Details

To the Newmarket Public Library for their latest IdeaMarket presentation, designed to get people thinking – and re-evaluating their own views.

A panel of five women who work with the victims of sexual assault describe the trauma of it all and how the women affected cope with the ordeal. They go on to tell us, in their own way, what needs to change.

I am here to listen and learn.

With former CBC celebrity, Jian Ghomeshi, up in Court again on 4 February, we launch into a discussion about "consent" and what it means. I learn there is outreach work done in Newmarket High Schools, getting young people to think about consent and how it manifests itself. One woman from the audience says nothing less than “enthusiastic consent” will do. I nod my head in agreement – but immediately realise that even that isn’t enough.

On her own admission, the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky had an enthusiastically consensual relationship with Bill Clinton but it was - no question about it - wholly inappropriate.

This is all difficult territory that has to be navigated with great care.

Rotherham, UK

Now I am listening to a panellist making a glancing reference to the Rotherham sexual abuse case where police apparently believed the abused teenage girls were little better than “sluts”. It was truly shocking. But the comment is not set in context.

The police were culpable but so were many others. A string of high profile cases in Rochdale, Derby, Oxford and elsewhere, linked teenage girls from broken homes with British Pakistani men who preyed on them. People were paralysed by fear they would be branded as racist if they drew attention to that fact. Now it is out in the open and much discussed.

Now we are talking about conviction rates and how too many of the supposedly guilty walk free. I hear one panellist complain that convicting on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” is perhaps too onerous and, maybe, the “balance of probabilities” would be better. Hmmm.

Convicting someone on, say, a 51%-49% probability is not my idea of justice but I am too polite to say so. I bite my tongue. We are all very respectful of each other’s opinions.

Sexual Assault and politicians

Now a woman in the audience reminds us of the alleged sexual assaults on two female NDP MPs that dominated the headlines last November. They allege they were sexually assaulted by two Liberal MPs, Massimo Pacetti and Scott Andrews, who both say they did nothing wrong. Justin Trudeau, kicked them out of the Liberal caucus and banned them from running as Liberal candidates in the forthcoming election – unless they are exonerated by an independent investigation, the prospect of which seems to have evaporated. More details are out there in the blogosphere.

The NDP MPs could, of course, report the alleged assaults to the police but they choose not to. And without a formal complaint, the police are powerless to act.

One of the panellists – a police officer from York Region – tells us that any complaint of sexual assault is dealt with sensitively and the anonymity of the complainant is protected.

But that’s true only for so long. If the police decide to prosecute then, clearly, it is all going to come out in Court.

The two NDP MPs don’t want to go down that route.

But if they don’t, the reputations of the two Liberal MPs, already put through the mangle, are destroyed forever.

Discuss.

Update on 3 February 2015: Joan Bryden writes: MPs having difficulty creating legal terms of new harassment policy. Sub- committee's work going nowhere fast as it tries to regulate behaviour.

Update on 5 February 2015: UK Government intervenes in child sexual exploitation scandal in Rotherham.

see also Joint Committee on Human Rights (UK Parliament) Violence against women and girls.

Update on 20 March 2015: Justin Trudeau: "I consider the matter closed."

 

Details

Property taxes are there for a purpose. They raise money for cash strapped municipalities but they should also encourage the efficient use of land and property.

Isn’t it time we taxed more heavily properties left vacant for ages?

Empty properties blight neighbourhoods and have an impact on adjacent businesses.

The Clock Tower on Main Street South is as deathly quiet as the funeral home diagonally opposite. Perhaps even more so.

Just round the corner on Park Avenue lies the King George School, built in 1912-13 and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. I see the occasional light on now and again. Is it fully occupied? I don’t think so. Does the owner get any kind of rebate on taxes payable? No idea. That’s confidential.

I think it’s time for councillors to revisit the whole issue of empty property taxes and vacancy rebates.

The Town should not be subsidising people who choose to keep their properties empty long-term.

 

Details

Later today, Newmarket councillors will be getting a presentation from the Town’s legal people on the ins-and-outs of the municipality buying and selling land and property. It all comes under the rubric of “strategic property”.

I am left wondering, yet again, if the Town of Newmarket ever considered buying the Glenway lands? Was there any discussion at all at Mulock Drive about whether the Town should acquire these lands? Did the Mayor ever contemplate the Town buying the Glenway lands? Maybe the question will arise in some form in the closed part of the meeting today.

We have it on the authority of the longest serving councillor in Canada, Dave Kerwin, that, a few years ago, “we had the opportunity of purchasing the land and we didn’t.”

This could mean (a) the seller made a direct approach to the Town or (b) the Town approached the seller or (c) the Town was simply aware that the golf course lands were on the market.

