Innocent questions about the location of the Newmarket Public Library's only water fountain deserve an answer.
Currently, the sole water fountain is located in the Children's Department. This is convenient for families who use the Library, But concerns have been raised that the Library may be putting young children at risk by requiring strangers (without accompanying children) to visit the Children's area. Should this area be restricted to young children and accompanying adults only?
Why aren't there any other options?
Would it not be simpler to install a second water fountain in the main lobby on the first floor?
I would like to point out that a plug in water cooler can be purchased from Canadian Tire for a very reasonable cost. See this link
For less than $200, the Library can address the safety concerns that have been raised.
What are they waiting for?
Friday, 7 April 2017
Saturday, 25 March 2017
Top Ten Earners at Newmarket Town Hall - 2016 "Sunshine List" Released
Did your salary keep pace with the bureaucrats who work for you at Newmarket Town Hall?
The Ontario Government released the details of how much the senior management at the Town of Newmarket earned in 2016. Here are your Top Ten earners:
- CAO Robert Shelton continues to earn the most in Newmarket bringing home $247,641.16.
- Commissioner Peter Noehammar brought home $182,403.22.
- His colleague, Commissioner Ian MacDougall saw a salary of $179,553.30 in 2016.
- Rachel Prudhomme, the Director of Engineering, earned $165,492,19 in 2016.
- The Town's Director of Public Works, Chris Kalimootooo, he earned $162,769.62 last year.
- Commissioner Esther Armchuk took home $153,814.55..
- The Director of Finance was the next highest earner. Mike Mayes earned $149,889.10 in 2016.
- Wanda Bennett, Director of Corporate Communications, earned $146.453.27.
- Susan Chase, the Manager of of IT, was the Town of Newmarket's 9th highest earner at $146,453.27.
- Karen Georgeff, the Director of Human Resources, rounds out the Top Ten list bringing home $146,453.27.
With just one exception, this year's top ten earners are the same as last year's. No new blood has been injected into the senior management team of the Town of Newmarket.
It is impossible to compare year to year increases because the way the Town of Newmarket publishes information seems to change with each edition of the Sunshine List. Based on the published data without any context leads us to believe that most of the top ten earners had a pay decrease from 2015 but we don't know if the same factors were included in these two years. It seems far more likely, that the Town of Newmarket did not count all the apples in their basket which makes the pay seem lower.
Conspicuously absent from the Top 10 list is our Mayor, Tony Van Bynen. According to the Sunshine List, Mayor Van Bynen earned $117,162.21+ in 2016. The Sunshine List reported sum does not appear to include the $54,337.92 he earns as one of Newmarket's representatives at York Region Council. Nor does it appear to include the $12,004.00 he earned as a board member of the Newmarket Tay Hydro Board (a position he holds automatically, because he was elected Mayor). We should also make special note that $31,398.12 of his earnings is not subject to income tax by virtue of a vote by the Gruesome-Twosome Council which deems 1/3 of his municipal pay to be "tax-free".
It is impossible to compare year to year increases because the way the Town of Newmarket publishes information seems to change with each edition of the Sunshine List. Based on the published data without any context leads us to believe that most of the top ten earners had a pay decrease from 2015 but we don't know if the same factors were included in these two years. It seems far more likely, that the Town of Newmarket did not count all the apples in their basket which makes the pay seem lower.
Conspicuously absent from the Top 10 list is our Mayor, Tony Van Bynen. According to the Sunshine List, Mayor Van Bynen earned $117,162.21+ in 2016. The Sunshine List reported sum does not appear to include the $54,337.92 he earns as one of Newmarket's representatives at York Region Council. Nor does it appear to include the $12,004.00 he earned as a board member of the Newmarket Tay Hydro Board (a position he holds automatically, because he was elected Mayor). We should also make special note that $31,398.12 of his earnings is not subject to income tax by virtue of a vote by the Gruesome-Twosome Council which deems 1/3 of his municipal pay to be "tax-free".
As with previous years, because of the discrepancies between the various published reports and lack of an explanation forthcoming by the Mayor and his administration, the public still cannot say how much Mayor Van Bynen actually earns from taxpayers. These contradictions between the published reports creates a confusion that has led many to believe that Mayor Van Bynen is among the highest paid elected officials in Canada. But just like Donald Trump, Mayor Van Bynen isn't going to release his T4 slips any time soon despite the fact that his paycheque is funded exclusively by public money.
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
No Search Warrant? No Problem for Town of Newmarket Investigators
What would you do if you arrived home from work this spring to find a stranger poking around in your backyard? What if this stranger was peering into the windows of your home?
Would your first reaction be to call the police?
Well the Gruesome-Twosome Council of the Town of Newmarket is about to make it legal for its bylaws officers to enter your property without a search warrant to investigate whether homeowners are cutting grass or have an illegal accessory dwelling unit (ADU) such as a basement apartment.
These extraordinary powers for bylaws officers go well beyond what the real police have the authority to do. If the police suspected a drug lab in a basement, they would first need to go before a Justice of Peace to get a search warrant before they could legally breach the homeowner's right to privacy.
We need to think of what is in the public's best interest when it comes to law enforcement. Are people in imminent danger? Is an indictable offense being perpetrated? Of course not.
So why can't our bylaws officers simply knock on your door and make an appointment with the homeowner to view the property? Wouldn't common courtesy and respect for privacy trump the need to creep around and snoop without the homeowners consent? If there was an urgent need to inspect a property, shouldn't the bylaw officer justify their case (just like police officers do) and get a search warrant?
Instead of being decent and respectful, our municipal government is considering Gestapo tactics to deal with alleged rule breakers, such as people who don't cut their grass in their own backyard to the standards of a nosy neighbour. This change is to be considered by Council on March 27th,
Would your first reaction be to call the police?
Well the Gruesome-Twosome Council of the Town of Newmarket is about to make it legal for its bylaws officers to enter your property without a search warrant to investigate whether homeowners are cutting grass or have an illegal accessory dwelling unit (ADU) such as a basement apartment.
These extraordinary powers for bylaws officers go well beyond what the real police have the authority to do. If the police suspected a drug lab in a basement, they would first need to go before a Justice of Peace to get a search warrant before they could legally breach the homeowner's right to privacy.
We need to think of what is in the public's best interest when it comes to law enforcement. Are people in imminent danger? Is an indictable offense being perpetrated? Of course not.
So why can't our bylaws officers simply knock on your door and make an appointment with the homeowner to view the property? Wouldn't common courtesy and respect for privacy trump the need to creep around and snoop without the homeowners consent? If there was an urgent need to inspect a property, shouldn't the bylaw officer justify their case (just like police officers do) and get a search warrant?
Instead of being decent and respectful, our municipal government is considering Gestapo tactics to deal with alleged rule breakers, such as people who don't cut their grass in their own backyard to the standards of a nosy neighbour. This change is to be considered by Council on March 27th,
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Should I continue?
My blog is now in its eighth year. I started it as a way to inform Newmarket taxpayers about the lies and distortions published by the Newmarket Era while the paper continues to ignore more serious news.
After publishing 50+ blog postings each year, and slowly chipping away at the credibility of the Newmarket Era and the exaggerated fluffing of the gruesome twosome, I see that, (on social media at least), people are coming around to my perspective.
The Newmarket Era has continually betrayed our community's trust to report honestly and factually on the affairs of our Town Council.
I remain embarrassed for the Newmarket Era each time it arrives at the end of my driveway.
I am angered each time I think that my exorbitantly high property taxes are handed over to the Newmarket Era as a form of corporate welfare to keep it afloat. I get angry even still when I recall that John Taylor's wife's gets an executive salary to take home as a result of this corporate welfare. And when I think of the additional garbage pick up costs we all assume as a result of the Newmarket Era filling our blue boxes each week with unwanted, unnecessary junk flyers (why aren't they distributed on line only?) I am frustrated even more.
But do I need to continue to beat this dead horse? Has my blog run its course? If we all know agree that the Newmarket Era has lost its credibility by becoming the propaganda arm of the gruesome twosome, then what role is there left for the Newmarket Town Hall Watch blog?
After publishing 50+ blog postings each year, and slowly chipping away at the credibility of the Newmarket Era and the exaggerated fluffing of the gruesome twosome, I see that, (on social media at least), people are coming around to my perspective.
The Newmarket Era has continually betrayed our community's trust to report honestly and factually on the affairs of our Town Council.
I remain embarrassed for the Newmarket Era each time it arrives at the end of my driveway.
I am angered each time I think that my exorbitantly high property taxes are handed over to the Newmarket Era as a form of corporate welfare to keep it afloat. I get angry even still when I recall that John Taylor's wife's gets an executive salary to take home as a result of this corporate welfare. And when I think of the additional garbage pick up costs we all assume as a result of the Newmarket Era filling our blue boxes each week with unwanted, unnecessary junk flyers (why aren't they distributed on line only?) I am frustrated even more.
But do I need to continue to beat this dead horse? Has my blog run its course? If we all know agree that the Newmarket Era has lost its credibility by becoming the propaganda arm of the gruesome twosome, then what role is there left for the Newmarket Town Hall Watch blog?
Sunday, 22 January 2017
Council members can no longer be silent on questions of corporate corruption
The allegations of corporate cheating to influence the outcome of the last Town of Newmarket municipal election appear to be highly credible.
But remember that no corporation would risk their brand's reputation just to get one of its employees another part time job as a Town Councillor. This cheating wasn't about obtaining a $40,000 per year job for Kelly Broome. These corporations have their own self interests in play and are expecting a much higher payback.
For example, let's look at the new Mulock GO Train Station. Back in October 2016, Council voted for a resolution that encourages Metrolinx to fund development plans of a new GO station on the south-east corner of the train tracks on Mulock Drive. This same resolution promised to support amending Newmarket's Official Plan to support changes to land use provisions of the neighbouring properties of the train station. Changes to the Official Plan could potentially be worth millions of dollars to landholders in the area if developers seek to cash in on developing within the vicinity of the new train station.
Did anyone consider which car dealership is located at 349 Mulock Drive (located on the north-west corner across from proposed train station)? Or which Council member is employed by the owner of that dealership? And did that Council member declare a conflict of interest prior to casting her vote?
How about another Council member who is also the president of a controversial charity that used to operate right next door to the dealership located at 349 Mulock Drive? What is the relationship between that dealership and the charity belonging to the Council member? Did he declare a conflict of interest prior to voting in favour of the new train station?
And should we forget that other members of Council received "support" in their election from the owner of this dealership? Did that corporate donation weigh into their decision to vote in favour of this Mulock train station?
The public deserves answers from our members of Council to these important questions. When Council decisions could lead to real estate transactions valued in potential millions of dollars involving a Council member's employer, or the member's charity sponsor, or their campaign campaign "supporters", shouldn't every measure be taken to ensure complete transparency and openness?
I truly hope that the Council members will speak openly about their vote. To remain silent (like they are apt to do) only increases the speculation that our democracy is at risk of being sold to the highest corporate bidder.
But remember that no corporation would risk their brand's reputation just to get one of its employees another part time job as a Town Councillor. This cheating wasn't about obtaining a $40,000 per year job for Kelly Broome. These corporations have their own self interests in play and are expecting a much higher payback.
For example, let's look at the new Mulock GO Train Station. Back in October 2016, Council voted for a resolution that encourages Metrolinx to fund development plans of a new GO station on the south-east corner of the train tracks on Mulock Drive. This same resolution promised to support amending Newmarket's Official Plan to support changes to land use provisions of the neighbouring properties of the train station. Changes to the Official Plan could potentially be worth millions of dollars to landholders in the area if developers seek to cash in on developing within the vicinity of the new train station.
Did anyone consider which car dealership is located at 349 Mulock Drive (located on the north-west corner across from proposed train station)? Or which Council member is employed by the owner of that dealership? And did that Council member declare a conflict of interest prior to casting her vote?
How about another Council member who is also the president of a controversial charity that used to operate right next door to the dealership located at 349 Mulock Drive? What is the relationship between that dealership and the charity belonging to the Council member? Did he declare a conflict of interest prior to voting in favour of the new train station?
And should we forget that other members of Council received "support" in their election from the owner of this dealership? Did that corporate donation weigh into their decision to vote in favour of this Mulock train station?
The public deserves answers from our members of Council to these important questions. When Council decisions could lead to real estate transactions valued in potential millions of dollars involving a Council member's employer, or the member's charity sponsor, or their campaign campaign "supporters", shouldn't every measure be taken to ensure complete transparency and openness?
I truly hope that the Council members will speak openly about their vote. To remain silent (like they are apt to do) only increases the speculation that our democracy is at risk of being sold to the highest corporate bidder.
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
Mayor's Levee, By Election Update and Naming & Shaming
Mayor's Levee
"It was a small but enthusiastic crowd."
This is the way a small number of people will remember last weekend's Mayor's New Years Levee.
The weather was decent. The event was organized. Yet hardly anyone showed.
With the Town of Newmarket struggling to stay within its fiscal means, it begs the question whether the annual Mayor's Levee should be continued. Certainly, the event cost some money but couldn't that money be put to better use?
Most telling is that many of our Council members didn't bother to show up either.
By Election Update
After weeks and weeks of delay, the Town of Newmarket finally decided to post the Candidate campaign expenses.
The public can view the filed expenses here.
No word from the Town of Newmarket if there is a deadline for a member of the public to request a campaign finance audit.
All in all, a very sloppy display of election transparency by the Town of Newmarket.and certainly not to the quality that we have been accustomed to in the past.
Naming and Shaming
I have been critical in the past of the Newmarket Era's decision to publish restaurant health violations and it dismayed me to see these stories listed among the most popular articles posted on the www.yorkregion.com web site.
Yet, it surprises me that the newspaper wouldn't be consistent here:
Of course those arrested for drinking and driving ought to be named and shamed.
We have an open and widespread epidemic of drivers flouting the law with their reckless impairment and lives and property are needlessly placed at risk. Arrest rates are at record levels in York Region but the tide of drivers willing to risk your life and property due to their irresponsible intoxication doesn't appear to be abating.
The politicians haven't come to the table with suitably harsh prison sentences.
So the newspaper has a very important obligation to step up and provide the necessary deterrent. Make people think twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking. Let them know their reputation within the community, with their employer, and others is at stake. If someone can't govern themselves to act responsibly around alcohol, then the rest of us should know how dangerous they really are.
"It was a small but enthusiastic crowd."
This is the way a small number of people will remember last weekend's Mayor's New Years Levee.
The weather was decent. The event was organized. Yet hardly anyone showed.
With the Town of Newmarket struggling to stay within its fiscal means, it begs the question whether the annual Mayor's Levee should be continued. Certainly, the event cost some money but couldn't that money be put to better use?
Most telling is that many of our Council members didn't bother to show up either.
By Election Update
After weeks and weeks of delay, the Town of Newmarket finally decided to post the Candidate campaign expenses.
The public can view the filed expenses here.
No word from the Town of Newmarket if there is a deadline for a member of the public to request a campaign finance audit.
All in all, a very sloppy display of election transparency by the Town of Newmarket.and certainly not to the quality that we have been accustomed to in the past.
Naming and Shaming
I have been critical in the past of the Newmarket Era's decision to publish restaurant health violations and it dismayed me to see these stories listed among the most popular articles posted on the www.yorkregion.com web site.
Yet, it surprises me that the newspaper wouldn't be consistent here:
Of course those arrested for drinking and driving ought to be named and shamed.
We have an open and widespread epidemic of drivers flouting the law with their reckless impairment and lives and property are needlessly placed at risk. Arrest rates are at record levels in York Region but the tide of drivers willing to risk your life and property due to their irresponsible intoxication doesn't appear to be abating.
The politicians haven't come to the table with suitably harsh prison sentences.
So the newspaper has a very important obligation to step up and provide the necessary deterrent. Make people think twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking. Let them know their reputation within the community, with their employer, and others is at stake. If someone can't govern themselves to act responsibly around alcohol, then the rest of us should know how dangerous they really are.
Saturday, 10 December 2016
Advantage Chris Ballard
At what point did the Newmarket-Aurora Progressive Conservatives lose the election of 2014?
Prior to 2014, the Newmarket-Aurora riding has always voted PC ever since its inception. The Liberals had no momentum here. In fact, the Liberal Party had a tough time drumming up a candidate who would be interested in running because Newmarket-Aurora was considered a "safe" PC seat. Eventually, Chris Ballard was acclaimed because no other Liberal step forward to run against him.
So why did this riding flip in 2014.
In a word, "Authenticity."
The 2014 Canadians Choice candidate, Dorian Baxter, enunciating every syllable of "authenticity", delivered the coup de grace to then PC candidate Jane Twinney's campaign. He struck to the heart of Twinney's image problem. She wasn't a legitimate conservative and the voting public knew it.
The lesson voters delivered, "We don't want phonies or opportunists."
Have local PC members learned their "authenticity" lesson this time around?
These two may be well qualified for employment at the drive thru window, but are they qualified to run as PC candidates based on the evidence of their dismal voting record on Aurora, Newmarket, and York Region Council? Do voters really want to replace "tax and spend" Liberals with "tax and spend" PCs?
Advantage: Chris Ballard.
Prior to 2014, the Newmarket-Aurora riding has always voted PC ever since its inception. The Liberals had no momentum here. In fact, the Liberal Party had a tough time drumming up a candidate who would be interested in running because Newmarket-Aurora was considered a "safe" PC seat. Eventually, Chris Ballard was acclaimed because no other Liberal step forward to run against him.
So why did this riding flip in 2014.
In a word, "Authenticity."
The 2014 Canadians Choice candidate, Dorian Baxter, enunciating every syllable of "authenticity", delivered the coup de grace to then PC candidate Jane Twinney's campaign. He struck to the heart of Twinney's image problem. She wasn't a legitimate conservative and the voting public knew it.
The lesson voters delivered, "We don't want phonies or opportunists."
Have local PC members learned their "authenticity" lesson this time around?
These two may be well qualified for employment at the drive thru window, but are they qualified to run as PC candidates based on the evidence of their dismal voting record on Aurora, Newmarket, and York Region Council? Do voters really want to replace "tax and spend" Liberals with "tax and spend" PCs?
Advantage: Chris Ballard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)