A fifteen minute council meeting? With several council members not in attendance?
Don't be so surprised, Newmarket.
Isn't that what you wanted when you decided that "getting along" on Council was more important than holding Mayor Van Bynen's administration accountable?
After all, aren't the voters always right?
Two years ago, several self appointed "elites" (ironically, most of them came from Aurora) pumped thousands of dollars into removing the lone member of Council who actually participated in Council meetings, by asking questions and demanding answers.
Awestruck by big blue signs and glossy materials, voters elected instead a mannequin who attends every meeting but doesn't speak. Dutifully, she votes any which way the Gruesome-Twosome demand of her.
We now have a Council that gets along famously. Too bad they don't accomplish anything at all.
Where are the big initiatives the Gruesome-Twosome promised?
- Broadband?
- Accelerated intensification of Yonge and Davis Corridor?
- New jobs for Newmarket?
- Positive working relationships with local businesses?
- Post secondary campus?
- Better performing hospital?
Our Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council haven't made a single accomplishment towards any of these goals.
A four year mandate and more than half of that time has been wasted "getting along" with each other.
Sunday, 9 October 2016
Saturday, 24 September 2016
Van Bynen/ Taylor Continue to Ravage Newmarket's Historic Architecture
Historic buildings are important to maintain and invest in. More often than not, these buildings are physical reminders of the community's roots and the values that continue to bring us together.
During the Ward 5 by-election, many candidates are talking about the former Federal Building which used to serve us as the post office and customs house. The building is owned by a private developer with plans to preserve the facade of the historic structure while building a 7-storey residential tower behind it.
If residents are concerned about what the Gruesome-Twosome might do, they only need to consider what has been done with one of Newmarket's other historic buildings, the Old Town Hall. Built in 1883, the Old Town Hall was designated an historic building in 1999.
The 1883 building is quite beautiful with its bell tower and high narrow windows. Unfortunately, the ravages of time combined the willful neglect and lack of building maintenance under the Van Bynen/ Taylor led Council were causing the foundation to crumble. A significant portion of the over $10 million that was invested in the Old Town Hall renovations were quite frankly sunk into the building's foundation.
The character of this historic building has been lost due to the erratic modern architecture that comprises the remainder of the renovations. Glass, concrete, and glaring lights are inconsistent with the regeneration of the original structure.
It looks very, very ugly.
Would the Gruesome-Twosome repeat the same mistake with the former Federal Building on Main Street? Based on the type of architecture they seem to approve of - the Old Town Hall, the Magna Centre, and Belinda's Place - the answer is almost assuredly a resounding, Yes.
The Gruesome-Twosome have terrible track record against aesthetically pleasing architecture. All major projects approved by the Van Bynen/ Taylor led Council have been unsightly and misshapen messes.
CTV News, photo of the glass and concrete addition to the historic Old Town Hall building
During the Ward 5 by-election, many candidates are talking about the former Federal Building which used to serve us as the post office and customs house. The building is owned by a private developer with plans to preserve the facade of the historic structure while building a 7-storey residential tower behind it.
If residents are concerned about what the Gruesome-Twosome might do, they only need to consider what has been done with one of Newmarket's other historic buildings, the Old Town Hall. Built in 1883, the Old Town Hall was designated an historic building in 1999.
The 1883 building is quite beautiful with its bell tower and high narrow windows. Unfortunately, the ravages of time combined the willful neglect and lack of building maintenance under the Van Bynen/ Taylor led Council were causing the foundation to crumble. A significant portion of the over $10 million that was invested in the Old Town Hall renovations were quite frankly sunk into the building's foundation.
The character of this historic building has been lost due to the erratic modern architecture that comprises the remainder of the renovations. Glass, concrete, and glaring lights are inconsistent with the regeneration of the original structure.
It looks very, very ugly.
Would the Gruesome-Twosome repeat the same mistake with the former Federal Building on Main Street? Based on the type of architecture they seem to approve of - the Old Town Hall, the Magna Centre, and Belinda's Place - the answer is almost assuredly a resounding, Yes.
The Gruesome-Twosome have terrible track record against aesthetically pleasing architecture. All major projects approved by the Van Bynen/ Taylor led Council have been unsightly and misshapen messes.
CTV News, photo of the glass and concrete addition to the historic Old Town Hall building
Monday, 29 August 2016
New Taxation Without Representation
At today's Committee of the Whole meeting, Newmarket Council is reviewing user fees, licensing, and other ancillary revenue sources for the Town.
That, in itself, isn't news. Under the "leadership" of the gruesome twosome taxes and other fees have gone up,up and up for each year they've been in elected office.
