Details

Bob Kwapis election signs are all over Ward 5. No other candidate comes close to matching him. 

It gets me thinking. How effective are election signs in the age of social media? Do they make a difference? (See below)

I had a hunch something spectacular was going to happen. When my wife and I were driving home from the Aurora Hoedown late on Friday evening we saw Kwapis’ young muscular team driving wooden stakes into the ground with a sledgehammer. No dainty election signs for Kwapis. You know, the ones with wires you effortlessly sink into the lawn – the type used by Darryl Wolk and Tracee Chambers.

No. The Kwapis signs are big and bold and can’t be uprooted or blown over by a gentle breeze. They sprang up overnight like mushrooms.  

On Saturday, they were absolutely everywhere. Clearly, Kwapis has extensive lists of supporters through his Progressive Conservative contacts and, presumably, from his work on traffic safety issues in Ward 5.

Sandford Street likes Bob Kwapis

Sandford Street – probably a rat-run from Eagle to Mulock – had a Kwapis sign on every second lawn. The one Wasim Jarrah sign I spotted was also on Sandford. It was the same size and dark blue colour as Kwapis and could easily have been overlooked. (Whatever happened to the purple signs at Wasim’s launch at the Hungry Brew Hops?)  

So, do election signs make a difference? Some recent research from academics in the US suggests they matter only at the margins. Certainly, lawn signs show who is in the race. If some candidates can’t get a single lawn sign up then, I suspect, they are facing Armageddon at the polls. Tracee Chambers and Darryl Wolk both have a fair sprinkling of lawn signs but must do better.  

  York University politics professor, Robert MacDermid, says:

“Even in supposedly low-cost municipal elections, a small amount of money may give a candidate publicity and profile. Where voters often know next to nothing about what a candidate stands for, election signs and a campaign brochure may suggest that one candidate is credible while another, who lacks financial support, “must” represent fringe views.”

Lawn signs, he says, leave an impression of popular support. 

There are, of course, no opinion polls in municipal by-elections, so signs are one, crude, measure of support. But not everyone in a household necessarily agrees with the message planted on the lawn. And people risk upsetting their neighbours by putting up a sign. But, here in Ward 5, I suspect putting up a Kwapis sign may be a cry for help. Kwapis is selling himself as the candidate who can solve the Ward’s traffic problems – and who wouldn’t support that?  

The whole Town has traffic problems

I have traffic problems where I live. In fact, the entire Town has traffic problems. If I could vote for someone who could make our traffic problems vanish overnight I guess I’d back them.

Traffic though, while important, is a second order issue in this by-election. 

The Ward 5 by-election should be a referendum on the Clock Tower. Because a decision to redevelop will be irreversible and do huge and lasting damage to our historic downtown. 

Are the people of Ward 5 going to elect someone who believes, like the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, that the seven storey Clock Tower development is a great example of the type of intensification the old downtown needs? 

Or are we going to elect a councillor cast from a different mould, someone prepared to say no – confidently and unambiguously?

For me – and, I suspect, for many others - that is the over-riding question.

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

Do Signs Buy Support?                                            

Sign wars erupt nearly every election, says York University political science professor Robert MacDermid.

It’s become part of the election fabric: first the campaign signs dotting the landscape, then the campaign-sign controversy – who placed them when and where, who stole them and why.

That’s because signs can have an influence on the outcome of a vote, MacDermid said.
“There is a weak relationship between spending more money on signs, and being more likely to win.”

Often, signs are most effective among those voters who have not followed local politics closely, he said.

Signs placed on front lawns appear to be more effective than those on public land near intersections, because lawn signs leave an impression of popular support. That’s crucial in a municipal election where no opinion polls are available to let voters know who is in the lead, he said.

It’s why money spent on signs is a key expenditure for most campaigns, he said.
“You may have a lot of money, but not a lot of support. You may have a few big developers backing you, or wealthy individuals...  It allows you to manipulate that impression ... and it could mislead voters to the true level of support.”

Signs placed on private property without permission could be accidental, he said – an over-enthusiastic campaign worker, for example, or voters who inadvertently provided their contact information to a candidate’s data list.

But if it’s used as a campaign strategy, it can backfire, he said. “Any experienced campaign manager knows it’s not worth doing. It looks disorganized.”

Some residents may leave the unasked-for signs on their property, others may toss them.
“Lots of people aren’t interested in signs. It forces them to reveal a partisan belief and they don’t want to display that.

“There’s not much to gain here ... You may just annoy people who don’t want signs. It’s a gamble.

Details

An email comes winging in from York Region’s Director of Corporate Communications, Patrick Casey, gently informing me that the Regional Chair only votes in the event of a tie. 

Oops!

In my earlier blog I had a glum looking Wayne Emmerson abstaining in yesterday’s vote to video stream meetings of the Council and its Committee of the Whole. We all know he did not abstain because he could not vote in the first place.

