 By Pepper Parr
December 10th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
City Council will meet today and Thursday to crunch the budget numbers and deliver a budget that has a municipal tax increase of as close to 4% as they can keep it.
There is a lot of spending – staff has to be paid and services delivered.
Each budget season Councillors are given blank Budget Action Request (BAR) forms upon which they can write in changes they would like to see to the budget.
Given that last year was their first year at budget making we didn’t see much in the way of creative spending.
This time around they know more and have come up with things they would like to see done for the betterment of the city as well as things that will help in a future election.
 Councillor Shawna Stolte – the big spender in this budget. In the previous two councils Marianne Meed Ward was usually the lead with things she wanted to see money spent on.
A total of 67 BAR requests were filed: Galbraith 4; Kearns 13; Nisan 11; Stolte 12; Sharman 12; Bentivegna 9 and Meed Ward 6.
Stolte took the prize for the biggest spend – she wanted to see a tax levy of $2,075,000 dedicated to the electrification of public transit. This whopping sum on transit sets out just how much the attitude towards transit has changed – there was a point when the city didn’t have a transit advisory committee and had a Councillor who wanted people to have to undergo a means test to get half price tickets.
 Councillor Sharman, centre. appears to want to have nothing to do with the chit chat between Bentivegna and Stolte. Transit cuts and additions got the most attention; Sharman wanted to defer all spending on new buses until there was a transit business plan in place: savings $789,737. Kearns wanted to save that same amount of money by taking away the delegated authority the Director of Transit has to buy electric buses until there was a workshop outlining the feasibility of a green transit fleet. Stolte wanted to remove four operators, at a savings of $394,869 and spend that money on two electric vehicles.
 Councillor Sharman – thinking it through.  Wants to put the money Sharman has his eye on to a different use. Six of the seven members were for spending $42,250 to cover the cost of free transit for children under 12- Sharman was the holdout.
City Council uses Staff Directions to give the city administration specific instructions on something they want done that is not covered in the delivery of services that are budgeted for each year.
The tone and content of those Directions give us some sense as to the way a Council member sees his or her role as an elected official.
Angelo Bentivegna is the author of four of the eleven Staff Directions
Direct the Director of Roads, Parks & Forestry to review options for residential property owners to clear sidewalks in front of their property and identify any associated impacts.
Direct the Director of Building and By-law to investigate the feasibility of providing additional support to ensure by-law compliance (e.g. business and lottery licenses, building permits). Investigate pilot project on specific commercial roads to ensure compliance with all businesses to create a level playing field and to seek compliance opportunities to ensure transparent practices throughout the city. Seek opportunities to utilize business Intelligence (BI) platform for reporting data to internal and external stakeholders.
Direct the Executive Director of Environment, Infrastructure & Community services to review the impact of increasing the gas tax allocation to transit from 75/25 to 70/30.
Direct the City Clerk to review the consolidation of all funding for advisory committees with funding allocated based on an annual business plan / work plan.
Councillor Kearns has a different focus – her four Staff Directions are:
Direct the Chief Financial Officer to review the current value assessment and taxation changes for the Downtown Business Improvement Area (BIA) properties and consult with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the Region of Halton regarding available tax policy initiatives and report back to Council with the results of the review in Q1 2020.
Vision to Focus Plan – Financial alignment
A) Prioritize funding to implement the V2F as outlined in F-41-19 with particular focus on allocating special dividends received from Burlington Hydro toward the strategic plan.
B) Allocate any unanticipated discretionary funding from upper level governments to the 12 unfunded V2F initiatives, excluding the ZBL review scheduled for 2020 at a cost of $2.5m.
Direct the Director of Community Planning to complete Low-Rise Design Guidelines that address issues of low rise compatibility and results in Low- Rise developments that positively contribute to our urban areas.
Direct the Director of Community Planning to report on the financial impact of a recommendation to reduce fees for charitable housing organizations by Q2-2020
Councillor Stolte feels she and her colleagues need some help in getting THEIR message out and asked for $40,000 for a Part time Communications Staff for Councillors Office; Add ongoing funding for P/T staffing to be shared by Councillors’ Office. The city already has a senior Communications manager who serves the interests of the city – Stolte thinks the Councillors need their own communications expert.
This Council has convinced itself that the Private Tree Bylaw is going to be revenue neutral; that fines will cover the cost of the five FTE that will be hired to police who cuts down trees.
During the debate on the Private Tree Bylaw at Standing Committee reference was made to how successful the pilot project in Roseland really was – there were very few people upset with having to get a permit. Stolte did point out that the chain saws were buzzing the days and weeks before the pilot bylaw came into effect.
Is the city going to see the same thing in the next week or so? The tree bylaw will come before council on the 16th.
These BAR’s are ideas, things a Councillor would like to do or a pet project. Few of them will get past the discussion stage.
 By David Barker
December 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
What is the Vision for the Downtown?
The public’s vision for the Downtown is to provide for a walkable, accessible, vibrant downtown which is similar to that set out in Section 8.1.1 of the Adopted Official Plan.
 Lakeshore and Brant Main precincts should be both walk-able and accessible. However I question the concept the Lakeshore precinct is currently a pedestrian precinct, it is far from that status currently. However, the public’s vision also stresses the need to maintain and add new green spaces and trees, while providing additional space for year-round activities and festivals. The character of Brant Street as the ‘retail main street’ of Burlington with its eclectic mix of shops, meeting places and culture will be supported and enhanced. Lakeshore Road as the gateway to the waterfront will be maintained as an important pedestrian precinct to ensure the Downtown’s sense of place is preserved.
I noted the words “walkable”, “accessible” “additional space for year-round activities and festivals” are used.
I also noted the use of the following description “Lakeshore Road as the gateway to the waterfront will be maintained as an important pedestrian precinct to ensure the Downtown’s sense of place is preserved”.
Yes, the Lakeshore and Brant Main precincts should be both walkable and accessible. However I question the concept the Lakeshore precinct is currently a pedestrian precinct. It should be for sure. But it is far from that status currently.
I refer you to Page 36 of the consultant’s report where it states:-
Recently completed projects and those under construction such as Bridgewater and Saxony total an additional 335 units plus commercial and office space, which results in a further 2,068 persons and jobs. That’s a ratio of 6.17 people per unit.
Those projects that are approved but not yet built total an additional 732 units plus commercial space, which equals a further 1,225 people and jobs. That’s a ratio of 1.67 people per unit.
I don’t know why the ratios are so different.
Referring to the chart on Page 36 of the consultant’s report it shows for just the combined Lakeshore & Brant Main precincts between 1,350 units for concept 1 and 1,160 units for concept 2 should be anticipated.
At an average occupancy of 1.50 people per unit (my number) generates between 2,025 and 1,740 additional residents.
Then as per the same chart an additional jobs of between 495 and 610 for concepts 1 and 2 respectively will be created.
That’s a total of 2,520 and 2,350 additional people anticipated in the two precincts.
Those figures do not contemplate the increased congestion arising out of attracting people and traffic that the invigorated downtown will draw.
So my question is:-
How are we going to cope with all these additional people?
My intent tonight is not to pass judgement on Concept 1 or Concept 2.
To be honest whether it is decided to go for either of the two offered concepts, or another hybrid version, or another version altogether that results from the City being forced by outside forces to accept the tall buildings we are all fighting to prevent; we seem to be concentrating in isolation concerning ourselves as to what the “built form” will look like. How pretty will it be?
We do not seem to be giving what I believe should be simultaneous serious consideration as to how the City will deal with the issues that result from the reinvigoration of the downtown; issues such as traffic, parking, transit and other infrastructure.
These go hand in hand and must be developed simultaneously. Look at Toronto’s experience. It built and built and built, offices and condos and subdivisions, and totally ignored traffic, parking, transit and other infrastructure issues. All those items are now real headaches.
I have put forward to you all at a previous Planning and Development Committee meeting a suggestion that the City needs to be radical in its thoughts and approach to the future of the Downtown. These concepts offered by SGL are, in my view, just tinkering.
 David Barker delegating before city council. Going off at a bit of a tangent, I would like to touch upon some things that have been said by earlier delegates. Mr Bales of Carriage House has as a part of his delegation submitted a letter to Council whinging and whining that the City has not provided his company with background research it has developed through this long study process. He infers the development community is being excluded from the City’s engagement process and so cannot support the City’s decision, whatever that might be. I find Mr Bales to be completely ingenuous.
He and his company have provided presentations on its proposed downtown high rise developments at Lakeshore and Pearl, and between Lakeshore and Old Lakeshore. These proposals completely ignore not only the in-force zoning bylaws but also the very clearly articulated wishes of residents not to have 20+ story buildings forming a canyon along either Lakeshore Rd. or Brant St. At those presentations he talks about bring benefits to Burlington through these high rises, but will never address the problems that will result.
A number of earlier delegates have expressed the position that residents do not want to see change in the downtown area. No one likes change. But change has to come. The downtown needs changing. It is only “ticking over” it is not “really revving it up”. I believe residents are only seeing a discussion taking place about the height of new buildings. There is no vision being offered as to what the downtown will look like. Give people a clear vision of how everything will look after the change and I believe buy in will come.
Which brings me to my previously suggested vision of the Downtown and Lakeshore precincts.
Let’s make the Downtown and Lakeshore Precincts totally pedestrianized.
That’s Lakeshore to Caroline and Martha to Locust.
Obviously certain vehicular access must be allowed for residents, businesses as well as transit.
The City should offer low cost bus transit between the downtown and Mapleview Mall, Burlington Centre, the Fairview & Appleby GO stations, where free parking would be available.
This will link Spencer Smith to Brant St, push transient commuter traffic back on to the QEW, where it becomes the Provinces problem (as it should be). It will reinvigorate the downtown.
 Brant street being set up for the Sound of Music – Barker would like to see it traffic free year round. Now I don’t wish to dwell on a sad event, but did anyone notice when watching news video of the knife attack that occurred in The Hague, Netherlands a week ago, that it happened right outside a Hudson Bay store, which is located in, yes you have guessed it, a pedestrian precinct.
I Googled “European Cities with pedestrian precincts” and got a list that included Vienna, Copenhagen, Prague, Zagreb, Cologne, Amsterdam, The Hague, Cambridge, Canterbury, York.
If these more populated Cities can make it work, then so can Burlington
As said earlier a pedestrian precinct in the Brant Main and Lakeshore precincts would bring the downtown and Spencer Smith Park together, it would allow for green spaces to be created and I am convinced reinvigorate our downtown.
 By Roland Tanner
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is the delegation I gave at City Hall yesterday on behalf of ECoB. It is, in essence, already obsolete, which I believe is good news for residents. It is obsolete because Council informally signaled its clear intention to get the Official Plan Review process complete in March 2020, to lift the ICBL, and move on to doing everything in its power to take on the Urban Growth Centre, Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) designations which currently give additional powers to developers to build what they want.
This may still not be the Official Plan most residents want. In fact I’m sure it’s not. Because the city alone cannot insist on the OP residents want – yet. But if the city can persuade other levels of government to work with us, there is some hope that the clearly expressed preferences for residents for downtown Burlington can still be achieved. Nobody should pretend it will be easy. What residents have asked Council to do in reshaping and removing the downtown designations has never been done before, and there is no formal process to achieve it. But getting the revised OP back to Halton Region in March gives us our best chance of achieving those difficult objectives.
I am delegating today on behalf of Engaged Citizens of Burlington. Engaged Citizens of Burlington is a registered non-profit organisation with over 600 signed up supporters, a growing percentage of whom are paid members. We advocate on behalf of the proper recognition of residents’ preferred solutions in all municipal matters, in favour of a stronger role for residents’ voices generally, and in favour of the reform of the province’s relationship with municipal government.
 Tanner on ECoB: We exist because the voices of residents have historically had a hard time being heard at City Hall over the last decade or so. That’s the same phrase I’ve used to start the last three or four delegations I’ve made here. I say it because not everybody in the audience knows what ECoB is, and also to counter the criticism of ECoB made since its early days, and still made frequently on Twitter: namely, that we are a group of angry, unrepresentative and entitled NIMBY’s who represent nothing but selfishness.
We exist because the voices of residents have historically had a hard time being heard at City Hall over the last decade or so, and still need all the help they can get in working, hopefully collaboratively, with City Hall.
But that’s not the same thing as saying ‘what residents want to happen has to happen’. What residents want can only ‘happen’ if it’s legal. But Council can insist on Official Plan that’s ignores the wider planning context, if it wants. It has that right. I suspect that’s the subtext of today’s debate, rather than the two options actually on the table. Should council send these options back to staff for a third time and demand options that reflect what residents want? Or is there another approach that could work?