And guess what? It is safe to predict that they'll go up again next year and the year after that too.
If overburdened Newmarket residents can ever hope to see tax relief, they will have to elect new leadership who actually gives a damn about fiscal management.
What is "news" is that Council is going ahead with reviewing these hikes without the input of any representative of Ward 5.
What's the rush?
Why isn't Council waiting just a short six weeks until the new Council member is elected in order to ensure that there is no taxation without representation?
Could this rush to get these new hikes through (with what I expect will be little or no debate) be a sign that the incumbent powers on Council are concerned about the outcome of the by-election?
Lord know that Council is very good at deferring issues. Asking for a deferral is a regular occurrence at Council. I would suggest that Council should wait the six weeks to hike user fees and licensing costs in order that all Wards are represented.
That, in itself, isn't news. Under the "leadership" of the gruesome twosome taxes and other fees have gone up,up and up for each year they've been in elected office.
And guess what? It is safe to predict that they'll go up again next year and the year after that too.
If overburdened Newmarket residents can ever hope to see tax relief, they will have to elect new leadership who actually gives a damn about fiscal management.
What is "news" is that Council is going ahead with reviewing these hikes without the input of any representative of Ward 5.
What's the rush?
Why isn't Council waiting just a short six weeks until the new Council member is elected in order to ensure that there is no taxation without representation?
Could this rush to get these new hikes through (with what I expect will be little or no debate) be a sign that the incumbent powers on Council are concerned about the outcome of the by-election?
Lord know that Council is very good at deferring issues. Asking for a deferral is a regular occurrence at Council. I would suggest that Council should wait the six weeks to hike user fees and licensing costs in order that all Wards are represented.
Saturday, 6 August 2016
The Burden of Real Estate Agents Sitting on Newmarket Town Council
I never accepted former Councillor Joe Sponga's explanation of why he quit his Council seat just 17 months into his term. The idea of a potential law suit or code of conduct complaint running him out of office just seemed preposterous. It seemed to me that Sponga was simply seeking attention with his "Woe is me" act. How sad for him.
Now we know the truth.
Sponga has recently updated his Linked-In page to show that he is now a real estate agent. It seems obvious that Sponga was concerned with the inherent conflict of interests that will present themselves between that profession and his duties on council. He couldn't serve his constituents if he was always being forced to declare a conflict of interest (by having a listing in the area or a potential sale in the area, and so on).
In the Ward 5 By Election, there are a few candidates who are real estate agents or studying to become real estate agents. These candidates need to explain to voters now how they will attempt to balance their profession and their council responsibilities.
If a Council member is declaring a conflict of interest on a significant percentage of Council votes, then what use is there in this person occupying a Council seat? It would be better to follow Sponga's example and step aside, allowing an unencumbered representative to do the job representing constituents on each and every issue before the Council.
Now we know the truth.
Sponga has recently updated his Linked-In page to show that he is now a real estate agent. It seems obvious that Sponga was concerned with the inherent conflict of interests that will present themselves between that profession and his duties on council. He couldn't serve his constituents if he was always being forced to declare a conflict of interest (by having a listing in the area or a potential sale in the area, and so on).
In the Ward 5 By Election, there are a few candidates who are real estate agents or studying to become real estate agents. These candidates need to explain to voters now how they will attempt to balance their profession and their council responsibilities.
If a Council member is declaring a conflict of interest on a significant percentage of Council votes, then what use is there in this person occupying a Council seat? It would be better to follow Sponga's example and step aside, allowing an unencumbered representative to do the job representing constituents on each and every issue before the Council.
Thursday, 21 July 2016
Either Councillor Dave Kerwin has laryngitis, or ....
Dave Kerwin doesn't intend to be at Monday's meeting when Council decides how it will fill the vacant Ward 5 seat:
http://newmarket.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/cache/2/ufqku2a1mk0dmexqud3l2gm0/4312807212016042800256.PDF
Which begs the question: if Mr. Kerwin was taking the time to draft a letter about how he would have voted on July 25th, could he not have included in his letter an explanation to his constituents as to why he was missing this vote?
It would seem common courtesy to his constituents is taking a back seat to Kerwin's need to showboat.
Kerwin wants the people to know he believes in democracy.
All well and good except that the Councillor who voters in Ward 2 have elected over and over again couldn't be bothered to come out and vote himself on July 25th.
No wonder municipal voter turnout is so low. Council member turnout at meetings and committees isn't setting much of an example.
http://newmarket.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/cache/2/ufqku2a1mk0dmexqud3l2gm0/4312807212016042800256.PDF
Which begs the question: if Mr. Kerwin was taking the time to draft a letter about how he would have voted on July 25th, could he not have included in his letter an explanation to his constituents as to why he was missing this vote?
