 By Ray Rivers
October 6th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
To cook live lobsters you place them in a large pot of cold water and set the pot on high heat. The lobsters may be confused at first by their new surroundings, but being crustaceans, they always try to remain positive. You can barely hear them as they discuss their recent travels and the interesting things they witnessed under sea before crawling into that darn trap.
In a matter of minutes they will begin to feel their environment heating up and the lobster chat quickly turns to lobster screams of panic – hey somebody get me the heck out of here. But eventually the screaming stops as the inevitable befalls them – and soon they are ready for the garlic butter.
That’s us, without the garlic butter. Of course we can’t say with certainty that climate change wouldn’t have happened anyway. The greenhouse effect is really just a theory after all. But given all the evidence, and in the absence of a better rationale, it can’t logically be denied. We’re in the lobster pot and the heat is on.
 Hurricane Maria smashed into Puerto Rico years ago – they have yet to recover. Take hurricane Maria which smashed into Puerto Rico last year leaving over 4000 people dead and over 90 billion dollars in damages behind its brief visit. That is almost the entire annual GDP of the small US owned island. And here our own Doug Ford was off in Calgary this week lecturing Albertans on the evils of a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gases. That would be because it has increased the price of gasoline by so little that nobody even noticed when Ford killed the provincial cap and trade carbon tax.
We can’t afford a carbon tax but we can afford the mounting costs of insurance and property taxes. There is the inevitable bail-out for communities like Ottawa and Gatineau, once the bills are in for the damages from their most recent spontaneous twin tornadoes. How much was spent helping people recover from Burlington, Toronto and Calgary’s floods a few years ago?
 The Don River overflows in Toronto. It’s not that Ford and his disciples are necessarily stupid and/or shortsighted. It’s that they’re clearly incapable of comprehending complex matters, like the science behind climate change and sound economic policy. Alternatively, they are being deceitful and playing a very dangerous political game with our lives and our future.
Contrary to his stump speech, the carbon tax is not the absolute worst tax for Canadian families and it does not make everything more expensive. It is a selective tax that increases the cost of using fossil fuels, making safer alternatives more attractive. And it is revenue neutral. A well-designed carbon tax is virtually cost-free to society since the money collected for using carbon is rebated to taxpayers. And those who end up using fewer fossil fuels become the real winners, with extra cash in their pockets.
Mr. Ford might do well to read a newspaper once in a while. He would then have seen that seventeen of the 18 warmest years over the almost 140 years (since we started recording global temperatures) have all have occurred since 2001. And 1998 was the 18th. 2016 ranks as the warmest rising almost one degree Celsius.
Donald Trump is the king of all climate deniers but even his own government has estimated that if we continue to use fossil fuels the way we do, the earth’s average temperature will skyrocket by 7 degrees before the turn of the century. If you thought this year’s storms were bad, wait till you see what 7 degrees will do to that tree in your front lawn. And America promises to be one of the hardest hit by the effects of climate change, ironically.
 Bold words. Mr. Ford has promised to bring forward a climate change mitigation plan of his own sometime this autumn and one can only imagine what that might include. The UK and France have set 2040 as the year in which all gasoline and diesel vehicles will be banned. China and Germany, which arguably invented the motor car, are also developing guzzler phase-out plans. India has set an aspirational target of 2030 and Norway of 2025. So what about Ontario?
Ford is clearly blowing smoke when he says that a carbon tax is the absolutely worst tax. Perhaps he hasn’t heard about the highly regressive HST, which allows his government to gouge us eight cents on the dollar for just about everything we buy, sell and re-sell. Since he cancelled cap and trade and the extensive rebates of the former Liberal government, Ford is now sitting on over a billion big ones which can only be spent, by law, on helping to reduce carbon emissions.
Why doesn’t our ‘Billion Dollar Man’, who hates the worst taxes, just eliminate the provincial portion of the HST for electric cars? Perhaps he could talk nicely to the feds, for a change, and convince them to also lift their portion of the HST. That would be a powerful incentive for new car shoppers looking to clean up their driving habits. And Ford could still boast about how he is cutting taxes and saving hard working families money on their next family car.
 Buying an electric or gas-electric hybrid car is perhaps the most important thing one can do to help reduce their emissions. Buying an electric or gas-electric hybrid car is perhaps the most important thing one can do to help reduce their emissions, without having to radically alter their current lifestyle. Folks might also consider switching from natural gas heating to electricity for hot water and their homes. Though that only would make environmental sense if the Ford government stopped dismantling of our renewable energy system. And without a carbon tax, switching to electricity is not likely a sound economic choice for the average family.
But we don’t need to wait for government. Those of us who eat red meat and consume dairy products should look at cutting back our consumption of these foods. Cows and sheep are ruminants, and belch methane gas as part of their normal digestion process. Though carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up almost 80 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, methane traps as much as 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over its decade-long life. It is over 20 times more potent as a contributor to climate change than CO2.
So reducing our intake of red meat and dairy products can help each of us do our little bit to save the planet. New Zealand has a huge dairy and red meat sector and has considered implementing a tax on animal methane – a FART tax they call it. Perhaps Mr. Ford has that in mind for his upcoming climate plan. But when it comes to the carbon taxes Ford seems to spew as much hog wash as bull.
 Thanksgiving … But the good news is that turkey, not roast beef, is the traditional fare for the upcoming weekend’s celebration of Thanksgiving. So enjoy and give thanks for today because we really do harvest what we sow, and the times they are a changing. Oh and by the way, even eating lobster would be better for our climate than beef – if only we could afford it.
 Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Puerto Rico – Ottawa Tornado – Global Temperatures –
Seven Degrees – Billion Dollar Man – Ford Lectures Alberta –
Guzzler Bans –
 By Pepper Parr
October 5th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 1 of a series
With the ward level debates behind us – now is the time to look at just what we learned about ourselves as a city.
It is absolutely incredible that all three incumbent Council members; Dennison, Sharman and Lancaster refused to take part in the debates organized by a citizens group.
The incumbents kept saying ECoB, the group that organized the events, had no credibility. That argument got blown apart when close to 400 people came out on a wet chilly night to hear the ward 2 candidates debate.
 The ward 2 ECoB debate – more than 400 people.  The ward 1 debate – locking the doors didn’t keep people out. The issue that kept Blair Lancaster from taking part in the debate organized by ECoB – Engaged Citizens of Burlington was the bias she perceived and the two articles the Gazette published.
The Gazette has never been able to interview Lancaster, she literally scoots away when we approach her.
We learned why Lancaster decided not to take part in the ECoB debate from a comment on the Burlington News Facebook page.
Burlington News is a Facebook page. It is not an accredited newspaper. It appears to be the most recent hobby of John Was who often uses the name Andrew Miller.
A number of months ago the Gazette had to ask John Was to stop posting comments on the Gazette. We found that his goal was to constantly attack a member of city council.
In her comment on the Burlington News Facebook page Lancaster posted:
To: Attendees and Participants of the ECOB organized debate on September 20th, 2018
Please be advised that I will not be attending this evening’s debate.
Unfortunately, the organizers of the ECOB debate have failed to provide a fair and equitable environment for a debate to occur.
I initially shared my concerns about the debate’s facilitator, whom I believe to be extremely biased.
While ECOB initially responded positively to my request to change the facilitator, they immediately went on to share information about my private correspondence with the Burlington Gazette—to discredit me and my concerns.
The Gazette then proceeded to write an article citing threats of violence against me.
Lancaster had more to say and we will report and react to that information in due course.
Links to the two articles the Gazettte published in which Lancaster claims she was threatened are set out below. If you can see a threat do let us know. You can send your comments to publisher@bgzt.ca
Dumb decisions
Lancaster announces she will not take part in the ECoB ward 6 debate.
NEXT: Part 2 of a series
 By Andrew Drummond
October 3rd, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Last Wednesday, Ontario Minister of Labour, Laurie Scott announced that Ontario would not follow through on its commitment to raise the minimum wage to $15 on January 1, 2019. The new Ford administration argued that “The increase of 20 per cent this year was a lot for businesses to absorb so we’re putting a pause on the minimum wage,” Scott said. “What we’re doing is that businesses have the chance to catch up but we’re also helping the low-income people in Ontario with tax breaks,”.
The regressive position of the Ford government contrasts with the actions of the government of Alberta which on October 1, raised its minimum wage to $15 across the province. Alberta’s Labour Minister, Christina Gray claimed “Going forward, we know that paying a little bit more to workers will provide greater stability, lower turnover, more loyalty,” she said. “We hear that a lot from businesses that pay at or above that higher minimum wage — that there is a benefit in retention and lower training costs.”
The argument from the Ontario government and other fiscal conservatives is that business has been hurt by the increases in minimum wage and that has caused them to scale back on part time jobs, hurting the most vulnerable. “Employers are finding it hard to cope with the precipitous rise in the minimum wage. In response, they’re cancelling part-time jobs.” said Minister Scott in an editorial for the Financial Post. This statement raises the following questions: What is the reality of this assertion? What impact did the proposed wage raise have on businesses in Ontario and specifically in Burlington?
 The evidence is so far inconclusive. In Ontario, 51,000 jobs were lost in January. Many critics of the minimum wage increase incorrectly pointed to this as evidence of the detrimental effect of the policy – however the data told a different and more nuanced tale. In additional to the confusion over the data there was also anecdotal evidence showing that some companies (notably Tim Horton’s franchises) had dramatically scaled back their employment immediately on January 1 as response to the implementation of $14 as a minimum wage.
However, there was not nearly as much focus on the employment numbers after January to measure the long-term effect of the policy. When we look past the January employment figures, we see a different picture emerge. For example, in February, Ontario gained 16,000 jobs. In March another 10,000 were added. By July, Ontario had gained 132,000 jobs since the end of January, more than offsetting the gut jerk reaction from employers when the minimum wage came out. Ontario currently has the lowest unemployment rate it has had over the past 5 years at 5.4%. The argument that employment has struggled under a higher minimum wage appears to be disconnected from the actual employment figures.
 For Burlington specifically, we need to understand what a living, rather than minimum wage should be. Living Wage Halton has done an exceptional job of figuring out what the minimum value needed to live here is. They take into account a 4 person family with limited expenses. The family does all its travel on public transit, needs only limited childcare for 1 of 2 children, and has a meagre entertainment budget (a weeklong camping trip and once a year to the zoo). This is measured against the current values of food, housing, and services in Halton to compute what exactly the 2 adults need to earn on a 40 hour workweek to support this family.
 The current value for the Halton region is $17.95 an hour. This amount represents the bare minimum that a person needs to make while working full time and supporting a family on two incomes. Against that value, the current $14 Ontario minimum wage is clearly inadequate. A family with minimum wage earners would have a shortfall of $15,800 in their yearly budget just to make ends meet. To cover this shortfall, the family would need additional earnings from part time jobs that made up 22.5 hours a week. While there are obviously some assumptions made here in the makeup piece, (taxes would be lower for example) a family should not need many hours of part time work just to have a meager lifestyle.
 The question is then can Burlington businesses afford it? What has been the local result of the increase to $14/hour? There is relatively little unemployment data available at the city level. However, the 2016 census put Burlington’s unemployment at 5.7%, or 1.7% lower than the province as a whole. So Burlington is relatively well off compared to Ontario at large. Extrapolating, if Ontario gained jobs despite (or because of) a minimum wage increase, it is possible that Burlington did as well.
To test this theory, I conducted an informal survey of a number of plazas in Burlington over the past three weeks. At every one of them, there were multiple companies looking to hire. As far as I can tell, every Tim Horton’s in the city is looking for more people, and many clerical/retail opportunities exist as well. If the minimum wage hike had done such damage, why are there so many businesses still looking for people willing to work at that wage?
What all this means is that the closer the minimum wage gets to $17.95 in Halton, the better off all families and by extension our entire community will be. The caveat on this is that it only works if business can sustain it. The evidence is overwhelming that businesses adapted to the $14 minimum wage, and they would certainly be able to adapt to $15 as well.
Businesses are doing Ok, so it’s time to make sure families are doing Ok too.
 Andrew Drummond was the New Democratic candidate for Burlington in the most recent provincial election.
 By Roland Tanner
October 3, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
In 2007, Bruce Krushelnicki, director of planning at Burlington City Hall, told us the Official Plan was “right up-to-date, which is a point of pride for us. I think we are the first community to establish an urban growth centre for our downtown.”
This single statement contradicts two articles of faith repeatedly made by the current council:
a) that the Official Plan was 30 years old and indefensible before it was replaced this year and
b) that the urban growth centre designation on downtown, which is the primary reason enabling over-development downtown, was not a city-made decision but was forced on us by the provincial government.
A volunteer on my campaign forwarded an article dating from about 2007* to me the other day. Published in the Toronto Star, it was illuminating to say the least. It details how things have changed in ten years, and how certain claims now held as unquestionable facts by council and staff in 2018 were viewed in a different way in 2007.
The article begins with a quote from Elizabeth Law, owner of Elizabeth Interiors, then located at Brant St and James St.
 The removal of the Waterfront Hotel and replacing it with a larger development got a lot of public discussion. It was a group of residents – the Plan B team that put forward an option that would open up Brant street and create a clear view of the Pier and the lake. “I believe that if you develop your downtown core well, then that’s your opportunity to individualize the community,” says Law. “The city planners have kept the downtown waterfront area wide open to make sure everyone can still see the lake and people love that. Even with all this development, the town has kept its history upfront and centre so it doesn’t lose its identity. Customers come into the store and say, `Isn’t it great that we finally have a downtown with character?’” (Elizabeth Law, Elizabeth Interiors, circa 2007)
But Elizabeth Interiors left downtown in 2017 and is now located on Fairview St. The location of the old store lies empty, and is unlikely to be filled as the building is approved to be demolished as part of the development at Brant and James which will see two highrise condo tower of 24 storeys built (the second tower may still be held to 17 storeys, depending on the decision by LPAT). As part of the redevelopment, two heritage properties are likely to be reduced to facades or lost entirely. So much for keeping “history upfront and centre”.
 On Lakeshore Road looking east from Elizabeth street – a different city. A 22 story condo, an eight storey hotel and a 7 strong condo south of the hotel. The new Bridgewater development south of Lakeshore Road cuts off a large area which was formerly a ‘wide open’ view of the lake. The planned redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel (formerly the Travelodge), shown to the left, will see a further major loss of space currently considered by most people to be part of Spencer Smith Park, albeit it is actually in private hands.
“Burlington has many ambitious plans on its agenda. With a current population of about 163,800, the target is 184,500 residents by 2021.” (Toronto Star, circa 2007)
Burlington has already surpassed this target with a population in 2017 of 187,000.
“A few blocks away, the Village Square is being enhanced by an Artisans’ Walk area of shops, restaurants and galleries. And there is a proposal to locate a McMaster University campus for 5,000 to 7,000 students across the street.” (Toronto Star, circa 2007)
There is no ‘Artisans Walk’ to my knowledge. The planned McMaster campus downtown fell through, and the business school was placed on the South Service Road instead.
“The Brant Street Pier, an S-shaped pier that will stretch 132 metres out into the water, is expected to be completed in 2008.” (Toronto Star, circa 2007)
 The Pier Years of legal and construction problems saw the pier at a standstill until it was finally opened in 2013. Planned daytime mooring for boats and a wind turbine were abandoned.
“[Waterfront revitalization] has also generated a lot of developmental interest. We’re seeing some condo development on the Lakeshore Rd. and we’re getting about a building a year. The third or fourth condo is just now being started. One was occupied this year, one was finished last year.” (Bruce Krushelnicki, director of planning for Burlington, circa 2007).
I was recently told by a council member that the number of highrise condominiums was very small, and that it was irresponsible to speak of a large number of towers as only a handful had been approved. Yet in 2007 the head of planning expected a new condo every year. On balance, it’s Bruce Krushelnicki who was closer the mark.
The Waterfront East condo/ hotel project, being developed by Mayrose-Tycon, has most of its approvals. “It’s been a long time coming because it’s complicated due to the shoreline,” Krushelnicki says. “About $1.2 million will be spent just on its stabilization. The site will also include open public space to continue the waterfront trail. They haven’t branded the hotel yet but it will probably be four-star.”
 A controversial project from the very beginning – the Nautique was tuned down by the city, lost an appeal at the OMB. The developer has taken the appeal decision to an Administrative Review panel. First approved back in the last century, the Mayrose-Tycon development, now known as Bridgewater, is finally taking shape on Lakeshore Road. Intended as a ‘landmark building’ which council argued would not act as a precedent for other towers, it has, as feared, set a precedent which has led to other nearby buildings being successfully appealed to the OMB. A public footpath, constructed around 2004, was open to the public for about a month before being closed and remaining closed ever since.
As we watch Lakeshore between Elizabeth and Pearl start to resemble the sort of urban tunnel we have seen in Toronto, I find it almost impossible to believe that we were assured, again and again, that that residents’ fears for downtown were groundless. We were told, by Councillors, that citizens who express doubts are ‘entitled’, ‘privileged’ or ‘NIMBYs’ for expressing concerns. But our fears have been completely justified. We now see a colossal 22 storey concrete and glass tower that fundamentally changes the nature of downtown forever. This building, more than any other in downtown Burlington, I see as an unforgivable error of judgement.
“Parking problems are an issue, like most communities achieving higher density. ‘Four years ago a multi-level parking lot opened on Locust St. and there is a proposal for another parking structure to open downtown,’ says Krushelnicki. New homes and condos have to provide parking of 1.25 spaces per unit. ‘That doesn’t facilitate the ordinary two-car family or visitor parking so that’s putting pressure on the downtown. We’re going to review that standard and it will probably increase.’” (Toronto Star, Bruce Krushelnicki, 2007)
If such a review ever happened, council decided to keep the parking at 1.25 spaces per unit. Current appeals and proposals brought to council by developers have tried to reduce spaces per unit to 0.9. While reducing reliance on cars is absolutely the correct objective for our city, we need the infrastructure and transit in place to make such a situation work. Without it, pressure on downtown parking, which many downtown residents already find highly problematic, will become far even worse. The planned additional multi-level parking facility is still a very long way off.
“When increasing intensification, transit-supportive development warrants a better bus service. ‘But to get to that you have to endure the congestion that is created by the intensification until the transit is built to meet demand. So the lag time is a funding lag’” [Krushelnicki] says.” (Toronto Star, Bruce Krushelnicki, 2007)
 One of the new buses added o the Burlington Transit fleet. How many and what size of bus will the city need to provide the kind of transit service thay are talking about? This might be called the ‘if you make traffic bad enough, people will have to take the bus’ approach to city planning, still prevalent at City Hall. To me, it’s a highly problematic logic. In essence, City Hall is willing to deliberately create a city-wide problem and inflict discomfort on residents. Meanwhile we have had successive councils that simply do not believe in public transit, have cut funding, cut routes, and increased prices. The result is a fall in ridership by approximately 300,000 rides per year (15%) when other cities are seeing 100%+ increases.
Bruce Krushelnicki’s rose-tinted vision for downtown Burlington in 2007 should give us warning for the rose-tinted vision of the current City Council. Since 2007 too many things went wrong; too many businesses are leaving or being forced out of downtown; the waterfront is being irreparably damaged, over-development is here. All these things, we were told, would never happen.
It’s not good enough. We can’t buy this tired sales-pitch any more. Burlington needs change.
*The article was long ago cut and pasted into a Word document, and is no longer available at the Toronto Star website. It is undated, however it dates after the passing of the Places to Grow Act in 2006 and the then planned completion of the new pier in 2008.
Roland Tanner is a ward 2 city council candidate
By Ray Rivers
October 2nd, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
We are left with a bad taste on our palates, leaving the question of where do we go from here?
Just as I predicted. President Trump had called NAFTA the worst trade deal in history – and now it is history. Well in name anyway, though it is essentially intact and newly re-minted as the United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Some are calling this eleventh hour agreement a win-win-win. After all Canada has successfully fought off a pre-emptive strike on our time tested agricultural supply management system. Yes, we’ve lost some ground in the ability limit dairy and other sector imports, which will likely result in more American agricultural goods on our shelves. But then supply management was never about trade protectionism – it was about farm income stability.
 But even though we minimized the potential damage, Canada still took another hit to its economic and social sovereignty. And the US appears to won little and lost nothing, compared to where we all were in NAFTA. So we have no reason to be popping champagne corks on this side of the 49th. When the mouse and the elephant take each other to bed, we should understand how it is going to turn out.
But the biggest disappointment was with the process and the negotiating tactics of the other side in this last round. If the illegal tariffs on steel and aluminum were intended to scare us, they did. But the artificial deadlines, threats and verbal abuse were untoward and over the top.
The process came to an end because Trump ran out of time, given the upcoming congressional elections around the corner and so much else on his plate. Otherwise we’d still be in Washington, though never Ottawa nor Mexico City. And the irony is that the US Congress may not even approve the deal, particularly if the Democrats win the House. Though it appears Canada and Mexico will ratify the agreement, even if somewhat reluctantly.
 BFF – Best Friends Forever ? President Donald Trump sizing up Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Canada and the USA are supposed to be best of friends with the longest undefended continuous land border anywhere. Our relationship has always been characterized by RESPECT. Even when Nixon was bombing the hell out of Vietnam and Trudeau the senior was criticizing him for that, and allowing American draft dodgers into this country. There was civility between our leaders – despite how they felt about each other in private.
At the end of the day there is no question that the economies of all three nations have benefited from the enhanced trade, if not real free trade, which resulted from NAFTA. Trump’s denial of that reality reflects his ignorance of these matters and is an outright falsehood. But then he lives in that never-never land he calls America First.
His style, behaviour, and his disregard of international diplomacy have cast a pall on what should be a glorious celebration of the renewal of, arguably, the second most successful trading partnership ever (after the EU). And his outlandish bullying of his two closest and natural trading partners has left a bad taste on all of our national palates, leaving the question of where do we go from here? When is the next surprise coming?
The military tactic of divide and conquer is how you fight a war, not re-negotiate a trade deal with your friends. It was an insult to both of his trading partners for them to be treated as vassals. Nobody needs to be told that America’s economy is large, but a breakdown of trade in autos even between Canada and the US would have hurt them too. Was this so-called disastrous NAFTA really that bad a deal for the US, that it survived the terms of three other presidents and has contributed to the current US economic boom?
In the end there will be little difference in the implementation between NAFTA and USMCA. The US gained little so all the fuss was much a do about not much. But Canada and Mexico will have a new perspective when it comes to dealing with their neighbour in the future, or at least the future until Trump is history himself. The America we used to know – the brand we admired for the last century has been damaged, though hopefully not forever.
 President Trump pauses while the world laughs at his comments at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. He wasn’t telling a joke – he was the joke. Our first trade agreement, the Canada-US deal was negotiated between friends singing about their smiling Irish eyes. But Trump doesn’t have friends. Men are seen as competitors and women as sex objects. It is jokingly said that his closest buddies are Colonel Sanders and Ronald McDonald, though one is dead and the other a cartoon character. But insulting the chief insulter is unhelpful. He doesn’t get it, as when the whole world laughed at him during the ridiculous presentation of his accomplishments at the UN last week.
It is doubtful anyone but North Korea’s Kim would have been able to do a better job than Freeland and Trudeau, negotiating almost thanklessly in that hard place. We didn’t win anything in our transition from NAFTA to USMCA, but at least we didn’t lose much. This entire exercise was about fulfilling a false campaign promise by an out-of-touch wanna-be who miraculously became the most powerful man on earth. For him it’ll always have to be a win-lose-lose.
Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
USMCA – US View – Canadian Perspective –
By Pepper Parr
October 1st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The short video mention in this article does not appear in a re-issued version of City Talk.
 With what is proving to be a tight race for the office of Mayor one has to ask why the city would publish its most recent edition of City Talk and feature the Mayor in a video as the lead article.
If there was ever a reason to complain to the Elections Officer – this is it.
It is a very short video – 38 seconds but it will pull at the heart strings of those dedicated to the healthy city everyone wants.
Someone at city hall is either very stupid or there is a political game being played by the administration.
With most documents issued the final sign off is that of the City Manger. We understand he is currently out of the country. He might want to stay out of the country.
We are not providing a link to the article in City Talk – no one should add to the malfeasance.
Salt with Pepper are the opinions, reflections, observations and musings of the Gazette publisher.
By Ray Rivers
September 28th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
There is a 2004 provincial law on the books which mandates that the provincial auditor general (AG), an independent officer of the legislature, conduct a detailed audit prior to a provincial election in order that any incoming government should not have to do what Premier Ford has just done – commission his own financial review.
 Premier Ford with the budget. As it turns out Ford’s team, headed by former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell conceded that the AG’s audit was correct. There had been a $5 billion dollar dispute over deficit numbers between former premier Wynne and the provincial auditor. And Campbell determined that this was due to a change in accounting practices being demanded by the AG. The dispute centered on the AG wanting to change how pension surplus and costs borne by a crown corporation are accounted.
But there was no payola by the Libs to their friends. There was no sign of corruption committed by Liberal politicians with their sticky fingers in the public cookie jar. There was only one set of books and they hadn’t been cooked by the Premier’s folks. In short there was no wrongdoing. If there was any conspicuous money wasted it would have been by Ford conducting his own unnecessary review at public expense – but that is another story.
 Bonnie Lysyk, provincial auditor general. Of course, Kathleen Wynne was wrong. She should have listened to the AG, despite her own counsel and her obvious desire to minimize the deficit numbers for political advantage. It was the AG’s job to prepare the official audit and her results should have been the final ones. But as a consequence of the dispute the amount of the deficit became a distraction and allowed Wynne’s opponents to cast doubt and throw false aspersions on her and the entire Liberal financial record.
That turned out to be unfortunate for her and all those Liberal candidates who must have had doors slammed in their faces on the campaign trail. No question, that controversy helped propel Mr. Ford into office on a totally unjustified claim that the Liberals were dirty and crooked. Though he was on the road to winning anyway. And there was a huge deficit number to deal with for which none of the political leaders had a plan. So the NDP stuck with Wynne’s smaller numbers and Ford didn’t even bother developing a financial platform, his expensive promises were so obscene.
 $3 billion for thee 99 year lease on the 407 toll road Some folks would argue that Ontario has a spending problem, the conclusion of another study completed for Mr. Ford by consulting firm Ernst and Young. The solution, most likely dictated by Mr. Ford, himself, is the beginning of a season of fire-sales, selling off crown assets like the LCBO and maybe other infrastructure. That is an historical Tory practice. To balance his 1999 budget Mike Harris gave a 99 year lease for $3 billion on the 407 highway.
Others say we have an income problem. We don’t charge people enough for all the services we provide. And of course getting rid of the cap and trade carbon tax has just made it worse. Ernst and Young suggested that we need to drop universality of public programs – make those who can afford the services pay. But we already have a progressive income tax which means that those with an ability to pay do so in higher taxes.
For example our provincial health tax already addresses people’s fair contribution to the health care system. Perhaps we need to augment the progressivity to help pay for OHIP plus rather than just adding to debt, though. The Ernst and Young report notes that the biggest rise in costs over the last fifteen years has been in education and health services. These are ongoing and systemic variable costs. It is not clear how the one-time income from selling capital assets like the LCBO will secure future finding for these areas.
The one thing Ford’s studies and even the AG’s report confirmed is that there was no wrongdoing by the Liberals in their fifteen years of governance. That doesn’t mean there weren’t mistakes like the gas plant fiasco, but there was nothing criminal. That means that Doug Ford was wrong to accuse the Liberals of criminal wrong doing, as he seemed to do when he accused them of giving contracts to their Liberal friends.
And for all of that misinformation during the campaign and even afterwards, Ford owes the former premier and the people of Ontario an apology. Though instead of being contrite for his outrageous behaviour, Mr. Ford appears to be taking a page out of the US president’s playbook. Much like Trump, Ford is holding rallies, presumably to prolong his victory celebration and build his following. He won the election, Wynne lost, isn’t it time he moved on. Wynne is being a good loser, why can’t he be a good winner?
 Ford Fest – held in Vaughan this year. At his last rally, the so-called Ford-fest or Ford-stock, last weekend, with five thousand cheering fans on hand, rockstar Doug couldn’t help himself from going way over the top. He over-spoke that the previous government had committed the “largest financial cover-up in history”. And the response to that piece of hatred was predictable – his flash mob couldn’t restrain themselves from chanting an enthusiastic Trumpian “Lock her up”.
Seriously? What has happened to civility in this country, fair play and sense of justice? Didn’t Premier Ford just make a public statement on hate speech. Do the bullies in that Ford flash mob, and their leader, really think the former premier should get jail time for using an arguably inappropriate set of budgetary statistics in her campaign for re-election. It’s not like she was a drug dealer, crack cocaine addict or drunk driver.
Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Ernst and Young – Auditor General – Pre-election Report –
Ford-Fest – Hate Speech –
 By Pepper Parr
September 22, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
There was some doubt in the minds of many that the ECoB initiative to hold debates in every ward of the city would actually work.
Did people care enough to attend a debate?
Could the space in which to hold the debates be found?
Could the costs be covered?
Those doubts disappeared when the public began streaming into Bateman high school on Wednesday evening; they were further dispelled when the audience at the theatre in Hayden high school was very close to full on the Thursday.
Links to the video of the two debates so far are shown below.
 The EcoB people thought it would be a good idea to hand out information on how to vote to the people attending the debates. They asked the city for copies of the instruction sheet they had.
Can’t do that said the City Clerk who is also thee Returning Officer for the municipal elections.
In an email exchange of views Clerk Angela Morgan said to the ECoB people:
 City Clerk Angela Morgan fails to ensure media alerted to Special Council meeting. Her communications people dropped the ball as well. “As the Returning Officer for the election, I fully support community organized debates however, my role is to ensure that all events association with the City of Burlington Clerks department are completely impartial.
“I have received numerous complaints and concerns from members of the public about the ECOB specifically that they are not impartial and the organization is vocally supporting specific candidates.
“Given these concerns, we cannot permit the City of Burlington logo or materials to be distributed at these events.”
That is just poppy-cock. Someone needs to explain to the Clerk just what her job is – she is a public civil servant.
Will the City Clerk have the decency to view those debates and determine for herself if they were impartial?
Morgan got complaints – it is the right of any citizen to file a complaint (it would be nice to see the actual complaints with the names redacted – our suspicion is that there are perhaps five – maybe ten).
 As more and more people arrived – additional chairs had to be set out. For the 500 people who attended the two debates so far there is an opportunity for you to help the City Clerk understand that she needs to hear both sides.
Her email address is: Angela Morgan angela.morgan@burlington.ca
Let her know what you think.
The incumbent candidate for ward 5 sent out his limp excuse for not attending but then ensured that he had people on site handing out his literature.
The incumbent for ward six also handed out literature – she did her distribution outside the school. What she had her people hand out should get her a phone call from the with the city’s Ombudsman.
 Angelo Bentivegna and Ken White participating in the ward 6 debate. Kinsey Schurm also participated – Incumbent Lancaster did not. Two of the seven scheduled debates are on line. You can see and hear every blessed word that was said. You decide if the debates were impartial – and be sure to let the City Clerk know what YOU think.
Ward 5 debate on Wednesday September 19th
Ward 6 debate on Thursday September 20th
Just click on the red type that will get you to the debate – they run for close to two hours but you can skip forward and back.
By Ray Rivers
September 22, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
I wonder if Mr. Ford has changed his view of unelected judges now that an appeal tribunal has sided with the premier and stayed the Superior Court decision against him. Ford may be unfair but apparently didn’t violate anyone’s freedom of expression in the appeal panel’s view. It will be up to a proper court of appeal to make the final decision, but what’s the point now?
Toronto’s municipal election will go ahead with 25 Councillors and that likely means there will be no need for the premier to invoke the notwithstanding clause. For every hundred thousand Toronto residents there will be a Councillor in City Hall just as there is an MP in Ottawa and an MPP at Queen’s Park. That is among the lowest level of representation in the country regardless of order of government.
 A thoughtful Premier? But reducing the number of Councillors should also serve to strengthen the position of Toronto Council and its mayor, vis-a-vis the provincial level of government. To start with each Councillor will have been elected by the same number of residents as was the Premier. If Mr. Ford had hoped that by cutting numbers city officials would become more compliant to the whims of the province or beholden to him, he hadn’t really thought this through.
Then there is the obvious. Fewer Councillors will result in a city government less in touch with its various communities, and especially those of diverse demographics. And as for the twenty-five million dollars of savings over four years – that’ll get lost once the inevitable salary increases and extra staff are added. “Remember the Amalgamation” should be the battle cry every time somebody mentions those imaginary cost savings from reducing the number of politicians.
Fewer politicians’ means more responsibility for those remaining and that will lead to more pay, sure as night follows day. There was a time back when municipal politicians were part-time civil servants, doing their political duty more out of love for their community than for the pay or the opportunity to climb the ladder to a higher office.
Now just look at the nearly one dozen aspiring candidates running for full-time Councillor in Burlington’s Ward One. And check your Adam Smith. Simple economics tell us that when the number of wannabe public officials exceeds the number of positions like this, the price (remuneration) is already too high.
 Few realized how big an impact this report was going to have; some want it re-written. Growth brings prosperity we’ve been told. But urban growth, leading to high density development, is also a huge issue in Burlington’s elections this year. Which is why Burlington’s mayor trucked off to Queen’s Park to ask for relief from a decade old band aid, known as Places to Grow – intended to mask a generation of poor urban planning. Like a bandage it just covers, but doesn’t actually heal the wound.
And since he had the ear of the new government Mayor Goldring popped the notion that his city should annex Waterdown. His argument was based on the proximity of Waterdown and how its future development would have significant ramifications for Burlington. Besides Mr. Ford had just demonstrated that there is no such thing as impossible, so why not grab that little bit of tax base from Hamilton.
 Did Mayor Goldring throw a Hail Mary pass or did he really think through what he proposed to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Cynics might say that Burlington’s mayor was only trying to inject some life into an uninspiring campaign for re-election. But he certainly created an impression and precipitated a reaction from the Hamilton crowd. Some of Hamilton’s Councillors, blind-sided by this proposal suggested that Hamilton should in turn annex all of Burlington. Good for the goose….
I recall an interview prior to his election victory in 1995 where Mike Harris talked about the ideal sized community, choosing his own North Bay as an example. But his perspective changed once he got convinced by his bureaucrats that 850 municipalities were way too many communities for them to get their heads around. And getting down to some 400 would be better. Better for whom?
So forced amalgamation became a means to that end. The clarion call was that lumping communities together would somehow result in lower costs. Economies of scale would kick in and yield big savings. But that didn’t happened, and certainly not in Toronto or Hamilton. Seems the problem was what we call dis economies of scale – the new cities were too large.
In the case of Hamilton none of the constituent municipalities were looking for an amalgamated hook-up with old steel town. So it was going to have to be a shot gun marriage. And that is what they got. But before they arrived at the alter some of the local authorities got to check out their potential partners like any forward thinking couple would do.
 Is it a fit? Where will the idea go? East Flamborough and Burlington had fallen in love for each other but never quite made it to the sack to consummate their relationship, barred from the bedroom by the premier dog-in-the-manger. Even though the sparks of requited love were abounding Harris knew Hamilton needed lots of suburban tax revenue to pay for his downloading of social services.
And Hamiltonian’s already were paying the highest taxes in the province, so he couldn’t let any part of the former region elope with another well-heeled partner. McGuinty, though winning Hamilton seats as the anti-amalgamation candidate refused to unscramble the omelet called Hamilton. But who knows, perhaps Mr. Ford will.
Oh how much fun it can be for grown-up people to act like children, playing risk or one of those other political board games, and re-enacting the 19th century European wars. I wonder if Premier Ford had as much fun re-engineering and gerrymandering the wards in the City of Toronto – swatting all those lefties off the game board.
Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Waterdown Annexation – Response to Goldring – 25 Member Council –
By Pepper Parr
September 20th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The following are the opinions, reflections, observations and musings of Pepper Parr, publisher of the Burlington Gazette.
The second ECoB debate takes place in ward 6 this evening where there are three candidates; the incumbent Blair Lancaster, her strongest opponent in the 2014 race Angelo Bentivegna and Ken White a first time candidate.
The debate is to take place in the theatre in Hayden high school. Event starts at 7:00 pm with the doors opening at 6:30 pm
The event will be moderated by Deb Tymstra a popular Cogeco TV personality who has produced several programs and is a regular interviewer on The Issue.
Unfortunately, Lancaster has announced that she will not attend, because, she claims, the debate’s facilitator, is extremely biased. “While ECOB initially responded positively to my request to change the facilitator, they immediately went on to share information about my private correspondence with the Burlington Gazette—to discredit me and my concerns. The Gazette then proceeded to write an article citing threats of violence against me. (The article Lancaster is concerned about are attached below.)
Lancaster, a two term member of city council was a member of the Shape Burlington report that was one of the attempt to get city staff and council to be more responsive to citizen concerns. Lancaster did little to advocate for any real changes.
Considered part of the more reactionary wing of the current council Lancaster has a couple of achievements that need to be remembered. Her decision to work with ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward (she is now a candidate for the mayoralty) on saving the Freeman Station – they succeeded. The station is close to complete and is expected to be open to the public on a regular basis soon.
Were it not for the efforts of Lancaster and Meed Ward the Freeman station would be kindling burned in a fire place somewhere.
 They had every reason to be smiling. Councillors Meed Ward and Lancaster pose with five members of the Friends of Freeman Station after the Council meeting that approved the entering into of a Joint Venture that would have the Friends moving the station and taking on the task of renovating the building. Lancaster brought another significant issue before council during the current term. Lancaster realized that the city was losing a couple of the long term care facilities – the Mt. Nemo operation was moving to Hamilton –and there was no land available for new facilities.
With a growing seniors population there is going to be a desperate need at some time in the near future.
Lancaster thought that long term care facilities could be built on land that was zoned as Employment Lands. She argued that the patient staff/resident ratio made these facilities significant employers and as such could be built in the Employment Lands the city has.
She didn’t get the traction the idea deserved.
 Councillors Sharman and Lancaster: both part of the Shape Burlington committee who seem to have forgotten what the report was all about – civic engagement She has a tendency to rely on Councillor Sharman, who sits next to her at council, for advice and direction.
She didn’t cover herself in glory on the air park matter. She was far too close to the owner of the Air Park at a time when the city was involved in expensive court proceedings
Lancaster can be scrappy at times and gets dramatic on occasion.
The evening she gave a demonstration on the use of Epi pens was a bit of a flop; the expert in the room politely told Lancaster that she wasn’t demonstrating the use of the pen properly..
Angelo Bentivegna came a close second to Lancaster in the 2014 election. There were 10 candidates in the race then. Lancaster took exception to the debate being sponsored by the Gazette. She has always had difficulty with media – it goes back to her days as a beauty queen.
To her credit she did tell the publisher of the Gazette after the debate that she thought the event was fair to all the candidates.
Bentivegna has done little since the 2014 election. In his campaign literature he said he “will create a ratepayers association in each community of ward 6 (Rural, Alton Village, Millcroft, and Headon Forest) to engage citizens in what’s happening in their area long before the ink dries!”
 Ward 6 candidate Angelo Bentivegna There isn’t a reason in the world why B couldn’t have formed those association the day after the last election. Saying you are going to involve people and actually doing so are two different things.
The Bentivegna family worked hard to make a wonderful contribution to the Joseph Brant hospital.
In December 2009, Diane, his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. The tumor and began a regime of chemotherapy and radiation proved to be successful. The family wanted do something special to thank our physicians, nurses, caregivers and the hospital. They decided to raise funds to purchase State of the Art Digital Mammography unit with a Biopsy attachment.
The goal to reach was $450,000.00. In 2012 they raised $75,000.00. In 2013 they raised $101,000.00 plus $88,000.00 on a Bobby Orr autographed Bruins color Corvette.
In 2014 they raised the balance to achieve our goal: $450,000. The equipment was purchased, delivered and installed at Joseph Brant Hospital in 2014.
Bee covers all the bases in his campaign literature – but other than delegating on the signage that was to be permitted by candidates for council seats the Gazette hasn’t seen much of him.
 Angelo Bentivegna and Carol Gottlob at a 2015 city budget meeting. He did appear at a presentation of a city budget one evening during a snow storm when there were more people at the ice pad next door than there were in the room the budget was being explained.
Bentivegna was available for media interviews during his 2014 campaign – he has chosen not to be interviewed by the Gazette this time around. That puts him in the same camp at Lancaster, Sharman and Dennison – not the right side of the political spectrum to be on in this campaign.
In his campaign literature Bentivegna lists his issues. He includes the schools which has nothing to do with the city, as a former educator one would have thought he would know that.
Taxes: We need to focus on industrial and commercial opportunities to reduce the dependency on raising residential taxes. Taxes over the last two terms have been excessive to say the least…4.3% this past year alone! This council spends our money recklessly. They have demonstrated throughout their term of office that this trend will continue!
Our city is reactive, when it comes to compliance, as to who follows the rules and who doesn’t. Our city leaves a ton of money on the table…would you…I will work to recapture lost revenues!
Traffic: Every day I hear from our residents…Please help us move traffic around our city!Our roads get busier and busier each day, drive any major road north to south or west to east and vice versa. Intensification added to Ward 6 and to our city needs to be planned better! We need to incorporate with help from developers (community benefits..section 37) and resident input, solutions to move traffic flow smarter, easier, and timely…
The Transit System: Put Transit where the cars are!!!! Transit needs to be easy for users…needs to be frequent and reliable…needs to be simple to use, even if you are not a transit user! We need to develop a trust in the system…a trust the allows frequency, on time and reliable service when we need it! Let’s create a workable plan and work with our stakeholders to lure riders.
OP & Development: I am not against development, we need it to become sustainable and to attract people and Jobs to our city…What I am against is ” the “NEW” way we do business in our City. Our Official Plan & our Zoning Bylaws moving forward will not only act as guidelines, but they will now become targets for amendments! There was a time when an ‘amendment” was a change to fill a need that was somewhat minor or insignificant…now amendments are serious “ASKS”…10 stories to 17 stories…is that the “NEW NORMAL”.
Rural: We need to actively revisit our Official Plan to give our farmers and rural residents the tools that create flexibility to effectively manage their lands for the future. Together we can make this a positive economic issue in our City.
Seniors: In the next twenty years our senior population will double. We need to have more places for seniors to interact and stay connected in our City. We need to design all inclusive amenities that allow seniors to stay connected & comfortable with aging.
Our schools: How will our schools stay viable and at capacity in the future. What will happen to the school buildings that may struggle or lay empty. Now is the time to work cooperatively with our province, region, and school boards……City Council as a whole needs to voice a collective opinion. I said this during my last campaign in 2014 and we still need to pay attention to these issues looking forward.
Recreational Facilities: A need to re-examine how we can be more productive in our arenas, parks, gyms and libraries. We are not maximizing potential revenues from our City owned facilities. We have an opportunity to be creative in partnering with the private sector to find ways to increase revenues and reduce overhead.
 Ken White delegating at city council. Ken White is an Alton Village resident. He takes a very tough approach to what he thinks a new council will do. He is for firing the city manager
 A Do it Yourself community hockey rink that White was instrumental in creating. White has been active in his community – that involvement had him out late at night flooding a do-it-yourself hockey rink.
White, unfortunately, got himself on the wrong side of the city’s Heritage Advisory committee who found they had to send him a cease and desist letter when he was linking an idea he had for heritage fund raising to the Heritage Advisory web site. At the time his wife was on the Board of that Advisory committee – hashtag awkward.
Among the issues he wants to promote:
Responsible development:
The future of our fine city is in our hands and right now Burlington is in crisis. The choices we make today will have far-reaching impact and it is critically important that every decision be thoroughly examined, well balanced and sustainable. We want growth, prosperity and advancement, but never at a reckless pace and never at the expense – or exclusive benefit – of any one stakeholder.
“I for one do not want to sit on the sidelines and watch as potentially poor decisions bring on deterioration of the services, lifestyle and values we currently embrace”, Ken explains. “I am committed to be part of the solution, where growth is measured, analyzed for the common good and always well planned.” Today, we are already well ahead of provincially mandated intensification goals. Accelerated high rise development without corresponding infrastructure improvement will be harmful in the long term and we will all pay through skyrocketing taxation.
Responsible development.
Every one of us is responsible for making sure that our voices are heard and our opinions considered.
We also expect prudence, fiscal restraint, transparency and accountability.
It is troubling to see that these expectations are not currently being met by our City. Burlington’s budget increases have averaged almost 4% a year since 2014. The City’s “human resource” cost is now $141,000 per employee. With the new Joseph Brant Museum being built at an incredible cost of $650 per square foot, the existing City Council has demonstrated a total lack of restraint or prudence.
As a financial executive, Ken finds these statistics an assault to the principles of his profession. That’s why he advocates changes that would help the City operate in a manner resembling a responsible, successful business – thereby holding the line on tax increases.
Consider just a few of ideas on his low-cost, high-impact slate:
Improve efficiency by appointing a City Manager who would receive a modest base salary supplemented by a variable compensation for meeting aggressive cost-cutting goals.
Engage an independent body to investigate where the City wastes money and where it performs well. The province’s Auditor General is very effective at keeping both politicians and government employees thinking twice before spending money on White Elephants.
The Joseph Brant Museum is being built at a cost of $650 per square foot. While I support a greatly expanded museum for a City of Burlington’s size the construction costs alone exceed the cost of buying a house in Millcroft at less than $500 per square foot including the land!
The time for accountability is now.
Every proposal for a zoning change, development project or building permit must receive the City’s approval. That stipulation gives City Council enormous influence.
Existing Council has failed to exert that influence to the benefit of our children’s education. Its unparalleled access to School Boards is an indirect lever to ensure responsible planning, yet Council has refused to voice their opinion or speak on behalf of their constituents. Even the City Manager was silent while he sat on the Halton District School Board’s Program Accommodation Review (PAR).
The HDSB has chosen to close two high schools with one just outside Ward 6. Frank Hayden High School in Alton Village has 16 portables while, 3.8 kms away, Lester B Pearson is being closed. School Board Trustees are voting favourably to build a new $23 Million Administration Centre. Councillor Meed Ward took her fight to Queen’s Park and won the right to keep Central High School open. The rest of Burlington Council, including Blair Lancaster, voted to NOT send a letter to the Provincial government to stop the closures of more schools.
Other municipalities in Ontario demand that their School Boards and developers provide a cogent plan with respect to where, how and how many children are going to be schooled when a building or subdivision is approved. Acceptable development demands intelligence.
Burlington needs to step up and take its zoning responsibilities seriously.
 Deb Tymstra will moderate the ward 6 debate Those are the ward 6 candidates – two of them will be debating this evening.
Deb Tymstra will be moderating.
Related articles:
Defending dumb decision
Lancaster announces she won’t show up at the debate.
By Staff
September 20th, 2018
BURLINGTON ON
If you weren’t able to make it to the ward 5 council member candidates debates last night you can hear every blessed word that was said.
 The four candidates that took part are: from the left Xin Yi Zhang, Daniel Roukema, Wendy Moraghan and Mary Alice St. James. Paul Sharman, the incumbent chose not to attend.  ECoB debate moderator Mark Carr Mark Carr moderated.
Here’s the LINK.
It runs close to two hours.
The debate was organized by ECoB – Engaged Citizens of Burlington – an organization you might want to learn more about.
Related article:
Ward 5 ECoB debate – Councillor Sharman chose not to take part.
The Gazette has its own editorial cartoonist.
Mike Allen, a Burlington resident who draws, teaches guitar and works in the music equipment business will be providing a visual look at events in the city of Burlington.
By Lisa Bull
September 18th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Hello All – As the “accused” in the article that is linked below (and another PAR “expert” and Committee member) I thought it only fair that I have a chance to respond. Not that I expect to change any minds that have been made up about what “really” happened but to share my perspective. As most intelligent adults know, there are always multiple sides to every story and there is no such thing as a “true” account. Accounts can only represent the perspective of the person sharing them. So – here’s mine.
 Ward 5 trustee Amy Collard giving Director of Education Stuart Miller the evil eye. As anyone who followed the PAR process knows it was wrought with conflict, misinformation and confusion from the start. And, this continued right until the night of the final vote to determine which, if any schools in Burlington would be closed. The tension of the night was palpable – it was clearly felt by the Trustees and all of us who attended in the gallery. I came to the evening hopeful. I knew that our Trustee – Amy Collard – was planning on bringing forward a motion to introduce some alternate solutions to closing Robert Bateman (the full motion is posted on the Save Bateman Facebook site) I – like many of the community members were hopeful that the other Trustees might be willing to give this motion a chance. Ms Collard had shared her planned motion with her colleagues in advance of the meeting so they knew it was coming.
I thought her brave, innovative and courageous for wanting to try AGAIN to look at another option other than closing a school. However, it became clear very quickly that none of the other Trustees were interested in this. Much confusion began to take place as ms Collard tried to introduce her motion. The Chair was incredibly rude to Ms Collard during this process and other Trustees – including Leah Reynolds appeared to be working hard to vote against Ms Collard’s right to be even being able to introduce the motion. All of this can be seen on the video tape of the evening. As I sat with a friend and fellow Bateman parent – in awe of what was going on in front of us – we noticed that Councillor Meed Ward was furiously typing away on her I-Pad in front of us. She was making no attempt to shield her notes and we weren’t standing our our chairs or peering over her shoulder to read.
What she was writing was clear as day and right in front of us. Was she saying “CLOSE BATEMAN?”. Of course not.
But, what she appeared to be doing was providing very directive advice to Ms Reynold on how to stop Amy Collard’s ability to make a motion and then to stop the motion itself. At first, my friend and I couldn’t believe what we were reading.
While the photos posted on social media were a bit blurry, the messages we read Councillor Meed Ward typing were perfectly clear. They included:
 Was trustee Leah Reynolds getting instructions from PARC member and ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward. The evidence suggest that might have been the case. ” DON’T VOTE IN FAVOR! “(caps on in original) Let it go – done your job”
“Do not support (uphold) the Chair’s ruling to allow the amendment”
“Okay – you have done your job”
I still have the photos and am happy to share if someone wants to invest time in having them enhanced.
Maybe I’ll be proven wrong?
However, from our perspective, it appeared very clear that Councillor Meed Ward was a/ telling Ms Reynolds how to act, vote and speak and b/ that she was attempting to influence the outcome of a critical Board vote.
In my experience as a member of the PAR Committee I’d tried at least once to collaborate on an effort to stop all school closures. I’d tried to bring the whole Committee together to write a letter to the Provincial government as a group and while most all of the other school reps agreed to this, Ms Ward and the other rep from Central waited until the last minute and then decided not to work together with the Committee.
This lead me to believe that Councillor Meed Ward was focused solely on keeping Central open and had no interest in working with others to keep all schools open.
 Marianne Meed Ward at her iPad. I add this only to explain that I had every reason to believe that Ms Meed Ward was working with Ms Reynolds to shut down any attempt to save Bateman from closure.
Was I right in my assessment on the night of the vote? Councillor Meed Ward argues that I was not, She argues that she was merely trying to help Ms Reynold navigate Robert’s Rules. I can tell you that from what I saw, her notes appeared to go far beyond this. I suspect that the full “truth” will never be known.
I made the decision to share this information publically because I was shocked by what I saw. As someone who lives in Ward Two I was already incredibly disappointed in Ms Reynolds decision to go back on her campaign promise of “Close No Schools” and felt that the communication between her and Councillor Meed Ward was unacceptable.
I know that Councillor Meed Ward has a small but strong core of avid supporters who will defend her and her conduct until the end. And, in our democratic society they will soon have their right to show that support by voting for her. I, on the other hand, will show my support for leaders who I believe have demonstrated a commitment and a willingness to support to ALL citizens of Burlington.
 Lisa Bull in the purple scarf – Steve Cussons is to her left – short grey hair at a packed public meeting on the closing of two of the city’s two high schools. One final thought for you all. I’m currently dealing with a serious health issue. And, while all of the activity around PAR and the election seemed so important and so critical months ago and inspired so much passion, rage and anger I am learning – unfortunately the hard way – that these issues, while are important, are certainly not the most important things in life.
So I leave this discussion by genuinely wishing everyone all the best.
Related opinion piece:
The opinion piece Lisa Bull is responding to.
 Editor’s note: The Gazette did ask Meed Ward for a copy of all the notes that were sent from her to trustee Leah Reynolds. There was no response. We are in the process of getting all the photographs taken and having them enhanced so that what was photographed can be seen by the public.
By Pepper Parr
September 19th, 2018
BURLINGTON. ON
There is another way of looking at the idea the Mayor has of annexing parts of Waterdown.
There is a real drive to keep Brant Street the way it was in the 60’s and 70’s; small, quiet, slightly quaint.
The picture got over-developed (pun intended) when the city approved a 24 storey structure opposite city hall. ‘There goes the neighbourhood’ would certainly apply in this situation.
 The Burlington the city is going to get …  The Burlington many had hoped the city would be. We couldn’t keep what we have – so we are going after parts of Waterdown. In a Scott Radley radio broadcast – the link to that is HERE, made it pretty clear that Mayor Goldring had not really thought this one through.
To not even advise Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger beforehand is an insult and just plain bad politics.
Goldring’s rationale appeared to be that annexing Waterdown would “help alleviate the growth pressure on Burlington” Goldring sees a natural affinity between Burlington and Waterdown and thought that this was an idea to at least consider.
Eisenberger didn’t see it that way. Hamilton has invested more than $50 million in Waterdown and didn’t take kindly to the Mayor of Burlington grabbing the tax revenue and development charges that are generated by developers and tax payers in Waterdown.
In the Scott Radley radio program, on which the interviews took place, Goldring said that no one at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs thought it was an outrageous idea.
Eisenberger, trying to be polite, thought that he was owed an apology for the way Goldring “completely blind-sided” him.
“This sounds like an idea that Goldring just threw up in the air without thinking it through. I don’t know where this is coming from.” Said Eisenberger.
 Hamilton just might take the property back when the lease expires. It probably puts the kibosh on Burlington’s efforts to buy the water lots that are part of the LaSalle Park and owned by Hamilton. They just may have a very nasty surprise for us..
Eisenberger pointed out that he saw Goldring as a huge supporter of intensification and that what Burlington was doing amounted to the tail wagging the dog – he could have added that the dog just might decide to bite.
Hamilton has 165 hectares of land that it is ready to develop; and there are 5000 residential properties currently in various stages of development.
Eisenberger thought that at a minimum there should have been some analysis and research done before putting an idea like this on the table.
Messy messy. To get back to that quaint feeling that many in Burlington want to keep – it seems to be something that is now gone putting the Emerald and St Luke communities at considerable risk.
The quaintness that Burlington wants will be in Waterdown where the streets are a lot more vibrant than anything Burlington has.
Look at the Waterdown street scrapes.
Salt with Pepper are the opinions, reflections, observations and musings of the Gazette publisher.
By Pepper Parr
September 19th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It is called connecting the dots.
Mayor Goldring determines that he is in trouble with his election campaign.
 What has he done? Mayor Goldring is Chair of an AMO committee (Association of Municipalities of Ontario)
He gets together with other Mayors, most of whom are east and north of Burlington.
He comes up with the idea of meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs asking him to ease up on the Places to Grow legislation which requires municipalities to create more housing and jobs.
The Mayor meets with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and some of his staff who, according to Mayor Goldring, had no objections to his suggestion that Burlington be permitted to annex parts of Waterdown.
Goldring doesn’t say how much of Waterdown he wants to annex.
Goldring doesn’t inform Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger
 Fred Eisenberger – thinks the idea was a flyer crafted on the back of a napkin. Eisenberger is not impressed. He calls the idea a flyer that was written on the back of a napkin.
While all this local nonsense is going on the Premier of the Province has made it very clear that he wants less local government and is ramming legislation through to get a bill passed that would let him reduce Toronto city council from 47 members to 25.
Holding a session of the Legislature at mid-night would qualify as ramming.
Premier Doug Ford has said he will use a section of the Constitution to impose his will on municipalities.
 What will Doug Ford do with the idea of Burlington annexing part of Waterdown. The province can order a municipal level of government to do anything he wishes
Watch for what Doug Ford does with the subject that Rick Goldring put on the table.
Doug Ford will order Burlington and Hamilton to merge and become one municipality.
Premier Harris forced the amalgamation of the Toronto suburbs into the mega city that is now Toronto.
The end of Burlington as you know it will have been brought about by Rick Goldring.
 The sign might get an upgrade.
By Pepper Parr
September 17th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The following are the opinions, reflections, observations and musings of Pepper Parr, publisher of the Burlington Gazette.
There are five candidates in ward five running for the city council seat.
The incumbent, Paul Sharman, who has served two terms as a city Councillor finds that he is unable to attend a public meeting at which he would debate with the other four candidates.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman is usually very direct, tends to want to see data that is verifiable and expects to get his way. Councillor Sharman just doesn’t like community organizations he does not control; never has never will. A community organization has mobilized itself to organize the debates but the Councillor does not think they are legitimate enough for his liking.
During his decision to run for office in 2010 Sharman first filed nomination papers for the role of Mayor. He had not lived in Burlington all that long, had not done all that much as a person active in his community. Sharman was a member of the committee that produced the Shape Burlington report, he was also a member of the city council that endorsed the report which he then forgot about.
During his first term of office Sharman was a fire cracker. One more than one occasion he has put a senior staff member in their place.
He was the driving force behind the 0% tax increase for 2011.
He was the driving force behind getting something done with the Lakeshore Village Plaza that was close to a dump; shabby and to a considerable degree unoccupied.
Sharman worked hard to get something done. He managed to help craft a Staff Direction that got the Economic Development Corporation involved. That resulted in hugely successful community engagement event where all kids of ideas were brought to the surface and city hall got a better idea as to what the residents were looking for.
The owner of the proper was persuaded to attend the public meeting. His firm had hired planners, architects and specialists to do the studies city hall needs before they accept a development application.
That’s when the proverbial hit the fan. What the property owner’s planner put before a public meeting was close to outrageous.
 The proposed Lakeshore Village Plaza development. The city planners have yet to issue their report on the proposal. It was never very clear just how in sync Sharman was with his constituents. At the two public meetings we watched him he seemed more defensive about the project and said it was now in the hands of the planning department staff who would prepare a report for city council.
The Gazette did learn that the city planners want much more in the way of park space and they want to see the skating pad and the park to the north of the site included in the development.
Sharman is on record as saying the development is too expansive. Many residents wanted to hear Sharman say that it was far far too large and that he would not be supporting what he had seen.
Sharman gets no brownie points for his early position on the work a community group did to save the Freeman Station. His comments to the late Jane Irwin when she was pleading for the time they needed to find a location for the structure were dismissive, embarrassing and shameful.
He argued against a pilot program that would have made transit free for seniors one day of each week. Oakville did a pilot that proved to be very successful and resulted in increased transit use overall. Sharman argued that the data wasn’t conclusive.
Sharman is an account by profession – what matters most to him is ensuring the right data is at hand to make a sound decision. It took the Gazette a couple of years to realize that the longer Sharman kept asking for data the longer it meant he didn’t have to make a decision.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman The one tool missing in the Sharman toolkit is an executive capacity to make a decision.
His relationships with people are awkward. His treatment of a former Director of Transit deserved to be investigated; his relationship with a member of the planning department was well outside the limits of a member of council and a city employee. There are rules that set out what is acceptable.
There are two women running for the ward 5 council seat: Mary Alice St. James and Wendy Moraghan.
St. James is a retired elementary school principal who is known, liked and respected within the community.
She has been a tireless community activist on the Blue Water development; that was turned down by staff.
The developer appealed the staff decision to the LPAT. The appeal was lost.
 A slid campaigner – appreciated by the seniors. St. James knows the issues. She is tireless when it comes to connecting with residents; the senior’s love her. She offers to play card games with the seniors, go for walks with those who want to lose some weight.
She can talk – she can talk – to the point that on occasion she loses her listener.
She was an active participant in the Shoreacres character study. She has attended Ontario Municipal Board hearings.
 Mary Alice St. James attending the anniversary of a school she served as principal. Ms St. James does not live in the ward she wants to represent. She is about two football field length west if the ward boundary. This is not material. While it is preferable that a candidate live in a riding, what matters is the quality of the candidate. Insisting that your candidate of choice live in the ward is pretty provincial. The current Mayor did not live in ward 5 when he was the council member for that ward.
St. James maintains a web site, an email address and she tweets.
Web site: https://www.stjamesward5.com/
Email: stjamesward5@gmail.com
Facebook: Mary-Alice St. James – Ward 5 councillor
Twitter: @14marocks
Wendy Moraghan is a former police officer with 30+ years’ experience. Her career was focused for the most part on community relations tasks.
 Detective Constable Wendy Moraghan with some of her friends at a meeting of seniors who were learning how to detect counterfeit money. Our first interaction with Detective Constable was on an occasion when she was running a meeting for seniors that had several Bank of Canada staffers explaining how to detect counterfeit currency.
Events like this are a way for people that need to use walkers to get out of the house.
The men taking part in the event were quite taken with the attractive blonde police officer who was kind and attentive. One commented that if he was looking for girlfriend she would be his choice. We wrote up the meeting to reflect the mood of the room. The Detective Constable took exception and proclaimed that she was a married woman.
It was suggested to us by senior levels of the police service that it was important to maintain good relationships and would we consider removing the article. There was no threat – a decent woman didn’t appreciate the article – it wasn’t important enough to insist that it remain.
When we learned that Ms Moraghan was running for public office – she called us – and asked if there was going to be a problem with the past. None whatsoever. Ms Moraghan will have to get used to a different level of involvement with her constituent should she win.
 Councillor Sharman defending a point of view while being peppered with questions from candidate Wendy Moraghan. So far she has been very much ‘in your face’ with Mr. Sharman. She is strongly opposed to the proposed Lakeshore Village Plaza. She presses him for answers and doesn’t tolerate his practice of skirting around an issue (No pun intended.)
While police officers are in place to serve the public they don’t often actually engage with the public outside of police duties. That’s the nature of police work.
 Wendy Moraghan is a candidate for the ward 5 seat on city council. Unfortunately that leaves people like Moraghan out of the loop on local matters. That is not so suggest the Ms Moraghan doesn’t know all that much about what is going on in the city.
She is an avid environmentalist. To the best of our knowledge we have never seen or heard of Moraghan making a delegation at city hall.
Moraghan is the Chair of the Willow Foundation. Established in 2002, The Willow Foundation is a non-profit registered charitable organization governed by a volunteer board of directors. The Foundation enhances the lives of seniors and adults with disabilities living in Halton Region’s three long-term care homes through a variety of programs and activities. From weekly ‘Artist Corner’ to Zumba classes, from our annual Strawberry Social to Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony we bring our residents a variety of social, arts and physical fitness programs.
Moraghan is about as local as a girl can get. Attended Pineland public school, Nelson high school, worked at Canadian Tire in the summers, was a member of the Burlington Teen tour band.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wendymoraghanward5/
Web site: https://www.wendymoraghan.ca/
Daniel Roukema and Xin Yi Zhang are fringe candidates. Mr. Roukema has said elsewhere that he is not certain he will take part in the debate.
 Daniel Roukema works in the Immigration sector and is a candidate for the ward 5 seat on city council. Mr. Roukema was in touch with the Gazette yesterday demanding to know why we had published his home address. We explained that we took our information from the city’s web site. We find it difficult to understand why a candidate running for public office would not want the public to know that they lived in the ward.
Roukema maintains a web site that sets out his campaign. It can be found at:
www.roukema.ca.
email: electdaniel@roukema.ca
 Xin Yi Zhang is an Information Technology specialist and a candidate for the ward 5 city council seat. Mr. Xin Yi Zhang is also a fringe candidate. We were unable to find the time to talk to him – our fault not his. This candidate has a web site: www.electxyz.com. He can bee reached by email at: electxyz@gmail.com
While the subject of what is going to happen to the high school the debate is taking place in will not be part of the ward level debate – it will be the 800 lb. elephant in the room. Given the plans that are in place now, Bateman will be closed by the time the election after this one takes places.
Bateman parents are desperate for a solution – moving the programs and the students from Bateman to Nelson high school is not seen as a solution; they see it as disruption and expense that isn’t necessary. They are not necessarily wrong – but that train left the station without them when the debate was really intense and the Bateman parents assumed Central was going to be closed and they were safe.
The ward 5 debate that is taking place is your opportunity to ask questions and decide for yourself which of the five you want to represent you at city hall.
ECoB – the Engaged Citizens of Burlington has gone to considerable length to make this debate happen despite the efforts of the current city Councillor to shut it down.
Councillor Sharman has said he will not attend the ECoB debate but will take part in the candidate Meet and Greet Burlington Green is sponsoring. That event is at a location that doesn’t have any public transit. The debate that will take place is between the candidates for Mayor.
 By Shannon Gillies
September 18th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Shannon Gillies was a candidate in the 2010 municipal election. She was new to political theatre – all she had was some ideas and a conviction that the Burlington she cared about was undergoing a change which she didn’t think all that many people wanted.
Little did Gillies know than that the change she sensed in 2010 would mushroom and result in a 24 story structure opposite city hall – and that was just a starting point.
Gillies write the Gazette with these comments:
“We’re at that point in the municipal election season where things start to get nasty and the gloves come off. Suggestions are made about candidates being in it for themselves, or for developers, and not for residents. Nasty comments from anonymous accounts are made on Twitter. Facebook posts are shared about how our city is being ruined which riles up the others and they all tsk tsk about it over their lattes without really knowing the facts.
“What people tend to forget at this heated point in the process is that candidates are human beings and they’re rarely up to anything nefarious. Every single one of them is a human being. It doesn’t make someone a bad person just because he or she has a different opinions and views and approaches than you. No one runs for office because they want to ruin their city.
“I’ve been there. Eight years ago, I was a total rookie and had no idea what I was doing. What I did know, is that I wanted to make my community better. I thought our downtown was dull and frankly, quite crappy and I wanted to make it better, so I decided to run for council. Unfortunately, no one knew who I was, I didn’t have much community experience, I was too shy to knock on every door, voters didn’t agree with my views, and I lost. That’s fine. I deserved to lose. That’s how elections should work.
“What people should know is that running a campaign is hard. There is an unimaginable amount of learning in a short amount of time. Campaigns are also emotionally draining, physically exhausting, and can take a real toll on a marriage. I’m always fascinated that so many people think that taking contributions from developers is a huge sin. I would’ve gladly taken anyone’s money! Anyone who thinks someone would work his or her butt off and sacrifice their family for months only to sell their integrity for $750 or $1000 dollars over a four year period is a fool. But I digress. Instead, I spent over $10,000 of my own money, which my husband still hasn’t quite forgiven me for.
“The absolute worst part of running for council, and what I wasn’t prepared for, was the condescension and the cruelty. I was told on numerous occasions that my campaign was “a good experience” for me or told with a patronizing smile that maybe I should try running for school trustee instead. Someone said I shouldn’t have worn a pink suit for my campaign photo. I was told I didn’t exactly look like a Councillor and was asked on numerous occasions why I didn’t have children. Lack of experience aside, I was employed, nearly forty years old, university-educated, knew my stuff, and was adequately articulate. These comments were unwarranted. But alas, that’s politics.
During the campaign there was a personal family matter that kept me away from the city. I considered dropping out of the race but decided to stick it out. I tried my best to complete the endless number of questionnaires that candidates receive from various community groups but was completely overwhelmed. I couldn’t get to the doors. I didn’t have a team and was doing everything myself.
I had to be at a hospital feeling very distressed – someone close to me was big health challenge. It was an awful time. One day, while I was in a waiting room at the hospital, trying to catch up on campaign matters on my laptop, I got an email suggesting I was in bed with developers (I think because I had written something that was pro-intensification), and that I hated trees.
What?! Have you seen my yard? I love trees!
“The angry email ended with a wish that I have a miserable life and not ever enjoy a successful career in politics. In retrospect, it was a dumb comment I should have ignored, but at the time, under the circumstances, it caused me to run to my car in an underground lot and break into tears. I couldn’t understand how people could be so awful. I know better now.
“My point is that we’re all stuck on this earth together and we need to be kind. It’s fine to have political disagreements and we should absolutely have political disagreements. But let’s just remember that all candidates are human beings, with lives separate from election campaigns, and are made out of flesh and blood, not steel.”
 Shannon Gillies is a frequent contributor to the Gazette. We welcome he insight and candidness. Besides the trees on her property Shannon has a couple of rabbits about the house. She looks just fine in a pink suit.
 By Steve Cussons
September 17th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
With the Municipal Election looming and the volume of untruths in this election I find myself compelled to present my expert opinion on this issue. I say expert as I was a very active member of the PARC representing Aldershot HS and community and attended every single meeting including those at the Board after the vote was made.
The first untruth is that Marianne Meed Ward had an unfair influence during the par process because of her position as Councillor. I can emphatically state the she had no more influence than myself and the other 12 community members of the PARC. In fact her professionalism added important value to an otherwise difficult process. More importantly the committee as a whole had no real power in the whole process other than to provide recommendations to Board.
 Members of the Halton District School Board PARC committee meeting in a formal session. Unlike some committee members Marianne always kept her composure even when being attacked by fellow committee members. She was elected by the school council where her children attend just like six other members that were put on the committee. Marianne disclosed up front to the Board of her role as Councillor in the city and was told she was still quite welcome to join the committee. The other seven community members like myself were randomly chosen by the Board as we had put our names in the hat to be part of the PARC. Our mandate was to represent our respective communities and to bring forward to the committee ideas comments and concerns of our respective communities. I know each of us did exactly that, no more no less and this included reasons for not closing schools and reasons for closing various schools.
Many members put forth recommendations to close schools other than their own based on feedback from their community. So to suggest that Marianne had any more ability to move a certain objective forward than any of the other members is just plain false.
PARC member Marianne Meed Ward typing on her computer. The other major untruth being circulated for months and I believe will be ramped us as the election draws closer is that on June 07 the night of the final vote to close Bateman &Lester B Pearson Marianne Meed Ward and Trustee Leah Reynolds colluded to help close Bateman. This is an outright lie and I am an expert as I sat beside Marianne that evening and was in discussion with her about the motion on floor which had nothing to do with the vote to close Bateman but a different motion all together.
The rules were so uncertain that not only did the board require some guidance from legal counsel and then actually had to go in. private session to try and sort out the protocol.
Marianne provided Trustee Reynolds with her interpretation of the ruling as she saw it as Trustee Reynolds was an active participant in the motion. What bothers me more is that Lisa Bull the PARC Representative sitting right behind Marianne and myself took the totally unethical first step of capturing images of Marianne’s private laptop screen she was using to capture the texting.
 Leah Reynolds being observed by HDSB vice chair Kim Then to take it one step further posts it on social media suggesting the conversation was about how to vote to close Bateman and plying Trustee Reynolds with direction. I am appalled the a fellow member would stoop to such low and yet the media has never question the ethics of this. I have a timestamp of the moment the images were snapped and they were at least an hour before the vote to close Bateman.
It was confirmed that all the Trustees that evening were receiving mobile communications from constituents and others for various reasons and I input and this was a normal practice allowed at these meetings. The fact they needed very specific lawyers experts in procedural matters to assist in deciphering what the was the correct process and then have to go into private session should be obvious why someone like Marianne with years of this type of process being City Council would be stepping in to assist Trustee Leah as she happened to be the Trustee in the ward she represents on City Council and the Trustee of the school where her children attended.
 Lisa Bull There was no collusion but there was certainly unethical behaviour by Lisa Bull a fellow PARC member and then to be exaggerated and pushed as truth in social media by many others in the community unhappy with the decisions.
In summary it is sad that we have had to close to schools but to defame individuals that continually put out an earnest effort to help our communities in so many ways is so wrong. I am not running for any office, my school did not close but I pride myself in ethical behaviour and will stand up when I factually know untruths are being made to hurt others I respect.
I am ready to debate any one on the facts of the PARC process and the specific night of the vote to close two schools.
 Steve Cussons is an Aldershot resident and a business man who operates a modern printing company..
By Ray Rivers
September 16th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
It was a disgraceful display, such petulance, like a spoiled child. No I’m not talking about the unruly New Democrats who got booted out of Queen’s Park for protesting the other day. That was pretty poor behaviour alright, making noise, banging their desks like trained seals clapping flippers before a crowd in an aquarium.
But the really disgraceful behaviour came from that vengeful school yard bully we elected as our Premier, determined to roll over the rights of the people of Toronto.
We call it liberal democracy – government based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms and the rule of law. It’s not a partisan title and all of our political parties claim to subscribe to a classical liberal philosophy, and the Conservatives most of all. Democracy, but with due regard for the rights of the individual.
Canada’s provincial premiers rule with virtually no checks on the power they wield, so long as they control a majority of the seats in parliament. Despite the debates, committees, and opposition delaying tactics they will pass pretty much every bill they introduce. More than a guide, the constitution and charter of rights are there to constrain the near absolute power of a majority government from trampling over the rights of others.
 Ontario Premier Doug Ford And trampling is what Doug Ford is doing with his 13th hour intervention into the municipal election in Toronto. That was the verdict of recent Superior Court justice, a judge who knows more than a little about matters constitutional. Mr. Ford has confirmed this by moving to override the court decision with the so-called ‘notwithstanding clause’, Section 33 of the constitution. His legal appeal of the ruling is effectively moot, though, since his intention is clear – he doesn’t care about those people or, their rights.
The notwithstanding clause is unique to Canadian politics. Americans have no such provision in their constitution, for example, and so the courts are the final authority there. Only Saskatchewan and Quebec have ever invoked the clause – a couple of times each, a couple of decades ago. There is a 5 year sunset clause and no jurisdiction has re-authorized this extraordinary constitutional provision.
The architects of our constitution have felt the need to weigh in. Jean Chretien, Bill Davis, and even Brian Mulroney, father of Ontario’s Attorney General, have condemned Ford’s plans. They are clear, Section 33 should never be used – but if it is, there had better be a pretty good reason.
A military invasion, an insurrection or something of that ilk comes to mind. Quebec once over-rode the rights of non-francophone small businesses by demanding the prominence of French in commercial signage. It argued that this would help it in its efforts to preserve the use of French in the province, and it probably has.
 Toronto city Councillor Doug Ford (L) and his brother, the late Rob Ford But we all know why Ford is ramming though his unconstitutional Toronto council seating plan – It’s personal. The Ford brothers felt offended that not every crazy idea they had was accepted by council when the dynamic duo roamed City Hall. And then Ford lost out on the last mayor’s race to John Tory. Oh and his ferris wheel idea crashed big time.
And it’s political too. Using the federal ridings as ward boundaries runs roughshod over the various smaller communities. So he believes it will serve to muffle those lefties who oppose his hidden agenda, which will be revealed in due course. Seriously, life would be easier for him if those potential opponents were out of the way.
 Toronto Mayor John Tory with Ontario Premier Doug Ford. The body language says it all. After all Ford has mused about moving some city services, like transit, to Queen’s Park, why not all of city government? Who says you can’t be mayor and premier in one? Eat your heart out John Tory. First Ford took his job as party leader and then premier. Now he’ll push Tory out of the mayor’s chair and run the council himself, the playpen he really covets.
We have no reason to believe that Ford is being purely vindictive, though there is considerable poison on his tongue when he speaks of the lefty councillors. And there is no question that the province has the authority to manage the size and operation of city councils. But his timing, in the middle of an election is more than a little problematic, unless his bigger ambition is in play.
Ford would be more credible if only he had a single shred of evidence that fewer politicians would make better government. When the judge asked for proof that a smaller city council would be more effective, he was met with silence from the government side…’crickets’ he called it. Ford doesn’t need analysis; his touchstone is his ideology. Fewer politicians good, evidence-based decision making bad. He doesn’t care that dinner is on the table, he wants his dessert now.
What’s not child’s play is how Ford Nation is also changing the rules in order to ram legislation through the legislature without the traditional kind of debate and due process we’re used to. That means that the only official opposition party, the NDP, will be virtually powerless to slow down or amend – even if they can’t stop poorly conceived legislation, like the one slashing Toronto’s council in half.
 The wife  The sycophant Toronto had spent four years carefully considering its expanded ward structure and then Ford trashed all of that work in a heartbeat based on his gut feel. He doesn’t need analysis to justify his actions and he doesn’t need some unelected judge, appointed by the federal government, to tell him what is right and wrong. After all he was elected for a four year term by 40 percent of the voters in the last election.
Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Ford’s Bill – Canadian Charter of Rights – Undermining Canada’s Constitution –
Amnesty Comment – Globe Editorial – Andrew Coyne –
Davis Comment – Consolidating Power –
By Kimberly Calderbank
September 15th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington is a vibrant city. We have a beautiful waterfront, scenic parks, safe neighbourhoods, great schools, access to some of Ontario’s top festivals and events, and successful businesses. Unfortunately, what makes Burlington such a desirable place to live also makes it expensive. We have seen house prices and rents skyrocket in recent years to the point of making our city un-affordable, especially for first-time home buyers, newcomers to Canada, young families, and seniors.
 Spencer Smith Park – there was a time when it was weed filled space. It took foresight and community involvement to get this park to where it is today. Right now, the average price of a detached house in Burlington is about $1 million, up 13 percent over this time last year. The average price of a town home is $578,000, up 6 percent from last year. The average price of a 2-bedroom condo is $434,000 which is actually down 5 percent which could possibly be attributed to a recent increase in supply.
What exactly is the definition of affordable housing? One figure often used by Councillors and city staff when referring to “affordable” units in new developments is about $362,000, but this definition is rather meaningless, because for someone with a family income of about $50,000, the affordability threshold is almost half that. A more reliable definition of affordable housing is housing with a market price (for purchase or rent) that is affordable to households of low and moderate income, spending no more than 30 percent of their gross household income on housing, without government assistance.
For a household of three or more people with a gross family income of about $130,000, the maximum purchase price for a home considered to be affordable would be $456,000 (based on a maximum monthly home ownership cost of about $3,300). As residents of Burlington, you and I both know that you can’t buy many family homes here for that price, and a detached house under $500,000 would be hard to find.
A significant challenge to Burlington’s housing affordability is that we are running out of property on which to build new subdivisions with detached houses while maintaining and protecting our agricultural areas.
 Half of the city’s land mass is the Escarpment where other than three settlement areas residential development is not permitted. Municipal, regional, and provincial policies, such as land use policies set out in Official Plans, help ensure an adequate range and mix of housing for complete and healthy communities while fulfilling the provincial mandate to “grow in place”. These policies can also provide us with some tools to address affordability.
One tool municipalities could decide to use is inclusionary zoning. This enables cities to set out guidelines for affordable housing units to be built in residential developments of 10 units or more. Another policy tool is Section 37 of the Planning Act. If a property owner wishes to build something that does not comply with zoning regulations, such as height and/or density limits, the owner may voluntarily agree to provide “community benefits” in exchange for approval—benefits negotiated by councilors and planning staff. Lately, it seems there hasn’t been enough thought put into exactly which types of benefits would be as valuable to the Community as the extra height/density is to builders.
For example, a recent community benefit listed for one of the development proposals at Brant and James took the form of discounts on condo units. Considering the high price of units, a $50,000 discount would unlikely make a dent in affordability. We can do better than that. How about allocating Section 37 funds to Halton Region to be used for the provision affordable housing or to go towards the building of purpose-built rental housing?
We have a huge opportunity here to collaborate and negotiate with builders and grassroots, community-led organizations such as the Halton Community Benefits Network, in consultation with residents, to determine which community benefits are most needed. Our councilor should be consulting with residents before these proposals even come to the table, not after, to determine community priorities.
At election time, candidates will tell you that we have been growing too fast and over developing. However, regional housing stats prove otherwise. In 2017, only 594 new units were added in the entire city of Burlington—a low number compared to Oakville which added about 2300 new units, and Milton which added over 1100. In addition to the tens of thousands of detached homes we already have in Burlington, we’ll need to add more apartments, condos, and town homes.
 A proposed back to back townhouse development. A denser urban area does not necessarily mean less expensive housing but very often, it can. Increasing the supply of homes for purchase and for rent while providing a wide range of housing options are both essential to affordability. Town homes are especially needed in Burlington as a more affordable housing option (both for purchase and for rent) for families. Only 2.2 percent of new builds in 2017 were town homes, while nearly 87 percent were apartment/condo-type units. We will need to shift this balance if we’re serious about attracting more young families to Burlington.
Burlington is growing from a suburban to an urban Community. As much as we’d like things to stay the same, we must consider the needs of all members of our community, now, and in the future. The challenge of managing and sustaining our city’s rapid growth is also an opportunity to improve the quality of life for many residents, especially in terms of affordability. Let’s continue to attract new residents to our welcoming, vibrant, and inclusive community with diverse neighbourhoods and affordable housing options for everyone who would like to call Burlington home.
 Kimberly Calderbank is a candidate for the Ward 2 city council seat. She is one of ten people seeking the job.
|
|
