The race for the next mayor of Newmarket begins today.
The question is: Why would anyone want the job?
Tony Van Bynen pulled out all the stops to get the puppet show council he wants for his final term in office. Not a single backbone among the group and that's the sort of supporting cast the mayor needs to push forward with his tax and spend (and tax again) agenda.
The legacy of this campaign is the dirty deeds of the Nmkt Town Hall smear account. Last week, Tony Van Bynen left nothing to chance when he mailed almost 20,000 voters a flyer full of lies and smears against Ward 6 Councillor, Maddie Di Muccio and her husband, Ward 7 challenger John B. These flyers were extremely effective as voters rewarded the mayor with his choice of puppet council members.
If there is any doubt that Tony Van Bynen is the "mastermind" of this attack, let me present Exhibit A: The Era reports that the biggest cheer of the night at the Van Bynen victory party came when the Ward 6 and 7 results were confirmed. I am certain that there is no need for an Exhibit B.
From today onwards, any challenger worth his/her salt is going to invoke the same maneuver going forward (and probably not just at election time). Newmarket voters yesterday passed judgement and approved of this dirty tactic and apparently it doesn't matter how outrageous the lie that is told. The ends justifies the means after all and the means in this case for certain ambitious Newmarket politicians is discrediting an opponent.
So don't be surprised Newmarket when the next time you open your mailbox and the stench of the next vicious attack ad is emitted. Welcome to the new dawn in Tony Van Bynen's Newmarket, where lies are dished out in super-sized portions.
And good people won't run for municipal government. Why would any decent, honest person want to subject themselves and their families to what Maddie Di Muccio has been through?
No, the only people who will step forward will be cut-throats, scoundrels, and other sordid types who will do anything and say anything to get their hands on your taxpayer dollars. This town's government will be a hornets nest of fraud and corruption for many years to come.
And to the newly elected council who are sure to whine and complain when they find themselves on the receiving end of a really good whopper - You don't need to ask, "Why are you attacking me?" It is simply in the nature of flies to be attracted to BS.
Tuesday 28 October 2014
Monday 27 October 2014
The Town of Newmarket's Rob Ford Moment
Ward 5 Candidate John Heckbert is sounding the alarm about Joe Sponga and a possible infraction of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA).
There is only punishment for someone who is found guilty of the MCIA - removal from office and the seat being declared vacant. In addition, a judge may also order the offender to be barred from running again for up to 7 years. The case law for this is written by Justice Hacklund in the Rob Ford case which you can read here: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/11/26/rob_ford_out_text_of_judges_decision.html
Back in 2011, Joe Sponga sat on a committee that doled out a grant to Europa Travel on Main St. The reason that Joe is so well liked on Main St.is because he has been offering free money (courtesy of the taxpayers) to Main St. businesses for expenses that businesses elsewhere pay out of pocket. This free money adds up quite quickly and is certainly was a fat target to budget hawk, Maddie Di Muccio to cut the program (and likely the graft) out altogether.
A few months after receiving the grant, it seems that Europa Travel gave Joe Sponga a job. It may be difficult to determine that the job came directly as a result of the grant but the optics certainly don't look good.
There have been other times that Joe has tip toed the line on the MCIA too.
For instance, we know that Joe receives money from the Farmer's Market to wrap his vehicle promoting the Market. I also recall Joe speaking in Council against levying any user fees against the out of town farmers who run their business on taxpayer owned park land.
And Joe is not the only Council member to have issues with conflict of interests.
Ward 4 Councillor Tom Hempen was the deciding vote in favour of the controversial soccer loan but he did not declare that his business advertises through a sponsorship of a NSC team.
Regional Councillor John Taylor runs a charity out of the town office even registering the charity's address as 395 Mulock Avenue and having his assistant sell golf tournament tickets during her working hours from her desk.
And most audaciously is Mayor Van Bynen and his Belinda's Place charity activities. The mayor's actions in abusing his position to assist with Belinda's Place fundraising not only cross the line, but clearly Van Bynen has lost all sight of where the line even is.
The MCIA does not give special dispensation for raising money for charity. Rob Ford's case was about charity too. The fact is, if you break the law by using your office to gain a pecuniary interest for yourself of an entity that you are a director of, then you are forced out of office.
What we need is a citizen to make a complaint in General Division Court to have these people answer the challenge of impropriety under the MCIA. I expect that if all four win, that challenge may happen sooner than later.
After all, Paul Magder succeeded for a time in getting Rob Ford tossed from office (Ford was reinstated on a technicality). Surely if the election goes the wrong way, we still have the power of the courts to get these rotters out of office.
There is only punishment for someone who is found guilty of the MCIA - removal from office and the seat being declared vacant. In addition, a judge may also order the offender to be barred from running again for up to 7 years. The case law for this is written by Justice Hacklund in the Rob Ford case which you can read here: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/11/26/rob_ford_out_text_of_judges_decision.html
Back in 2011, Joe Sponga sat on a committee that doled out a grant to Europa Travel on Main St. The reason that Joe is so well liked on Main St.is because he has been offering free money (courtesy of the taxpayers) to Main St. businesses for expenses that businesses elsewhere pay out of pocket. This free money adds up quite quickly and is certainly was a fat target to budget hawk, Maddie Di Muccio to cut the program (and likely the graft) out altogether.
A few months after receiving the grant, it seems that Europa Travel gave Joe Sponga a job. It may be difficult to determine that the job came directly as a result of the grant but the optics certainly don't look good.
There have been other times that Joe has tip toed the line on the MCIA too.
For instance, we know that Joe receives money from the Farmer's Market to wrap his vehicle promoting the Market. I also recall Joe speaking in Council against levying any user fees against the out of town farmers who run their business on taxpayer owned park land.
And Joe is not the only Council member to have issues with conflict of interests.
Ward 4 Councillor Tom Hempen was the deciding vote in favour of the controversial soccer loan but he did not declare that his business advertises through a sponsorship of a NSC team.
