 October 26, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. There was time when the only way you could place a bet was to go a horse race. That was before Trudeau liberalized the criminal code, in 1969, bringing us into the modern age and decriminalizing abortion, homosexuality and lotteries all in one fell swoop. Prior to that it was strictly illegal to place a bet on anything.
I recall watching my parents stash away tickets they held for the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes, a complicated lottery based on horse races, illegal pretty well everywhere but Ireland, but which earned its big money overseas.
 Slot machine revenue subsidizes race track operations. Gambling is now very big business. In 2011 Ontario Lottery and Gaming (OLG) turned in $6.7 billion. Another quarter of a billion came from horse racing. Horse racing is mostly located in rural areas and so less accessible to the average urbanite. The forms and betting are complicated, the seasons periodic and the industry heavily regulated. So, it was inevitable that horse racing would get dwarfed by the dollars rolling in from slot machines and the lotteries, especially when they co-located.
But horse racing is more than just gambling, it is part of our culture. If slots and lotteries didn’t exist, it is a safe bet that racing would be far more popular. When slot machines were introduced at race tracks a portion of the money they brought in was used to help finance the racing business. However, when former Premier McGuinty set up the Drummond Commission to help him cut the deficit, the subsidies for horse racing were high on the list of things to eliminate.
Despite the need for subsidies, horse racing is an important agricultural industry which generates significant employment underpinning the existence of many of Ontario’s rural communities. It is estimated that over 30,000 jobs are associated with the horse racing industry which expends over $1.2 billion a year, making this Ontario’s third largest agricultural industry. Ontario claims to have more race events than any other jurisdiction in North America. So when the axe fell and the cuts were announced, horse farmers and the agricultural community mounted a public relations campaign to save their industry.
 The horse racing community mounted a strong protest and the government took a second look – out came a compromise which the racing community calls a partnership. A little over a week ago Ontario Premier Wynne responded to that campaign by bringing forward a plan to restructure Ontario’s horse racing industry to make it more sustainable and economically viable. The settlement is not everything the industry wanted, these things never are, and some people had already exited the industry. Still a subsidy was re-instated and funding was guaranteed for a five-year period, giving stability to the industry.
Gambling is a big revenue earner, which is why even the Bob Rae New Democrats embraced it back when Ontario was suffering its worst recession since the dirty thirties. Annually about $2 billion of the money that comes in goes back out to help fund our health care system and other government priorities. Another $2 billion supports local economic development where Ontario Lottery and Gaming (OLG) facilities are located and about $65 million is spent on gambler education, research and treatment.
One could argue that gambling is a natural process. Every time we get behind the wheel or into an airplane we are gambling with our lives. And what is the stock market or any investment but a gamble by another name. Placing a bet is a voluntary action by individuals supposedly responsible enough to manage their affairs. And if not, there are programs to help the chronic, problem gamblers get their lives straight again.
 There are trotter training operations dotted throughout rural Ontario. Over two-thirds of Ontario residents gamble at least once a year, although that might involve no more than purchasing a lottery ticket. And the poor are believed to gamble more than the wealthy thus leading to the label, gambling is a tax on the poor. Interestingly enough the rise in gambling activity over the years has been associated with the increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor in our North American society. But it would be a huge overstatement to blame gambling for that sad consequence. Clearly erosion of the progressive tax system and the introduction of regressive consumer taxes in Canada have weighed-in heavily on that phenomena.
Horse racing is an ancient sport. Its origins date back to about 4500 BC among the nomadic tribesmen of Central Asia, who first domesticated the horse. Since then, horse racing has flourished as the sport of kings. In the USA horse racing is one of the most widely attended spectator sports; over 50 million people attend racing events and wager billions.
That we came close to losing our horse racing industry here in Ontario is frightening. Hopefully the new plan will allow the industry to focus on attracting more participants to watch the magnificent horses and, if so inclined, to bet on the races. I enjoy doing both, the latter in moderation.
 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.
Addtional information
Horse racing subsidies
Guaranteed funding for a five-year period.
 October 24, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. You know that culture has some traction in Burlington when city council members ask what a Poetry Slam is and when Councillor Jack Dennison suggests the he might even drop by the Black Bull on Guelph Line and hear how Tomy Bewick, a construction worker delivers his message.
Bewick runs the Burlington Poetry Slam, an event most Councillors knew absolutely nothing about; yet it is an organization that has been given a Canada Council grant to bring together Slam poetry artists from across the country. In Burlington, whoda thunk?
After a close to brutal session at the Regional offices in Oakville where council members took part in a vote that marked the beginning of the end of the Beachway Park community, council met in Burlington to discuss the basics of a Cultural Action Plan and then decide what they wanted to do.
 Teresa Seaton, center, organizer of the Art in Action Tour, thinks through a response at one of the Cultural Action Plan sessions. She is one of 250 people organized as an Arts and Culture Collective in Burlington. They didn’t make any decisions – it was far too late and everyone was far too tired to be able to make sensible decisions, but Burlington did get to see the outline of a community that few really knew existed. The Arts and Culture Collective, a group of more than 250 people organized on-line, didn’t really know each other but they have become a voice and they want a seat at the table where the decisions are made. Nine of their members delegated and laid out their aspirations for a Cultural Action Plan. They have certainly “informed” the plan the city wants t create but there is still some distance between the bureaucrats and the artists.
 The Collective had done their homework – they knew what they wanted – now to actually get it – that’s their challenge. The delegations were listened to, heard and engaged. This is not something that happens for many delegations at our city hall. All too often Council members sit there close to mute as people take their case, their concerns and their hopes the city’s leaders. That wasn’t the case Wednesday night.
Organized as the Arts and Culture collective in July the thing grew from some 20 people who took part in the first meeting to the 250 people who exchange thoughts and ideas on-line and have learned how to deal with city hall and bring about changes.
The process began a couple of years ago when the city hired Jeremy Freiburg to prepare a report on just what Burlington had and didn’t have going for it in terms of culture. Everyone knew about the newly minted Performing Arts Centre and everyone knew about the Burlington Art Centre but few of the many ever went to the place to look and see and feel the art over there.
Freiburger’ s report dug up all kinds of data on where Burlingtonians spent their cultural dollars – far too much of it gets spent outside the city. He mapped where people go and how much they spend. He told us what people wanted in terms of culture.
What he revealed was a city that really didn’t have a solid cultural tradition. We saw a city that chooses to go elsewhere for its culture and entertainment, partly because, they feel, there isn’t anything they like here.
Some thought Freiburger was going to deliver a set of recommendations on what the city should do next – but he chose not to do that. Instead he gave them the data they needed to begin to figure out what they want to do.
And that is when the Collective began to form. The people who met, first wanted to be able to do their art here in this city and not have to go to Hamilton or Toronto – but there was no place, no space, nor any expectation, that there was indeed a local arts community. The city didn’t know they were there and they didn’t know each other.
The group – the Collective – had surfaced and is telling the city that they are here and they want to be involved.
 The artists came from every possible discipline. They met to talk through what the city should include in its Cultural Action Plan – then they had to figure out how to actually control that plan once it’s established. Artists don’t march to the same drummer that the rest of us do – schedules and rules aren’t their strength and it was difficult for the collective to pull together a large number of people.
Because many of the artists were working by themselves they didn’t know many of the people who were doing the same thing. Trevor Copp, who ended up being the leader/spokesperson for the group came up with the idea of holding a Speed Dating event at a local pub. The idea was that people would gather and sit with others for a couple of minutes and then move on to another table and meet someone else. Such is the state of relationship building in this world. It was a good idea, novel and it had the potential to work. But very few people showed up. Copp didn’t miss a step – he chose to see the upside, the bright side and pulled together a meeting that saw less than a dozen people talk about what they wanted in the way of an arts community.
That conversation will get reported on at greater length at another time – what we saw was a group that is thinking this through and while the plan is still in the formative stage city hall now has to work with people who are the arts community – we just didn’t know they were there.
Bureaucrats being bureaucrats they decided to have Copp become part of the Steering Committee that was to fashion a plan out of the data the Freiburger report provided and once a plan is in place, put together a schedule and time frames to implement it.
One of the major beefs the artists had, was that there were no artists on the steering committee. The addition of Trevor Copp and Rosanna Dewey to the Steering Committee that had people who administer funds but didn’t “do” art was a significant step. The challenge now is to ensure that Copp and Dewey don’t get co-opted and turned into bureaucrats. Power can be very seductive.
Dewy is an artist in her own right and part of the Burlington Fine Arts Association, which has a temperament quite a bit different from that of many of the members of the “collective”.
That there is a change taking place in the cultural temperature of the city is evident. Freiburger maintains that the change began with the unveiling of the Spiral Stella outside the Performing Arts Centre – debatable. One of the occasions that signaled the change was the “No Vacancy” event that took place at the Waterfront Hotel.
This was “avante garde” for Burlington and while the event lasted less than four hours and experienced a small loss it brought out people who hunger for depth and maturity in their cultural menu – the No Vacancy – which will take place again next year, showed that it can happen in Burlington and is happening in Burlington.
 Performing Arts Centre Brian McCurdy makes a point with the Mayor. He is making points all over the city as he brings about a different working relationship with the Centre and the city. City Hall and the Tourist people see the arts as something that could perhaps attract people to the city. The Executive Director of the Performing Arts Centre has been in town long enough to have figured out what we have and don’t have and has already shown that his institution is able to be flexible with the performance community.
All good signs – but like a great recipe, there is something to the way you flick the rest to get that meal on the table and make an occasion to be remembered.
Council will meet early in November to get down to the nitty-gritty of spending money – and at the rate this council is spending the artists had better move quickly or there won’t be any left.
With a little luck the artists will be at the table helping people whose experience is in parks and recreation learn how to move beyond swimming schedules and volleyball games to events that stir the soul. Mind you, watching Maurice “The Rocket” Richard put another one past a Toronto goal tender is certainly something to stir the soul.
 October 25, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. There is an ancient custom of ringing the Death Knell as soon as notice of the death of a parishioner reaches the clerk of the church. The Death Knell for the Beachway Park community was rung yesterday afternoon in Oakville at the Regional Council offices.
The beginning of the long end for the Beachway Park community began at a Regional Council meeting Wednesday afternoon.
 They fought hard and there wasn’t any plan to expropriate their homes the Regional government now has a plan to acquire the homes over a period of time and demolish them down to make way for a park. After hours of tortuous motions with amendments and amendments to the amendment the Regional Council votes but it all came down to a vote that did a number of things – none of which are good for the 30 people who live in the Beachway Park.
Regional Council voted to reconfirm the vision of the Burlington Beach Regional Waterfront Park (BBRWP) as a public park in its entirety. That means those 30 homes will eventually get bought by the Region and torn down which broke the hearts of many of the people who have made the place their home.
 The last of the cottages on the water side of the old railway line in the Beachway Park being torn down in 2004. The same may well be the fate of the 30 homes left in the community. The notion that “did the deed” had a sop to the residents – they are going to create a committee that will develop an acquisition/implementation strategy for the remaining privately held properties.
Put crudely – the will work out a way to get these people out of their homes. They won`t be put out of their homes – there will be no expropriation – but there will be a strategy that will offer incentives, long term lease arrangements, alternate property evaluation methodologies and funding commitments.
Burlington and the Conservation Authority will now begin updating the Master Plan for the park.
What the Master Plan will look like; what the acquisition/implementation plan will look like won`t be known until April of 2015.
The residents of the Beachway Park have one thing going for them. If they hang together as a community they can remain there for as long as they wish. If they don`t hang together as a community they will hang individually and that will be the end of a community that has been part of Burlington for more than 100 years.
It is a long, sad story that will get told in more detail at another time. For now the shock of realizing this could be the end, the very end for that community has to set in fully.
 October 21, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. Susan Ford, an Aldershot resident, passed us a note at the end of the City Council meeting last Monday evening (the 15th) asking “why has communication been so poor on this issue if “discussion” has been going on for a year or more? That park belongs to all of us.”
“What a mess” she added. Park area vandalism is not such a big deal. If they are so worried – then heck lets rid of all the parks.”
Brian Coleman wrote and asked why the city wasn’t listing the property so that others who might be interested could buy it. Coleman is of the view that a group of citizens might choose to join forces, raise the money and buy the property and then give it to the city and get a tax receipt.
Peter Menet pointed out that it is likely Councillors will find themselves in contravention of title restrictions, imposed by earlier deeds, should they approve the motion to proceed with the selling of these city lots. Also, there is a strong possibility that these title restrictions exist in perpetuity.
 The owners of the properties between Market and St. Paul Streets are the people who want to purchase the waterfront land that is owned by the city and the province. For this reason, he said it would be prudent of council to review all previous deeds related to these lots. He added that Councillors have not received any information on these city lots that is prior to 1990.
These city lots are shown in the Halton Atlas of 1877 as part of the sub-division of a larger lot, and hence these lots are parts of earlier deeds that more than likely have title restrictions, he said.
He pointed out that title restrictions that exist on the deeds of the nearby lots on Stratheden Drive and Strathallen Avenue. In the late 1940’s the owners of the land that became Stratheden Drive and Strathallen Avenue sub-divided land into smaller building lots, which were sold singularly to individual builders. I know that there are title restrictions on at least two of these lots and I believe that there are similar restrictions on all the lots on Stratheden Drive and Strathallen Avenue.
“Title restrictions exist and it is my understanding that all subsequent owners of the property are bound to them”, said Menet..
Brian Coleman thought a public auction of the land (like closing a road allowance?) so that the city gets the maximum price for the land if it is sold. Also to force all three land owners all to purchase (if only one does the parkette concept is ruined or seriously curtailed) if it comes to that. And the purchase of the MNR land has to be tied into the sale so that the city doesn’t acquire it if it doesn’t sell unless the parkette goes ahead.
Emily Skleryk, a ward 2 resident and an OPP sergeant who unfortunately did not identify herself as such commented that she was not comfortable walking on public land that is unmarked.
Brain Rose, a Beaver Street resident said he saw the whole process as sneaky on the part of the property owners who were demanding the city sell them the land or there would be a court action. He added that he could not find an instance of lakefront property being sold to a private person in the past. He added the refrain that many used – they didn’t know the land was owned by the city.
 James Ziegler proposed a pathway through the properties. Council voted to make it private land. Dean Dunbavin, a First Street resident said the property was one of the best kept secrets in the city and that he was “flabbergasted that you would make these decisions against everything you have in the way of public policy in place.. “Your decision” he added “defies logic.”
 Paul Dunnett who lives on St. Paul had no idea the land belonged to the city. He has been walking his dog out there for 14 years and said the “walkway was a great asset”. “When it’s gone” he said –“ it’s gone.”
Dunnett said he thought the whole future of Burlington was to have waterfront.
Janice Connor, one of the property owners in a house that was built in 1938. Valued in 2012 at $1,927,000 with 100 feet of frontage on Lakeshore Road and an effective depth of 264 feet – before the addition of any of the provincially and city owned land, went after Councillor Meed Ward for not being as forthright as she should have been with the facts and then added that 90% of the people in Burlington don’t go to the waterfront and that “not everyone loves the waterfront”.
 Connell closed her remarks with the comment that she didn’t think keeping the property would benefit the city.
Yikes – there are two statements she will come to regret having put out there.
There can never be a conversation about getting to places in Burlington without a mention of parking – there is none on either Market or St. Paul Street. All those in favour of creating a park agreed that this was to be a small, local walking park that would appeal to the approximately 5,000 people in the immediate vicinity. The land mass is about a third of an acre – it is the view it offers that is precious.
The people at 2414 Lakeshore; 220 St. Paul; 222 St. Paul and 235 Market fully understand this. They know that trees will be put up that will limit their view if a park is created on that land – and that isn’t something they ever want to live with.
There were 16 delegations (11 against selling – 4 prepared to see the land sold ) at the Council meeting– each got a polite hearing but that for the most part is all they got. Few were engaged by council members – there was precious little dialogue. Odd too that Councillor Marianne Meed Ward, whose ward boundary included the property that was being talked about, made very few comments.
She seemed resigned to seeing the opportunity lost and other than correcting Janice Connell over a technical point we didn’t here all that much from Meed Ward, during the delegations
Most of the questions were asked by Councillor Dennis whose ward is immediately to the east.
Some interesting and valid new information was put forward. The number of homes that were within a 1000 metre radios of the land that is to be sold was far more than what Janice Connell suggested at her Standing Committee delegation.
Russ Campbell one of the better Tory thinkers in town said on his Facebook page that : “There is precious little public access to the lake as it is without limiting it even further by selling land the city already owns. Yes, a complicated issue, but one that could have been settled in favour of the residents and not private interests.”
 We heard the word “scandal” used more than once. I don’t see a scandal but I do see a bunch of people elected to represent the interests of the residents not doing their job of informing the public and getting solid feedback. For a senior staff member to admit that the “city did not live up to its usually high standard of public communication” was both a bit of a stretch and embarrassing.
Mike Swartz, one of the property owners, was seen leaving city hall a few days before the Council meeting. One observer who was in the building at the time remarked on the “fix is in” look he wore as he left the building.
Are Council members prepared to say when they met with Mike Swartz between the Standing Committee and the Council meeting and if they also met with the residents who were opposed to the sale of the land?
Don’t wait for the answer to that question.
What’s the rush with all this? A report goes to a Standing Committee on the 2nd of the month and then to council on the 15th and the deal is done? And there doesn’t appear to be any Ontario Municipal relief available to citizens who think this one doesn’t pass the smell test. Others think it stinks.
The Windows on the Lake, that should have been opened up much, much more to the public years ago, are finally going to be put in place. But that is small potatoes – a jewel from the crown that is Burlington is being pried out and sold under what has to be described as clouded circumstances. No wonder Rob Narejko says “this doesn`t pass the smell test”.
What is perplexing is – Why? There was no good reason for this land to be sold. And while some thought the sale would put major dollars into the city’s coffers, a closer look at this deal suggests otherwise.
Look carefully at the map set out below. The land being sold is made up of two parts: land currently owned by the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), which is closest to the water and land owned by the city.
 This graphic sets out the issue. The two pieces of land at each end are owned by the city and will be turned into Windows on the Lake. The piece in the centre is owned by the city and the province. The three property owners want to purchase that centre piece and make it private property. Other people want to see a pathway through the property running from Lakeshore, down Market Street along the waterfront and up St. Paul back to Lakeshore. City council voted t sell the land in the center. The MNR has said it will do whatever the city decides to do BUT the MNR is not going to just give the land to the city. When the land is sold the MNR will surely want their share of the proceeds. Look at that map again – much of it is MNR land. What Burlington is doing to do is buy the MNR land, assemble it with the land it already owns and then sell the assembled land to the property owners that abut the lands.
That’s a lot of legal work being done to satisfy the desires of three property owners. What is the city getting for all the work it is doing? We don’t know – hopefully staff will report to the city before any deal is actually done.
This is really a cock-up of major significance and one would think that it can be prevented. Is a recorded city council vote of 6-1 against a motion the very end of the world? There are people who believe this is an issue that can be taken to the Ontario Municipal Board and have begun to organize their data.
There are a bunch of people on city Council that think the public is going to forget the decision to sell a small patch of prime waterfront property. And they might – publics tend to be that way.
But there just might be a legal initiative on the part of some people who feel this was just a plain wrong decision. It gets a little embarrassing when the Mayor of Oakville – the municipality next door – tweets “Hard to imagine this in Oakville!” Mayors usually stay out of one another’s business but this one as apparently just too good for Oakville Mayor Rob Burton to pass up on.
 Former Burlington Mayor Walter Mulkewich pointed out to possible ward 4 candidate in the next municipal election Brian Heagle that: “… the City sold its soul. Bad decision. Forget the language of park and parkette -think trail and waterfront public access. This is selling out future generations and an opportunity to maximize public access to our waterfront which the goal of the City’s Strategic Plan and Official Plan, Council approved policy – and which Council blatantly disregarded. This decision was not a compromise – it was a sellout. The City Council voted for the private interests of three property owners rather than the broader public without getting anything substantial back in terms of waterfront access. Within the legal complications there could be a way to be sensitive to those property owners and still maintain a unique public access. They did not try. The City should improve Port Nelson window on the lake when they have funds available and not tie improvement of Port Nelson by selling your birthright and that of your children.”
Other than a few people who didn’t fully understand the issue there was really no one speaking for the decision council made. Well there was one: Byron Kaczmarek, who lives east of Nelson Park and therefore not directly affected by the sale of lands, once caught a couple of kids making out in his back yard – that would be upsetting – but is it reason enough to sell the land? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
There are all kinds of issues surrounding this mess that have been left unexplained. There is the legal history the city doesn`t want to make public. Other than tribunals that concern matters of public security and terrorists, judicial decisions in this country are a matter of public record. Anyone who wants to read a decision can get on up to a Court house and obtain a copy.
The Gazette doesn`t have the resources to take on this task – but the city certainly has and in the past has made copies of decisions available. The Air Park case is an example. So why not with the land complexities on the old Water Street property?
And what about the property on the east side where there are several properties that run from the lake up towards Lakeshore. Which ones have property rights? The most southerly property apparently encroaches on city land but no one seems overly concerned about that problem. Councillor Craven, who can get himself worked up into a lather when mention is made of encroachments in Beachway Park, didn’t utter a word about Water Street area encroachments. He did sit through the Council meeting with a grin that would have put the Cheshire Cat of Alice in Wonderland fame to shame. Other than telling the public that “making unclear muddled decisions gets us in trouble” and that we “cannot ignore the reality of the legal history”, which may be true but the public will never know because they have not been told.
Councillor Taylor, Ward 3, made an interesting observation when he said he got 48 emails from people but just one of the emails was from people in his ward. Taylor felt the area had too many parks already and the city should get what it could out of a possible sale.
