A Collingwood, Ontario blogger by the name of Steve Berman is much more courageous than I am. Through his online blog, http://allbeingmaster.blogspot.ca/ , Steve is quite vocal about the shenanigans over at Collingwood's town hall. In fact, due to Steve's persistence he has been successful at garnering the attention of the CBC and finally the Ontario Provincial Police to check into some shady decisions made by local officials. One month ago there was a huge rally in front of Collingwood Town Hall with residents saying "Enough is Enough"
The reason I call Steve courageous is because he has had to put up with a lot of nonsense in his quest for transparency. Someone posted a video on line depicting Steve being dragged from his bed by Nazis and shot in the back. Here is the link to the CBC news story about that nasty business: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/07/sub-seglins-collingwood-blogger.html.
Steve chose to be identified in his writings. He filed Freedom of Information requests and received documents that exposed alleged conflict of interests and bid tampering incidents that appear to be rampant in Collingwood. For his efforts, Steve got rewarded with a non-to-subtle death threat.
I write anonymously because I don't want what Steve Berman experienced to happen to me. I think he is a hero and I hope that the residents of Collingwood think the same.
One of the advantages of being anonymous is that the reader can focus on the ideas of my editorials instead of the writer. I want to engage my readers in a discussion about thoughts, principles, and values that define Newmarket. It also gives me an opportunity to speak out about things that may be unpopular but never-the-less need to be said.
It is with great dismay that I read this article on the York Region Media Group's web site: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/2524184-who-is-behind-richmond-hill-watchdog-committee-/
I am dismayed because the YRMG seems to be doing the dirty work of a certain cabal of municipal politicians whereas their job is actually to be the the "Fourth Estate". When Edmund Burke conceived the idea of 3 estates within government prior to the French Revolution (including the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners), the "Fourth Estate" was referred to as the newspaper editors. The newspaper editors were considered the most important arm of politics because their newspapers kept everyone else in government honest by keeping ordinary folk outside of Parliament informed about what was taking place on the inside.
I have the following advice for the YRMG : If you are concerned about ad hoc "Watch Dog" groups, then step up and become the "Watch Dog" again. You have lost your way when you decided to become the "Attack Dog" of the municipal councils in York Region. That's not your job.
I recall having a twitter conversation with the editor of the YRMG last summer when I asked her to speak up in defense of a Newmarket Councillor who was being labelled with the c-word. The YRMG editor refused to condemn the c-word but she was pretty interested in learning who I was. Why? What did my blog have to do with the story? Was it that gossip was more interesting for her than the news?
That's my impression and that is why I write these editorials. I promised her I would stop blogging if she ever improved the quality of the reporting and commentary that her paper provides. Sadly I haven't seen that happen yet.
Thank goodness for brave people like Steve Berman and those involved with the Richmond Hill Watch Dogs. They are heroes and they deserve our praise.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Friday, 5 April 2013
Demanding Fairness is not NIMBY-ism
Thanks to all those who engaged in my last blog post, including the Councillor who ill-advisedly referred to members of the public as "lying" and "clueless" (although Tom Vegh has subsequently removed that tweet). I'm glad to see that my thoughts concerning the construction of new subsidized housing in Newmarket can generate "grown up" debate from our elected officials. (I have to say that I'm disappointed that Tom Vegh refused to clarify his position on additional social housing for Newmarket although he was asked repeatedly for his stance).
What was said in social media certainly warranted a second blog on the subject to provide the public with greater details. To be very clear, I am in no way attacking the poor, particularly the seniors who benefit from subsidized housing. I believe that society has a duty to help out the less fortunate. I also believe it would be unfair to label my position as NIMBY-ism because I am approaching this matter on the basis of fairness.
To those who perhaps missed my earlier blog, let me give you a quick timeline of events to catch you up:
On March 22, Councillor Jane Twinney tweeted "A very exciting meeting this morning; looking at how #Newmarket can get purpose built Apartment Style Housing in our community." (Subsequent tweets on that day narrowed the scope to Seniors and what she referred to as new families who could not afford expensive condos and she mentioned inclusivity. Naturally, those are all code words for affordable housing).
On April 1, Regional Councillor John Taylor tweeted: "After much outreach, I was please to here (sic) from a developer today interested in building rental building in #Newmarket."
On April 2, John Taylor tweeted that he was asked to visit China as the Chair of the York Regional Human Services Planning Board (the same committee that is responsible for subsidized housing in York Region). There is no word which organization is paying for his trip. If Mr. Taylor was a federal MP, he would have to disclose who was paying for his trip. I don't think there are any rules applicable to municipal politicians regarding disclosure though.
Yesterday, John Taylor tweeted: "Human Services Planning Board meeting today ...we are building our strategy on increased rental housing opportunities in York Region.
Although there isn't a direct link between Councillor Jane Twinney's "exciting meeting" tweet which clearly refers to affordable housing, and Regional Councillor John Taylor's tweets which clearly refer to York Region's non-profit housing corporation, the coincidence is just too much to believe otherwise.
So let's delve into York Region's income based, affordable housing properties. Currently, there are approximately 2,200 subsidized housing units owned by the Region of York. 30% of those units are already situated in the Town of Newmarket.
Specifically, here is a breakdown of subsidized housing units by municipality and for comparison's sake, I have also included the total number of residential units in each municipality too to demonstrate that Newmarket already does its fair share.
Municipality # of Subsidized # of total % of subsidized
Housing units residences Housing to Total Res.
Aurora 163 17,347 0.9%
East Gwillimbury 84 7,482 1.12%
Georgina 315 15,949 1.98%
King 92 6,707 1.37%
Markham 201 89,382 0.2%
Newmarket 666 27,350 2.43%
Richmond Hill 483 57,049 0.8%
Vaughan 190 84,142 0.2%
Whitchurch Stouffville 51 12,966 0.4%
If municipalities like Vaughan and Markham want to be a full partner in York Region's efforts to provide social assistance to seniors, new families (as Councillor Twinney refers to them), and others, then these cities need to make way for 12X their current level of participation in order to catch up to Newmarket's contribution. It can not be called "NIMBY-ism" when Newmarket is already heavily invested while the municipalities to the south are not.
If John Taylor and Jane Twinney want to do outreach, start calling the Mayors of those communities that are supposed to be our "partners" in supporting the poor and needy. Why is Newmarket doing all the heavy lifting while communities of great wealth are shirking? I hope that the answer isn't because the Chair of the Committee has been swayed with trips to China and having a certain York Housing property named after his dad.
Newmarket Council likes to promote that Money Sense Magazine ranked Newmarket 10th best Canadian city. We received this ranking due to criteria that included the overall average income of families and our low crime rate. This is why expanding the presence of York Housing even further into Newmarket does not make sense. Residents of Newmarket need to say that we are already doing more than our fair share relative to our neighbours and supposed partners.
As Chair of the Human Services Planning Board, Regional Councillor John Taylor needs to stand up for Newmarket and say, enough is enough. He was given a position of influence so that he could fight for residents and represent out interests and not to be swayed by trips to China and vanity name plates on buildings. Demand that the other municipalities catch up first before Newmarket considers adding more subsidized housing in our town.
What was said in social media certainly warranted a second blog on the subject to provide the public with greater details. To be very clear, I am in no way attacking the poor, particularly the seniors who benefit from subsidized housing. I believe that society has a duty to help out the less fortunate. I also believe it would be unfair to label my position as NIMBY-ism because I am approaching this matter on the basis of fairness.
To those who perhaps missed my earlier blog, let me give you a quick timeline of events to catch you up:
On March 22, Councillor Jane Twinney tweeted "A very exciting meeting this morning; looking at how #Newmarket can get purpose built Apartment Style Housing in our community." (Subsequent tweets on that day narrowed the scope to Seniors and what she referred to as new families who could not afford expensive condos and she mentioned inclusivity. Naturally, those are all code words for affordable housing).
On April 1, Regional Councillor John Taylor tweeted: "After much outreach, I was please to here (sic) from a developer today interested in building rental building in #Newmarket."
On April 2, John Taylor tweeted that he was asked to visit China as the Chair of the York Regional Human Services Planning Board (the same committee that is responsible for subsidized housing in York Region). There is no word which organization is paying for his trip. If Mr. Taylor was a federal MP, he would have to disclose who was paying for his trip. I don't think there are any rules applicable to municipal politicians regarding disclosure though.
Yesterday, John Taylor tweeted: "Human Services Planning Board meeting today ...we are building our strategy on increased rental housing opportunities in York Region.
Although there isn't a direct link between Councillor Jane Twinney's "exciting meeting" tweet which clearly refers to affordable housing, and Regional Councillor John Taylor's tweets which clearly refer to York Region's non-profit housing corporation, the coincidence is just too much to believe otherwise.
So let's delve into York Region's income based, affordable housing properties. Currently, there are approximately 2,200 subsidized housing units owned by the Region of York. 30% of those units are already situated in the Town of Newmarket.
Specifically, here is a breakdown of subsidized housing units by municipality and for comparison's sake, I have also included the total number of residential units in each municipality too to demonstrate that Newmarket already does its fair share.
Municipality # of Subsidized # of total % of subsidized
Housing units residences Housing to Total Res.
Aurora 163 17,347 0.9%
East Gwillimbury 84 7,482 1.12%
Georgina 315 15,949 1.98%
King 92 6,707 1.37%
Markham 201 89,382 0.2%
Newmarket 666 27,350 2.43%
Richmond Hill 483 57,049 0.8%
Vaughan 190 84,142 0.2%
Whitchurch Stouffville 51 12,966 0.4%
If municipalities like Vaughan and Markham want to be a full partner in York Region's efforts to provide social assistance to seniors, new families (as Councillor Twinney refers to them), and others, then these cities need to make way for 12X their current level of participation in order to catch up to Newmarket's contribution. It can not be called "NIMBY-ism" when Newmarket is already heavily invested while the municipalities to the south are not.
If John Taylor and Jane Twinney want to do outreach, start calling the Mayors of those communities that are supposed to be our "partners" in supporting the poor and needy. Why is Newmarket doing all the heavy lifting while communities of great wealth are shirking? I hope that the answer isn't because the Chair of the Committee has been swayed with trips to China and having a certain York Housing property named after his dad.
Newmarket Council likes to promote that Money Sense Magazine ranked Newmarket 10th best Canadian city. We received this ranking due to criteria that included the overall average income of families and our low crime rate. This is why expanding the presence of York Housing even further into Newmarket does not make sense. Residents of Newmarket need to say that we are already doing more than our fair share relative to our neighbours and supposed partners.
As Chair of the Human Services Planning Board, Regional Councillor John Taylor needs to stand up for Newmarket and say, enough is enough. He was given a position of influence so that he could fight for residents and represent out interests and not to be swayed by trips to China and vanity name plates on buildings. Demand that the other municipalities catch up first before Newmarket considers adding more subsidized housing in our town.
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
Weapons of Mass Construction
For the most part, Newmarket is filled up. There remains only a scattering of develop-able lands for single family homes. There are a series of land owners, for example the car dealers that line Yonge St., and these few people are lobbying hard to change the face of your town to reap the financial rewards of sky raising intensification.
Rest assured, these land owners also appear to have a few Council members on their side too. You don't have to go too far through any issue of SNAP magazine to see a Council member's smiling mug pressed up against the cheek of someone associated with one of the Yonge St. car dealerships.
What you don't find in the pages of SNAP, or anywhere else for that matter, is consultation with ordinary homeowners about the changing face of Newmarket. The official growth plan for the Town of Newmarket calls for mid/ high rises to spring up along the Yonge Davis corridor. Our community of single family detached homes will change in character and appearance, and no one seems to be discussing the possible consequences of these changes, save for the few business people who intend to profit handsomely.
A recent example of construction near-sightedness is the plan announced on Twitter by Councillor Jane Twinney and Regional Councillor John Taylor to bring affordable (a code word for "subsidized") rental apartment development to town. Connecting the dots, there seems to be a connection between this initiative and Habitat for Humanity which not so coincidentally is being run by ex Mayor Tom Taylor as board member and Ward 1 Councillor Tom Vegh as president of that organization. In other words, its one big "old boys" network shindig designed to screw over some sorry group of homeowners.
John Taylor's tweet speaks to plans already underway to lure a developer to Newmarket to develop a rental apartment building. Why doesn't he provide us with all the details? Tell us where the building is going to be built? How many units are going to be built? How many are going to be subsidized rental units? How much is the taxpayer going to have to fork over to the developer to build these units? and so on.
It may be impolitic to say this (but someone has to) - as a homeowner that has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into my residence - I am 100% against being forced to accept becoming new neighbours with a subsidized rental apartment building associated with Habitat for Humanity. With only a few lots of develop-able land remaining to be built upon within our township borders, this project is not a priority for our community. Its bad enough we are getting 25-35 storey skyscrapers along Yonge and Davis. We don't need subsidized rental apartment buildings to meet either our official plan targets nor our provincial growth commitments.
With an election just around the corner, hopefully Taylor, Twinney and Vegh et al will have the gumption to take their idea to the electorate and get a legitimate mandate from voters before proceeding. This should be an election issue because residents have a right to voice an opinion about our community. Especially one that could impact how we enjoy our home owns and safeguard our monetary investment in our residences.
Rest assured, these land owners also appear to have a few Council members on their side too. You don't have to go too far through any issue of SNAP magazine to see a Council member's smiling mug pressed up against the cheek of someone associated with one of the Yonge St. car dealerships.
What you don't find in the pages of SNAP, or anywhere else for that matter, is consultation with ordinary homeowners about the changing face of Newmarket. The official growth plan for the Town of Newmarket calls for mid/ high rises to spring up along the Yonge Davis corridor. Our community of single family detached homes will change in character and appearance, and no one seems to be discussing the possible consequences of these changes, save for the few business people who intend to profit handsomely.
A recent example of construction near-sightedness is the plan announced on Twitter by Councillor Jane Twinney and Regional Councillor John Taylor to bring affordable (a code word for "subsidized") rental apartment development to town. Connecting the dots, there seems to be a connection between this initiative and Habitat for Humanity which not so coincidentally is being run by ex Mayor Tom Taylor as board member and Ward 1 Councillor Tom Vegh as president of that organization. In other words, its one big "old boys" network shindig designed to screw over some sorry group of homeowners.
John Taylor's tweet speaks to plans already underway to lure a developer to Newmarket to develop a rental apartment building. Why doesn't he provide us with all the details? Tell us where the building is going to be built? How many units are going to be built? How many are going to be subsidized rental units? How much is the taxpayer going to have to fork over to the developer to build these units? and so on.
It may be impolitic to say this (but someone has to) - as a homeowner that has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into my residence - I am 100% against being forced to accept becoming new neighbours with a subsidized rental apartment building associated with Habitat for Humanity. With only a few lots of develop-able land remaining to be built upon within our township borders, this project is not a priority for our community. Its bad enough we are getting 25-35 storey skyscrapers along Yonge and Davis. We don't need subsidized rental apartment buildings to meet either our official plan targets nor our provincial growth commitments.
