Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 13 February 2017

York Region is to set up a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) to consider and provide advice to Council on "key Regional planning matters".

But where will its members come from? What kind of person would want to put themselves forward for consideration? And will they have anything useful to say?  

At its meeting last week, these matters were exercising some of the finest minds in York Region.

Paul Freeman, the Region's Director of Long Range Planning, had just told members of the Council the Planning Act now requires them to set up an advisory committee which must include at least one resident of the Region who cannot be an employee or a member of a municipal council.

I hear a lot of groaning and muttering and huffing and puffing.

However, I spot one or two enthusiasts.

Markham's Jack Heath is first out of the trap as is so often the case. He has enthusiasm in his DNA. He is always congratulating people for coming forward with good ideas and is very much in favour of the proposed committee. He strongly believes members of Council should participate in the selection interviews.

Developers and advisers

Newmarket's John Taylor likes the idea of an Advisory Committee so long as it isn't stuffed with people from the "development community". He wants lay people not "planning experts". And he wants to know what they will be looking at and advising on.

Richmond Hill's Vito Spatafora thinks it will supplement the Region's normal consultation process. Markham's Jim Jones - always worth listening to - wonders aloud what practical difference will it make? He too wants to be in on the interviews. But, more importantly, he wants to know what deficiencies these new people are being brought in to remedy.

I think I know. York Region needs to be opened up to new voices and perspectives. It is hermetically sealed. It is engineered that way.

For the vast majority of people, York Regional Council does not even register on the radar. Newspapers don't report big stories. And the broadcasters have got nothing to go on given that cameras are banned from meetings. So even though it is an influential player and a humongous spender it doesn't get the coverage it deserves. Its members are largely unknown to the public outside their own patch. The Region itself is responsible for this sorry state of affairs. The College of Cardinals could teach it a thing or two about openness and transparency.

Scepticism

Brenda Hogg from Richmond Hill cautions against members of Council participating in the interviews. Now I detect a note of scepticism about the whole thing.

"Do we really want non-elected, appointed residents dealing with planning matters? Sounds a bit like the OMB to me!"

Now Markham's Nirmala Armstrong is wondering where they are going to find all the members. The staff are recommending "mixed Council and resident representation" with 7-11 resident members and 1-3 members of Council with the regional chair, the jolly Wayne Emmerson, sitting in, ex officio.

The members will not get paid but will be able to claim expenses. They will meet as a committee up to four times a year. They will be bound by an iron code of omerta that Don Corleone would feel comfortable with. If they are approached by the media they must refer all inquiries to the Region’s Planning and Economic Development branch.

I suspect the pool in which they are about to fish for applicants may be on the shallow side.

Skill sets

East Gwillimbury's Virginia Hackson thinks they should ask the local municipalities who may know suitable people with the "right skill sets". What on earth does she mean? Lapdogs? Troublemakers? Steady and reliable retired planners? She doesn't elaborate.

Mayor Justin Altmann from Whitchurch-Stouffville - whose Town has seen explosive population growth of over 20% these past five years - is worried that an advisory committee may slow things down. These days he is addicted to speed.

"It's a nice thing to do but is it going to mean delay?"

Vaughan's Gino Rosati supports the staff's recommended option but has concerns about the committee's composition. Will they understand planning? What kind of person will want to do this? We want to make sue they're from the general community.

Scarpitti luke warm

Now it is the turn of Frank Scarpitti from Markham - the highest paid Mayor in Ontario and possibly Canada. His scepticism can often be confused with cynicism. He declares there will be duplication and frustrations. No doubt about it. He says the Province has never acknowledged the excellent public consultation the Region has done. Never!

Now he chortles:

"Maybe the Province should set up a Provincial Policy Advisory Committee!"

Tony Van Trappist says nothing.

I don't know if he is for or against or just doing the crossword.

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

The Staff report says this: To support delivery of the Planning Advisory Committee’s mandate, preference will be given to persons with general knowledge of land use planning matters, including planning legislation, concepts or processes. Resident members shall represent the interests of the broader community and shall not be directly affiliated with the development industry or other specific interest group related to the planning and development industry

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 11 February 2017

Yesterday, I sat through the first day of the trial at Newmarket's Small Claims Court.  

Former Newmarket Councillor Maddie Di Muccio is trying to extract $5,000 in damages from John Taylor for defamation and reputational damage.

Her action against Taylor has been dragging on for absolutely ages. She dropped her libel action. Then she amended her claim. It is time to put a line under it and end the circus.

