Tomorrow's Special Committee of the Whole meeting will very quietly and almost surreptitiously impose a new "user fee" (ahem, tax) on Newmarket homes and businesses starting in 2017 related to storm water management.
The Town staff are going out of their way to say how transparent they've been. They had 44 likes on Facebook and 12 people showed up at a public information centre earlier this year on this topic. But it is fair to say that most people who live in Newmarket don't know this additional charge is coming.
Currently, the Town includes the costs of managing storm water within our property taxes. Staff have complained that our infrastructure hasn't been kept current and its getting too old and nearing the end of its usefulness. With replacement of storm water drains and other infrastructure upgrades looming on the horizon, the Town staff needs new ways to get more of your hard earned income dollars into the municipal government's hands.
Town officials promising that the first year will be revenue neutral. But no such guarantees are being offered on future years as this fund opens up the possibility of a cash cow for the Van Bynen/ Taylor administration.
For those listening in to tomorrow's 9 am meeting, expect lots of tsk tsk'ing about climate change. But the real culprit of the spiraling costs of storm water management is a lack of maintenance spending and an excessive reliance on road salt during the winter months. Both of these factors are entirely in the hands of the Van Bynen/ Taylor administration.
Sunday, 30 October 2016
Thursday, 20 October 2016
Newmarket's peculiar tolerance of a racial slur
Former NMHA president Murray Taylor doesn't think that the Redmen nickname for the Newmarket hockey teams is offensive. He believes this because it wasn't meant to be connected to First Nations people when it was adopted. According to Taylor, the Redmen nickname refers to the colour of the jersey that the team wore back in the 1930's.
Taylor is obviously wrong in his support of the Redmen nickname.
Even though NMHA may have had other intentions back in the 1930's, in the context of 2016 the term "Redmen" is very much associated with a racial slur. And First Nations people should not have to tolerate pejorative nicknames any more.
In the same 1930's, Irish immigrants were derisively called a "Mick" or a "Paddy" after the popularity of naming male babies Michael or Patrick. (The Town of Newmarket still commemorates our local "Paddy Town" with a sign on Main Street north of Davis Drive). A socially conscious person wouldn't dare use these same terms to refer to a person of Irish descent today. That's because they are offensive.
Germans were once called "Krauts" after the pickled cabbage, sauerkraut, which was once a staple of the diet of many Europeans. In 2016, calling someone a Kraut is offensive.
And Russians were pejoratively called "Comrade" during the Soviet era. We don't use that term any more because it is offensive.
Calling a sports team the "Indians", the "Redskins", or the "Redmen" in 2016 is wrong. These are all offensive, pejorative nicknames for First Nations people. Hopefully the parents who register for hockey will pressure the leaders of the NMHA to adopt a more appropriate name. I don't see how we can teach today's generation of young people to be tolerant of other cultures while we force them to wear racial epithets across their chests while playing hockey.
And while we are at it, the Town of Newmarket should take down that damn Paddy Town sign too.
Taylor is obviously wrong in his support of the Redmen nickname.
Even though NMHA may have had other intentions back in the 1930's, in the context of 2016 the term "Redmen" is very much associated with a racial slur. And First Nations people should not have to tolerate pejorative nicknames any more.
In the same 1930's, Irish immigrants were derisively called a "Mick" or a "Paddy" after the popularity of naming male babies Michael or Patrick. (The Town of Newmarket still commemorates our local "Paddy Town" with a sign on Main Street north of Davis Drive). A socially conscious person wouldn't dare use these same terms to refer to a person of Irish descent today. That's because they are offensive.
Germans were once called "Krauts" after the pickled cabbage, sauerkraut, which was once a staple of the diet of many Europeans. In 2016, calling someone a Kraut is offensive.
And Russians were pejoratively called "Comrade" during the Soviet era. We don't use that term any more because it is offensive.
Calling a sports team the "Indians", the "Redskins", or the "Redmen" in 2016 is wrong. These are all offensive, pejorative nicknames for First Nations people. Hopefully the parents who register for hockey will pressure the leaders of the NMHA to adopt a more appropriate name. I don't see how we can teach today's generation of young people to be tolerant of other cultures while we force them to wear racial epithets across their chests while playing hockey.
And while we are at it, the Town of Newmarket should take down that damn Paddy Town sign too.
Friday, 14 October 2016
Say "No" to Mulock GO until we have all the answers from Mayor and Metrolinx
WARNING The Gruesome-Twosome are intending on developing environmentally sensitive lands along Mulock Drive. And they are seeking to make this move without any public consultation.
Buried on page 31 of Monday's Committee of the Whole agenda is this item (click here). It calls upon the Town of Newmarket to endorse the location of a new train station on Mulock Drive, abutting sensitive waterways that are abundant with urban wildlife.
Yet this proposed GO Train station comes with strings attached. Metrolinx is demanding that the Town of Newmarket provide a commitment to "transit supportive planning regimes around the station," a stipulation which may put the existing green space and nearby St. Andrews Golf Course within the gun sights of developers. After all, how could the Town argue against new developments at the OMB after they have already carte blanche approved development that supports the GO station?
It is most important to emphasize that Metrolinx is not committing to any improved services with this new train station. We also don't know if Metrolinx is planning to reduce service to the existing Davis Drive GO Station or shut the station down altogether.
Is this proposed GO Mulock Station a good deal for Newmarket?
So let's weigh the PROs and CONs for Council approval of this agenda item:
PRO
CON
Maybe life-long Wynne-Liberals Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor are just trying to please their provincial Liberal allies by pushing this agenda item through? Who can forget Wynne Liberal Ministers Chris Ballard and Steven Del Duca along with Liberal MP Kyle Peterson flanking Van Bynen and Taylor at the official announcement back in June? The Town of Newmarket even issued a gushing press release thanking the Wynne-Liberal government (click here). In a York Region newspaper article Mayor Van Bynen advised Newmarket residents to do a "happy dance."
Hopefully, the Mayor and his Council cronies will take more time than they allotted to the fifteen minute October 10th Newmarket Council meeting to inform us what we have to be happy about. What does this new GO Station give us that we don't already have on Davis Drive?
They can also tell us why the Town is required to have Public Information Centres on mundane matters,but this agenda item doesn't qualify for public input. What is being proposed would create a major shift in Newmarket's commuter traffic (just a scant few months after spending $500 million to enhance public transit along Davis Drive) and yet there is no public consultation?
And will we hear any concerns raised by the two mostly mute Council members who represent the specific wards affected? Or will Councillors Vegh and Broome just follow along with Van Bynen's "happy dance?"
Buried on page 31 of Monday's Committee of the Whole agenda is this item (click here). It calls upon the Town of Newmarket to endorse the location of a new train station on Mulock Drive, abutting sensitive waterways that are abundant with urban wildlife.
Yet this proposed GO Train station comes with strings attached. Metrolinx is demanding that the Town of Newmarket provide a commitment to "transit supportive planning regimes around the station," a stipulation which may put the existing green space and nearby St. Andrews Golf Course within the gun sights of developers. After all, how could the Town argue against new developments at the OMB after they have already carte blanche approved development that supports the GO station?
It is most important to emphasize that Metrolinx is not committing to any improved services with this new train station. We also don't know if Metrolinx is planning to reduce service to the existing Davis Drive GO Station or shut the station down altogether.
Is this proposed GO Mulock Station a good deal for Newmarket?
So let's weigh the PROs and CONs for Council approval of this agenda item:
PRO
- Perhaps, maybe, possibly less vehicle traffic interruption along Davis Drive associated with the arrivals and departures of the GO Train in the event that Metrolinx decides to shutter the Davis Drive GO Station. (Noting that there is still a level crossing at this intersection that would require the vehicle traffic to stop as the train passes at low speed).
CON
- Definitely more traffic interruptions along Mulock Drive associated with the comings and goings of the GO Train.
- The new station would be devastating for the businesses located within the Tannery Mall and nearby the current GO Train Station, which rely on commuters for their customer base.
- There is relatively no businesses in the new proposed GO Station vicinity that would benefit from increased commuter traffic.
- Developing environmentally sensitive wetlands and displacing urban wild life.
- Council is giving carte blanch approval to future development in the vicinity of the new GO Train Station because Newmarket Council approves "transit supportive planning regimes around the station."
- The Town has not negotiated any commitment from Metrolinx to improve GO Train services to Newmarket.
- The location of the new GO Station doesn't connect with the Viva Rapid Bus Transit system that taxpayers just spent a half billion dollars constructing.
- The existing GO Train station is located within easy walking distance of the existing GO/ YRT Bus terminal located at Davis/ Yonge. The proposed Mulock GO station is located too far away for pedestrians seeking to connect to other public transit routes.
Maybe life-long Wynne-Liberals Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor are just trying to please their provincial Liberal allies by pushing this agenda item through? Who can forget Wynne Liberal Ministers Chris Ballard and Steven Del Duca along with Liberal MP Kyle Peterson flanking Van Bynen and Taylor at the official announcement back in June? The Town of Newmarket even issued a gushing press release thanking the Wynne-Liberal government (click here). In a York Region newspaper article Mayor Van Bynen advised Newmarket residents to do a "happy dance."
Hopefully, the Mayor and his Council cronies will take more time than they allotted to the fifteen minute October 10th Newmarket Council meeting to inform us what we have to be happy about. What does this new GO Station give us that we don't already have on Davis Drive?
They can also tell us why the Town is required to have Public Information Centres on mundane matters,but this agenda item doesn't qualify for public input. What is being proposed would create a major shift in Newmarket's commuter traffic (just a scant few months after spending $500 million to enhance public transit along Davis Drive) and yet there is no public consultation?
And will we hear any concerns raised by the two mostly mute Council members who represent the specific wards affected? Or will Councillors Vegh and Broome just follow along with Van Bynen's "happy dance?"
Sunday, 9 October 2016
Getting Along Doesn't Mean Getting Things Done
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)