With an election just around the corner, hopefully Taylor, Twinney and Vegh et al will have the gumption to take their idea to the electorate and get a legitimate mandate from voters before proceeding. This should be an election issue because residents have a right to voice an opinion about our community. Especially one that could impact how we enjoy our home owns and safeguard our monetary investment in our residences.
Monday, 25 March 2013
Excuse me, Era, but your slip is showing
"Your slip is showing" is a euphemistic way of telling a woman that she has lost her modesty or self respect.
This expression came to mind I read the recent Era article on Council Members' expenses. Certainly the Era could have interviewed any of the nine members (and certainly there was no need to interview all nine), but to hone in on the Council member that spent the least in 2012 (or under 10% of the allocated budget) and question her annual spending? That seems a bit biased.
Why didn't the Era question the Regional Councillor who spent 84% of his allocated expense budget? I noticed on his list of items, he too recognized a local championship team and it cost the taxpayers roughly the same dollar amount as the item that the Era reporter had targeted. Could it be that in his case, the $300 was for an advertisement that was paid to the Era, while in the other case, the $300 went towards plaques given to the youth athletes to commemorate the team's victories? In other words, does the politician using his expense account to benefit the Era deserve the free pass?
I don't mind questioning politicians expense accounts, in fact I wish the Town of Newmarket provided us with even greater details. But if we were meant to feel scandalous about someone spending a mere fraction of what her colleagues had spent, then the Era missed the mark.
It should be noted that the YRMG is part of Metroland which in turn is part of the Torstar Corporation. Torstar is renowned for holding "progressive" editorial positions and in recent years, has allowed its Atkinson Principle to govern its perspective of the "news" (you can read more here: http://www.torstar.com/html/social-responsibility/Atkinson_Principles/index.cfm) The Atkinson Principle is in effect at the Toronto Star specifically but I worry that this left-leaning bias is also invading the community papers too, such as the Era. Certainly, Newmarket Council's left wing - Taylor/ Van Bynen and allies - are benefiting from the coverage. For example, it is hard to take the Era seriously when the paper calls Chris Emanuel "Newsmaker of the Year" for Glenway (although what has he he accomplished? Zzilch in my opinion) but ignored the facts in that article that he was convicted of impaired driving in 2011.
Being the only paper in town requires more professionalism from reporters and columnists especially in terms of presenting a balanced story. If the Atkinson Principle applied, then perhaps it would have been reasonable for the Era to question the Councillor spending significantly less than everyone else. But the Atkinson Principle isn't supposed to apply at the community level paper. So why the slant to the left, Era?
This expression came to mind I read the recent Era article on Council Members' expenses. Certainly the Era could have interviewed any of the nine members (and certainly there was no need to interview all nine), but to hone in on the Council member that spent the least in 2012 (or under 10% of the allocated budget) and question her annual spending? That seems a bit biased.
Why didn't the Era question the Regional Councillor who spent 84% of his allocated expense budget? I noticed on his list of items, he too recognized a local championship team and it cost the taxpayers roughly the same dollar amount as the item that the Era reporter had targeted. Could it be that in his case, the $300 was for an advertisement that was paid to the Era, while in the other case, the $300 went towards plaques given to the youth athletes to commemorate the team's victories? In other words, does the politician using his expense account to benefit the Era deserve the free pass?
I don't mind questioning politicians expense accounts, in fact I wish the Town of Newmarket provided us with even greater details. But if we were meant to feel scandalous about someone spending a mere fraction of what her colleagues had spent, then the Era missed the mark.
It should be noted that the YRMG is part of Metroland which in turn is part of the Torstar Corporation. Torstar is renowned for holding "progressive" editorial positions and in recent years, has allowed its Atkinson Principle to govern its perspective of the "news" (you can read more here: http://www.torstar.com/html/social-responsibility/Atkinson_Principles/index.cfm) The Atkinson Principle is in effect at the Toronto Star specifically but I worry that this left-leaning bias is also invading the community papers too, such as the Era. Certainly, Newmarket Council's left wing - Taylor/ Van Bynen and allies - are benefiting from the coverage. For example, it is hard to take the Era seriously when the paper calls Chris Emanuel "Newsmaker of the Year" for Glenway (although what has he he accomplished? Zzilch in my opinion) but ignored the facts in that article that he was convicted of impaired driving in 2011.
Being the only paper in town requires more professionalism from reporters and columnists especially in terms of presenting a balanced story. If the Atkinson Principle applied, then perhaps it would have been reasonable for the Era to question the Councillor spending significantly less than everyone else. But the Atkinson Principle isn't supposed to apply at the community level paper. So why the slant to the left, Era?
Saturday, 16 March 2013
On Fire Dept Amalgamation, Ward Consolidation and Other Craziness
Finally. After months and months of political wrangling, Newmarket Councillors are finally discussing some substantive issues.
Too bad they have staked out the wrong position on these issues but at least they are talking again.
Fire Dept. Amalgamation
Councillor Chris Emanuel has tweeted about an upcoming motion to explore consolidating all the municipally run fire departments under the umbrella of the York Regional Government.