So I’m not going to do what once would have been expected from ECoB and shake my fist and say that the options presented by staff are an outrage that ignores residents. I’m also not here to capitulate and say this represents a reasonable compromise with the public vision for downtown and we simply have to put up with it. It’s not and we don’t. Downtown’s future should reflect the vision of Burlingtonians. Period. Nobody in this room should have a problem with that. The only question is, how do we get there?
I believe we have two options presented by staff which are a good faith attempt to do what they can to deliver a compromise between what residents want and what is defensible at LPAT. But those options were never going to be popular or reflect the entirety of what residents want. That was very clearly signalled by staff throughout this review. They feel it would be professionally unacceptable to draft a plan that’s inconsistent with the provincial framework.
Why do they believe this? Because of the Urban Growth Centre. That’s the root cause of this entire debate. Regardless of population targets and minimum densities and all the rest of it, while the Urban Growth Centre is in place downtown we are going to get proposals for highrises, and LPAT is going to approve them. That Urban Growth Centre was put in place with little or no consultation, and absolutely no foresight in 2007. The then director of planning was proud that Burlington was the first city in the GTHA to do so. In retrospect it seems like we were first because nobody on that council was paying attention. But that decision informs everything happening now. Everything comes back to the Urban Growth Centre.
So Council has a choice to make, and very little time to make it. The choice is – either, ONE, reject both these options and ask the planning staff for a third time to reconsider their proposals for downtown. Or, TWO, let these options go forward, acknowledging that this is not what residents want, and not what many feel they have the right to expect, but recognising that if we’re actually going to win this battle for a downtown residents like, it’s not going to be the OP that delivers it.
If Council asks staff to think again, if that’s being considered, what will happen? It will mean more delays, with no particular guarantee that staff will even then come back with options that anybody likes. And I presume it will mean the Interim Control Bylaw will be extended, possibly for up to another year. If that happens, my understanding is that council remains unable to address the Anchor Mobility Hub at the John St Bus shelter or the Urban Growth Centre. Everything that has a chance of definitively getting control of downtown remains on hold.
 What Brant Street could look like. Meanwhile development applications keep coming in. And they keep getting taller. And while the ICBL is in place the clock keeps ticking on applications, which means those applications are going straight to LPAT for non-response by council. Far from controlling the decisions on those developments, Council is handing them over to LPAT without trying to use the tools at its disposal to achieve moderation. Those developments are not coming back to you. LPAT will make the call. I freely admit that if I was sitting where you’re sitting I would have voted for the ICBL. I have no doubt. But right about now as I see developments being appealed to LPAT for non-response I’d be wondering if I’d made a mistake. I hope I’d have had the courage to change my mind rather than doubling down.
If in contrast Council takes these options and goes ahead with them as the basis for an imperfect OP for downtown, what will happen? The ICBL will be lifted. The city can, we believe, remove the Mobility Hub and leave central Burlington with one perfectly logical transit hub, taking one tool away from developers. The city can start making decisions on the developments coming before it, and residents need you to do that work. The city can begin lobbying the province for help with the Urban Growth Centre.
 Roland Tanner sees hope for the city. Yes, we know it will not be easy, and there are numerous hurdles to achieving it. But council has something very powerful in its pocket – votes in a marginal riding. We live in a must-win riding for any provincial government, and the current government is on the wrong side of the biggest political issue in our city for this or many generations.
In that context who can say even this pro-development provincial government won’t be willing to listen?
This is EcoB’s position right now. Complete this process as soon as possible and get onto the policies which address where the real power lies. Residents ultimately don’t care about a perfect Official Plan. They care about their downtown, and they want to see a council that is doing everything in its power to address the the many things which are currently taking their downtown away from them.
And if, finally, the Urban Growth Centre can be addressed and placed where it makes sense – where Burlington’s transit already exists and growth is already being focused – could we not then return to the OP and revise it to reflect the new tools that the city holds?
 By Staff
December 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Don Fletcher stood before a Standing Committee to tell them about a Citizens Plan for the Waterfront Hotel site at the foot of Brant street that is already in talks with the city to re-develop the site.
The Planning department had put out their proposed Concept 2 for the site. The creation of that proposal is what brought the Plan B into existence; they knew something much better was possible.
 The city Planning department called it the emerging preferred concept 2 On November 28th, 2017 an alternate building design featuring:
i. Extension of Spencer Smith Park
ii. Enhancement of Brant Street gateway to Lake Ontario
was put forward.
One June 5th, 2018 another Fletcher delegation resulted in amendment to key policy direction to “define & consider a building setback from the Thin Red Line”
 That thin red line would ensure that there would always be a clear view of the lake from Brant Street. The Citizens’ PLAN B remains committed to process, continuing dialogue with all stakeholders.
The Thin Red Line at NE Corner of Lakeshore & Brant is meant to ensure that there are no building West/ Southwest of Thin Red Line.
Fletcher explained to Council why the PLAN B folks were once again before Council.
– Two precincts, the Brant Main Street and the Lakeshore Mixed Use border on Waterfront Hotel property and Spencer Smith Park.
– That is a concern because changes to the adopted OP for downtown and the intensification designations will impact the application and approval of the Waterfront Hotel redevelopment
The participation that Fletcher saw at the Citizen Action Labs sessions caused the Plan B people additional concern about the process
The Re-examination of Adopted OP Process has a number of assumptions including key designations remaining unchanged.
– John Street bus terminal = Mobility Hub/ Major Transit Station Area
– Downtown Burlington = Urban Growth Center
• Both Concepts 1 & 2 seem designed to meet same intensification goals as former Adopted OP – LPAT defensible.
– Tall buildings permitted in Lakeshore Mixed Use Concept 1 at both NE corner w/Brant & NW corner w/Locust transition poorly to neighbouring precincts, but yield higher density
– Podium setback in Lakeshore Mixed Use Concept 2 of only 3m is to compensate for lower density of mid rise building
Fletcher believes that the electorate voted on Oct. 22nd, 2018 for fundamental change to intensification levels and the enforceability of Official Plan.
He concludes that key OP policies should to:
– Preserve connections & views to the waterfront
– House mid to low-rise buildings downtown with taller ones toward Fairview
– Maintain small town character and preserve heritage
– Reflect the community’s vision for the area
Fletcher argued that many attendees at Citizen Action Labs viewed Concepts 1 & 2 as different versions of same over-development and added that a different result from the 2018 Adopted OP demands a different approach.
Fletcher is concerned that Proceeding Solely As-Is is a mistake.
An Official Plan recommendation, potentially uninformed by the City’s Land Use Study (This is the work being done while the Interim Control bylaw is in place) was not in his opinion a smart thing to do. The land use study is not due until early March.
– Should the Mobility Hub/ Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) or Urban Growth Center designation remains they will permit the over development of the downtown which residents dislike and voted against.
This allowd for continued grounds for LPAT appeals by developers to plan/ negotiate ever greater heights. That would mean a return to “business as usual”, supported by developer-friendly Bill 108, once ICBL moratorium expires
This is the Brant Street view looking south to the lake that the Plan B people want to ensure does not happen. Citizens’ PLAN B proposes that the city continue to refine recommended Concept (1+2)
• Create an alternate What-if Concept to support growth downtown, without Mobility Hub/ MTSA and Urban Growth Center designations
• Accelerate Land Use Study & publish
• Aggressively lobby Region/ Province to change MTSA & Urban Growth Center designations, to establish viability
• Seek public feedback (January-February)
• Present both options to Council in March
• Decide and submit OP for approval to the Region of Halton, dependent upon finalizing designations for downtown
Burlington’s Downtown is at a turning point.
Related news stories:
The first look at Plan B.
Send the Plan back.
 By Gary Scobie
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
You have been put in a very difficult position as a Council. You wish to please citizens with good development in our downtown, yet you feel you must also create a new OP that will kowtow to the Province’s demands and developer wishes to over-intensify the area of our city that people look to as central to our existence.
 Adjust the current OP to reflect the downtown density we really want.  This was the first nail in the coffin for our downtown. You are in this position because of failures of past Councils, dating back to the Council elected in 2002, which threw up its hands
in defeat when trying to re-vitalize the downtown and accepted help from Big Brother in the form of the Places to Grow legislation designation of the downtown as an Urban Growth Centre. That Council and the one following in 2006 welcomed further intrusion in local planning by accepting a questionable designation of our Bus Terminal as an Anchor Mobility Hub.
That Council was more interested in saving the City by building a pier instead. Just think what they might have accomplished if they’d focused on the downtown instead, or not.
 Part of the gift that kept on giving.  The first decision -and they just kept on coming. Fast forward to the 2014 Council who after turning down the Adi request to build a 26 storey skyscraper at Martha and Lakeshore, didn’t know how to defend the decision at the OMB and soon after in November 2017 gave Carriage Gate a gift that keeps on giving, the OK for a 23 storey building at 421 Brant that went way beyond the Op’s 8 storey limit and even beyond the 17 storey limit that was being pondered for an updated OP, all for the asking.
This was the first nail in the coffin for our downtown. Since then Council OK’d a 17 storey building at 409 Brant, again across the road from City Hall. I am almost certain that the developer-friendly LPAT will give in to the request for more height to match the 23 storeys of its neighbour across the road, leading to the Twin Towers of Burlington, a mockery of our OP and our City Hall.
Now we have before us tonight what I’d term Plan D, an attempt to please the Province, LPAT and developers with the over-intensification they desire and are prepared to fight for. And they have all the high cards in the deck and the high-paid talent to do so. No consideration of our current OP and the views of citizens who wish to keep our downtown to a human scale with retail buildings that are two storeys in height in certain areas and individual in character and façade.
When I see either of the two concepts, looking up or down Brant Street, I am reminded of a near faceless canyon of steel, brick and glass fronting sidewalks, with podiums that are a minimum three storeys in height and stores that have no character except for the name on the glass. So the D is for failure – failure to listen to citizens at labs and walkabouts like those that I attended. The D is also for Destruction because if either of these concepts (or a combination of the two) is accepted by Council, it will likely sound the death knell of our downtown, a complete replacement over time of the character we value on Brant Street.
 The Brant Street that was – can any of it be saved? But what did we expect, as developers have been buying up our retail street lots for assembly for years for a redo of the downtown in their image? With these concepts we give them free reign, with the blessing of the Province, to go beyond the minimum density goals of the Urban Growth Centre, Anchor Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area designations.
Developers can always claim they are only doing what the Province asked in intensifying growth centres. Unless this Council rids us of these designations we will see continued destruction of our downtown. And it hasn’t really started yet, so we have yet to realize what will be taking place. We only have vacant lots at 374 Martha and 421 Brant. Wait until the construction starts. We only have a stalled Bridgewater project on the Lake that hasn’t really impacted our congestion during construction like these others will.
But wait, there’s more. We have applications for 29 storeys at Lakeshore and Pearl, two 27 storey building applications for the Old Lakeshore Precinct and a redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel waiting in the wings. The latter three are not even being considered in the concepts we have before us tonight. Why is that?
There is no defense possible at the LPAT by the City to stop them. So we are being sold a backup plan that can’t possibly work to save our downtown. There is only one plan that might work, but apparently we are still waiting for a report about talking to the Province to get us out from under the downtown-killing designations our previous Councils so passively accepted. We don’t need a report. We don’t need a Plan D. We need to hear from Council that it is talking now with the Province on moving the intensity away from the downtown and the Lake up to the three GO Station Mobility Hubs. In other words, put a halt on these concepts and show us some action to save the downtown.
 Please don’t tell us that you aren’t at least setting the stage with the Province.  If you don’t do something with our OP, zoning and heights revert to the current 2008 version. Please don’t tell us that you aren’t at least setting the stage with the Province because the Interim Control Bylaw is in place till March. By then the timeline shows we’ll have selected a concept and maybe even a new OP. This would be like giving the enemy their ammunition.
There is one more thing that you must do as well though – adjust the current OP to reflect the downtown density we really want and the heights we would be comfortable with once we regain control of our downtown growth plan. Looking at creating a Heritage District up Brant Street to Caroline Street might also be suggested, but according to Oakville sources this is a time and effort-consuming task that may or may not fly. If you don’t do something with our OP, zoning and heights revert to the current 2008 version, the one conforming to intensification targets from the Places to Grow legislation. Only heritage buildings will be safe from being demolished unless this is done.
This is our last chance to stop many more skyscrapers from rising from Brant Street lots that will be cleared of the last remnants of unique stores and storefronts. Please don’t tell us these concepts are it – the plan to stop the high buildings. Because they aren’t.
By Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Good morning Chair, Councillors, Your Worship.
I am Lynn Crosby and with me is my colleague, Blair Smith, and we represent the advocacy group, WeLoveBurlington. WLB fought against the prospects of municipal amalgamation in order to preserve and protect local voice. We are here today because we continue to advocate for local voice. We believe that Council and the citizens in Burlington are at a crucial point where we have one last chance to fight for the vision of Burlington that citizens have been expressing for years. We have one final opportunity to protect our downtown, preserve our waterfront and ensure that the people are heard.
 Lynn Crosby in conversation with a citizen. While we applaud the committed efforts of Planning staff, we would like to add our opinion to that of many of the citizens of Burlington and express both disappointment and concern with the two options or “concepts” that are being offered for the development of the downtown core. We will leave discussion of our main issues for whenever Council will be endorsing amendments to the Adopted Official Plan. We have many technical and policy arguments which justify a more popularly supported vision for the downtown – we will offer them then. This morning, we would like to speak to fundamental flaws in the concepts.
 Where will the growth go? The Esso station site is reported to have been sold. WLB members attended two different sessions (hence received two different perspectives) of the recent ‘action labs’ designed to garner public opinion on what the vision and conceptual layout should be for the development of Burlington’s downtown. We also received feedback from several of our associates who attended different sessions. Notably, all sessions had the same deficiencies.
The two concepts (and the mention of a possible third melded concept) were presented – each based on the existence of the same factors or planning constraints:
The urban growth centre designation for downtown
The mobility hub located at the current bus station, and
The major transit station area designation
No consideration was given to any concept that was not based on and framed by these constraints. So, if these constraints change, and we believe that they should, then don’t the concepts also need to change? Indeed, if after the ICBL expires, and Burlington is successful in removing the classification of the urban growth centre or moving its location further north, then the limiting factors underlying the two concepts become irrelevant. Our fear is that if either of the options are selected for the downtown or anything substantially similar, then the relocation of the Urban Growth Centre becomes moot. You will be backing yourself unnecessarily into a corner that is inconsistent with your stated direction and intent.
Both concepts presented this morning are based on the Adopted Official Plan. The Adopted Official Plan reflects the direction and desire of the past Council. So, first we ask “what does this Council want?” Is the Adopted Official Plan your vision as well? The vision of the past Council, which we believe largely ignored what the people wanted for the downtown, should not automatically be inherited or repeated by you. To be fair, many of the errors made with regard to the future of Burlington’s downtown cannot be completely laid at the feet of the immediate past Council – they go further back. However, what does stand before you is the opportunity to correct these mistakes. This will be your lasting legacy.
In the ‘Action Labs,’ participants were told that the two concepts were developed because they were “defensible”. In other words, they would be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfy the requirements of Halton Region as sole approval authority of the plan. But both concepts represent just slightly different flavours of the same thing – tall buildings in the downtown. Should there not be at least one true alternative? Participants were told that any concept that involved ‘no more tall buildings’ was not “defensible” and could not be included. So, when choosing a concept, participants selected the one that was the least offensive of the two rather than that which might actually reflect what they wanted to see.
Many participants that we questioned felt that neither concept was what was desired for downtown. Many felt that they were voting for the option that was ‘the best of a bad lot’; that even the informing vision for downtown (Section 3.3 of the Report) missed the fact, frequently expressed, that it cannot be achieved if tall buildings are part of the environment. This feeling of dissatisfaction with both process and available options is also apparent on the City’s facebook page where over 160 negative comments are registered. Overall, we believe this means any results from the polls and selections made by attendees are skewed and have little if any validity.
Perhaps the most fundamental question concerns the starting point of this process – the Adopted Official Plan. Why was this chosen when it clearly has neither legal status nor resonance with the citizens. Many who participated in the workshops had expected that this exercise was building a fresh view rather than one that merely “refines” an existing and frankly unpopular vision. Indeed, Section 3.4 of the report states that “the overall vision for the downtown remains the same”. Why? Add to this the fact that an Official Plan is intended to be read as a whole. The parts are interconnected and must be considered together to avoid taking things out of context. The downtown, which we are examining here and through this whole exercise, may be the most controversial portion of the OP but it is not the only one and each impacts the other.
WLB believes that the people need to be heard; that ‘tall building’ development in Burlington should not occur in the downtown core and particularly not in proximity to the waterfront. We will expand on this position whenever the final concept is brought back. However, we would like to be clear. WLB is not opposed to development in the interests of intensification but believes that this form of development should occur in areas other than the downtown core; if in the downtown at all, then much further north. The waterfront and our downtown are vitally important to our city and must be protected. The OP is the best way to protect them.
 Why, wondered Crosby and Smith, was the city using the Adopted Official Plan when it did not supposedly represent the current city council? WLB believes that Council should carefully listen to the voice of the people and defend it to the best of their ability. We believe that the new OP should be redrafted to present a ‘no more tall building’ concept for Burlington’s downtown core. Indeed, what is the rush? Why are we here now? There is no deadline in the Provincial Planning Act that is forcing us to push this through without sober second thought. We have been given a “time-out” to carefully reconsider what Burlington needs and what the people want. Why are we here today at the beginning of the Christmas season, rushing to execute on a consultant’s vision for our downtown with arbitrary deadlines and time-frames for response?
We read Mayor Meed Ward’s article piece published last week in Inside Halton about the recommended changes to the OP for the downtown. We were encouraged that she feels “they still represent over-development” and that she’s “looking for an option that is more in line with what residents have expressed throughout the OP process that began in 2017.” We note that Councillor Kearns appears to have similar concerns and are equally encouraged by statements in her recent Newsletter. We also agree that the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area designations are a concern and should officially be removed or relocated.
This whole process to date – the Action labs, the downtown tours, the surveys, the one-on-one discussions with staff and council members – is rather meaningless since it was all predicated on a direction that we believe is flawed; the premise that the popular desire for no more tall buildings at all downtown isn’t defensible and thus can’t even be considered. And why? Because we have designed these options based on the current existence of the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area being downtown, in fact they are “givens”. A circular argument at best.
And we should neither fear nor anticipate LPAT. We believe that at LPAT the position of a municipal Council is paramount. The hearing must first understand the position of Council and the relationship between this position and the existing OP and the PPS. The type of LPAT hearing to be held and the decision resulting can be totally based on Council’s stance and direction. The new or reintroduced issue is the ‘de novo’ hearing and we will get into detail on that when we delegate next. But the critical thing is the strength of Council’s voice and the consistency of its position. A good municipal lawyer will use this to maximum advantage. This position of fearless champion of what is best for Burlington is what we expect our Council to adopt.
 Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith during their delegation: Were they heard? Finally, the result is that we feel that we are again not being sincerely engaged or truly heard. All the public engagement that has been done has landed us here in a position where the two concepts presented do not reflect what the public wants. We understand that Council will work with staff on modifications to produce an option for endorsement by early next year. This is far too important to be done in haste.
We respectfully request that Council take as long as is needed to produce the right solution for Burlington; one that protects the waterfront for generations to come and preserves a downtown free of any additional tall buildings. Please extend the ICBL if need be, complete the necessary studies, including the transportation study, the market analysis and the fiscal impact study, among others, acknowledge that the Official Plan is an integration of perspectives and should be addressed as a single entity. There is only one waterfront and one downtown – once gone there will be no bringing anything back and, fairly or not, you as a Council will be judged by the Burlington you saved or permitted to be lost.
 By Pepper Parr
November 30th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Each term the Mayor sets out who she wants to serve as Chair of the various Standing Committees.
The choices have to be approved by Council with each Council member being asked by the Clerk if they will accept the appointment.
The time around the structure of the Standing Committees have been changed. The new committee names and the recommended appointments are shown below. There are some surprises.
In her recommendations Mayor Meed Ward said: “After careful consideration of skills, experience, priorities and exposure, as well as seeking input from each Councillor, the recommended new Chairs/Vice Chairs for the new committees is as follows:
EICS: Environment, Infrastructure & Community Services Committee
Chair: Kelvin Galbraith Vice Chair: Lisa Kearns
CPRM: Community Planning, Regulation & Mobility Committee; AND CPM: Statutory Public Meeting
Chair: Shawna Stolte Vice Chair: Rory Nisan
CSSRA: Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability Committee (includes Budget special meetings)
Chair: Rory Nisan, Vice Chair: Paul Sharman
Council Workshop:
Chair: Angelo Bentivegna Vice Chair: Lisa Kearns
Audit:
Chair: To be determined by Audit
Vice-Chair: To be determined by Audit
 Mayor Meed Ward has put forward the Committee chairs she would like to see in place. Mayor Meed Ward said: “The Deputy Mayor rotation will undergo some changes; the Procedural Bylaw has to be amended to permit chairs to serve in the Deputy Mayor rotation.
“The chair and vice chair of council standing committees rotates annually according to calendar year. Typically, the vice chair of the committee moves into the chair role, and the chair rotates off; however, with the recent reorganization, an additional standing committee has been added. This will mean that all members of council are either a chair or vice chair, and some will have more than one role.
“Chairs can’t be a deputy mayor, according to our current procedure bylaw. We will need to modify that part of our procedure to better distribute the deputy mayor role among more council members.
“Currently the deputy mayor role is on a one-month rotation, which can lead to confusion as to who’s on deck. During this term, I will be bringing forward a report providing better definition of, and outlining an enhanced role for, the deputy mayor. In the short term, I am recommending the role rotate quarterly, and that two deputy mayors serve each quarter, to provide additional backup for the mayor and opportunity to Councillors.
Q1:
Kelvin Galbraith and Angelo Bentivegna
Q2:
Lisa Kearns and Shawna Stolte
Q3:
Rory Nisan and Paul Sharman
Q4:
Angelo Bentivegna and Kelvin Galbraith
 Lisa Kearns – vice chair  Paul Sharman  Lisa Kearns who handled a very full and complex series of meetings did particularly well; it seems odd that she is not the Chair of any of the Standing Committee – she is the Vice Chair of one. Same applies to Paul Sharman. Both he and Kearns were strong chairs able to handle complex situations.
The Mayor may have decided to give the other Councillors some needed exposure at being fully responsible.
Kelvin Galbraith, Shawna Stolte and Rory Nisan are to be appointed chairs.
The City is going into a very difficult phase with an Official Plan that has to be finalized, an Interim Control Bylaw that as to be lifted and a budget that is going to require more from the taxpayer than last year. Add to that some very controversial developments that are going to come before them.
The role of Deputy Mayor has been a wasted opportunity in the past. Expect the Mayor to take some bold steps and put others out on the streets and at major events. Kudos for Meed Ward taking that step.
We can’t wait to see Angelo Bentivegna serving as the Deputy Mayor.
 By Pepper Parr
November 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
There are changes taking place within the transit service and in the way people are using transit.
Three of the new buses are now part of the fleet bringing it to 59 buses that require 111 operators.
The new grid system is in place and people are getting used to the improved connectivity that is seeing an increase in the number of connections between the routes.
 It took close to a decade for the transit people to come up with a grid system. Fine tuning and tweaking is being done now. Director of Transit, Sue Connors, is now well into applying her years of transit experience to Burlington’s situation. It was a mess before she arrived. The decision to hire her was one of the best former city manager James Ridge made.
Connor is in the process of putting together a five year Business Plan and at the same time readying the city for electric buses. She has pointed out that making the decision to go electric (which is really a given) is the easy part. Training staff and hiring mechanics who can keep the buses going is what will take time.
Edmonton is doing a pilot that everyone is watching: if the electric bus can work in the Edmonton environment they will work almost everywhere.
The expectation is that Oakville will be the first community in the Halton Region to start using electric buses.
 If a bus is late – it can signal a traffic light and will be given priority to run through the intersection. System is being piloted on Fairview Traffic lights technology– or what is often called “priority transit signals” are going to be piloted along Fairview. The system will know if a bus is on time – if it isn’t, traffic lights will give the bus priority so that it can get caught up. If bus service is going to get people where they want to go – connections between routes will be critical.
The GO train system allows dogs on their equipment; Burlington doesn’t. The transit people are working on sorting out that problem.
An interesting bit of information came to the surface during the Integrated Mobility Advisory meeting. The city is measuring almost everything that moves in the city. They want to know where people walk; where they bike, how and when they use transit; we will all know how often cars are used.
 The Elgin Promenade begins at Brant and runs east. The Elgin promenade which stretches from Brant Street east to Pearl, is part of a bigger trail system that gets you to the canal in the west and eventually all the way to the Oakville border. A traffic counter has been installed along the Promenade – it measure how many people walk by – a surprising 500 people each day. People are out walking.
Using bikes on city streets has its own set of problems. The bike lane on Maple was made a little wider but unfortunately had to end at Lockhart – a block or two from Lakeshore – there just wasn’t room enough for the bike lane.
That cut-off prevents people from cycling along to Lakeshore Road and through the Beachway to the canal or into Spencer Smith Park.
A problem that has to be worked on.
By Pepper Parr
November 26th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
We took in one of the Advisory meetings last night. The Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee was meeting with a decent agenda but no quorum for the first while of the meeting.
There was an update from Catherine Baldelli from Transit. She passed on what Council had learned earlier – transit use is up; as much as 13% on some routes.
The data is still being worked through to learn where the increase is taking place and then where is it coming from.
 Transit use is up – a good sign. Chair Kerry Eaton runs a meeting that flows nicely and pulls in the views of anyone who has something to say.
The Accessibility Advisory; the Cycling Advisory; the Seniors Advisory and the Sustainable Development Advisory are all part of the Integrated Transportation Advisory (ITAC). What they’ve done is something very sensible – created committees that look at a number of interests instead of having a bunch of committees that sit as silos. Kudos to whoever brought that about.
There were a number of matters covered that we will deal with going forward.
 The city wants people to make more use of bicycles – and not just for pleasure – using a bike for running small errands is the direction the city want to go. Will the public buy into it? Cycling is getting attention.
Former city manager James Ridge liked the idea of Burlington having a ride share system similar to the one Hamilton has – his hope was that Burlington might be able to buddy up with Hamilton and use the same platform.
THAT isn’t going to happen. Seems that the bicycle ride share business has changed – no one wants to put a bunch of bikes on the street and look for revenue from those who rent the bikes to cover the costs. The costs weren’t getting covered.
Dan Ozimkovic told the committee that the cycling types were looking at options – no date on when something might get sent along to council for consideration.
Many years ago there was conversation at Council about a bridge – just for cyclists and pedestrians that would cross over the QEW.
The question was where would such a bridge be placed ? The cost is a major issue but the location has to be determined before costs get attention.
The “preferred location at this point is in the Brant – QEW area; nothing more than that at this point other than the committee wants the bridge to lead to some of the trails in the city.
 Is a bridge something like this in the works for Burlington – a way for cyclists and pedestrians to get across the QEW. The good news is that the project is getting looked at – hopefully someone is looking at what federal or provincial funding might be available.
Doug Benton wondered aloud if there was not some way to create a Kiss & Ride in the Brant – Fairview area. Turns out he drops his wife off in the Upper Middle Road and Brant area where she can get the bus she needs. There isn’t a convenient place for him to pull in and drop her off or wait for her when she is coming home.
There were a number of “possible ideas” that were floated and there were some interesting stories on how people are using the bus. One woman who took advantage of the free service for seniors during the off-peak hours told Catherine Baldelli that she travelled around on the bus just to get out of the house and be with people. It was this citizen’s way of being with people.
Transit it appears is more than transportation.
Good things coming out of this committee – worth watching.
I recall a past transit committee meeting at which members were throwing copies of the agenda at each other – chaos for the most part.
An observation – there was no council representation at the meeting – a good thing?
By Pepper Parr
November 22, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It was the second public meeting to update people on the 25 year Master Plan that the Royal Botanical Garden is putting in place.
The RBG is a sprawling 2700 acre property that has dozens of nooks and crannies that many, probably most, don’t know anything about.
 Formerly a market garden, Laking Garden is home to RBG’s herbaceous perennial collections. There are of course the obvious Laking, Hendrie, Arboretum and the most recent Rock Garden but did you know about the Rock Chapel? The South Shore Commons?
The RBG has a core group of supporters that are rock hard. They see themselves as stewards there to support management and ensure that no one infringes on the place.
Other than some American Republicans everyone knows we no longer have weather – we have climate change. We are also becoming much more aware of the relationship of the climate we live in and what it does for our overall well-being.
The RBG is an operation with a $50 million budget of which 65% is generated internally.
They are in the process of expanding their revenue options while at the same time taking a look at what in the way of problems is coming their way.
The recent news of the waste water that was allowed to seep into the water is just one example of what RBG has to cope with.
 It was a full house of people who see themselves as stewards in place to support management to ensure that no one infringes on the RBG The RBG is part of a bigger picture; it is impacted and impacts the Great Lakes, the Escarpment and local agriculture. Pollution is an ongoing concern and adjacent land users need to have an eye kept on them.
The objective is to ensure that the RBG is ecologically resilient and reflects the changes in the way the public now sees the place.
Drew Wensley, a principal with MT Planners, said they were looking for a way to change the “landing points” for the RBG adding that he didn’t think it appropriate for the entrance to the RBG be a parking lot. He thought the entrance point should be a garden of some sort.
Thought was being given to improving transit to the site and also looking for way to use “green transit” on the site.
All this is a part of the 25 year plan – how does RBG adapt to the public change in attitude towards the changing climate? And how do they continually take the RBG’s environmental pulse?
 People attending the Master Plan Update meeting had more than fifty poster sized graphics to see in detail the changes that were being thought through. Thursday evening well over 150 people turned out to learn more and get an update on the Master Plan being developed by a team of consultants led by the Primary Consultant, MT Planners. The long-term policy document will identify short-term capital projects to be addressed in the next five years as well as longer-term projects for the next 25 years. The plan is expected to be completed at the end of February 2020 and approved by RBG’s board of directors in mid-March 2020.
Called a “bold initiative” it will be the roadmap for Royal Botanical Gardens to ensure future generations will connect with plant-life in a unique environment, fostering awareness and care for a world that is under increasing ecological threat. RBG aims to instill in everyone they reach, a deeper awareness of themselves, their place on this planet and their role as protectors and stewards of the environment.
“The Master Plan will be the roadmap to achieving RBG’s goals; namely to build the financial strength and independence to serve its future and to enhance infrastructure and amenities for current visitors and for new, more diverse audiences from local, national and international markets.
 Mark Runciman – the xx of Royal Botanical Gardens; runs a tight ship. “RBG plans to achieve this by creating new revenue streams and leveraging and enhancing its existing land use plan. RBG will explore not only the living framework of the landscape, and its business and market, but the aspirations of RBG’s members and governance body.
“At the heart of this plan is the critical need to nurture and protect ecosystems on a local, national and global scale. While the need to achieve financial sustainability is clear, RBG exists to affect real and positive change in how humanity interacts with our environment and has pledged to take full advantage of our resources, knowledge and reputation to make significant strides in this direction. To bring this Master Plan to fruition, significant fundraising efforts will be required and formalized throughout the planning process.
 Kelvin Galbraith,Ward 1 Councillor, is the Regional representative on the RBG Board Kelven Gailbraith, who is the Regional representative on the RBG Board noted that: “There was a large crowd at the event last night and many were very excited about the future that this master plan will bring to the RBG.
“Many of the people I spoke with were frequent users of the gardens and use it as an escape from our busy society.”
The Gazette will have an opinion piece in how the meeting went – what worked and what didn’t work.
By Pepper Parr
November 19th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
City Council meetings are sort of like a big rubber stamp. The details in Staff reports get discussed at length during the Standing Committee meetings which run rather long. Council meetings are usually under an hour and a half. Former Mayor Rick Goldring once got through one in just over twenty minutes.
One has to listen carefully and watch closely to pick up some of the detail that gets skipped over.
The Council meeting Monday reported that there were 24 hours of meetings between November 4th to the 12 during which there were 34recommendations put forward and 4 bylaws proposed.
City Council has to approve all that to make it the law of the land.
There were two items that we observed during the Standing Committee meetings that were going to get some attention at the Council meeting; those were the stiffing that Councillor Nisan got from the Transportation department over changes in the speed limits in Kilbride and the problem the Director of Transit had with data in a report that was being discussed.
Councillor Sharman had, as is his want, looked at the numbers carefully and came to the conclusion that there was something very wrong with them.
 Ah – for the love of faulty data: Councillor Paul Sharman As he put it at the Planning and Development meeting – they were just plain wrong. None of the other members of Council appeared to have the same grip that Sharman had on the numbers; the suspicion was that they either hadn’t fully read the report or failed to see the errors that Sharman identified.
After much discussion the Standing Committee decided to refer the report to City Council, which happened last night.
 Direct of Transit Sue Connor giving a consultant a very hard look. She was not happy. The problems appear to be more serious than originally realized. Council decided to refer the report back to the Standing Committee during its next round of meetings.
They basically punted the ball up the field where they would deal with it when they get to that point.
How are you liking the Burlington version of transparency so far?
Councillor Nisan said that he still didn’t have the speed limit changes he had promised his Kilbride constituents but he was still working at it. I think we were seeing an example the tail wagging the dog.
There is a process at city meetings whereby a Staff report can get approval if there aren’t any council members who want to say something. These are referred to as Consent items – they just get passed.
Among those that were consented to were: The report on Vision to Focus; the Active Aging Report and the Cootes Escarpment initiatives. Councillor Sharman had learned of an event that takes place in Detroit where more than 1,000 people show up for a community walk. |He was going to bring it up at the Council meeting and had run it by Parks and Recreation Staff who told Sharman that they didn’t need a Staff Direction – they would just do it.
 Councillor Nisan still doesn’t have the speed limit changes he promised his Kilbride residents. Now either Councillor Sharman has skills that Councillor Nisan doesn’t have or the Parks and Recreation department fully understand the relationship between Council and administration. Sharman has the community walk idea as a good to go; Nisan might have to stand on the road in Kilbride and wave a sign to slow down the speed of traffic.
Councillor Lisa Kearns chose to make some comments on the mammoth development that CORE Development Group want to build within the football – 27 storeys in a place where eight are possible as of right and up to 15 if there are benefits given to the city.
The Gazette has been advocating for some bold moves in that part of the city. We learned from Mayor Meed Ward that the acceptable benefit is for the developer to buy the land on the south side of Old Lakeshore, deed it to the city and they can have the additional seven floors.
 The Mayor seemed to be saying that all the Core Development Group had to do was buy the land inside the black box, deed it to the city, and they would be allowed to build 15 storeys instead of just the eight permitted. The developer has an application in for 27 storeys. Nothing can be built on the land, there are top of bank issues that would make any development not feasible. That is the first time we have heard the Mayor be quite that specific. Something to think about.
Councillors Kearns reacted to a comment in the Gazette where we wondered why she had not moved the motion to receive and file the report on the development that was to have retirement apartment units in one tower of a two 11 storey tower development on New Street and nursing home care that would include what were referred to as “memory units” intended for people with dementia, in the other.
 Excited – this is as good as it gets. Councillor Kearns told her colleagues that it is not her practice to “get too excited” in public nor does she “get upset” in public. She said that what Council was hearing was the extent of her public comment.
 To the victor go the spoils. Both Councillor Kearns and the Mayor commented positively on the development with the Mayor saying that “Burlington was open for business” and that Council wanted to “shape where it goes and the use it is put to.”
“Take note” she added: “Do it right and you get a thumbs up”.
Those comments will stick in the craw of the development community but it is what she said she would do when she ran for the Office of Mayor – and she is doing what she said she would do.
Related news stories:
Transit Director gets sloppy data – Sharman spots the errors
Nisan credibility takes a hit
By Claire Nash
November 17th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Getting around without a car is not everyone’s cup of tea. While public transport might be a viable way to get from place to place, many of us do not have the time – or patience – to use it. Which is why we still buy cars, despite there being more ways than ever to commute without owning one yourself.
 You should always go into the decision having considered all the facts. However, buying a car is an activity fraught with potholes. There are so many ways you can get caught up paying off a car that wasn’t really what you needed in the first place. You should always go into the decision having considered all the facts.
Here are three important things to consider before buying a new car.
1. Do you need a bank loan?
Whether you are going to buy a first-hand or second-hand car, you could make use of a bank loan. This might be to your benefit even if you could technically buy it direct. Money in the bank now is possibly worth more than the extra you end up spending on payments in the long run. Make a checklist before applying for a car loan to come to a more informed decision. It’s great to not have to think about paying your car off, but what you do with the money in the bank can make a big difference to your financial status.
2. Do you need to drive?
Having your own car might seem cheaper than using Uber or Lyft on a day-to-day basis. But there is something else you need to take into account, which you should consider even if you already own a car. Time is money, and we spend a lot of time in transit. Think about how much one hour of your time is worth. With that in mind, how much money does your daily transit cost?
If you are not driving, you can make better use of your transit time. Unless you have issues with motion sickness, you can pull out your laptop and get work done. Alternatively, you can work on a passion project that you otherwise would never have time for. Is this time worth more than you’d be paying on a ride-sharing app?
With this approach, you can even consider buying a cheap car and hiring a driver part-time. Not everyone can afford this, even if they buy a used car, but those who can should consider it.
3. How much will maintenance cost?
A mistake many people make when buying a car is not taking maintenance costs into account. It’s not because we’re unaware of them, but because we put off thinking about them. However, maintenance massively impacts how much the car really costs. A cheap second-hand car could end up costing you more than a new car, because you have to constantly repair problems. And some imported new cars will cost you big in the long run because parts need to be brought in from elsewhere.
Maintenance costs are impossible to accurately calculate in advance, but try and get a general idea of the state the car is in and how much the parts cost. This can also help you come to a decision of whether it might not be cheaper to use Uber to get everywhere.
 By Pepper Parr
November 13th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Easterbrooks will be missed – it represents an age that was. Was it a barn that fronted on a country road? It used to be a site where people would walk to New Street at Guelph line to buy an ice cream cone or a hot dog. It was one of the two Easterbrooks establishments that had been there for years. The building looked like a barn and probably was a long time ago.
This evening the site got approval in principle for a development that will consist of two towers that will reach 11 storeys; one will be a retirement home with 197 retirement home units to include 33 memory care units, and 145 apartment units.
 The design is unique – the need the development fills is real. The two towers will be joined by a passageway at the sixth and seventh floors.
The existing commercial on the site will disappear.
The approval of the development was significant in that it is the first development that acknowledges the need for both residential and retirement care space for a seniors’ population that is growing at the rate of 2% a year and will not top out for thirty years.
Councillor Paul Sharman has been both a persistent and insistent advocate for more in the way of accommodation and care for the aging population.
The original application went through numerous changes.
There was going to be commercial at grade – that was changed into space that would be a recreation/community amenity for the residents and the wider community.
The location is close to perfect for seniors who want to remain active. The library is a short walk away, the Seniors’ Centre is just as close and there is the Centennial Walkway five minutes to the south and a very very short block away a plaza that has all kinds of retail. The Dutch Confectionary shop is going to love the new business from this development.
The Tim Hortons in the Roseland Plaza is reported to be looking for a new location.
The Standing Committee approved a modified application for official plan and zoning by-law amendments made by TRG (New-Guelph) Inc. to permit the development of two joined 11-storey buildings on the site consisting of a retirement home building and a residential apartment building.
All the boxes that have to be checked off were covered. Staff did ask for some changes which for the most part were approved.
The Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility, Heather MacDonald will hold discussions with the applicant to secure community benefits in accordance with Section 37 of the Planning Act.
The modified approval consisted of additional front and side of building step-backs as well as increased setback of the underground parking structure from the front lot line.
The application went to the Planning department on February 2, 2018. On February 22, 2018 Planning Staff acknowledged that the application submitted was complete. That’s a very decent turn-around time.
On June 19, 2019 the applicant submitted a complete re submission for review; this had to do with the change of plans for a Road Diet that had been proposed for New Street.
 Lisa Kearns: The ward Councillor didn’t move the report – didn’t sound all the excited about a development that makes sense. This development is exactly what Burlington needs. It meets an immediate need for rental residential and it meets a need coming straight at us – places for seniors who need some care.
What was disconcerting was that the ward Councillor wasn’t up on her feet to move the report. The Mayor took on that task.
The buildings are proposed to be joined on the 6th and 7th floor, with the 7th floor being exclusively used for the care of residents with dementia and are referred to as memory care units.
Both buildings are proposed to be terraced down to 6 storeys at the back. The development proposes a combination of underground and surface parking, with the majority of spaces being provided in an underground parking structure. Vehicles are proposed to enter the site from a single driveway off New Street between the two proposed buildings. There are no dwelling units proposed on the ground floor of either building.
The revised submission will have 197 retirement home units to include 33 memory care units, an increase in the number of apartment units to 145, and an increase in the on-site parking to 360 spaces.
The property is known to be affected by groundwater contamination from an off-site source. Prior to any development occurring on the site, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the contamination can be mitigated, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP); a Holding Zone will be applied to the property.
CITY OF BURLINGTON POLICY CONTEXT
Current City of Burlington Official Plan has for the most part been met.
i) Compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood character in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and amenity area so that a transition between existing and proposed buildings is provided.
Massing
The massing of the proposed buildings is appropriate at the rear of the property in the 6-storey building form. The lowest and narrowest profiles of the proposed buildings are located closest to the lot line abutting the low- density residential uses to the north; the proposed buildings fit within the 45-degree angular plane to the property line abutting the low- density residential uses, subject to the minor modifications recommended by Planning Staff.
Height
The proposed building height represents a substantial increase to what is permitted as-of-right by the current Official Plan designation of Neighbourhood Commercial (which permits 3-storeys). However, the siting of the proposed building and general building massing has resulted in an 11- storey building that will fit within a 45-degree angular plane to the lot line abutting the low-density residential uses to the north, subject to the modifications to the 6th floor building setback and 7th floor rooftop terrace setback recommended by Planning Staff. At the front of the building, facing New Street, the lower building section closely aligns with the height of the adjacent 6-storey building to the west.
Siting
The proposed buildings have been sited so that a 45-degree angular plane can be achieved from the property line abutting the low-density residential properties to the north. The proposed buildings have been sited closer to the front of the property to generally align with the established building setbacks along the north side of New Street on this block. The longer building faces are located along the side property lines, resulting in narrower building components at the rear yard interface. The siting has resulted in a generous rear yard amenity area for the future residents of the buildings. With regard to building siting, Planning Staff consider the proposed buildings to be compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.
 The development is well situated on thee site – lots of pathways and good open space at the rear of the property. Setbacks
The proposed building setbacks of the lower building form (floors 1-5) are acceptable to Planning Staff. Likewise, the reduction of the building massing to 6-storeys and proposed rear yard setback assists in providing compatibility with the adjacent low-density residential properties to the north. The proposed setbacks of the upper portion of the building require adjustment to ensure compatibility with the streetscape of New Street and adjacent properties on either side of the development. As noted previously in this report, Planning Staff are recommending modified approval to require a 3m building stepback at the front of the building starting at the 6th floor, as opposed to the 1.5m stepback proposed by the applicant. The additional building stepback recommended by Planning Staff assists in reducing the upper building scale and massing along the New Street frontage. This building face stepback aligns with the recommendations of the City’s Mid-Rise Design Guidelines.
The building design proposed by the applicant provided one 7.5m building wall setback (6.0m to the balcony) for the 11-storey building. Planning Staff have recommended that a 2.5m building stepback be provided along the building sides starting at the 6th floor. The additional side of building stepback will assist in providing adequate separation of taller building elements, should adjacent properties develop with a taller mid-rise building form. Subject to the modifications recommended by Planning Staff, the building setbacks can be considered to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character.
 Elevation from the north – the floors above the sixth are set back considerably. Coverage
The applicant has proposed buildings which take up approximately 35% of the site area at grade. The remainder of the site is developed with landscaped and hardscaped area and a limited area for parking (10 spaces), driving and drop-off. The proposed building setbacks and site design allow for a large landscaped open space area at the back of the property and amenity area at the sides of the buildings. The proposed rear yard amenity area abuts the rear yard amenity space of the two low-density dwellings to the north. The applicant has amended their below grade building area to ensure the long- term protection of the cedar trees along the rear property line. Planning Staff feel that the proposed building coverage is appropriate in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood character.
Amenity Area
The proposal includes outdoor common amenity area at-grade at the rear of the property, as well as along walking paths at the sides of the building.
 Elevation from the west showing the setback for the top five floors. Outdoor amenity area is also proposed as a rooftop terrace at the back of the building on the 7th floor. This rear terrace space is proposed only for use by the residents and staff of the memory care suites. A rooftop terrace on the 8th floor is provided as additional amenity space for the residents of the apartment building. All units in both buildings (with the exception of the memory care suites) are provided with private outdoor amenity space in the form of a balcony. Indoor amenity area is provided on the ground floors of each building and is also provided on the 7th floor exclusively for the residents of the memory care suites. A total of approximately 10,000 square metres of amenity area is provided throughout the site to support the 342 units proposed. Units in the residential building are proposed to be provided with approximately 27 square metres of amenity area per unit. Units in the retirement home building are provided with approximately 29 square metres of amenity area per unit. Memory care residents are proposed to have approximately 37 square metres of amenity area per unit.
 View of the development skyline from the north. There are two properties which share the rear lot line with the subject lands. The proposed rear yard common amenity area at grade abuts the rear yard amenity areas of the low-density residential dwellings on Karen Drive. The interface is appropriate as the uses at-grade in the amenity area on the site are passive and informal, and the amenity area is primarily landscaped with soft landscaping elements up to 8 metres from the rear property line.
Conclusion: As modified by Staff, compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood character and represents an appropriate transition between lower density and higher density residential uses.
City of Burlington Adopted Official Plan, 2018
The intersection of Guelph Line and New Street is identified as a Neighbourhood Centre in the adopted Official Plan. Halton Region has identified areas of non-conformity, and as such, the adopted Official Plan will be subject to additional review prior to its approval. Further, City Council has directed a new staff review and public engagement process to consider potential modifications to the adopted Official Plan in the area of the Downtown.
Burlington Hydro has commented that capacity is not available on the existing overhead power lines along New Street to accommodate the hydro services required for the proposed development. The developer will need to upgrade the hydro service from the northwest corner of Mayzel Road and New Street to make adequate servicing available. The system upgrades will be at the expense of the developer. The building will need to provide an electrical room along the south wall of the underground parking structure, accessible to Burlington Hydro staff. Burlington Hydro will be consulted on the specifications of the electrical room requirements at the Site Plan stage.
By Pepper Parr
November 13th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It is a continuing process – no sooner have you elected one level of government than you have to consider who you want to lead you at another level.
The provincial Liberals who were almost wiped off the map in the provincial election of June 2018 are now in the process of determining who the next leader of that political party will be.
At this point there are five people running for that job.
 Mitzie Hunter, former Wynne government Cabinet Minister re-elected in June of 2018. Kate Graham, a candidate for a seat in the legislature during the 2018 election. She did not win the seat but wants to be selected by the party membership as their leader.
Alvin Tedjo, also a candidate in the June 2018 election – he was defeated.
 Steven Del Duca, a member of the Wynne government Cabinet. Del Luca was not re-elected in June 2018. Mitzie Hunter, a member of the Wynne government cabinet is after the job. She was re-elected in the June 2018 election.
Michael Coteau was re-elected as a member of the legislature in June 2018. He was a Cabinet Minister in the Wynne government.
Steven Del Duca was a member of the Wynne government cabinet who was not re-elected in June of 2018
Alvin Tedjo is the focus of this story. He ran in Oakville North Burlington and was soundly defeated by the Conservative candidate – she got almost twice the number of votes as Tedjo.
That has not deterred him from wanting to lead the Liberal Party.
 Home for the Tedjo family is Burlington. He is the father of three children who are all attending Catholic schools. Alvin and his wife are both practicing Catholics who believe that the two educational organizations should be merged.
His plan is to create one English language school board and one French language school board.
“For students, this change means the convenience of attending their closest school, less time on the bus and access to an optional religious curriculum. For teachers and early childhood educators, it means smaller class sizes, availability of more resources and the freedom to teach in any publicly funded school,” said Tedjo.
Charles Pascal, a former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education and professor at OISE*/University of Toronto has previously said, “When it comes to publicly funded education in Ontario, it’s time to let go of our “separate ways” so we can come together. Providing Catholic education with public money is an anachronism waiting to be brought to an end by a courageous Queen’s Park legislature.”
From a fiscal standpoint, Tedjo argues that his plan to merge the school boards will result in substantial savings to the province. This figure is an estimated $1.6B dollars per year that would be reinvested back into public education for ongoing improvement.
“Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador have already done this. It’s time for Ontario to make a change and stop spending precious education dollars to maintain twice as many school boards as we actually need,” said Tedjo.
“Under the current system, the government is quite literally wasting billions of dollars to keep children apart. I firmly believe that a better solution is to have all of our kids – Catholic and non-Catholic – Learning Together,” said Tedjo.
 The Tedjo family grew to three children in four years, which meant that they had two of them in childcare at a time for four consecutive years. Tedjo wants to see massive changes to our child care system.
He tells the story of how when he and his wife Rebecca started having children they worried about things most first-time parents worry about: are we ready, will we be good parents, how are we going to survive?
“We also knew that we had to try and get a spot at a daycare as soon as possible, enough friends and family had told us that. Living in Toronto at the time we went on the city’s waitlist. We eventually gave up and found a different solution that made sense. We did eventually get a call back, only it was two years later while we were expecting our second child.
The Tedjo family grew to three children in four years, which meant that we had two of them in childcare at a time for four consecutive years. “Between our reduced income during parental leave, and the cost of childcare at $17,000 per child ($34,000 per year), those years were tough. We calculated that we were better off financially with Rebecca going back to work as a registered nurse full-time than we would be if she stayed home, but not by much.”
We only stopped paying for daycare last year when our youngest started full-day kindergarten, and we couldn’t help but feel like it was a bit late for the government to start supporting children, where childcare before that magic age of four cost us as much as sending an 18-year old off to college or university.
Tedjo claims that childcare has become so unaffordable that 80 per cent of Ontario families with children under four years old cannot afford the cost of licensed child care. He adds that there are only enough licensed spaces to accommodate 23 per cent of kids under the age of four. This is just not good enough. Many families are paying mortgage-level fees to access licensed childcare, and many more families can’t afford childcare at all.
The solution to this problem is right in front of us. High-quality universal licenced childcare can support better education outcomes for school aged children, improve social cohesion, take pressure off the family budget, and above all else, boost Ontario’s economy by giving families, and particularly women, the option of returning to the workplace sooner, leading to increased economic productivity as well as additional tax revenues for the government.
 Tedjo: The solution to the child care problem is right in front of us. The plan will take time — it’s a big project with no quick fix. After the review, we will start to deliver universal childcare in phases. As we implement phase 1 and build out the capacity to support and provide preschool aged children with childcare, we will work with our partners on expanding universal childcare to toddlers (age 1 ½–2 ½ years old).
In the short term, this expansion will require investments. In the long run, increased employment for parents, particularly for mothers, will contribute to the growth of Ontario’s economy. The taxes associated with their spending power, improved educational outcomes for children, and decreased costs to social programs will provide a return that makes this plan an economic winner, as well as the right thing to do.
The consensus among experts and economists is that for every dollar invested in quality early childhood education, there is a $2.40 return to the economy.
A study by Deloitte estimates that by addressing the wage gap, Ontario government revenues from personal and sales tax could increase by $2.6 billion. The same study also estimates that government spending on social assistance, tax credits, and child benefits could decrease by $103 million, due to the projected increase in families’ income.
Electoral reform is a big issue for Tedjo as well but he wasn’t prepared to talk about that at this point.
Transit has to be changed radically if we are going to get people out of their cars. Policy position on this objective are to follow.
Tedjo plans to implement the Basic Income pilot program that was in place when the Liberal government was defeated.
Tedjo believes our social safety net; ensuring our elderly don’t live in poverty, and making sure our children have the basic necessities of life, is something Canadians are proud of. This is where the Universal Basic Income (UBI) comes in.
Fighting poverty isn’t a partisan issue, at least it shouldn’t be. And it’s not an idea owned by progressives either. There have been nearly 500 studies on basic income, including pilots in Ontario and around the world.
Ontario’s Universal Basic Income would add over $10 billion to Ontario’s economy, create up to 80,000 jobs, and save the Ontario government hundreds of millions of dollars in administration costs and red tape. UBI grows the economy and unlocks opportunity for those stuck in the poverty cycle.
 The early end of the pilot Basic Income Guarantee program in Ontario was ended months after the Ford government took office. This basic income would replace programs more difficult and expensive to administer, like Ontario Works and ODSP, while retaining additional benefits and supports for people with disabilities. This brings dignity to our system, so people don’t need to justify the need for food, clothing, or shelter every two weeks.
The benefits of a universal basic income are well established. It provides a safety net for workers who lost their jobs that is less expensive to administer and easier to access than our current system.
And, like every other politician, Climate Change is right up there at the top for Tedjo. He would bring an immediate end to all the time and money he thinks is being wasted on court battels and go along with what the federal government Climate Change policy. Tedjo did not say if he would create model for Ontario. “It is too early to make that decision” he said.
In the game of politics endorsements can mean something – but not always. Frequently a candidate can get an endorsement from someone who is either a member of the legislature or planning on running and would like to be considered for a Cabinet position.
Hugh Segal, an intellectual giant within the Progressive Conservative movement, has endorsed Alvin Tedjo. Segal, the former senator and chief of staff to Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Premier Bill Davis, has fought for a universal basic income in Canada for over 40 years. THAT is an endorsement well worth having and speaks volumes about what Tedjo is setting out to do.
Tedjo wants change at just about every level. Not change for the sake of change but change to bring about a society that meets the needs of everyday people.
The Liberal government that was defeated in June of 2018 was not in touch with what people needed and not keeping in touch cost xxx
 Tedjo: “People are feeling uncertain about their future. For many, the cost of living is going up, but their salary isn’t keeping pace. We also face a rapidly changing economy where artificial intelligence, automation entrepreneurship and clean technology will be increasingly important. Tedjo believes that “People are feeling uncertain about their future. For many, the cost of living is going up, but their salary isn’t keeping pace. We also face a rapidly changing economy where artificial intelligence, automation entrepreneurship and clean technology will be increasingly important. Even so, the current government is making short-sighted decisions to cut the programs that will help us prepare for what’s coming.”
The Liberal Party will choose a new leader in March of 2020. Then they have to rebuild and put their vision out there and prepare for the 2022 provincial election. The Doug Ford government isn’t all that popular today but they have shown some capacity to change.
Three years in the world of politics is the equivalent to a century. Alvin Tedjo is the local lad who is after the brass ring – we shall watch his progress.
 By Gary Scobie
November 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Once more into the breach. While there have been some good measures this new Council has brought about in 2019, on the most important issue you face, I am feeling frustrated and disappointed.
 Keeping the historic Chrysler Carriage House and leveraging its heritage to get additional height for a development many think is taking place in the wrong part of town. I am delegating in opposition to the 27 storey mixed use condo application for 2093 etc. Old Lakeshore Road, in the middle of the
“football” between Old Lakeshore Road and Lakeshore Road. I would suggest nothing higher than mid-rise at this location and the
same goes for the site being planned next door to the east at the corner of Old Lakeshore and Lakeshore Roads. We don’t need
skyscrapers in our faces as we enter the eastern gateway to the downtown.
 There was a time when a much larger bus terminal existed 25 yards to the left of this small terminal on John Street – it was where people met. Today this tiny structure has been defined as an Anchor Hub. I am frustrated that the Interim Control Bylaw (ICB) has only four more months to run and Council still has not acted on its mandate from citizens to rid us of the Anchor Mobility Hub (AMH) and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) designations downtown. Nor has it moved the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) to the Burlington GO Station. These requests have been there since ECoB formed.
The three un-designations would free you from having to scramble to please the Local Planning Area Tribunal (LPAT) with your refusals to bend to developer demands to build high, build dense and build expensive on small sites in our downtown.
I am disappointed that instead Council is having the Planning Department spend time and expertise teasing out designs for downtown precincts (excluding Old Lakeshore precinct I might add) to please no one except developers.
This department should be using its expertise to support you in un-designating the downtown as an over-intensification project and reclaiming your right as a Council to decide on the intensification of our downtown that was already clearly expressed in the current Official Plan (OP). I attended the final Downtown Development Lab on Saturday and the crowd was not enthusiastic about either concept and was wondering why we were doing this exercise.
I last came here in June of 2019 and advised that your first priority to stop the further proliferation of high rise buildings near our
lakeshore like this one and in our downtown like others was to get us out of the cross-hairs of the development industry by making moves that Oakville Council in its wisdom did well over ten years ago. Instead we are still seeing applications such as this one that run counter to our vision of our lakeshore re-development and give developers an easy ride at the LPAT to gain height without maximums on small sites that only add to existing congestion and ultimately result in a rebuild of our downtown in their image.
Yet we are spending time updating an Adopted OP so it might pass muster under the over-intensification mandates you continue to allow to stand. You ignore the fact that our small Bus Terminal never qualified as an Anchor Mobility Hub because it has neither rapid transit nor dedicated transit to the Burlington GO Station Gateway Mobility Hub. You appear to ignore the ability you have to revise the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre to direct high intensification like this building being applied for to the GO Station Mobility Hubs instead of in the downtown. Meanwhile the clock continues to tick toward the end of the ICB in March 2020.
The canyon effect along Lakeshore Road predicted ten years ago by Save Our Waterfront is about to come to pass unless strong measures are taken by Council.
 The canyon effect along Lakeshore Road predicted ten years ago by Save Our Waterfront is about to come to pass. At one time, I think citizens believed that we had enough historic buildings in our downtown to forestall high rise developments everywhere. Alas, we have very few buildings designated as historic and protected. If one happens to be on a site of properties assembled by a developer, like this one with the Chrysler Carriage House, it is incorporated in a tiny corner of the new building as simply a cost of doing business and a token to those who care about history. Old buildings or interesting facades like Kelly’s Bakeshop are incorporated in the build to lower our unease that our downtown is being stolen from us, to make us feel more comfortable with the redo that is unfolding. I believe that most citizens realize that these small measures are little compensation for what is being lost in total – the vision that Council promotes of a continuing attractiveness, walk-ability and vitality of the small town feel of Burlington’s downtown.
Developers have been assembling properties for years in anticipation of the goldmine that awaited them in high rise luxury condos, with token retail and office space that is mostly unaffordable for the very people we want to stay in the downtown.
Developers want to demolish and build new. You only have to look out your window at City Hall to see the blank slate that was 421 Brant Street. That is the dream of every developer. No trees, no buildings left, just a vacant lot ready to dig down deep for dungeon parking and building footings, set to rise to new heights each time. Wind or shadow issues? We’ve got experts who will tell you all is fine. No trees that will ever live past seven years because the beds are too small and too shallow? You can plant another one in its place. It’s all going to be wonderful with well-off people moving downtown to support the businesses that might or might not be left. What’s not to like?
This type of viewpoint might work at a true mobility hub where you can actually build from scratch a complete community for rail commuters, but it just doesn’t cut it in a downtown that actually does have some buildings, both high and low, that will stay for a long time and need to be built around in a respectful manner.
Members of Council, expect to see the developer of this application at the LPAT soon. In the meantime, please get working with Metrolinx and the Province to at least give you and your citizens a chance at saving our downtown, not frozen in time, but with a reasonable intensification target of our own making.
 Gary Scobie is a Burlington resident who has in the past delegated to city council. His research has informed public opinion.
Related news and opinion content:
Is there anything that can be done to preserve the football?
Can the Mayor keep the dream alive?
By Lawson Hunter
November 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The deafening silence that followed my delegation to Council of the Whole on Nov. 4th spoke volumes. I was there to urge Council to back up their claim of a ‘Climate Emergency’ as they pondered the Proposed 2020 Budget.
 The agenda item, “2018-2022 Burlington’s Plan Vision to Focus Financial Plan” was no doubt expected to be ‘received and filed’. However, as this would be Council’s (and the public’s) first glance at the new Budget – I jumped right on it and registered to delegate. I don’t think anyone expected that to happen. After all, a fuller report goes to Council November 18 after three closed Council Workshops to discuss in detail what is being proposed. Staff would like all this Budget stuff wrapped up by year’s end. Note: the 2019 Budget wasn’t finalized until March 26th of this year.
I visited the City’s GetInvolvedBurlington.ca website to gather some background and see what had been proposed. I clicked on Budget 2020 and there revealed was my first dilemma – the budget listed was for 2019.
Nevertheless, I had the 2019-2028 Approved Capital Budget and the latest version of ‘Vision to Focus’ (V2F) the guiding document that grew out of Burlington’s 25-Year Strategic Plan. Ambitious goals but no Operational budget numbers.
After an admittedly lame attempt at humour, I painted a nightmare scenario where the City took no action to address Climate Change (I called it a Climate Crisis). I asked, “What would people think of Council’s inaction 20, 30, 40 years from now?”.
In the Staff Report it stated:
It is important to note the V2F work plan is not being implemented in a vacuum, but rather aligned with organizational objectives and work plans and being cascaded down and linked into service plans.
If this is true, how is it that Council is being asked to approve a Budget without a Mobility Hub Plan; an Integrated Mobility Plan; a Climate Action Plan; an Urban Forestry Management Plan; a Green Fleet Plan; not to mention an official Official Plan?
The budget process provides a venue in which decisions are made to ensure the appropriate balance between affordability, service levels and financial sustainability are maintained.
There’s no balance to be had. We must act on all fronts and start the process today. Enough with studies. There are plenty of examples as to what other cities are doing to fight climate change. In fact, I gave various Council members a list of 103 actionable items that others cities in Canada have already put in place. Grab those concepts with both hands and start putting them into this Budget, I pleaded.
On the day before my delegation I stumbled upon the Proposed Budget 2020, all 686 pages of it. (www.burlington.ca/budget)
Approve the 2020 Operating Budget including any budget amendments approved by the Committee of the Whole -Budget to be applied against the proposed net tax levy amount of $173,597,452;
Capital Budget for the City of Burlington, with a gross amount of $85,791,551
Property taxes represent 65.5% of income for the City. The rest of the $264.9 million the City expends come from various revenues sources (think recreation fees, fines & debentures). However, the Budget default is already set at a 4% increase. Why look for any extras?
One thing that popped out at me was:
Business cases to address climate change impacts of $921K result in an additional tax increase of 0.55%
So what are we saying here? If you want to do something about climate change it’s going to go over-budget?
And:
Additional Items for consideration (not included in the proposed budget)
I think says a lot when you dangle nice concepts such as ‘Free transit for children under the age of 12”, and ‘Additional Forestry staff to implement a City-wide Tree By-law’ out on a limb, easy to chop off so you can say, “At least we kept the Budget increase at 4%”.
I also turned to the proposed Capital Budget to get a flavour of how the City viewed long-term actions. Even though it’s a bit of ‘apples to oranges’ the ‘Vision to Focus’ listed one of its 5 Focus Areas, “Supporting Sustainable Infrastructure and a Resilient Environment” the Budget lists many of the same items as “A Healthy and Greener City”. Say it quickly – it sounds very ‘environmental’. But including Cemeteries, Parks & Rec, and Organized Sport Support are a bit of a stretch for me.
When looking at the Capital Budget, I focused on things that could possibly relate to Climate Change: Tree Management – OK, Environment and Energy – yep, Storage Water Drainage – well, maybe. And where was Transit? That came under ‘A City that Moves’ along with Parking, Roads and Transportation.
So I tallied up the 324 Infrastructure spending items in the ‘Adopted Capital Budget 2019-2028’ and organized them as: Transportation, Roads, Bridges & Streetlights = 56.5% (of budget); Parks, Community Centres, Splashpads = 29%; Erosion, Culverts, Cycling & Trails = 10%; and finally, Transit = 4.5%.
I’ll leave it up to you what you consider Climate Change adaptation, and how much emphasis the City places on my motivating concern.
 Lawson Hunter wanted maps which he finds don’t exist. This is the best the Gazette has. With a minute to spare, I concluded by noting some of the shoreline clean-ups that I, and many others have done. I mentioned the Repair Café (next one on Nov. 16), my weekly environmental podcast, and the fact that I took the bus to City Hall. I’ve asked the City for floodplain maps and ‘buried creek’ and culvert maps – apparently, they don’t exist! This was not to put myself on a pedestal but to merely observe that I, and others in Burlington, are doing their best to combat Climate Change, often without much in the way of thanks.
Now it was time for City Council to do their part come Budget 2020.
By Pepper Parr
November 1st, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
During the federal election we heard members of the Liberal government comment frequently that people want to see something done on climate change but were not prepared to pay that much to bring about a change.
They certainly weren’t prepared to give up the gas guzzling pickup trucks.
The 2020 proposed budget attempts to strike a balance between identifying efficiencies, leveraging non-tax based revenue sources, revising service levels, and continuing to build towards long-term financial sustainability through additional investment in infrastructure renewal.
That’s what comes from the bureaucrats. The politicians have their agenda and for the current council climate change is a big issue – is it THE issue? The Mayor would like to think so but she may not have enough of her council colleagues on side with her.
 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 read a well prepared statement into the record. He said:
1. I love trees and do not want to see them cut down unnecessarily
2. The people of Burlington feel the same way; based on the statistically accurate survey prepared by Forum Research in June 2013 for the City Burlington the evidence is clear:
I. The people of Burlington love trees and do not wish to remove them
II. Many Ward 5 and 6 residents felt there are insufficient trees, so do I
III. People agree that City oversight of the tree canopy is desirable
IV. Two out of three respondents also agreed that “a landowner should be able to remove a healthy tree if it is no longer wanted by the property owner without permission from the city.”
a) The big question in 2013 was and remains, is there a significant tree loss problem?
Staff reported at the time:
A total of 21 tree care companies were contacted. The following are key findings of the
survey:
I. In 2012, approximately 1,813 trees were removed by all tree care companies combined.
II. 78% of trees removed were dead, diseased or dying, followed by natural death due to age. 1414 trees
III. 17% of trees were removed due to landscaping modifications (presumably development), poor planting location or damage to property caused by the tree. 308 trees
IV. 5% of removals were a result of home improvements (e.g. additions, decks, etc.) 91 trees
b) What we believe is that the Urban tree canopy is insufficient and at, 15-17% coverage falls short of the 30-40% recommended.
c) What we know today:
 These trees were on private property. I. The City is going to cut down about 15,000 Ash Trees on municipal property in 2019. That suggests the number of diseased trees on private property is multiple times greater.
I have heard that it could be in the order of 300,000 trees in the City. Disease is the single biggest cause of canopy loss and will continue to be so for several years to come.
II. Trees on property subject to site plan approval in the development application process do not need to comply with a municipal private tree bylaw.
III. That clear cutting of development sites is known to happen, but it is not known how many.
IV. Roseland has had perhaps 4 applicable tree cutting permits issued under the bylaw
V. The suggested City private tree bylaw will not actually stop trees from being cut down, it is only designed to create a 2nd thought
VI. Trees do not provide significant climate change mitigation. Trees provide us with significant benefits, including carbon sequestration (storage), however, net carbon neutral can be achieved only by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. **
d) What we do not know today:
I. We do not know how many trees are cut down on private property
II. We do not know how many sites are clear cut by developers to avoid site plan control.
III. We do not know if trees are being cutting down unnecessarily*
IV. We do not know how many trees are needed to increase the urban tree canopy to 30 or 40%
V. We do not have a tree inventory of Burlington
VI. We have not identified alternative costed strategies that might be more effective than the Roseland bylaw or a derivative thereof.
e) Conclusions:
 Will the city create working parties to plant the tens of thousands of trees needed? • As much as I would like to support a valid and properly justified extended tree protection bylaw, we are not ready to have one because we have no adequate information to suggest we should.
• The data we do have suggests that we need to plant trees, a lot of them. I am told that we need in the order of 300,000 trees to increase the canopy to 40%. In the scheme of things, spending $100,000’s to stop people cutting down a very small number of trees, according to the 2013 research, is not the best use of money.
• I would rather use a carrot than a stick by providing a $250 grant to property owners for every tree they plant on their own property.
• Finally, for now and until we have a properly thought out tree strategy based on real supportable data, I will continue to only support the option to continue the existing Roseland private tree bylaw.
• Let’s plant 10,000 5cm trees a year, that could be 20-30cm in 20 years time, in order to recover the canopy. Of course, we need to make sure they are watered. That will give us the best ROI.
There is a reason for calling Councillor Sharman Dr. Data.
• His after thoughts:
Councillor Sharman: Data. data, data – there is never enough! o I appreciate that some people think that people who willingly cut trees for their own reasons should be caused to pay for the greater good of the community. Considering that the larger community loss is due to disease and simple old age (78% in 2013, possibly 95% currently re Emerald Ash Borer). It would be more equitable for all home owners to pay a progressive tax to pay for administration and execution of a properly justified and constructed tree strategy.
o Surely, we can figure out another way to get the few people to report that they are cutting trees than charge them in excess of $1000 per tree.
o Surely, we can figure out how to ensure that when trees are cut to facilitate development that the applicant ends up complying with site plan regulations.
o We need to figure out what the real problem is that is being addressed in this discussion?
* Note, we asked the Town of Oakville for data on how many trees were cut down and for what reasons since they introduced their bylaw. Oakville staff were not able to provide the data. The Oakville Green website does not have relevant statistics. City of Burlington staff acknowledge they have no data.
 These trees are in ward 5. They will probably have to come down if a high rise residential tower goes up. ** Climate change mitigation impact of trees. There are a wide range of sequestration rates in Canadian urban forests, from 0.2 to 1.2 Mg (megagrams; 1 Mg = tonne) of C per hectare per year. It likely depends on tree species and health of trees. If we planted trees across the whole land mass of Burlington (18,200 ha), it would only sequester around 79,000 tonnes of CO2e. Burlington’s community emissions are currently estimated at 1.2 million tonnes of CO2e.
This is based on using the highest rate of 1.2 tonnes of C per hectare per year (very high). (1 tonne of carbon = 3.67 tonnes of C02e; 3.67 x 1.2 = 4.4 tonnes of CO2e/ha) 4.4 tonnes of CO2e/ha x 18,200 = 79,000 tonnes.
Perhaps, if we replaced buildings, roads and traffic with trees, we wouldn’t have a carbon problem anymore.
Trees provide us with significant benefits, particularly to improve community resilience by providing cooling for the urban area and reducing the urban heat island effect, as well as reducing erosion with flooding events. However, we will only achieve our goal of being a net carbon neutral community by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. We will put more emphasis on the benefits of urban forestry in part 2 of the Climate Action Plan (the climate adaptation strategy
Councilor Nisan was less verbose but was clear – “it is about the climate” was the position he took.
The basics of the 2020-2021 budget are:
a proposed base amount of $172,060,655 plus recommended business cases of $1,574,524 for a total proposed net tax levy of $173,635,179.
This net tax levy represents 65.5% of total operating revenues in 2020. The 2020 proposed capital projects are approximately $85.8 million, with a ten-year program of $809.7 million.
The budget review process included:
• A line-by-line review of the base operating budget by the Chief Financial Officer and Service Owners (budget reductions of $1.02 million).
• The Corporate Infrastructure Committee conducted an in-depth review of the 10- year capital program.
• A corporate / strategic review by the Operating Budget Leadership Team. This team is comprised of the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Director of Human Resources, Chief Information Officer (rotating member) and the Director of Transit (rotating member).
• A corporate / strategic review by the Capital Budget Leadership Team. This team is comprised of the Executive Director of Environmental, Infrastructure and Community Services, Chief Financial Officer, Director of Roads, Parks and Forestry (rotating member) and the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility (rotating member).
• Alignment to strategic objectives and review of operating business cases.
 Joan Ford, the city’s Director of Finance knows where every dollar comes from and where every dollar gets spent. The recommendation?
Receive and file the proposed 2020 budget book; and Direct staff to present the recommendations, that is what is going to occupy much of the months of November and December.
The city Finance department hopes to have this budget wrapped up before the end of the year. That is probably not something you want to be very much money on.
An added note. The Director of Human Resources has a report suggesting to Council that they might want to increase what they are paying the non-union staff – Burlington is no longer competitive and we are not getting the staffing quality we need.
How much higher will the 2020 tax increase be over what it was in 2019? Council is going to struggle to keep it below 5%. That isn’t going to be easy.
Related news stories.
The 2019 budget
How much was that tax increase?
By Pepper Parr
October 31st, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is the second of a six part series on how the city is revising the adopted but not yet approved city plan.
The Taking a Closer look report was prepared by SGL, a consulting group and delivered to the city last August.
The public didn’t become aware of the document until earlier this week. So much for “meaningful engagement”.
The report is the first step in the re-examination of the Official Plan. It is intended to provide a guide to the background to the City’s Official Plan (OP) Policies for the Downtown and the process the City is currently undertaking to re-examine the Downtown OP Policies.
 Planning Staff met with citizens during an Action Plan meeting where the participants had workbooks to record their thoughts. A companion piece to this report is the Public Engagement Plan. It provides a roadmap of the engagement activities that were to take place over the next few months, highlighting at which points in the process engagement will take place, who will be engaged and the level of engagement. The plan also clearly defines which aspects of the process the City and public can influence throughout the discussion.
On February 7, 2019 the new City Council voted to re-examine the policies in the adopted Official Plan. The Council motion directs Burlington’s Director of City Building to commence a process to re-examine the policies of the Official Plan in their entirety as they relate to matters of height and intensity and conformity with provincial density targets.
A Council workshop was held on March 18, 2019 to obtain further Council feedback on this direction. Council’s further feedback resulted in focusing the work on the Downtown and on refinements to the Neighbourhood Centres policies.
A work plan for re-examining the Official Plan policies was presented by City Staff to Planning and Development Committee on May 21, 2019 and approved on May 27, 2019.
The outcome of this work will be a set of modified policies for the Downtown supported by a Final Report prepared by SGL – the consulting firm the city hired to produce the study and manage a large part of the public engagement.
It is amazing how many people do not fully understand what the purpose of an Official Plan is; what it does and how it gets revised.
An Official Plan is a statutory document that describes the City’s long-term, land-use strategy for the next 20 years. It is prepared with input from the public and helps to ensure future planning and development will meet the specific needs of the community.
An official plan deals mainly with issues such as:
• the location and form of new housing, industry, offices and shops;
• the anticipated needs for services such as roads, watermains, sewers, parks, schools and community amenities;
• where future growth will happen in the City and how to make effective use of land;
• opportunities for community improvement initiatives; and
• community identity, place-making and urban design.
The over-rising issue during the October 2018 municipal election was the matter of height – and where the tall buildings would be located. Most people did not object to tall 25 storeys + buildings – they just didn’t want them in the downtown core – south of Caroline. At this point in time the citizens are looking at three that have been approved (one has shovels in the ground) with three others working their way towards the planners at city hall.
 Once they were sworn in they got down to business – the day after this was taken they fired the city manager. An Official Plan is typically intended to plan for a 20-year time frame but could provide direction beyond that time period. The Re-examination of the OP is intended to guide planning to 2031.
The Official Plan Burlington is working under today was approved in 2006.
The City commenced an Official Plan Review in 2011. The review included preparation of numerous studies, analysis and public engagement over an 8 year period including preparation of a Mobility Hubs Opportunities and Constraints Study, Employment Land Studies, and a Commercial Strategy Study. This review was intended to conform with and implement the Region’s Official Plan and conform to the new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
This is how we got to where we are. The next installment is about the process being used.
 How we got to where we are – it is not a pretty picture. Mobility hubs were to be one of the planning approaches Burlington would use to accommodate the growth that was to take place.
 The Molinaro Group were the first to develop around a GO station – one of the three mobility hubs in Burlington. A Mobility Hub, as defined by Metrolinx, is a major transit station area that has the potential to accommodate a range of employment, housing, recreation and shopping around it. Mobility Hubs are intended to be mixed-use neighbourhoods that are walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented and to be a focus for intensification. The Hubs will also take advantage of Metrolinx’s planned Regional Express Rail, which will feature two-way, all-day service every 15 minutes along the Lakeshore West line. The four areas included in the Mobility Hubs Study were Aldershot, Burlington, and Appleby GO Stations, as well as Downtown Burlington.
A major transit station area (MTSA) is an area around a higher order transit station or the area around a bus depot in an urban core or downtown. Higher order transit includes subways, GO lines, streetcars and buses in dedicated rights of way. An MTSA is generally the area within a 10-minute walk (500 to 800 metres) of the transit stations. However, the Region is required to delineate the specific boundary of the MTSA, which will be done as part of their current Official Plan review. Lands within an MTSA are required to provide a diverse mix of uses, support transit, be a focus for growth, and in certain cases achieve a minimum density.
The Halton Region Official Plan recommends that Mobility Hubs receive a higher level of development intensity and design consideration to support transit than what may be applied in other MTSAs.
Following the identification of Mobility Hubs by Metrolinx, the City’s long term 2015 – 2040 Strategic Plan identified the importance of Mobility Hubs near the City’s GO Stations and in the downtown.
 The original view was that there would be four mobility hubs – the one in the downtown core was little more than a bus station. It is expected to be removed from the list. In July 2016, Burlington City Council approved a staff report, which outlined a work plan, allocation of staff resources and required funding to simultaneously develop four Area Specific Plans, one for each of Burlington’s Mobility Hubs. An Area Specific Plan, also sometimes called a Secondary Plan, is a plan that is more detailed than an Official Plan and guides future development in a specific geographic area. An Area Specific Plan can include a variety of studies and contains specific policies to guide future development.
City Council unanimously approved the project, with the goal of completing all four Area Specific Plans no later than June 2018. In April 2017, the Mobility Hubs Team began a comprehensive public consultation program around the future vision for each of the Mobility Hubs as shown in the timeline for the Downtown Mobility Hub work.
 Downtown Mobility Hub Study Timeline. The work on the Mobility hubs was put on hold when the city realized that the number of developments in the downtown core were overwhelming the planning staff and except for the Molinaro Group and the Adi Development Group, no one was doing anything within the hub boundaries. Staff began working on the Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Plan in advance of the other three Mobility Hubs with the objective of including a vision for the downtown in the draft New Official Plan in late 2017. The New Official Plan provided an opportunity to strengthen the existing policy framework for the downtown.
The boundary for the Downtown Mobility Hub included both the existing “Downtown Mixed Use Centre” boundary in the current Official Plan as well as the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) boundary. The Downtown Area Specific Plan was developed with a long term, full build-out perspective which extended well beyond 2031.
The City of Burlington Official Plan 2018 was adopted by Burlington City Council on April 26, 2018.
A new city council was sworn in on December 3rd, 2018.
On December 4, 2018, the Region of Halton provided a notice to the City advising that the adopted Official Plan does not conform with the Regional Official Plan in a number of respects including issues related to agricultural, employment, transportation and natural heritage. The Region did not identify any issues of conformity with the Downtown Precinct policies.
The Region informed the City that the City can make additional modifications before the plan is approved by the Region with appropriate planning justification and public consultation. Today, the adopted Official Plan is still under review by the Region for regional approval.
City Council together with the direction to re-examine the Official Plan also passed an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) and put the Mobility Hub Area Specific Planning on hold.
Part 1
Next installment: The Process.
 By John Cole
October 29th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
With MLB players expressing themselves like never before, author Jason Turbow explains how baseball can maintain its code of respect and fair play.
It’s Game 1 of the 2019 National League Divisional Series.
 Ronald Acuña Jr: He stands and watches as it sails towards the wall, and remains in the batter’s box as it drops into the 10th row of seats. He lets out a roar and begins his slow, celebratory trot around the bases. Ronald Acuña Jr. – playing in just the fifth playoff game of his career – launches a fly ball into left field. He stands and watches as it sails towards the wall, and remains in the batter’s box as it drops into the 10th row of seats.
He lets out a roar and begins his slow, celebratory trot around the bases.
Normal behaviour after hitting a home run, you might think, but baseball’s code has been broken.
Four games later, against the same opposition, Acuña Jr. steps up to the plate again. The Atlanta Braves need a hero. They trail 13-1 in Game 5, with their chances of reaching the next round all but extinguished.
Acuña will not, however, get a chance to be that hero. The pitch drills him on the arm. Revenge has been served.
Don’t celebrate a home run. Don’t bunt to break up a no-hitter. Don’t steal a base with a big lead late in the game. Don’t walk across the pitcher’s mound. These are just a few of baseball’s many unwritten rules.
If you break them, then expect consequences. More often than not, those consequences come in the form of a well-directed pitch, as Acuña Jr. now knows.
Such retaliation has been commonplace in the MLB for decades as players take it upon themselves to enforce their code, even when it’s their own teammate who is in the wrong.
 Jason Turbow, author of The Baseball Codes, recalls a story from 1996 involving Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder Roger Cedeño. The Venezuelan stole a base against the San Francisco Giants with an 11-2 lead late in the game, infuriating the opposition.
His team-mate, Eric Karros, headed over to the Giants’ dugout and told them: “We’ll handle this.” When reporters were allowed into the Dodgers’ clubhouse after the victory, following the team debrief, Cedeño was wiping tears from his eyes.
Things are, however, starting to change.
Bat flips are becoming a common sight. Players are beginning to express themselves in ways the sport has never seen.
“The beautiful thing about the unwritten rules, for me, is that they are ever-evolving,” Turbow explains.
“The code that ball players abide by today is very different to how it was, even 10 years ago, which was in turn very different to a generation before that.
“People just aren’t as offended now as they used to be about these things.
“For example, it used to be you couldn’t dig in to the batter’s box – you co uldn’t shove your toe down into the dirt to get a good foothold – at the risk of offending pitchers back in the sixties and seventies. No one even notices that now.”
The move away from strict adherence to the code has been gradual, taking place over many years, and can primarily be explained by a change of mentality among modern baseball players.
Before free agency rules changed in the 1970s, movement between MLB teams was restricted, meaning many played for a single franchise for the bulk or entirety of their career.
This, Turbow explains, is why the unwritten rules were so strictly enforced.
“Up until the free agency era you were on a team, more or less, for life,” he says.
“Some players got traded, some players got released, but the only way you left a team was if they didn’t want you anymore. And thus, you built bonds with your teammates. You built antagonism with your opponents.
“In the modern era, players sometimes jump from team to team every couple of years. They go on vacations in the off-season with each other, they share agents, they do charity golf tournaments together.
“Every team is filled with players who have friends on every other team. The antagonism just isn’t there anymore.
“Whereas once you were offended by something a stranger, or an opponent who you already had antipathy toward, would do, now your opponent, who you like, is doing that same thing, you’re not even going to think about it.”
The increasing number of international MLB players – such as Acuña Jr. and Cedeño – has also contributed to this shift.
More than 25 per cent of players in the league now come from outside the USA, hailing from 20 different countries, all with their own way of playing the game.
“When it comes to integrating foreign players, there is going to be a transition process,” Turbow says.
“The brand of baseball they play in Latin America, for example, is very different.
“Celebrations are embraced down there. They are expected. This is the kind of baseball that those guys grew up learning, and now they’re bringing it to the United States.
“The Asian players, particularly the Japanese players, tend to play by even stricter rules than the Americans.
“Korean players flip the heck out of their bats. It’s all about getting used to each other.”
 Recently, however, the MLB has taken matters into its own hands. Advertising campaigns titled ‘Let The Kids Play’ and ‘We Play Loud,’ released ahead of the post-season in 2018 and 2019, explicitly condone behaviour that would previously have been condemned. Bat flips, showboating, celebrations. Anything goes.
“This officially codified the idea that these kids can show emotion on the field – they can flip their bats, they can celebrate themselves in ways that fans find appealing,” explains Turbow.
“It is baseball’s way of trying to grow the fanbase, especially among a younger demographic.”
Baseball traditionalists are, however, not making it easy for MLB. They continue to cling onto the code, passing it down to younger generations.
Right now when a pitcher throws at a batter who has only just stepped in and not yet begun his 15 step routine (touch helmet, grind foot, cock elbow five times etc) it’s called a “quick pitch. That’s called unsportsmanlike like.
The game was designed by the best teams to move slowly. Anything done to change that pace unsettles everything. For a game that throws so much money into tactical analysis, baseball is terrible at tactical innovation
As a result, the sport is currently going through a transition period where the old and the new coexist uneasily, particularly with regards to celebrating.
“In previous generations, bat flipping was a no-no. Pitchers would get viscerally offended, sometimes to the point of throwing a baseball at an opponent in retaliation.
“We’re now in this weird grey area in that there are still some pitchers who feel that way. Never mind that baseball has officially decreed it appropriate to flip a bat, there are still some pitchers who get annoyed at it.
“That creates some cognitive dissonance when it comes to how players behave on the field. They’re still trying to work it out.”
How, then, does baseball move forward? Can these unwritten rules, formed over a century or more, coexist with modern, fast-paced baseball?
“I think so,” asserts Turbow.
“These unwritten rules are fluid – they evolve. The idea of showing respect on the field is compatible with players having outside personalities, Twitter accounts and whatnot.
In the meantime it is a great game to wager on.
“It’s only when it comes to celebration that the hardliners and the traditionalists have a problem, and the traditionalists are dying off on a daily basis.”
So perhaps, in five years’ time, Acuña Jr. will be able to stand, admire and celebrate without fear of retribution being hurled at his ribs at 90 miles per hour.
John Cole has been watching baseball for more than four decades. His Dad took him to his first game. He likes the pace of the game and all those unwritten rules – but knows that changes are in the making.
By Pepper Parr
October 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
There are mobility hubs
There are anchor hubs
There are MTSA’s – Major Transit Station Areas
There are urban growth centers.
They are all tied together but not all that well understood.
 We know it as the bus terminal – the bureaucrats call it an Anchor Hub; a developer saw it as a great stroke of luck.  A bus terminal made the height of this development possible. One of them, the Anchor hub that had been proposed for what most people know as the bus terminal on John Street, put the city in a position where they could not deny a developer the right to put up a building – which really screwed up the plans the city had for property on Lakeshore Road close to where it meets up with Old Lakeshore Road. The developer used the existence of an Anchor hub as justification for the high rise.
The Anchor hub is basically a small bus depot that at one point was to be torn down.
 Three of the five towers that make up the Paradigm development on the north side of Fairview right next to the GO Station. The Mobility Hubs are clustered around the GO stations where the developers have bought up as much of the and as possible. The Molinaro Group was ahead of the development crowd when they broke ground for the Paradigm development – five towers snuggled up beside the Burlington GO station.
 Adi Developments Station West in the early development stage. Councillor Kelvin Galbraith has a number of major developments taking place in the western end of the ward that will increase GO train traffic. The Aldershot GO station area has a very large two stage ADI development underway.
Nothing in the works yet for the Mobility hub that will be part of the Appleby GO station.
There isn’t all that much controversy around the Mobility hubs – although Dr. Shie would like to see the eastern edge of the Burlington GO hub moved to the east – to the other side of Guelph line so that it includes the property at Guelph and Harvester Road.
 The boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre that the province required every municipality to have. Many now believe that the location chosen and the boundaries put in place need to be changed. The Urban Growth Centre is something the city had to create. That was a provincial requirement. The city had to have one – but it had some influence on where it would be located and what the boundaries are. The current UGC boundary is a little too far to the south for many people.
It was created in 2006 – many think both the location and the boundary lines were a mistake. Members of the current council have come to believe that the location of the current UGC can be moved and the boundary changed.
You had to have one but you get to determine where it will be located.
The Anchor isn’t a gotta have. The story we got from Councillor Lisa Kearns is that the city will get rid of the Anchor Hub (bus station) just as soon as the Interim Control Bylaw is lifted – which is expected to happen in March of 2020.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna stuck her head in the door, didn’t like the look of the meeting and left. Getting the location and boundary of the Urban Growth Centre is not as easy. Kearns told the Gazette that the members of the provincial government: Jane McKenna, Burlington and Effie Triantafilopoulos, Oakville North Burlington will be drawn into the discussions.
Triantafilopoulos understands the complexity of the issue and is for the most part approachable and works at having good, strong working relationships with her peers.
Many residents have not had the same experience with McKenna.
It will be interesting to see how this work out. We weren’t able to get much in the way of a sense as to how long this will take from Councillor Kearns.
|
|
By Pepper Parr