Regional Councillor John Taylor runs a charity out of the town office even registering the charity's address as 395 Mulock Avenue and having his assistant sell golf tournament tickets during her working hours from her desk.
And most audaciously is Mayor Van Bynen and his Belinda's Place charity activities. The mayor's actions in abusing his position to assist with Belinda's Place fundraising not only cross the line, but clearly Van Bynen has lost all sight of where the line even is.
The MCIA does not give special dispensation for raising money for charity. Rob Ford's case was about charity too. The fact is, if you break the law by using your office to gain a pecuniary interest for yourself of an entity that you are a director of, then you are forced out of office.
What we need is a citizen to make a complaint in General Division Court to have these people answer the challenge of impropriety under the MCIA. I expect that if all four win, that challenge may happen sooner than later.
After all, Paul Magder succeeded for a time in getting Rob Ford tossed from office (Ford was reinstated on a technicality). Surely if the election goes the wrong way, we still have the power of the courts to get these rotters out of office.
Sunday 26 October 2014
Van Bynen's Da Vinci Code
The problem with plots and schemes involving the Masons is that it is so difficult to get someone to come forward to oppose this secret society. Because tomorrow is election day, I'm going to focus on "Why" Mayor Van Bynen did what he did and will fill in with missing evidence (the "How") later on.
Tony Van Bynen has surveyed the potential outcomes of tomorrow's election and has determined that there isn't one that he doesn't end up on the losing side.
The issue for Van Bynen isn't necessarily one of his opponents but Maddie Di Muccio.
Van Bynen is pulling out all stops to discredit Di Muccio in a desperate attempt to mitigate what she intends for him.
He is a Mason (which is a secret society of old, white, protestant men who have grandiose beliefs that they are people of influence). He has called upon his Mason brothers to help him with money, lawn signs, and even running fully financed candidates in wards 6 and 7 to oppose Di Muccio and John B. You will see evidence of this when ward 6 candidate Kelly Broome-Plumley and ward 7 candidate Christina Bisanz release their campaign donor list (a veritable who's who list of the local Masons) after the election.
But even if Van Bynen is elected, that doesn't solve his Di Muccio problem.
Di Muccio out manoeuvred the Mayor when she ran her husband in Ward 7. There can be no doubt that with two people on the side of taxpayers sitting on council, it will be next to impossible for Van Bynen to deliver on the fat consulting contracts he has been promising to various people over the past twelve months. The richest of these contracts is in relation to his proposed broadband scheme.
Try as he might to keep these contracts hidden from the public, with someone backing her, Di Muccio can force a public debate and then use her superior intellect and media relations skills to shame him.
So when Van Bynen turned to the Masons, (and believe me, Di Muccio is everything that the Masons oppose - she's young, female, smart as a whip, and - gasp - not a protestant), they were only too happy to get involved.
If Van Bynen loses but Di Muccio and John B. win, expect that this will be the last anybody hears of Tony Van Bynen ever. He won't have a street or park named after him. His time on council will be completely lost to the annals of time.
If Van Bynen wins and Di Muccio and John B. win, expect that Van Bynen's tenure as mayor to be measured in months. He won't make it to the end of his term. He'll either negotiate a graceful exit with Di Muccio or she will start revealing (as John B has promised) details of the Soccer Club loan and other nefarious dealings that will see him resign in shame.
If Van Bynen wins and Di Muccio wins but John B loses, this one is the most interesting outcome. If Van Bynen felt that Di Muccio hated him before, then add a dash of vengeance to their relationship. I expect that "scorched Earth" will be the headline of the day.
If Van Bynen wins, Di Muccio loses but John B. wins, this is interesting too. The "Mad Maddie" tag doesn't apply to John B. With Maddie directing him to which rocks to look under and then John B. questioning publicly the things he uncovers, the Mayor doesn't stand a chance. He can try to hide in secret meetings but John B has already shown that he has no hesitation about leaking confidential info that Van Bynen wanted kept secret.
If Van Bynen wins and both Di Muccio and John B. loses, it's game over for Van Bynen. Maddie has attended the closed door meetings and with no oath of confidentiality holding her back, expect the Toronto media to be camped outside Town Hall as all the corruption is made public.
Tony Van Bynen has surveyed the potential outcomes of tomorrow's election and has determined that there isn't one that he doesn't end up on the losing side.
The issue for Van Bynen isn't necessarily one of his opponents but Maddie Di Muccio.
Van Bynen is pulling out all stops to discredit Di Muccio in a desperate attempt to mitigate what she intends for him.
He is a Mason (which is a secret society of old, white, protestant men who have grandiose beliefs that they are people of influence). He has called upon his Mason brothers to help him with money, lawn signs, and even running fully financed candidates in wards 6 and 7 to oppose Di Muccio and John B. You will see evidence of this when ward 6 candidate Kelly Broome-Plumley and ward 7 candidate Christina Bisanz release their campaign donor list (a veritable who's who list of the local Masons) after the election.
But even if Van Bynen is elected, that doesn't solve his Di Muccio problem.
Di Muccio out manoeuvred the Mayor when she ran her husband in Ward 7. There can be no doubt that with two people on the side of taxpayers sitting on council, it will be next to impossible for Van Bynen to deliver on the fat consulting contracts he has been promising to various people over the past twelve months. The richest of these contracts is in relation to his proposed broadband scheme.
Try as he might to keep these contracts hidden from the public, with someone backing her, Di Muccio can force a public debate and then use her superior intellect and media relations skills to shame him.
So when Van Bynen turned to the Masons, (and believe me, Di Muccio is everything that the Masons oppose - she's young, female, smart as a whip, and - gasp - not a protestant), they were only too happy to get involved.
If Van Bynen loses but Di Muccio and John B. win, expect that this will be the last anybody hears of Tony Van Bynen ever. He won't have a street or park named after him. His time on council will be completely lost to the annals of time.