More importantly, a concerned Mr Casey noticed I was sitting below the salt at yesterday’s meeting, in the public gallery.

He has decided to promote me.

“If you wish, we have a seat at the media table that you can use when covering meetings.”

I tell him it would make me feel a bit self conscious so I have to say no.

I don’t think I’ve ever met Patrick Casey but I already know that I like him.

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

 

Details

The future of a hugely popular pub on Main Street South could be imperilled if Bob Forrest gets the go-ahead for his Clock Tower redevelopment.

As we know, rumour is half way around the world before truth has got his boots on. But I hear from reliable sources that Bob believes there could be “significant structural issues” for the Olde Village Free House at 196 Main Street South if 194, which he owns, is demolished. 

Both properties – which are designated historic commercial buildings - share an internal wall and the same roof structure. (The photo shows the building before the metal siding came down.)

The Town tells me that if Bob gets approval to redevelop the Clock Tower

“a heritage conservation plan or strategy will be required that will detail demolition techniques… it will also address adjacent structures including 196 and the portions of the Post Office that will be retained in situ.”

The Town says that if there is a common wall between the two properties (and there is)

“an engineer’s report will be required on how the structural integrity of the remaining structure will be maintained during the demolition work”.

The Town confirms there is no plan in place at the moment.

Is it even remotely possible that a wrecking ball could be smashing through 194 while, next door at 196, pub life continues as normal?

But all this is a bit premature. Bob doesn’t have permission to demolish anything yet – and in the absence of a land swap with the Town his project will never get off the ground.  

One way or the other, we need a swift decision on Bob’s toxic planning application as soon as possible after the by-election on 17 October.

This has already dragged on for far too long.

Bob cannot be allowed to win a war of attrition on his terms.

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

The Town’s 2011 Heritage Conservation District policy, now entrenched in the 2013 Heritage by-law, says the building at 194-196 Main Street South  contributes to the Town’s historic commercial character.

“It is a two storey block made of concrete block with a brick veneer façade, one half of which is covered in metal siding (in the unit where the brick veneer is exposed, upper-floor windows and parapet step upward).”

The policy document states that 194 is an identical building to 196.

 

Details

John Taylor scored a famous victory today in successfully persuading his colleagues on York Regional Council to allow video streaming and archiving of meetings. Hardly a revolutionary proposition, you may think, but there are those on Regional Council who believe steam radios are a dangerous new fangled innovation.

At present, only Council meetings are audio streamed. Video is not allowed.

Taylor is now proposing live streaming and archiving within six months.

You could hear the sharp intake of breath! Six months? Impossible!

Taylor wants it done properly with multiple cameras and he doesn’t see the need to wait months for budget approval.

The Region’s corporate services chief, Dino Basso, looks sceptical.

Taylor says it’s time for the Region with 1.2 million residents to be more open and responsive. Video streaming is common practice and it should be done to the highest standards. Some systems, he says, are not user friendly. As I am listening, I am thinking of the rudimentary set-up in Newmarket where the single fixed camera focuses on the back of the heads of those making deputations.

We don't get big crowds

Democracy costs money says Taylor earnestly. Elections are expensive. But we need to do it. Surveying the rows of empty seats in the public gallery he tells his colleagues York Region is an invisible layer of Government.  “We don’t get big crowds.”

“And we have an aging population with mobility issues.” Now I see in my mind’s eye legions of elderly voters trapped at home, glued to their laptops, transfixed by Committee of the Whole debates.

York Region’s school swot, Markham’s Jack Heath concedes it is something they will have to do but he wants another detailed report. He is always calling for reports. He loves them - often quoting obscure points buried deep in the text to prove to the rest of us that he has read them.

The Forces of Darkness

Now I hear the smooth but menacing baritone of Frank Scarpitti from Markham, the highest paid Mayor in Canada. (Photo below) First he is dismissive. Having video streaming “is not going to change life all that much”. But now he is telling us audio streaming works very well. In fact, he suggests audio streaming Committee of the Whole meetings could start right away. Cost free! 

We learn in Markham meetings are audio streamed but when there are presentations to councillors the video and graphics go up on the website. When the presentation is over the screen goes blank and the viewer reverts to being a listener. This is Scarpitti’s vision of the future.

Now he cuts to the chase. Scarpitti fears that video will change the character of meetings. Audio, he says, “is more than adequate”.

With video, the balding Scarpitti tells us he might have to get his hair done before meetings. This produces gentle mirth.

Now Vito Spatafora from Richmond Hill tells us that Richmond Hill has video streaming. But after glancing at Scarpitti he starts to row back. He is worried about the cost. He needs to know what the impact will be on the budget.

“What do we have to give up to put this in place?”

And what kind of system are we talking about?

After listening to this drivel, an emboldened Taylor is telling us he wants a report in three months not six.

The Cavalry is Coming

Now the cavalry is coming over the hill.