He, along with Dennison, commented on the massive infrastructure deficit the city is facing. Sell what you can to get as much as you can seemed to be his viewpoint. All to catch up on an infrastructure deficit that was created in the last 20 years while they were serving as a Council member.
Particularly disappointing was the willingness with which Taylor would sell city owned waterfront land while he asks everyone to fight with him to save every square inch of the Escarpment. Councillor Taylor seems to feel he can have it both ways – a position that may well come back to haunt him should a candidate emerge to take him on in the 2014 election. It was a disappointing decision on the part of Councillor Taylor.
Councillor Paul Sharman explained that in ward 5 there were people who had homes adjacent to park land and life for them was terrible. The noise, the vandalism and the litter seemed to have changed the life style for many people. Sharman seemed to want to apply the same set of circumstances to the Water Street properties.
Is Burlington a city where we let our young people take over once the sun sets? Do we not have a police force that is costing us an arm and a leg to operate, that can bring some order to our public property? If we can’t manage these smaller parks whatever are we going to do if the Region strips all the homes out of the Beachway Park?
Far too many Council members seem prepared to just give up on keeping some form of public order in the parks. The role of municipal government is to maintain public order.
Sharman, along with most of the other council members referred to the messy legal history and explained that it was far more complex than the public realized – but, like the rest of Council, he was unprepared to let the public in on that complexity.
Meed Ward does say, without breaking the confidentiality of the Closed Council session, that she feels the legal issues can be worked out.
The Mayor took the position that keeping the land for future use wasn’t necessary because, should the three properties be redeveloped the owners would have to deed to the city a 15 metre set back from the edge of the water which would put that land back into the hands of the city. Neat bit of legal sophistry there –that assumes the 15 metre set back rule will still be in place at some future date. The Mayor saw this as a logical issue and not an ideological one.
This Mayor is certainly not married to the concept of getting as much waterfront land as possible into public hands and keeping it there. We’ve known for some time that the Mayor has gone looking for help in coming up with a vision for the city. We know now just how much help he needs.
For the Mayor it was ideology vs. logic. Public access where it is practical and feasible and the Mayor saw keeping the land as neither practical nor feasible.
 It’s all about the view. The choice was making it a public view or a private view. Money and the fear of a law suite won out – the view ill be private. Why sell the land – just hang on to it or lease it – and where did that $1 a year price comes from? Have you seen those views?
Lancaster seemed torn between leasing the property and selling it. Her comments suggest she would have preferred a lease. She commented that “option # 1 assumes we have a need for these parks and then made mention of the options to preserve the land for future use.”
Lancaster said she was “not of the opinion that we require this parkland currently” (and on that Miss Canada is correct) and then she added that “would we require it in the future” and here she was asking the question that was paramount. The answer is we do not know – but we do have policies that talk about preserving every scrap of waterfront land we can.
This is a Council that worked hard to create a Strategic Plan and works just as hard to consistently fail to adhere to the Strategic Plan they created.
What was interesting and a little disturbing was that Meed Ward chose not to lead much of the discussion at the Council level when delegations were being made. Once her motion to keep the land was defeated and Council went into Closed Session she didn’t say much. Jack Dennison led the debate and was determined to create Windows on the Lake – minimalist at that – and sell the land to the people who wanted to buy it.
Before the vote on her motion however Meed Ward had plenty to say but as she said later – the decision had already been made. She asked her fellow council members if they wanted more waterfront property for their citizens – and all the policies in place say you do – then just hang onto the property.
While Meed Ward was speaking Councillor Sharman, tried to cut Meed Ward off – we call that pulling a Goldring – but she fought back and claimed her 15 minutes. It is both embarrassing and a bit shameful to watch the way Councillors Craven and Sharman treat Meed Ward. The Mayor was the first one to cut her off when she was speaking – but he did change his behaviour and asked the rest of Council to respect the approach different Council members brought to their jobs.
Meed Ward claimed Council was not serving the residents if they let the land go. She added that the silly argument over the $7500 it would cost to take care of the land if it were in city hands was something she could fund from her Councillors budget.
The additional silly part of all this is that any parkette was not going to be developed for at least five years. It didn’t matter – Meed Ward asked for a recorded vote and was the only one to vote for keeping the land.
 The public will get an upgraded Nelson Park and a couple of Windows on the Lake. The great view – private. Councillor Dennison moved a motion to sell the land and that passed. In six months or less we will hear how well the property managers for the city have done with the negotiations to sell the land. If the Freeman Station deal to rent a piece of land is any example – this matter will not be over in six months – more like right smack in the middle of the election in 2014. Heck the deal just might fall apart.
Janice Connell whispered a touching “thank you” to Jack Dennison that looked a little like a kiss being blown across the room. Jack Dennison now has new friends in Ward 2, unfortunately they don’t get to vote in Ward 4 where Dennison needs all the help he can get.
The citizens who lost the debate gathered in the foyer while Council members approached the property owners to congratulate them.
Poor form people, very poor form.
 October 21, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. Burlington has a signage policy and a design standard that is applied to all the signs that get put up throughout the city directing people to different places.
 The city has modern looking, informative signage throughout the city. The design is neat, modern looking and conveys the information more than adequately.
Where those signs get put up and where they don’t get put up is something that has confused many people.
 No city signage on this piece of city owned property. Plans are in place to make a proper Window on the Lake at this location. The two road allowances, one on Market Street and one on St. Paul south of Lakeshore Road have been in place for more than 50 years but there has never been a sign indicating that the property is public.
On the contrary people have gotten away with putting up boulders and driveways on what is city land without city hall doing anything.
 There is excellent signage on Northshore Blvd where there is a Window on the Lake. The city has known about the road allowances for years. The former Waterfront Access Protection Advisory Committee (WAPAC) was the group that in recent times took action to get something done about the way public property was almost being denied to the public – most people who walked in the area did not know the land was owned by the city.
It almost appears as if the city actually wanted it that way.
 Good signage at Sioux Lookout on LAkeshore Road – a short distance from the Market Street and St. Paul Street road allowances that should have been marked as public property. While the sale of the city owned land behind the three homes that front onto the lake is not yet a done deal, the Windows on the Lake are a done deal and the public can expect to see signage and benches in place. Councillor Dennison wanted the benches to be minimalist – like one bench – let’s not encourage people to actually use the space.
The deliberate decision to do nothing to make those road allowances open to the public should shame all members of Council. The Mayor, Councillor Meed Ward and Councillor Craven sat on WAPAC and they were certainly aware of the issue.
It was the hard work of Les Armstrong and his colleagues that got the hard data in place and a document with recommendations in front of city hall. It took more than a year for the WAPAC recommendation to turn into a Staff Report that Council debated last week – but at least a wrong has been righted
The sale of the city owned land has been a very recent issue – one that sort of snuck up on the public. Was it planned that way? If the residents who are looking for a way to get this issue before a tribunal for a fairer loo succeed the citizens of Burlington might win on all levels.
 When the city wants you to go somewhere they put up excellent signage. When there is no signage – could that be because the city doesn’t want you on the property – or could it be because the adjacent property owners don’t want you there? The upside of this mess is that the Windows on the Lake can be created any time now. They don’t have to wait until the land sale gets settled.
Might we see those two Windows on the Lake in place for the spring of 2014?
 THIS STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED.
October 19, 2013
By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. Halton Regional police got a call a t 9:45am, reporting a vehicle floating upside down in the waters of Lake Ontario near Lakeshore Rd and Walkers Line in the City of Burlington.
 The point at which a vehicle went into Lake Ontario. Bottom of Walkers Line. Police and emergency services retrieved the vehicle from the water. At this time, the vehicle is believed to contain a single occupant.
Police have confirmed a deceased male adult was retrieved from this vehicle. The name is being withheld at the request of the family.
 Longer view of Walkers Line south of Lakeshore Road. Vehicle retrieved with the body of an adult male whose identity is not going to be released to the public. At this time no foul play is suspected, however the investigation is ongoing.
UPDATE:
Police found the car 40 metres from shore. Burlington Firefighters entered the water and retrieved the body of the lone driver, a 21 year old Burlington man and brought him to shore, where he was pronounced dead.
Preliminary indications are that this single vehicle collision occurred around 2:00 a.m. It appears that the vehicle, a 2007 Volkswagen, was southbound on Walker’s Line, south of Lakeshore, when it mounted the curb at the dead end, traveled through a small parkette, through a chain link fence and plunged to the lake below.
Walker’s Line was closed south of Lakeshore for 8 hours while the CRU conducted the at-scene investigation. No other occupants were in the vehicle other than the driver.
Due to the impenetrable terrain from shore, conventional methods of recovering the vehicle are prohibitive. Police are working with the insurance company on alternate recovery methods which may include the use of a crane-barge. The car is currently still in the water but has been marked and buoyed by the marine unit. Recovery could take another day or two.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Detective Paul Davies of the Halton Police Collision Reconstruction Unit. He can be reached at 905-825-4747 ext. 5245.
 October 18, 2013
By Dr. Jeremy Hayden.
BURLINGTON, ON In light of the looming cold and flu season, I am interjecting with a brief mention of a promising, true and tested approach to improve one’s health (and I’m talking about thousands of years here folks, not a time frame to take lightly). Granted traveling south for the winter may be the most attractive option, running from those pesky winter viruses and bugs won’t ultimately fix what may already be broken. We all should know that a whole person approach to a healthier more robust system should be first and foremost, yet it’s often quite evident that what we know is best for one self, due to lack of time, motivation, commitment and effort, is, for some, sometimes a lot easier said than done…
Reference to fighting a cold or flu is often a primary focus for many. The immune compromising winter season is one which too often places unnecessary and undue stress on our bodies. One may argue that getting sick or catching colds build the immune system and is beneficial, which to an extent may be true. However wouldn’t you prefer to reap the same benefits by doing so without ever needing to get sick? Within the Naturopathic Medical (and Natural living) realm, the realization of this can be achieved, and often with simple ease; strengthening our innate and adaptive immunity whist keeping happy and healthy throu gh it all. Why position ourselves to have to fight these bugs, when we can utilize and take advantage of their unwanted effects to better our overall health?
Herbal medicine is a practice that will help achieve this common goal
Herbalism is utilized to incorporate the vaccination stimulating effects of cold and flu viruses in order to ramp the immune system while simultaneously building immunity to those pesky cold and flu season bugs. Think of it similar (relative perspective here) to getting a vaccination shot; the bug or virus enters the body, provides a stimulus to our immune system, enough to create a resistance to its current and future presence, yet without the effects of making us sick. Enter the herbal medicine perspective; Cold and flu bugs are inhaled and enter the body day-to-day from those around us who may be infected by a cold or are sick. Specific herbs taken prophylactically allow the body’s immune defenses to become stimulated and build immunity to various cold and flu strains, yet due to the stimulation and balancing effects of concentrated herbals, the immune system is strong enough not to allow these ‘bugs’ to take over and make us sick.
