Regular readers of my blog know that I have no patience for the all-or-nothing approach that the Van Bynen/ Taylor twosome (supported by Councillor Emanuel) have used with Marianneville Developments, the owner of the Glenway Golf and Country Club property. In my opinion, these gentlemen have squandered too many opportunities for a negotiated solution to the planned Glenway development. Their failed tactics have put all the chips on an OMB hearing (Marianneville has filed an OMB appeal) and nobody likes our chances at that card table.
Finally one Councillor has shown us a rare glimmer of hope that perhaps the Town of Newmarket side is open to negotiations. Councillor Jane Twinney has posted something on Twitter saying that she supports developing Glenway but wants to see the current plan being proposed by Marianneville changed. A reasonable position in my books.
Thanks to the Ontario Liberals, the Town of Newmarket is mandated under the Places to Grow Act to grow, grow, grow. Residents of Newmarket must have a say in what our town's future will look like. Are we going to accept the Slessor Square & Main St. Clock Tower intensification plans supported by Van Bynen/ Taylor? Or will we simply say that Newmarket is a community of single family homes, not condominium high rises, and allow a reasonable, negotiated development at Glenway? I know which way I would vote.
Hopefully there are other Councillors like Jane Twinney willing to stand up for the character of our community. Van Bynen/ Taylor have been exposed as willing to gamble with the future of our town and prepared to slam the door on sensible development in the faint hope of the OMB ruling in their favour. I don't think that is a gamble that Newmarket should take.
Monday 29 April 2013
Monday 22 April 2013
The "incredible" Wolk (Grr. Wolk mad. Wolk smash)
(he even bought the t-shirt)
The entire "pot-head" angle to this story is admittedly funny but its 2013 and lots of politicians have admitted to self-medicating. Humourous? Absolutely. But not entirely a career-ending move.
What is pathetic and damning is fabricating stories about political endorsements. In the past two days since I posted my blog, MP Lois Brown has tweeted/ re-tweeted 10 different items. None in support of Wolk's claims of an endorsement from her. In his hour of desperation, she has left him to sink under the weight of his own falsehoods.
No, MP Lois Brown is neither willing nor able to toss Wolk a life-line.
Wolk has spoken to media about Michael Sona being treated unfairly by the Conservative Party. The media, Elections Canada, and now the Canadian justice system believe Michael Sona was criminally involved in election fraud but Wolk claims that someone higher up in the Conservative Party is responsible and Sona is only a patsy. What proof does he have to make these allegations? I don't know. Has he gone to the police with this proof? Again, I don't know. I suspect that he was simply running his mouth off without any knowledge about the affair. No wonder the local conservatives are shunning him because he is so toxic to the Conservative Party's reputation. And he expects Lois Brown to endorse him?
Backing Sona is a career-ending move. Conservatives will never forgive the alleged perportrator behind the Pierre Poutine/ Robo-call scandal because it calls into question the legitimacy behind Stephen Harper's historic election win. The CPC did not need election fraud to win a majority. If proven true in court, Sona's actions will put a huge black mark beside the Harper legacy. Wolk's ill-informed defense of Sona only serves to undermine all the good work that local CPC volunteers, supporters, and contributors did to get MP Lois Brown re-elected. There is a political price to be paid by Wolk for defending Sona and the shunning by local conservatives that he is currently experiencing is well deserved.
Wolk doesn't like my anonymous blog (despite the fact that he wrote a blog a couple of years ago in support of the anonymous posters who viciously attacked former Aurora Mayor Phyllis Morris). He would like the public to ignore this blog because it is written anonymously. What he doesn't do is address any of the concerns I raised about him. Never once did he refute or explain any of the points I wrote about. He won't because he can't. Therefore he attacks.
What is even more pathetic is Wolk's determination to continue with the 2014 Regional Council race after being exposed. In addition to lying about MP Lois Brown's endorsement, there were so many wild (but entirely false) allegations made by Wolk over the past 4 days that entirely disqualify him from public office. Examples include the allegation that Councillor Di Muccio writes this blog. That is a lie. Wolk has been told it is a lie and yet he continues to repeat it in hopes that someone (anyone?) will believe him.
Yet, why would anyone believe him? And if you can't answer that question, then ask yourself this next one: Why would anyone vote for him?
Saturday 20 April 2013
A Spectacular Car Crash
Regional Councillor John Taylor's shady voting in favour of naming a Newmarket park after one of his clients during a recent secret meeting should have been a boon to his only "declared" 2014 Regional Council race opponent, Darryl Wolk.
Instead, Wolk's brief political career has suffered a major meltdown on the scale of the Fukushima reactor. As a person who lists Social Media Advocacy and Public Media Crisis Management as two areas of expertise, it has been comical to watch him alienate and denigrate the very few people who may have actually supported his political aspirations with a series of overtly hostile and off-putting tweets.
His allegations of "trolls", "hypocrisy", "attacking", and "drinking the Kool-Aid". against ordinary Newmarket voters over the past 48-hours is a classic example of crash and burn. If nothing else, he has demonstrated that he isn't the social media expert as he claims to be
As appropriate in any memorial service, let's take a look at the short yet absurd political career of Mr. Darryl Wolk.
Absurdity # 1 - The Endorsement
A month ago, Wolk raised a few eyebrows when he took to Twitter to proclaim that his candidacy for Regional Councillor had the endorsement of Newmarket-Aurora MP Lois Brown. His claim of an endorsement seemed highly unlikely to be legitimate because if it were true then MP Lois Brown has a lot of explaining to do. Here are two questions for MP Brown that immediately come to mind:
1) If Brown endorses Wolk, does she also endorse his views on legalisation of marijuana? With approximately 80 tweets/ re-tweets about legalising pot along with a couple of blog postings supporting the legalisation movement, Wolk is one of Newmarket's most prolific writers about ending the prohibition on dope. Maybe there is a side to Lois Brown that the community doesn't know about and perhaps she should take advantage of 420 to come out of the closet.
2) If she endorses Wolk, does she also agree with his opinion that Michael Sona is being framed by the brass in the Conservative Party? Wolk gave an interview to the Guelph Mercury (click here for the article) that Sona who currently facing charges for the robocalls scandal during the federal election, is no more than a patsy for the big-wigs at Conservative Party HQ. If Lois is down with Wolk's view that Sona is the CPC fall guy, then I'm certain Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor want to interview her for the front page of the National Post.
