A Council meeting that had a delegation they actually interacted with - it was a bit of a gong show

By Gazette Staff

March 13th, 2026

BURLINGTON, ON

Stern: Council can’t solve this problem. It’s a provincial issue.

Eric Stern, one of two people who publish Focus Burlington, had finished his delegation before the Council on March 2nd, and he was asked to remain at the podium to answer questions from Council members. The delegation focused on the mayor’s proposal to eliminate development charges.

Councillor Sharman:  But the question that triggered in my mind is the accumulation of equity and how you bring that into your comments, because it’s clear that people who have owned a home a long time have accumulated significant equity, and that relates to the property taxes they pay. So what’s the answer?

Stern: I’m looking at it as, what are the rules today? The rules of the game today are your tax is based on the property value. And in reality, people that live on the Lakeshore pay more property tax. Higher-income earners pay more property taxes. Where the regressive property tax hurts is for somebody on ODSP. They don’t have any flexibility. You’re coming in, and you’re raising their taxes, and there’s nothing they can do about it. So that’s the reality we’re in today. What the answer is, I don’t know. That’s a different discussion altogether. But we have to live within the rules that we have right now.

Sharman: Yeah, but what you’re suggesting, if I may follow up on that, is that the council should therefore solve the problem by changing the tax, the way in which you tax the property taxes.

Stern: Not at all. I’m saying these are the rules we have. Council can’t solve this problem. It’s a provincial issue. I know lobbying is taking place from FCM and from the big city mayors. But for today’s discussion and the next two years, it’s very unlikely that the change is going to take place.

Sharman:  Right? So we should just accept that reality and work within it.

Stern’s take: One of the responsibilities of a council is to manage spending. This council believes it is an impossible task, is borrowing millions, and is also going hat in hand to other levels of government asking for money. My argument is that other levels of government are a) broke and b) funded by the same taxpayer. The solution: Burlington’s council needs to manage its spending and live within its means. If that means continuing to collect development charges, eliminating huge severance packages, and bike lanes, then, in my opinion, the community will survive.

Councillor Stolte: … , the idea that we’re making quick decisions without public input on multi, multi, multi millions of dollars is not appropriate. So would a cap policy that sets a cap and then a process that leads from that be helpful?

Stern: Yes

Stern’s take: The mayor’s proposal to completely eliminate development charges without funding from another level of government blindsided residents. Proposals without budget funding and with price tags of $100,000 or more should follow a procedure that requires our elected representatives to consult with us before spending our money.

Councillor Sharman:  … if indeed the CIP suggestion recommendation today actually involves dealing with, perhaps, amendments to the existing CIP. Would that be more acceptable?

Stern:  I haven’t read the CIP, because all the discussions on this between September and February, where another level of government was going to make Burlington whole and it wasn’t really a big concern for me, other than, you know, I’m not sure about the overlaps and things like that, so I haven’t done any research on it.

I have a life, and I like to enjoy my retirement and do other things besides reading Council documents. So it’s completely unfair that this issue blows up two weeks ago.

Councillor Sharman: No, and I totally agree with you, which is why we’re referring it. Having said that, though, do you also feel that instead of having sound bites thrown at you, it would be helpful if we had a more fulsome discussion?

Stern: It would be helpful to have some clear information. I’ve asked for the motions, all of those things for all residents, not just for me

Councillor Kearns:  I’m just going to touch on that point around community engagement being tied to a financial obligation. Do you have any idea how much the decision today might cost?

Stern: I don’t even know what the decision today is.

Kearns:  Exactly, exactly.

Mayor Meed Ward:  … So you did talk about the property taxes being regressive, couldn’t agree more. And you touched on Federation of Canadian Municipalities, as well as the Association of Municipalities, as well as Ontario big city mayors and many others asking for a new framework with the federal and provincial governments. Could we count on your support in continuing our advocacy to get that? Recognizing other provinces don’t have DCs at all. Other provinces don’t download social services to the local tax base, etc. So, there’s other places in Canada that are ahead of us.

Stern: It’s a complicated issue. The federal and provincial governments are based, in my opinion, broke or approaching bankruptcy. For this council to come up with ideas and programs that they want to implement and then expect another level of government to fund them, it just doesn’t make sense. I mean, the debt level now, the federal and provincial deficits and debts are astronomical. So how can you expect those governments to divide, give you some of their share? You can expect those governments to turn around and increase taxes on people and then give you some of that increase in tax. That’s a possibility, but I don’t see them giving up part of their share. And to me, it just means, I think you need to live within your means and get back to doing the boring things that municipalities do, cutting grass and fixing potholes and not saving industries. And I’m sorry, I don’t, I use a lot of wonderful city services. Let me add that. Some of these things are more down-to-earth, a better choice of words.

Stern’s take: This council has taken on many issues, saving the development industry, saving the planet, changing the municipal tax structure, framework documents, visioning studies, … They’ve lost their way and forgotten what their actual jobs are.

Meed Ward: … My other question is just around the process for getting motions circulated and out to the community and on the agenda. Interested in your advice for us, I can tell you that members that wanted to bring motions tried valiantly to get it on the agenda and were advised it was out of order with our procedure bylaw and it had to come at the meeting. So our next best thing was to circulate it publicly. I hope you’re on newsletters. It was in there as well. So do you think we would benefit from some maybe changes or updates that would allow those motions to come forward as part of an addendum in the council agenda?

Stern: I don’t follow it to the level of detail that Jim Thompson does, and should be commended for doing that. So, I don’t understand it. I don’t think it’s fair, and I think something needs to change. And I also, I’ve received three or four newsletters, other people forwarded other words to me from the community. I don’t any details of the motion …

Stern’s take: Our councillors and the city appear to be following Donald Trump’s approach: Issue “truths” on social media and expect the community to understand what’s going on. The procedure bylaw that prevents motions from being shared on the meeting agenda appears to be engineered to deny public engagement.

Councillor Kearns: well, it’s a good thing. The engagement charter is coming out soon. So my question is this, do you think we can bring advocacy to the bank, or should we be extremely certain on our funding sources before we make decisions?

Stern: I’ve talked to people at the federal government level, and they have meetings like this, and they talk about a valid use of taxpayer dollars, and people break out laughing, because there’s no public in the room, right? Taxpayers’ dollars are taxpayers’ dollars, and they’re important. They’re a sacred trust that we give to staff, and we give to this council to use wisely. So yes, of course, there should be public input when significant amounts of taxpayer dollars are being spent.

Kearns: My second question is this, do you feel like it’s fair to be blamed for not knowing about an upcoming amendment using someone’s personal email newsletter?

Stern: I think I’ll let that one answer itself.

You can watch the full question and answer session here: