John Daggett: I've paid you a small fortune
Bane: And this gives you power over me?
This memorable exchange from the movie The Dark Knight Rises involves John Daggett a construction magnate and the super villain Bane. I bring this dialog up as a comparison between how things are done in the movies versus real life.
In the movies, people in power stand up to greedy developers.
In real life (and in the case of Newmarket Council in particular), the developers usually get their way.
Take for instance the mysterious circumstances surrounding the Hollingsworth Arena. The only reason why I use the word "mysterious" is because we truly don't have much information about the deal. Council is keeping a lot of secrets these days. But most expect that the public recreation facility will be sold off and we'll get the usual line that the deal is good for us. Like the soccer club loan, we won't be told either the details of the deal or receive an explanation how we have benefited. We will just have to take the gruesome twosome's word for it that the public has done good.
Back in April, Council decided to tackle the issue of parkland. With new development coming to Newmarket, Council had to make a decision about how much parkland would be needed for these new communities. Council decided that 1 hectare for every 300 housing units would be the appropriate formula.
To demonstrate what this means, consider the case of the recent Glenway subdivision which is purportedly to be approximately 750 housing units. The formula would require two and a half hectares of parkland to be given to the Town of Newmarket by Marrianeville (the developer).
Upon learning of Council's decision on this formula, developers, including their lobbying arm known as BILD, went ballistic claiming that such a formula would cause them undue hardship.
Did Council stand by their convictions and send the developers a clear message that Council is "in charge"?
Sadly, no.
Council has decided to hire a consultant, Mark Conway, Senior Partner at N Barry Lyon Consultants, to work with the developers to find a compromise.
As we seen with Glenway, when the issues get tough for the gruesome twosome, they hire consultants in order to avoid making a decision themselves.
Its really too bad that when an issue comes up between the people who want a "live-able" Newmarket versus the greedy ambitions of developers, we can't rely on our elected officials to do the right thing.
Sunday, 27 September 2015
Friday, 18 September 2015
Election Sign Fines Require Transparency From Town
Within the next few days, federal election signs will begin to pop up on municipal property through out Newmarket.
This will be the first time federal candidates will face fines for breaching the Town of Newmarket election sign bylaws. All candidates have been briefed on sign placement. Let's hope they are diligent about complying with the bylaw.
The justifications behind the sign bylaws were thoroughly debated last term of Council. Former Councillor Maddie Di Muccio battled valiantly in opposing the implementation of the fines with arguments that the fines were unnecessary and anti-democratic. In the end, hers was the only vote against the new rules.
On the other side of the coin, former Councillor Chris Emanuel was the champion for implementing election signs fines. He was apparently upset by what he felt was 'clutter' on municipal property. You will recall that this was a theme for him. He also fought for licensing charities with donation boxes on private property because they too could look messy.
The Town of Newmarket has remained silent about how the election sign bylaw was received during the municipal election of October 2014. I am sure that pretty much everyone is aware of Mayor Van Bynen getting away with placing hundreds of signs on College Manor on the night of the debate. The Town's Bylaw Enforcement Department has a lot to answer as to why it turned a blind eye.
There have also been photos of 100's of election signs in "lock up." A closer examination of the photos suggest there might be an inequity between candidates. The public cannot judge this for certain because the Town refuses to release details about which candidates had signs removed by Bylaw Enforcement.
In refusing to release these details, many are wondering if the Town is compliant with Ontario's municipal election reporting rules. In Ontario, regardless of laws that would normally protect personal information, all details concerning election related expenses are supposed to be made public. Being fined for an election sign is an election related expense (as the Bylaw is specific to election signs) so the Town has an obligation to release this information.
If the Town of Newmarket made this information public, then all of us could judge if there was political interference from the Bylaws Enforcement Department. The Town is refusing to release this information so we are left to speculate.
At least one former candidate is refusing to pay his allotted sign fees.
The Town of Newmarket must take every measure, up to and including taking this former candidate to Court to collect. Failing to do so would be unfair to all other law-abiding candidates who respected the law and paid their fines.
If the Town of Newmarket does not sue this one individual, then the other candidates should in turn sue the Town for the unfair way the election bylaw signs have been collected.
Either everyone pays their allotted election signs fines or no one pays. It's time for the Town of Newmarket to decide.