I don't believe that Lois Brown is neither a pot head, nor is she a big advocate of election fraud, therefore I find it highly unlikely that she would lend her reputation to someone of the ilk of Wolk. But in case I'm wrong, I'm going to invite her to make public if she intends to endorse his candidacy If she doesn't, will Wolk admit that he made this endorsement nonsense up?
Absurdity # 2 - His Track Record
More than a few times we've endured Wolk's whinges that this current term of Council has achieved nothing. And he would like Newmarket voters to know, that he is the man to fix the impasse. If that were true, then why did Wolk lend his tremendous campaign experience to both Regional Councillor Taylor's and Mayor Van Bynen's re-election bids? The gruesome two-some of Newmarket politics apparently have Darryl Wolk to thank for their electoral success according to his web site. Is Wolk admitting that he made a mistake when he catapulted these two back into office or will he be running on their track record of ineffectiveness. Which is it going to be?
The truth is very much that Wolk is masking himself as a "conservative" while riding the coat tails of the tax-and-spend left wing of Council which includes the Van Bynen/ Taylor alliance. And like anyone who campaigns under a party's nomination or a faction's bloc, Wolk would be wise to understand that the Van Bynen/ Taylor record is going to be his record too. He has a lot to answer for about his buddies' ineffectiveness.
And on that note, what of his claim that he can work with anyone regardless of political stripe? Clearly, Wolk is as acrimonious towards Councillor Di Muccio as the Regional Councillor Taylor is with Di Muccio. What does Wolk offer to Council harmony that Taylor isn't already achieving? To quote one recent tweeter, Di Muccio can win any election contest that she puts her mind toward. If she decides to run for Mayor, as Wolk claims she will, then he has done a poor job of ingratiating himself to his new boss should he pull off a stunning upset against Taylor. It is ridiculous that someone who uses his Twitter account almost exclusively for "kissing backsides" would screw up what would potentially be his most important Council relationship should he actually win in 2014. As I have pointed out in earlier blogs, with two representatives from Newmarket at Regional Council, if the Regional Councillor doesn't vote with the Mayor then their votes cancel each other out leaving Newmarket without a voice. So if Wolk doesn't follow Di Muccio's leadership in Regional Council, then why would voters select him?
Frankly, I don't see how Wolk has a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks of defeating John Taylor in a head to head election (assuming that Taylor survives the series of scandals and seeks re-election).
For Newmarket voters, it is a catch-22 decision. We get to choose between the guy who condones DUI versus the guy who condones election fraud.
At least it won't be a mystery to explain the record low voter turnout in 2014.
Instead, Wolk's brief political career has suffered a major meltdown on the scale of the Fukushima reactor. As a person who lists Social Media Advocacy and Public Media Crisis Management as two areas of expertise, it has been comical to watch him alienate and denigrate the very few people who may have actually supported his political aspirations with a series of overtly hostile and off-putting tweets.
His allegations of "trolls", "hypocrisy", "attacking", and "drinking the Kool-Aid". against ordinary Newmarket voters over the past 48-hours is a classic example of crash and burn. If nothing else, he has demonstrated that he isn't the social media expert as he claims to be
As appropriate in any memorial service, let's take a look at the short yet absurd political career of Mr. Darryl Wolk.
Absurdity # 1 - The Endorsement
A month ago, Wolk raised a few eyebrows when he took to Twitter to proclaim that his candidacy for Regional Councillor had the endorsement of Newmarket-Aurora MP Lois Brown. His claim of an endorsement seemed highly unlikely to be legitimate because if it were true then MP Lois Brown has a lot of explaining to do. Here are two questions for MP Brown that immediately come to mind:
1) If Brown endorses Wolk, does she also endorse his views on legalisation of marijuana? With approximately 80 tweets/ re-tweets about legalising pot along with a couple of blog postings supporting the legalisation movement, Wolk is one of Newmarket's most prolific writers about ending the prohibition on dope. Maybe there is a side to Lois Brown that the community doesn't know about and perhaps she should take advantage of 420 to come out of the closet.
2) If she endorses Wolk, does she also agree with his opinion that Michael Sona is being framed by the brass in the Conservative Party? Wolk gave an interview to the Guelph Mercury (click here for the article) that Sona who currently facing charges for the robocalls scandal during the federal election, is no more than a patsy for the big-wigs at Conservative Party HQ. If Lois is down with Wolk's view that Sona is the CPC fall guy, then I'm certain Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor want to interview her for the front page of the National Post.
I don't believe that Lois Brown is neither a pot head, nor is she a big advocate of election fraud, therefore I find it highly unlikely that she would lend her reputation to someone of the ilk of Wolk. But in case I'm wrong, I'm going to invite her to make public if she intends to endorse his candidacy If she doesn't, will Wolk admit that he made this endorsement nonsense up?
Absurdity # 2 - His Track Record
More than a few times we've endured Wolk's whinges that this current term of Council has achieved nothing. And he would like Newmarket voters to know, that he is the man to fix the impasse. If that were true, then why did Wolk lend his tremendous campaign experience to both Regional Councillor Taylor's and Mayor Van Bynen's re-election bids? The gruesome two-some of Newmarket politics apparently have Darryl Wolk to thank for their electoral success according to his web site. Is Wolk admitting that he made a mistake when he catapulted these two back into office or will he be running on their track record of ineffectiveness. Which is it going to be?
The truth is very much that Wolk is masking himself as a "conservative" while riding the coat tails of the tax-and-spend left wing of Council which includes the Van Bynen/ Taylor alliance. And like anyone who campaigns under a party's nomination or a faction's bloc, Wolk would be wise to understand that the Van Bynen/ Taylor record is going to be his record too. He has a lot to answer for about his buddies' ineffectiveness.
And on that note, what of his claim that he can work with anyone regardless of political stripe? Clearly, Wolk is as acrimonious towards Councillor Di Muccio as the Regional Councillor Taylor is with Di Muccio. What does Wolk offer to Council harmony that Taylor isn't already achieving? To quote one recent tweeter, Di Muccio can win any election contest that she puts her mind toward. If she decides to run for Mayor, as Wolk claims she will, then he has done a poor job of ingratiating himself to his new boss should he pull off a stunning upset against Taylor. It is ridiculous that someone who uses his Twitter account almost exclusively for "kissing backsides" would screw up what would potentially be his most important Council relationship should he actually win in 2014. As I have pointed out in earlier blogs, with two representatives from Newmarket at Regional Council, if the Regional Councillor doesn't vote with the Mayor then their votes cancel each other out leaving Newmarket without a voice. So if Wolk doesn't follow Di Muccio's leadership in Regional Council, then why would voters select him?
