I am a citizen of Burlington who has taken an interest in the re-development of Burlington’s downtown, delegating at numerous Planning and Development Meetings and City Council Meetings in opposition to the over-intensification of Burlington, particularly our downtown.
I wish to participate in this LPAT appeal, speaking in opposition to the appeal by Reserve Properties Ltd. I have no direct pecuniary interest in this development. My written submission follows.
Gary Scobie
I have delegated at City Hall on this development proposal, on the 421 Brant Street proposal (now approved), on the 374 Martha Street proposal (now approved) and on Burlington’s new Official Plan (unapproved), so I have a history of engaging in development matters in Burlington. I am fully aware of the Places to Grow, Greenbelt and Metrolinx legislation in Ontario and the desire to intensify Southern Ontario municipalities, reduce urban sprawl and protect our natural and agricultural greenbelt.
I understand the minimum density targets assigned to areas designated as Urban Growth Centres and Mobility Hubs. I also understand that there are no building upper height regulations in Provincial legislation. Building height upper limit is left to municipalities and their zoning regulations. Thus municipalities have the obligation and the right to define how they will meet Provincial people/jobs density targets and where high buildings should best be situated to add to density while preserving the urban character and living environment for citizens.
I do take issue with the Provincial designation of Downtown Burlington as an Urban Growth Centre and the Metrolinx designation of the Downtown Burlington Transit Terminal as an Anchor Mobility Hub. They each bring density targets to our downtown that I feel are excessive. I believe that our new City Council will be debating the merits and validity of these designations and consulting with the Province on the ability to move the Urban Growth Centre elsewhere in Burlington and un-designate the Anchor Mobility Hub. I will reference these two issues further in my submission.
I will also reference our new unapproved Official Plan and how it has been used by developers and our former City Council to gain inappropriate building heights downtown while violating our current approved Official Plan. Our new City Council will also be debating amendments to limit height in this unapproved plan before sending it back to Halton Region for approval.
In actual fact, this appeal is not inconsistent with a Provincial Policy Statement and does not fail to conform to a provincial plan. But that is in itself a real problem. The policy statements and plans of the Province place no upper limits on building heights, so when the sky is the limit then there can be no violation or lack of conformity by a developer’s application that involves high rises. With no limits on height, no building adding density in a designated urban area would ever fail a provincial mandate or target. The density targets, whether within a Mobility Hub or Urban Growth Centre or not, can usually be met with mid-rise buildings. But developers like high rise buildings because their motivation is profit rather than public good. Public good (or bad) is just a by-product of the constructed building.
What a develop wants to build on the south side of James Street on Brant will dwarf city hall even further. Gary Scobie spoke at the LPAT meeting which is hearing an appeal of the 17 storey’s the city approved for the site – the developer wants 24 storeys.
Developers can dress their proposals up to look and sound pretty nice and say that the Province is demanding that they build high rises, but that is not true. The Province is simply asking municipalities to build to an area density target, not a site specific one. And yes, the target can be exceeded, but it is not mandated. My understanding is that most cities are well short of their assigned area targets, unlike Downtown Burlington which will reach its Urban Growth Centre Target well ahead of time. And there are no announced penalties for cities that do not meet target. So the Province’s targets are just that; targets that have no teeth behind them and leave the real work to the municipalities to figure it all out. I ask the Tribunal to let the City of Burlington do just that.
Let me use an analogy to make a point. Pretend we’re in a very small room that has a grid pattern of downtown streets on the floor, with electrical connections running along each street. The Province says heat the lower half of the room to a certain average temperature. Developers suggest that 150 watt incandescent light bulbs at most corners should do it. They each produce a lot of heat as a by-product of lighting them. But this creates high heat just at each location, while other parts of the room stay cool. It is inefficient, but it does eventually bring the average temperature up, but with hot areas at street corners and cool areas elsewhere. The average temperature is likely felt by no one.
How many light bulbs will it take for the decision makers to see the light?
The Planning Department and Council have a better idea. Use 40 and 60 watt incandescent bulbs not just at corners but also along some more of the downtown streets, so heat buildup at each bulb location is less, but more bulbs spread this lower localized heat around much more efficiently to bring the same average temperature as the developers’ solution, but spread more evenly across the downtown so more people actually feel the average temperature.
In real life, the 150 watt bulbs are high rises. The 40 watt bulbs are low rises to 4 storeys. The 60 watt bulbs are mid rises to 11 storeys. High rises concentrate people, parking and traffic congestion, shadowing and wind effect in high degrees at major corners. Low and mid rise buildings concentrate fewer people per building across a greater spread of the downtown, so congestion for traffic and parking is lessened because it is spread out in the wider area. There would be less shadowing and wind effect from lower buildings. The ability to fight a fire in such lower buildings would be much easier than to fight a high rise fire, lessening the danger to tenants. Both solutions can reach an area target, but the low to mid rise solution does it in a kinder and gentler way, without packing in hundreds of people in small ground area sites soaring to great heights just to give us a new skyline.
Of course neither solution would have to be considered if our downtown was freed from Urban Growth Centre and Anchor Mobility Hub designations and their growth targets.
Quite where the city hall fits into the longer term development picture is not at all clear. There is a report in a file outlining what might be possible.
Getting back to this proposal, to build to match the height of the tower across the road (421 Brant Street) is simply using as a precedent a poor decision by our former City Council to over-reach in height its own current and proposed Official Plans, against the public outcry and the public good. The idea of the twin towers as a gateway to our iconic eight storey City Hall and its adjacent Civic Square is one great marketing scheme, but fails as suitable to this location. I believe it fails as suitable in any location in Burlington. A gateway is usually a structure far lower in height than 23 storeys. And no gateway is required to our City Hall. The approach along New Street, then James Street is a grand enough gateway.
I ask the Tribunal to keep in mind that the new City Council may succeed in removing the Urban Growth Centre and the Anchor Mobility Hub from the downtown, making a mockery of any claim that we must build this tall building here or anywhere downtown to conform to provincial policy and plan. The old Council assured citizens that no new single building creates a precedent. Yet developers seek to use precedent as a reason to build ever-higher (and in this case near twin) buildings and the OMB has in the past let precedent seep into decision-making. I request that the LPAT not be influenced by precedent-based arguments from developers. Using bad precedents will only produce a worse future.
The Urban Growth Centre can be moved by a municipality – Oakville did so in 2005. An Anchor Mobility Hub is required to have a dedicated rapid light rail connection with a Gateway Mobility Hub. There are no plans for an above-ground or subway rapid transit linkage connecting the Transit Terminal to the Burlington GO Station. Thus, it does not qualify as a valid Anchor Mobility Hub.
Boundaries set out for the Downtown mobility hub. Scobie argues that the criteria for a hub don’t exist.
Now to the factual reason that the Tribunal should deny this appeal and in fact, if within its power, reduce the height to a mid-rise limit. Our new Mayor, as Councillor for the Downtown in the previous Council, proved that we were on target in moving toward the 2031 density numbers with the current Official Plan and advocated for an easing of height limits that were proposed in the new Official Plan. With a new Council in place, with a majority of members who were elected advocating for such an easing, I am confident that they will support the Mayor in her advocacy for reasonable height downtown.The appeal height request and the previous Council decision to award 17 storeys height both fly in the face of the current approved Official Plan which designates a 4 storey height, moving to 8 storeys with negotiated community benefits. As do the density numbers which are proposed by the developer at 1135 units per hectare.
If we use a conservative average of 2 people/jobs per unit, this would translate to 2270 people/jobs per hectare, where the current Official Plan would allow up to an 8 storey building, roughly one-third as high and therefore holding approximately 700 people/jobs per hectare, still fairly dense and helping move toward the area target of 200 people/jobs per hectare of an Urban Growth Centre.
Opposite city hall on north side of James
Opposite city hall on the south side of James. Developer wants same height as the other side of the street 24 storeys – city approved 17 storeys.
An eight storey building on this site would aid the target and impose a much less imposing structure on this neighbourhood. It would be a model to replicate in other downtown core locations that the Planning Department and City Council deem suitable to intensification toward target. It would also agree with the current Official Plan. These are reasons enough to turn down the appeal by the developer and allow the City to decide on height in the downtown core that is more in line with citizen wishes. If possible, I would recommend that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal not only do this, but rule to uphold current City Zoning at this site if it is within its power.
This appeal is clearly in violation of the Official Plan of our municipality. The past poor decisions of City Council and the OMB on excessive intensification in our downtown cannot be undone, but they can serve as learning experiences to help guide our planning in the future to increase density, in a way that helps our downtown maintain its character and attraction without the over-congestion that comes with high rise after high rise appearing at each major corner and section assembled by developers.
The former retail location is empty – developer has been given approval for 17 storeys – has appealed to allow 24 storeys.
Once a popular restaurant location – it will be redeveloped and become a 24 story condominium.
The history of treating each high rise application as a one-off decision in isolation without looking at future ramifications of the cumulative effect of successive high rise applications in a small area should end here. I’m asking the LPAT to consider this issue and support our municipality in its quest to grow its density in its own way, by rendering a decision that will promote this.
Those who want a simpler, smaller more cohesive community might shudder just a bit when they learn of the three towers that New Horizons want to build in Stoney Creek.
Proposed for a site that will have three towers – 59, 54 and 48 storeys, respectively, on Frances Avenue near Green Road overlooking Lake Ontario
The massive development could add 1,836 units to the neighbourhood between the water and the QEW.
Burlington residents might begin to feel they are lucky that developments in this city will be at the mid twenty storey level.
New Horizons is the developer building the Bridgewater condominium site on Lakeshore Road at Elizabeth. Completion date is not known – the topping off appears to be done.
The tallest structure in the three unit development is 22 storeys which is made up of two condominiums and a four star Marriott Hotel.
In a statement released today from the Office of the Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said:
Our city has lost another highly-regarded leader of our community with the passing of Robert Douglas
“Bob” Brechin. He died on January 25th after a long struggle with Parkinson’s and Cancer.
Robert Douglas “Bob” Brechin.
A known family man and civic-minded career-man of 40 years at Dofasco, Mr. Brechin also served as an Alderman for Burlington City Council for 19 years, between 1978-1997, and was elected as a Halton Regional Councillor serving between 1991-97.
His work with Dofasco provided Mr. Brechin with a career that spanned accounting, sales, and international marketing and time as the director of a Canadian tin plate recycling council.
In addition to an illustrious career, Mr. Brechin was very active in the community, getting involved with the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturing Association in Exports, Canadian Exporters’ Association, Society of Management Accountants, and the Niagara Escarpment Committee in a variety of committee chair and board member functions.
He also volunteered his time with the St. Raphael Parish and Burlington Reuse Centre, as well as joined board and fundraising activities for the Hamilton/Burlington YMCA, United Way of Burlington, Hamilton- Wentworth, Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, Burlington Art Centre, LACAC (now known as Heritage Burlington) and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.
Mr. Brechin will be greatly missed by the residents of this city and all those he impacted through his service to the community and region.
On behalf of Burlington City Council, I want to express our gratitude for Mr. Brechin’s service to our city over the years and send my deepest condolences to Mr. Brechin’s wife of 67 years, Edith, his family and friends.
Yesterday the Gazette published an opinion piece on an opportunity for the current city council to take steps to ensure that Burlington got the kind of city manager it needs.
Mayor Meed Ward made a point of telling the public that council was going to take the time to get the job done right.
A Gazette reader commented as follows:
You have provided a good and thoughtful perspective on the current situation. There is a rare opportunity today for City Hall to be opened up, programs made understandable to citizens, performance made transparent and staff made both accountable and visible to the clients they serve.
Burlington has hundreds of residents who want to play a part in creating a city that fits the vision they have. This is one of the crowds that took part in a public meeting.
There are a number of readily available exemplars in the form of other jurisdictions that have adopted ‘open government’ reforms to make the bureaucracy responsive/understandable to the public, to greatly improve client service, to reduce unnecessary processes and boost overall function.
I would hope that this Mayor and this Council would look for best practices in other jurisdictions, as they exist quite close at hand – Toronto, Hamilton and Oakville to name just three.
Similarly, I would expect that Burlington might want to beg, borrow (or steal) the directly applicable expertise that is at hand, both in other municipalities and right in our own backyard.
However, to date (and it is early days), the signs have not been overly positive. Simple reforms such as staff contact listings, clear organizational charts and simple program guides remain on the ‘to do’ shelf.
This was a meeting for people interested in the process of getting elected. The desire for a better form of local government was there. The 2018 election did bring in a much different city council that can now tap into all the talent available.
More substantive improvements such as performance dashboards, responsive reporting and feedback vehicles and effective self-service portals are not even referenced. Indeed, the COB website remains one of the worst and most difficult to navigate of any municipality in the GTA (IMO). And recent staff additions appear to focus on communications and social media without any marked improvement in these areas either.
Time will tell whether this is the watershed Council many had hoped for. Early indications are not promising.
Let us not despair this early in the game.
Gazette readers have commented intelligently in the past; there is an opportunity now for those readers to do some research on just where they feel “open government” is practiced and set out some ideas that members of council can benefit from.
The business of making changes to the Official Plan that was adopted by city council on April 26, 2018 but not accepted by the Regional government has begun.
Changes to the Official Plan was a contentious election issue and resulted in a new Mayor and a decidedly different council. Five of the members are new.
Getting all the changes made is not going to be a simple one step process.
On Feb. 7, 2019, Burlington City Council voted to re-examine the policies in Burlington’s Official Plan, adopted in April 2018. That plan was sent to Halton Region for approval. The Region sent the plan back with some questions without approving it.
Mayor Meed Ward has taken the position that “Once the Region identified areas of non-conformity, that stopped the clock on approving the new Official Plan and opened the plan up for any other matters of discussion. This allows our new City Council the time to define what areas we want to study, undertake that work, consult with the community, and send back a comprehensive plan. We expect that plan to truly reflect the needs, best interests and vision of the community and it’s elected Council.
The motion, approved by Council, directs Burlington’s Director of City Building to immediately commence a process to re-examine the policies of the Official Plan adopted April 26, 2018.
Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017
On January 15, 2019, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing released proposed amendments to the Growth Plan, 2017 which can be found here. The Province identified that the purpose of the proposed changes is to streamline growth management planning in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to achieve the following outcomes:
• More Streamlined Process: Provide greater flexibility so that municipalities will be able to move forward faster on the implementation of the Plan and meet the deadline to update Upper-tier and Single-tier official plans to conform with the Plan by July 1, 2022.
One of the development proposals that can resolve the housing availability. Nothing affordable about it.
• More Land for Housing: Respect the ability of local governments to make decisions about when and where to add new land for housing, to ensure that there is enough housing supply to meet demand.
• More Housing and Jobs near Transit: A more flexible framework for focusing investments around transit infrastructure will enable municipalities to plan to increase the supply of housing and jobs near transit faster and more effectively.
• Greater Local Autonomy and Flexibility for Municipalities: Ensuring that municipalities will have the ability to implement the Plan in a manner that better reflects their local context while protecting the Greenbelt.
A staff report regarding the proposed submission to the Province will be delivered to Planning and Development Committee on February 27th at 1 pm.
It is clear that there are going to be many stages in the re-writing of the plan that was approved in April of last year. What we are seeing now is just the first step. It will be interesting to see how Staff responds to the Direction.
The matter of streamlining the process has a number of Burlington residents who have been trying to take part in Tribunal hearings concerned.
One Gazette reader said in her opinion “the streamlining comes about because there is little or no resident participation.”
Residents are finding that they have no problem preparing comments – they are accepted and put in the file. But when they ask to be able to be a “participant” they are for the most part being denied.
Gary Scobie delegating at city hall.
Gary Scobie asked to be a participant on the Reserve development for the former Elizabeth Interiors property. The developer didn’t have a problem with Scobie and the city lawyer didn’t have a problem – so there he was – a participant. Now what – Scobie doesn’t know – he might have played his role – submitting a document.
A resident of the Dynes Community was told they would not be recognized as participants. To date that group has spent $17,000 to date on legal counsel.
Being a participant you have no liability. If you have status as a Party you could be sued if the developer thinks you have simply tried to delay an application from being approved.
With the OMB – a resident could come to the hearing – and as a participant could basically delegate. The lawyers from both sides then had the opportunity to “cross examine the witness”.
The residents we have talked to get the feeling that the process is going to be “streamlined” because it will consist of lawyers talking to lawyers and arguing fine points of provincial policy. The “local” element and response seems to be missing.
Not a healthy process.
Will the city planners push for better public participation?
As of 4 p.m. today, the City of Burlington is closing all city facilities and cancelling all city-run programs and rentals for Tuesday, Feb. 12. The City will work with sport user groups and renters to reschedule times.
Residents are strongly encouraged to avoid travelling as the roads are unpredictable as the city’s snow-fighters plow, sand and salt the primary roads.
Hospitality services taking a beating today.
All vehicles parked on the street must be removed and parking exemptions are void. Failure to remove vehicles from residential roads could result in being ticketed or possibly towed to allow snow plows and other heavy machinery to safely navigate the narrow streets.
If residents notice a vehicle on their street, they are encouraged to kindly ask the owner to remove the vehicle or call Parking Control during business hours at 905-335-7816 (Monday to Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.) or after-hours, Halton Regional Police Service at 905-878-5511. (Ask for “dispatch” and police will send a parking officer).
Residents are also asked for their patience as clearing all 1,900 km of roads can take up to 24 hours and 850 km of sidewalks can take up to 72 hours to clear.
The city has a message for those who are able to or have to stay at home because of the weather: Don’t park your car on the street – give the snow plow operators a chance to do their job.
An accumulation of 15-20cm is expected The city will be concentrating on Primary and Secondary roads during the snowfall.
Please do not follow snow plows too closely or pass them when they are clearing the roads. Vehicles parked on-street during a snowfall and prior to clean up operations may be subject to ticketing or towing.
