Mayor promises a meaningful answer as to why city council failed to vote on ADI development - six months after the event.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

October 13, 2015


Why is it so difficult to get answers out of city hall?

Tom Muir wrote Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward asking why she had not said something publicly about why city council did not manage to vote as a council against the proposed ADI development at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street.

Muir sent that information request in September 16th and said at the time that he asked for “an explanation of how the staff report on this ADI project did not make it to Council within the 180 days mandated in the legislation as default grounds for OMB appeal.’
He didn’t get a response and repeated his request.

His original request was set out in an email he sent to Meed Ward, the Mayor and the city manager.

On Thursday, October 8th Mayor Goldring responded to Muir with the following:

Hi Tom,
You will receive a meaningful answer.
I was away recently for 10 days and am obviously behind in responding to some emails as well.
Please be patient.

The Mayor has been away – in China – which is significant from an economic development aspect – and the city has not heard a word about that trip. That is another matter.

Meed Ward also said she would respond but Muir has apparently not heard from her yet. Her response has been to refer people to her Newsletters of March31st and September 16th.

Most people the Gazette hears from find the content of the two newsletter confusing.

Muir making a point

Aldershot resident Tom Muir wrote city hall on September 16th asking for an explanation as to why the city failed to get a response to a developer within the 180 day mandated deadline.

The issue for Tom Muir was – how did the city fail to vote officially on the Planning department recommendation not to approve the development application.

Everyone at all concerned with the project new that when the 180 day deadline was reached ADI would be going to the OMB and asking them to approve the project because the city had failed to provide an answer within the 180 day deadline.

ADI rendering second view from SW

The ADI Development Group sought permission to put up a 28 storey structure on a small lot at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha.

The city’s planning department put some of their best people on the review of the project and delivered a sound report that said the project should not be approved.

That report went to the Development and Infrastructure Standing Committee where members of Council voted unanimously against the project.

That recommendation from the Development and Infrastructure Standing Committee is just that – a recommendation.

Recommendations from the Standing committee have to go to Council to become effective.


This city Council never got the opportunity to vote against a proposed development within the 180 days they were required to do so. Many people in the city want to know why this happened. The Mayor has promised a “meaningful answer” six months after the event.

Every member of Council will tell you that they are free to change their minds and the vote they cast at a Standing Committee when a report and recommendation gets to council.

The city’s Planning department was fully aware of the 180 day deadline.

Council meetings are scheduled on a meeting cycle that is public – but, and this is significant – Council can meet at any time at the call of the Mayor.

That the Mayor did not call a Special meeting of council is inexcusable. Had the Mayor done his job and called a Special meeting of Council the city’s position before the OMB would have been a lot stronger.

There still would have been an OMB hearing – but the grounds for that hearing would not be that the city failed to respond.

There are those who are saying the will of the city was clear at the Standing committee – and it certainly was – but that will has no standing until the city council votes on it.

ADI aerial photo red line marking Bridgewater site

The ADI development is shown in the upper right, outlined in orange, the Bridgewater development that will break ground in earlier 2016 is shown in the lower left in red.

All that happened on March 31st 2014, when Paul Sharman, Chair of the Development and Infrastructure committee advised the public that a summary of a planning report would be read but the city would not be voting on the matter because ADI had taken the matter to the OMB.

It is only now that we are hearing the Mayor say:

You will receive a meaningful answer.
Please be patient.

And so a cranky constituent waits patiently while the Mayor prepares a meaningful response – will the Mayor make a public statement on just how he failed to call a Special meeting of his Council and vote officially on this issue?

Or will Tom Muir have to send that response to the Gazette so we can make it available to the public?

This kind of situation crops up again and again with the Mayor and his Council.

There are many in the city who are concerned about what will happen at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing that is due to take place before the end of the year.

It is going to be a tough fight and there is no guarantee the city will win it.

Bridgewater from the north looking south

Two blocks away from the site where ADI sought permission to build a 28 storey structure the city approved the building of a 22 storey tower that will break ground in January.

There is a 22 storey structure two blocks away – the Bridgewater development that will break ground in the New Year. Expect ADI to argue that they are as relevant to the development of the city as the Bridgewater project which was initially approved in 1985.

Far too many people have the sense that this Mayor does not have a firm grip on what the city wants and that he has not grown into the job of Mayor in his second term.

The Gazette interviewed Mayor Goldring when he was running for re-election in 2014. We were stunned at what little he had to say during that interview which took place in the offices of Rick Burgess, a Burlington lawyer who once for Mayor.

During that interview Goldring didn’t give any sense as to what he wanted to do in his second term. At the time it looked as if he was going to be acclaimed.

When Peter Rusin decided to run against the Mayor – the game changed quickly and Goldring had to scramble to find a campaign office and then raise the funds needed to run a campaign.

Goldring defends turf 2

Mayor Rick Goldring speaking during a municipal election debate when he had to run against Peter Rusin and Anne Marsden

There was no comparing Rusin with Goldring. While the Gazette doesn’t think Goldring is doing a very good job – and that view is supported by a significant number of people with standing in this city – Rusin would not have been an improvement.

Anne Marsden ran against Goldring but was never a contender – she was a place for people who were dissatisfied with the Mayor to park their vote.

The Mayor no longer talks to the Gazette – he does not answer emails and we are not able to make appointments with him
When the Gazette was finally able to speak with Mayor he said that he would not talk to us because he felt we were unfair and biased.

That is a legitimate comment – however, Rick Goldring is the Chief Magistrate in this city and that position and title does not allow him to behave like a petulant little boy.

Jan. 10, 2011 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada - - Mayor Ford (right) chats with his brother Councillor Doug Ford (left) as councillors discuss the budget..Mayor Rob Ford today announced his 2011 city budget at City Hall.  There is no property tax increase but

The last Mayor to refuse to talk to media was Rob Ford of Toronto – a rather embarrassing comparison for Burlington,

If he has a concern – he has the responsibility to meet with us and set out those concerns.  The last Mayor to do something like that was Rob Ford in Toronto.

There is more to say on how this Mayor behaves – right now we are waiting to see what his “meaningful answer” is going to be and why it has taken so long for some kind of statement from city hall.

The city would also like to hear what the Mayor actually did in China?

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 comments to Mayor promises a meaningful answer as to why city council failed to vote on ADI development – six months after the event.

  • John

    I certainly hope that the mayors meaningful answer includes the procedures he is implementing to ensure this failure is not repeated a third time.

  • P Carlson

    I am sure he will be back in touch soon once he thinks up a good answer.

  • Glenda D

    I worked in the accounting office of Cadillac Development prior to it becoming Cadillac Fairview…developers big and influential…..My uncles were major sewer and water main contractors in the City of Toronto way back in the 50’s…you will never “see” any evidence of partiality….but…call me a suspicious cynic….wink,wink, nudge,nudge…just takes one person…on behalf of…..a good talker can influence many.

  • WarningU2

    Why does this not surprise me, that council did not meet within the deadline? Because it’s already a done deal, with emphasis on the deal.

  • P Carlson

    Does the mayor also vote at standing committees?

    Editor’s note:

  • Steve

    Looks like a lot of, wink, wink, nudge, nudge going on. Say you’re against it, but let it slip in through the back door.