Frankly, I don't see how Wolk has a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks of defeating John Taylor in a head to head election (assuming that Taylor survives the series of scandals and seeks re-election).
For Newmarket voters, it is a catch-22 decision. We get to choose between the guy who condones DUI versus the guy who condones election fraud.
At least it won't be a mystery to explain the record low voter turnout in 2014.
Thursday 18 April 2013
Evidence that a Conflict of Interest Occurred During the April 16, 2013 Council Meeting
I finally got a chance to view the Monday council meeting and was left with a niggling feeling that something wasn't right about the whole affair. That little feeling lingered and so I decided to do some google searches on the Internet. What I found is very disturbing.
Here is the background for anyone who did not view the Newmarket council meeting of April 16th.
The meeting opened up with questions about Regional Council being "up front" about disclosing his pecuniary interest (or in other words, a potential conflict of interest that involves monetary gains for the Regional Councillor, or potentially a close family member, such as a spouse, child, or parent).
Much of the conversation has to be inferred because someone shut off the microphone for Ward 6 Councillor, Maddie Di Muccio. For most of the discussion, viewers heard only the Mayor and Regional Councillor speak.
From what I understand, the week previous, the Regional Councillor declared a pecuniary interest relating to a presentation on e-bike. Reviewing the minutes from the committee of the whole meeting posted on line on www.newmarket.ca, there was a presentation by Paul Gingl (make special note of that name) of BionX to council. As Councillor Di Muccio states, the nature of Regional Councillor Taylor's disclosure was that he acted as a "consultant" for "an e-bike company".
Councillor Di Muccio stated that she had a document that shows, not only that Regional Councillor John Taylor was a "consultant", he was actually the "Director of Community and Government Relations" for BionX, (the company that was presenting to council). I imagine that Councillor Di Muccio was referring to this document that I found on-line with a google search: http://www.greeninggovernment.ca/agenda/agenda.html. This item is an agenda for the Greening Government Conference in June 2011 where Regional Councillor John Taylor is indeed listed as a director of BionX.
I happen to agree with Councillor Di Muccio's position that there is a significant difference between being a "consultant" vs. a "director" in the corporate world. A director implies senior management level decision maker. However, apparently Mayor Van Bynen did not see the distinction and demanded that Councillor Di Muccio apologize for asking Regional Councillor Taylor to be "up front" about his pecuniary interest.
Not so fast, Mr. Mayor.
This matter is far from over.
Later in the April 16th meeting there was a recorded vote about an confidential item relating to naming parks. The vote was recorded as 8 for and 1 against. The one person against being Councillor Di Muccio. After the vote, Councillor Kerwin asked for the names to be disclosed and it was revealed that Frank Stronach Park will be named in Ward 1. (Make a special note of that name).
I thought I recognized the surname Gingl from the minutes of previous meeting so I googled Paul Gingl. Sure enough, Paul is the son of Manfred Gingl. Manfred Gingl is the former president and CEO Magna International. Who grew up with Manfred Gingl and is considered to be a close friend and confidante? Frank Stronach.
So then I googled BionX, Manfred Gingl, and Frank Stronach and a Canadian Business article from November 2011 popped up. The article was written by Matthew McClearn and the article was titled Frank Stronach's Electric Kool-Aid. Here is a quote from that article:
“It was always a dream between Frank and myself to have our own product line,” Gingl told those gathered on the waterfront. The pair controls BionX, with Magna owning a minority stake.
So we've established that Regional Councillor John Taylor worked as the Director of Community and Government Relations for BionX in June 2011 (and perhaps later as he admitted to in his comments on April 16th). The Regional Councillor felt that this relationship with BionX was significant enough to declare a pecuniary interest on the deputation by Paul Gingl.
According to the Canadian Business article of November 2011, Frank Stronach and Manfred Gingl control BionX with a minority share owned by Magna.
Yet, when it comes to naming a municipal asset after the majority partner of BionX (who was - and could still be - his employer/ client), Regional Councillor John Taylor did not declare a pecuniary conflict and he actually voted in a recorded vote about that matter.
There is no way that Regional Councillor Taylor would not have known about Mr. Stronach's involvement ni BionX as it was a very simple google search that revealed this connection. In 2011, BionX operated out of the Magna Campus. So it seems he really has no plausibility to claim he was ignorant that Mr. Stronach was signing his cheques.
I don't know if Councillor Di Muccio was familiar with these details and that is why she asked for a recorded vote and then voted in the negative. Mayor Van Bynen made comments that he was familiar with the Regional Councillor's extra curricular employment so it wouldn't surprise me if he was just covering for his ally (which would explain why Councillor Di Muccio's microphone was turned off and why he spoke over her when she attempted to explain her case).
While Mayor Van Bynen may be able to control the debate during a council meeting, he can't silence the Internet. The facts are the facts. This man is a seasoned politician and he understands his obligations under the Muncipal Conflict of Interest Act (as he showed by declaring the pecuniary interest in relation to the presentation on e-bikes). Regional Councillor Taylor had the exact same pecuniary interest to declare with regards to the vote on Frank Stronach Park. He failed to declare it and he voted on the matter in a recorded vote. In my opinion, that is a clear "conflict of interest" under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (here is the link if you want to look it up: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90m50_e.htm)
As we learned during the Rob Ford court battles, there is only one remedy for a politician who is found in violation of the Municipal Code of Conduct Act, and that is removal from office. I think Regional Councillor Taylor should avoid the embarrassment and the cost to taxpayers of an investigation and court battle with an inevitable outcome. He should simply resign. And while he's heading out the door, have him do one more nice thing for our community by taking with him his DUI-convicted friend, the Ward 7 councillor.
Here is the background for anyone who did not view the Newmarket council meeting of April 16th.
The meeting opened up with questions about Regional Council being "up front" about disclosing his pecuniary interest (or in other words, a potential conflict of interest that involves monetary gains for the Regional Councillor, or potentially a close family member, such as a spouse, child, or parent).
Much of the conversation has to be inferred because someone shut off the microphone for Ward 6 Councillor, Maddie Di Muccio. For most of the discussion, viewers heard only the Mayor and Regional Councillor speak.
From what I understand, the week previous, the Regional Councillor declared a pecuniary interest relating to a presentation on e-bike. Reviewing the minutes from the committee of the whole meeting posted on line on www.newmarket.ca, there was a presentation by Paul Gingl (make special note of that name) of BionX to council. As Councillor Di Muccio states, the nature of Regional Councillor Taylor's disclosure was that he acted as a "consultant" for "an e-bike company".
Councillor Di Muccio stated that she had a document that shows, not only that Regional Councillor John Taylor was a "consultant", he was actually the "Director of Community and Government Relations" for BionX, (the company that was presenting to council). I imagine that Councillor Di Muccio was referring to this document that I found on-line with a google search: http://www.greeninggovernment.ca/agenda/agenda.html. This item is an agenda for the Greening Government Conference in June 2011 where Regional Councillor John Taylor is indeed listed as a director of BionX.
I happen to agree with Councillor Di Muccio's position that there is a significant difference between being a "consultant" vs. a "director" in the corporate world. A director implies senior management level decision maker. However, apparently Mayor Van Bynen did not see the distinction and demanded that Councillor Di Muccio apologize for asking Regional Councillor Taylor to be "up front" about his pecuniary interest.
Not so fast, Mr. Mayor.
This matter is far from over.
Later in the April 16th meeting there was a recorded vote about an confidential item relating to naming parks. The vote was recorded as 8 for and 1 against. The one person against being Councillor Di Muccio. After the vote, Councillor Kerwin asked for the names to be disclosed and it was revealed that Frank Stronach Park will be named in Ward 1. (Make a special note of that name).
I thought I recognized the surname Gingl from the minutes of previous meeting so I googled Paul Gingl. Sure enough, Paul is the son of Manfred Gingl. Manfred Gingl is the former president and CEO Magna International. Who grew up with Manfred Gingl and is considered to be a close friend and confidante? Frank Stronach.
So then I googled BionX, Manfred Gingl, and Frank Stronach and a Canadian Business article from November 2011 popped up. The article was written by Matthew McClearn and the article was titled Frank Stronach's Electric Kool-Aid. Here is a quote from that article:
“It was always a dream between Frank and myself to have our own product line,” Gingl told those gathered on the waterfront. The pair controls BionX, with Magna owning a minority stake.
So we've established that Regional Councillor John Taylor worked as the Director of Community and Government Relations for BionX in June 2011 (and perhaps later as he admitted to in his comments on April 16th). The Regional Councillor felt that this relationship with BionX was significant enough to declare a pecuniary interest on the deputation by Paul Gingl.
According to the Canadian Business article of November 2011, Frank Stronach and Manfred Gingl control BionX with a minority share owned by Magna.
Yet, when it comes to naming a municipal asset after the majority partner of BionX (who was - and could still be - his employer/ client), Regional Councillor John Taylor did not declare a pecuniary conflict and he actually voted in a recorded vote about that matter.
There is no way that Regional Councillor Taylor would not have known about Mr. Stronach's involvement ni BionX as it was a very simple google search that revealed this connection. In 2011, BionX operated out of the Magna Campus. So it seems he really has no plausibility to claim he was ignorant that Mr. Stronach was signing his cheques.
I don't know if Councillor Di Muccio was familiar with these details and that is why she asked for a recorded vote and then voted in the negative. Mayor Van Bynen made comments that he was familiar with the Regional Councillor's extra curricular employment so it wouldn't surprise me if he was just covering for his ally (which would explain why Councillor Di Muccio's microphone was turned off and why he spoke over her when she attempted to explain her case).
While Mayor Van Bynen may be able to control the debate during a council meeting, he can't silence the Internet. The facts are the facts. This man is a seasoned politician and he understands his obligations under the Muncipal Conflict of Interest Act (as he showed by declaring the pecuniary interest in relation to the presentation on e-bikes). Regional Councillor Taylor had the exact same pecuniary interest to declare with regards to the vote on Frank Stronach Park. He failed to declare it and he voted on the matter in a recorded vote. In my opinion, that is a clear "conflict of interest" under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (here is the link if you want to look it up: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90m50_e.htm)
As we learned during the Rob Ford court battles, there is only one remedy for a politician who is found in violation of the Municipal Code of Conduct Act, and that is removal from office. I think Regional Councillor Taylor should avoid the embarrassment and the cost to taxpayers of an investigation and court battle with an inevitable outcome. He should simply resign. And while he's heading out the door, have him do one more nice thing for our community by taking with him his DUI-convicted friend, the Ward 7 councillor.
Tuesday 16 April 2013
A cynical campaign ploy for Glenway votes
I will admit that it is with some degree of hesitation that I have chosen write about Newmarket Aurora MPP Frank Klees. I have been asked on various occasions to give an opinion on current events affecting the Province or national issues. I have always avoided wading in on these items because I want to keep this blog 'pure' Newmarket Town Hall.
I am foregoing my 'purity' policy because Frank Klees' Private Member's Bill was brought into Newmarket Town Hall which makes him fair game for a blog like mine. I don't plan to stand idly by while Klees parades around pretending to care about Newmarket's growth plans.
Full Disclosure - Although my own politics lean more towards the conservative side of the spectrum, I am definitely not a fan of Frank Klees. I don't like him as my representative at Queens Park because Frank Klees' values and principles don't reflect my own. Mr. Klees is extremely socially conservative and he chums around with the likes of Reverend Dr. Charles McVety. Klees went so far as to making his official announcement to seek the leadership of the Ontario PC Party on McVety's television show.
(For readers who are unfamiliar with McVety, he is the President of the Canada Christian College and he holds some outrageous anti-same-sex-marriage, anti-sex-education, and anti-environmentalism views. In addition, McVety has xenophobic opinions on Islam too; accusing the religion of plotting a hostile take over of western culture. I think most Newmarket residents would find his views disagreeable).
Although Klees denies being responsible for the "Faith Based Funding" plank in John Tory's disastrous campaign, Klees has publicly supported using tax credits to subsidize tuition for students of private, faith based schools. (Hardly a difference in my opinion because his tax credit scheme will ultimately divert money away from the public school system).
I mention these items only to inform my readers that I have a noted bias against Klees and his representation of Newmarket at Queens Park. I could mention that he is disturbingly ambitious as evidenced by the three times he has run for leader of a political party (and lost) or how he abandoned the opposition parties in 2011 to take a shot at the Speaker's Chair (and lost), but it might make me seem petty.