Its a dumb idea on a number of fronts
1) Each municipality is different. East Gwillimbury and Georgina have composite fire departments (relying on both professionals and volunteers). This suits the needs of their communities and addresses what these municipalities can afford to pay for fire protection. How anxious would their residents be to shut out the volunteers and assume the higher costs associated with the larger cities to the south?
2) Each fire department requires different skills. Newmarket has no highways so our fire dept. doesn't address highway related traffic accidents in the same frequency that Markham and Vaughan would. Newmarket has no lakes so our fire dept. has no experience with drownings or rescuing ice fishers like East Gwillimbury and Georgina would. Newmarket has fewer high rises, less industrial exposures and so on. Simply put, the "one size fits all" York Regional solution really isn't a solution at all because the hazards that each municipality deals with are quite disparate.
3) Left leaning politicians like Councillor Emanuel prefer "Big Government" but our experience with York Region shows that Big Government is failing. Why would we place our lives and the protection in our homes at the level of government that is most in debt? York Region can't afford to maintain a consistent level of services with the items already under its purview If you want a clear example, look at the boondoggle that was the YRT transit strike. What a disaster exacerbated by the fact that York Region has billions in public debt.
4) What is Councillor Emanuel saying about his own effectiveness, where as a member of the CYFS board, he is suggesting that York Region can do it better than he can? Being just 16 square miles, and a community of predominantly single family homes, Newmarket should have the least amount of fire protection challenges of any York Regional community. If Councillor Emanuel doesn't think he and his fellow board members can handle it, how can we have any faith in them when it comes to other essential services, such as sewers, garbage pick up and recreation? (Although keep in mind, it was under his leadership at the CYSF that Newmarket hired 20 extra fire fighters so perhaps he can't handle the responsibility after all).
All in all, there is nothing in this idea that benefits the residents of Newmarket.
Newmarket Ward Re-Alignment
Councillor Jane Twinney is tweeting that she is in favour of reducing the number of wards in Newmarket and thereby reducing the number of politicians but paying the remaining ward councillors a full time wage.
This is also a dumb idea that has zero benefit for ordinary residents.
If you were looking for efficiencies and cost saving measures, it makes much more sense to remove the Regional Councillor position and give the Mayor two votes at the York Council.
Getting rid of the Regional Councillor position serves a number of benefits:
1) It doesn't change the representation each Ward currently enjoys.
2) Although part time, I don't get a sense that Newmarket Councillors are working part time hours, (with the possible exception of one or two Councillors). The majority of the seven councillors are treating their roles like a full time job. They are already working significant hours (including weekends) and there is no evidence that paying more money will deliver any better representation.
3) A Regional Councillor costs Newmarket taxpayers approximately four times the amount of money that one ward councillor costs.
4) In our system of municipal government, the mayor is considered weak in comparison to American mayors because he/she has only one vote on Council and no veto power. By giving the mayors two votes at the Regional Council, we accomplish a number of goals:
And speaking of "crazy"
Has anyone seen the Mayor's new blog on his www.vanbynen.ca web page?
The Mayor writes:
As you and your neighbours have likely heard, Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen is a man of the people – and for the people.
and later he writes:
In fact, to Mayor Van Bynen, it is within any person of any age to be able to contribute and in some small way, make a difference in the community
Why is the Mayor referring to himself in the third person? This supposed "man of the people" writes like he is delusional.
Too bad they have staked out the wrong position on these issues but at least they are talking again.
Fire Dept. Amalgamation
Councillor Chris Emanuel has tweeted about an upcoming motion to explore consolidating all the municipally run fire departments under the umbrella of the York Regional Government.
Its a dumb idea on a number of fronts
1) Each municipality is different. East Gwillimbury and Georgina have composite fire departments (relying on both professionals and volunteers). This suits the needs of their communities and addresses what these municipalities can afford to pay for fire protection. How anxious would their residents be to shut out the volunteers and assume the higher costs associated with the larger cities to the south?
2) Each fire department requires different skills. Newmarket has no highways so our fire dept. doesn't address highway related traffic accidents in the same frequency that Markham and Vaughan would. Newmarket has no lakes so our fire dept. has no experience with drownings or rescuing ice fishers like East Gwillimbury and Georgina would. Newmarket has fewer high rises, less industrial exposures and so on. Simply put, the "one size fits all" York Regional solution really isn't a solution at all because the hazards that each municipality deals with are quite disparate.
3) Left leaning politicians like Councillor Emanuel prefer "Big Government" but our experience with York Region shows that Big Government is failing. Why would we place our lives and the protection in our homes at the level of government that is most in debt? York Region can't afford to maintain a consistent level of services with the items already under its purview If you want a clear example, look at the boondoggle that was the YRT transit strike. What a disaster exacerbated by the fact that York Region has billions in public debt.
