mayor's ultimatum. 

2) The word "ultimatum" was removed from the revised copy of the Era's article.  I believe that the earlier version said that the mayor required the councillor to either retract or leave.  Is it reasonable for the mayor to ask the councillor to "retract" something that she knows to be true? 

If she can't retract what she knows to be a fact, then in my eyes, what option did he give her except to leave? 

3) The story was published with such sensationalistic language that leaves the public with the impression that there was a "hissy fit" and "screaming" involved (as per comments posted by -- wait for it -- all male commentators on the Era page).  I've watched a lot of video's like I said.  I have never seen Maddie Di Muccio cry, scream, or act in any way that could be seen as un-parliamentary.  (I would submit that Councillor Di Muccio did not call the mayor a misogynist until after he forced her from her seat.  That name-calling doesn't count as unparliamentary because of timing).   

But if you want to see a councillor have a hissy fit, watch the council meeting from last week.  In it, you will see petulence on display as Tom Hempen has a fit.  That didn't make the papers. 

Via her twitter feed, Maddie Di Muccio has also brought attention to a May 2012 meeting where Councillor Jane Twinney left in tears. 

I can't recall the the date but I'm pretty sure I've seen Councillor Emanuel weeping and then leave his seat when he was speaking to his DUI conviction. 

I also believe that Councillor Sponga has left his seat previously too. 

These occurrences never make it into the Era but Councillor Di Muccio being asked to leave does?

Which brings me to my final point.  The reason the Era gives the old boys club such an easy time is because it is vested in the last few remaining old families in Newmarket.  I grew up here and went to school here and then decided to stay, open a business on Davis, and raise my family here.  I've never been made to feel welcome with these families.  I have never been included. 

I feel more at home with the families that have recently moved to town.  People who want to see Newmarket "mature" and aren't nostalgic for balloon festivals, and dances at the old town hall. 

We are disturbed by decisions like the Soccer Club bail out because we wonder why that same commitment wasn't made to take over the Glenway club house when it was offered to us.  At the time, Councillor Emanuel told us that the town of Newmarket didn't want to assume the cost of running the tennis courts, fitness centre and meeting rooms.  We feel lied to. 

The reason people like me, and others, have gravitated towards Councillor Di Muccio is because she is the only one on Council who won't turn her back to the people who just arrived in Town.  She speaks up for businesses that have been neglected along Davis Drive.  She wants to keep the size and cost of government low. 

It seems that the new Era reporter has been co-opted into the "old ways" of doing things.  Telling only half the story and ignoring the details when it suits the old boys. 

While I thought I could simply go away, I guess my work here isn't done after all. 

Thanks for reading. 

Tuesday 24 September 2013

Van Bynen - Misogynist or Wimp?



There are only 9 members of Newmarket council.  With what turned out to be a 8 person voting block backing him, this term on Newmarket council should have been very easy for Mayor Van Bynen. 

He can (and does) get his way on any vote he wants - usually by an 8-1 margin. 

When the mayor wants to raise taxes - the motion passes 8 to 1

When the mayor wants to increase fees for recreational groups - that passes too 8 to 1

Cost over-runs at Old Town Hall?  Not a problem when his voting block has his back.

New parking fees at Hollingsworth Arena?  Done deal. 

I watch a lot of the videos of Council meetings, and I can't recall a single instance where the Mayor actually lost a vote.  If there is such an instance, I would sure like to know what it was. 

That's how easy his job is these days.  He is playing with a stacked hand. 

And the stacked hand gets even more pronounced when considering that he can change the rules of the card game whenever it suits him. 

If you have any understanding of Roberts Rules of Order, you already know that his voting block means that procedurally he can pretty much do anything he wants at a council meeting.  He can make it so any councillor that gets out of line won't get a chance to make even a peep. 

Cut short debate? With his buddies in his back pocket, he can make that happen.

Cut off all debate and go straight to vote?   Easy to do, just need one of his allies to suggest it. 

Want to make a council member appear ineffective?  Just strong arm the other members into not "seconding" that councillor's motions. 

So with all the rules-of-order along with the strength of his 8 of 9 member voting block, how does one explain the difficulties Mayor Van Bynen is having with Councillor Di Muccio? 

Another blogger hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the obvious friction between Councillor Di Muccio and Mayor Van Bynen.  To say that they don't like each other is an understatement.   