Second information session on private tree bylaw to take place February 26 – bylaw becomes effective March 1st in Roseland community.
The City of Burlington’s second public drop-in information session on the Roseland Private Tree Bylaw pilot is set for Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019 from 7 to 9 p.m. in Central Arena’s auditorium.
The first drop in session took place at LaSalle Park, about as far away as one could get from where the impact of the bylaw is going to be felt.
The Private Tree Bylaw will come into effect on March 1, 2019, only within the Roseland community area, for two years. Later this year the city will begin the process of public engagement on the possibility of implementing a citywide private tree bylaw.
These trees in the east end of the city are at the edge of land that a developer wants to put two apartment towers on – the trees would be cut down and replaced.
The pilot project aims to protect private trees with diameters larger than 30 cm, historic and rare tree species from damage or destruction.
Residents and businesses are encouraged to attend to learn more about how the bylaw will protect Burlington’s tree canopy and how it will impact their homes and businesses.
Businesses such as landscapers, pool companies, homebuilders, general contractors and tree companies are also encouraged to come and learn about the bylaw.
The first information session was held earlier in the month specifically for Roseland residents. Approximately 25 people attended the session.
Private property – private tree. This type of thing would not be possible under a private tree bylaw – without something in the way of consequences.
About the Private Tree Bylaw
No person can injure, destroy, cause or permit the injury or destruction of a tree with a diameter of 30cm or greater or of a tree of significance (historic or rare).
To read the full bylaw, including information on permits, exemptions and fines, visit Burlington.ca/PrivateTree.
Examples of exemptions include:
• Trees with a diameter of less than 30cm
• For the purpose of pruning in accordance with Good Arboricultural Practices
• For emergency work
• If the tree has a high or extreme likelihood of failure and impact as verified or confirmed by an Arborist or the Manager
• If the tree is dead, as confirmed by the Manager of Urban Forestry, or designate
• If the tree is an ash tree (due to the Emerald Ash Borer), as confirmed by the Manager of Urban Forestry, or designate
• If a tree is within two metres of an occupied building
• For more exemptions, visit Burlington.ca/privatetree
This will tree was taken down in |Spencer Smith Park because it was thought to be diseased and in danger of falling down. No permit was needed.
Permits
A person wanting to remove a tree with a diameter larger than 30 cm or of significance can apply for a permit online by visiting Burlington.ca/privatetree.
Fines
Minimum fine is $500. Maximum fine is $100,000.
Public Information Session
Residents and businesses are invited to attend an information session on the Private Tree Bylaw pilot on Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019, from 7 to 9 p.m. at Central Arena (auditorium), 519 Drury Lane, Burlington.
The session will allow residents and businesses to learn about the Private Tree Bylaw and how it will impact their homes, business and neighbourhood by speaking with city staff including members of the Forestry Department.
For those who are unable to attend, more information can be found at burlington.ca/privatetree.
In comments from the Office of the Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said: “I know from talking to residents that there are many people in our city who are passionate about our trees. Their benefit extends far beyond the beauty they provide. Their ability to mitigate flooding and absorb pollution is tremendous. They are a critical part of Burlington’s green infrastructure; we need to protect them and that’s what we believe this Private Tree Bylaw will accomplish.”
Steve Robinson, Manager of Forestry explains that: “Every tree matters. Our trees are under constant threat from climate change, weather-related storm events, invasive insects and diseases, as well as people. The benefits trees provide to all of us are critical such as air quality, shade, and carbon sequestration. We are working hard to protect trees, including encouraging preservation and replanting to restore lost canopy. It takes decades for the lost benefits of one mature tree to be replaced. Together, we can keep Burlington green and healthy which benefits us all.”
When large numbers of new trees have to be planted scores of volunteers show up.
There are those that are having problems accepting that the city can tell them what they can do with trees on their property. Understanding that a tree is not a person’s property but a piece of nature that they have become stewards of while they are owners of the property. As a steward their role is to do everything they can to ensure the tree is cared for and allowed to grow to its full maturity and serve the environmental needs of the wider community.
One can no longer cut down a tree just because one no longer wants to rake the leaves up in the fall.
With power in her hands – Mayor Meed Ward has an opportunity to really lead.
When newly elected Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward had the Chain of Office placed around her neck on December 3rd, she told the audience that she had some news she would release the following day.
The next day city hall announced the dismissal of city manager James Ridge.
Interim city manager Tim Commisso.
While there was a Deputy City Manager, this new city council wanted an experienced city manager in place and entered into a short term agreement with Tim Commisso to serve as an Interim City Manager for a period of six months and announced that council would begin the process of finding the next full time city manager
Burlington has gone through four city managers in an eight year time frame.
Former Mayor Rick Goldring dismissed Roman Martiuk. The city then hired Jeff Fielding who left the city of London to come to Burlington.
Former City manager Jeff Fielding did his best to significantly reorganize the senior levels at city hall. When a better offer came along he left.
City staff needed time to get used to the energy and drive that Fielding brought to the city. After less than two years a head-hunter discovered Fielding and introduced him to Naheed Nenshi, Mayor of Calgary – those two were a match made in heaven.
Fielding resigned and the city was once again looking for a city manager. They brought in Pat Moyle, who was a retired CAO for the Region of Halton to Burlington.
Moyle saw the city through the August 2014 flood and kept the city on track while the search for the next city manager took place.
Council settled on James Ridge who came to Burlington from British Columbia. Ridge was a good fit for the Goldring council; – he wasn’t a fit for then ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward.
City manager |James Ridge defined his job as protecting his staff rather than holding them accountable. In one memorable memo he told staff that he “had their backs”.
Ridge is reported to have told a person he knew well at city hall that if Meed Ward won he would not be the city manager for long. That proved to be true.
There has been no word yet on if there have been any meetings on what the process of looking for a new city manager will be.
In a detailed book on the Premiership of John Robarts, who was Premier from 1961 to 1971, Steve Paikin reports that in 1968 Robarts “created one of the most important advisory bodies in his entire premiership.”
John Robarts – one of the best Premiers the province ever had.
