By Pepper Parr
 BURLINGTON, ON June 30, 2011 – Scott – have I ever got a deal for you. Scott is my buddy at City Hall – he knows “stuff” and has a “no crap” policy with most of the things he does. They give him thousands of dollars every year just for showing up but he can swing the hammer. Right now, as General Manager Community Services, he is shepherding the construction of the Pier and, as you know, there have been some problems down there. But Scottis on the case and this guy is no Inspector Jacques Clouseau of Pink Panther fame.
I was at the “Sneak Peak” Brenda Hetherington gave for the Burlington Performance Arts Centre and bumped into your buddy Jason Stoner, head honcho of the Waterfront Hotel, and he says he knows nothing about who paid for the advertisement on those cycling races the city ran in the Spectator. (You will remember me Steve old buddy, when we begin accepting advertising, won’t you?)
But I digress. As you will recall, we have been talking about those outdoor lights, the twelve that we bought and paid for that were to be installed on the Pier to light it up at night. You need 12 of the things but you can only find paper work for nine of them and you can’t fine even one of the nine that the city is pretty sure it paid for. The ones that they don’t make anymore either – those ones ? Well Stoner says if the price is right he will buy the nine from you for his parking lot.
Gosh, golly gee Scott – there ‘s a chance here for you to get rid of something that doesn’t meet your needs and sell it to a guy whose credit is said to be good. This is sounding like one of those win, win, win situations.
All you have to do now of course is find the light standards so you can deliver them if you do manage to sell them to the hotel people. You can do that can’t you?
[retweet]
BURLINGTON, ON June 18, 2011 – Our friends down the road at the Bay Observer published the following. We couldn’t agree more.
From the Bay Observer, June 15, 2011
There is something wrong with a legal system that prevents opposing sides from coming to a mediated solution once lawsuits have been commenced. A prime example is the Burlington Pier debacle where the city is suing the original pier contractor along with the original project manager and designer of the structure over structural problems that have halted the project.
We now learn that more than two years ago that Walters Group, an internationally-respected structural steel contractor tried to broker a settlement that would have allowed all sides to save some face not to mention money but was rebuffed. A prime reason for the lack of dialogue is the fact that legal action has been commenced and therefore goes the collective wisdom, everybody involved must clam up for fear of prejudicing their case.
This is the kind of advice that Burlington councillors get from lawyers who have no incentive whatever in shortening or ending the litigation. And maybe the advice is sound maybe it is dangerous to try to resolve a dispute after legal action is commenced but if that is the reality; then it needs to be changed. Whether the Walters Group proposal to finish the pier is the right one, is irrelevant. The intent was to try to inject some common sense into a process that seems to be taking on a life of its own, with attendant spiraling costs.
The current Burlington administration has the construction of the Pier back on track and there is every reason to believe that the June 2013 opening date will be met. There will be cost over runs and given the nature of Mayor Rick Goldring, we can expect Council and the citizens of Burlington to be made aware of those costs.
Learning what was spent on legal costs will be like pulling teeth from hens. The legal department in Burlington doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to understand what transparency means. It is not in their interest to tell the taxpayers what was spent to handle the legal problems surrounding the construction of the Pier.
That however may change.
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 16, 2011 It has been embarrassing. Many people worked very hard to make the elite cycling event that was to include five different races including a dramatic, exciting race through the downtown streets of Burlington – but it didn’t happen.
City staff put in hundreds of hours and the Halton Regional Police Service put in almost as many. The project may well have been doomed from the start when the promoter, Craig Fagan failed to show up at a Council meeting to talk to the plan in 2010, but the people involved didn’t know at the beginning what they know now – they were working with a most incompetent and unreliable event promoter. His behaviour is a mark against all the semi professional cyclists in Canada and one would hope that the Canadian Cycling Association would take steps to enforce some discipline on Craig Fagan and the Midweek Cycling Club. They put the city and the Regional Police though hoop after hoop.
Every time Fagan failed to appear for a critical meeting there would be an excuse and each time the people working with the promoter would shake their heads and try again. Fagan was taking advantage of everyone’s good will. We were had.
Is there a lesson for us here and an opportunity as well? I think there is. One of the things we have that no one else has is geography and if the cycling groups want to work with a city that puts real effort into making something happen – well maybe they will get in touch with us.
Fagan is now complaining about the cost of policing the event – and indeed the costs did seem very high, but he was aware of those costs right from the beginning. Fagan’s hope was that there would be significant sponsorship to offset the costs – but that sponsorship failed to appear.
We can cavil forever about how incompetent Fagan and his Midweek cycling colleagues were – what we need to do is look for the lessons and learn from them and then figure out how we can take the geography we have and get it in front of the people who want to use it for an elite level cycling event.
And here the city is going to have to lead, for it is Burlington that stands to reap most of the benefit. We will also have to partner with the police and work with them to find ways to get the policing and traffic management costs much lower. While the police may not see economic development as part of their mandate; working with the communities they serve and protect is most definitely a part of their mandate.
So – how would we best do this? The first step would be to learn more. When Fagan and his MidWeek people first approached Burlington we knew next to nothing about the intricacies of elite cycling events and we were constantly waiting for Fagan to give us information. We were far too dependent on a guy who didn’t show up for meetings and didn’t know how to balance a cheque book.
The city can, and should consider putting together a small team, three to five people, and have them research this business of elite sport cycling. Find out who the ‘players’ are. How does it work as a business ? Who makes the rules, who governs the sport and what are the financial basics ? Learn what the sport wants and then put together a report and have the city determine if there is an economic benefit for the city and if there is what will it cost the city to develop that benefit ?
We have an economic development corporation in place that does this kind of thing every day and while I have difficulty seeing Kyle Benham, Executive Director of the Burlington Economic development Corporation (BEDC) peddling a $7500. bicycle through the streets of Burlington, I can see him applying his keen mind to the financial inputs and outputs and advising the city on what might work. Sports tourism is big business and there is no reason why Burlington cannot be a sports tourism destination. We flood Spencer Smith Park with people during the Sound of Music Festival and the Rib Fest. There is an opportunity here – but the city is going to have to show leadership.
The team of three to five people I am proposing would spend less time on the research side than city staff spent in meeting after meeting being jerked around by an incompetent event organizer who was consistently dishonest with the people he was working with.
There is significant potential for the city with the geography we have. Can the city pull all the pieces together and make it work for the city? The first thing Scott Stewart needs to do is pull his people together and do a debriefing and figure out what went wrong and why it went wrong. His staff did a superb job of trying to get the thing off the ground. Not as sure that the policed did as well as the city staff but that can be brought to the surface in a debriefing.
The police could over time develop significant expertise in traffic management and working with communities to handle the different but very legitimate uses of our rural roads. The farmers need to be able to haul hay along those roads and the strawberry growers want those roads passable so that people can get to their fields. Surely there is a way to work with the calendar and figure out a way for everyone to use those same roads.
The police could become experts at this type of road management and traffic control and market their expertise to other municipalities and organizations..
Last weekend Toronto all but shut down parts of the city while thousands ran a marathon. The same thing happened in Mississauga. Properly organized Burlington could have an annual sports cycling event that would bring thousands of people to the city that would get national exposure.
At one of the Budget Orientation meetings earlier this year the BEDC talked of sending a delegation to Appledoorn, our sister city in Holland, on a search for a Dutch company that might be interested in locating in Burlington. Council didn’t warm up to that idea but they just might take to the idea of using some of the BEDC budget to look into Burlington becoming a sports cycling centre.
[retweet]
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 5, 2011 – She gave it her best shot. Ticked off the Mayor no end as she went through four amendments to a motion and then called for a recorded vote on each amendment. Marianne Mead Ward was doing battle and there was no stopping her.
The first amendment was to reduce the number of units at a development in the Queensway community – south of the QEW and west of Guelph Line. The developer had asked for 74 units, city planning was prepared to go along with that but the community didn’t go for it so it got reduced to 64 – which still didn’t work for the community so it got cut back to 58 units – and nothing, but nothing Ward 1 Councillor Marianne Mead Ward could do would get it any lower. She did manage to get a foot path through the project rather than the road that was originally planned.
What I found interesting was that Mead Ward had to fight to limit the change that was going to take place in HER. I always thought that a Ward Councillor sort of ran things in their ward. The Council member was seen as the “go to person” if you had a problem or something you wanted done. Jack Dennison makes phone calls for his constituents, Paul Sharman in Ward 5 holds Town Hall meetings and Blair Lancaster can be seen at many a meting in the northern part of the municipality listening to “her” people. Council members identify very closely with the ward that elects them – if they don’t – they don’t get re-elected.
 In Aldershot Craven is the equivalent of the Marlborough Man – he’s the go to guy and others keep off his turf. Mead Ward is going to have to up her game from that of a Girl Guide to perhaps a Wonder Woman. Maybe a little more lobbying would help. Every council member will tell of occasions when they drove out to pick up some garbage that had not been collected. The council member sort of “owns” the ward. Rick Craven of Ward 1 is almost a “Marlborough Man” responsible for Marlborough Country – which some of you may know as Aldershot. If it happens in that community Craven knows about it and probably made it happen.
So when Mead Ward was asking Council to go along with amendments to a motion that was before Council approving a development application, she didn’t get support from the majority of Council. She forced them through one amendment after another. When she had lost the vote on her first amendment she moved on to the second amendment
The first was to:
Refer Planning and Building Report PB-28-11 back to staff with instructions to reduce the total unit count by 10 units and present the revised recommendation to a future Community Development Committee meeting.
She lost that one. The she said – well how about this and introduced an amendment to:
Refer Planning and Building Report PB-28-11 back to staff with instructions to keep low-density zoning for the southern portion of the site and present the revised recommendation to a future Community Development Committee meeting.
She lost that one as well. At that point Mayor Goldring turned and asked if she was done and in the spunky voice of a Girl Guide on a mission Mead Ward piped back. “Nope, got two more”. And proceeded to introduce her third amendment which was to:
Refer Planning and Building Report PB-28-11 back to staff with instructions to allow a pedestrian only access to Glenwood School Drive and present the revised recommendation to a future Community Development Committee meeting.
Mead Ward believed that the development was just too much for that part of her ward and that traffic was a serious problem now, before the development had even begun, and was only going to get worse. She battled this one every inch of the way.
Round four and an amendment to:
Un-delegate the future site plan application by 1066834 Ontario Limited, a Division of 967686 Ontario Inc, 4305 Fairview Street, Suite 216 Burlington, Ontario, L7L 6E8, for the lands at 2359, 2365, 2373 Glenwood School Drive & 2360, 2366, 2374 Queensway Drive by as a result of neighborhood concerns.
And here Mead Ward won an critical point. Usually the details of a development – referred to as the Site Plan, are delegated to the Planning Department who work with the developer. It is out of the hands of Council and handled by the administration. By un-delegating it meant that the issue comes back to Council and that the community has input – and if you know Mead Ward – there will be lots of input.
Now that’s a lot of detail – but the point to be made is this: Why does a Council member have to fight every other council member for something she wants to see done in her ward and which the people in the community want to see done. The only person who spoke up FOR the development was the planner representing the developer.
What Mead Ward was asking for was not something that was going to impact the city – it was very specific to her ward. Everything she wanted for her people was within the Official Plan and kosher with the zoning bylaw in place.
I was amazed that the other council members didn’t support Mead Ward. There was nothing precedent setting about what she wanted to do. There was going to be growth – the community just didn’t think that taking a land assembly that used to have six houses on it and plunking down 74 units was good for the community. The Mayor disagreed and made his remarks at the end of the debate.
My question to this Council, its Council members and the ratepayers at large is this. At what point do other Council members butt in and get involved in the detail and minutiae of a development in a municipal ward that is not theirs? If Council members can prevent or impede what another Council member wants to see done in their ward why elect council members for a specific ward? Just elect them all “at large” and then anyone can decide on anything.
Struck me as odd that the other council members were adamant and consistent in ensuring that the development that was not in their ward was going to proceed the way the Planning department had proposed even though neither the community or the Councillor for that ward wanted what had been proposed. We do politics different in this town.
[retweet]
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 5, 2011 – There is a better way to do things and both Burlington Council members and senior staff are learning that it isn’t very productive to jam eight hours of meetings into a single day and forget about arranging for breaks.
I’m not sure who – either the Mayor or the City Manager – is responsible for setting out agendas and determining what happens when in a meeting but in the very recent past Burlington has held meetings that run for four straight hours. There was to be one day in May where the City Manager was prepared to have 12 hours of meetings. Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor said he wasn’t going to do that – and Taylor was right – as he often is.
Council and senior staff are meeting with a pair of consultants out at the Paletta Mansion,learning how to approach the creation of a Strategic Plan. A Strategic Plan is the document that sets out what the city wants to do longer term. Sort of the vision for the city for the next 20 to 25 years which then gets broken down into what this council can get done in the three and a half years it has left.
This is all very sound management – something this city administration, and council to some degree, have not been very good at. The tendency is to focus on what is in front of them now. First it was the budget and senior staff set out a schedule of events that was brutal, especially for a council that had three new members and a Mayor who was new to the job.
Before really knowing what the job was your Council was faced with issue after issue as they struggled to get on top of things. As they were getting ready to actually get into the budget they learned there as this very, very significant surplus – like $9.3 million, that had been budgeted for but not spent. The Council members didn’t know each other all that well and there was a stunned pause the day that Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman said he wanted to see a 0% tax increase when the Mayor had already said he was heading for an increase of about 2.5 – 3 % increase each year for the four year term.
The Sharman “bombshell” took a little time to digest but he was right. The city is awash with cash that it wasn’t using. Burlington was quite proud of a .9 – that’s less than 1 percent – tax increase which was made possible to a considerable degree by the surplus. Hamilton, a dysfunctional municipality if there ever was one, came in with a budget increase of point eight (.8) percent and they didn’t have a massive budget surplus to play with. Your Council is going to be keeping a much closer eye on the flow of cash each month and hopefully make sure the city’s Executive Budget Committee doesn’t pull another “gapping” stunt.
Let me loop back to the training sessions your Council and senior city staff are going through out at Paletta Mansion. There are going to be five sessions – each half a day long. Each is led by a very skilled facilitator who set up a horseshoe type seating arrangement and had council and stiff mixed in together. They were there to work as a team and not have staff on one side and council on the other.
Every 60 to 75 minutes there was a break. Coffee, juice and stuff to nibble on had been set out. Everyone was asked to put their cell phones on vibrate which brought out a very telling remark from John Taylor but we don’t need to go there – do we?
Georgina Black, the lead facilitator from KPMG , a national consulting firm, would pause often and double check with a council member or a staff member to ensure there was agreement on the direction they were going. What was impressive was the pace put in place. Unlike the Budget Orientation meetings which had one staff member after another standing at the podium the Council Chamber droning away at how well they were doing.
These facilitated sessions had the objective of creating something, working towards a common goal, with everyone buying into the concept as they moved forward. If there appeared to be some hesitation, Ms Black would pause and double back and tease out what someone was trying to say.
Every hour or so the “team” and they were treated as a team in these sessions, would break out into small wok groups with six to eight people at a table – half staff half council members – and work through an idea and then report back to the whole group. Then a break to refresh and talk with each other one on one.
It was an impressive session – there are four more to take place. Some will ask – how much is it costing ?– and indeed it does cost – but the city is getting exceptional value for the maybe $25,000 being spent for the five sessions. So before you go standing up on your hind legs and howling about waste at city hall – accept the fact that you now have a council and senior staff learning how to use some of the more advanced management tools. It’s quite a sight to see these men and woman sitting together and learning. John Taylor is having the time of his life. Councillor Craven however is still saying the jury is out. Good thing Craven is not involved with the Freeman Station crowd – he’d miss the train.
Now – if some of this professionalism that Council and Staff are rubbing up against out there on Lakeshore Road can get transported into the Council chamber, citizen – you are going to have a very effective group of people doing a first class job on your behalf. Stand By – I’ll keep you posted on this.
[retweet]
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON ON, March 8, 2011 – Have you ever had a Section 37? Would you care for one? I suppose it would help if you knew what a Section 37 is.
A Section 37 is a part of the Municipal Act that allows a municipality to give a developer greater density than that set out in the municipalities Official Plan in exchange for something that is a benefit to the community. The next Section 37 trade off will probably be related to the Molinaro Group application for an increase in density for the project that want to build at the intersection of Brock and Elgin Streets in the western part of the downtown core.
 Planners doing a little horse trading? It is common practice for the planning department in a municipality to do a little horse trading with a developer. It can be fraught with potential conflicts and there have been abuses in some municipalities.
Ted Tyndorf, Chief Planner for the city of Toronto in 2006 talked about Section 37 at a Symposium on All About Planning. Tyndorf said a Section 37 is NOT an incentive and he refers people to the wording in the Act. “The Council may by by-laws, authorize increases in height and density otherwise permitted in return for such facility services or matters set out in the By-Laws”. Tyndorf focuses on the words ‘in return for’ and says the legislation contemplates an exchange in the context of good planning and under the conditions set out in the Official Plan. Some call this “let’s make a deal” planning and then complain that the negotiators settled for too little.
Section 37 has been around since 1983. A point Tyndorf makes is that the community benefit derived from the granting of additional height and density should be based on local community needs, intensification issues in the area, and the nature of the development. Application and strategic objectives and policies of the Official Plan.
Burlington is in the process of gearing up for an Official Plan review – there is a lot to look at and a lot of public educating to be done if there is going to be a plan that satisfies the tax payers.
Mayor Rick Goldring points out that if Burlington is to meet the Place to Grow requirements – and we don’t have a choice with this – and if we are basically built out then the new housing units are going to be high rise units that will provide the intensification. Right now that kind of growth seems to be taking place in the western end of Ward 2 and in the Aldershot community.
Residents are content with seven story buildings and they have yet to hear what they think is an adequate explanation for why the 14 and 22 story units are going up.
Goldring also wants to find a way to get beyond the intense community fights over each application for increased height and density applications. “Developers would much rather build in Burlington but these noisy community meetings don’t make the city all that attractive for developers.” Some in the city would say that is just fine with them – let the developers go somewhere else. It’s not quite that simple. Burlington is going to change – the trick is to get change that maintains the character and scale that everyone wants.
The planning consultant for the Molinaro Group explained to a community meeting that the provincial Places to Grow legislation called for Burlington to create 2000 new housing units in the next ten years and then went on to point out that the Molinaro project was in fact helping the city reach their objective –which one has to admit is a pretty slick piece of public relations work for a client.
Telling an unhappy crowd of resident that increasing the height and density of a project would help the city meet an objective is a stretch. One would like to think that the planning department would have come forward with recommendations to the city that zoning in that part of the city bound by the Lakeshore, Maple, Ontario and Brock be subject to height variance and then set out what the city wants in return.
 Ward 2 Council member wants her citizens at the table when the city gives height and density increases to the developers. Where Marianne Meed Ward has a problem with this activity is that “you are not at the table” she explains and goes on to add that planning departments have been notoriously bad at getting the best deal for the residents of a community.
The planners give away far too much says Meed Ward “and the community doesn’t get value for what it gives”. And Meed Ward emphasizes – “the community is not at the table and they have no idea what the city is getting.”
The community knows what the developer is asking for – in this case a rise from 7 storeys to 14, which was a bit much for the more than 50 people who attended the community meeting were prepared to swallow.
It was a meeting at which voices were raised and the city planner on the file, Charles Mulay had to struggle to maintain some control over the meeting.
Meed Ward would have the community that is undergoing the changes at the table. She told an audience at the required public meeting for a higher density application that she would like to see the community gather and have the developer and the planning people at that meeting where all three can talk openly about what could be ‘given for the get’ and then have a couple of people from the community actually sit in on the negotiations that take place between the city and the developer.
Those familiar with the way these things get done say that “that is never going to happen”. But if there is a strong enough voice for a different approach this city council just might listen or perhaps be convinced to give it a try.
They are addressing the Shape Burlington recommendations and talking about an Engagement Charter and more public involvement – letting the citizens into the room would be an interesting exercise.
One last comment about the way citizens get involved in property decisions in their immediate neighbourhood and that is the 120 metre range that is used to determine who gets a notice from the city when an application is being made for height or density change. Every meeting I have attended has people wondering why the range is so small. Turns out that the requirement is set out in the Planning Act which says the minimum range is 120 metres – and that is all Burlington appears to do. Nothing however stops the planners from sending the notices out to a larger range. Seems to me that this is an opportunity for council members to better serve the interests of their constituents by having the Planning Department advise the council members when a notice is to be sent out and asking the council member to suggest what the range should be.
[retweet]
BURLINGTON, ON December 1, 2010 – A new start, difficult when the problems from the immediate past are there staring at you. But Mayor Rick Goldring did his very best and while he still isn’t quite used to the idea that he is THE Mayor he got the city off to a good start.
 It wasn’t a “rousing” speech but, OK, so he isn’t an orator. He made the points he wanted to make and did all the “nice, nice” things. The Burlington Teen Tour Band was there announce the arrival of the new Council into the chamber and there was a real Judge who signed documents. The city does need to get a better chair for people to sit in while they sign documents after reading the oaths – think the budget can handle that.
The Council Chamber was filled with the usual dignitaries who were introduced. One former Mayor seemed to be ready to make a speech but that was avoided. The audience was pretty white though and for an event that was “by invitation only” there were at least four empty seats that I saw.
The Burlington Post in their December 1st issue, pointed out how graceless the previous Council had been in the way it handled itself at the closing meeting of that Council. For a city that prides itself on its civility there is clearly some distance to go.
Mayor Goldring laid out a pretty decent set of goals – wants to keep the tax increase to 10% over the term of office – that’s still 2.5% a year at a time when the Region has come up with a 0% increase for the next year and Toronto, a city that really knows how to spend money is calling for a 0% increase as well. Can we not do with less than 2.5% MORE each year? Where is the value for this extra spending?
Our new Mayor declared that the Pier would be finished but he is less than fully candid when he makes that statement. Every member of the old council and by now the members of this new Council know that the Pier could get completed eventually if we want to spend a lot more money, but it won’t happen in 2011 or 2012 and, again, it is going to cost a lot more than this Council is prepared to tell you.
The Shape Burlington report recommendations will be acted upon – “addressed and implemented in some form” was the language the Mayor used. City staff expect to have their response to the report ready for some time in February – that’s eight months after the report was delivered to Council. It took the committee that put the report together just four months. Is there a little foot dragging going on within city hall?
We learned from our new Mayor that Council is going to leave the running of the city to the people hired to do that job and that “Council cannot micromanage staff and expect to hold them accountable at the same time”. Dead on – but let us be sure to actually hold city staff accountable. Our Mayor wants there to be “clearly defined expectations” and is proposing “a community based service review in the first year of Council”. He didn’t tightly define what that means but the one things that is always evident with Rick Goldring is that while still somewhat naïve – he is earnest and decent. The kind of man who puts a bit of a spit shine on his shoes and makes time to talk to anyone who wants to talk to him.
The citizens of Burlington sent a clear message”, our Mayor told us and “they expect Council to operate differently, to be more open and accountable, to be more respectful, to listen and work with the community more closely, and to finish the Pier”. The Mayor was dead right on the message the citizens sent and hopefully a Council on which half of the members are new will be able to make the three people who were part of the old Council deliver in a different way. Cam Jackson isn’t there anymore – so they can’t blame him.
Our City is being led by a very decent human being who is going to take the next few days to attend a course in Orillia with other men and woman who are newly elected Mayors – Mayoring 101 if you will – a good start.
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON January 16, 2011 – He came and as always he was entertaining and informative. He knows what he is talking about and he loves what he does. Well into his 70’s former Mayor David Crombie spent an hour with Burlington’s Waterfront Advisory Committee and talked about what he had done with his Royal Commission to create the Waterfront Trail that runs from Niagara Falls to Quebec city – 800 kms.
 Crombie made a number of very trenchant points. Will the Committee have heard what he had to say? Will they absorb what he is talking about? Will the community rise to the challenge he set out?
Burlington used to be a leader in waterfront development and the Spencer Smith portion.
The sign is showing its age – much like the thinking being done by the Waterfront Advisory Committee.
The waterfront is certainly something to be very proud of, but, as Crombie pointed out, that leadership isn’t being seen anymore. The Pier issue isn’t helping but Mayor Goldring is rock firm in his resolution to resolve that problem.
- We are fighting with our developers instead of partnering with them.
- We don’t appear to have strong working relationships with our neighbours to the east and west. Oh we get along with them, there is no animosity, but how are we working with Oakville to integrate our park at Burloak into what Oakville has done to create a waterfront that is alive and active ?
- And what are we doing to connect ourselves to Cootes Paradise?
- Crombie pointed out that the waterfront extends up and through the creeks that flow into the Lake – does Burlington see it’s creeks as part of its waterfront?
Our own western beach is just sort of sitting there – there doesn’t appear to be a long term view; the Waterfront Committee has yet to gel into something that will take ideas to the city, pull the city together and create a focus or challenge the city to be today what it used to be waterfront leaders.
Slip over to the eastern part of the Hamilton waterfront – there are restaurants and people roller blading on the paths. Even a hot dog stand and washrooms that are not a disgrace.
Part of the problem with the Waterfront Committee is that it was created to solve a political problem. The Save our Waterfront people were pressuring city hall to do something about the Pier and the rumblings of development in the Old Lakeshore precinct and former Mayor Jackson created the Committee and put a political friend in as chair. The waterfront had the potential to become a very significant political issue during the election. Turned out that the election was about the then Mayor and not the waterfront. Now we have a committee that seems to be struggling to find itself. The chair doesn’t have a tight relationship with his committee members. Craig Lewis had to resign due to work conflicts and the chair wasn’t able to say which ward Lewis represented. The committee has yet to become the “working together team” it is going to have to become if it wants to achieve anything.
The political makeup is different today. Marianne Meed Ward now sits on the committee along with Rick Craven of Ward 1 and the Mayor. Will these three energize this committee?
The Old Lakeshore road area doesn’t seem to have a “plan”. There is going to be an exceptionally tall building (22 stories) on the south side of the road at the bottom of Pearl, within spitting distance of the Lake. The community has yet to realize has yet to realize how it will come to dominate the shoreline. It is described as a “landmark” building – something to locate Burlington on the shore line and it is certainly going to do that. There are drawings of what that Landmark site will look like but the general public hasn’t seen them yet. That is not to say the planning office is hiding anything – there just hasn’t been the kind of transparency the public was expecting.
The 22 storey building is far past the point where the community will have any input – a done deal as they say. The site planning is the last stage for community input and it is not yet clear if the planning department is going to do anything radical to involve the public.
Burlington is fortunate to have one of the best planning minds in the province. SOW chair Michael Jones talks to David Crombie at Waterfront Advisory meeting. Maybe some ideas went from the former mayor to a growing activist?
Krushelnicki wrote the definitive book on how one deals with the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) but does that background and depth of experience translate to ideas and activities that involve the public. It is time for some energy and vitality from both the Waterfront Advisory Committee and the planning department.
Scott Stewart has in the past come close to pleading with the Waterfront Committee to do something. They still seem to be in “thinking mode”. Perhaps the jolt needed will come from Michael Jones, the new chair of Save Our Waterfront. Somebody needs to do something.
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON February 4, 2011 – Each of the media in any community look to see what the other guy is doing. They read us, we read them and the television guys scalp from all of us.
And so it was with interest that we noticed the comment Burlington Mayor Rick Goldring made about the size of the legal bill the city has had to pay regarding the Brant Street Pier. In an interview with Tina Depko of the Burlington Post, Goldring said he was “tracking the expenses but was unable to disclose the cost until the legal process has ended.”
What possible impact on the legal process could telling the people who provide the money to pay the bills have on the Court case – if it ever gets to trial? The real issue here is, the Mayor is worried about the backlash that will come from those taxpayers.
And here is where His Worship sets himself up for that backlash. If you treat your children like children – they will behave like children. This happened with the council member pay issue – but that’s another story that we will cover in more detail when it next comes before Council – but we do want to add that the council members are entitled to a pay increase under a formula that was written by a committee of taxpayers.
Back to the Pier and the legal costs. We have already heard that there has been some very disappointing bad faith on the part of one of the organizations involved in the building of the Pier. The city didn’t have as strong a dispute resolution as it should have had in its contract and we got caught up with people who chose not to be fair or responsible. Things like this happen from time to time and your Council is dealing with it – rather well I might add.
 But there is still that reluctance to get all the facts on the table, to tell the public what you have done with their money and explain why – and when you make a mistake – tell them. This city isn’t made up of stupid people, most of them understand that things get complex and are at times complicated.
When Paul Sharman, council member for Ward 5, was asked about the problem with the dispute resolution clause he replied: “… despite the clause, it and the whole contract are never the less legitimate. The City is the buyer and is not in the wrong to any degree. The parties who are responsible to fulfill the contract are obliged to perform and we expect them to do so. The frustrating part for the citizens of Burlington is that they should have been told all this ages ago. I am satisfied that the City is presently doing the right things.”
For the most part Paul Sharman has it right, however he will nevertheless go into yet another closed door council meeting soon and hear what you should be hearing. It is time to begin treating the taxpayers as intelligent, responsible people who read and understand the issues and also time for the tax payers to inform themselves and understand the complexity of the issue and the job their city council is doing for them. The Mayor could however make it a little easier for the taxpayers to understand things by being straight with them and stop hiding behind legal excuses.
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON December 31, 2010 – Keep these three phrases at your finger tips: transparency, Shape Burlington and legal advice. Transparency – not hiding information; being open and direct. Shape Burlington – that was the report that former Mayor Cam Jackson commissioned and which was accepted unanimously by Council. Legal counsel’s advice. Listening to what your lawyer tells you to do. Can you see where I am going with this?
A couple of businessmen who own a football team ask for a meeting with the Mayor at 4:22 pm Christmas Eve. Must be serious, eh! The Mayor agrees and takes a council member with him along with an advisor. The meeting goes fairly well. The football guys explain that they want to move to Burlington, have financial players lined up and a piece of property with the zoning they need is available. Will the city talk to them? Is the Pope Catholic?
Nothing all that specific – just an “are you at all interested, and the Mayor says he is and they part ways with an agreement to keep in touch while Hamilton, the current home town for the football club decides if it is going to be able to build a stadium that meets the needs of the football team.
The Burlington Mayor immediately calls all his council members and briefs them on what took place. That’s transparency, good transparency. Phone calls are made, the media picks up on it and a council member who is: 1) new to the job and 2) has some difficulty playing on a team heads for the TV cameras to explain that it will not work, cannot work and is “financial lunacy”. Thirty peer reviewed reports get mentioned but we don’t get to see the contents of those reports or who published them. Reference is made to a conversation the council member initiated with a “representative of the football team – but we never learn the name of this representative. That is not transparency.
Shape Burlington in its report to the community on what the problems were said there was a lack of trust between the council and the community; people didn’t know what was happening and they didn’t have enough input.
Legal advice: The city is embroiled in a very messy, expensive dispute with the contractor hired to build the Pier. Numbers get thrown around, rumours abound and the city is seen as having no credibility. They continually say – they can’t talk because the lawyers have advised them that doing so will damage any claim they have against the contractor. And heaven knows, if the lawyer says don’t open your mouth – then even if you look really dumb, you dummy up and say nothing. Burlington is in this unfortunate situation with the Pier – they are listening to the lawyers.
But with this proposed sports complex – there are no lawyers and there is a very clear set of recommendations that this council is now required to work within. The old Council voted for the report and two of the newer council members were in involved in preparing the report. And just in case there is any doubt as to what each council member said about public trust and transparency click here for their words – read the comments each member of council made on trust and transparency.
Here is a heaven sent opportunity for the city to show that they know what transparency is by holding a public meeting, just the way Councillors John Taylor and Blair Lancaster did with the proposed Mid Peninsula highway.
The Mayor could explain what the football team wants to do, set out what they have in the way of facts and figures and fully inform the community and promise to continually inform them.
The event could be covered live by Cogeco – they could even arrange for people at home to call in with their questions. Heck – set up a cash bar and have a food concession. Make it an event that covers it’s costs. Collect names and email addresses and promise to keep people informed. It is what they all ran for election on – remember?
This is an occasion to be wide, wide open and not get caught and tied up in someone else’s agenda. Our Mayor is a decent, honest open person and is still in his honeymoon stage with the electorate. He needs to be open and deliver answers to the questions that will be asked. This could be citizen participation at its best – it certainly worked for Councillors Taylor and Lancaster. And it is what Marianne Meed Ward has been talking about since the day she formed Save our Waterfront – time to walk the talk missy.
The Mayor needs to get in front of this parade and not let individual council members head for the TV cameras with information that is partially true but woefully incomplete.
The Mayor can hold a public meeting (but please, don’t wear the orange shirt this time). He has the budget and he can compel the various players in the game to attend and explain what the plans are and lay out the facts and figures.
The stadium is part of a planned complex – it was never intended as a stand alone thing in the middle of a field. There is to be a hotel, a small office building and an arena that could be expanded to house an NHL team. A four story parking garage added to the GO site is part of the thinking. There would be at least one medium to high end restaurant on the site and you know there would be a Tim Horton’s in there somewhere.
This is a great opportunity for Burlington but only IF the numbers are right. Walk the talk people.
|
|
BURLINGTON, ON June 30, 2011 – Scott – have I ever got a deal for you. Scott is my buddy at City Hall – he knows “stuff” and has a “no crap” policy with most of the things he does. They give him thousands of dollars every year just for showing up but he can swing the hammer. Right now, as General Manager Community Services, he is shepherding the construction of the Pier and, as you know, there have been some problems down there. But Scottis on the case and this guy is no Inspector Jacques Clouseau of Pink Panther fame.
