Soccer Club Bail Out and How it Affects the Glenway Battle

When I started this blog, it was in response to what I perceived a  lack of concern by the local media to report the local news.  I made a promise to the editor of the York Regional Media group to cease my blog as soon as I saw an improvement in the amount of information and discourse provided to the public. 

My opinion about the soccer club bail out is the same as many of you.  I have kept my opinion to myself because of the hard work done by many others through social media that have done an excellent job at raising concerns publicly. 

Understandably, the Thursday edition of the Era had very few facts about the soccer club bail out because the news was so recent and the meeting that decided on the bail out was held in secret.  I was looking forward to reading if more details would be published on Sunday's edition.  Unfortunately, this was not the case. 

Seemingly unrelated to the soccer club bail out, the Sunday edition of the Era  included a column entitled "Town can't let cost of fight deter it  from Glenway battle."  I use the words "seemingly unrelated" because I think these two issues are about to intersect in a big way at Newmarket Town Hall. 

In a nutshell, that is the rub for the five members of Newmarket Council who voted in favour of the soccer bail out - because coincidently, their number includes the most hawkish members of the Glenway battle.  Now that these five have committed $2.8 million to appease 2,700 families (and yes, that is the correct number.  The 4,000 number that I've seen elsewhere is a wild exaggeration), so that they can play soccer, how much will they contribute the 700 households who are facing significant financial losses through a reduction in property value if the Marrianeville project proceeds? 

Jeff Brown has long been calling for the Town of Newmarket to provide compensation to homeowners affected by the new development.  Fair is fair but it begs the question:  if these Council members bailed out soccer to the tune of $2.8 million, how much of a bail out will they provide to the Glenway homeowners?   

Councillor Emanuel, who promised on September 5th to blog about the soccer club bail out but hasn't yet done so, would be wise to explain to his constituents what this massive commitment of public resources towards soccer could mean for their battle?  Should they be buoyed by his vote or seriously worried that he spent the money that the town could have used to helped them?

The other question that I would like an answer to comes from Van Bynen's blog on the soccer club bail out.  In his writing, he says the soccer club owed $2.5 million for the Newpark Soccer facility.  Yet, the Town provided a bail out of $2.8 million.  I'm not sure if that is a simple typo or if there is more to the numbers that aren't being made public. 

I'm hearing its the latter.  Important facets of the deal remain secret.  I'm hearing that the Newmakret Soccer Club owed significant amounts of money to multiple parties.  The more than $1,000,000 in registration fees that the club collected this spring did not pay for soccer related expenses.  Those expenses remain unpaid.  Instead, the $1,000,000+ was misspent by the current board.  At very least, the Mayor needs to protect public money by pushing for a complete accounting of the debts of the Newmarket Soccer and how registration fees were spent in 2013.   

As a humorous aside, recently the Mayor (or whomever is tweeting on his behalf) had this to say: 

Tony Van Bynen @rocknrollcroll Please see my Blog: vanbynen.ca. You may wish to ask Councillor Di Muccio who paid for her recent Ad.

Personally, I thought Councillor Di Muccio was very forthright in how she paid for her ad in an interview with the Era.  As far as I can tell, there isn't any controversy. 

I checked on the Newmarket website to find out how much she paid but that figure isn't yet available.  What I did find is that Councillor Sponga paid just over $1,000 for a full page ad in the Era in 2011.  Let's assume that the Era wouldn't charge different rates to different council members and that realistically, a half page ad would be in the range of $600. 

Contrast that estimated $600 amount to the more than $4,000 this Mayor has publicly expensed on "gas and car washes" over the past two-and-a-half years and taxpayers can see the irony in the Mayor's tweet. 

Mr. Taylor, your comments in the Era were deceitful

There is something very deceitful in way Regional Councillor and current Deputy Mayor John Taylor replied to a reporter’s inquiry in this article:  http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/4042982-ad-sets-record-straight-newmarket-councillor/

Quote:

I can’t judge the appropriateness of this vis-a-vis election conduct,” Taylor said on behalf of the town when asked if the advertisement breached council’s code of conduct. “I’m not saying there is an issue or not, but there are processes to address it if need be.”