Robarts had been convinced that the province had grown to the point where it needed more qualified people in its senior ranks and created a Commission on Government Productivity that helped set the framework for an administration that has served the province exceptionally well.
The Commission wrote ten reports and lasted well beyond Robarts’ years as Premier. It submitted ten reports.
The Gazette is not suggesting that Meed Ward and her council create a commission that takes a decade and writes ten reports but she might want to give serious consideration to looking for outside advice on what the structure of a municipal government should – could look like in these changing times.
The last time any advice was given to Burlington’s city hall it didn’t get much in the way of a professional reception.
The Shape Burlington report set out what was wrong with city hall and what was needed in the way of change. Written by John Boich and former Mayor Walter Mulkewich who were served by a board of advisors, Senior city hall staff at the time didn’t want the report published – that wish wasn’t granted – they then wanted some changes in the wording.
John Boich – co-chair of the Shape Burlington Committee died in 2011
Asking the late John Boich to revise strongly held views was not a wise response. In terms of culture and the way city hall has chosen to serve the public that pays them – here hasn’t been much of a change. City managers have taken the view that their role is to protect their staff rather than consistently hold them accountable for the quality of the work they do.
It should be possible to find a consulting firm (not the one that foisted that 25 year Strategic Plan on the city), to do a comprehensive report in three months and then meet with council to expand on their views and recommendations.
There is an opportunity to change the way city hall is currently organized – too many silos as well as significantly change the culture. Shape Burlington was the start.
If the city is ever going to get to be run properly they might as well take the time to do it right. There are structural issues that need attention and there are cultural issues that need to be worked on.
Let us not make this a missed opportunity.
Salt with Pepper are the views,musings and opinions of the Gazette Publisher.
The Tyandaga Environmental Coalition (TEC) continues to focus on the issue of Meridian Brick’s planned development (clear cutting and quarrying the North Aldershot East Quarry in ward 1.
During the election they focused on getting their story in front of every candidate – a mammoth task with 11 people running for the ward 1 seat.
The quarry operation was part of a corporate amalgamation and was re-named – Meridian Brick.
“TEC was delighted” with the outcome at the Mayorality level – they needed some time to get a sensed as to where the new Council member for the ward stood on the quarry issue.
They are now reviewing/resetting their strategy as a result of the new leadership and senior staffing changes at city along with the change in policies and legislation.
In November, 2018 TEC members had an introductory meeting with MPP Jane Mckenna who is open to meeting again.
Tyandaga community organizes to prevent the clearing of an estimated 9000 trees behind their homes.
On February 6th, members of TEC met with Councillor Galbraith. It was an introductory meeting at which TEC requested that he and the City take the lead and determine a solution that would benefit all involved and stop the clear cutting.
Ward 1 city Councillor Kevlin Galbraith
“We were pleased to hear that this community matter is a priority for Galbraith. We expect he will speak about this at his upcoming ward meeting which will take place on Wednesday February 13 from 7-9pm at NUVO Network, 1295 North Service Road, Burlington.”
Note that due to ongoing renovations, the front door at NUVO Network is not in use – parking and entrance are at the back of the building.
You can find his contact information on the Galbraith website: https://www.burlington.ca/en/your-city/councillor-kelvin-galbraith.asp
We’ve seen the numbers. Canadians spend almost $30 billion a year on some 600 million prescriptions. And we know we could save as much as $8 billion by transitioning to a universal nation-wide single-payer system. It’s a no-brainer, right?
Tommy Douglas – advocating for universal health care.
What would a universal program look like? It could be modeled on Canada’s universal health care system. In fact that would make it the perfect complement – administered by the provinces and funded jointly by both levels of government. The provinces already have a seniors’ drug program in place, and Ontario even had an OHIP+, covering those youth without a private health plan.
But to go that route, the provinces would have to agree among themselves on the universality and portability aspects. And they’d have to agree with the federal government on their joint responsibilities and cost sharing. That kind of deal might have been do-able back when the feds and most of the provinces shared a common political stripe, but with national partisan bickering increasing in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election, it won’t likely happen this year.
Doug Ford at the Joseph Brant Hospital
For starters, Ontario, which is preoccupied with cutting or ending former Liberal programs has little interest in adding anything resembling a new or expanded social program, especially one which might lead to increased taxes. And cost-sharing discussions with a federal government currently being sued over carbon taxes is definitely a non-starter.
On the other hand there are good reasons for the federal government to implement a cross Canada program all on its own, given federal jurisdiction in the management of pharmaceuticals in this country.
One might expect the provinces to welcome a comprehensive program, funded at the federal level, saving them the costs of current provincial drug programs. But provinces are always wary about federal intrusion in what they see as their areas of responsibility, particularly in Quebec, so it’s not that easy.
How can we afford it? Well folks we are already paying the costs…and more. The existing patchwork of federal and provincial government subsidized programs is being funded through your tax dollars. On top of that, there is the cash we dole out at the pharmacy, the subscriptions to private drug plans, and the lower earnings accompanying a work place drug benefit. And that doesn’t count the costs to both the health system and work places for people who can’t afford to fill their prescriptions and end up just getting sicker.
It’s what we learned after moving to single-payer universal health care. We can’t afford not to have Pharma care. The four to eight billion dollar savings estimates may be speculative but it’s clear the savings won’t be zero. Efficiencies will be gained as competing pharmaceutical programs are reduced. Lower prices should be expected by negotiating for larger orders and buying in bulk. And then, of course, there is all that drug and drug insurance company profit.
Profits for the pharmaceutical industry are among the highest in the world.
Besides partisan politics at the provincial level, the other obstacle to implementation comes from lobbying by the Canadian patent drug industry and its international parents. They have become wary of efforts like Pharma care to compromise their profits in the nation with the highest drug prices on earth, after the USA. So they have offered to voluntarily hold the line on drug price increases over the next decade.
Their offer, which they estimate at $26 billion has been spurned by the federal government and for good reason. One has only to look at countries like New Zealand for inspiration. They manage to keep drug prices as low as one tenth of those here.
