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     

@TonyVanBynen more 'Guess which Ward' game: If someone was mad, they would guess this one pic.twitter.com/QsKt6heZ6S

 

 

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 @ricklamanna One of the pitfalls of remaining #anonymous is lack of credibility #takenwithagrainofsalt

 

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

#FF @WattsTrending and @yolkregion 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.     

 

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. 

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. 

$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? 

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. 

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. 

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.