The sneakiness in his non-answer is that he doesn’t challenge the premise of the question. 

Taylor knows full well that there is no issue with the code of conduct by placing an ad about budget related matters. 

How can I know this for certain? 

To wit, in October 2012 Taylor mailed postcards to all residences in Newmarket highlighting two budget related issues that were important to him. 

Yet his “I can’t judge” response to the reporter (when he should have replied: “I know for certain, it does not”) shows Taylor to be dishonest in his response, and displays a lack of character on his part. 

Taylor’s deceit relies upon context for its effect: by not answering the question with a definitive “no” presupposes something isn’t already known about this imagined controversy. It is clear to me that Taylor’s postcards were essentially the same tactic as the ad taken out in the Era last week. 

So why is Taylor being so coy with his response?  And will anyone be fooled? 

How Things Get Done In Wadena Saskatchewan

Disgraced Senator Pamela Wallin's hometown of Wadena, Saskatchewan (pop. 1500) is considering the appropriateness of naming a local street after her.  This debate was prompted by an auditor's report which suggests Senator Wallin inappropriately received reimbursements from the public coffers totalling $140,000.  The auditors' report was released earlier this week. 

In Newmarket Ontario, we have our own "hometown" shame in serial child molester, Dr. Owen Slingerland who has also been inappropriately honoured for his so-called "contributions to the community" with a street naming. 

In Newmarket, nobody (except this blog), is chomping at the bit to re-name the street that is located in Councillor Chris Emanuels ward 7, (how fitting). 

Unfortunately, that is how we do things in Newmarket under the direction of Mayor Tony Van Bynen.

This mayor seems more concerned with preventing any sort of embarrassment to a beloved convicted child molester.  He pays no mind to the emotional pain Dr. Slingerland's four male victims are living with.  The victim impact statements related to his sentencing hearing in July were heart wrenchinginly clear as two brothers spoke about the emotional trauma they experienced at the hands of a man who was a trusted friend of their family.  I applaud the brother who chastised those in the community who, despite the conviction, turned out at the court house in support of the "good" doctor.  Council, having done nothing about this matter, is no better. 

Our community is better than that.  Our hearts and our actions should take us to the only reasonable next step - renaming the street immediately.

But that is the way this mayor has always handled things.

When Councillor Emanuel plead guilty in Newmarket Court to criminal charges (2 years ago yesterday), the Mayor and his allies were tripping all over themselves to downplay and excuse his criminal actions.  Their comments in support of Councillor Emanuel depict a very dark day in this Town's history when they failed to stand up for what's right choosing instead to back their friend who deserved our scorn but received praise instead.

It was the same when the York Region Women's Centre named Councillor Emanuel a "Star" last Hallowe'en ignoring the well established links between alcohol abuse and violence against women. 
Really?   This man is supposed to be a good role model for our community?  Someone that women are supposed to look up to?

Can't we do better? 

Some would argue about the relativeness between expense account abuse, child sexual abuse, and alcohol abuse.  I say when it crosses the line into criminality, relativity doesn't matter. 

Character matters.  Always.  Integrity matters.  Every time. 

Wadena Saskatchewan with its population of 1500, gets it. Newmarket with its population of 85,000 people, doesn't.

The Bigger Evil - Anonymous Lobbyists (and those who hide them).

In an advertisement published in The Auroran on May 28, 2013, Mr. Klees was boasting about how hard he was working by publishing a single day's schedule of meetings.  One meeting in particular stood out for me:

5:00 pm: A Government Relations rep wants to discuss the possibility of a casino locating in Vaughan or Markham.

For those who are unfamiliar with the lingo of politicians, "Government Relations rep" is another way of saying "Lobbyist". 