Mayor Margaret Quirk, says they do video streaming and archiving up in Georgina and it seems to work well enough. She says it changes the tone of meetings.

“The people who like to grandstand tone it down.”

She says archiving helps the staff who can go back and check what was actually said at a meeting. Audio alone doesn’t give you the flavour of what happens. You don’t see the body language. I find myself nodding in approval.

Now Markham’s Jim Jones is telling us he supports Taylor. On important issues people really like to know what is going on and, for that, visuals are needed.

Richmond Hill’s Brenda Hogg is also in favour. So too is Markham’s Nirmala Armstrong. She says it is all about access to information. When they see a meeting residents get a different perception. They will get more involved. And members will behave differently when the cameras are rolling.

Newmarket’s Van Bynen wakes up to support Taylor. He says video streaming is becoming standard and it brings lots of benefits. He doesn’t need a further report.

Where are the reporters?

Now it is the turn of Wayne Emmerson (photo right) to confirm what we already know. He prefers to work in the shadows, away from the glare of publicity. The only people he needs to court are the 14 members of the Regional Council who voted for him in December 2014. He suggests people and the press are simply not interested. 

Look, he says, there’s no press in the room.

Now Emmerson gets to the heart of the matter. He says there is no problem finding the money for the cameras but it will change the dynamics of this Council. He tells us Durham Regional Council brought in video streaming and its members were jawing away from dawn to dusk, performing for the cameras. This is not a high priority.

The balding Scarpitti senses the time is right to declare that he will not be supporting Taylor. But he wants audio streaming of the Committee of the Whole immediately with a video of presentations, after which the plug is pulled.

“That is more than adequate.”

The Mayor of King, Steve Pellegrini, who is chairing this part of the agenda gets himself tied up in knots when he wants to put Scarpitti’s proposal – described as an amendment to the amendment - to a vote.

No. No. No.

You can’t have multiple amendments on the floor at the same time.

Resistance is crumbling

I sense resistance to Taylor’s proposal is crumbling.

Jim Jones, affecting innocence, says he doesn’t understand why there is such resistance to video.

And, as it happens, there isn’t.

The Committee votes to back Taylor and get York Region video streaming – just like Durham, Halton, Niagara and Waterloo.

The Regional Chair, Wayne Emmerson, looking impassive, abstains.

So too does the sonorous museum-piece, Frank Scarpitti, who really doesn’t need to worry about getting his hair done.

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

Details

York Region is a huge and colossally important tier of Government but we don’t know what goes on there. 

Its Council meetings are live audio streamed but no video. The Committee meetings are not broadcast or streamed at all. If you want to know what’s happening you have to be physically present. I've been banging on about this for ages.

News organizations can’t use video clips in their TV programmes. Because at York Region video isn’t allowed.

Debates on crucially important issues such as affordable housing, planning and growth disappear into the ether, unrecorded.

The contributions (or indolence) of members goes unremarked.

College of Cardinals

The College of Cardinals is more open and transparent than York Region.

A report going to the Region’s Committee of the Whole tomorrow (15 September) on “Further Consideration of Broadcasting Regional Council and Committee Meetings to the Public” presented by the noxious Michael Di Biase recommends no action. Regional Council Members including our own Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor are asked to “receive the report”.

The report suggests that “audiences for broadcasted municipal meetings is low”. But I suspect audiences for Queen’s Park and the House of Commons are low too. But should we turn off the lights and pull out the plugs?

I don't think so.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The report tomorrow concludes that

“Listenership for the live Council audio stream is relatively low and based on the experiences in other municipalities it is unlikely to significantly increase if video is made available. The Region will continue to promote Council highlights through social and traditional media channels.”

This is simply not good enough. We are not living in the 1950s.

York Regional Council is a closed inward looking world. A cosy club. It needs to be burst wide open.

I have asked Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor to call the report in for debate and a vote.

We shall see if, in the absence of cameras, they stir themselves.

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

My email this evening to Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor – who both sit on York Regional Council – reads:


I see on the agenda of tomorrow's regional Committee of the Whole that a report is being presented by Regional Councillor Di Biase entitled "Further Consideration of Broadcasting Regional Council and Committee Meetings to the Public".

The recommendation is to receive the report.

I expect you will wish call it in for debate and press for a vote.

I shall be at the Committee of the Whole tomorrow because there is no other way I can follow what is going on. Twitter and Facebook "broadcasting highlights" are no substitute for continuous broadcasting.

Who would suggest these days that Queen's Park or the House of Commons should only do audio broadcasting? The very idea is absurd.

The fact that very few people watch is not an argument for turning off the cameras - or not getting them rolling in the first place.

I see that 13 people on average watch Newmarket meetings that are video streamed. Perhaps those are the very people who inform others what is happening. Perhaps news organisations rely on video streaming.

I am sure neither of you would wish to turn off live streaming.

The arguments are all familiar to you and I would like to see you deploy them tomorrow.

People will not be watching. But they will know what happens.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home