Mr. Klees has introduced a private member's bill in Queens Park. That in itself raises eyebrows because one of the dominant stories in Ontario, and certainly for any upcoming election, are new taxes being proposed by the Liberal government to fund the Big Move construction of public transit. After all, Mr. Klees is actually the PC Critic for Transportation and the PC Party is supposed to be against tax hikes. Yet for some strange reason Mr. Klees is preoccupieded on his private member's bill and says nary a word on his transportation file. I am sure that his friends in caucus are thrilled to pick up his slack.
Make no mistake, Klees' private member's bill has one purpose - to garner votes from a handful of Glenway residents.
So while Glenway gets the MPP's attention, Newmarket residents can ignore how Davis Drive is being turned into an ill planned construction site that will make the street impassable for cars for years to come. (Never mind the fact that when the construction is finally complete, it will be impossible to make a left hand turn from Davis into a plaza which is sure to push a number of local businesses into bankruptcy).
Newmarket residents can also ignore the fact that the cost to fill up a tank of gas will skyrocket to pay for multi million projects like these bus lanes on Davis Drive.
Never mind, Newmarket residents, that the Senior Centre facility was structurally damaged by this bus lane construction leaving our seniors without a place to meet socially.
Newmarket residents can ignore these issues because your MPP, Frank Klees, has already decided to ignore them too. As the Opposition Critic for Transportation, Klees remains silent while the majority of our community are inconvenienced and, (to add insult to injury), are grievously taxed for the inconvenience too.
Also, Newmarket residents should pay no mind that the Glenway development is probably a whole lot better for the community than the ones being planned along Yonge and Davis, or the ones that will destroy the character of our community like the Clock Tower development. I think a survey of residents asking whether they preferred to be neighbours with a development that comprised of single family homes vs a high rise condominium development like Slessor Square, would be overwhelmingly be in favour of the former. We are a community of single family homes today. Glenway continues that tradition but Slessor Square and the Clock Tower do not.
If Mr. Klees is so concerned about the impact of the Places to Grow Act on Newmarket, why was he silent when Slessor Square was being debated? Where is Klees while a certain developer is planning on destroying our Main Street and one of our historic buildings with the Clock Tower condominiums?
This private member's bill is a cynical campaign ploy for the upcoming provincial election campaign. I, for one, am not fooled, and neither should you be fooled by his unsubtle stumping.
In the next election, I am going to vote strategically by voting for whichever candidate has the best shot at defeating long-in-the-tooth Frank Klees. Not because I have abandoned conservative principles, but because I refuse to endorse his cynical politicking. More than ever, we need Newmarket politicians to fight for our community. Mr. Klees can't be allowed to walk on the Glenway scene after being silent on Slessor Square. His johnny-come-lately act not only shows that he lacks the moral fortitude to do the right thing for the community but also that he loves to grandstand. I won't support him during the next election and I don't think you should either.
(For Glenway residents who continue to hope that Mr. Klees is legit. Remember the only other time Klees spoke about the Glenway development? The last time he spoke about Glenway was during the 2011 election campaign. He remains mum on the subject all other times).
I hope that Mr. Klees picks up every single vote from Glenway - and not a single vote from the rest of Newmarket. He is letting us down by not speaking up for us on the issues that affect the entire community.
I am foregoing my 'purity' policy because Frank Klees' Private Member's Bill was brought into Newmarket Town Hall which makes him fair game for a blog like mine. I don't plan to stand idly by while Klees parades around pretending to care about Newmarket's growth plans.
Full Disclosure - Although my own politics lean more towards the conservative side of the spectrum, I am definitely not a fan of Frank Klees. I don't like him as my representative at Queens Park because Frank Klees' values and principles don't reflect my own. Mr. Klees is extremely socially conservative and he chums around with the likes of Reverend Dr. Charles McVety. Klees went so far as to making his official announcement to seek the leadership of the Ontario PC Party on McVety's television show.
(For readers who are unfamiliar with McVety, he is the President of the Canada Christian College and he holds some outrageous anti-same-sex-marriage, anti-sex-education, and anti-environmentalism views. In addition, McVety has xenophobic opinions on Islam too; accusing the religion of plotting a hostile take over of western culture. I think most Newmarket residents would find his views disagreeable).
Although Klees denies being responsible for the "Faith Based Funding" plank in John Tory's disastrous campaign, Klees has publicly supported using tax credits to subsidize tuition for students of private, faith based schools. (Hardly a difference in my opinion because his tax credit scheme will ultimately divert money away from the public school system).
I mention these items only to inform my readers that I have a noted bias against Klees and his representation of Newmarket at Queens Park. I could mention that he is disturbingly ambitious as evidenced by the three times he has run for leader of a political party (and lost) or how he abandoned the opposition parties in 2011 to take a shot at the Speaker's Chair (and lost), but it might make me seem petty.
Mr. Klees has introduced a private member's bill in Queens Park. That in itself raises eyebrows because one of the dominant stories in Ontario, and certainly for any upcoming election, are new taxes being proposed by the Liberal government to fund the Big Move construction of public transit. After all, Mr. Klees is actually the PC Critic for Transportation and the PC Party is supposed to be against tax hikes. Yet for some strange reason Mr. Klees is preoccupieded on his private member's bill and says nary a word on his transportation file. I am sure that his friends in caucus are thrilled to pick up his slack.
Make no mistake, Klees' private member's bill has one purpose - to garner votes from a handful of Glenway residents.
So while Glenway gets the MPP's attention, Newmarket residents can ignore how Davis Drive is being turned into an ill planned construction site that will make the street impassable for cars for years to come. (Never mind the fact that when the construction is finally complete, it will be impossible to make a left hand turn from Davis into a plaza which is sure to push a number of local businesses into bankruptcy).
Newmarket residents can also ignore the fact that the cost to fill up a tank of gas will skyrocket to pay for multi million projects like these bus lanes on Davis Drive.
Never mind, Newmarket residents, that the Senior Centre facility was structurally damaged by this bus lane construction leaving our seniors without a place to meet socially.
Newmarket residents can ignore these issues because your MPP, Frank Klees, has already decided to ignore them too. As the Opposition Critic for Transportation, Klees remains silent while the majority of our community are inconvenienced and, (to add insult to injury), are grievously taxed for the inconvenience too.
Also, Newmarket residents should pay no mind that the Glenway development is probably a whole lot better for the community than the ones being planned along Yonge and Davis, or the ones that will destroy the character of our community like the Clock Tower development. I think a survey of residents asking whether they preferred to be neighbours with a development that comprised of single family homes vs a high rise condominium development like Slessor Square, would be overwhelmingly be in favour of the former. We are a community of single family homes today. Glenway continues that tradition but Slessor Square and the Clock Tower do not.