In any event, in her written decision on Glenway, issued on 18 November 2014, the OMB adjudicator, Susan Schiller, observed:

“In early 2010, the Town initiated studies as part of Official Plan Amendment 10, the Urban Centres Secondary Plan. The evidence before the Board is that by the time these studies were initiated the Town was well aware that the subject lands were no longer in active use as a golf club and golf course and were available for development.”

“There is no evidence before the Board that the Town took any steps to acquire these lands for public open space and public park purposes.”

We know the Town put out some feelers about the Glenway West lands last year. But we are still in the dark about the so-called “subject lands” – the land that is about to be built over.

Some may say this is all water under the bridge. Dave Kerwin has already made his position crystal clear:

“The sooner we move forward with this, the sooner we put the last four years behind us…  I just feel we should move on at this time and not exacerbate the situation and bring up old issues that we’ve already dealt with.”

The problem with this beguilingly simple approach is that a lot of issues have not been dealt with and, if they are not addressed, there is little chance of learning lessons for the future.

I always thought the Town’s planners and legal people were constantly scanning the horizon; on the look out for land and property that might be needed to fulfil the Town’s policy commitments.

But if elected and unelected officials had no discussions whatsoever with the Mayor (or, indeed, other councillors) about the possibility of acquiring the Glenway lands then why not say so?

Regional Councillor John Taylor set out his own thinking on the disclosure of information on 29 September 2014:

"Every Municipality has confidential memos and confidential reports. This is an absolute necessary tool, protecting the interests of residents in our communities. We have often conversations or negotiations or litigation or decisions that sharing them publicly would harm the residents’ interests in a financial way and in other ways.”

“…but in-camera discussions go through a process and most of them eventually, if not all of them, eventually, come out of camera. You go through a process that takes time and staff review it and they report back to us how to bring it out in its entirety or partially and at what stage.”

“At the end of the day there will still be matters that we simply cannot and will not disclose because it is not in the best interests of residents and I think it is very important that we discuss that and people understand that principle and that there are elected officials willing to stand by that principle.”

Fair enough. But information should not be withheld simply because it may cause embarrassment. At some point, people will want to know if the Town considered buying the Glenway lands and, if not, why not?

A “Glenway Process Report” will be coming up to the Committee of the Whole on 2 February 2015.

The Glenway Preservation Association is holding a community meeting on Thursday 12 February 2014 at 7pm at Crosslands Church where local people will be briefed on latest developments.

 

Details

To Mulock Drive for the site plan meeting on Glenway.

The developer, Marianneville, is unveiling plans to build 74 townhouse units on the site of the former golf club house. This is a taster of what is to come.

The new councillor for Ward 7, Christina Bisanz, complains that details were only made available last week and she wants the public to have a look at what is being put forward. She also wants details of the number of development blocks that will come up for site plan review.

This block and another east of Eagle Street are coming forward first because, says the woman from Marianneville, they are the easiest blocks to service and will cause the least amount of disruption. Another six blocks or so will follow.

Regional Councillor John Taylor asks about the phasing of the development. He wants the global picture and a sense of the timelines. We hear that the phasing is dependent on servicing allocations – hooking up to water and sewage.

Richard Zelinka, Marianneville’s planner, stresses that the townhouse development will not impact on the rest of Glenway - before telling us mature trees will be dug up from elsewhere in the old golf course and transplanted into the new development.

It is all very civilised and measured with everyone on their best behaviour.

But now a curmudgeonly Dave Kerwin dismisses Christina Bisanz’s call for public involvement before any decision is made. “The sooner we move forward the better” he says. “I’d hate to see this project delayed.”

He repeats himself a few times, saying we should move on.

And then he says casually: “We had the opportunity of purchasing the land and we didn’t.” 

Hmmmm.

I’d like to know when the former golf course lands were offered to the Town to buy. And for how much? Did the Town’s planners flag this up in a report to councillors? Did they recommend purchase? If not, why not? If the councillors decided not to buy, what were the reasons? Were all the councillors involved in the decision?

This information is likely to be in the public domain in some form, somewhere, but, in the way of these things, it is probably beautifully camouflaged.  In any event, I don’t recall seeing it. But that’s not to say it is not there. It’s likely I’ve just forgotten.

Anyway… these questions will probably surface at the “Glenway: Lessons Learned” meeting that has been promised by the Town.

All this is still, of course, highly relevant. By the Town’s own figures, the north west quadrant of Newmarket (which, of course, includes Glenway) will be short of 17.6 hectares of neighbourhood parkland at build-out – a shortfall far greater than any other part of town.

In the vote, Kerwin is supported by Jane Twinney, who is at his elbow and is easily influenced, but he has little support elsewhere.

John Taylor, Tom Hempen, Kelly Brome-Plumley and the Mayor all speak in support of Christina Bisanz’s position. Joe Sponga is absent.