If Van Bynen wins and Di Muccio and John B. win, expect that Van Bynen's tenure as mayor to be measured in months. He won't make it to the end of his term. He'll either negotiate a graceful exit with Di Muccio or she will start revealing (as John B has promised) details of the Soccer Club loan and other nefarious dealings that will see him resign in shame.
If Van Bynen wins and Di Muccio wins but John B loses, this one is the most interesting outcome. If Van Bynen felt that Di Muccio hated him before, then add a dash of vengeance to their relationship. I expect that "scorched Earth" will be the headline of the day.
If Van Bynen wins, Di Muccio loses but John B. wins, this is interesting too. The "Mad Maddie" tag doesn't apply to John B. With Maddie directing him to which rocks to look under and then John B. questioning publicly the things he uncovers, the Mayor doesn't stand a chance. He can try to hide in secret meetings but John B has already shown that he has no hesitation about leaking confidential info that Van Bynen wanted kept secret.
If Van Bynen wins and both Di Muccio and John B. loses, it's game over for Van Bynen. Maddie has attended the closed door meetings and with no oath of confidentiality holding her back, expect the Toronto media to be camped outside Town Hall as all the corruption is made public.
Tuesday 21 October 2014
Getting ready to vote in Newmarket
With Newmarket averaging just over 30% voter turn out in the past few municipal elections, it seems that the ballot box question for most voters is, "Do I even bother to go to the ballot box?"
Low turn out means those who do show up to vote are given proportionally more power over those who stay home. If your vote is so significant, isn't it worth some basic prep work before marking your X? Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way.
Here is a simple checklist to determine whether you are an informed Newmarket voter or an ignorant Newmarket voter.
The ignorant Newmarket voter:
The informed voter:
Low turn out means those who do show up to vote are given proportionally more power over those who stay home. If your vote is so significant, isn't it worth some basic prep work before marking your X? Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way.
Here is a simple checklist to determine whether you are an informed Newmarket voter or an ignorant Newmarket voter.
The ignorant Newmarket voter:
- Chooses a candidate based on how much he/ she "loves Newmarket". (Can't we just assume that all municipal candidates love Newmarket? Why else would they be running?)
- Bases his voting decision on the number, color, or size of signs.
- Feels it is paramount that all members of council get along. ("Getting along" is why we have so many issues in Newmarket. We want council members to hold staff and each other accountable for delivering top notched services).
- Believes that any candidate who holds an incumbent to task for his voting record is simply attacking Newmarket. (Our incumbent politicians are not Newmarket although they would like you to think so).
- Thinks the Newmarket Era is an unbiased source of local news. (The paper has become a joke in terms of political coverage).
- Believes the mayor and regional councillor positions are more powerful than a ward councillor. (Each member of council has one vote so they are equals.)
- Is unaware that our taxes are among the highest in the GTA or that our local economy is moribund with an unemployment rate well above the national average.
The informed voter:
- Makes an effort to learn the issues by visiting candidates'web sites, attending the debate night, and emailing questions to the candidates.
- Cares about each candidate's ideas to make Newmarket better. (For some candidates, it may be tough to find if they have any ideas at all).
- Participates in Facebook groups on local politics but also takes the partisanship with a grain of salt.
- Spots the difference between substance and spin in campaign materials.
- Is informed of each candidates qualifications: such as profession; legitimate volunteer work, (attending a gala fundraiser is not volunteerism); education; and other attributes. (Remember, this is a job interview so you should know the candidate's resume).
- Understands that the most important job of a Newmarket council member is to make sure that local government runs well. (And that is why I find it funny that most incumbents are obsessed with being seen at the Farmers Market. What does the Famers Market have to do with the town's core services?)
- Knows a bit about the incumbent's voting record and has an opinion about whether he/ she deserves to be "re-hired".
- Encourages family members, neighbors, and friends to be informed voters too.
We all have a bit of homework to prepare for election day. Let's hope that Newmarket voters take the few minutes required to become informed voters so that we can have the best local government that our town deserves.
Sunday 19 October 2014
The Old Boys Club Pulls out All Stops Against Transparency
The lengths that the elites (also knows as the Old Boys) of Newmarket will go through to attempt to muzzle ordinary people as represented by Ward 6 Councillor Maddie Di Muccio never fails to amaze me.
The Newmarket Era newspaper is running last year's "Councillor calls Newmarket mayor a misogynst" story under the heading of LATEST LOCAL NEWS.
.jpg)
The newspaper's publisher, Jim Proudfoot, is a charter member of the Old Boys Club of Newmarket. His paper relies on your tax dollars as the Town of Newmarket is one of his largest advertising accounts.
The only explanation for dredging up an old news story and passing it off as current is Dirty Politics.
Dirty politics? Here is what is at stake for the Old Boys Club of Newmarket.
They like having a council that will pass around millions in council grants and interest free loans to their businesses without any scrutiny. This money comes from the taxes you pay.
They like having a council that will spend tens or even hundreds of millions of public funds helping their businesses grow with broadband internet service. Your tax dollars again are working for the elites to get them more profits.
They also like when the town spends millions on pet projects like scanning back issues of the Era through the shadowy Shared Digital Infrastructure scheme.
But Councillor Di Muccio asks too many questions about this spending. She has made them look bad for keeping this spending hidden from the public (such as this article in the Toronto Sun: www.torontosun.com/2012/10/12/freedom-of-information-certainly-isnt-free).
Her respect for the taxpayer mantra has become an inconvenient truth for these elites. Even Mayor Van Bynen's latest election material acknowledges transparency as an election issue.
And as I wrote earlier, they seem to have invested heavily in her opponent unseating her in this election.
It is a battle being waged on two fronts. Causing these elites to lose sleep is the campaign of Maddie's husband in Ward 7. Having both Maddie and John B. on Council would be a game changer for the ordinary taxpayer and these elites don't like it.
To borrow from Maddie's 2010 election campaign: Expect More.