If Mr. Klees is so concerned about the impact of the Places to Grow Act on Newmarket, why was he silent when Slessor Square was being debated? Where is Klees while a certain developer is planning on destroying our Main Street and one of our historic buildings with the Clock Tower condominiums?
This private member's bill is a cynical campaign ploy for the upcoming provincial election campaign. I, for one, am not fooled, and neither should you be fooled by his unsubtle stumping.
In the next election, I am going to vote strategically by voting for whichever candidate has the best shot at defeating long-in-the-tooth Frank Klees. Not because I have abandoned conservative principles, but because I refuse to endorse his cynical politicking. More than ever, we need Newmarket politicians to fight for our community. Mr. Klees can't be allowed to walk on the Glenway scene after being silent on Slessor Square. His johnny-come-lately act not only shows that he lacks the moral fortitude to do the right thing for the community but also that he loves to grandstand. I won't support him during the next election and I don't think you should either.
(For Glenway residents who continue to hope that Mr. Klees is legit. Remember the only other time Klees spoke about the Glenway development? The last time he spoke about Glenway was during the 2011 election campaign. He remains mum on the subject all other times).
I hope that Mr. Klees picks up every single vote from Glenway - and not a single vote from the rest of Newmarket. He is letting us down by not speaking up for us on the issues that affect the entire community.
Friday 12 April 2013
On Anonymous Blogs and the York Region Media Group
A Collingwood, Ontario blogger by the name of Steve Berman is much more courageous than I am. Through his online blog, http://allbeingmaster.blogspot.ca/ , Steve is quite vocal about the shenanigans over at Collingwood's town hall. In fact, due to Steve's persistence he has been successful at garnering the attention of the CBC and finally the Ontario Provincial Police to check into some shady decisions made by local officials. One month ago there was a huge rally in front of Collingwood Town Hall with residents saying "Enough is Enough"
The reason I call Steve courageous is because he has had to put up with a lot of nonsense in his quest for transparency. Someone posted a video on line depicting Steve being dragged from his bed by Nazis and shot in the back. Here is the link to the CBC news story about that nasty business: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/07/sub-seglins-collingwood-blogger.html.
Steve chose to be identified in his writings. He filed Freedom of Information requests and received documents that exposed alleged conflict of interests and bid tampering incidents that appear to be rampant in Collingwood. For his efforts, Steve got rewarded with a non-to-subtle death threat.
I write anonymously because I don't want what Steve Berman experienced to happen to me. I think he is a hero and I hope that the residents of Collingwood think the same.
One of the advantages of being anonymous is that the reader can focus on the ideas of my editorials instead of the writer. I want to engage my readers in a discussion about thoughts, principles, and values that define Newmarket. It also gives me an opportunity to speak out about things that may be unpopular but never-the-less need to be said.
It is with great dismay that I read this article on the York Region Media Group's web site: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/2524184-who-is-behind-richmond-hill-watchdog-committee-/
I am dismayed because the YRMG seems to be doing the dirty work of a certain cabal of municipal politicians whereas their job is actually to be the the "Fourth Estate". When Edmund Burke conceived the idea of 3 estates within government prior to the French Revolution (including the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners), the "Fourth Estate" was referred to as the newspaper editors. The newspaper editors were considered the most important arm of politics because their newspapers kept everyone else in government honest by keeping ordinary folk outside of Parliament informed about what was taking place on the inside.
I have the following advice for the YRMG : If you are concerned about ad hoc "Watch Dog" groups, then step up and become the "Watch Dog" again. You have lost your way when you decided to become the "Attack Dog" of the municipal councils in York Region. That's not your job.
I recall having a twitter conversation with the editor of the YRMG last summer when I asked her to speak up in defense of a Newmarket Councillor who was being labelled with the c-word. The YRMG editor refused to condemn the c-word but she was pretty interested in learning who I was. Why? What did my blog have to do with the story? Was it that gossip was more interesting for her than the news?
That's my impression and that is why I write these editorials. I promised her I would stop blogging if she ever improved the quality of the reporting and commentary that her paper provides. Sadly I haven't seen that happen yet.
Thank goodness for brave people like Steve Berman and those involved with the Richmond Hill Watch Dogs. They are heroes and they deserve our praise.
The reason I call Steve courageous is because he has had to put up with a lot of nonsense in his quest for transparency. Someone posted a video on line depicting Steve being dragged from his bed by Nazis and shot in the back. Here is the link to the CBC news story about that nasty business: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/07/sub-seglins-collingwood-blogger.html.
Steve chose to be identified in his writings. He filed Freedom of Information requests and received documents that exposed alleged conflict of interests and bid tampering incidents that appear to be rampant in Collingwood. For his efforts, Steve got rewarded with a non-to-subtle death threat.
I write anonymously because I don't want what Steve Berman experienced to happen to me. I think he is a hero and I hope that the residents of Collingwood think the same.
One of the advantages of being anonymous is that the reader can focus on the ideas of my editorials instead of the writer. I want to engage my readers in a discussion about thoughts, principles, and values that define Newmarket. It also gives me an opportunity to speak out about things that may be unpopular but never-the-less need to be said.
It is with great dismay that I read this article on the York Region Media Group's web site: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/2524184-who-is-behind-richmond-hill-watchdog-committee-/
I am dismayed because the YRMG seems to be doing the dirty work of a certain cabal of municipal politicians whereas their job is actually to be the the "Fourth Estate". When Edmund Burke conceived the idea of 3 estates within government prior to the French Revolution (including the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners), the "Fourth Estate" was referred to as the newspaper editors. The newspaper editors were considered the most important arm of politics because their newspapers kept everyone else in government honest by keeping ordinary folk outside of Parliament informed about what was taking place on the inside.
I have the following advice for the YRMG : If you are concerned about ad hoc "Watch Dog" groups, then step up and become the "Watch Dog" again. You have lost your way when you decided to become the "Attack Dog" of the municipal councils in York Region. That's not your job.
I recall having a twitter conversation with the editor of the YRMG last summer when I asked her to speak up in defense of a Newmarket Councillor who was being labelled with the c-word. The YRMG editor refused to condemn the c-word but she was pretty interested in learning who I was. Why? What did my blog have to do with the story? Was it that gossip was more interesting for her than the news?
That's my impression and that is why I write these editorials. I promised her I would stop blogging if she ever improved the quality of the reporting and commentary that her paper provides. Sadly I haven't seen that happen yet.