 Herbal medicines are not injected – they are swallowed. Basic facts about herbal medicine for a better immune
Most immune herbals are safe when used as outlined on the bottle.
Little to no contraindications exist when using these herbs (contact a licensed natural health care practitioner if and when in doubt or if complicated health issues may exist)
· Herbal tinctures (liquid herbal form) are often the best option for many people as they concentrate the active constituents of a herb and allow for better therapeutic effect.
· Immune herbals often have long-lasting therapeutic immune effect.
· Liquid herbals are considered food type medicine; they are in whole form, grow naturally, and are unadulterated, but concentrated naturally, so our bodies recognize and utilize them best
· Herbals work well as individual (single herb) extracts, however will work to a greater synergistic effect when combined together
· Look for Canadian companies that represent true certified organic, pure herbal tinctures (all are not created equal!)
Top immune prophylactic herbals are:
Astragalus root, Siberian ginseng,codonopsis, schisandra, reishi and licorice root.
Look for herbal liquid tinctures that contain some or all of the above immune herbals. Effective herbals exist for acute immune compromise as well (existing cold), so don’t hesitate to use an Andrographis, Baptisia, Echinacea, Thuja herbal combination to ‘beat the current bug’ (discontinue other immune herbals until the acute virus has been eradicated). A minimum of three-month prophylactic treatment is always best, however supporting your immune system at any point will help your body remain healthy, build immunity and prevent that nasty cold or flu.
Finding a supplier that is reliable is not always easy in a market that is not that tightly regulated. People in the naturopathic field are always very comfortable recommending products from St Francis Herb Farm
What is a naturopathic doctor? Where an MD focuses more time on pharmaceutical medicine, NDs also study pharmacology and its drugs, however extensive training in natural medicine (such as botanical, Oriental, nutritional, physical, and homeopathic medicine as well as lifestyle, counseling and herb-drug interactions) is adjunctively studied as well. In Ontario, a naturopathic doctors is considered a primary care physicians. NDs cannot prescribe pharmaceutical medications in Ontario as MDs are able to, and are only covered under extended health plans and not OHIP billing, however they are able to employ conventional laboratory testing and diagnostic imaging as necessary.
 Jeremy Hayden, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND). ND is a professional medical designation earned following an undergraduate pre-medical degree and four years of post-graduate medical training at a fully accredited (CNME) naturopathic medical college. All licensed Naturopathic Doctors practicing in Ontario have been fully regulated under the Drugless Practitioners Act.
 October 18, 2013
By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. A pile of clothing sitting on sand at the Beachway Park led Halton Regional Police to begin an investigation and a search in the immediate area.
 Clothing was found in a pile in Beachway Park – police searched land and water – no body recovered and no missing report filed. Along with clothing there was some personal property as well but nothing to identify the owner.
The call came into the police at approximately 10:30 a.m. this morning. The clothing was identified as that of a male.
Officers immediately began a search of the shoreline and called in the Halton Regional Police marine unit to search the lake. They were assisted by members of the Burlington Fire Department, the Hamilton Marine Unit, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Halton Police K9 Unit.
At this time, the land search has been concluded but the search of the Lake is continuing. A body has not been recovered and there is no missing persons report.
 October 18, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. If you have nothing new to say, then don’t say anything at all. The only new idea in this week’s much ballyhooed ‘Speech From the Throne’ is the proposed ‘balanced budget’ legislation – a perfectly idiotic notion. Talk about dumb laws! Is Mr. Flaherty incapable of balancing the budget without a law? Jean Chretien and Paul Martin ran surplus budgets so the Liberals hardly need this. Or, does Mr. Harper really expect Thomas Mulcair to win the next election? I recall how Stephen Harper enacted a four-year fixed-term election law in 2007, then proceeded to break it by calling an election the following year. What a waste of breath!
 As for the promise of matching US prices on goods sold here. Didn’t we learn about meddling in markets from Trudeau’s problematic mid-seventies Anti-Inflation Board? And it is not good politics to promise something you know you won’t be able to deliver – something for which you might be held accountable at the next election. But even if the government managed to match prices, we’d still need to add the dreaded HST onto the Canadian prices – and Harper would need an army of bureaucrats to make it work. And how will Mr. Harper deliver this new initiative when he is freezing budgets and slashing the public service at the same time? Doing even more with even less?
And speaking of frozen budgets, where will the money come to compensate Ontario and Quebec farmers and cheese makers as they become a casualty of the new trade agreement with the EU, which Mr. Harper has just initialed. Sure, the western beef producers are licking their chops in anticipation of all the extra meat they can sell in Europe, but only if it isn’t contaminated with e-coli from Alberta’s XL Foods.
And where will the money to properly fund the clean-up and restoration at Lac-Magantic come from? While the Throne Speech noted that the federal government is reviewing rail transport policies for hazardous goods, it neglected to mention the federal complicity in that disastrous railway accident (see my July 15, 2003 column). And Lac-Magantic, like just about everything else in the Speech, is really yesterday’s news.
 The cost of the clean up of the railway tragedy in Lac-Magantic is going to have to come out of the budget this government is going to have to bring in soon. It’s not that there isn’t an abundance of worthwhile ideas, any one of which would have brought new life to this government at its mid-term. What about a new industrial strategy to rebuild the manufacturing sector in Canada, given the ravages of the last recession, the challenges of uncompetitive exchange rates, and trade policies which too often favour our trading partners? What about action on the environment, which has never been a priority for this government? The couple of lines promising some illusory ‘absolute reductions in greenhouse gases’ is hardly going to convince Mr. Obama that Canada has an environmental plan worthy of him approving the Keystone pipeline.
 It would have been re-assuring for the federal government to commit to ensuring sufficient inspections to finally eliminate the periodic contamination of our meat at processing plants like XL Foods in Alberta, which handles a third of Canada’s processed beef. And if this government wanted to win back the hearts of the middle class, instead of tinkering with cell phone charges and cable TV, the Conservatives might have tried to address the growing inequality in incomes and wealth for Canadians and Canadian families.
Speaking of incomes, what about helping to ensure income security for the growing number of young people passing through their productive years without any provision for their retirement. Despite repeated calls from the provinces, this federal government has refused to modify the CPP, to make it do what it was originally designed to do – provide adequate pensions for the millions of Canadians who will approach retirement without an adequate nest egg. Ontario is mulling the idea of establishing its own pension plan to complement, or perhaps replace, the national CPP. Quebec has been operating its own plan since 1966.
Stephen Harper beetled out of the Senate Chambers on Wednesday and flew to Europe to finalize the EU trade deal the very next day, and so missed the first question period of the new legislative session. The opposition parties wasted no time on the Speech. They were only interested in the juicy details about Senate-gate and the PM’s role. Did he really not know about that whopping cheque his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, had given to Mike Duffy? Proroguing Parliament, the long summer break and a new speech from the throne were meant to help reset the direction of this government as it heads towards the 2015 federal election. And it might have worked if only Mr. Harper had something worthwhile to say, and perhaps if the talented Mr. Wright were still there to help write the speech.
 Ray Rivers, born in Ontario earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario and a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers is active in his community; has run for municipal and provincial office and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 October 16, 2013
By Milla Pickfield
BURLINGTON, ON. New technology, new furniture, new teachers, and new students; everything about Hayden High is new! I sat down with Jacqueline Newton, the principal, to discuss what makes Hayden High so special.
When I first arrived at the school I was skeptical. It’s such a large school with few students, and last year the school I attended lost some really great teachers to Hayden High.
 Hayden High School – named after a prominent Burlington citizen, is part of a three purpose complex that includes a recreation centre and a library. It is always hard when a new school is built. Students leave their friends, legacies are lost, and favorite teachers are taken from many different schools. It’s hard but it also leaves room for change… and change they did. Hayden High is not just different because of its impressive layout or the fact that the morning announcements are done through twitter. Not different because it is attached to a community center which allows them to use the eight large gyms or the library until nine o’clock at night. Hayden High is different because it’s highly interactive with its students.
Every week a poll is organized on one matter or another to get feedback from the students on how they are finding school, how they would like to design one area of the school, or what they want their gym uniforms to look like. Getting feedback from the students is very important to Jacqueline Newton. “We want the kids to build school their way.”
Another way Hayden High is different is the fact that students can rent a Chrome book from the library if they need a device to use. Gone are the days of worry whether your parent’s laptop is free for a school project, schools today provides you a device to work on.
 Student cafeteria with table settings that allow for large groups or just two people – the room looks out over the playing field. But the coolest place in the whole school would have to be the cafeteria! Set up much like a café with varying sized tables, this eating spot allows the students to sit with large groups or with just the one friend. So if you’re feeling like you just want to talk to your best friend and no one else you could choose a two person table instead of a ten person group table.
Of course the school is only as good as its teachers but no worries there, Jacqueline Newton and Michael Gallant interviewed every one of them! “We wanted to make sure that they (the teachers) were excited to work at a new school.” “It was necessary that they knew how to use social media. We even asked the students what questions they wanted to be asked during the interview and used those questions.” Really? How often do teenagers get asked their opinions? Not that often.
Jacqueline Newton took last year to really study in depth how to use social media to her full advantage and that is exactly what she is doing. How many high school students really listen to the announcements (especially when half of them don’t relate to you sometimes)? Now instead of listening to them every morning you can go onto twitter and scroll through them.
Not only is twitter frequently used but so are cell phones, computers, and iPads! When was the last time you heard your teacher tell you to take out your phone in a lesson (for something other than writing down your homework)? Definitely a foreign thought! But at Hayden High this is a regular occurrence. Everything is paperless which means everything is on technology. Textbooks, announcements, even group assignments! You can use Google Docs to all edit a page at the same time!
 Jacqueline Newton and others on the Board really wanted the students to feel comfortable and happy coming to school. Creating a place where kids can be creative and excited was one of their top goals, and I think they succeeded. Even the classrooms are different! There are no rows. The desks are deliberately placed in semi circles or other configurations in hope that this encourages the students to participate and feel more like a community than a sole individual. Getting the students to voice their opinion and feel as if they run a part of the school really sets this high school apart from others.
Gone is the old way of teaching; the new way is through technology and it’s a lot more fun. It reminds me that technology is there to help us innovate, not just help us do old things in a new way.
New is cool, new is frightening, new is possibilities. Possibility is exactly what the staff at Dr. Frank J. Hayden Secondary School have accomplished; the possibility of a new start.
 Milla Pickfield is a graduate of Nelson High school who is freelance writing as well as improving administrative skills before she starts university. The principal of the new Hayden High school was a teacher at Nelson when Pickfield was a student there.
 October 16, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. There was a meeting of the Waterfront Access Protection Advisory Committee (WAPAC) in late 2012 , when Michael O’Sullivan passed around a news clipping that was more than 20 years old that told about the legacy project the Council of the day had approved for buildings that would soar more than twenty storeys into the sky less than 200 yards from the pier. That project should see shovels in the ground early next year. Most people in Burlington are going to be stunned when they see that building go up.
 You wouldn’t know it – but this is public property and anyone can walk out to the end and look over the lake. City will now put signage indicating that the land is public. Great views. It was that same committee, WAPAC, that Les Armstrong and a few others took on the task of walking from North Shore Blvd and King Road in the west to Burloak in the east and looked at every Window on the Lake the city had in place. The contents of that report were a bit of a shock.
In location after location this WAPAC sub-committee found there were situations where private individuals had access to the lake that was public but no one knew the property was owned by the city. There were no signs telling the public that the property belonged to the city. No one has ever explained why there was no signage telling people they could walk onto the property and enjoy the view.
The WAPAC report got passed along to the city and in time city hall produced a report that focused on what many saw as the most egregious example of public property being made to look like it was private and set out to be most uninviting to any public person in the area.
Those properties were at the foot of Market Street, at the foot of St. Paul Street and a stretch of land next to the lake that was between the two old road allowances.
 This road allowance will be tidied up and turned into a window on the Lake. A bench will be put in along with a sign telling the public they can use the space. The report wasn’t a particularly strong document but it did recommend that the city keep ownership of the property. Things didn’t work out quite that way and many feel the city is much the poorer for the decision made last night to sell the property to the three private property owners whose homes abut the city owned land.
 Nelson Park, a long neglected patch of land will get a significant upgrade. The land on the right hand side will be upgraded and allow the public to get to the edge of the water. City parks people were apparently not fully aware of how that land dipped down to the lake. Many were stunned at how quickly the deal was done. The public knew very little about the report and the city did very little to advise and inform people. General manager Kim Phillips did admit that the city filed to meet its usually high standard of informing the public. That “usually high standard” was a bit of a stretch. One of the things former Mayor Cam Jackson did was commission the Shape Burlington report that clearly identified what they called an “information deficit” – and that deficit was clearly visible last night.
But he deal is done. The city will now direct its staff to meet with the property owners and arrange the sale. How much will the property be sold for? You may never know. The people on the buy side of this sale don’t want you to know and it appears as if the city is not going to tell you.
There is more to tell about a meeting at which 16 people delegated with 11 opposed to the sale of the property and four speaking in favour of a sale or a lease.
City council managed to forget about three or four solid city policies and forgot what they set out in their Strategic Plan less than three years ago. Odd because the Mayor trots out portions of that Strategic Plan every opportunity he gets.
This bit of business was poorly handled by a city council that failed to live up to its core principles for reasons that are still not clear.
 If you want to enjoy this view wander out to what is still public property and set yourself down and take in the sunrise or the sunset. Within six months this will become a private preserve. The land will be sold to three property owners whose land abuts proprty that is owned by the city and the province. Burlington has a crest with the motto “Stand By”. Council certainly ‘stood by’ the people who wanted to purchase the property. As for the rest of the public – they get to see a Window on the Lake created with what Councillor Dennison proposed be minimalist – a bench and a sign. Don’t want to really encourage people to use the space now do we?
 UPDATED:
October 14, 2013.
By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. Halton Regional Police have been investigating a tractor-trailer rollover on Harvester Road between Appleby Line and Burloak Drive
 Harvester Road opening Tuesday morning might be delayed if cleanup is not complete: tanker with fuel and diesel flips over. At approximately 8:30pm, Monday evening a fuel carrier transport laden with gasoline and diesel fuel rolled onto its side on Harvester Road near Century Drive. The driver sustained minor injuries and was treated by ambulance. No other vehicles were involved and the reason for the rollover is still under investigation.
A significant fuel spill has occurred as a result of the collision and containment efforts are still underway. The road closure is expected to be significant, and could continue into tomorrow morning
Any witness or person with information is asked to contact Detective Constable Chris Heffernan at 905-825-4747 ext. 5420.
Tuesday morning update:Police, Fire and Ministry of the Environment officials continue to work at the location of this roll over. Investigation of the scene has revealed that spilled fuel may have infiltrated nearby Sheldon Creek. Area residents and their pets are advised to avoid the waterway until the extent of the spill has been fully assessed.
Harvester Rd remains closed in both directions while cleanup efforts continue. It is not expected to reopen for several hours and as a result *will* impact morning commuters at that location (between Appleby Line and Burloak Drive).
 October 14, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. James Ziegler, a 24 year resident of St. Paul Street was one of four people who delegated at a city council committee meeting speaking in favour of the city retaining the land it owns along the edge of the lake between Market and St. Paul Streets.
Ziegler is a detail person, he tends to look at the information put in front of him and interact with it rather than react to it.
After delegating and listening to what he thought were very short-sighted views he sent Councillor Sharman (Ward 5) a note which we set out below along with Sharman`s replies.
I’m writing with regard to Water Street properties and the recent committee meeting on this matter. I’m disappointed the committee’s motion on this matter and intend to provide additional comments and new information to support the merits of a Water Street walkway. Considering the nature of your questions it appears you may have a rather fixed view point and the valuation of this land. By your questions you appeared to be less interesting in considering an alternate point view and more seeking to elicit comments that would support a predetermined position. I believe there was a deficiency in objective facts on the matter and trust that you will listen to these with an open mind.
 You and your colleagues have chosen a short-sighted solution disregarding the need of future generations in Burlington for an expedient answer. I believe you have been bullied by the threat litigation and very narrow minded comments from the landowners. This does not represent the value of a potential park to the general community.
Should the council choose to sell this land, they are acting against several layers of adopted policy and I believe there are grounds for a class action lawsuit on the matter. A course of action I will participate in.
I was appalled by some of the comments of the landowners and some committee members. These statements demonstrated a sour attitude to the general population and lack of faith in the people in our community.
 James Ziegler presented a graphic that illustrated where a paved pathway could be built and the proximity of a pathway to the three houses that abut property currently owned by the city. The property consists of three parcels: road allowances on each end and the old Water Street road in the centre. The city has voted, in principle, to sell the land in the middle. Reason for doing so appears to be financial and some legal history that the city does not want to talk about. This is a sad reflection of the community I live in. Councillor Mead Ward was the sole voice thinking of the value to the public at large about this matter. The paternalistic and condescending comments form Mr. Dennison and Mr. Taylor were a very poor display of public governance. In particular Mr. Dennison pacing the floor behind the chairs as Councillor Ward spoke to her motion could not have demonstrated any more clearly how he was fixated with his position and not willing to listen to any contrary idea. I don’t frequent the proceedings of council but was expecting better. (To be fair to Councillor Dennison, he frequently gets up and paces behind his chair – shouldn’t be seen as a reflection on what is being said or who is speaking.)
There were other citizens in the room for the committee meeting on Oct. 2 who did not rise to speak however they spoke to me afterwards and expressed their displeasure in the tone and attitude of the committee members.
Regarding the merits of a connected pathway, people on a run, walk or bike ride are far less likely to go out to a dead-end requiring them to turn around and follow back to the original line of travel. How many times on a run or walk have you chosen to back track on your route? Likely never or only when circumstances such as a closed path forced you to.
The cavalier comments regarding safety and potential malevolent behavior of some irresponsible people, made by the members and landowners were exaggerations intended to manipulate the argument based on fear. No evidence was presented to support these claims. Yet they appeared to be a significant factor in the decision. Applying the same criteria and comments made by the members most parks or large portions of parks in Burlington and in the Province should be closed to the public. There is no logic or facts to support these arguments. The police that I have talked to on this matter do not see this as a significant security problem. In fact the opposite is more likely true, a short walkway is safer and easier to manage than a dead-end. I have also talked to planners and landscape architects on this matter. The committee decision flies against progressive good community planning.
On the mater of parking for the area, this was a red herring, It completely missed the point, It is a walking pathway. I will present the council a map showing the populations served by the Water Street walkway, within a 1 km range. To suggest we (several thousand people, many in apartments and without cars) have ample opportunity to drive to Spencer Smith park or to crowd into the 50 usable feet of lake edge at Nelson Park to see the lake is akin to the Marie-Antoinette comment, “let them eat cake” People, the general population, need local access to the lake within walking distance of their homes.
I believe you and your colleges have grossly undervalued the significance of adding over 400 lineal feet of public access to the lake, compared to the existing 55 lineal feet of accessible frontage at Nelson park. You and others referred to this as excessive to put two parks between 3 houses. This is misleading to make a measure of scale by counting the three houses. I’m sure you will agree the three houses are much larger than the average size house and lot size in the Burlington core. A better measure would be to look at the real dimensions.
Please reflect on the real motive why you voted against the Water Street walkway and take another look at the matter. As I said at the committee, consider this generation and the next three generations that can enjoy the Water Street walkway. Consider what kind of city you are contributing to. The Vision in this regard should be thought of in terms of many decades not the short term fiscal issues. At the very least leave the land available to a future council with a greater vision for the public welfare. This I use in the true sense of the word, faring well in mind body and spirit.
James Ziegler
 Sharman, the Councillor for Ward 5 responded with: Mr. Zeigler: Thank you for your email. I appreciate your thoughtful and considered argument. I am curious to hear how you feel about Ms. Meed Ward’s position on not acquiring the properties on the Beachway for park, and perhaps even selling vacant lots to private owners? The fact is that there are inconsistencies in all of the arguments, that is normal because the devil is in the details.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman is usually very direct, tends to want to see data that is verifiable and expects to get his way. I understand the higher level motives behind your argument, and in principle I agree. In my experience, in theory everything is practical, in practice it is not. Water Street needs to be resolved now, punting the decision to a future time is simply not helpful. We have parks we don’t maintain. And while I would love to have a path along the waterfront, the properties with riparian rights in the area of Water Street will not allow for further extension of such a pathway.
 Councillor Sharman with Councilor Blair Lancaster. Sharman has dug himself into an ideological argument that he probably cannot get out of. Lancaster liked the sound of leasing the land and might be convinced to change her vote. Each opportunity is evaluated on its own merits. The Water Street properties do not need to kept by the City just to satisfy a higher level ideology. The City policy is clear about acquisition of waterfront property when it is practical and logical to do so. Your view and that of Ms. Meed Ward versus the views of 5 of my colleagues and I are different. It happens.
 Sharman is an avid cyclist. Were he to cycle through the pathway Ziegler proposes he would in all likelihood pause along the path and marvel at the view and tell himself – this is why I am a city Councillor of this city. Besides, I am concerned that the location is so obscure that very few people will actually benefit, apart from the malcontent youth. The proposal is to have two parkettes and to maintain the existing park 200 yards away. That will work quite fine. The City does not need to spend a pile of money to satisfy just a few people. We have bigger matters to address.
Paul
Ziegler probably took in a deep breath after the Sharman response but soldiered on and replied with:
Dear Councillor Sharman: Thank you for your reply. I’ve forwarded your comments to my neighbours. I don’t consider this a matter of ideology, for myself and my neighbours and our families it is a very practical matter. This in not in the realm of conceptual notions. It would be an aspect of many people’s daily lives.
I hope we will be able to convince you that this walkway will be a significant contribution with the potential to be enjoyed by many. I see that you have some challenges to appreciate the importance of creating a 400 ft. walkway. It will be linked to the walk along Lakeshore and the fact that adjacent lands will not be available makes it all the more important to create portions that are accessible.
You may not be a frequent walker or runner so you may not appreciate the value of a linked pathway. I hope my friends and neighbours will help to change your opinion.
James Ziegler.
Later in the weekend Ziegler passed along several of the graphic illustrations he plans to use during his delegation on Tuesday evening.
 There are an estimated 4500 people within a 100 metre radius of the pathway James Ziegler proposes be created along the edge of the lake between Market and St. Paul Street. He then takes on the view that there aren’t that many people in the immediate area who would use the pathway parkette that is proposed and provides a graph to make his point.
Ziegler and his neighbours realize that they face a steep uphill battle. Meed Ward is close to despondent – she just doesn’t see a 4-3 in favour of keeping the land or leasing it. She would need three more votes – the Mayor is a possible, Lancaster is a possible as well. Craven would rather die than vote with Meed Ward and both Taylor and Dennison see the revenue that a sale would being and they want those dollars for infrastructure work.
 Several council members went on about the amount of park space on the eastern side of the city. The Water street property is one of the few areas where parkland can be created. The western side of the city has much more park space. Will these arguments make a difference?
 October 14, 2013
By Gordana Liddell
BURLINGTON, ON. Travel has been different since the tragic attack on New York and Washington in September of 2001. Public safety took on a whole new meaning as airlines in particular increased security which meant a much closer look at the people who boarded air[planes and what they carried on with them. The rules imposed at times seem confusing and some feel perhaps a little silly. Well just what can you take aboard a plane and what should you pack and not pack?
Asha of Burlington asked:
 Harmless in the hands of your sweet Grandmother – but how does security know she’s a sweet little old lady? Recently, my 80-year-old mother’s knitting needles were taken away at airport security. I think it’s ridiculous. She’s a senior citizen. What do they think she is going to do with knitting needles?
Dear Asha,
The first thing to remember is to not take it personally. The airlines and airport authority are only trying to do all they can to ensure passenger safety. They have rules they need to follow – without the option of discretion. It’s safest that way.
Think of it this way if you like: it’s not assumed that passengers will do nothing. Even your 80-year-old mom. This thinking is, what if this person is a psycho? Or what if the person sitting next to her is a psycho and gets a hold of those knitting needles? Or what if she drops them and they roll down a few rows into the hands of the psycho sitting in 3B? Yes…in order to ensure the safety of all those passengers enclosed in that metal tube darting through the sky…everyone is viewed as being a potential psycho.
You just never know what anyone is going to do at any given moment. And normally, people just go about their lives without going ballistic. But if they do go off, it’s usually easy for us to gain some distance. Up in the sky however, this is not possible, and so it is imperative to completely avoid any potential danger.
I realize it seems silly to you, and we are all aware that your mom intended to use the knitting needles to knit. But when she is on an airplane, think of them as eleven inch metal spikes rather than crafting tools. It’s not a public space where we are free to do as we please. There are rules set in place that we must follow and to try and dispute them is pointless.
I once had an enraged passenger come to me because security had turned her away. They would not let her bring her bullwhip on board as carry-on and she was just outraged. She told me it was ridiculous and screamed at me, “What do you think I am doing to do on a plane with a bullwhip? Whip someone?!” I was almost speechless; struck by the simplicity of what she just said…but what had obviously escaped her. I did manage to get out an, “I have no idea.”
And that is the truth. You have no idea what anyone will do, and on an airplane, it’s just best to prohibit any item that might pose any possible danger.
 That September 11th changed the world and certainly changed airline security procedures. Box cutter, bombs in a diaper and a bomb in a shoe are the attempt we know about. Knitting needles in the wrong hands would be lethal. Look at an item in terms of its basic form…not in terms of its use. There is no difference between trying to board with knitting needles or a bullwhip, handcuffs or fuel or box cutters or any number of potentially dangerous things people try and innocently carry onto planes on a daily basis. Nobody thinks the person carrying them WOULD use them for ill intent. But for the safety of others, the WHAT IF must be considered and general rules must be made and enforced.
The next time you or your mom travel and plan to do some knitting on the way, check with the specific airline you are travelling with. Every country and airline has their own security guidelines, and these are constantly being updated.
The smaller, rounder tipped needles as well as the circular knitting needles are usually okay. The smaller and the more blunt they are, the more likely they will pass through security without a problem. Anything sharp and pointy should be avoided as a general rule. Common sense goes a long way.
Once again, don’t take it personally. They are just looking out for everyone’s safety as best they can.
Gordana Liddell is our resident travel writer. She is a graduate of the University of Toronto, a travel industry veteran with nearly two decades of experience as a freelance travel writer, and most recently book editor. She is fortunate enough to live right here in Burlington with her family.
 October 12, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. It usually comes down to the money – you sell what you have if things are kind of tight or you bank a couple of bucks when you’re flush.
 Will this view exist for a couple of families or will it be one that can be shared by anyone who wants to walk down to the waterfront and just sit and enjoy the view. Citizens could be the ones to determine what happens with this land. As Burlington rolls towards putting together its 2013-2014 budget Council knows where the shortfalls are and they know all too well what the tax revenue problems are as well – and they are not good.
The city has a serious shortfall on the Industrial, Commercial, Institution side that can get made up in a couple of way: raise the residential, cut costs or find new money and that property on the edge of the lake between Market and St. Paul Street looked really tempting – so tempting that they took the opportunity to sell that land and ideally use some of it to offset that massive underfunding on the infrastructure.
Two of the strongest proponents for selling the land are guys that have been on Council for more than 20 years each – they need to take some responsibility for the infrastructure deficit – they let it build up.
Having done that they are now prepared to sell of lake front property and hide behind the argument that the city doesn’t need another park in that part of town.
There was once a very strong community organization called SOW – Save our Waterfront. They had more than 2000 members who paid to be members of the organization.
 Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has always worked with groups of people in the community. Here she works with some of the Friends of Freeman Station. It was her initiative along with support from Councillor Lancaster that put a top to the city selling the building for scrap. Freeman Station was saved – can Meed Ward do the same with part of the waterfront. If there was ever a time to get out that crowd and make their views known to this city council this is it for that crowd. The fight to keep the land is being led by Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward. SOW was very much a part of her election as a city councillor. They were a force to contend with – do they have anything left?
This council will fold if 50 people protest – get 500 down to city hall and one might well see a different outcome.
We are into a lovely fall weekend, the weather is going to bless us and one of the days is called Thanksgiving Day.
Some on Council might be thankful that this little windfall of a property sale of prime city has come along and can solve the serious budget short fall for which they will choose to be thankful. Others in the city might use the Thanksgiving Day to talk to neighbours and friends and ask each other – is this what we want.
The public is seldom wrong. There is an opportunity to plan and then present yourselves to the people you elected and let them know what you want.
You can also do that by doing nothing. That too will be a message.
Part 1 of waterfront property sale background
Part 2 of waterfront property sale background
Opinion
 October 12, 2013
By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. Police need more information to solve hit and run incident that took place Thursday afternoon when an 85-year-old Burlington woman was struck by a vehicle while walking across the parking lot at the Lakeside Plaza located on Lakeshore Road between Kenwood Avenue and Hampton Heath Road in Burlington.
The collision occurred within the parking lot north of the main Lakeshore Road entrance in the southbound lane. The vehicle failed to remain at the scene of the collision.
The impact caused the pedestrian to hit her head off the ground causing serious head injuries. The female was initially taken to Joseph Brant Hospital but was later transferred to a trauma centre where she is in serious but stable condition.
Police are seeking information from any witnesses to the collision, or witnesses that came to the aid of the injured pedestrian. Witnesses can call the Halton Regional Police Collision Reconstruction Unit at 905-825-4747 ext 5065, or call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637 (Crimes).
 October 10th, 2013
By Ray Rivers
BURLINGTON, ON. One thing for sure about civil war is that it is never that – civil. Whether we look back to the US civil war, Northern Ireland, Russia’s Chechnya, Rwanda, Syria or Sri Lanka, these conflicts were/are bloody and deadly. There is something deeply personal about these family feud conflicts which engenders a certain zeal and passion, bringing out the worst in human-kind, and making human rights the first and last casualties. So even after the fighting is over, the war continues, as the victor seeks to extinguish the lingering flames of revolution.
 Tamil Tiger – the political disruption has been going on for a long, long time. Canada now has the largest number of Tamil’s outside Sri Lanka. Our prime minster is right to be outraged with the magnitude of what is still going on in Sri Lanka. But the conflict in that country is complicated, as is always the case. Sri Lanka is a bilingual nation, not unlike Canada, and the Tamil quest for independence should make us all appreciate how close we came back in 1970, when our own terrorist Tamil Tigers, the FLQ, threatened the unity of this nation. Recall that Trudeau, too, had been criticized for violating human rights by introducing the ‘War Measures Act’ which effectively disposed of the FLQ. Like Sri Lanka, our issues of national unity also have their origins in the ashes of a well-meaning British colonial rule.
Canada, as a modern developed nation, has a dominant position in the British Commonwealth and is also a significant source of funds for the organization. So what we do and what we say should matter. And if it doesn’t, perhaps we are not saying it effectively. Leadership is about getting others to follow you, and so far Mr. Harper is alone in boycotting the next Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka. So what is behind his strategy?
If we take Harper’s statement at his word, that this is all about human rights, then why was he just in Malaysia, concluding a big deal with those human rights violators. In fact, if he were really that pious about human rights he might want to avoid the US, which is still operating its former torture facility in Cuba. And, perhaps he needs to reflect on his own ‘glass house’ before casting stones, since it is likely the UN will be weighing in on human rights offenses alleged by our own aboriginal population.
But will it make a difference? Will Sri Lanka stop its human rights violations if the PM boycotts the meeting? Trudeau and Mulroney played a key role in eliminating Apartheid in South Africa by engaging the rest of the membership, showing leadership and being there. Can we really improve human rights in Sri Lanka by ‘taking our ball and staying home’?
One of the purposes of the Commonwealth is to deal with issues like this between and within member nations. There are committees, such as the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, where joint action, as was the case of South Africa, could be initiated. Options include sanctions and expulsion of the delinquent nation form the Commonwealth. If anything, the PM’s presence, not his absence, is what is most needed.
 The Commonwealth of Nations: Has Prime Minister Harper given up on this lot? It may be poor advice from the bureaucrats at the foreign affairs office which is driving the PM in this confusing and ill-conceived direction. Or it might be something else – such as political opportunism. The Tamil-Canadian population has grown to over a quarter of a million since the early 1980’s, making Canada home to the largest number of Tamil Diaspora. The majority of this immigration settled in and around Toronto, an area the federal Conservatives would love to own after the next election. And this PM is not afraid to use Canada’s international policy to try to attract voters to his party, as we have seen by his unquestioning support of Israel’s war actions since he first came to office.
 If Harper is saying he’d rather stay home than be at the table with a single errant Commonwealth member, then why not just quit the British Commonwealth all together? There will always be errant members. But Stephen Harper is unlikely to do that, the staunch monarchist that he is. After all he renamed our military ‘Royal’, replaced the maple leaf with old British motifs, stuck the Queen’s picture in all our foreign embassies, and is loath to remove the oath to the Queen. So perhaps the Commonwealth is just not good enough for our revisionist PM. Perhaps he’d prefer to bring back the good old British Empire.
 Ray Rivers, born in Ontario earned an economics degree at the University of Western Ontario and a Master’s degree in economics at the University of Ottawa. His 25 year stint with the federal government included time with Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and the Post office. Rivers is active in his community; has run for municipal and provincial office and held executive positions with Liberal Party riding associations. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
 Part 2 of a two part article on the selling of waterfront property
Part 1
Salt with Pepper – Opinion
October 8, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. The public now has a fuller picture of what is at risk in the possible sale of land it owns on the lake’s edge between Market and St. Paul Streets, south of Lakeshore Road, where there is a patch of road that was the old Water Street road allowance. Water Street was once the city’s most southerly road.
Council was working from a Staff Report that came as the result of a Staff Direction Ward 1 Councillor Meed Ward asked for in 2012. That direction was to: Direct the Manager of Realty Services to report back to the Budget and Corporate Services Committee regarding the portion of Water Street located between St. Paul Street and Market Street providing the background and history and options available to the city. Staff came back with three options
Option #1: Create a city parkette: connecting the St. Paul Street and Market Street road allowances.
Option # 2: Develop Windows-on-the-Lake at St. Paul and Market streets and retain ownership with an exclusive lease to the abutting landowners until required for public use.
Option # 3: Develop Windows-on-the-Lake at the foot of Market and St. Paul streets and dispose (sell) of the Water Street parcel.
 The graphic sets out the land that is under discussion by city Council. The piece in the middle is what residents abutting this land want to buy from the city. The pieces on the left and the right are road allowances the city also owns. Option #1 would have the city purchasing Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) portions of the waterfront between the St. Paul’s and Market Street road allowances and using that land along with the old Water Street road allowance to create a new waterfront parkette. The residents who paid for the sea wall that was built some twenty years ago were to be paid for what they spent.
Option # 2 would be to preserve land for future public use by purchasing the MNR land and retaining ownership of the land the city already owns then entering into lease agreements with the owners that abut that land. The two pieces of land on the east and west sides would be turned into Windows-on-the-Lake.
Option #3 would dispose (sell) of the Water Street land and still develop the Windows-on-the-Lake on the East and West sides of the site where the city owns the road allowance.
As is the practice in Burlington, the public can delegate and give council their views on the report being considered.
 Bob Wingfield, a long time Burlington resident There were four delegations: Bob Wingfield speaking for Burlington Waterfront, a community group that works out of the offices of ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward, James Ziegler, a 24 year St. Paul Street resident, Janice Connell and her husband Mike Swartz who live on Lakeshore with property looking out over the lake and Byron Kaczmarek who lives several doors east of Nelson park and has no financial interest in what happens to the land being discussed. He did have very strong views on the kind of behavior at Nelson Park.
Bob Wingfield brought that solid conservative typically Burlington approach to the issue and suggested that the objective should be to give the public all the access possible to the lake. He spoke of unimpeded access which has not been the case for many, many years. “The public does not know they can walk to the water’s edge on some pieces of property the city owns. There are no signs indicating that the property is public.” At the foot of St. Paul there is a large boulder with a street number on it leaving the clear impression that this is private land. The old Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory Committee did a survey of every piece of land the city owns from King Road through to Burloak and put on the public record how many instances there were of the public being kept off land they had a right to be on.
Wingfield was for option 1, keep the land and developed it into a parkette – although not in the immediate future – perhaps five years or more into the future. Wingfield said he could live with option 2 which was to lease the piece of land in the middle and create windows onto the lake at Market and St. Paul Street. Wingfield wanted to see public access capacity the lake’s edge grow. He felt the current land owners should not be disrupted and that change should come about in an orderly manner which he saw as expansion over the passage of time.
At least one of the property owners actually encroaches on city land – these are very minor encroachments but encroachments nevertheless.
Mayor Goldring asked what Wingfield thought the timing of bringing the property into public use might be. Three to five years perhaps. ”What`s wrong with today” asked the Mayor.
Councillor Dennison didn’t see it that way and made the bold statement that there was never going to be a waterfront trail through the area. The best option for the city, he said, was to sell the land between the road allowances to the owners of property that adjoins it and develop public spaces at the ends of the road allowances.
The property owners loved that idea.
 The Swartz/Connell residence is the only one of the three properties that abut the city land along the waterfront that runs from Lakeshore Road right through to the lake. The other two properties have houses between them and LAkeshore Road. Janice Connell whose property adjoins the city owned land delegated for herself and the other two property owners who are directly impacted by the purchase or lease of what is now city and provincially owned land.
Connell’s complaint was of the nuisance and noise that came from rowdy young people who did whatever you can imagine at the bottom of St. Paul particularly but at the bottom of Market as well.
She made reference to the graffiti – and there is some. Very little actually and it isn’t visible unless you are on the water. She complained that because the land is not visible from the street it doesn’t get decent police patrol. Wouldn’t take much more than a letter to the police from the Mayor or the city manager to solve that problem. Get the police officers out of their cars and do a walk around – it’s not more than 125 yards overall.
 Janice Connell spoke for herself and her neighbours at the council committee meeting last week. The neighbours are seated behind Ms Connell Connell told the Committee that someone was once skate boarding along the top of the breakwater. Actually skateboarding? That is a massive stretch. I walked that stone breakwater and it is quite a drop to the water’s edge. It is literally impossible to skateboard over the ground. I had some difficulty walking without stumbling. It is a very significant drop from the top of the breakwater to the lake and when you get to the bottom there are a lot of rocks. The height down however is less than a drop from the pier and a heck of a lot less than a drop from the edges of Kerncliffe Park.
What Connell/Swartz did was raise every hairy dog argument they could find to push their point – which by the way is their right. They want that property and they will argue as hard as they can to convince this council to give it sell it to them.
The argument that there are no site lines to any parkette is true – there are many park places in this city where there is not clear site line. However, this is a very small area – less than a 200 yard walk from one side to the other. It would give police officer a little exercise and fresh air to get out of their cars and walk the area each time a cruiser is on patrol. It would also give the police officers an opportunity to take in the wonderful view that the three property owners enjoy every hour of every day.
When one is making an appeal you put the best face you’ve got forward and the property owners chose well. Connell was perky, spoke well, and was able to get a chuckle out of council on occasion. She felt “blessed” to live where she lives. The money to be able to buy the property didn’t hurt either. She answered the questions and gave very detailed answers to questions and put her own spin on the answers she gave. She was good at it – that’s why she was chosen to be the front person. Advertisers do that all the time – put a pretty face out front and use the words and the images you need to make your point.
Early in her presentation Connell said that the old Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory Committee created the notion that this was public land and traffic increased considerably. That the land is public was not a notion – it is a fact. For many years no one knew that the land was public – and the property owners loved that. Their neighbour, James Zeigler pointed out that for years these people had the use of the land without paying as much as a penny.
Connell told Council that “three or four nights of every summer evening we would call the police”. She said she thought it virtually impossible to secure with a fence
“One of the things that hasn’t been calculated” explained Connell, “ is the potential cost of a court case – because that’s what the landowners would probably end up doing – not that we want to.”
 Janice Connell after delegating to city council i committee – She thinks she just might have nailed it! In closing Connell said, “we really want to buy this land” and leasing is really not an option”.
Meed Ward wanted to know what the grounds for a court case would be. Connell wasn’t prepared to take that one on – so she asked if her husband could speak. Out came the big guns: Mike Swartz a very, very successful banker made it very clear that the property owners were prepared to bring in legal counsel which they had already retained – and who might have been in the Council Chamber taking it all in.
 Mike Swartz, delivering a very hard message to city council. We don’t want to sue but we will if we have to. They have already retained legal counsel. Swartz said, when asked what the grounds were for a court case: “I would never divulge that at this time but you have to understand that we that we do have significant monetary and historical arguments that could and would be presented.” He added that the rationale exists to solve this tonight in a very equitable basis for everyone involved.
That solution – sell us the land.
There it was – the chilly wind of a court case had been put out there and if Connell’s mention was not enough her husband Mike Swartz drove the point home.
James Ziegler delegated next. He has lived on St. Paul for 24 years and he was for keeping ownership of the land in the city’s hands and perhaps leasing it to the three houses that abut that piece of the property. He was for not selling the city property even though if it were turned into a parkette with a trail through it everyone who used the trail would walk or bicycle by his house on St. Paul.
 James Ziegler;er. a resident whose property does not abut the land under discussion but who does live on St. Paul Street along the road allowance produced a map showing where he thinks the city should put in a walking path that would run through the road allowances and the property that some residents want to purchase. Ziegler wants as much public access as possible. In comments made after his delegation Ziegler said “I’m glad the committee agreed to the windows to the lake on Market St. and St. Paul Street. I also appreciated that Councillor Mead Ward made the motion and spoke to option one – keeping the land and developing it into a parkette.
“It was unfortunate that most of the other members were unswayed by the presentations and comments of city staff and that they could not at least preserve the Water Street lands for a future council to consider. They appear to be entrenched with the status quo and fearful of the threat of litigation by the two land owners.
“It’s a lack of vision for the long term public good driven by near term financial conservatism ruled by the 0.1% of the population. Unfortunate also for the many thousands of other citizens of Burlington within walking distance of the former Water Street road allowance who could have enjoyed a larger view to the lake.”
After all the delegations Council let itself begin to believe that the city didn’t need any more parkland in the area – that there was more than enough with Nelson Park just three houses over from St. Paul, the most easterly street.
 Nelson Park isn’t a very big park and comes nowhere near meeting the needs of the community. Were one to look at City View Park and the park the city wants to see developed in the Beachway – what exists at Nelson is puny.
But the need for a new park was not the issue. Hear how your council failed to grasp what the issue really is. Councillor Sharman said this was “an ideological issue”, suggesting that Meed Ward has an approach to what the long term future of the city is about that is not in sync with what most people in Burlington want.
Mayor Goldring chimed in a few minutes later and agree that it was an ideological issue.
Meed Ward kept pointing to the regional Official Plan, the city’s Official Plan and the Strategic Plan as well. Mayor Goldring managed to find a way to explain that the city didn’t have to worry about getting more waterfront land in the future because if there ever was any development along the edge of the water the developer would have to dedicate some of land being developed as a park allowance.
Councillors Dennison and Taylor let themselves get tied up with the costs that might be involved. There is a very, very minimal cost to the city to keep the land – maintenance, $7500 a year, which Meed Ward said she could fund out of her Council expense account.
Dennison mentioned several times that the homes have been in place for 90 to 100 years – and perhaps they were. Certainly not in the name of the same owners.
 Part of the problem with the debate was that the Staff Report left something to be desired. This issue has never been one that staff was welcomed; they saw the issue as a major mess that was going to get dumped on their desks.
Staff was certainly for retaining the land – they just knew that when it gets really tough the crap is going to land on them because the majority of Council is not prepared to make the hard decisions.
In 1985 a Burlington city council approved the building of a 22 story building right on the edge of the lake where the Riviera Motel was located. They will break ground for that structure late this years or early next and Burlington will see three building on Lakeshore that rise 22, 8 and 7 storeys high. At the time, back in 1985, the project was to be a legacy for the city.
Things change and no one can say with any certainty what Lakeshore Road will look like 50 years from mow. A number of people, most with vested interests in obtaining the property or not wanting to see a park in the area said there would never be a trail along the water’s edge in that part of the city.
The existing Waterfront Trail and the Bruce trail suggest that kind of thinking just doesn’t hold up.
There was next to nothing in terms of cost to the city, there are millions ($9.7 million to be exact) in the city’s Park’s Reserve fund.
With delegations done Council members get to ask staff questions on the report that was being debated.
Councillor Dennison had put a cost of $2 to $3 million dollars as what this was going to cost the city. Meed Ward asked staff if this was the number they were using. Ron Steiginga, Manager Realty Services, responded with “that is not our number”.
This issue is mired with all kinds of legal history, most of which Council was not prepared to share with the public. There was a Court case some time ago where a purchaser sued a buyer of property in this immediate area and a Judge rendered a decision that has really muddied things. Decisions in Court cases are public and the city has these decisions – they, for reasons of their own, are not prepared to share the information they have. That kind of information management makes it very difficult for residents to make an informed decision.
After listening to the delegations Meed Ward put forward a motion to have the city go with the first option which was to not sell the land but to develop it as a parkette. Meed Ward explained that she considered option # 2, leasing the land, but felt the issue had to be dealt with now to at least give the property owners some clarity as to just what they have and don’t have and what they can expect from their city.
With the motion on the floor Councillor Sharman, who was chair of the committee, moved that Council go into Closes Session to hear what the city lawyers had to say. They were in closed session for close to an hour and were fully briefed on what past legal history was all about.
One of the things about decisions Judges make is they can be appealed and changed. You the public have no idea what these decisions are – but you can bet your very last dollar that the people who have said they are quite prepared to sue the city and force them to sell the land, have copies of those court decisions. They have the financial means to get copies of the transcripts of the trials and the legal talent to explain what the options are and where there might be some loopholes.
It was easier for this city council to take the position that the city doesn’t need another park in that part of the city and even if they did – the city doesn’t have the money needed to put in another park.
Their position was to upgrade Nelson Park, make the road allowances at the foot of Market and St. Paul Windows on the Lake, which should have been done years ago, and hope they can get away with it.
Once Council was out of Closed Session Dennison announced that he had an amendment to Meed Ward’s motion. There was a procedural kafuffle that called for Council to vote on the Meed Ward motion first and then the Dennison amendment.
Meed Ward lost her motion – six to one. No one else voted with her.
That then put the Dennison motion on the table which was to sell the land and do a little work on the Market Street and St. Paul Street road allowances.
The Mayor didn’t think the park was necessary at this point in time.
Councillor Craven claimed he was a big supporter of parks and reminded council that “muddled decisions get us in trouble”. He reminded Council that “we cannot ignore the reality of the legal history” and then pointed to the problems at 710 Spring Garden Road where there are parks right next to private property which creates all kinds of problems in his ward.
Craven saw this as a “unique and isolated” piece of property and said there was “no hope that we are ever going to connect this to some other piece of property” For Craven putting a parkette in this space was impractical and cumbersome.
Councillor Taylor saw the issue a one of how many parks does a neighbourhood need. He said he doesn’t know of any other section of the city where there three parks within six houses of each other – which is stretching the reality somewhat.
Taylor also reminded Council that there was a massive ($160 million) infrastructure deficit facing the city and that we have just five years to figure out how we are going to manage this.
His position was that he could not support a park now or in the future and was going to support the Dennison motion and get something for the land.
Councillor Lancaster said the Meed Ward motion assumed there was a need for the parks. She said she understood the need to preserve the land for the future and thought that leasing the land was a reasonable solution.
When staff was asked Rob Peachey, Manager Facilities, Parks and Recreation said he believed Burlington should preserve the land for the future. He added that development patterns frequently change and there might at some point be a continuous path along the water’s edge.
The issue of intensification came up – many said it was not likely to happen in that part of town when it is already happening. The two-plexes that exist on St. Paul have been upgraded to four plexes – that sounds like intensification to me – and – just a little further east on Lakeshore Councillor Dennison has a case going to the OMB arguing for the right to severe a piece of his property into a second lot he will sell. Sounds like intensification to me.
Vandalism and noise came up again and again. Councillor Sharman said Council has no influence on the way people behave and that he didn’t think Council had the right to make a decision that was going to make the lives of the people in the old Water Street part of the town miserable.
Meed Ward countered with “we cannot let the behaviour of some of our young people determine how we use our parks resources”.
So there it was a 6-1 vote with Meed Ward once again standing her ground d. The issue comes to city council on the 15th for a final vote.
James Ziegler is apparently not a man to trifle with nor does he appear to give in easily. He intends to prepare revised drawings and have some of his neighbours attend and delegate.
Ziegler is trying to dig out police reports on just how many complaints there have been about behavior at Nelson Park as well as at the other Windows on the Lake in the city.
One group has recommended any city decision to sell the land be challenged with a class action law suit on the grounds that the city has failed to follow its own policies, the regional policy and failed to act in the public good. That would be an interesting argument and apparently there is someone prepared to fund some lawyer to take the case.
Zeigler sees any decision to sell any of the land as a short-sighted decision depriving the citizens of their rights to improved access to the lake one that effects many future generations.
Council can expect to see a map showing the lineal footage of lake view that a Water Street park would provide compare to the available footage of the other access points along lakeshore east of the downtown. This will show that is it not such a small park.
Expect to see a population map showing the numbers of households and estimated population within a 2Km distance of the park. Expect to see a drawing showing some actual dimensions. Committee was told this was a small park between three houses leaving a false impression. The “houses” are mansions with very large lots.
This fight is not over yet.
Where is the old Save our Waterfront group in all this? They were said to be several thousand strong with representation in every ward in the city. Will we see them out in force?
What I found interesting about the way this committee meeting went was how Council members took the word of Connell/Swartz as if it was all perfectly true and completely factual. This is not to suggest they were lying – they were giving their version f the truth. I want to suggest there are other versions of the truth out there and that this city council needs to hear and respond to those other version as well and not be quite so quick to sell city land that wealthy people want.
Somehow during a few hours on a Wednesday evening of last week, city council lost their way and went along with the selling of the property when there was no pressing reason to do so.
What was particularly disappointing was that the two most senior members of council, Taylor and Dennison, men with 22 and 20 years at the council table, voted to sell the land. One would have hoped that they, of all people, would have understood the thinking and feelings the people of Burlington have for their waterfront. Perhaps that many years as Council members had addled their brains. Term limits begin to make sense.
The matter will come to a city council meeting for final approval. Perhaps there will be enough phone calls and emails to bring this council to their senses.
Councillor Meed Ward stood alone in voting for either keeping the property or leasing it out to the residents until the city figures out what it wants to do.
Rob Peachey, Manager Facilities, Parks and Recreation told the old Waterfront Advisory Committee that waterfront access was not his favourite file – now we know why.
 October 10, 2013
By Staff
BURLINGTON, ON. If you hustle hard enough, if you promote and promote and promote marketing objectives can be met.
 700 people – a networkers idea of heaven – all at the Performing Arts Centre Thursday evening. James Burchill has done that with his Social Fusion Network and has managed to get more than 700 people to register for his trade show event taking place at the Performing Arts Centre this evening.
Was it the $500 cash prize he put up? Was it the opportunity to meet with 700 people in one location without spending a dime? Or is it that Thursday is just a quiet day and there was really nothing else to do in town.
Whichever, it will be interesting to see how much buzz there is in the room this evening. The guy has done something right.
 A two part series on the selling of waterfront land owned by the city
Part 1
Part 2
October 7, 2013
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON. Our city Council is adrift. They have lost their way. Six of the seven council members, the ones that talk about the jewel on the lake and the need to give the public access to the lake, last week put up their hands to approve, in principle, selling waterfront land to a very small group of residents.
 A portion of the land at the foot of St. Paul Street that city council wants to sell the private property owners instead of putting in a park they say the community doesn’t need. These Council members have lost sight of one of the guiding principles behind every policy the city has – save as much of the waterfront as possible, stop the quarrying on the Escarpment and keep highways out of north Burlington.
This Council is prepared to basically obliterate a functioning, albeit small, community to create a massive park but seems prepared to actually sell of a small strip of land that is right next to the water. It’s not a very long strip of land but it is land, and as a Texas land owner once said: “Sister, don’t give up the land. They are not making land anymore.” But your city council doesn’t see it that way
 Despite layer upon layer of policy from the province, the Region and city hall – this Council decided they should sell the property to the three residents who want to buy.
In selling the land the city is selling the birthright of every citizen and that of all future citizens. They are not selling the blood of the city – they are selling the bone marrow, for once that land is sold it will take more guts than anyone in this city has ever had get it back. Burlington will be forever changed – all because six people you elected don’t feel the city needs another park.
Councillor Taylor said the city already has enough parkland. Not in that part of the city, but that’s not the point. There is a large goal, a larger objective and that is to get as much of the lakefront land in the hands of the city so that it can be made available to the public.
There is nothing wrong with people owning property on the lake front. They bought and paid for it and it is theirs to use as they wish. At some point that property will be back on the market and the city can, if it so chooses, look for ways to add to the land bank that will at some point in the future allow for more space for people to walk along the edge of the lake just the way they do now walk along Spencer Smith Park and the way they go out to the pier – in droves.
The Pier – remember – it was the “Mistake on the Lake”; hundreds wanted it torn down. Today there is hardly an hour of the day when people aren’t out there.
The trail through what is now Beachway Park – that was once a railway line. In the early 1900’s few would have thought the rail lines would be torn out and a walking path put in.
 The issue is the portion shown as parkette. The city had three options: keep the land and develop it as a parkette, lease the land to adjoining property owners until the city decides on its long term use or sell the land. The want to sell it. We kept hearing people say that there would never be a real waterfront trail along all of the edge of Lake Ontario. Perhaps not in our lifetimes – but if the city keeps the land that it has and adds to what it has over time this city might have a waterfront like that in Chicago.
The Bruce Trail started out as an idea and look what they’ve done with that vision.
The issue is less than half an acre of land – but like everything about property it is location, location, location.
To vote to sell this strip of land is to forget about what Burlington is all about. Should the vote done at Committee be approved at Council on the 15th a part of the waterfront we now own will have been lost for a very long time, probably forever – because six clowns chose to forget what the city is really about – the waterfront.
|
|