As we get closer to election day, expect more mudslinging against Maddie and John B. Expect more dirty tricks like old headlines mysteriously reappearing, vandalised signs, and other hijinx. And dare I say it, expect more - ahem - voting irregularities as the old boys pull out all the stops to take Maddie down.
As ordinary taxpayers, this means we have to do more. Make sure you get out to vote. Don't re-elect this lousy Mayor and don't re-elect his cronies. Make sure Maddie and John B. are elected and then hold the new council accountable to us, with our taxes supporting our needs and not the bottom line profits of the Old Boys of Newmarket.
The Newmarket Era newspaper is running last year's "Councillor calls Newmarket mayor a misogynst" story under the heading of LATEST LOCAL NEWS.
The newspaper's publisher, Jim Proudfoot, is a charter member of the Old Boys Club of Newmarket. His paper relies on your tax dollars as the Town of Newmarket is one of his largest advertising accounts.
The only explanation for dredging up an old news story and passing it off as current is Dirty Politics.
Dirty politics? Here is what is at stake for the Old Boys Club of Newmarket.
They like having a council that will pass around millions in council grants and interest free loans to their businesses without any scrutiny. This money comes from the taxes you pay.
They like having a council that will spend tens or even hundreds of millions of public funds helping their businesses grow with broadband internet service. Your tax dollars again are working for the elites to get them more profits.
They also like when the town spends millions on pet projects like scanning back issues of the Era through the shadowy Shared Digital Infrastructure scheme.
But Councillor Di Muccio asks too many questions about this spending. She has made them look bad for keeping this spending hidden from the public (such as this article in the Toronto Sun: www.torontosun.com/2012/10/12/freedom-of-information-certainly-isnt-free).
Her respect for the taxpayer mantra has become an inconvenient truth for these elites. Even Mayor Van Bynen's latest election material acknowledges transparency as an election issue.
And as I wrote earlier, they seem to have invested heavily in her opponent unseating her in this election.
It is a battle being waged on two fronts. Causing these elites to lose sleep is the campaign of Maddie's husband in Ward 7. Having both Maddie and John B. on Council would be a game changer for the ordinary taxpayer and these elites don't like it.
To borrow from Maddie's 2010 election campaign: Expect More.
As we get closer to election day, expect more mudslinging against Maddie and John B. Expect more dirty tricks like old headlines mysteriously reappearing, vandalised signs, and other hijinx. And dare I say it, expect more - ahem - voting irregularities as the old boys pull out all the stops to take Maddie down.
As ordinary taxpayers, this means we have to do more. Make sure you get out to vote. Don't re-elect this lousy Mayor and don't re-elect his cronies. Make sure Maddie and John B. are elected and then hold the new council accountable to us, with our taxes supporting our needs and not the bottom line profits of the Old Boys of Newmarket.
Saturday 18 October 2014
Predictions: Winners of Newmarket Municipal Election
Here are my predictions for the outcome of the municipal election, (note: these are not endorsements).
Voter turn out: 35%
Candidates had plenty of examples to choose from to fire up the electorate for change but only one or two took advantage of the opportunity effectively. The Newmarket Era and The Newmarket Chambers did their best to pour cold water on any enthusiasm for change. Most voters are resigned to the status quo and that will keep the majority home on election day.
Mayor: Tony Van Bynen re-elected
Only a select few actually likes the job Tony has done but he is the devil we know. Chris Campbell and Dorian Baxter would both be upgrades to town council but neither ran their campaign well enough to unseat the Mayor.
Regional Councillor: John Taylor re-elected
John Taylor should have been unseated but his challenger has not run an effective campaign. Wolk relied almost exclusively on social media to challenge Taylor and the on line audience is simply too small to draw enough interest/ votes to defeat Taylor.
Ward 1: Tom Vegh re-elected
The advantage of incumbency goes to Vegh who has been sloppy in his campaigning but not so bad as to be defeated. Jarrah has plenty of baggage to knock him out of the running while Cena hasn't been able to show much momentum in the race.
Ward 2: Dave Kerwin re-elected
Judy Poulin has made it interesting but with five candidates running, this ward splits the votes and sticks with the incumbent.
Ward 3: Jane Twinney re-elected.
Victor Woodhouse has been over-the-top aggressive with lawn signs and that is turning voters off. If the election day was a week ago, Victor might have won but momentum has since shifted. Ole Madsen seems like a nice person but he is simply in the background. In reality, this is a two person race and I expect Jane will take it.
Ward 4: Tom Hempen re-elected
You could excuse Ward 4 residents if they weren't aware that there was an election taking place. This very quiet race only benefits the incumbent. Expect Hempen to cruise to an easy victory.
Ward 5: John Heckbert elected
Joe Sponga was lazy thinking he wouldn't have to campaign this time. He took his re-election for granted but on the final day to register, Ann Martin and John Heckbert jumped in the race. I predict that Martin and Sponga split the downtown vote allowing Heckbert to run up the middle to take this seat. Eibel will be lucky to break 100 votes.
Ward 6: Maddie Di Muccio re-elected
As much as the Gruesome Twosome would like to believe that Maddie is vulnerable, she fully deserves to be re-elected and Ward 6 voters know it. Revelations this week from Darryl Wolk and Lucille Abate that they declined an offer from an unnamed person for a fully funded campaign with up to 8 council endorsements only serves to doom Broome-Plumley's bid. Ian Johnston will finish a very distant third.
Ward 7: John Blommesteyn elected
Of the four candidates in the race, only John B. seems interested in winning. He is the only candidate who updates Facebook, blogs, and the only one of the four to have participated in the The Newmarket Era's Facebook debate. Bisanz made a serious tactical error when she linked herself so closely to Van Bynen's platform and even canvassed Glenway with the Mayor. Her close ties to Van Bynen are making many Ward 7 voters extremely uncomfortable.
Voter turn out: 35%
Candidates had plenty of examples to choose from to fire up the electorate for change but only one or two took advantage of the opportunity effectively. The Newmarket Era and The Newmarket Chambers did their best to pour cold water on any enthusiasm for change. Most voters are resigned to the status quo and that will keep the majority home on election day.
Mayor: Tony Van Bynen re-elected
Only a select few actually likes the job Tony has done but he is the devil we know. Chris Campbell and Dorian Baxter would both be upgrades to town council but neither ran their campaign well enough to unseat the Mayor.
Regional Councillor: John Taylor re-elected
John Taylor should have been unseated but his challenger has not run an effective campaign. Wolk relied almost exclusively on social media to challenge Taylor and the on line audience is simply too small to draw enough interest/ votes to defeat Taylor.
Ward 1: Tom Vegh re-elected
The advantage of incumbency goes to Vegh who has been sloppy in his campaigning but not so bad as to be defeated. Jarrah has plenty of baggage to knock him out of the running while Cena hasn't been able to show much momentum in the race.
Ward 2: Dave Kerwin re-elected
Judy Poulin has made it interesting but with five candidates running, this ward splits the votes and sticks with the incumbent.
Ward 3: Jane Twinney re-elected.
Victor Woodhouse has been over-the-top aggressive with lawn signs and that is turning voters off. If the election day was a week ago, Victor might have won but momentum has since shifted. Ole Madsen seems like a nice person but he is simply in the background. In reality, this is a two person race and I expect Jane will take it.
Ward 4: Tom Hempen re-elected
You could excuse Ward 4 residents if they weren't aware that there was an election taking place. This very quiet race only benefits the incumbent. Expect Hempen to cruise to an easy victory.
Ward 5: John Heckbert elected
Joe Sponga was lazy thinking he wouldn't have to campaign this time. He took his re-election for granted but on the final day to register, Ann Martin and John Heckbert jumped in the race. I predict that Martin and Sponga split the downtown vote allowing Heckbert to run up the middle to take this seat. Eibel will be lucky to break 100 votes.
Ward 6: Maddie Di Muccio re-elected
As much as the Gruesome Twosome would like to believe that Maddie is vulnerable, she fully deserves to be re-elected and Ward 6 voters know it. Revelations this week from Darryl Wolk and Lucille Abate that they declined an offer from an unnamed person for a fully funded campaign with up to 8 council endorsements only serves to doom Broome-Plumley's bid. Ian Johnston will finish a very distant third.
Ward 7: John Blommesteyn elected
Of the four candidates in the race, only John B. seems interested in winning. He is the only candidate who updates Facebook, blogs, and the only one of the four to have participated in the The Newmarket Era's Facebook debate. Bisanz made a serious tactical error when she linked herself so closely to Van Bynen's platform and even canvassed Glenway with the Mayor. Her close ties to Van Bynen are making many Ward 7 voters extremely uncomfortable.
Thursday 16 October 2014
Newmarket's Manchurian Candidate
We now have two very reputable Newmarket residents claiming that they were approached by someone offering a "fully funded" campaign to run in Ward 6 against Councillor Di Muccio. Both of these people declined the offer from this (so far) unnamed individual. The only insight we have as to the conspirator's identity are comments from Darryl Wolk who claims that it was someone who would have provided endorsements from all other members of Council.
Now all eyes turn to Kelly Broome-Plumley.
Did she accept this deal? Judging from the number of Council members (including Councillors Vegh, Kerwin, Sponga, and Mayor Van Bynen) who attended her campaign launch ... well, you will have to judge that for yourself.
And the questions abound:
1) Do Ward 6 voters want someone who is "owned" by the other 8 Council members?
2) What did Kelly promise to deliver to those who want Maddie Di Muccio gone so badly? Did she offer her complicity and agree to turn a blind eye to all the things that Maddie has been exposing?
3) Will she agree to immediately publish the names of all those who have donated either time or money to her campaign? She will have to make those names public after the election but why wait? She should do so now given the seriousness of the allegations of "bought" candidate against her. Don't voters deserve to know if there is a secret agenda at play and who is pulling the Kelly Broome-Plumley strings?
4) If Lucille Abate was the conspirator's first choice, and Darryl Wolk was their second choice, was anyone else offered the "fully funded" campaign before Kelly was approached? Do we know if Kelly was the third, fourth or fifth choice? Maybe she was even lower on their list of potential "Manchurian" candidates.
The extent that the Gruesome Twosome Bloc will go through, (and the money they'll spend), to ensure that they silence Councillor Di Muccio should be a real eye opener for voters. Maddie Di Muccio is only one vote of 9 on council. On her own she can't block their agenda. What she can do, (and she has done this effectively), is ask questions that exposes shady business, like the backroom deals and the wasteful spending. And that is why they are trying so hard to get her out of office and replaced with someone that they themselves control.
A good thing that Ward 6 voters get the final say in the matter.
I think the choice on October 27th for Ward 6 is obvious.
Now all eyes turn to Kelly Broome-Plumley.
Did she accept this deal? Judging from the number of Council members (including Councillors Vegh, Kerwin, Sponga, and Mayor Van Bynen) who attended her campaign launch ... well, you will have to judge that for yourself.
And the questions abound:
1) Do Ward 6 voters want someone who is "owned" by the other 8 Council members?
2) What did Kelly promise to deliver to those who want Maddie Di Muccio gone so badly? Did she offer her complicity and agree to turn a blind eye to all the things that Maddie has been exposing?
3) Will she agree to immediately publish the names of all those who have donated either time or money to her campaign? She will have to make those names public after the election but why wait? She should do so now given the seriousness of the allegations of "bought" candidate against her. Don't voters deserve to know if there is a secret agenda at play and who is pulling the Kelly Broome-Plumley strings?
4) If Lucille Abate was the conspirator's first choice, and Darryl Wolk was their second choice, was anyone else offered the "fully funded" campaign before Kelly was approached? Do we know if Kelly was the third, fourth or fifth choice? Maybe she was even lower on their list of potential "Manchurian" candidates.
