By Pepper Parr
February 25th, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
City Council members are elected to make decisions.
When tough decisions have to be made, it is not acceptable to send a serious matter that is up for a vote back to Staff
Mayor Meed Ward, Councillor Sharman and Councillor Gallbraith have issued a joint statement which is set out below. Interesting to note that Councillor Bentivegna is not part of the statement. Without Bentivegna, Meed Ward doesn’t have the majority she thought she had.
What is behind all this: Mayor Meed Ward and Councillors Sharman and Galbraith do not want to disappoint (there is a better word, but it isn’t used in polite company) the development community. An election is coming up soon and campaign dollars will be needed. and dollars are needed. In the past much of it comes from the development community.
On Monday, the responsible Council members (Kearns, Nisan and Stolte) – who knows where Bentivegna is- should move a motion to vote against the request from the development community to waive development charges for a two-year period.
THEN consider other options.
This matter is a terrible example of how poorly this Council has served the people of Burlington.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s remarkable how quickly momentum builds when developers seek relief, yet when taxpayers could be left covering the shortfall, the conversation suddenly becomes complicated. If a proposal can’t win majority support, that’s not a “bind” — it’s council doing its job.
This reminds me of the three primates, see no evil. hear no evil and speak no evil, getting together to blur reality and ignore transparency. As my grandfather used to say,” there are good ideas and there are bad ideas.” This idea should be received and filed under bad ideas until all councilors provide a full disclosure of all financial contributors to their election campaigns, in particular those who are involved with land speculation and construction. In addition a synopsis of all meetings between the same group and their lobbyists with councilors and staff needs to be provided. Council has the obligation to prove that the action they are proposing is not just a bail out of an industry that has made poor business investment decisions. The question remains, “why do the people who have paid development charges on their own housing now have to fund development charges for strangers?
Jim Barnett
Based on my research the Municipal taxpayers are on the hook for any incentives associated with a Community Incentive Program. Is this Council just putting different lipstick on the pig, that being cost to you and I?
I definitely think they are. It actually stinks even more now, as we watch these three members of our council in action, led by the mayor as usual.
PS: does anyone think any “joint statement” is ever written by anyone other than the mayor? I sure don’t.
I also note that when attempting to defend the indefensible, the longer the statements and posts by the mayor seem to be, and they come out in such an overly repetitive, overly dramatic bombardment. It’s bizarre how predictable it all is. We just keep seeing the same things over and over again.
Burlington residents should not have to carry the developers in our city. They purchased plots of land years ago and then sit on it and now that the industry has slowed down due to many issues they want us the taxpayer influenced by the Mayor to pay additional taxes to assist them. How ironic!
Why do the 3 of them feel the need to make a joint statement without the rest of council? Aren’t they supposed to be a functioning unit? Why are they acting alone on this?
I don’t trust these 3. Mayor Meed Ward and Sharman are masters of twisting the facts to suit their agenda. And Galbraith usually aligns and goes along for the ride.
They are backpedaling because they see the public is unhappy with their proposal for taxpayers to fund development fees AND it is an election year. Any other year and they would railroad us and not look back.
Don’t believe everything you hear on March 2nd. Dig deep and Question everything.
Things to watch out for:
1. Don’t readily buy into their claim their plan will “lift development charges for homeowners” when what it will really do is “increase property taxes to subsidize developer shortfalls” with no proof that the developers won’t pocket the $$ vs. Pass savings on to the homeowner. Nothing in this note has provided validated facts that give me confidence that that is not the case. Do we even have the ability to track that development charges will actually be lifted when housing prices and costs of development naturally fluctuate and these developers can just pocket the $$ through housing price increases ?
2. ”Zero impact on taxpayers” is false because all money at all levels of government is funded through tax payers $$. “Zero impact” $$ is not zero impact because it doesn’t just appear out of thin air. It is redirected from other parts of the budgets or it is delayed gratification. We have a right to know where that $$ is coming from even if it is at a provincial level and whether we are okay with the risks and repercussions of that shift. And why is it called “zero impact” in one breath and “1/10 financial impact with temporary adjustments” in another? Talk about ambiguous.
3. “New information that financial impact is actually 1/10 what was originally proposed” – So what? They didn’t follow due process the first time, mismanaged our funds and were pushing a plan through that if they had their way would have cost us 10x the amount? They act like this “new information” is a win. I call it fiscal mismanagement and a lack of regard for our $$ by not doing it right the first time. Not only that but they wasted the city employee resources forcing them to rush through a plan that was obviously inadequate and lacking forethought and now asking them to redo that work. Yes, that is a good use of our taxpayers money. This council is adept at spending our money but not managing it.
4. “The new motion has been submitted to council and the clerk for circulation” and “the information is a game changer”. And they talk about a “temporary adjustment” and “CIP” . They are once again telling us nothing. Why not tell us now what this information is? Let’s just wait until after they have had a chance to market and manipulate the info to suit their needs. These dangling carrots mean nothing unless they submit it to the public with all information at our disposal at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting. We have the right to digest it and or ask for more information prior to the meetings. No more of this 3 days prior. This is a big decision and we need all the information – not just the snippets that suit their purpose and that lead us by the nose to where they want to take us. That is not community engagement.
5. “Prompting other levels of government to honour their commitments to keep us whole” – how about not “prompting” but rather “not proceeding until city council gets a commitment in writing” from other levels of government. And if council does not get that commitment, then drop the proposal because in that case we, the taxpayer will end up footing the bill.
6. They mention housing projects that reflect “Our Official Plan”- I ask, where is this official plan and who do they include in the “our”. Has anyone else seen and agreed to this plan? I don’t think most of us want 20 story buildings hovering over our backyards, or dwellings that don’t meet small first home family needs but that is what is happening. We don’t want congested streets because infrastructure is not keeping pace with population density increases. So, please MMW, Councillor Sharman and Galbraith, please share “OUR OFFICIAL PLAN” with the public including fiscal details and Key Performance Indicators with timelines because I am pretty certain it is not “our” plan but rather “your” plan with the developers having more say in it than the taxpayers.
7. I would also like to know what other Ontario municipalitieis are also taking this approach. From my understanding it is very few. So why are developers targeting Burlington specifically? Is it because we have a weak Council that likes to spend and dole out their money for pet projects? A Mayor that has promised Ford that she will build build build and now the developers will hang this over her head and not build until she agrees to their demands ? What is really going on here?
There are 2 full business days between now and the meeting. Is this the extent of their advanced communication and community engagement regarding this topic? What about the thousands of people that can’t make it to the meeting but have a right to know? Why not share a link to the full plan in this note? If they don’t have the info available to share at least 2 weeks prior to respect community engagmeent then they have no business having a meeting on March 2.
Sorry for the rant but I am frustrated beyond belief by the poor communication. All I know is – I don’t trust this ambiguous note and I don’t trust the 3 of them.
And in exchange for this gift what exactly will Developers do for Burlington.Maybe cut back on building over-the-top towers on our waterfront?