It would seem common courtesy to his constituents is taking a back seat to Kerwin's need to showboat.
Kerwin wants the people to know he believes in democracy.
All well and good except that the Councillor who voters in Ward 2 have elected over and over again couldn't be bothered to come out and vote himself on July 25th.
No wonder municipal voter turnout is so low. Council member turnout at meetings and committees isn't setting much of an example.
Monday, 11 July 2016
Hey Newmarket Era...Leave that man alone.
On its Facebook Page, the Newmarket Era is promising to get to the bottom of the story: "Why did Joe Sponga quit?"
The paper is incensed and aghast that Sponga is refusing to provide any comment. The Era is asking its followers to weigh in on the topic. The paper even started an "Is it just me?" promotion to hype the interest in the so-called Sponga controversy.
But the response rate is negligible. The paper's editor and publisher must be wondering why nobody is responding to their incessant demands for public comment.
The reason why Newmarket residents aren't responding is because for the most part Newmarket residents are generally good people. We are supportive friends and neighbours. We generally don't partake in idle gossip. We are discrete.
The people who know Joe respect his right to privacy. We accept and respect his right to resign and we don't feel we are owed any additional comment or explanation. The moment that Joe Sponga resigned, he stopped being a politician. So people in Newmarket will treat him as one of us.
I don't know what has caused this disconnect of the Newmarket Era from the community, but the paper has misread us terribly.
Maybe it's a generational thing. A Generation Y reporter raised in the era where social media has broken down respect for personal privacy could be the cause. I remember when the Era was a much kinder, gentler publication and much more respectful. That Era has long passed unfortunately.
I also suspect that a John Taylor - through his wife, Michelle Digulla, who is vice president of the publication that writes the Era - connection to this paper may have played a part in the Era's obsession with Sponga's resignation. Whenever the paper has written multiple stories about a single issue in the past (or conversely, ignored issues altogether), John Taylor had political reasons for doing so. Does John Taylor have political reasons to motivate the paper's desire to make Sponga appear 'unhinged' in the public's eye?
My advice is for the public to keep on doing we're doing. Joe Sponga is no longer a politician. As citizens, we wouldn't want someone stirring up innuendo about us. We owe it to Joe to do the same.
It's time for the Newmarket Era to move on and leave Joe alone.
The paper is incensed and aghast that Sponga is refusing to provide any comment. The Era is asking its followers to weigh in on the topic. The paper even started an "Is it just me?" promotion to hype the interest in the so-called Sponga controversy.
But the response rate is negligible. The paper's editor and publisher must be wondering why nobody is responding to their incessant demands for public comment.
The reason why Newmarket residents aren't responding is because for the most part Newmarket residents are generally good people. We are supportive friends and neighbours. We generally don't partake in idle gossip. We are discrete.
The people who know Joe respect his right to privacy. We accept and respect his right to resign and we don't feel we are owed any additional comment or explanation. The moment that Joe Sponga resigned, he stopped being a politician. So people in Newmarket will treat him as one of us.
I don't know what has caused this disconnect of the Newmarket Era from the community, but the paper has misread us terribly.
Maybe it's a generational thing. A Generation Y reporter raised in the era where social media has broken down respect for personal privacy could be the cause. I remember when the Era was a much kinder, gentler publication and much more respectful. That Era has long passed unfortunately.
I also suspect that a John Taylor - through his wife, Michelle Digulla, who is vice president of the publication that writes the Era - connection to this paper may have played a part in the Era's obsession with Sponga's resignation. Whenever the paper has written multiple stories about a single issue in the past (or conversely, ignored issues altogether), John Taylor had political reasons for doing so. Does John Taylor have political reasons to motivate the paper's desire to make Sponga appear 'unhinged' in the public's eye?
My advice is for the public to keep on doing we're doing. Joe Sponga is no longer a politician. As citizens, we wouldn't want someone stirring up innuendo about us. We owe it to Joe to do the same.
It's time for the Newmarket Era to move on and leave Joe alone.
Tuesday, 5 July 2016
In Ward 5, one candidate for the vacant council seat rises above all the rest
The July 25th Council meeting will not provide us with any clues about why Joe Sponga controversially resigned amid threats of lawsuits and code of conduct complaints.
The meeting will focus on how Sponga will be replaced followed by who will replace him.
And I would humbly submit that Ward 5 residents and business leaders should make a beeline to former Ward 6 councillor Di Muccio's door step asking her to run.