This will be the first time federal candidates will face fines for breaching the Town of Newmarket election sign bylaws. All candidates have been briefed on sign placement. Let's hope they are diligent about complying with the bylaw.
The justifications behind the sign bylaws were thoroughly debated last term of Council. Former Councillor Maddie Di Muccio battled valiantly in opposing the implementation of the fines with arguments that the fines were unnecessary and anti-democratic. In the end, hers was the only vote against the new rules.
On the other side of the coin, former Councillor Chris Emanuel was the champion for implementing election signs fines. He was apparently upset by what he felt was 'clutter' on municipal property. You will recall that this was a theme for him. He also fought for licensing charities with donation boxes on private property because they too could look messy.
The Town of Newmarket has remained silent about how the election sign bylaw was received during the municipal election of October 2014. I am sure that pretty much everyone is aware of Mayor Van Bynen getting away with placing hundreds of signs on College Manor on the night of the debate. The Town's Bylaw Enforcement Department has a lot to answer as to why it turned a blind eye.
There have also been photos of 100's of election signs in "lock up." A closer examination of the photos suggest there might be an inequity between candidates. The public cannot judge this for certain because the Town refuses to release details about which candidates had signs removed by Bylaw Enforcement.
In refusing to release these details, many are wondering if the Town is compliant with Ontario's municipal election reporting rules. In Ontario, regardless of laws that would normally protect personal information, all details concerning election related expenses are supposed to be made public. Being fined for an election sign is an election related expense (as the Bylaw is specific to election signs) so the Town has an obligation to release this information.
If the Town of Newmarket made this information public, then all of us could judge if there was political interference from the Bylaws Enforcement Department. The Town is refusing to release this information so we are left to speculate.
At least one former candidate is refusing to pay his allotted sign fees.
The Town of Newmarket must take every measure, up to and including taking this former candidate to Court to collect. Failing to do so would be unfair to all other law-abiding candidates who respected the law and paid their fines.
If the Town of Newmarket does not sue this one individual, then the other candidates should in turn sue the Town for the unfair way the election bylaw signs have been collected.
Either everyone pays their allotted election signs fines or no one pays. It's time for the Town of Newmarket to decide.
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
Keep the P1 Parking Area Locked Up
Last night Council debate the P1 Parking lot and I wasn't surprised to learn how Buckley Insurance is the centre of much controversy.
As a background, Town staff are proposing parking spaces to be constructed on top of Riverwalk Commons park/ walking trails land. But at least part of the intended parking area is owned by Buckley Insurance. The Town staff are still figuring out the difference between public and private land in this area.
The solution that Council adopted last night is to block off the disputed parking spots until the ownership issue is cleared up.
Buckley won't be happy, as dissenting voter Councillor Kerwin pointed out, because he won't be able to use these spaces for his own private needs. As many know, Buckley isn't the most community minded of companies but he is tight with our Council. Buckley Insurance is the type of place where employees are forced to have mirrors at their phones "so customers can hear you smile." He is also the type of business owner to be constantly involved in legal disputes with his neighbours. You can draw your own conclusions about Buckley from that.
My suggestion to the Town of Newmarket is far more pragmatic. Keep the P1 area locked up. This P1 area should be used for pedestrians and families to enjoy. Parked cars in that area will ruin the vibe of Riverwalk Commons.
On the northwest corner of the municipal parking lot on Doug Duncan Drive, there are tennis courts that could be re-purposed into approximately 30 parking spaces with little effort.
Frankly, this location is a dumb place for tennis courts and Newmarket has an abundance of alternative parkland that would be more suitable. The excessively large parking lot at Ray Twinney Complex would seem to be an ideal location for tennis courts as much of the infrastructure required is already there.
As for Councillor Kerwrin's suggestion of parking at the old Fire Hall? I think the Town should follow through with its plan to sell this property. The proceeds of the sale could go towards relocating the tennis courts from Doug Duncan Drive.
As a background, Town staff are proposing parking spaces to be constructed on top of Riverwalk Commons park/ walking trails land. But at least part of the intended parking area is owned by Buckley Insurance. The Town staff are still figuring out the difference between public and private land in this area.
The solution that Council adopted last night is to block off the disputed parking spots until the ownership issue is cleared up.
