By Pepper Parr
June 9th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The discussion was related to the development planned for 2083 Lakeshore Road. This is the property that is currently the parking lot opposite Emmas Back Porch.
Second from the left – front row.
Entrance on the south side facing the lake.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward made the following comment:
“Thank you, Chair. I will be brief. I will not be supporting the recommendation, although I do want to thank staff for all their work on this and the applicants for for all of their work trying to get to some consensus on the few items that were outstanding.
“I think this is overdevelopment for this area. I believe that for a very long time, this will create a canyon of towers on both sides of a very narrow road, Old Lakeshore Road, right in proximity to our waterfront. I understand that there may be folks who think that the ship has sailed on this issue, but I am not going to give it any wind.
“I believe that this is not the right development here. My vision for downtown is not to see this type of height and density; it better belongs at the Major Transit Service Areas (MTSA) locations- where we have now shifted our urban growth center to.
“I maintain that vision. I will stand by that vision. I will fight that vision and I will continue to be consistent in what I think the downtown should be.
Councillor Kearns followed the Mayor with her comment – a tad cheeky. She has been smacking the Mayor more often these days.
The captain here said Kearns
“The captain here, through the chair, the ship has sailed, and here’s why. I went through this planning file with deep scrutiny, and I think that the commissioner can attest, we spent about an hour reviewing some of my initial questions, and I circulated many to staff in advance as well.
Here’s what I was looking for. I was looking for a defensible way out of this particular application, recognizing the contextual area in which it’s been landed. That’s why I referenced the provincial planning policy statement. I referenced the MTSA justification, the UGC.
“I asked how that could still hold. I asked about the leading policy context, and I asked about how a proposed scale intensification of the surrounding area affected the staff recommendation for approval before us today. And I was satisfied with those answers.
“I asked what would preclude the proposal to range from 10 to 15 storeys, and was met with an appropriate answer that was steeped in that planning, planning policy context. I went back to the concept plan. I checked the amenity spaces to see if there was any gapping, on mixed use, on amenities, on parking and any of those types of things, and I was remiss to not find any.
“That is why it is a complete report. I asked questions about the floor area ratio to see if it was outside an acceptable standard. And really it is 1.11 to 1.16, which is just a shortening of the parcel, but the same calculation holds the instruction to refer this file to staff to continue working on it, resulting in essentially immaterial changes – they are immaterial and almost imperceptible to the built form context and to the neighbouring areas.
“I don’t work on my personal opinions in this role. I work on expert, technical staff, recommendations and reports and supporting policy pieces. That is why I have been led to a supportive position on this file.”
“I talked deeply about the infrastructure, and I worked with the regional commissioners as well at the region about the holding zone placed in regards to junction street wastewater pumping station.
“I also consulted with the applicant on if they were satisfied that they could make efforts to release that holding zone as well. I asked questions of finance. Sorry, maybe not finance, but to finance through the Commissioner on how it may or may not affect DCS. And I asked questions of the region on how a holding zone would affect things like site plan, occupancy, etc. I worked very hard on behalf of the community to scrutinize this particular file and the place that I continue to land, although maybe outside of my personal opinions.
“I don’t work on my personal opinions in this role. I work on expert, technical staff, recommendations and reports and supporting policy pieces. That is why I have been led to a supportive position on this file.
“I would like to have a very different vision. I would like to have a completely different context. But the reality is, is that that is not where we sit today, and we would be leading ourselves to a tribunal if we failed to approve this development. I can’t speak about that, because that’s a legislative process; it would be extremely difficult to go against staff, technical experts.”
Councillor Nissan was up next:
“My personal point of view, and that which I brought forward, was not supporting tall buildings that were too high and in the wrong places. And at the time, what was going on in the football would have been the wrong place for such a tall building. Unfortunately, through OLT decisions, primarily, it has become clear, as demonstrated through the presentation, that the reality on the ground is not what I came for, not what I would like it to be, but we need to be real and be grounded in and what’s actually occurring.
Councillor Nisan: “The context has shifted.”
“In addition, we have a housing crisis in our province, including in Burlington. We have a staff. We have staff supporting it with their best expert advice, and they haven’t supported every development downtown, far from it. I think of the Waterfront Hotel development, where we were successful, but unfortunately being surrounded by buildings of a similar height.
“It is a reality. The context has shifted, as noted in the report. This will not in my opinion, be something we will be able to prevent this. Furthermore, we need the units, every extra unit in our community has an impact on supply, which is the only real way that we’re going to have more affordable housing is by increasing supply.
“So it would be one thing if staff weren’t supporting it be one thing if the immediate context were different. We fought those battles with success at the Waterfront Hotel, but not so much elsewhere. So indeed, the ship has sailed on this location. But we need to also ensure that we have enough housing for the next generations in our community, and whatever the cost of these units are, the supply is, what will having supplies? What will make that happen? So I will be supporting this.”
Some observations: If Councillor Nisan thinks the development is going to include affordable housing, one has to wonder how much he knows about the developments he is approving.
It was quite clear that the Mayor and Councillor Kearns were going to have a go at each other. What is motivating Kearns? She likes the look of the bling the Mayor has when she puts on the chain of office.
Expect to see more of this kind of behaviour.
Mayor Med Ward: “I maintain that vision. I will stand by that vision. I will fight that vision and I will continue to be consistent in what I think the downtown should be”,
For Meed Ward to issue the declarative statements –“ I maintain that vision. I will stand by that vision. I will fight that vision and I will continue to be consistent in what I think the downtown should be”, – has to be seen as a little on the self serving side. Back in 2010 she got herself elected on a Save the Waterfront platform. A little late in the game to bring back that vision.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let me tell you something I learned is fact in how planning now works in Burlington due to the way OLT now works. This is particularly evident now that the city staff have bought into over-development, and a planning opinion that a previous “good planning” vision is no longer good enough and viable as “good planning” because of OLT reasoning step by step decisions, led by developer hired hands.
These so called “Expert Witnesses” practice planning process methods following the OLT data clues to get to the maximum profit precedent outcomes or conclusions.. These hired experts are the only ones allowed to give evidence and opinion, and they work for the developer beneficiaries of the planning process profitability rate.
This means that the planning is not values free, and is biased, and the process gets reversed. They look at the planning conclusions that are agreeable or preferred and then they start working backwards.
How can they prove this conclusion? When you add OLT in the command post. Then compliant well paid City staff planners, folding their ethics, and following orders from City Council, as they always have in my 50 plus years as an employee at the Province and Fed, and 30 years as a resident in Burlington.
Believe me, I have seen it all – it’s corrupt.
Editor’s note: I think you are using the work corrupt incorrectly. What you believe some members of Council are doing is not necessarily corrupt. Would you provide us with your definition of corruption.
My definition of corruption, is that which I believe I have experienced and observed in my history here in Burlington. That is the latest kind I have been keenly observing, questioning, and fighting. This is referred to and described as Systemic Corruption, and in my case, a specific version, called legal systemic corruption.
I can point it out if need be. Such things as systemic support of fabrication of evidence, and failure to disclose errors and omissions as examples of legal misconduct. Interference and tampering in adjudication processes, with conflict of interest from Code of Conduct instances. It becomes systemic as no one, takes ethical work responsibility, even when informed.
Systemic corruption refers to corruption that is deeply ingrained within the social, political, or economic systems of a society. It occurs, in my case, when legally corrupt practices become normalized and accepted as part of everyday life.
Systemic corruption is often characterized by a lack of accountability, weak institutions, violations of procedure are allowed, a culture of impunity because no one enforces morality or ethics, and strong power is concentrated. This type of corruption is particularly challenging to address, as it requires comprehensive reforms and a change in societal norms and values.
Honesty is just one opposite of Corruption.
Editor’s note: Tom – I don’t think you have made your case. There are many things your ward councilor has done that are disturbing. I share with you the view that he has conflicts of interest but I don’t think you can label him as corrupt – and am asking you to refrain from using the term. To be really clear – if you send in a comment stating the Galbraith is corrupt I will not publish that comment.
You really did not get my point – I really was talking about my experience with legal or legalized, systemic corruption in the City, Region, and Province, politically, all working together. It is my definition context of corruption, as you asked.
It is a real fact-based word, with a significant public literature. I have experienced it personally, at all 3 levels, and am seeing it now, as I wrote.
Galbraith was not even mentioned this way, so I have already gotten your message. That’s why I say the word seems to be unspeakable everywhere. In my view, that’s why you don’t see it spoken, except in court, if even there. Unspeakable is the word.
I was not talking about Galbraith himself, alone, anyways. My experience was legal and systemic, politics, as I said – he has refused to be my councilor for more than 2 years so he told me he won’t communicate from his office, So, to be asked about transparency and accountability, anything, is banned..
The mayor has excused him anyways, with a long excuse list, telling me how to be my own councilor. Despite my writing to them too, 2 city managers said nothing about it, the 2 recent most Head City lawyers said nothing, the Clerk said nothing, City Planners Chiefs said nothing, and no other Councilor was curious as to what supported this action contrary to the Code of Conduct, and Oath of Office. Nobody at City said anything.
In fact, the Councilor Galbraith , mayor, Nisan, and Sharman all wrote an Op-Ed in the Spec before the IC finished their report, and I did not know what it said, trying to clear Galbraith from conflict of interest, and framing me for being at fault because they said I disagreed with the IC, when, as I said, they had not finished their report.
So, of your disturbing things you said he does, does that not count? Did you forget? And from what I have experienced, I never expected for a second that you would say I made my case. You read and write about news things every day that beg the word, but it’s unspeakable, by anyone, including you. What about the latest Ford story in the Gazette?
I have not used the exact word publicly in my activities in Burlington since I arrived to Burlington in 1974 and learned how things work here.
I agree to refrain from using the word corrupt in any comment, and have done so here.
If we can have these ridiculous hi rise condominium ghettos filled mostly with useless 500 SF units next to our neighborhoods adjacent to GO Stations then let’s build them on Lakeshore Road.
I can assure you that the roads are car to car around the Appleby GO that I live near today never mind some of the ridiculous planned developments so frankly I do not differentiate or agrre The main bus terminal is downtown too. Our ridiculous politicians (all levels)can reap the seed that they sow.
Well said, Ted. I continue to be appalled at politicians who preach the gospel of intensification without planning for the necessary infrastructure in all its forms–roads, schools, healthcare facilities. The federal Liberals opened the floodgates of immigration without regard to the specific economic and social needs of Canada. Doug Ford and his so-called Conservative government have been intent on destroying the very fabric of communities, including Burlington, that made them such wonderful places to live. And our acquiescent municipal government who refused to take a tough political stand and just say “NO” to the other levels of government who have failed us so badly.
Lisa Kearns told it like it is. This ship sailed years ago when past councils didn’t have the foresight to protect this area.
How many pre-campaign runs will our Mayor indicate that she will stop the over intensification of the waterfront? Knowing full well that she cannot.
I urge residents not “to drink the Kool-Aid” yet again.
Having just sat in as an observer on a six day OLT hearing for a 12 storey inappropriate condo building wedged into a constrained wedge of property on Guelph Line near Palmer Drive in our neighbourhood, I have come to believe that no area of the urban part of our City is safe from the greed and ego-building drive of developers in today’s world to build high edifices where the majority of Burlingtonians do not want them.
It matters not how or if the site is designated for high density growth. The developer’s experts will suggest it should be in the name of the Province and the need for more housing. The word “affordable” is seldom used because no successful developer wants to build such a building that can’t make them a huge profit. The Province holds all the cards and our Premier just wants to build, build, build, with no constraints from current planning rules, neighbourhood views and context, species at risk, floodplain and flooding concerns or adding to traffic congestion that is already bad and only worsens with all these high buildings.
I can’t get back that week of my life I spent viewing the detailed and repetitive back and forth arguments of the hearing I viewed. I was just a spectator. We all are spectators today, even our Mayor. We may think we have a say, but we have no power to stop the destruction of our City’s urban landscape with over-intensification simply because we are instructed to do so from the powers above us because it seems everyone wants to live in Burlington and we must accommodate them. The meaning of “freedom of choice” has taken on a new meaning from when I was growing up and I’m still trying to understand just what that meaning is today.
The problem with Meed Ward is that she is rhetoric and display over substance. Her “vision” statements sound wonderful as campaign hustle but they are meaningless. That is your “vision” madam – so what? You can’t do a single thing to achieve it and you’ve completely mishandled the downtown/waterfront file. Sometimes I wonder whether Meed Ward, in a haze of narcissistic delusion, actually believes that just her rhetoric should be enough. It is time for her to take her game somewhere else – anywhere else.