Details

Only 8% (or 21) out of 277 new housing units completed and sold in Newmarket last year were deemed “affordable” according to a report going to York Region’s Committee of the Whole this week (11 June 2015).

The affordability threshold in York Region is $443,874 but there are local thresholds that vary with different patterns of income distribution across the Region’s nine municipalities.

In Newmarket, the affordability threshold is $429,715 compared to Aurora’s eye-watering $502,516.

Last year, 279 new housing units were completed in Aurora with 131 (47%) deemed “affordable”.

The Regional measure of affordability for home ownership is calculated by looking at the household incomes for each decile or every 10% of the spread of income distribution. The affordability threshold is currently $443,874 which means that only households with a total income of $112,835 or more (the top 40% of earners) would be able to afford a home costing $443,874. Across the Region, this means that 60% of households cannot afford “affordable” housing – though it varies by municipality.

Here is what households on the income shown can afford to buy:

Household income      Maximum affordable housing

$94,575                       $372,044

$77,276                       $303,990

$60,404                       $237,620

$44,146                       $173,663

$27,036                       $106,355

The report says:

“Ownership units account for 90% of the affordable units and are found throughout the Region. However, over three quarters of the affordable ownership units are one and two bedroom condominiums.”

This poses a real problem for larger families. And the condos where people live may be far from where they work.

In Newmarket last year, 71 new rental units came on the market and all were deemed affordable using the region wide rental affordability threshold of $1,270 per month. Only 4 new rental units came on the market in Aurora and none in East Gwillimbury.

The report shows a crisis in rental housing. “Private purpose built rental units account for only 0.3% of the affordable units and are found in 1 local municipality.”

A few days ago, Money Sense magazine ranked Newmarket as the best place to live in York Region and the 23rd in the whole of Canada out of 209 communities listed.

That is, of course, if you can afford to live here.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Canada Post and Community Mailboxes

Like many people in Newmarket, I shall be losing my home mail delivery and I am not looking forward to it. It is a degradation of service, pure and simple.

The postal workers provide a good service. Besides delivering mail they help keep neighbourhoods safe. They are an extra pair of eyes and ears. They note when mail isn’t taken indoors. They get to know their patch.

Canada Post says getting rid of door-to-door delivery to 100,000 homes and 10,000 business will save them between $400 - $500 million annually. Five million Canadians will be affected. 

Canada Post says it will allow them to shrink their workforce by 6,000 – 8,000 people.

So, with all this in mind, I was interested to hear Tom Mulcair make a “solemn pledge” to stop the community mailbox programme in its tracks if the NDP is elected to Government in October. He will have to come up with a costed and itemized manifesto or people will dismiss this as an airy promise, quickly made and soon forgotten.

This is what he told a meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at the weekend

It’s also no wonder the Conservative plan to impose community mailboxes is facing vigorous municipal opposition as it would negatively affecting millions of Canadians in your cities and towns.

The NDP has made a solemn commitment:

We will restore door-to-door mail delivery to all those who have lost this service under the Conservative government.

According to the Toronto Star, Mulcair:

“received hearty applause from several hundred convention goers when he said an NDP Government would restore door-to-door mail service for all those who have lost it under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Government."

We shall see.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Details

The slippery Bob Forrest is preparing to take a second bite at the cherry.

My spies tell me the calculating developer – often seen wearing eye catching bright orange shoes - is ready to submit to the Town a reworked proposal for a condo in the heart of the historic conservation district in Main Street South. I hear it is six storeys on Main Street and six on Park Avenue but who knows how accurate these whispers are.

Forrest has told the Town that a resubmission of the Clock Tower proposal is on the way. But it is too soon to say if planning staff will recommend a new statutory public meeting. Given the horror and dismay that greeted Forrest’s first demented proposal for a giant condo on Main, councillors should insist on a second statutory public meeting.

The Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee is meeting next week (9 June). I hope it will steel itself and slay this dragon once and for all.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Use it or Lose it: Planning Approvals and Sunset Clauses

Earlier this week, Newmarket councillors called on the Province to amend Bill 73 to allow municipalities to take planning approvals away from developers who choose not to act on them. Our councillors all deserve a round of applause.