Thank goodness for brave people like Steve Berman and those involved with the Richmond Hill Watch Dogs. They are heroes and they deserve our praise.
Friday 5 April 2013
Demanding Fairness is not NIMBY-ism
Thanks to all those who engaged in my last blog post, including the Councillor who ill-advisedly referred to members of the public as "lying" and "clueless" (although Tom Vegh has subsequently removed that tweet). I'm glad to see that my thoughts concerning the construction of new subsidized housing in Newmarket can generate "grown up" debate from our elected officials. (I have to say that I'm disappointed that Tom Vegh refused to clarify his position on additional social housing for Newmarket although he was asked repeatedly for his stance).
What was said in social media certainly warranted a second blog on the subject to provide the public with greater details. To be very clear, I am in no way attacking the poor, particularly the seniors who benefit from subsidized housing. I believe that society has a duty to help out the less fortunate. I also believe it would be unfair to label my position as NIMBY-ism because I am approaching this matter on the basis of fairness.
To those who perhaps missed my earlier blog, let me give you a quick timeline of events to catch you up:
On March 22, Councillor Jane Twinney tweeted "A very exciting meeting this morning; looking at how #Newmarket can get purpose built Apartment Style Housing in our community." (Subsequent tweets on that day narrowed the scope to Seniors and what she referred to as new families who could not afford expensive condos and she mentioned inclusivity. Naturally, those are all code words for affordable housing).
On April 1, Regional Councillor John Taylor tweeted: "After much outreach, I was please to here (sic) from a developer today interested in building rental building in #Newmarket."
On April 2, John Taylor tweeted that he was asked to visit China as the Chair of the York Regional Human Services Planning Board (the same committee that is responsible for subsidized housing in York Region). There is no word which organization is paying for his trip. If Mr. Taylor was a federal MP, he would have to disclose who was paying for his trip. I don't think there are any rules applicable to municipal politicians regarding disclosure though.
Yesterday, John Taylor tweeted: "Human Services Planning Board meeting today ...we are building our strategy on increased rental housing opportunities in York Region.
Although there isn't a direct link between Councillor Jane Twinney's "exciting meeting" tweet which clearly refers to affordable housing, and Regional Councillor John Taylor's tweets which clearly refer to York Region's non-profit housing corporation, the coincidence is just too much to believe otherwise.
So let's delve into York Region's income based, affordable housing properties. Currently, there are approximately 2,200 subsidized housing units owned by the Region of York. 30% of those units are already situated in the Town of Newmarket.
Specifically, here is a breakdown of subsidized housing units by municipality and for comparison's sake, I have also included the total number of residential units in each municipality too to demonstrate that Newmarket already does its fair share.
Municipality # of Subsidized # of total % of subsidized
Housing units residences Housing to Total Res.
Aurora 163 17,347 0.9%
East Gwillimbury 84 7,482 1.12%
Georgina 315 15,949 1.98%
King 92 6,707 1.37%
Markham 201 89,382 0.2%
Newmarket 666 27,350 2.43%
Richmond Hill 483 57,049 0.8%
Vaughan 190 84,142 0.2%
Whitchurch Stouffville 51 12,966 0.4%
If municipalities like Vaughan and Markham want to be a full partner in York Region's efforts to provide social assistance to seniors, new families (as Councillor Twinney refers to them), and others, then these cities need to make way for 12X their current level of participation in order to catch up to Newmarket's contribution. It can not be called "NIMBY-ism" when Newmarket is already heavily invested while the municipalities to the south are not.
If John Taylor and Jane Twinney want to do outreach, start calling the Mayors of those communities that are supposed to be our "partners" in supporting the poor and needy. Why is Newmarket doing all the heavy lifting while communities of great wealth are shirking? I hope that the answer isn't because the Chair of the Committee has been swayed with trips to China and having a certain York Housing property named after his dad.
Newmarket Council likes to promote that Money Sense Magazine ranked Newmarket 10th best Canadian city. We received this ranking due to criteria that included the overall average income of families and our low crime rate. This is why expanding the presence of York Housing even further into Newmarket does not make sense. Residents of Newmarket need to say that we are already doing more than our fair share relative to our neighbours and supposed partners.
As Chair of the Human Services Planning Board, Regional Councillor John Taylor needs to stand up for Newmarket and say, enough is enough. He was given a position of influence so that he could fight for residents and represent out interests and not to be swayed by trips to China and vanity name plates on buildings. Demand that the other municipalities catch up first before Newmarket considers adding more subsidized housing in our town.
What was said in social media certainly warranted a second blog on the subject to provide the public with greater details. To be very clear, I am in no way attacking the poor, particularly the seniors who benefit from subsidized housing. I believe that society has a duty to help out the less fortunate. I also believe it would be unfair to label my position as NIMBY-ism because I am approaching this matter on the basis of fairness.
To those who perhaps missed my earlier blog, let me give you a quick timeline of events to catch you up:
On March 22, Councillor Jane Twinney tweeted "A very exciting meeting this morning; looking at how #Newmarket can get purpose built Apartment Style Housing in our community." (Subsequent tweets on that day narrowed the scope to Seniors and what she referred to as new families who could not afford expensive condos and she mentioned inclusivity. Naturally, those are all code words for affordable housing).
On April 1, Regional Councillor John Taylor tweeted: "After much outreach, I was please to here (sic) from a developer today interested in building rental building in #Newmarket."
On April 2, John Taylor tweeted that he was asked to visit China as the Chair of the York Regional Human Services Planning Board (the same committee that is responsible for subsidized housing in York Region). There is no word which organization is paying for his trip. If Mr. Taylor was a federal MP, he would have to disclose who was paying for his trip. I don't think there are any rules applicable to municipal politicians regarding disclosure though.
Yesterday, John Taylor tweeted: "Human Services Planning Board meeting today ...we are building our strategy on increased rental housing opportunities in York Region.
Although there isn't a direct link between Councillor Jane Twinney's "exciting meeting" tweet which clearly refers to affordable housing, and Regional Councillor John Taylor's tweets which clearly refer to York Region's non-profit housing corporation, the coincidence is just too much to believe otherwise.
So let's delve into York Region's income based, affordable housing properties. Currently, there are approximately 2,200 subsidized housing units owned by the Region of York. 30% of those units are already situated in the Town of Newmarket.
Specifically, here is a breakdown of subsidized housing units by municipality and for comparison's sake, I have also included the total number of residential units in each municipality too to demonstrate that Newmarket already does its fair share.