Kerwin presses it to a vote knowing he will lose and then, eccentrically, seconds the successful motion to defer a decision pending a PIC (public information centre).

Strange behaviour. But these days, for Dave, it's par for the course.

 

Details

In one of their last meetings before Christmas, Newmarket councillors agreed the final modifications to the Urban Centres Secondary Plan that now goes up to York Region by the end of March to get its official imprimatur. The policies will then be chiseled in stone.

However, Regional Councillor John Taylor’s “binding implementation strategy” for the Plan  – announced with a great fanfare last June - was comprehensively ignored by paid officials.

You can read the report on the agreed modifications here at item 2 on the Special Committee of the Whole on 15 December 2014. (The Secondary Plan was approved by the Council on 23 June 2014.)

Some of the changes are minor. Others beg a whole series of new questions. Among these are:

A separate master plan is being developed for Upper Canada Mall, led by the owners, Oxford Properties, who have already expressed serious concerns about the possible adverse impact of the Secondary Plan on the Mall. There is no timetable for the completion of this Master Plan which is supposed to be incorporated into the Secondary Plan at some time in the future, by amendment. The Master Plan was being talked about years ago. What is happening?

A far-reaching study is to take place around the GO Rail Station at the Tannery (the Mobility Hub Station Area Plan) and another around the hospital (the North/South and East/West Network Study). These are supposed to begin in 2016 and 2017 respectively and could take two years or probably more. Metrolinx is currently looking at how to introduce all-day, two-way trains on all the rail corridors – including the Toronto to Barrie line. This is a huge exercise - involving twin tracking and grade separation – and it will be happening smack bang in the middle of the Secondary Plan area. Councillors should insist on regular and frequent reports on how the Metrolinx studies are progressing and how it all ties in with the work the Town is doing.

The modifications report refers to the future Mulock Drive GO Rail Station. Metrolinx told me last year there are no plans for a new station at Mulock Drive.

Solid Blueprint

When the Secondary Plan was approved by the Town in June 2014, Regional Councillor John Taylor told us it provides a “very solid blueprint for the future”. But he told his fellow councillors he wanted a separate report on the “sequencing of development” to allay the fears of those in Newmarket who felt the Town might be growing unsustainably in a helter-skelter fashion. I blogged about it at the time. 

Taylor wanted his sequencing report brought back to councillors before the Secondary Plan went up to York Region for final approval. This is not going to happen.

Taylor’s “binding implementation strategy” came apart at the seams last month when it became clear planning staff had ignored the resolution moved and carried unanimously by Council 9-0 on 23 June 2014.

“It wasn’t done on purpose.”

The Director of Planning, Rick Nethery apologized and told Taylor “it wasn’t done on purpose”. Well, he could hardly say otherwise. There was, apparently, confusion about what Taylor meant. (I’ve looked at the report and the minutes and it all seems as plain as a pikestaff to me. Taylor insisted he wanted a report prior to Regional approval of the Plan)

Why didn’t Nethery get back to Taylor and ask him what he really meant by his motion? Why didn’t Taylor find the time over the past six months to ask the planners how they were getting on with the “binding implementation report”?

This episode is a perfect case study of what is wrong with policy making in our Town. Councillors act like visitors at Mulock Drive, deferring to the paid staff. 

The elected and unelected officials clearly don’t talk to each other (beyond the usual pleasantries) outside the formal structures of Council and Committee meetings. What other explanation can there possibly be?

Silo mentality

It was precisely this kind of silo mentality that allowed the Glenway fiasco to happen. Staff and an outside consultant were left alone to work out the Town’s policy. And when councillors realized they didn’t like the result, it was too late.

So, back to Taylor. After getting the unelected officials over a barrel for “overlooking” his motion, Taylor, sadly, capitulates, telling Nethery at the end of the exchanges, that he is in no rush to get the report he previously insisted was required before Regional approval of the Town’s Secondary Plan.

No rush!

I would have given Nethery a fortnight.

In the end, after Taylor’s protestations, it all fizzles out.

But it gets me thinking. What about all the other assurances we were given about the Secondary Plan? What about the one making it “OMB proof”?

I wonder where we are on that? 

(You can read the verbatim exchanges between John Taylor and the planners on 15 December 2014. Open Documents on panel on left and navigate to Newmarket Documents and click “Taylor vs Nethery”.)

Glenway: the ball starts rolling

The first concrete steps to transform the quite residential neighbourhood of Glenway happens this afternoon, Monday 19 January 2015, when the rapacious and calculating developer, Marianneville, presents an application for Site Plan Approval for 74 townhouse units.

You can see here what is being proposed.

The meeting in the Council Chamber at Mulock Drive at 2pm is open to members of the public.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home