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.
Thursday, 21 July 2016
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.
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Ward 5's Next "Elected" Ward Councillor
With Joe Sponga's resignation, the decision on how to replace him rests with the rest of Council. It's a shame that the Ward 5 residents' right to have elected representation now lies with Council members, who represent other wards.
These council members must decide between appointing someone to replace Sponga or hold a by-election and let the residents chose their own elected representative. We are only 19 months into this term, so you might think that a by-election would be their preferred option.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news for all potential Ward 5 candidates, but there is no way in hell that we are going to see a by-election in Ward 5 this term.
Elections are very messy things and by-elections are far too tricky to predict the outcome. Council has very little to gain and everything to lose if they don't appoint a seat warmer "Yes" person to fill the vacancy.
1) Keep in mind, voter turnout during a regular municipal election is 35%. During a by-election where the stakes are so low, we'd be looking at a turnout between 15 and 20% of eligible voters. In a general election, it may take 1,000 votes to win. If this by-election takes place, and with multiple candidates sure to run, someone may win the seat with just 300-400 votes.
The sitting council members simply couldn't take the risk that someone gets elected and starts asking tough questions and demanding answers.
2) If there were to be a by-election, it would most certainly be a referendum on the Clock Tower development. Council is already committed to proceeding with this project. What would happen if the residents voted someone who was vehemently opposed? All the backroom (of Tim Hortons on Yonge St) wheeling and dealing that has taken place over the past 5 years would have to begin again in earnest.
In order to save Council's plans for the Clock Tower development, the sitting members of Council won't risk a by-election.
Here is my shortlist of possible "YES" people who could be appointed to replace Joe Sponga:
1) Jackie Playter - a long term ally of Tony Van Bynen and someone who has years of experience dealing with the Main Street BIA (even though she is on the 'outs' with the current BIA board). If Jackie doesn't want the job, her son Wes may get it by default.
2) Joan Stonehocker - volunteer with the library board and an advocate for bicycles and growing her own food. These are two issues that Council approves of.
3) Rob Clark - owner of RC Designs and a close ally of John Taylor. Taylor owes Clark a number of political favours and this appointment may be payback time.
4) Rob Buckley - owner of Buckley insurance and a close friend of Councillor Dave Kerwin.
5) Karen Dubeau - a former Library Board member and a strong advocate of Tony Van Bynen's Giga Bit corridor.
6) Sean Stephens - CEO of Treefrog and another supporter of Van Bynen's Giga Bit corridor.
Update (thanks to one of my readers for pointing out this obvious omission)
7) Victor Woodhouse - the former Town of Newmarket Councillor. Although there is no love lost between him and the currrent Ward 3 Councillor Jane Twinney, the fact that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor could always count on his council vote means he'll be under consideration.
If you can think of any other "YES" appointees that I may have missed, please use the comments section and let's get a discussion going.
These council members must decide between appointing someone to replace Sponga or hold a by-election and let the residents chose their own elected representative. We are only 19 months into this term, so you might think that a by-election would be their preferred option.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news for all potential Ward 5 candidates, but there is no way in hell that we are going to see a by-election in Ward 5 this term.
Elections are very messy things and by-elections are far too tricky to predict the outcome. Council has very little to gain and everything to lose if they don't appoint a seat warmer "Yes" person to fill the vacancy.
1) Keep in mind, voter turnout during a regular municipal election is 35%. During a by-election where the stakes are so low, we'd be looking at a turnout between 15 and 20% of eligible voters. In a general election, it may take 1,000 votes to win. If this by-election takes place, and with multiple candidates sure to run, someone may win the seat with just 300-400 votes.
The sitting council members simply couldn't take the risk that someone gets elected and starts asking tough questions and demanding answers.
2) If there were to be a by-election, it would most certainly be a referendum on the Clock Tower development. Council is already committed to proceeding with this project. What would happen if the residents voted someone who was vehemently opposed? All the backroom (of Tim Hortons on Yonge St) wheeling and dealing that has taken place over the past 5 years would have to begin again in earnest.
In order to save Council's plans for the Clock Tower development, the sitting members of Council won't risk a by-election.
Here is my shortlist of possible "YES" people who could be appointed to replace Joe Sponga:
1) Jackie Playter - a long term ally of Tony Van Bynen and someone who has years of experience dealing with the Main Street BIA (even though she is on the 'outs' with the current BIA board). If Jackie doesn't want the job, her son Wes may get it by default.
2) Joan Stonehocker - volunteer with the library board and an advocate for bicycles and growing her own food. These are two issues that Council approves of.
3) Rob Clark - owner of RC Designs and a close ally of John Taylor. Taylor owes Clark a number of political favours and this appointment may be payback time.
4) Rob Buckley - owner of Buckley insurance and a close friend of Councillor Dave Kerwin.