The extent that the Gruesome Twosome Bloc will go through, (and the money they'll spend), to ensure that they silence Councillor Di Muccio should be a real eye opener for voters. Maddie Di Muccio is only one vote of 9 on council. On her own she can't block their agenda. What she can do, (and she has done this effectively), is ask questions that exposes shady business, like the backroom deals and the wasteful spending. And that is why they are trying so hard to get her out of office and replaced with someone that they themselves control.
A good thing that Ward 6 voters get the final say in the matter.
I think the choice on October 27th for Ward 6 is obvious.
Wednesday 15 October 2014
Time to wake up, Newmarket Voters
Imagine if the municipal election campaign was decided based on who voters believed had the best platform of ideas and who worked hardest to sell their platform to the public. That might be how democracy works in some places, but it certainly isn't the case here in Newmarket. In Newmarket it seems selling fear is what wins. The fear that certain candidates are peddling is, "my opponent isn't one of 'us' and we can't work with him or her."
All around Newmarket, we have Ward races with the front runners refusing to engage on issues such as high taxes, secondary growth plan, traffic congestion, local jobs, or public debt. Unfortunately, these important issues take a back seat to nonsense like how much charity work is done by a candidate, who is cheating with lawn signs, who loves Newmarket more, or who would win Miss Congeniality.
I think we are headed towards a four year disastrous term if Newmarket voters don't wise up to these antics before October 27th.
Let me use Ward 7 to illustrate. Earlier I tweeted that we finally had a Ward race based on issues. Maddie Di Muccio's husband, John Blommesteyn, has the strongest platform and has written a few dozen blogs about the issues. Apparently he is hitting the doors as evidenced in social media and is causing a stir with his ideas. He has also received the most coverage in the media of all the candidates, with articles in the local paper and on the radio with an impressive Newstalk 1010 interview about Glenway. And he has done a good job to show us that he is his own man, qualified on his own attributes, not riding on his wife's coat tails. If the outcome of the vote was based on the campaign, John B. would be the clear choice in Ward 7.
But when "fear" is added to the campaign, it muddies the outlook. John's ties to Maddie scares the daylights out of the Gruesome Twosome bloc on Council. They are not afraid that Maddie will gain control over the votes on Council (from where I stand, the votes will be 7-2 if John is elected next term instead of 8-1 this term). The Gruesome Twosome are afraid of finding themselves in a position of being required to openly debate their agenda if Maddie has an ally to back her up.
Take the contentious broadband issue as an example. In August, a report on Council said the broadband fibre optic cables could be installed along Main St, Davis Drive East, and Leslie Street for a sum of approximately $250,000 to $1,000,000. Darryl Wolk suggested $330,000,000 was a more accurate figure during the Rogers Debate. Recently, the Mayor and Regional Councillor have been promoting a blog that pegs the cost of installation at $30,000,000. The obvious truth is that nobody knows what the cost will be or whether broadband will create any jobs.
If you watched the Council meeting when broadband was tabled, the debate was about how to proceed with the project. Maddie insisted on a request for information (RFI) while the other councillors wanted a non-binding request for purchase (RFP). As Dorian Baxter attested, the Mayor's aggressiveness towards Maddie during this debate was deplorable, and frankly a tactic he uses far too often to silence her whenever her questioning makes his agenda appear weak. The issue was ultimately settled with, you guessed it, a 8-1 vote.
The distinction between an RFI and a RFP may seem subtle but it is important.
With an RFP, the Mayor and Council can legally take the matter behind closed doors and the public will never know what the final cost of broadband will be. (With an RFI, there would be no justification to hold the meeting in camera because there is no purchase being considered). Potentially, the Gruesome Twosome could decide behind closed doors to add a hundred million or more worth of public debt without any public or media scrutiny. I am certain that even the most ardent supporter of broadband would agree that secrecy on this expensive project is just plain wrong.
This one scenario paints the picture why the Gruesome Twosome are pulling out all stops to ensure that John B. is not elected. The Mayor can shout down Maddie when she isolated on Council but it would be impossible for him to avoid the tough questions if she has an ally.
I think all of Newmarket would sleep better knowing that at least two members of Council are committed to openness and transparency. John B's leak of the Glenway document demonstrates that he is willing to stick his neck on the chopping block to protect the concept of accountability.
All around Newmarket, we have Ward races with the front runners refusing to engage on issues such as high taxes, secondary growth plan, traffic congestion, local jobs, or public debt. Unfortunately, these important issues take a back seat to nonsense like how much charity work is done by a candidate, who is cheating with lawn signs, who loves Newmarket more, or who would win Miss Congeniality.
I think we are headed towards a four year disastrous term if Newmarket voters don't wise up to these antics before October 27th.
Let me use Ward 7 to illustrate. Earlier I tweeted that we finally had a Ward race based on issues. Maddie Di Muccio's husband, John Blommesteyn, has the strongest platform and has written a few dozen blogs about the issues. Apparently he is hitting the doors as evidenced in social media and is causing a stir with his ideas. He has also received the most coverage in the media of all the candidates, with articles in the local paper and on the radio with an impressive Newstalk 1010 interview about Glenway. And he has done a good job to show us that he is his own man, qualified on his own attributes, not riding on his wife's coat tails. If the outcome of the vote was based on the campaign, John B. would be the clear choice in Ward 7.
But when "fear" is added to the campaign, it muddies the outlook. John's ties to Maddie scares the daylights out of the Gruesome Twosome bloc on Council. They are not afraid that Maddie will gain control over the votes on Council (from where I stand, the votes will be 7-2 if John is elected next term instead of 8-1 this term). The Gruesome Twosome are afraid of finding themselves in a position of being required to openly debate their agenda if Maddie has an ally to back her up.
Take the contentious broadband issue as an example. In August, a report on Council said the broadband fibre optic cables could be installed along Main St, Davis Drive East, and Leslie Street for a sum of approximately $250,000 to $1,000,000. Darryl Wolk suggested $330,000,000 was a more accurate figure during the Rogers Debate. Recently, the Mayor and Regional Councillor have been promoting a blog that pegs the cost of installation at $30,000,000. The obvious truth is that nobody knows what the cost will be or whether broadband will create any jobs.
If you watched the Council meeting when broadband was tabled, the debate was about how to proceed with the project. Maddie insisted on a request for information (RFI) while the other councillors wanted a non-binding request for purchase (RFP). As Dorian Baxter attested, the Mayor's aggressiveness towards Maddie during this debate was deplorable, and frankly a tactic he uses far too often to silence her whenever her questioning makes his agenda appear weak. The issue was ultimately settled with, you guessed it, a 8-1 vote.
The distinction between an RFI and a RFP may seem subtle but it is important.
With an RFP, the Mayor and Council can legally take the matter behind closed doors and the public will never know what the final cost of broadband will be. (With an RFI, there would be no justification to hold the meeting in camera because there is no purchase being considered). Potentially, the Gruesome Twosome could decide behind closed doors to add a hundred million or more worth of public debt without any public or media scrutiny. I am certain that even the most ardent supporter of broadband would agree that secrecy on this expensive project is just plain wrong.
This one scenario paints the picture why the Gruesome Twosome are pulling out all stops to ensure that John B. is not elected. The Mayor can shout down Maddie when she isolated on Council but it would be impossible for him to avoid the tough questions if she has an ally.
I think all of Newmarket would sleep better knowing that at least two members of Council are committed to openness and transparency. John B's leak of the Glenway document demonstrates that he is willing to stick his neck on the chopping block to protect the concept of accountability.
Saturday 4 October 2014
Are the Town's CAO and Legal Dept Prevaricating on Glenway's Western Development?
I am not sure how many readers were waiting with bated breath for the town to release it's version of the "Confidential Glenway Memo".
I have written before that my own blog's readership numbers drop like a stone whenever I bring up Glenway. That is why I am hesitant to raise the issue again.
However, this new Town of Newmarket document, (which you can find here: http://www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/resourcelibrary/54-OfficeoftheCAOInformationReport2014-09-MariannevilleWestLands.pdf) is in stark contrast to the memo released on Tuesday afternoon, (which you can find here: http://john4newmarket.tumblr.com/post/98822155804) is worthy of comment because they seem to contradict each other in a devious sort of way.
On October 3, Town of Newmarket CAO (that's similar to the Town's chief executive officer) and the Town's Legal Department released a memo that seems to suggest that the lands on the most westerly portion of the Marianneville property are protected "woodlot" and "Oak Ridges Moraine". If this land is protected, then this is certainly good news for everyone with homes west of the hydro corridor.
But why is memo dated September 5 seeming less certain. The September 5th memo says that the developer has intentions to develop this same portion of land upon the completion of "successful studies". Would the developer "study" this land if the case of protection under the Oak Ridges Moraine Act was black and white?
Could it be that the October 29th memo was written with the intention of public readership while the September 5th was always intended to remain confidential? If that is the case, Glenway residents (who will soon become Glenway voters) would be wise to keep this inconsistency top of mind for their own sakes.
I thought that (Ward 7 candidate) John Blommesteyn astutely called out his challenger Christina Bisanz on the pecuniary interest issue under the MCIA. Obviously, if the building goes ahead, the lot premiums that many Glenway residents paid when purchasing their homes to live within the GG&CC vanishes. Bisanz's own home I'm told, is within the area affected. I am watching closely to see if she will say one way or the other what the development of the westerly portion of the Glenway Golf Course will mean to her ability to represent her neighbours.
There are only three weeks left so the time for Christina to come clean is now.
I have written before that my own blog's readership numbers drop like a stone whenever I bring up Glenway. That is why I am hesitant to raise the issue again.
However, this new Town of Newmarket document, (which you can find here: http://www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/resourcelibrary/54-OfficeoftheCAOInformationReport2014-09-MariannevilleWestLands.pdf) is in stark contrast to the memo released on Tuesday afternoon, (which you can find here: http://john4newmarket.tumblr.com/post/98822155804) is worthy of comment because they seem to contradict each other in a devious sort of way.
On October 3, Town of Newmarket CAO (that's similar to the Town's chief executive officer) and the Town's Legal Department released a memo that seems to suggest that the lands on the most westerly portion of the Marianneville property are protected "woodlot" and "Oak Ridges Moraine". If this land is protected, then this is certainly good news for everyone with homes west of the hydro corridor.
But why is memo dated September 5 seeming less certain. The September 5th memo says that the developer has intentions to develop this same portion of land upon the completion of "successful studies". Would the developer "study" this land if the case of protection under the Oak Ridges Moraine Act was black and white?
Could it be that the October 29th memo was written with the intention of public readership while the September 5th was always intended to remain confidential? If that is the case, Glenway residents (who will soon become Glenway voters) would be wise to keep this inconsistency top of mind for their own sakes.
I thought that (Ward 7 candidate) John Blommesteyn astutely called out his challenger Christina Bisanz on the pecuniary interest issue under the MCIA. Obviously, if the building goes ahead, the lot premiums that many Glenway residents paid when purchasing their homes to live within the GG&CC vanishes. Bisanz's own home I'm told, is within the area affected. I am watching closely to see if she will say one way or the other what the development of the westerly portion of the Glenway Golf Course will mean to her ability to represent her neighbours.
There are only three weeks left so the time for Christina to come clean is now.
Thursday 2 October 2014
Town of Newmarket, cancel your advertising contract with the Era for Democacy's sake
Lots of news in the past 24-hours and all of it interesting.
First of all, there was the unexpected release of information by Ward 7 candidate John Blommesteyn on Tuesday afternoon.
That was followed with news of the Newmarket Soccer Club is paying off its debt owed to the public through the placement of a private mortgage by way of a commercial lender.
Both of these stories show us that this council, who tried so desperately to keep both of these matters "confidential" from the public, can be swayed to do the right thing when public pressure is applied.
No wonder the gruesome-twosome, Mayor Van Bynen and his henchman sidekick John Taylor, are bemoaning this new era of "Hyper Transparency" (words actually spoken by John Taylor at Monday's council meeting).
For anyone doubting the reasoning why Kathleen Wynne's Bill 8 is desperately needed, only needs to refer to this week's events to know that public pressure has benefits to ensure that elected officials do the right thing.
We used to rely on the media to keep politicians honest.
Clearly in Newmarket, the Era is not to be trusted to report the news.
If you read the Era's reporting of the Glenway memo release, one critical fact is glaringly missing. There is no mention of the petition that sparked this debate.
Here are the actual series of events.
1) Councillor Di Muccio asked at the September 22 council meeting for the memo to made public. The Gruesome-Twosome argued against. There was discussion about how this matter would be discussed in camera. We are left assuming that it was discussed and the majority voted against making the document public.
2) Ward 7 candidate John Blommesteyn gathered a petition and presented it to council on September 29th. Council decided to meet in private again to reconsider their decision from the week previous.
3) Upon coming out of the in camera meeting on the 29th, every speaker made mention of John Blommesteyn's ;petition as being the catalyst for their decision to make the memo public. In other words, they succumbed to the public pressure.
But in the Era's story, despite the critical role this petition played (as confirmed by all the speakers on Council), this petition goes un-mentioned. Instead of playing up the role the public played in getting council to act responsibly (weeks out from an election), the Era is focusing on how the memo got released.
To give you an analogy of how bad Chris Simon's article is: imagine if Chris Simon was reporting on Abraham Lincoln's assassination and he didn't mention a single word about the President being killed. His story would focus on how a gun got smuggled into the theatre instead. There is no other way to describe it other than bad reporting.
My blog was created years ago in response to bias reporting in the Era. Since then I have written 146 posts that generally share one common thread - that is how the Era fails us when reporting Newmarket Council news.
And I assume, based on my readership numbers, that most of you agree with me. At least, nobody has ever taken me to task on my Twitter feed or my comments page defending how the Era reports on Newmarket politics.
I don't know if the Town of Newmarket's advertising budget has "bought" good coverage for the Mayor and his allies. Experience shows us that this is likely true. I defy anyone to find any story in the Era that is actually critical of Tony Van Bynen (by mentioning him specifically). I looked and couldn't find anything remotely close to criticizing the Mayor.
For the sake of our democracy, I am calling on the Town of Newmarket to stop advertising in the Era because it influences the way news gets told. It is the only way to restore integrity to the Era in its reporting.
I know this to be true because the Town of Aurora doesn't publish in the paper and the local reporters are actually doing a good job of keeping the Aurora mayor and council honest.
If we want the type of honest reporting that Aurora residents enjoy then we need to cancel the Town of Newmarket advertising too.
First of all, there was the unexpected release of information by Ward 7 candidate John Blommesteyn on Tuesday afternoon.
That was followed with news of the Newmarket Soccer Club is paying off its debt owed to the public through the placement of a private mortgage by way of a commercial lender.
Both of these stories show us that this council, who tried so desperately to keep both of these matters "confidential" from the public, can be swayed to do the right thing when public pressure is applied.
No wonder the gruesome-twosome, Mayor Van Bynen and his henchman sidekick John Taylor, are bemoaning this new era of "Hyper Transparency" (words actually spoken by John Taylor at Monday's council meeting).
For anyone doubting the reasoning why Kathleen Wynne's Bill 8 is desperately needed, only needs to refer to this week's events to know that public pressure has benefits to ensure that elected officials do the right thing.
We used to rely on the media to keep politicians honest.
Clearly in Newmarket, the Era is not to be trusted to report the news.
If you read the Era's reporting of the Glenway memo release, one critical fact is glaringly missing. There is no mention of the petition that sparked this debate.
Here are the actual series of events.
1) Councillor Di Muccio asked at the September 22 council meeting for the memo to made public. The Gruesome-Twosome argued against. There was discussion about how this matter would be discussed in camera. We are left assuming that it was discussed and the majority voted against making the document public.
2) Ward 7 candidate John Blommesteyn gathered a petition and presented it to council on September 29th. Council decided to meet in private again to reconsider their decision from the week previous.
3) Upon coming out of the in camera meeting on the 29th, every speaker made mention of John Blommesteyn's ;petition as being the catalyst for their decision to make the memo public. In other words, they succumbed to the public pressure.
But in the Era's story, despite the critical role this petition played (as confirmed by all the speakers on Council), this petition goes un-mentioned. Instead of playing up the role the public played in getting council to act responsibly (weeks out from an election), the Era is focusing on how the memo got released.
To give you an analogy of how bad Chris Simon's article is: imagine if Chris Simon was reporting on Abraham Lincoln's assassination and he didn't mention a single word about the President being killed. His story would focus on how a gun got smuggled into the theatre instead. There is no other way to describe it other than bad reporting.
My blog was created years ago in response to bias reporting in the Era. Since then I have written 146 posts that generally share one common thread - that is how the Era fails us when reporting Newmarket Council news.
And I assume, based on my readership numbers, that most of you agree with me. At least, nobody has ever taken me to task on my Twitter feed or my comments page defending how the Era reports on Newmarket politics.
I don't know if the Town of Newmarket's advertising budget has "bought" good coverage for the Mayor and his allies. Experience shows us that this is likely true. I defy anyone to find any story in the Era that is actually critical of Tony Van Bynen (by mentioning him specifically). I looked and couldn't find anything remotely close to criticizing the Mayor.
For the sake of our democracy, I am calling on the Town of Newmarket to stop advertising in the Era because it influences the way news gets told. It is the only way to restore integrity to the Era in its reporting.
I know this to be true because the Town of Aurora doesn't publish in the paper and the local reporters are actually doing a good job of keeping the Aurora mayor and council honest.
If we want the type of honest reporting that Aurora residents enjoy then we need to cancel the Town of Newmarket advertising too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)