The Ontario Government has been looking into casinos because gambling is a quick and easy way for governments to get revenue.  But there is a dark side to casinos in the form of insidious social issues which include addiction, bankruptcy, crime and prostitution.  It is the latter reasons why organized crime syndicates are keen on casinos, (including the notorious crime familes who allegedly have close ties with a certain casino in Atlantic City which is rumoured to be bidding to build the new casino here). 

Most sensible people are opposed to a casino moving into their neighbourhood and the proximity of Markham or Vaughan to our own homes is too close for comfort.  We don't need the social problems that come with casinos to be imported into our communities. 

So I made Mr. Klees a very simple request - make public the name of the lobbyist he met with on that Friday afternoon at 5:00 pm.

In a polite and cordial manner I explained to Mr. Klees that the rules for MPP's regarding lobbying are quite clear and easy to follow.  As a rule of thumb, MPP's are encouraged to be completely transparent about their interactions with lobbyist.

Mr. Klees replied to me claiming that this 5:00 pm meeting was a "constituent meeting" (contradicting what he wrote in the Auroran).  He then tried to hide behind Office of the Integrity Commissioner rules regarding confidentiality of constituents. 

I'm not buying his excuse and neither should you. 

To deflect from my line of questioning, Mr. Klees tried to turn the tables on me asking me to reveal my own identity.  Its a ruse he played to "change the page" from his secret lobbyist meeting.  As if knowing who I am is more important than the public knowing about lobbyists who are working behind the scenes to peddle influence with our elected officials.  

After our interaction, he then picked up the phone and started calling members of the public while making wild and ridiculous allegations (see below):

Normally, a politician flipping out and scrambling to "contain" the damage is nothing new.  But this issue is about casinos and their ties to organized crime, drugs, prostitution, loan sharking and so on are well documented.  Mr. Klees owes us an explanation and he should spare us his fake indignation. 

That is what makes Mr. Klees' next move so disturbing. 

Today, Mr. Klees placed another Auroran advertisement and sent broadcast e-mails condemning my legitimate questions about his dealings with his secret casino lobbyist.  He called me a "sniper" and a "coward".

Mr. Klees is a old salt politician and he has weathered his share of "attacks" (although I don't find anything in my previous interaction with him as over the top).  So it makes no sense that he would be so prickly about my line of questions.  Why did he resort to name calling at this point?

And while we are asking questions,

1) Why won't he reveal who he met with? Why is he remaining so steadfast to protect this lobbyist?

2) All casino lobbying activities need to be registered as such.  Was this lobbyist registered?

3) If he/she was registered, for whom are they working for?

4) If this lobbyist isn't registered how can we be sure that this so-called government relations rep wasn't working for someone with organized crime ties?

5) Why did Mr. Klees schedule the meeting at 5:00 pm?  Did Mr. Klees socialize over a drinks, dinner or other entertainment with this lobbyist or his/her employer after the meeting?  Was anything discussed during this social time?

6) How many times has Mr. Klees met with this lobbyist?  Or his/ her employer?  Has Mr. Klees visited the lobbyist's employer at their premises?  If so, who paid for the trip?

It is going to take more than ads in the paper and woe is me talk from Mr. Klees about so-called "anonymous/ coward snipers" to make this story go away.  It is going to take Mr. Klees having the stomach to do the right thing and inform the public about this meeting.   

If Mr. Klees has nothing to hide, then all he has to do is start answering a few simple questions about his secret casino lobbyist rendez-vous.  If he remains mum on the subject, (and there is no reason to think otherwise), then it will up to the good residents of Newmarket-Aurora to make up our own minds about Mr. Klees, lobbyists, casinos and the social ills that come with them. 

The Businesses On Davis Drive in Newmarket Need Your Support

An Open Letter to the Town of Newmarket:


Dear Newmarket Residents,

It's been a while for many of you since you last stopped by one of the many shops located along Davis Drive.  In the interim, some of our neighbouring business have been forced to move away or to shut their doors for good.  Decent, hardworking neighbours of yours have lost their jobs and in some cases, their livelihoods. 