5) Karen Dubeau - a former Library Board member and a strong advocate of Tony Van Bynen's Giga Bit corridor.
6) Sean Stephens - CEO of Treefrog and another supporter of Van Bynen's Giga Bit corridor.
Update (thanks to one of my readers for pointing out this obvious omission)
7) Victor Woodhouse - the former Town of Newmarket Councillor. Although there is no love lost between him and the currrent Ward 3 Councillor Jane Twinney, the fact that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor could always count on his council vote means he'll be under consideration.
If you can think of any other "YES" appointees that I may have missed, please use the comments section and let's get a discussion going.
Thursday, 23 June 2016
Municipality-owned Broad Band Internet Corridor Construction Begins in September 2017
It's a plan that has been discussed since 2007 in hopes of transforming the municipality into what the politicians are calling an "Intelligent City." Starting in September 2017, the shovels hit the ground for a five year project to a install broad band internet corridor owned by the municipality.
Phase 1 will run along the municipality's busiest street and connect the library, the municipal offices, and the hospital.
Phase 2 will run through the business district.
The hope is that this high speed broad band internet service will draw in young people and create jobs.
The investment in the broad band infrastructure is currently estimated at $9,000,000, but the municipality plans to have it paid for within 20 years.
Does this plan sound familiar? You could be forgiven if you thought this plan was for Newmarket, (although Mayor Van Bynen's Council is nowhere near this level of preparedness). No, we're talking about New Westminster (population 65,000 - as compared to Newmarket's population of 88,000).
The key difference is that New Westminster has $9,000,000 to spend. New Westminster is flush with cash and its politicians are proud to boast how well funded their project is.
The Town of Newmarket, with just $18,000,000 in total reserves, does not have that amount of money to spend, unless Council foolhardily decided to bet it's bank gambling on a business plan that is full of optimism, but high in risk. You can see the Town of Newmarket's reserves in this information report published on June 15, 2016.
Isn't it time that Tony Van Bynen and his Council allies admit to the residents and the business community that his Giga Bit Corridor is a non-starter? After so many years of economic development failures (Davis Drive, York University Campus, Harry Walker Parkway, Shared Digital Imaging and so on), residents have gotten pretty used to Van Bynen/Taylor coming up short.
But before another nickle is invested in "researching" broad band internet, residents need to be shown that their is a funding strategy that makes sense. Will it mean selling off Newmarket Hydro, for example, and letting go of our golden goose to pursue their vanity project?
I believe we can chalk up Newmarket's Giga Bit Corridor initiative up to a desperate Mayor and his allies who were willing to promise voters anything to dupe us into believing that they have a plan for new economic growth. This promise came during an election campaign but it appears as though this Council doesn't have any intention of following through with it.
For those keeping score at home:
Phase 1 will run along the municipality's busiest street and connect the library, the municipal offices, and the hospital.
Phase 2 will run through the business district.
The hope is that this high speed broad band internet service will draw in young people and create jobs.
The investment in the broad band infrastructure is currently estimated at $9,000,000, but the municipality plans to have it paid for within 20 years.
Does this plan sound familiar? You could be forgiven if you thought this plan was for Newmarket, (although Mayor Van Bynen's Council is nowhere near this level of preparedness). No, we're talking about New Westminster (population 65,000 - as compared to Newmarket's population of 88,000).
The key difference is that New Westminster has $9,000,000 to spend. New Westminster is flush with cash and its politicians are proud to boast how well funded their project is.
The Town of Newmarket, with just $18,000,000 in total reserves, does not have that amount of money to spend, unless Council foolhardily decided to bet it's bank gambling on a business plan that is full of optimism, but high in risk. You can see the Town of Newmarket's reserves in this information report published on June 15, 2016.
Isn't it time that Tony Van Bynen and his Council allies admit to the residents and the business community that his Giga Bit Corridor is a non-starter? After so many years of economic development failures (Davis Drive, York University Campus, Harry Walker Parkway, Shared Digital Imaging and so on), residents have gotten pretty used to Van Bynen/Taylor coming up short.
But before another nickle is invested in "researching" broad band internet, residents need to be shown that their is a funding strategy that makes sense. Will it mean selling off Newmarket Hydro, for example, and letting go of our golden goose to pursue their vanity project?
I believe we can chalk up Newmarket's Giga Bit Corridor initiative up to a desperate Mayor and his allies who were willing to promise voters anything to dupe us into believing that they have a plan for new economic growth. This promise came during an election campaign but it appears as though this Council doesn't have any intention of following through with it.
For those keeping score at home:
- Davis Drive Bus Lanes
- York University Campus
- Harry Walker Parkway
- Shared Digital Imaging
- Finland/ Estonia Junket
- Giga Bit Corridor
The list of Van Bynen/Taylor endorsed "economic development" failures just continues to grow.