I don't make this recommendation lightly or without serious consideration. I have surveyed potential Ward 5 councillors and Di Muccio's credentials rises above all others.
There are only two years left in this term, and many significant issues remain that affect this ward. Specifically, Clock Tower, Library, Broad Band Internet, parking issues and so on all need to be debated and voted on.
Di Muccio has been in the closed door meetings between 2010 and 2014 and knows the context of all of these issues. Anyone else will have to rely on other Councillors to "fill them in" on the finer details and are more susceptible to being ill informed when voting. The other councillors won't be able to pull the wool over Di Muccio's eyes because she has first hand knowledge of these issues..
Di Muccio has a consistent track record for standing up to Mayor Van Bynen and John Taylor. Simply put, the gruesome-twosome don't intimidate her. Newmarket has elected "opposition" candidates in the past, only to see them switch sides as soon as they take their oath of office. Jane Twinney and Tom Hempen are two recent examples who ran against incumbents, only to adopt the incumbent's mindset once in office. Di Muccio stayed true to her principles consistently.
The reasons the establishment wanted Di Muccio off council in 2014 don't hold any water in 2016. The establishment said she was too disruptive and pointed to politically motivated integrity commissioner complaints as proof. Well, Newmarket has spent more than double on Integrity Commissioner complaints since October than what we did in four years previous, with more than a dozen investigations against our present council members. So what does that prove about our present council?
And Sponga's resignation shows how dysfunctional this current council is. If Newmarket council was debilitated in 2014, it certainly wasn't the fault of Di Muccio. Newmarket council is more broken in 2016 than ever before. Maybe the fault lies with the gruesome-twosome.
Instead of Newmarket's current "get along gang," the public deserves a council that asks tough questions and holds Town of Newmarket staff accountable for delivering top quality services. I don't see anyone on this present council willing to do that. I do recall that Di Muccio asked tough questions and demanded answers when she served on council, though.
We have a window of opportunity to improve the functioning of our town council, not only for the residents of Ward 5, but for all of Newmarket, as a result of this by-election. I endorse Maddie Di Muccio to fill the vacant seat because she won't flip flop and sell us out. I can't say that wouldn't be the case if others were elected or appointed to replace Sponga.
The meeting will focus on how Sponga will be replaced followed by who will replace him.
And I would humbly submit that Ward 5 residents and business leaders should make a beeline to former Ward 6 councillor Di Muccio's door step asking her to run.
I don't make this recommendation lightly or without serious consideration. I have surveyed potential Ward 5 councillors and Di Muccio's credentials rises above all others.
There are only two years left in this term, and many significant issues remain that affect this ward. Specifically, Clock Tower, Library, Broad Band Internet, parking issues and so on all need to be debated and voted on.
Di Muccio has been in the closed door meetings between 2010 and 2014 and knows the context of all of these issues. Anyone else will have to rely on other Councillors to "fill them in" on the finer details and are more susceptible to being ill informed when voting. The other councillors won't be able to pull the wool over Di Muccio's eyes because she has first hand knowledge of these issues..
Di Muccio has a consistent track record for standing up to Mayor Van Bynen and John Taylor. Simply put, the gruesome-twosome don't intimidate her. Newmarket has elected "opposition" candidates in the past, only to see them switch sides as soon as they take their oath of office. Jane Twinney and Tom Hempen are two recent examples who ran against incumbents, only to adopt the incumbent's mindset once in office. Di Muccio stayed true to her principles consistently.
The reasons the establishment wanted Di Muccio off council in 2014 don't hold any water in 2016. The establishment said she was too disruptive and pointed to politically motivated integrity commissioner complaints as proof. Well, Newmarket has spent more than double on Integrity Commissioner complaints since October than what we did in four years previous, with more than a dozen investigations against our present council members. So what does that prove about our present council?
And Sponga's resignation shows how dysfunctional this current council is. If Newmarket council was debilitated in 2014, it certainly wasn't the fault of Di Muccio. Newmarket council is more broken in 2016 than ever before. Maybe the fault lies with the gruesome-twosome.
Instead of Newmarket's current "get along gang," the public deserves a council that asks tough questions and holds Town of Newmarket staff accountable for delivering top quality services. I don't see anyone on this present council willing to do that. I do recall that Di Muccio asked tough questions and demanded answers when she served on council, though.
We have a window of opportunity to improve the functioning of our town council, not only for the residents of Ward 5, but for all of Newmarket, as a result of this by-election. I endorse Maddie Di Muccio to fill the vacant seat because she won't flip flop and sell us out. I can't say that wouldn't be the case if others were elected or appointed to replace Sponga.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)