Pharma care was an integral part of Tommy Douglas’ vision for the nation’s first medicare program which he enacted In Saskatchewan. It was also a component of the original plan for universal national health coverage which the Pearson government introduced in 1964. The federal Liberals, in 1997, campaigned on a pledge to develop a plan for the implementation of universal Pharma care but failed to deliver.
Jack Layton won almost everything in Quebec in the 2011 election. That let Stephen Harper form a government with the NDP serving at the Opposition.
Only in 2004 had Paul Martin finally secured landmark inter-jurisdictional agreements for a number of social programs, including universal Pharma care. But dithering and being caught up managing fallout from the Liberal Sponsorship scandal took its toll. In 2006 Martin’s minority government fell thanks to Jack Layton’s NDP, and with it so did our hopes for universal Pharma care.
Stephen Harper wasted no time giving any more time to universal Pharma care. Tommy Douglas must have shuddered in his grave knowing that his own party had helped deprive Canadians of Pharma care for the next decade and a half. It was only last year that the Liberals announced setting up an advisory committee to plan for a national drug plan.
Scheer hasn’t had much to say on a universal health care plan.
And Trudeau’s own finance minister mused that it might require means testing for income, thus ending dreams of universality. He clearly needs a primer on what the term Pharma care really means. And so does opposition leader Scheer, who, like Harper before him, has been mute on the idea, except for partisan attacks on the person leading the advisory committee.
And if Scheer wins the next election… there may well be somebody else writing this column in fifteen years and she’ll be asking … It’s a no-brainer, right?
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward issued the following statement on behalf of city council on the death of Pasquale Paletta:
“I and many residents of Burlington are deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Pasquale Paletta. Our condolences go out to Pasquale’s family.
Pasquale Paletta
Pat, as he was affectionately known, donated generously to health care organizations which has greatly benefited all our residents. The City of Burlington has also been a recipient of his family’s generosity through numerous contributions including an addition at Carpenter Hospice, Tansley Woods Community Centre and a contribution to Paletta Mansion allowing the early twentieth century mansion to remain in public hands.
Pat’s many business interests through his hard work, perseverance and vision, have all contributed to the growth and prosperity of Burlington. His incredible legacy as a self-made businessman will continue to carry on now through his family.
Mr. Paletta has left us a great legacy that will last for years to come.”
The legacy is undoubtedly impressive – what is even more impressive was the relationship between the sons and “Pat”. In the lobby of the head office, before it was severely damaged by a fire, there hung a picture of Pat, which Angelo explained to an audience once, was their Mona Lisa – “we genuflected every time we came into the building”.
Everything the boys learned when they were young, was at the hands of their father. He was the one who made the decisions on which properties to buy, he was the one who created the strategy and took the risks.
The skills the boys have and the business acumen they developed came from a father who came to this country with very little and grew it. He prospered and gave back to the city that was home to him.
From an obituary we learn that in 1953 Pat purchased his first animal which was the beginning of the empire. In 1954, Pat, his father and brothers built their first meat packing plant in Hannon. In 1964 they purchased property at Appleby Line and QEW in Burlington and opened a federally inspected meat packing plant.
By 1983 he built the business to become the largest private meat packer in Eastern Canada. In the early 1970s Pat vertically integrated into livestock production by starting a beef feedlot and crop production to supply livestock to the meat packing plant, becoming the largest feedlot in Ontario. He also fed cattle in Western Canada and US.
In 1967 Pat started the real estate division which has prospered to owning lands across Ontario and becoming the largest land holder and developer in the Region of Halton and City of Hamilton combined.
Funeral Mass on Monday, February 11th at 10:30 a.m. at St. John’s Roman Catholic Church, 2016 Blairholm Ave., Burlington. Interment at Our Lady of Victory Mausoleum in Holy Sepulchre Cemetery.
For the first time in perhaps a decade Rick Goldring and his wife Cheryl were able to take a three week vacation during which he didn’t have to respond to a single email from city hall. It must have been wonderful.
Goldring spent three weeks in Australia and is now getting back into harness in his financial services profession.
He has produced a short video talking about the organization he has created and the services they will provide.
Goldring looked fit, relaxed and sounded upbeat. Losing an election is never easy.
There is one last election related task to get done. Remove the Goldring for Mayor sign on the office his campaign worked out of on Guelph Line.
The sign on the campaign office appeared in two versions; one before the election campaign started – that one had just the name. The next version had the words – For Mayor which is still in place.
Poverty is not a popular coffee shop conversation; we have it but we don’t talk about it. This social behavior on the part of Burlingtonians is a combination of “see no evil” and the ostrich with its head in the sand.
The reality is that – there rare poor people in Burlington and the New Democrats talk about it. The Progressive |Conservatives talk about ensuring that everyone can get a job but keep the minimum wage so low that some people need two job to get by.
MPP Sandy Shaw (Hamilton West – Ancaster – Dundas) is going to be in Burlington on Tuesday, February 12th to give a talk on the Ontario NDP’s efforts to fight poverty.
Ted Hildebrandt (Director of Social Planning at Community Development Halton) will also be speaking about the face of poverty in our region, and particularly the hidden face of poverty in Burlington.
The evening will start off with a simple pasta dinner – no charge to attend and it is open to anyone interested in making Ontario a better place to live, regardless of political affiliation.
The event is from 6pm to 8pm February 12th at the auditorium in Central Arena.
Now that they are elected and are well on their way to getting comfortable with the jobs they have the members of Council are getting out into the community to meet with their constituents.
Each member of council has their own style and approach. Residents of ward 5 have learned how to respond to Councillor Sharman and those in ward 2 know how Meed Ward handled issues – now that she is Mayor we are seeing a tendency to use photo ops much more than she did as a Councillor.
We will return to the change in Meed Ward.
Thursday evening ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan met with his constituents at the Conservation offices on Britannia Road. He had people in from the Finance department give a solid background piece on the budget that is before council. The tax levy put forward by the Finance department recommended an increase over the 2018 budget of 3.99%.