Saturday, 18 June 2016
Why Won't Council Commit to a Cross Walk Signal on Water Street?
With the Province promising to increase GO Train traffic to every 30 minutes and Council intending to almost double the amount of parking spots at Fairy Lake, pedestrians in the Fairy Lake area have every right to feel ignored in the hubbub.
For many years, people that walk between Riverwalk Commons and the Fairy Lake portion of the Tom Taylor trail, must carefully cross the very busy Water St without any crosswalk, lights, or other pedestrian aids.
A May 27th Information Report once again refuses to commit to installing a pedestrian crossing light to stop traffic on Water St.
Instead, this report is proposing to construct a "refuge island" to allow pedestrians who are unable to cross the street in one attempt, to at least make it halfway to wait for another possible opening in traffic. Frankly, its a very dumb but expensive idea.
It seems like a lot of construction work as opposed to the obvious solution.
Here is what the right solution should be:
1) Put in a cross walk signal for people who are crossing Water Street on weekdays and weekends between September and June.
2) On Saturday mornings during the summer months (for the period of time the Farmer's Market is open), close Water Street to vehicular traffic between Doug Duncan Dr. and Main St. This will allow free flow of pedestrians during this peak use time.
3) Close Water St between Doug Duncan and Main St. during periods when Fairy Lake is hosting popular events such as the upcoming Canada Day event.
Closing Water St. to cars and trucks for a few brief hours on a summer Saturday morning is hardly going to inconvenience anyone and will keep residents safe.
Its a very simple solution.
It's too bad that none of our highly paid town planners could have thought of it on their own.
For many years, people that walk between Riverwalk Commons and the Fairy Lake portion of the Tom Taylor trail, must carefully cross the very busy Water St without any crosswalk, lights, or other pedestrian aids.
A May 27th Information Report once again refuses to commit to installing a pedestrian crossing light to stop traffic on Water St.
Instead, this report is proposing to construct a "refuge island" to allow pedestrians who are unable to cross the street in one attempt, to at least make it halfway to wait for another possible opening in traffic. Frankly, its a very dumb but expensive idea.
It seems like a lot of construction work as opposed to the obvious solution.
Here is what the right solution should be:
1) Put in a cross walk signal for people who are crossing Water Street on weekdays and weekends between September and June.
2) On Saturday mornings during the summer months (for the period of time the Farmer's Market is open), close Water Street to vehicular traffic between Doug Duncan Dr. and Main St. This will allow free flow of pedestrians during this peak use time.
3) Close Water St between Doug Duncan and Main St. during periods when Fairy Lake is hosting popular events such as the upcoming Canada Day event.
Closing Water St. to cars and trucks for a few brief hours on a summer Saturday morning is hardly going to inconvenience anyone and will keep residents safe.
Its a very simple solution.
It's too bad that none of our highly paid town planners could have thought of it on their own.
Saturday, 4 June 2016
Parking Plan Shows Gruesome Twosome's Controversial Clock Tower Development Will Proceed
John Taylor (the junior partner in Newmarket's Gruesome Twosome) is breathlessly trying to convince residents that Main Street's vibrancy is behind the plan to pave over Fairy Lake green space to create 33 new parking spots.
Wait just a minute.
33 spaces?
Isn't that number awfully familiar?
Seems like that figure matches the number of parking spots that will be lost if the controversial Gruesome Twosome's land swap proposal with the Clock Tower development gets approved on August 29th.
Coincidence?
I don't think so. Unless there is new development, there really isn't any need to create the volume of parking spaces that are being proposed. Even if there is minor development, there still must be allowances made for the improved public transit, bike lanes, and trails that service this area. Not every visitor uses a car.
The status quo for parking is perfectly fine if there is no new residential development.
But if a decision about the Clock Tower has already been made (as suggested by the number of back room meetings that the developer has been conducting with Council members individually and in small groups), then - and only then - would the additional parking be required.
A lot of hardworking community activists are about to be greatly disappointed.
Wait just a minute.
33 spaces?
Isn't that number awfully familiar?
Seems like that figure matches the number of parking spots that will be lost if the controversial Gruesome Twosome's land swap proposal with the Clock Tower development gets approved on August 29th.
Coincidence?
I don't think so. Unless there is new development, there really isn't any need to create the volume of parking spaces that are being proposed. Even if there is minor development, there still must be allowances made for the improved public transit, bike lanes, and trails that service this area. Not every visitor uses a car.
The status quo for parking is perfectly fine if there is no new residential development.
But if a decision about the Clock Tower has already been made (as suggested by the number of back room meetings that the developer has been conducting with Council members individually and in small groups), then - and only then - would the additional parking be required.
A lot of hardworking community activists are about to be greatly disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)