4) What is Councillor Emanuel saying about his own effectiveness, where as a member of the CYFS board, he is suggesting that York Region can do it better than he can? Being just 16 square miles, and a community of predominantly single family homes, Newmarket should have the least amount of fire protection challenges of any York Regional community. If Councillor Emanuel doesn't think he and his fellow board members can handle it, how can we have any faith in them when it comes to other essential services, such as sewers, garbage pick up and recreation? (Although keep in mind, it was under his leadership at the CYSF that Newmarket hired 20 extra fire fighters so perhaps he can't handle the responsibility after all).
All in all, there is nothing in this idea that benefits the residents of Newmarket.
Newmarket Ward Re-Alignment
Councillor Jane Twinney is tweeting that she is in favour of reducing the number of wards in Newmarket and thereby reducing the number of politicians but paying the remaining ward councillors a full time wage.
This is also a dumb idea that has zero benefit for ordinary residents.
If you were looking for efficiencies and cost saving measures, it makes much more sense to remove the Regional Councillor position and give the Mayor two votes at the York Council.
Getting rid of the Regional Councillor position serves a number of benefits:
1) It doesn't change the representation each Ward currently enjoys.
2) Although part time, I don't get a sense that Newmarket Councillors are working part time hours, (with the possible exception of one or two Councillors). The majority of the seven councillors are treating their roles like a full time job. They are already working significant hours (including weekends) and there is no evidence that paying more money will deliver any better representation.
3) A Regional Councillor costs Newmarket taxpayers approximately four times the amount of money that one ward councillor costs.
4) In our system of municipal government, the mayor is considered weak in comparison to American mayors because he/she has only one vote on Council and no veto power. By giving the mayors two votes at the Regional Council, we accomplish a number of goals:
- it gives extra power to the role of the mayor;
- it strikes a balance between towns that have no Regional Councillor presently (like Aurora, Whitchurch Stouffville, East Gwillimbury, and King)
- When the Newmarket Mayor and Regional Councillor attend the York Council, they either have to vote together on every issue or they cancel each other out leaving Newmarket without a voice. Giving the Mayor 2 votes and eliminating the Regional Councillor position ensures that Newmakret always has a voice at York Council.
- York Regional taxpayers would save costs associated with Regional Councillors by eliminating the role for Newmarket and Georgina, as well as reducing a Regional Councillor position in Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill. This is hundreds of thousands in savings by giving the Mayors of each York Regional municipality two votes on York Council.
And speaking of "crazy"
Has anyone seen the Mayor's new blog on his www.vanbynen.ca web page?
The Mayor writes:
As you and your neighbours have likely heard, Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen is a man of the people – and for the people.
and later he writes:
In fact, to Mayor Van Bynen, it is within any person of any age to be able to contribute and in some small way, make a difference in the community
Why is the Mayor referring to himself in the third person? This supposed "man of the people" writes like he is delusional.
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
A tale of two communication strategies
In politics, battles are won and lost on the field of communication. Politicians that can control the message win elections more often than not.
Yesterday, there was a communication battle worthy of a case study - two very different strategies at play.
Here is the scene:
The Newmarket Integrity Commissioner has issued a report that finds Councillor Di Muccio in breach of the Code of Conduct.
Maddie's message:
Intuitively, you might think this is a "can't win" situation for Maddie because her integrity is being called into question, but I think that's wrong. I believe it is a "can't lose" situation for her.
She can't lose because even if her communication strategy falls flat, she can't fall any lower than the Integrity Commissioner's message. She knows where rock bottom is and is aware that any success in communication will be deemed a great win for her.
Fortunately, I think she scored herself a big win.
Maddie's communication day started with cheekily tweeting the theme song to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. She set the table by framing the impending confrontation as an old fashioned gun fight between the white-hat lone drifter against the evil cattle rancher/ colonel and his gang of ne'er-do-wells. The imagery was perfect. (Not to mention that the movie referenced is one of the coolest ever made).
At the meeting, she made the right decision to speak and to provoke a reaction from her opponents. Her speech was well prepared and delivered with proper pace and diction. It wasn't so much what she said, (although defining an in camera meeting as a 'secret' meeting thus conjuring up images of some secret society was pure genius), that made the night a success for her, but rather, what she provoked her colleagues into saying.
If I were an advisor for the other Council members, I would have told them to not speak and leave the Integrity Commissioner's words lingering as the final word. I think it was a colossal mistake on their parts to give speeches because by doing so, they handed the victory over to Councillor Di Muccio.
First of all, Councillor Emanuel spoke and by far he turned out to be the biggest loser of the evening. Why?
a) The matter is about integrity, (something that isn't his strong suit, criminal conviction and all). His speaking only served as a prompt for the public to recall his brush with the law. He actually had the utter gall to say words to the effect that integrity was important to him. Really? I couldn't have been the only viewer gobsmacked by that whopper.
b) He came across as a jerk. He started off saying "I wasn't planning on speaking tonight", but then he produced a quote from the minutes of a meeting that took place months ago and they just happened to be the top page on in his notepad? Riiiight.
c) Councillor Di Muccio's biggest complaint has been that he offered support and then changed his mind in a secret meeting. To which he replied that Councillor Di Muccio had voted in favour of the Integrity Commissioner investigation. I don't know what kindergarten he went to, but that excuse "well she did it too" never succeeded with my teacher. Post Script - This afternoon, DiMuccio produced minutes to a meeting that proved him wrong. He should have taken the opportunity to justify his decision to change his mind but instead he went for the cheap "gotcha" moment and fell flat on his face. To sum up his performance, I give him an F-minus.
Regional Councillor Taylor in an effort to look like a leader, gave a confused and meandering explanation of the confidentiality rules that had no context with the matter before council. I was left with the impression that he was simply enjoying the sound of his own voice giving justification for the stereotypical windbag image of a municipal politician. Again, he could have used the opportunity to explain why he chose to flip flop but he I think he believed his clever obfuscation would confuse the viewers into believing he actually had integrity.
Ward 2 Councillor David Kerwin, winding up for a trip down memory lane, was interrupted by the Mayor and asked to stay on topic. Unable to comply, Kerwin cut his comments short. He ended up shouting something nonsensical at Councillor Di Muccio.
The lesson for the day, when a very well spoken Integrity Commissioner does your dirty work for you against an opponent, avoid the temptation to steal defeat from the jaws of victory like Newmarket Council did last night. If the shoe is on the other foot though, follow Councillor Di Muccio's example and assist your opponents in stuffing their own feet into their gaping mouths.
Yesterday, there was a communication battle worthy of a case study - two very different strategies at play.
Here is the scene:
The Newmarket Integrity Commissioner has issued a report that finds Councillor Di Muccio in breach of the Code of Conduct.
Maddie's message:
Intuitively, you might think this is a "can't win" situation for Maddie because her integrity is being called into question, but I think that's wrong. I believe it is a "can't lose" situation for her.
She can't lose because even if her communication strategy falls flat, she can't fall any lower than the Integrity Commissioner's message. She knows where rock bottom is and is aware that any success in communication will be deemed a great win for her.
Fortunately, I think she scored herself a big win.
Maddie's communication day started with cheekily tweeting the theme song to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. She set the table by framing the impending confrontation as an old fashioned gun fight between the white-hat lone drifter against the evil cattle rancher/ colonel and his gang of ne'er-do-wells. The imagery was perfect. (Not to mention that the movie referenced is one of the coolest ever made).
At the meeting, she made the right decision to speak and to provoke a reaction from her opponents. Her speech was well prepared and delivered with proper pace and diction. It wasn't so much what she said, (although defining an in camera meeting as a 'secret' meeting thus conjuring up images of some secret society was pure genius), that made the night a success for her, but rather, what she provoked her colleagues into saying.
If I were an advisor for the other Council members, I would have told them to not speak and leave the Integrity Commissioner's words lingering as the final word. I think it was a colossal mistake on their parts to give speeches because by doing so, they handed the victory over to Councillor Di Muccio.
First of all, Councillor Emanuel spoke and by far he turned out to be the biggest loser of the evening. Why?
a) The matter is about integrity, (something that isn't his strong suit, criminal conviction and all). His speaking only served as a prompt for the public to recall his brush with the law. He actually had the utter gall to say words to the effect that integrity was important to him. Really? I couldn't have been the only viewer gobsmacked by that whopper.
b) He came across as a jerk. He started off saying "I wasn't planning on speaking tonight", but then he produced a quote from the minutes of a meeting that took place months ago and they just happened to be the top page on in his notepad? Riiiight.
c) Councillor Di Muccio's biggest complaint has been that he offered support and then changed his mind in a secret meeting. To which he replied that Councillor Di Muccio had voted in favour of the Integrity Commissioner investigation. I don't know what kindergarten he went to, but that excuse "well she did it too" never succeeded with my teacher. Post Script - This afternoon, DiMuccio produced minutes to a meeting that proved him wrong. He should have taken the opportunity to justify his decision to change his mind but instead he went for the cheap "gotcha" moment and fell flat on his face. To sum up his performance, I give him an F-minus.
Regional Councillor Taylor in an effort to look like a leader, gave a confused and meandering explanation of the confidentiality rules that had no context with the matter before council. I was left with the impression that he was simply enjoying the sound of his own voice giving justification for the stereotypical windbag image of a municipal politician. Again, he could have used the opportunity to explain why he chose to flip flop but he I think he believed his clever obfuscation would confuse the viewers into believing he actually had integrity.
Ward 2 Councillor David Kerwin, winding up for a trip down memory lane, was interrupted by the Mayor and asked to stay on topic. Unable to comply, Kerwin cut his comments short. He ended up shouting something nonsensical at Councillor Di Muccio.
The lesson for the day, when a very well spoken Integrity Commissioner does your dirty work for you against an opponent, avoid the temptation to steal defeat from the jaws of victory like Newmarket Council did last night. If the shoe is on the other foot though, follow Councillor Di Muccio's example and assist your opponents in stuffing their own feet into their gaping mouths.
Friday, 1 March 2013
Why is Nwkt Council so Afraid of Twitter, Blogs and Facebook?
I read with quite a bit of dismay in the Era that there are plans to include "social media" in the Council Code of Conduct. I can certainly understand why the Van Bynen/ Taylor two-some would want that. They have been getting their backsides handed to them over the Internet for over two years but rather than "fight back" they would opt to censor instead? Ridiculous.