Yes, there is construction along Davis Drive and there can be delays when driving along this corridor. 

But many of us local business owners are still here and we need your support.  We are still providing the same great services and/or merchandise that we have in the past.  Please be patient with the traffic and come in and see us again. 

We could really use your help. 

I have heard many people complain that they don't understand why the Mayor and Regional Councillor are so gung-ho about these damn-forsaken dedicated bus lanes. 

The way I see it, if things don't improve soon, these bus lanes will be the financial ruin of many local businesses.  We have already seen businesses with a long storied history in the town, like Persechinni's Gym, forced to close down because of bungling at York Regional council.  By the time the construction is completed, there won't be any reason for anyone to travel along the bus route because all the businesses will be closed. 

The Davis corridor will be a ghost town. 

If you don't want to see that happen then please patronize your favourite businesses along Davis Drive as you have in the past.  We need your support now - more than ever. 

Thank you. 

How to increase voter turnout at the next Newmarket Municipal election.

Increasing voter turnout is the stated goal of a recent series of articles printed in the Newmarket Era.  The editor has named her quest to improve the percentage of eligible voters exercising their right to vote from 32% (in the last election) to 50% in next year's race as a key priority of her paper.  Lagging voter turnout has been a topic she herself has written about numerous times over the years. 

But unless the Era begins to understand the reasons why people vote, she won't be successful at convincing anyone who sat on the sidelines in 2010 to change their behaviour.  Stop interviewing those who didn't vote and focus on those who did and what motivated them to do so. 

Here is a hint - People don't vote because they felt a civic duty nor do they vote because they were nagged to participate in the electoral process.  People vote because they want to influence a change in course of government. 

In 2010, there was a movement to change the direction of Newmarket Council.  It began with 2 incumbents being defeated and a third seat was won by someone not affiliated with the "old boys" network (in fact, the "old boys" preferred candidate was soundly rejected). 

In addition, despite a non-existent campaign from challengers for the Regional Council and Mayor's race, these "on paper only" candidates still managed to garner thousands of votes and demonstrated a legitimate groundswell of people who were motivated by an "anyone but Van Bynen/ Taylor" sentiment.

You see, as Canadians, we rarely vote "in" a government in as much as we vote "out" an incumbent.

If the Era wants to increase voter turnout, here are some very simple steps to take.  (For the record, I don't expect that the Era affect any of these steps because they are too closely tied with the Van Bynen/ Taylor regime including sitting on various boards and committees together.  In reality, there is no independent "local press" in Newmarket outside of a few blogs like mine).

Step 1) Actually report the news. 

Here is a recent example of story that was buried by the Era.  Two weeks ago, a pedestrian was struck and killed in a part of town where no sidewalks existed.  The mayor and his cronies have been battling against constructing sidewalks for years and now it has actually lead to a death of a young person.  That's newsworthy and the mayor and his buddies should be called to account.  The public has been purposely kept in the dark by the Era newspaper which is too close to the current regime to be objective about reporting actual news.     

Step 2)  Stop the spin cycle.

Why does the Era sit silently while the mayor spins a yarn about 45% of Newmarket residents working in the community as he did in his Chamber of Commerce speech earlier this year.  The Era should challenge the mayor and shut him up when he lies and/or makes up stats.  Isn't the reporter's job to inform the public?  Challenge him too on what is going on with Davis Drive construction or about his role in voting to massivley increase the debt load of York Region.  These are important issues on a Regional level that never get reported on by the paper.  Why not? 

Step 3)  You are a reporter not a shill

Stop reporting drivel like Councillor Emanuel's "Internet voting" idea and treating it like it might be a good idea.  Instead of acting as Councillor Emanuel's personal PR department and simply regurgitating whatever lame-brained idea pops into his head, why doesn't the Era question him as to what the cost of implementing a Internet voting is going to be and what the expected "boost" in voter turnout will be?  Better yet, why not look at the results of the recent leadership race in the federal Liberal Party.  If there was ever a case study against Internet voting, its that race and the results are right under our noses.  I say, Enough with the silliness.  (Hint - stop quoting Councillor Emanuel and the Era will be able to cut out 95% of all silly news relating to municipal politics.  The man is a buffoon). 

