John Daggett: I've paid you a small fortune
Bane: And this gives you power over me?
This memorable exchange from the movie The Dark Knight Rises involves John Daggett a construction magnate and the super villain Bane. I bring this dialog up as a comparison between how things are done in the movies versus real life.
In the movies, people in power stand up to greedy developers.
In real life (and in the case of Newmarket Council in particular), the developers usually get their way.
Take for instance the mysterious circumstances surrounding the Hollingsworth Arena. The only reason why I use the word "mysterious" is because we truly don't have much information about the deal. Council is keeping a lot of secrets these days. But most expect that the public recreation facility will be sold off and we'll get the usual line that the deal is good for us. Like the soccer club loan, we won't be told either the details of the deal or receive an explanation how we have benefited. We will just have to take the gruesome twosome's word for it that the public has done good.
Back in April, Council decided to tackle the issue of parkland. With new development coming to Newmarket, Council had to make a decision about how much parkland would be needed for these new communities. Council decided that 1 hectare for every 300 housing units would be the appropriate formula.
To demonstrate what this means, consider the case of the recent Glenway subdivision which is purportedly to be approximately 750 housing units. The formula would require two and a half hectares of parkland to be given to the Town of Newmarket by Marrianeville (the developer).
Upon learning of Council's decision on this formula, developers, including their lobbying arm known as BILD, went ballistic claiming that such a formula would cause them undue hardship.
Did Council stand by their convictions and send the developers a clear message that Council is "in charge"?
Sadly, no.
Council has decided to hire a consultant, Mark Conway, Senior Partner at N Barry Lyon Consultants, to work with the developers to find a compromise.
As we seen with Glenway, when the issues get tough for the gruesome twosome, they hire consultants in order to avoid making a decision themselves.
Its really too bad that when an issue comes up between the people who want a "live-able" Newmarket versus the greedy ambitions of developers, we can't rely on our elected officials to do the right thing.
Sunday 27 September 2015
Friday 18 September 2015
Election Sign Fines Require Transparency From Town
Within the next few days, federal election signs will begin to pop up on municipal property through out Newmarket.
This will be the first time federal candidates will face fines for breaching the Town of Newmarket election sign bylaws. All candidates have been briefed on sign placement. Let's hope they are diligent about complying with the bylaw.
The justifications behind the sign bylaws were thoroughly debated last term of Council. Former Councillor Maddie Di Muccio battled valiantly in opposing the implementation of the fines with arguments that the fines were unnecessary and anti-democratic. In the end, hers was the only vote against the new rules.
On the other side of the coin, former Councillor Chris Emanuel was the champion for implementing election signs fines. He was apparently upset by what he felt was 'clutter' on municipal property. You will recall that this was a theme for him. He also fought for licensing charities with donation boxes on private property because they too could look messy.
The Town of Newmarket has remained silent about how the election sign bylaw was received during the municipal election of October 2014. I am sure that pretty much everyone is aware of Mayor Van Bynen getting away with placing hundreds of signs on College Manor on the night of the debate. The Town's Bylaw Enforcement Department has a lot to answer as to why it turned a blind eye.
There have also been photos of 100's of election signs in "lock up." A closer examination of the photos suggest there might be an inequity between candidates. The public cannot judge this for certain because the Town refuses to release details about which candidates had signs removed by Bylaw Enforcement.
In refusing to release these details, many are wondering if the Town is compliant with Ontario's municipal election reporting rules. In Ontario, regardless of laws that would normally protect personal information, all details concerning election related expenses are supposed to be made public. Being fined for an election sign is an election related expense (as the Bylaw is specific to election signs) so the Town has an obligation to release this information.
If the Town of Newmarket made this information public, then all of us could judge if there was political interference from the Bylaws Enforcement Department. The Town is refusing to release this information so we are left to speculate.
At least one former candidate is refusing to pay his allotted sign fees.
The Town of Newmarket must take every measure, up to and including taking this former candidate to Court to collect. Failing to do so would be unfair to all other law-abiding candidates who respected the law and paid their fines.
If the Town of Newmarket does not sue this one individual, then the other candidates should in turn sue the Town for the unfair way the election bylaw signs have been collected.
Either everyone pays their allotted election signs fines or no one pays. It's time for the Town of Newmarket to decide.
This will be the first time federal candidates will face fines for breaching the Town of Newmarket election sign bylaws. All candidates have been briefed on sign placement. Let's hope they are diligent about complying with the bylaw.