Buckley won't be happy, as dissenting voter Councillor Kerwin pointed out, because he won't be able to use these spaces for his own private needs. As many know, Buckley isn't the most community minded of companies but he is tight with our Council. Buckley Insurance is the type of place where employees are forced to have mirrors at their phones "so customers can hear you smile." He is also the type of business owner to be constantly involved in legal disputes with his neighbours. You can draw your own conclusions about Buckley from that.
My suggestion to the Town of Newmarket is far more pragmatic. Keep the P1 area locked up. This P1 area should be used for pedestrians and families to enjoy. Parked cars in that area will ruin the vibe of Riverwalk Commons.
On the northwest corner of the municipal parking lot on Doug Duncan Drive, there are tennis courts that could be re-purposed into approximately 30 parking spaces with little effort.
Frankly, this location is a dumb place for tennis courts and Newmarket has an abundance of alternative parkland that would be more suitable. The excessively large parking lot at Ray Twinney Complex would seem to be an ideal location for tennis courts as much of the infrastructure required is already there.
As for Councillor Kerwrin's suggestion of parking at the old Fire Hall? I think the Town should follow through with its plan to sell this property. The proceeds of the sale could go towards relocating the tennis courts from Doug Duncan Drive.
Thursday, 3 September 2015
Dave Kerwin's Rain Barrel versus Your Tax Bill
Do we really have a Town Councillor in Newmarket who has no understanding of what it means to live within a community? Does the concept of paying taxes for the benefit of greater public good truly escape Ward 3 Councillor Dave Kerwin?
Long time observers will note that Councillor Kerwin prides himself as a holier-than-thou environmentalist. If you doubt this, just ask him how many bags of garbage he puts out every two weeks. (The answer is none).
At Monday's Town of Newmarket Cimmittee of the Whole, a student intern was given an opportunity to present his work on storm sewer funding. And it was not a surprise that Councillor Kerwin leaped at the opportunity to inform us all about his state of the art water run-off capture system at his house. He proudly exclaims that not a single rain drop of water will run off his property into the storm sewer.
He demands to know of the intern, will there be tax savings for rain water conservationists like him?
The poor intern, bless his heart, didn't see it coming. He answered meekly that perhaps the Town could consider some sort of discount for people like the Kerwins.
That "perhaps" opened the door for a new diatribe on the Kerwin household's garbage disposal strategies. Thankfully the Mayor cut him short.
But let's for a second examine what Mr. Kerwin is saying when he is asking for a discount off storm water sewer rates and garbage pick up. Let's imagine what a Kerwin-like property tax system that provides discounts based on usage could entail?
Long time observers will note that Councillor Kerwin prides himself as a holier-than-thou environmentalist. If you doubt this, just ask him how many bags of garbage he puts out every two weeks. (The answer is none).
At Monday's Town of Newmarket Cimmittee of the Whole, a student intern was given an opportunity to present his work on storm sewer funding. And it was not a surprise that Councillor Kerwin leaped at the opportunity to inform us all about his state of the art water run-off capture system at his house. He proudly exclaims that not a single rain drop of water will run off his property into the storm sewer.
He demands to know of the intern, will there be tax savings for rain water conservationists like him?
The poor intern, bless his heart, didn't see it coming. He answered meekly that perhaps the Town could consider some sort of discount for people like the Kerwins.
That "perhaps" opened the door for a new diatribe on the Kerwin household's garbage disposal strategies. Thankfully the Mayor cut him short.
But let's for a second examine what Mr. Kerwin is saying when he is asking for a discount off storm water sewer rates and garbage pick up. Let's imagine what a Kerwin-like property tax system that provides discounts based on usage could entail?
- Should non-library users be able to opt out of paying taxes towards this service?
- If my family members don't play hockey, soccer or tennis, can I receive a discount off my taxes because my family doesn't use the Town's recreation facilities?
- If I don't drive, should I pay to maintain the roads in Newmarket?
- If my house didn't have a fire, can I stop paying tax towards the fire department?
- If I don't have any school aged kids, do I still need to pay for supporting public education?
- I am neither a criminal nor a victim, so why am I paying for police services?