Step 4)  Ask tough questions

Stop nagging us about an election that is 15 months away.  Rather than focus on voting in 2014, why isn't the Era taking the mayor to task about the budget process?  Or, raising taxes 2 times this year.  Or the councillor expense report that has been quietly posted on the town web site.  Or the fact so many of the town-owned facilities had to be closed down for "emergency repairs" because this mayor can't seem to manage the town in the same way his predecessors have?  Why are their no stories about the duplicity of the mayor with the heritage Clock Tower development?  There is another local blogger who has done a great job turning up dirt.  Why is the Era burying this story too?

My point being that there is plenty of news that is being completely ignored by the Era that are legitimate news stories.  Each of them point to some level of incompetency and/or duplicity with the current administration.  These stories are too important to our local democracy not to be written about. 

If there is going to be a higher voter turnout it will be because voters have decided to toss the gruesome-twosome to the curb. 

The Era can boost the voter turn-out to 50% and beyond by simply ending their kids-glove treatment of the Van Bynen administration and just report the news from a fair and balanced perspective.  It won't take voters long to see that the mayor is incompetent.  Voters will turn out in droves to vote him and his allies out provided the Era actually starts acting like a news organization again and stops painting every event rose coloured. 

Does the Mayor have a crystal ball or is this budget process just crass politics?

Long time residents will recall that it has been years and years since we last had a 0% tax increase from the Town of Newmarket.  If my memory is correct, the last time we got a 0% tax increase was back when Ray Twinney was Mayor.

Now we just seem to take it for granted that we are going to get hit in our pocket book each year while the size of our local government and the amount of Newmarket Town Hall spending waste continues to circle the proverbial bowl. 

This year, we were treated to a double whammy.  Just months after passing a massive tax increase on the town's portion of your property tax bill, we got hit a second time with a "special" levy to boost reserve funds that were wasted on things like the Magna Centre lawsuit which Newmarket lost, appealed, and lost again.

Note to voters - it doesn't take much to rack up massive legal bills with Van Bynen at the helm). 

So what is a Mayor who is likely facing his stiffest electoral challenge yet to do about his record as a tax spend ne'er-do-well supposed to do about his re-election bid? 

Will he own up to voters that he has a master plan to keep on raising taxes and grow government expenses and debt for as long as we'll let him? 

Nope

Instead he is hard at work hoping to sneak through a tax increase right now ahead of 2014 so he won't have to talk budget at all while campaigning.

What is the problem with passing a budget in 2013 that is expected to see us through until 2015?

1) it is sneaky and a decision solely motivated by politics.  I'm sorry but that isn't good leadership and certainly lacks a willingness by the Mayor to run on his own record

2) unless he has a crystal ball and can anticipate potential riskslike a higher than expected snow fall, or maybe a storm that causes extensive flooding (after all, Newmarket is located on a floodplain), he is bound to make errors when forecasting town expenses.  He will either have to be conservative and charge us much higher taxes to pad the books a bit just in case, or he will take the risk of running out of the money we need to plow roads and maintain our streets. 

3) remember this same Mayor had to increase property taxes a second time just a few weeks ater passing the 2013 budget.  We can't have a whole lot of faith in Van Bynen's abilties to forecast. Any error in his judgement and he will be handcuffing the eventual winner of the 2014 Mayoralty race to manage with greater debts and/or depleted reserves.  In other words, the Van Bynen legacy could carry on past 2014 even if he is turfed from office as many expect.   

The Town of Newmarket is blasting Twitter and other advertising asking for citizens' feedback about budget 2014.  The response from the public should be simple:  Leave the politics out of it and lets focus on good sound management of the municipality.  To do that requires that the 2014 budget should be considered in 2014 and not during the summer of 2013.