Mayor Meed Ward has said she would like to see that reduced to 2.99% – which might be a stretch given the new asks that are coming forward; but she does appear to have the support of her colleagues on a lower tax levy for 2019.
Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan listening to a budget presentation.
Councillor Nisan didn’t make any direct comment on where he stood on what the eventual tax levy should be during his constituency meeting. His meeting in Lowville was to deal with rural issues and he did something surprising – he had ward 6 councillor Angelo Bentivegna join him so that the two men could hear what was pressing and on the minds of the rural community. Life north of Dundas is a lot different than life south of the QEW,
The speed with which people drive their vehicles through the rural roads is a consistent concern. There was at one point a school crossing guard at the public school in Kilbride – he retired and the city has not found a replacement.
Cold night, roads all but fogged in – but 30 residents showed up to meet their ward Councillor.
Public safety was a prime issue – and the lack of a school crossing guard produced a lot of discussion.
“If there was a school in Burlington without a crossing guard” said one resident “there would be someone sent in to cover for a crossing guard that is not able to get to their job.”
The residents of Kilbride want the same level of service. They see themselves as the forgotten residents of the city. Someone suggested that the northern parts of wards 3 and ward 6 be merged and turned into a single ward with its own Councillor.
Bentivegna explained why he thought that was not a good idea. With the current system he explained you have three of the seven councillors who have rural constituents speaking for you. You will get a better response with the current ward set up.
Lowville regulars – Walt Rickli on the left and John Timmins on the right.
Councillor Nisan appear to like the idea of a single rural ward.
Bentivegna proved to be much more outgoing and robust in this rural setting than we have seen him in the past; he was all over every issue and said on a number of occasions that he was in office to make changes. He has come up with a tag line: rethink, reinvent and retool that he touts every chance he gets.
He has kept the election signage on his vehicle as well. With a win of less than 50 votes over Blair Lancaster in the October election he might well be wise to stay in election mode.
While the meeting was not in his ward Bentivegna was taking down names and phone numbers and promising to follow up “first thing tomorrow”.
Part of the budget Q&A was on the addition of a sixth bylaw enforcement officer. People in ward 3 say they never see a bylaw enforcement officer unless it is a matter that relates to Conservation Halton.
The city currently has five bylaw control officers – a sixth will allow one for each ward and Bentivegna wants to see a ward bylaw officer handle every kind of complaint. Right now the animal control people don’t take on parking problems and the parking people don’t respond the bylaw infractions relating to property. He wants the silos between the departments taken down – every bylaw office would respond to anything and everything; there would be no more specialization.
Bentivegna wasn’t able to say just how many bylaw enforcement officers there are in the city; his comment was those that are in place are “run pretty ragged”
Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna joined forces with Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan to brief the residents on what the two of them were going to do for rural Burlington. Meeting took place in Lowville.
Road conditions are an ongoing concern. Finance department staffer Anne Marie explained that the city has an inventory of every road in the municipality that details when the road was last repaired or upgraded – that data drives a large part of the infrastructure budget.
The condition of the roads and the speed at which people drive their cars is regularly brought up at rural Councillor meetings.
Residents want speed bumps; however the installation of a speed bump requires research which the residents see as waste of time. A new sidewalk was put in in Kilbride – but it isn’t snow plowed forcing people to walk on the road on which vehicles move too quickly. One resident talked of having to jump into a ditch to avoid being hit by a pickup truck. “It’s a big issue up here” he said.
Public safety was the prime concern – that and a school bus driver who is said to be driving at 80 clicks in a 40 click zone.
“Kids don’t walk to school anymore – they get driven by their parents who then speed away to get to their jobs” explained one parent.
Former ward 3 Councilor John Taylor keeping an eye on what the new ward Councillor is doing.
The Kilbride fire station is run by 30 volunteers that most people are content with. Their beef is that there isn’t any water service – it has to be transported in when there is a fire. There is a tanker at the fire station but it apparently doesn’t have any water in it.
On a cold winter night with thick fog covering the roads some 30 people gathered to voice their concerns. Sitting in the audience listening quietly was John Taylor, the former, now retired Councillor for the ward.
The City’s skate lending program is expanding to Appleby Ice Centre. Residents of all ages can access a variety of skates and other equipment on a first come first serve basis, year-round.
The Skate Hub is located in the lobby of ice pads 1 and 2. There is no sign-out form required and there is no time limit on the equipment. The hours of operation are the same as facility hours.
The skate lending program is also available at the Burlington Rotary Centennial Pond on weekday evening, weekend and holidays.
Put them on right and you can enjoy swirling around the ice.
Skate Lending Hours of Operation of the Burlington Rotary Centennial Pond.
• Weekday evenings: 5 to 10 p.m. • Weekend and Holidays: 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Both locations have a variety of sizes.
Rotary Centennial Pond.
Donations Needed
Anyone with used skates, gloves, sticks or helmets in good condition can donate them to the lending program. Donations can be dropped off at any Burlington community centre, arena or pool, City Hall, as well as Emma’s Back Porch, Gator Ted’s and Wendel Clark’s Restaurants.
For more information on skating in Burlington, visit burlington.ca/skating.
Is the $4 million funding given to the LaSalle Park Marina by the last city council at risk?
Gary Scobie – prefers that the marina not get a dime but if the $4 is approved – make it a loan.
Mayor Meed Ward made mention of talk about rescinding the decision made by the previous council.
Gary Scobie who delegated on the use of the Hydro Reserve fund – something few people knew anything about.
Scobie argued that the city has no business giving that amount of money to a private organization that sits on land owned by the city of Hamilton when there are not much more than a couple of hundred members of the LaSalle Park Marina Association.
The option the LaSalle Park Marina Association hopes is chosen.
It was a messy debate when the $4 million was first put on the table.
What isn’t clear at this point is whether or not the $4 million is a loan or an outright gift.
Scobie said he didn’t want any money going to the Marina but if money did go to the organization it should be in the form of a loan.
The funds were needed for the installation of a breakwater – without an upgraded breakwater membership in the Marina will plummet – no one will want to tie up at a marina that insurance companies will not cover.