- I've never called my Mayor, Council member, or any member of the Town of Newmarket staff for anything. Shouldn't I receive a discount? Why am I paying their salaries?
It doesn't take long to understand that if we give in to Councillor Kerwin's ridiculous demands for a tax discount based on usage that in very short order, the fabric of our community would be in shambles.
Even if Councillor Kerwin doesn't put out garbage or use the Town's storm sewers like the rest of us, he still benefits from these services. If garbage wasn't picked up, rats, vermin and disease would infest our community. If storm water had nowhere to drain to, it would fill up basements all over town.
It's too bad that Councillor Kerwin is either not smart enough to understand this concept or not community minded enough to care. Either way, explain to me why is this man on Council?
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
A mid summer's Council meeting
When I sat down to write this blog post, I couldn't limit my topic to just one issue. So I've decided on a longer blog covering 4 issues.
Yesterday's meeting had some major issues before Council. It was too bad that the material wasn't part of a regularly scheduled meeting when more people would know to attend. This was a 'special' meeting and not part of the regular schedule.
York Region Growth Plans
Up first was a presentation from the York Region planner about growth. Many of the numbers concerning Newmarket are old news. What was eye-popping was the growth planned for some of the neighbouring municipalities.
In particular, East Gwillimbury is expected to grow from approximately 24,000 residents today to well over 100,000 residents in 15 years. The first thought that came to mind was the sewage lagoons in Holland Landing. These lagoons are already filled beyond capacity. When 75,000 more people flush their toilets, where is it going?
When East Gwillimbury grew at the intersection of Yonge and Green Lane, they relied on Newmarket to provide water and sewage services. Is that the plan going forward?
There has long been talk about building a new water treatment plant to replace the Holland Landing lagoons but this plant has been deferred time and time again. Earlier this spring York Region Council approved yet another deferral of this much needed infrastructure investment. Simply put, the Region doesn't have any money to build a new plant.
With few answers made available to the public, it seems clear that York Region's growth plans are really the stuff of pipe dreams (both literally and figuratively).
Sports Users Fees
We learned at Council that the Town of Newmarket has a philosophy for charging higher user fees for recreational programs that isn't shared by neighbouring towns. The Town believes that the users should pay for the programs whereas neighbouring towns subsidize use.
Town staff acknowledged that the rates charged to various sports leagues cost more than elsewhere. It was acknowledged that these rates were affecting participation in some programs (due to affordability) and it was suggested that some children may need financial assistance to continue to belong to an organized sports league.
With all of that in mind, Council voted to approve a proposed 3.5% rate hike (although the final approval won't take place until September 14 to allow for the proscribed public notice period). These higher rates will take effect on January 1st.
When asked why they decided on 3.5%, the Director sheepishly admitted that was the amount of increase assigned in the town's budget.
In other words, town staff acknowledge our rates our high but don't have any explanation why we are raising these fees again other than the Finance Director tells us to.
If any Council member found any of this troubling, they didn't seem to raise any objections. On the contrary, Regional Counicllor John Taylor asked staff to come up with some reasons that he could use to justify the increase, such as the construction of a turf field.
Snow Removal
Most residential streets have snow piled on either side as the plows pass. In some areas, it is impossible to do this. In those areas, the snow is collected and dumped at the Ray Twinney Complex. This arrangement has been going on for decades.
A few residents who live on McCaffrey Road don't like this arrangement as it involves trucks coming and going as they dump their loads.
The Ray Twinney Complex parking lot is an ideal place to dump snow because it complies with strict environmental rules. The lot has a oil grit filtration system in place ensuring that melting snows don't pollute water ways.
Without that filter, which we learned cost in the range of $40,000 to install, it is illegal to dump snow.
In a clear case of kowtowing, Ward 7 Councillor Christina Bisanz has taken it upon herself to demand that the snow dumping happen elsewhere. She showed naivete when she demanded this change happen immediately (in time for the 2015 winter season) and used a regional road (Davis Drive) as justification for making this change. Davis Drive snow is the responsibility of York Region not Newmarket.
That said, no one can ever say that this council doesn't stick together through thick and thin. It won't happen this year but likely for the 2016, Council will approve spending in the range of $100,000 plus annual costs to make the 5 or 6 affected homeowners on McCaffrey Road happy.
If you don't think $100,000 is a significant amount of money, keep in mind that the estimated cost of plowing sidewalks throughout the town is approximately $200,000 annually. It is opportunity cost and the greater number of Newmarket residents have lost out, especially the elderly who cannot walk on our neighbourhood sidewalks each winter.
Voting Records
I had a quick glimpse of how council members are voting this term. Based on what is posted on the Town of Newmarket web page, there are only two instances where an issue was not decided by unanimous votes. In January, Councillor Kerwin voted against a closed door meeting item and in March, Mayor Van Bynen was the only yes vote on a tax levy issue. Every other vote, and there have been hundreds, have been unanimous.
What is scary is that Regional Councillor Taylor, Councillors Vegh, Twinney, Hempen, Sponga, Broome Plumley, and Bisanz vote alike on every single issue. Its like they have one mind between them. Think of your spouse, (or if no spouse, a close friend). You may agree on many things but can you honestly say you agree 100% of the time? If that is unreasonable, then the only other explanation is that certain council members are mailing it in. They just don't care anymore.
If you watch many meetings, you will see with the exception of Taylor, the remaining 5 have very little to say on any issue. If they do speak up, it is usually to parrot something that Taylor has already said. This is why Council meetings, which used to be two or three hours long last term, are now measured in minutes since December.
I am very concerned about the future of our democracy in this Town. Where issues should be raised - Council Chambers - debate has fallen silent. Our Council has taken to agreeing with whatever the town staff place before them. No questions asked.
.
Yesterday's meeting had some major issues before Council. It was too bad that the material wasn't part of a regularly scheduled meeting when more people would know to attend. This was a 'special' meeting and not part of the regular schedule.
York Region Growth Plans
Up first was a presentation from the York Region planner about growth. Many of the numbers concerning Newmarket are old news. What was eye-popping was the growth planned for some of the neighbouring municipalities.
In particular, East Gwillimbury is expected to grow from approximately 24,000 residents today to well over 100,000 residents in 15 years. The first thought that came to mind was the sewage lagoons in Holland Landing. These lagoons are already filled beyond capacity. When 75,000 more people flush their toilets, where is it going?
When East Gwillimbury grew at the intersection of Yonge and Green Lane, they relied on Newmarket to provide water and sewage services. Is that the plan going forward?
There has long been talk about building a new water treatment plant to replace the Holland Landing lagoons but this plant has been deferred time and time again. Earlier this spring York Region Council approved yet another deferral of this much needed infrastructure investment. Simply put, the Region doesn't have any money to build a new plant.
With few answers made available to the public, it seems clear that York Region's growth plans are really the stuff of pipe dreams (both literally and figuratively).
Sports Users Fees
We learned at Council that the Town of Newmarket has a philosophy for charging higher user fees for recreational programs that isn't shared by neighbouring towns. The Town believes that the users should pay for the programs whereas neighbouring towns subsidize use.
Town staff acknowledged that the rates charged to various sports leagues cost more than elsewhere. It was acknowledged that these rates were affecting participation in some programs (due to affordability) and it was suggested that some children may need financial assistance to continue to belong to an organized sports league.
With all of that in mind, Council voted to approve a proposed 3.5% rate hike (although the final approval won't take place until September 14 to allow for the proscribed public notice period). These higher rates will take effect on January 1st.
When asked why they decided on 3.5%, the Director sheepishly admitted that was the amount of increase assigned in the town's budget.
In other words, town staff acknowledge our rates our high but don't have any explanation why we are raising these fees again other than the Finance Director tells us to.
If any Council member found any of this troubling, they didn't seem to raise any objections. On the contrary, Regional Counicllor John Taylor asked staff to come up with some reasons that he could use to justify the increase, such as the construction of a turf field.
Snow Removal
Most residential streets have snow piled on either side as the plows pass. In some areas, it is impossible to do this. In those areas, the snow is collected and dumped at the Ray Twinney Complex. This arrangement has been going on for decades.
A few residents who live on McCaffrey Road don't like this arrangement as it involves trucks coming and going as they dump their loads.
The Ray Twinney Complex parking lot is an ideal place to dump snow because it complies with strict environmental rules. The lot has a oil grit filtration system in place ensuring that melting snows don't pollute water ways.
Without that filter, which we learned cost in the range of $40,000 to install, it is illegal to dump snow.
In a clear case of kowtowing, Ward 7 Councillor Christina Bisanz has taken it upon herself to demand that the snow dumping happen elsewhere. She showed naivete when she demanded this change happen immediately (in time for the 2015 winter season) and used a regional road (Davis Drive) as justification for making this change. Davis Drive snow is the responsibility of York Region not Newmarket.
That said, no one can ever say that this council doesn't stick together through thick and thin. It won't happen this year but likely for the 2016, Council will approve spending in the range of $100,000 plus annual costs to make the 5 or 6 affected homeowners on McCaffrey Road happy.
If you don't think $100,000 is a significant amount of money, keep in mind that the estimated cost of plowing sidewalks throughout the town is approximately $200,000 annually. It is opportunity cost and the greater number of Newmarket residents have lost out, especially the elderly who cannot walk on our neighbourhood sidewalks each winter.
Voting Records
I had a quick glimpse of how council members are voting this term. Based on what is posted on the Town of Newmarket web page, there are only two instances where an issue was not decided by unanimous votes. In January, Councillor Kerwin voted against a closed door meeting item and in March, Mayor Van Bynen was the only yes vote on a tax levy issue. Every other vote, and there have been hundreds, have been unanimous.
What is scary is that Regional Councillor Taylor, Councillors Vegh, Twinney, Hempen, Sponga, Broome Plumley, and Bisanz vote alike on every single issue. Its like they have one mind between them. Think of your spouse, (or if no spouse, a close friend). You may agree on many things but can you honestly say you agree 100% of the time? If that is unreasonable, then the only other explanation is that certain council members are mailing it in. They just don't care anymore.
If you watch many meetings, you will see with the exception of Taylor, the remaining 5 have very little to say on any issue. If they do speak up, it is usually to parrot something that Taylor has already said. This is why Council meetings, which used to be two or three hours long last term, are now measured in minutes since December.
I am very concerned about the future of our democracy in this Town. Where issues should be raised - Council Chambers - debate has fallen silent. Our Council has taken to agreeing with whatever the town staff place before them. No questions asked.
.
Thursday, 6 August 2015
Newmarket Residents Are Allowed Only One Colour of Paint
I have seen another social media account poking fun at the Era for publishing a story about a woman painting her fence. On the surface, it may be appropriate to mock the paper if this is the kind of news that the Era considers worthy of its front page.
But from the stories I've heard over the past 12-months from readers who contact me, maybe it is about time that we start paying attention to the Town of Newmarket bylaw enforcement.
Not a week goes by when I am not contacted by someone having difficulty with how bylaws are being enforced. The types of complaints may vary from height of a pergola being added to an existing backyard deck; to a dispute over a new fence; to property standards not being met. What is the common theme in each complaint I hear about is as follows:
1) The bylaw officer doesn't enforce the bylaw consistently and according to the written bylaw
2) No communication from the bylaws officer after initial contact is made
3) No attempt is made to find a common sense solution
In short, the bylaw officer gets involved resulting in neighbours getting angry with neighbours, and then the bylaw officer leaves the scene so that anger can fester.
Over two years ago, someone complained about spray paint vandalism on Ms. Bujko's Manning Crescent fence. Weeks ago, the bylaw officer contacted Mrs. Bujko and informed her that she had to remove the vandalism. Mrs. Bujko decided to paint over the vandalism using periwinkle and magenta paints.
Despite no one complaining about Mrs. Bujko's colour scheme, the bylaw officer went back to Mrs. Bujko and demanded that she only use one colour on her fence. Mrs. Bujko will have to choose only periwinkle or magenta but she can't have both.
Whether you agree with Mrs. Bujko's colour scheme is not the point. Its about basic property rights. She owns her fence and her paint job is not bothering anyone except for the Town of Newmarket's bylaw officer. Surely this bylaw officer has bigger fish to fry?
Why did this small problem need to escalate to the point of being front page news? The answer is not as pretty as Mrs. Bujko's periwinkle/ magenta fence. This problem escalated because senior management at the Town of Newmarket and/ or our elected officials let things get out of hand. Its a symptom of a failing management team at the Town of Newmarket.