Developers who go on strike and refuse to act on planning approvals is a scandal that for years has been crying out to be addressed. Their inaction blights neighbourhoods.

Even Dave “I’m ten years older than the Mayor” Kerwin supported the proposal to bring in sunset clauses. This shows that old dogs can still learn new tricks.

Kerwin is the man who famously called for Slessor Square to be given the go-ahead in February 2013 on the grounds that further delay “could bankrupt the developer”. Since then, the Slessors have added millions to their bank account as a result of that planning approval and the 4.6 acre site is still bare earth.

Planning approval was given for a 12 storey 115 unit condo at 22 George Street in 1993 and it is still a patch of bare dirt. The owner, Peter Czapka, is also sitting on undeveloped land at 39 Davis Drive where planning approval was given in 2009 for a 280 unit 20 storey condo.

At Council on 1 June 2015 (item 11), a motion from the “operational leadership team” - brought forward at the request of John Taylor - calls for municipalities to be given powers to sunset planning approvals. The Town is asking the Province to amend Bill 73 to allow for this. It was carried nem con, without debate.

Unfortunately, contributions to the second reading debates on Bill 73 have not addressed the issue directly and we need to crank up the volume to ensure politicians at Queen’s Park start listening. The Town should start lobbying hard for its position, contacting committee members in due course and getting in touch with those MPPs who contributed to the debates in the legislature.

My advice to the Town is never do good by stealth. Sending a copy of the resolution to Ken Peterson, Manager, Provincial Planning Policy Branch at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is a good start but it is not enough.

Taylor called for Chris Ballard to be informed. We are moving in the right direction but it still not enough. We need Ballard’s active, vocal support.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Taylor to back Ranked Ballots in motion to Newmarket Council

I hear that Regional Councillor, John Taylor, will be bringing a motion to the next Committee of the Whole (15 June) asking the Council to send a letter in support of ranked ballots to the Minister and to Chris Ballard MPP.

I am told he has long supported ranked ballots.

We shall see what kind of support he has.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Blommesteyn and Deputations

John Blommesteyn, former (failed) council candidate and husband of the President of York Region Taxpayers Coalition, Maddie Di Muccio, will be bringing yet another deputation to the Committee of the Whole on 15 June 2015.

His specialist subject this time?

Councillors’ expenses.

I fear the law of diminishing returns is starting to kick in with every deputation having less punch than its predecessor.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Queen’s Park to get bigger

An interesting news story today about Queen’s Park. The legislature is going to be increased in size with 15 new MPPs added.

The election in 2018 is also going to be moved forward from the Fall to Spring.

The moves have the backing of the Chief Electoral Officer.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

To the Town Hall to meet the man who is going to run the Glenway “Lessons Learned” meeting on 23 June, Glenn Pothier.

I asked to see him.

I have half and hour and feel quite animated. Time is at a premium. I have too much to say and not enough time to say it.

I open by setting out the ground rules, as I see them. There should be no surprises and no ambushes on 23 June. People should know the format beforehand. How is the meeting going to be shaped? Will there be a presentation of some sort first? (He hasn’t decided yet.) If so, who is going to do it? Will the meeting be widely advertised? Will questions be solicited from the public in advance? Will the answers be available before the meeting? Will they be posted on the Town’s website? Will the meeting be live streamed and taped? Who will be putting the agenda together? (He will.)

I say it would be totally absurd not to have questions answered in advance (insofar as they can be). He agrees. I tell him I am going to submit my own list of questions to the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, and I give him a copy. No-one wants to get bogged down in minute details but we need answers to the big questions.

For example, when the Town hired the outside consultant, Ruth Victor, to work on the Glenway file (to free up other senior staff for work on the Secondary Plan) was it made clear to councillors they were, in practice, ceding the final decision on policy to her?

Did the Town consider, at any stage, buying the Glenway lands to retain open space that would, in future years, be needed?

Why were no Newmarket planners at the OMB Hearing to support the Town’s position?

There are other questions but I leave it there.