Personalities aside, it should be very easy for Mayor Van Bynen to win any political battle regardless. 

In chambers, he has the procedural rules and the votes on his side to completely silence her. 

There are only two possibilities to explain why we are witnessing the battles between the Mayor and the Councillor:

1) he might either be the most ineffective chairperson in the history of Roberts Rules of Order because his is continually being tormented by one single person even though he can count on 8 votes to be on his side; or

2) he might be a bully of the first rate who is trying to "make an example" of Councillor Di Muccio in order to demonstrate just how advantageous his position is.  He can fight with her because he knows that there is very little that she can do to stop him. 

While Mayor Van Bynen might be offended by being labelled a misogynist, he has to recognize that if he isn't, then the only other label that fits is "wimp".  
 

Sunday 8 September 2013

Soccer Club Bail Out and How it Affects the Glenway Battle

When I started this blog, it was in response to what I perceived a  lack of concern by the local media to report the local news.  I made a promise to the editor of the York Regional Media group to cease my blog as soon as I saw an improvement in the amount of information and discourse provided to the public. 
My opinion about the soccer club bail out is the same as many of you.  I have kept my opinion to myself because of the hard work done by many others through social media that have done an excellent job at raising concerns publicly. 
Understandably, the Thursday edition of the Era had very few facts about the soccer club bail out because the news was so recent and the meeting that decided on the bail out was held in secret.  I was looking forward to reading if more details would be published on Sunday's edition.  Unfortunately, this was not the case. 
Seemingly unrelated to the soccer club bail out, the Sunday edition of the Era  included a column entitled "Town can't let cost of fight deter it  from Glenway battle."  I use the words "seemingly unrelated" because I think these two issues are about to intersect in a big way at Newmarket Town Hall. 
In a nutshell, that is the rub for the five members of Newmarket Council who voted in favour of the soccer bail out - because coincidently, their number includes the most hawkish members of the Glenway battle.  Now that these five have committed $2.8 million to appease 2,700 families (and yes, that is the correct number.  The 4,000 number that I've seen elsewhere is a wild exaggeration), so that they can play soccer, how much will they contribute the 700 households who are facing significant financial losses through a reduction in property value if the Marrianeville project proceeds? 
Jeff Brown has long been calling for the Town of Newmarket to provide compensation to homeowners affected by the new development.  Fair is fair but it begs the question:  if these Council members bailed out soccer to the tune of $2.8 million, how much of a bail out will they provide to the Glenway homeowners?   
Councillor Emanuel, who promised on September 5th to blog about the soccer club bail out but hasn't yet done so, would be wise to explain to his constituents what this massive commitment of public resources towards soccer could mean for their battle?  Should they be buoyed by his vote or seriously worried that he spent the money that the town could have used to helped them?
The other question that I would like an answer to comes from Van Bynen's blog on the soccer club bail out.  In his writing, he says the soccer club owed $2.5 million for the Newpark Soccer facility.  Yet, the Town provided a bail out of $2.8 million.  I'm not sure if that is a simple typo or if there is more to the numbers that aren't being made public. 
I'm hearing its the latter.  Important facets of the deal remain secret.  I'm hearing that the Newmakret Soccer Club owed significant amounts of money to multiple parties.  The more than $1,000,000 in registration fees that the club collected this spring did not pay for soccer related expenses.  Those expenses remain unpaid.  Instead, the $1,000,000+ was misspent by the current board.  At very least, the Mayor needs to protect public money by pushing for a complete accounting of the debts of the Newmarket Soccer and how registration fees were spent in 2013.   
As a humorous aside, recently the Mayor (or whomever is tweeting on his behalf) had this to say: 
 @rocknrollcroll Please see my Blog: vanbynen.ca. You may wish to ask Councillor Di Muccio who paid for her recent Ad.
Personally, I thought Councillor Di Muccio was very forthright in how she paid for her ad in an interview with the Era.  As far as I can tell, there isn't any controversy. 
I checked on the Newmarket website to find out how much she paid but that figure isn't yet available.  What I did find is that Councillor Sponga paid just over $1,000 for a full page ad in the Era in 2011.  Let's assume that the Era wouldn't charge different rates to different council members and that realistically, a half page ad would be in the range of $600. 
Contrast that estimated $600 amount to the more than $4,000 this Mayor has publicly expensed on "gas and car washes" over the past two-and-a-half years and taxpayers can see the irony in the Mayor's tweet.