That's why this story is front page news. Overzealous bylaw enforcement highlights for all residents to see exactly how our tax dollars are being wasted.
But from the stories I've heard over the past 12-months from readers who contact me, maybe it is about time that we start paying attention to the Town of Newmarket bylaw enforcement.
Not a week goes by when I am not contacted by someone having difficulty with how bylaws are being enforced. The types of complaints may vary from height of a pergola being added to an existing backyard deck; to a dispute over a new fence; to property standards not being met. What is the common theme in each complaint I hear about is as follows:
1) The bylaw officer doesn't enforce the bylaw consistently and according to the written bylaw
2) No communication from the bylaws officer after initial contact is made
3) No attempt is made to find a common sense solution
In short, the bylaw officer gets involved resulting in neighbours getting angry with neighbours, and then the bylaw officer leaves the scene so that anger can fester.
Over two years ago, someone complained about spray paint vandalism on Ms. Bujko's Manning Crescent fence. Weeks ago, the bylaw officer contacted Mrs. Bujko and informed her that she had to remove the vandalism. Mrs. Bujko decided to paint over the vandalism using periwinkle and magenta paints.
Despite no one complaining about Mrs. Bujko's colour scheme, the bylaw officer went back to Mrs. Bujko and demanded that she only use one colour on her fence. Mrs. Bujko will have to choose only periwinkle or magenta but she can't have both.
Whether you agree with Mrs. Bujko's colour scheme is not the point. Its about basic property rights. She owns her fence and her paint job is not bothering anyone except for the Town of Newmarket's bylaw officer. Surely this bylaw officer has bigger fish to fry?
Why did this small problem need to escalate to the point of being front page news? The answer is not as pretty as Mrs. Bujko's periwinkle/ magenta fence. This problem escalated because senior management at the Town of Newmarket and/ or our elected officials let things get out of hand. Its a symptom of a failing management team at the Town of Newmarket.
That's why this story is front page news. Overzealous bylaw enforcement highlights for all residents to see exactly how our tax dollars are being wasted.
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Snap'd Creeps Us Out Again.
To be honest, I have always had a raised eyebrow concerning Snap'd Newmarket. A few years ago, a child I was watching got a little more attention from one of their photographers than I felt comfortable with asking a lot of semi inappropriate questions that you really shouldn't be asking a child.
Today, when a Snap'd photographer asks to take a photo of me when I am at some community event, I politely decline.
Snap'd has been getting free space at various community centres and other public buildings and as a business owner, that freebie just rubs me the wrong way. As a business owner, I've often thought that I should take some of my own products and put them on the display for my own commercial benefit. My products don't cause the amount of litter that Snap'd papers cause either. Snap'd gets its way with free displays whereas other businesses don't. It isn't fair.
Snap'd gets this "special deal" because in the world of Mayor Tony Van Bynen, people who strategically donate to certain election campaigns get ahead. Corruption may be too harsh. Let's call it the more genteel word, cronyism.
Tony's Cronies sums it up.
Recently Snap'd via their twitter account got just a little too creepy with their very personal line of questions: It may sound friendly but this was their response when somebody asked if the new dog park could have a soft opening before August 8th. From all appearances, its classic passive aggression.
Today, when a Snap'd photographer asks to take a photo of me when I am at some community event, I politely decline.
Snap'd has been getting free space at various community centres and other public buildings and as a business owner, that freebie just rubs me the wrong way. As a business owner, I've often thought that I should take some of my own products and put them on the display for my own commercial benefit. My products don't cause the amount of litter that Snap'd papers cause either. Snap'd gets its way with free displays whereas other businesses don't. It isn't fair.
Snap'd gets this "special deal" because in the world of Mayor Tony Van Bynen, people who strategically donate to certain election campaigns get ahead. Corruption may be too harsh. Let's call it the more genteel word, cronyism.
Tony's Cronies sums it up.
Recently Snap'd via their twitter account got just a little too creepy with their very personal line of questions: It may sound friendly but this was their response when somebody asked if the new dog park could have a soft opening before August 8th. From all appearances, its classic passive aggression.
To my eyes, an inappropriate line of questioning from the folks a Snap'd in response to a very reasonable request. Once again, Snap'd crosses the line by failing to respect someone's personal space and privacy.
Just creepy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)