Clearly, the whole point of the exercise is to learn lessons for the future and not to point an accusing finger or pick over the carcass as a way of embarrassing people.

I ask him who he is meeting in these half-hour slots.

We talk about the purpose of the meeting and what would represent a good outcome. I quote Bob Shelton who said in February that lessons learned from Glenway could in future be applied to other developments in Newmarket.

Quite so. That's what it is all about.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Details

The Province is now inviting comments on its far-reaching proposal to allow municipalities to change from first-past-the-post to the ranked ballot in time for the next round of elections in 2018.

I am very much in favour and I hope Newmarket Council will find time to stir itself and take a view on this hugely significant change by 27 July 2015 when the consultation period closes.

A change in the voting system could alter the make up of our Council, making it more difficult for polarizing figures to get elected. The Toronto Star is an enthusiastic champion for change, claiming it would also encourage greater diversity.

Changing the voting system is such a big thing it should be sanctioned by the voters themselves in a local referendum. It may well be argued that having a threshold higher than 50% plus 1 would give the decision permanence and greater legitimacy. Certainly, a 51%-49% vote would be unstable, fuelling demands for a re-run.

You can read the Consultation Booklet here. And the material on the ranked ballot from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, here.

The Province wants to know:

1. What are your thoughts on using ranked ballots for Ontario municipal elections?

2. Should municipalities be able to use ranked ballots for certain offices and not others? For example, only for mayor?

3. Should public consultation by a municipality be required before implementing ranked ballots or before changing from ranked ballots back to the current system?

4. What form should that consultation take?

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

The Glenway “Lessons Learned” meeting is just over three weeks away (23 June 2015) and I still don’t know where it will be held, who will be invited or what the format will be. Is it going to be publicized? Will questions be solicited in advance? Will the meeting be live streamed? Will it be recorded?

At a meeting of the Committee of the Whole on 2 February 2015, the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, suggested that it would be best if the meeting were held in a “controlled environment”. It seems to me the arrangements, so far, would not disgrace Kim Jung Un.

The great danger is that the meeting on 23 June will be used to establish the “facts” rather than as an opportunity for consideration, reflection, assessment and, ultimately, judgement.

The Town – on the recommendation of senior staff – has appointed a facilitator, Glenn Pothier, to guide discussion. I offered to meet him beforehand if he felt that would be helpful and I have half an hour face-to-face on 3 June 2015. His job is to keep things on track and to stop people skillfully avoiding questions and wasting time by ski-ing off-piste.

It has already taken far too long to get to this position to tolerate further obfuscation. With the passage of time, memories fade. And, as key staff members leave the Town’s employment and move on, its institutional memory dulls.

Over three months ago, I listed some of the questions that are, in my mind, still crying out to be answered.

Again, months ago, the Glenway Preservation Association formally submitted to the Town its own list of questions. Many were addressed head on. But others were not. For example:

Why were no Town staff called as witnesses to support the Town’s position at the OMB Hearing?

Answer: To be addressed at the Lessons Learned meeting.

(You can see the GPA’s questions and the Town’s answers by opening “Documents” in the panel top left and navigating to “Glenway”.)

It would be truly scandalous if we had to wait until 23 June to get answers to the raft of questions that remain outstanding. I hope Bob Shelton will act on his first instinct, and invite members of the public to put their questions to the Town beforehand.

The Glenway saga is, of course, full of bitter ironies.

The Town is now about to consult on a new parkland policy. A report to the Committee of the Whole on 25 May 2015 indicates that taxes may have to go up to pay for land acquisition.

We learn that Newmarket will be short of 45 hectares of open space to provide the green lungs its growing population will need over coming years.

Despite this, in the bizarre world of urban planning, the Glenway developer, Marianneville, successfully persuaded the OMB to re-zone 36.3 hectares of open space to residential in-fill - a stone’s throw from Yonge and Davis which is now slated for the highest density development in the whole of Newmarket.

Go figure.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update on 1 June 2015: The Council on-line calendar shows the Glenway Lessons Learned meeting is scheduled for 7pm on Tuesday 23 June 2015 in the Council Chamber, 395 Mulock Drive, Newmarket.

  • You are here:  
  • Home