Municipality # of Subsidized # of total % of subsidized
Housing units residences Housing to Total Res.
Aurora 163 17,347 0.9%
East Gwillimbury 84 7,482 1.12%
Georgina 315 15,949 1.98%
King 92 6,707 1.37%
Markham 201 89,382 0.2%
Newmarket 666 27,350 2.43%
Richmond Hill 483 57,049 0.8%
Vaughan 190 84,142 0.2%
Whitchurch Stouffville 51 12,966 0.4%
If municipalities like Vaughan and Markham want to be a full partner in York Region's efforts to provide social assistance to seniors, new families (as Councillor Twinney refers to them), and others, then these cities need to make way for 12X their current level of participation in order to catch up to Newmarket's contribution. It can not be called "NIMBY-ism" when Newmarket is already heavily invested while the municipalities to the south are not.
If John Taylor and Jane Twinney want to do outreach, start calling the Mayors of those communities that are supposed to be our "partners" in supporting the poor and needy. Why is Newmarket doing all the heavy lifting while communities of great wealth are shirking? I hope that the answer isn't because the Chair of the Committee has been swayed with trips to China and having a certain York Housing property named after his dad.
Newmarket Council likes to promote that Money Sense Magazine ranked Newmarket 10th best Canadian city. We received this ranking due to criteria that included the overall average income of families and our low crime rate. This is why expanding the presence of York Housing even further into Newmarket does not make sense. Residents of Newmarket need to say that we are already doing more than our fair share relative to our neighbours and supposed partners.
As Chair of the Human Services Planning Board, Regional Councillor John Taylor needs to stand up for Newmarket and say, enough is enough. He was given a position of influence so that he could fight for residents and represent out interests and not to be swayed by trips to China and vanity name plates on buildings. Demand that the other municipalities catch up first before Newmarket considers adding more subsidized housing in our town.
Tuesday 2 April 2013
Weapons of Mass Construction
For the most part, Newmarket is filled up. There remains only a scattering of develop-able lands for single family homes. There are a series of land owners, for example the car dealers that line Yonge St., and these few people are lobbying hard to change the face of your town to reap the financial rewards of sky raising intensification.
Rest assured, these land owners also appear to have a few Council members on their side too. You don't have to go too far through any issue of SNAP magazine to see a Council member's smiling mug pressed up against the cheek of someone associated with one of the Yonge St. car dealerships.
What you don't find in the pages of SNAP, or anywhere else for that matter, is consultation with ordinary homeowners about the changing face of Newmarket. The official growth plan for the Town of Newmarket calls for mid/ high rises to spring up along the Yonge Davis corridor. Our community of single family detached homes will change in character and appearance, and no one seems to be discussing the possible consequences of these changes, save for the few business people who intend to profit handsomely.
A recent example of construction near-sightedness is the plan announced on Twitter by Councillor Jane Twinney and Regional Councillor John Taylor to bring affordable (a code word for "subsidized") rental apartment development to town. Connecting the dots, there seems to be a connection between this initiative and Habitat for Humanity which not so coincidentally is being run by ex Mayor Tom Taylor as board member and Ward 1 Councillor Tom Vegh as president of that organization. In other words, its one big "old boys" network shindig designed to screw over some sorry group of homeowners.
John Taylor's tweet speaks to plans already underway to lure a developer to Newmarket to develop a rental apartment building. Why doesn't he provide us with all the details? Tell us where the building is going to be built? How many units are going to be built? How many are going to be subsidized rental units? How much is the taxpayer going to have to fork over to the developer to build these units? and so on.
It may be impolitic to say this (but someone has to) - as a homeowner that has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into my residence - I am 100% against being forced to accept becoming new neighbours with a subsidized rental apartment building associated with Habitat for Humanity. With only a few lots of develop-able land remaining to be built upon within our township borders, this project is not a priority for our community. Its bad enough we are getting 25-35 storey skyscrapers along Yonge and Davis. We don't need subsidized rental apartment buildings to meet either our official plan targets nor our provincial growth commitments.
With an election just around the corner, hopefully Taylor, Twinney and Vegh et al will have the gumption to take their idea to the electorate and get a legitimate mandate from voters before proceeding. This should be an election issue because residents have a right to voice an opinion about our community. Especially one that could impact how we enjoy our home owns and safeguard our monetary investment in our residences.
Rest assured, these land owners also appear to have a few Council members on their side too. You don't have to go too far through any issue of SNAP magazine to see a Council member's smiling mug pressed up against the cheek of someone associated with one of the Yonge St. car dealerships.
What you don't find in the pages of SNAP, or anywhere else for that matter, is consultation with ordinary homeowners about the changing face of Newmarket. The official growth plan for the Town of Newmarket calls for mid/ high rises to spring up along the Yonge Davis corridor. Our community of single family detached homes will change in character and appearance, and no one seems to be discussing the possible consequences of these changes, save for the few business people who intend to profit handsomely.
A recent example of construction near-sightedness is the plan announced on Twitter by Councillor Jane Twinney and Regional Councillor John Taylor to bring affordable (a code word for "subsidized") rental apartment development to town. Connecting the dots, there seems to be a connection between this initiative and Habitat for Humanity which not so coincidentally is being run by ex Mayor Tom Taylor as board member and Ward 1 Councillor Tom Vegh as president of that organization. In other words, its one big "old boys" network shindig designed to screw over some sorry group of homeowners.
John Taylor's tweet speaks to plans already underway to lure a developer to Newmarket to develop a rental apartment building. Why doesn't he provide us with all the details? Tell us where the building is going to be built? How many units are going to be built? How many are going to be subsidized rental units? How much is the taxpayer going to have to fork over to the developer to build these units? and so on.
It may be impolitic to say this (but someone has to) - as a homeowner that has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into my residence - I am 100% against being forced to accept becoming new neighbours with a subsidized rental apartment building associated with Habitat for Humanity. With only a few lots of develop-able land remaining to be built upon within our township borders, this project is not a priority for our community. Its bad enough we are getting 25-35 storey skyscrapers along Yonge and Davis. We don't need subsidized rental apartment buildings to meet either our official plan targets nor our provincial growth commitments.
With an election just around the corner, hopefully Taylor, Twinney and Vegh et al will have the gumption to take their idea to the electorate and get a legitimate mandate from voters before proceeding. This should be an election issue because residents have a right to voice an opinion about our community. Especially one that could impact how we enjoy our home owns and safeguard our monetary investment in our residences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)