If it wasn't for Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, Newmarket residents would have no idea what is happening at Newmarket town hall. The Era is too selective in the news it reports and tends to focus on light pieces, (to compete with SNAP, I guess) rather than provide us with hard news. This is why the biggest news stories regarding Newmarket have been reported in social media first.
Want examples?
1) Chris Emanuel's DUI arrest
2) Closed door meetings fiasco
3) Councillors abuse taxpayer money by spending on galas and fancy dress parties
4) Votes against transparency and open government particularly with avoiding posting voting records and spending account information on line
5) Vegh scandals - the c-word and going to work for John Taylor's dad who happens to sit on the Newmarket Tay Hydro board
6) Taylor charity scandal
7) Vegh and Hempen in camera confidentiality breach
8) Taylor in camera confidentiality breach
9) Inclusive policy for street naming
10) That we have a street in Newmarket named after this guy: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1431440-slingerland-charges-grow-to-19/
11) Van Bynen spending well beyond other councillors to attend the same London conference
12) Town of Newmarket/ Newmarket Cares exclusion of @joepsonga
13) Green slush funds abuses
14) Stinky Newmarket water (smells of chlorine)
15) Live streaming meetings to the Internet
16) VIVA/ YRT strike and the flip/flop of Twinney
17) Emanuel "Hero/ Star" status at YR Women's Hallowe'en gala
18) Emanuel speaking to school aged kids, scouts etc. about "Civics" although he is a criminal
And I'm sure this list could even be expanded further. All of these important news items broke first in social media and the majority of these items have never actually been reported in the mainstream media as of yet.
You will often hear our municipal politicians speak about Newmarket being one of the best communities to live in. This is only true if you block out the rotten smell coming from Van Bynen/ Taylor's administration. But for as long as the Era and Rogers continue to ignore the stench from Newmarket Town hall, blogs like mine are way too important to give up.
Regular readers of this blog know that is the only reason why I write this blog - to comment on the news that is being missed by the Era. I've promised the editor of the Era that I would stop once her paper started to report on these things. That's a promise I intend to keep.
Until then, I encourage every elected official to use the freedom of social media to keep your voters informed. Don't just publish drivel because that assumes that the public is a bunch of morons. We're more than capable of understanding the hard issues behind a Glenway and a Slessor Square amongst others. Closed door meetings concerning major development decisions that will alter the face of our community are in themselves immoral and need to stop.
Don't attempt to silence social media Councillors. Celebrate it. We have an engaged community in Newmarket. Don't lock us out.
If it wasn't for Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, Newmarket residents would have no idea what is happening at Newmarket town hall. The Era is too selective in the news it reports and tends to focus on light pieces, (to compete with SNAP, I guess) rather than provide us with hard news. This is why the biggest news stories regarding Newmarket have been reported in social media first.
Want examples?
1) Chris Emanuel's DUI arrest
2) Closed door meetings fiasco
3) Councillors abuse taxpayer money by spending on galas and fancy dress parties
4) Votes against transparency and open government particularly with avoiding posting voting records and spending account information on line
5) Vegh scandals - the c-word and going to work for John Taylor's dad who happens to sit on the Newmarket Tay Hydro board
6) Taylor charity scandal
7) Vegh and Hempen in camera confidentiality breach
8) Taylor in camera confidentiality breach
9) Inclusive policy for street naming
10) That we have a street in Newmarket named after this guy: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/1431440-slingerland-charges-grow-to-19/
11) Van Bynen spending well beyond other councillors to attend the same London conference
12) Town of Newmarket/ Newmarket Cares exclusion of @joepsonga
13) Green slush funds abuses
14) Stinky Newmarket water (smells of chlorine)
15) Live streaming meetings to the Internet
16) VIVA/ YRT strike and the flip/flop of Twinney
17) Emanuel "Hero/ Star" status at YR Women's Hallowe'en gala
18) Emanuel speaking to school aged kids, scouts etc. about "Civics" although he is a criminal
And I'm sure this list could even be expanded further. All of these important news items broke first in social media and the majority of these items have never actually been reported in the mainstream media as of yet.
You will often hear our municipal politicians speak about Newmarket being one of the best communities to live in. This is only true if you block out the rotten smell coming from Van Bynen/ Taylor's administration. But for as long as the Era and Rogers continue to ignore the stench from Newmarket Town hall, blogs like mine are way too important to give up.
Regular readers of this blog know that is the only reason why I write this blog - to comment on the news that is being missed by the Era. I've promised the editor of the Era that I would stop once her paper started to report on these things. That's a promise I intend to keep.
Until then, I encourage every elected official to use the freedom of social media to keep your voters informed. Don't just publish drivel because that assumes that the public is a bunch of morons. We're more than capable of understanding the hard issues behind a Glenway and a Slessor Square amongst others. Closed door meetings concerning major development decisions that will alter the face of our community are in themselves immoral and need to stop.
Don't attempt to silence social media Councillors. Celebrate it. We have an engaged community in Newmarket. Don't lock us out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)