And though she believes Newmarket Council has become

"a cesspool of failed Provincial candidates"

she should now move on with her life. She has tried twice for the Progressive Conservative nomination for the Provincial Parliament and both attempts have ended in bitterness and acrimony. There is not going to be a third time.

Queen's Park is not for her.

I can tell her now, having heard the evidence in its entirety, she will fail. No doubt about it. If she wants to save herself more mental suffering she should gracefully bow out and call it a day.

For those with the stamina to read more about Maddie Di Muccio, my blog on the trial is here. The background documents are here.

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

Update on Sunday 12 February 2017.  Since posting this blog, I've come to realise just how difficult it is to locate the ad which Di Muccio placed in the Newmarket Era on April 10, 2014, using taxpayers' dollars. It is at the centre of the defamation action brought by Di Muccio against John Taylor.

The ad seems to have vanished completely from the internet. However, you can view it here in the bundle of documents submitted by John Taylor to the Court. (Open Di Muccio v Taylor, second from the top and scroll to page 36.)

Is this advertisement a proper use of public funds?

The York Region Taxpayers Coalition presumably thinks so.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 08 February 2017

The first batch of data from last year's census is published this morning. The statistics focus on population growth and housing.

And what does it tell us about our Town? 

The population of Newmarket is now 84,224 - up from 79,978 in 2011.

This is an increase of 5.3%, just higher than the national average of 5%.

By contrast, Aurora's population increased by 4.2%

Newmarket's percentage growth slows

Between 2006 and 2011 Newmarket's population grew by 7.6%, well above the national average growth of 5.9%.

The total "private dwellings" is 29,315. (Statistics Canada defines these as a separate set of living quarters where you don't have to pass through someone else's living space to get to your own.)

Private dwellings occupied by usual residents  28,673 - up from 27,409 in 2011. (A "private dwelling" is where a person/s permanently resides.)

Population density per sq kilometre is 2,190 compared with 3.9 for Canada as a whole.

And we are all squeezed into 38.45 square kilometres.

Whitchurch-Stouffville: the town on steroids

The population of Whitchurch-Stouffville grew by a whopping 21.8% between 2011 and 2016.

Our immediate neighbour to the north, East Gwillimbury, grew by 6.8% between 2011 and 2016 but future population growth is going to be turbocharged.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 07 February 2017

On Thursday (9 February) members of York Regional Council will get a presentation on employment growth across the Region with updates on how industry and businesses are faring.  

We are told York Region employment growth

"outpaced national and provincial labour force growth between mid-year 2015 and mid-year 2016, growing 3.1%."

This is good.

We learn that overall

"There were an estimated 595,200 jobs in York Region as of mid-year 2016 with employment increasing by 15,100 from the previous year. Employment growth continues to outpace national and provincial averages. Full time employment represents 71% of all jobs in the Region, a decline from 73% in 2015."

But all information which is specific to the nine constituent municipalities has been stripped out of the report, making comparisons between, say, Newmarket and Aurora impossible. The last time the information was included (in the 2014 Report) there was a great kerfuffle with Newmarket's Tony Van Trappist speaking out (unusually) and crying foul!

Information is available - but only if you ask

Employment information by municipality comes from surveys carried out across the region. But this information is only made available to elected officials and to municipal staff and not to the great unwashed - unless we make a big song and dance about it.

Why not be up front with the data? It is a bit like having an economic survey of Canada without referring to the Provinces by name, with no comparisons allowed.  

Paul Bottomley, the Region's Manager of Policy, Research and Forecasting, told Council members this time last year the details for the individual nine municipalities did not form part of his presentation.

He said council members had been given the information separately in a handout.

As it happened, I was physically present at the Committee meeting. I intercepted him as he was leaving the Council Chamber and asked for sight of these documents. (Scroll to bottom of page and open.)

I asked if these were "public documents". He conceded they were. He emailed them on to me an hour later.

But why do we have to ask?

Open Data

York Region and Newmarket trumpet the fact they are Open Data authorities.

So why can't the data for the nine constituent municipalities be attached to the main report as an appendix?

People are interested in this kind of stuff.

Is it to avoid embarrassing under-performing municipalities? Is the local data seen as a distraction from the main point?

What is the reason for keeping this stuff under wraps?

The pie chart (above) gives details of job distribution by category across the Region. But why can't we have pie charts for each of the nine municipalities?

Of course, when publishing data there are always the caveats. You've gotta compare like with like. No point comparing muscular Markham with, say, rural King.

But surely we can we compare Newmarket with, say, Aurora, our nearest neighbour to the south.

They are almost part of the family.

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