The justifications behind the sign bylaws were thoroughly debated last term of Council. Former Councillor Maddie Di Muccio battled valiantly in opposing the implementation of the fines with arguments that the fines were unnecessary and anti-democratic. In the end, hers was the only vote against the new rules.
On the other side of the coin, former Councillor Chris Emanuel was the champion for implementing election signs fines. He was apparently upset by what he felt was 'clutter' on municipal property. You will recall that this was a theme for him. He also fought for licensing charities with donation boxes on private property because they too could look messy.
The Town of Newmarket has remained silent about how the election sign bylaw was received during the municipal election of October 2014. I am sure that pretty much everyone is aware of Mayor Van Bynen getting away with placing hundreds of signs on College Manor on the night of the debate. The Town's Bylaw Enforcement Department has a lot to answer as to why it turned a blind eye.
There have also been photos of 100's of election signs in "lock up." A closer examination of the photos suggest there might be an inequity between candidates. The public cannot judge this for certain because the Town refuses to release details about which candidates had signs removed by Bylaw Enforcement.
In refusing to release these details, many are wondering if the Town is compliant with Ontario's municipal election reporting rules. In Ontario, regardless of laws that would normally protect personal information, all details concerning election related expenses are supposed to be made public. Being fined for an election sign is an election related expense (as the Bylaw is specific to election signs) so the Town has an obligation to release this information.
If the Town of Newmarket made this information public, then all of us could judge if there was political interference from the Bylaws Enforcement Department. The Town is refusing to release this information so we are left to speculate.
At least one former candidate is refusing to pay his allotted sign fees.
The Town of Newmarket must take every measure, up to and including taking this former candidate to Court to collect. Failing to do so would be unfair to all other law-abiding candidates who respected the law and paid their fines.
If the Town of Newmarket does not sue this one individual, then the other candidates should in turn sue the Town for the unfair way the election bylaw signs have been collected.
Either everyone pays their allotted election signs fines or no one pays. It's time for the Town of Newmarket to decide.
Tuesday 15 September 2015
Keep the P1 Parking Area Locked Up
Last night Council debate the P1 Parking lot and I wasn't surprised to learn how Buckley Insurance is the centre of much controversy.
As a background, Town staff are proposing parking spaces to be constructed on top of Riverwalk Commons park/ walking trails land. But at least part of the intended parking area is owned by Buckley Insurance. The Town staff are still figuring out the difference between public and private land in this area.
The solution that Council adopted last night is to block off the disputed parking spots until the ownership issue is cleared up.
Buckley won't be happy, as dissenting voter Councillor Kerwin pointed out, because he won't be able to use these spaces for his own private needs. As many know, Buckley isn't the most community minded of companies but he is tight with our Council. Buckley Insurance is the type of place where employees are forced to have mirrors at their phones "so customers can hear you smile." He is also the type of business owner to be constantly involved in legal disputes with his neighbours. You can draw your own conclusions about Buckley from that.
My suggestion to the Town of Newmarket is far more pragmatic. Keep the P1 area locked up. This P1 area should be used for pedestrians and families to enjoy. Parked cars in that area will ruin the vibe of Riverwalk Commons.
On the northwest corner of the municipal parking lot on Doug Duncan Drive, there are tennis courts that could be re-purposed into approximately 30 parking spaces with little effort.
Frankly, this location is a dumb place for tennis courts and Newmarket has an abundance of alternative parkland that would be more suitable. The excessively large parking lot at Ray Twinney Complex would seem to be an ideal location for tennis courts as much of the infrastructure required is already there.
As for Councillor Kerwrin's suggestion of parking at the old Fire Hall? I think the Town should follow through with its plan to sell this property. The proceeds of the sale could go towards relocating the tennis courts from Doug Duncan Drive.
As a background, Town staff are proposing parking spaces to be constructed on top of Riverwalk Commons park/ walking trails land. But at least part of the intended parking area is owned by Buckley Insurance. The Town staff are still figuring out the difference between public and private land in this area.
The solution that Council adopted last night is to block off the disputed parking spots until the ownership issue is cleared up.
Buckley won't be happy, as dissenting voter Councillor Kerwin pointed out, because he won't be able to use these spaces for his own private needs. As many know, Buckley isn't the most community minded of companies but he is tight with our Council. Buckley Insurance is the type of place where employees are forced to have mirrors at their phones "so customers can hear you smile." He is also the type of business owner to be constantly involved in legal disputes with his neighbours. You can draw your own conclusions about Buckley from that.