There has been a lot of confusion about just where Burlington is in terms of the provincial government Places to Grow policy. That is the program that sets out the longer term population growth plans.
The provincial government set the level to which population is expected to grow and determines where that growth should take place.
A population growth target is given to the Regional governments (they are called two tier set ups) and a number to the single tier government; Guelph and Toronto are single tier governments. Burlington. Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills are part of the Region – making us part of a two tier system.
Burlington’s Planning department has never offered anything firm on just what the city has in terms of population and what is expected in the short term future. The planners just kept saying we are guided by the Places to Grow policy. The developers would claim that their development was part of reaching the Places to Grow target.
Many thought the target had already been met. The then Councillor Marianne Meed Ward kept saying the target for 2031 was being met and that we were in fact ahead of the requirement.
The target for 2041 is known at the Regional level – Burlington doesn’t know what its share of that number is going to be.
Much of the development in the downtown core is being driven by that Places to Grow policy.
Gary Scobie, a retired Burlington resident and frequent effective delegator, did some homework and came up with some numbers that suggest Meed Ward was right – we have reached our 2031 target or are so close that with the developments in the pipeline the city will reach its target handily.
Here is what Scobie had to say in his Growth Targets 101 presentation.
The Urban Growth Centre is where the development is taking place.
The Urban Growth Centre is shown with a red dotted line that is sometimes a solid red line. It extends as far north as Prospect Street. Total area is 104.6 hectares (ha)
In 2016 there were 156 p&j (a combination of people and jobs) per hectare in the Urban Growth Centre.
The goal for our UGC is 200 p&j per hectare – thus in 2016 we had achieved 78% of the goal.
The 2031 target is 104.6 ha x 200 p&j for a total of 20,920 people and jobs in the Urban Growth Centre.
In order to meet the 2031 target the city needs to add 4,540 p&j in the next 12 years.
Is that possible? Scobie thinks so and he offers the following data to make his point
These developments will add 2824 p&j in the not too distant future which will make Burlington short 1626 of the target. Note that Scobie uses an estimate of 1.5 residents per housing unit.
There is more maintains Scobie and he points to projects that are “in the works”.
A development planned for the corner of Pearl and Lakeshore is to be 29 storeys – a record high for the city.
Scobie, who shares the view of Mayor Meed Ward, maintains the city does not need 20 storey towers to meet the Places to Grow population target.
He suggests that the projects in the works will add 1355 people and 180 jobs for a total of 1535 p&J and that permitting buildings that are between eight and 11 storeys will let the city reach the objective. No need for the 20 plus storey towers that will destroy the small town feel that residents want.
“We don’t need more 20+ storey buildings to reach the target. Mid-rise building can get the city to the point where it has met the growth requirement and allow a more human scale of development.”
Is Scobie right?
Gary Scobie: Are his numbers right?
Hard to tell – none of the Councillors who heard the Scobie delegation asked city staff if Scobie’s numbers were right.
The Gazette has fired off an information request to Mary Loy Tanner, the former Planning Director who oversaw much of the development that has residents upset enough to elect a significantly different council.
Our question to Tanner is:
On Tuesday, February 6th, Gary Scobie made a delegation to Council. A copy of the slides he presented is attached. Are the numbers Scobie presented correct? If they are incorrect could you set out where his numbers are wrong. Thank you 🙂
A question we have for the members of council who heard the delegation: Did the cat get your tongues or did you agree with Scobie? At the end of his delegation there wasn’t a single question asked. Not what they were elected to do or did we get that wrong?
Facilities are open and programs are running according to city hall.
Stay tuned for updates as we monitor weather conditions.
The City of Burlington makes every effort to keep our facilities open during our regular business hours. When unsafe weather conditions occur, the city may close facilities.
A planner who was in Burlington last night – returned to Toronto where weather conditions are a bit better. His comment to us was:
Roll up the rim is back at Tim Horton’s today, so there’s something to look forward to!
By Gary Scobie
The massive development could add 1,836 units to the neighbourhood between the water and the QEW.
Mayor Meed Ward has taken the position that “Once the Region identified areas of non-conformity, that stopped the clock on approving the new Official Plan and opened the plan up for any other matters of discussion. This allows our new City Council the time to define what areas we want to study, undertake that work, consult with the community, and send back a comprehensive plan. We expect that plan to truly reflect the needs, best interests and vision of the community and it’s elected Council.
Residents are finding that they have no problem preparing comments – they are accepted and put in the file. But when they ask to be able to be a “participant” they are for the most part being denied.
The Shape Burlington report set out what was wrong with city hall and what was needed in the way of change. Written by John Boich and former Mayor Walter Mulkewich who were served by a board of advisors, Senior city hall staff at the time didn’t want the report published – that wish wasn’t granted – they then wanted some changes in the wording.
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
The legacy is undoubtedly impressive – what is even more impressive was the relationship between the sons and “Pat”. In the lobby of the head office, before it was severely damaged by a fire, there hung a picture of Pat, which Angelo explained to an audience once, was their Mona Lisa – “we genuflected every time we came into the building”.
The skills the boys have and the business acumen they developed came from a father who came to this country with very little and grew it. He prospered and gave back to the city that was home to him.
By 1983 he built the business to become the largest private meat packer in Eastern Canada. In the early 1970s Pat vertically integrated into livestock production by starting a beef feedlot and crop production to supply livestock to the meat packing plant, becoming the largest feedlot in Ontario. He also fed cattle in Western Canada and US.
Poverty is not a popular coffee shop conversation; we have it but we don’t talk about it. This social behavior on the part of Burlingtonians is a combination of “see no evil” and the ostrich with its head in the sand.
The reality is that – there rare poor people in Burlington and the New Democrats talk about it. The Progressive |Conservatives talk about ensuring that everyone can get a job but keep the minimum wage so low that some people need two job to get by.
There has been a lot of confusion about just where Burlington is in terms of the provincial government Places to Grow policy. That is the program that sets out the longer term population growth plans.
Facilities are open and programs are running according to city hall.
A planner who was in Burlington last night – returned to Toronto where weather conditions are a bit better. His comment to us was:
