 By Gary Scobie
December 19th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
I am a citizen who has taken an interest in issues at or near our waterfront and in the downtown core over the past seven years. I am concerned when I see attempts at over-intensification being made in Burlington, especially in our downtown core.
If we go back in time, it all started with the Provincial Places to Grow Act of 2005. This was the first attempt by the Province to control urban sprawl, preserve our Greenbelt for nature and agriculture and plan for better transit options in the Greater Toronto to Niagara area. The Growth Plan of 2006 followed, designating increased densities of population and jobs in most municipalities of Southern Ontario and calling these Urban Growth Centres.
Cities did have some say in these designations. For instance, Oakville decided not to intensify its downtown to Provincial targets, but rather to expand population and jobs dramatically around its GO Transit Station at Trafalgar Road. This would be its Urban Growth Centre. It would intensify its downtown using its own zoning rules in its Official Plan. It would intensify its downtown more gently than an Urban Growth Centre.
Burlington Council at the time appears to have bought into the idea of the Downtown Urban Growth Centre, as suggested by the Province. I can find no counter debate or decision to intensify around our GO Transit Stations instead of our downtown. This decision to go with the Provincial flow would lead nearly ten years later to where we are today – the rush to over-intensify the Brant Street corridor and nearby streets to the east and west under a new Official Plan.
Getting back to the past, Metrolinx was conceived in 2007, shortly after the Growth Plan was enacted. It was all about transportation across the regions to support intensified population and job centres.
 Less than three years ago the transit terminal was going to be torn down – now it appears to be the “anchor” for a mobility hub. It focused on the GO Transit network of stations for the most part, but also added in subway, light rail transit and bus rapid transit routes, established and suggested for the future, as connecting links to GO Stations to move people in the this large region, mostly to and from jobs. Hence the Big Move nomenclature that was attached.
Soon the term Mobility Hub would be added to the vernacular in 2008. These were supposed to support Urban Growth Centres by linking them through the transit networks of municipalities and GO services. They were originally supposed to be locations where a number of modes of transportation came together as a network to facilitate the movement of people easily between these modes.
 The Burlington GO station – an obvious location for a mobility hub. GO Stations would all naturally qualify as Mobility Hubs because they link car, train, City and GO bus, bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel together in one place, with parking provided at no extra cost. Only recently have I seen the designation of Anchor Mobility Hub used to describe those Urban Growth Centre hubs that fail to qualify as true Mobility Hubs. The Burlington Downtown Mobility Hub is one of those Anchors. It has no trains, no light rail transit or rapid bus transit. And it has no free parking for cars.
It seems that Urban Growth Centres and Mobility Hubs have been linked together for quite a long time, dating back to 2008. This linkage is not accidental. It seems that to be an Urban Growth Centre, you had to have or plan for a Mobility Hub and vice versa.
These linkages were known to municipalities since 2008 and some decided, like Oakville, to chart their own course and preserve their downtowns from over-development by accepting the Urban Growth Centre/Mobility premise, but set in places best suited to dramatic infill of high rise condos and some retail and office space. GO Station locales were the obvious choice in this case.
In Burlington’s case, as stated before, it appears that no disagreement with the Province’s suggested choices for a downtown Urban Growth Centre/Mobility Hub ever arose in City Council meetings. The Province chose our downtown as both and our Council at the time (somewhere in 2008 – 2010) accepted, possibly without public debate. Council may have thought that the downtown needed improvement and this pathway, as mandated by the Province, was as good a way to get it done as any “made in Burlington” solution. And the Province could always be blamed if it didn’t work out quite right. I should note that one of our GO Stations, Burlington GO Station, was designated a Mobility Hub by Metrolinx (ie. the Province) and also accepted by Council.
There is a private, non-partisan charitable foundation known as the Neptis Foundation (www.neptis.org) that researches and reports on regional growth plans and initiatives. It has done some excellent reports on the Growth Plan and Urban Growth Centres that describe in layman’s language the Province’s plans and the repercussions to Ontario municipalities starting with 2006 people/job densities and projecting the changes required for 2031 densities. I would invite you to check out their reports.
 Many want the Mobility Hubs kept out of the Official Plan. Some municipalities have integrated the Province’s growth plans into their Official Plans in major ways. Burlington is one of these municipalities. Other municipalities have done less or even no integration. There is no prize from the Province that I can detect for doing so, nor any penalty thus far for ignoring the Province.