My suggestion to the Town of Newmarket is far more pragmatic. Keep the P1 area locked up. This P1 area should be used for pedestrians and families to enjoy. Parked cars in that area will ruin the vibe of Riverwalk Commons.
On the northwest corner of the municipal parking lot on Doug Duncan Drive, there are tennis courts that could be re-purposed into approximately 30 parking spaces with little effort.
Frankly, this location is a dumb place for tennis courts and Newmarket has an abundance of alternative parkland that would be more suitable. The excessively large parking lot at Ray Twinney Complex would seem to be an ideal location for tennis courts as much of the infrastructure required is already there.
As for Councillor Kerwrin's suggestion of parking at the old Fire Hall? I think the Town should follow through with its plan to sell this property. The proceeds of the sale could go towards relocating the tennis courts from Doug Duncan Drive.
Thursday 3 September 2015
Dave Kerwin's Rain Barrel versus Your Tax Bill
Do we really have a Town Councillor in Newmarket who has no understanding of what it means to live within a community? Does the concept of paying taxes for the benefit of greater public good truly escape Ward 3 Councillor Dave Kerwin?
Long time observers will note that Councillor Kerwin prides himself as a holier-than-thou environmentalist. If you doubt this, just ask him how many bags of garbage he puts out every two weeks. (The answer is none).
At Monday's Town of Newmarket Cimmittee of the Whole, a student intern was given an opportunity to present his work on storm sewer funding. And it was not a surprise that Councillor Kerwin leaped at the opportunity to inform us all about his state of the art water run-off capture system at his house. He proudly exclaims that not a single rain drop of water will run off his property into the storm sewer.
He demands to know of the intern, will there be tax savings for rain water conservationists like him?
The poor intern, bless his heart, didn't see it coming. He answered meekly that perhaps the Town could consider some sort of discount for people like the Kerwins.
That "perhaps" opened the door for a new diatribe on the Kerwin household's garbage disposal strategies. Thankfully the Mayor cut him short.
But let's for a second examine what Mr. Kerwin is saying when he is asking for a discount off storm water sewer rates and garbage pick up. Let's imagine what a Kerwin-like property tax system that provides discounts based on usage could entail?
Long time observers will note that Councillor Kerwin prides himself as a holier-than-thou environmentalist. If you doubt this, just ask him how many bags of garbage he puts out every two weeks. (The answer is none).
At Monday's Town of Newmarket Cimmittee of the Whole, a student intern was given an opportunity to present his work on storm sewer funding. And it was not a surprise that Councillor Kerwin leaped at the opportunity to inform us all about his state of the art water run-off capture system at his house. He proudly exclaims that not a single rain drop of water will run off his property into the storm sewer.
He demands to know of the intern, will there be tax savings for rain water conservationists like him?
The poor intern, bless his heart, didn't see it coming. He answered meekly that perhaps the Town could consider some sort of discount for people like the Kerwins.
That "perhaps" opened the door for a new diatribe on the Kerwin household's garbage disposal strategies. Thankfully the Mayor cut him short.
But let's for a second examine what Mr. Kerwin is saying when he is asking for a discount off storm water sewer rates and garbage pick up. Let's imagine what a Kerwin-like property tax system that provides discounts based on usage could entail?
- Should non-library users be able to opt out of paying taxes towards this service?
- If my family members don't play hockey, soccer or tennis, can I receive a discount off my taxes because my family doesn't use the Town's recreation facilities?
- If I don't drive, should I pay to maintain the roads in Newmarket?
- If my house didn't have a fire, can I stop paying tax towards the fire department?
- If I don't have any school aged kids, do I still need to pay for supporting public education?
- I am neither a criminal nor a victim, so why am I paying for police services?
- I've never called my Mayor, Council member, or any member of the Town of Newmarket staff for anything. Shouldn't I receive a discount? Why am I paying their salaries?
It doesn't take long to understand that if we give in to Councillor Kerwin's ridiculous demands for a tax discount based on usage that in very short order, the fabric of our community would be in shambles.
Even if Councillor Kerwin doesn't put out garbage or use the Town's storm sewers like the rest of us, he still benefits from these services. If garbage wasn't picked up, rats, vermin and disease would infest our community. If storm water had nowhere to drain to, it would fill up basements all over town.
It's too bad that Councillor Kerwin is either not smart enough to understand this concept or not community minded enough to care. Either way, explain to me why is this man on Council?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)