The Ontario Government reviewed the 2006 Growth Plan in 2016 and reported in July 2017 a revised Growth Plan going all the way to 2041. It can be found at www.placestogrow.ca.
It should be noted that right from the beginning, expectations for each municipality were “directing growth to major transit station areas”, “identifies priority transit corridors”, “complete detailed planning for major transit station areas on these corridors to support planned service levels”, “plan for a range and mix of housing, including second units and affordable housing” and “accommodate a range of household sizes”.
 Having Mobility hubs at the GO stations is something everyone agrees on – it is the idea of a Mobility Hub in the downtown core that has many opposed. How is Burlington doing in these initiatives? Well, all three GO Stations in the City have been named Mobility Hubs and each are planned to house many thousands of people/jobs by 2031. So growth is being directed to our major transit stations. Will there be any affordable housing and accommodation of a range of household sizes? That’s an unanswered question thus far.
I thought that Burlington was mandated to grow to a population of 215,000 by 2031. I have since been informed the target is 185,000 minimum. We are at 183,000 now. Recently at a Planning and Development Committee meeting, the Ward 1 Councillor stated publicly that Aldershot was set to grow by another 27,000 people by 2031. This would likely be near the Aldershot GO Station or along the Plains Road Corridor. Adding another 11,000 jobs there would bring the additional people/jobs total to 38,000 by 2031 and a 300 people/jobs per hectare goal, as per a Planning Department report dated Nov. 9, 2017.
Similarly, Planning Department reports also dated Nov. 9, 2017 for the other GO Stations show the Burlington GO Station Mobility Hub adding 22,000 new residents and 9,500 jobs by 2031 and the Appleby GO Station Mobility Hub adding 20,000 new residents and 43,000 new jobs by 2031. Both would also reach the 300 people/jobs per hectare goal.
All together, the three GO Station Mobility Hubs are planned to add 69,000 new residents to Burlington’s population by 2031, far exceeding any goal of 185,000 or even 215,000. We’re headed to a quarter million people by 2031, without touching the downtown.
So it is clear to me that we can reach all Provincial goals easily using intensification of people and jobs at the GO Station Mobility Hubs. There is no need to further intensify the downtown at all. It could be left to gently intensify, like Oakville has planned, using current Official Plan zoning rather than dramatically intensify as the Planning Department has advocated in its new Downtown Mobility Hub Plan and the new City Official Plan.
Anchor Mobility Hubs were originally expected to support an area with a minimum of 160 people/jobs per hectare within a 500 metre radius that would be serviced by a light rail transit or a bus rapid transit system.
The City is using a 200 people/jobs per hectare goal, which may be the revised mandate. I understand that City Planners and most of City Council are backing the people/jobs density downtown, but I see no evidence that there is an LRT or BRT system in place to deal with this influx of people/jobs, other than an LRT label being affixed to Brant Street on maps. A label isn’t a plan unfortunately.
I also see no evidence that jobs will flow into the downtown, even to just replace the ones lost when current buildings are demolished awaiting construction of new buildings. The podium style high rises with 3 to 4 storey glass and steel walls along Brant Street will replace individual and unique store frontages we have today. Is this better or worse at enticing jobs and vibrancy to Brant Street?
I am a person who believes that a deal is never a done deal if there is still an opportunity to question and possibly change people’s minds for the better of the community. And I think that we do have that opportunity.
 John Taylor, the Dean of city council would have been part of any debate there might have been about accepting the provincial approach to mobility hubs.  Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven – a member of council in between 2008 and 2010 when Scobie believes city council made the decision to follow the provincial lead. Four members of the current Council were members of Council when all these Provincial demands were rubber-stamped. I would ask them to search their memory banks and their notes and inform the public how they decided to acquiesce to the Province’s demands for intensifying our downtown, why they didn’t make the logical suggestion for intensification around GO Stations instead and if they did go ahead with the plans without public consultation.
 Jack Dennison, a member of city council for more than 20 years would remember how the decision to accept the provincial direction – somewhere between 2008 and 2010 was made.  Mayor Rick Goldring was a council member when the decision was made to accept the province’s approach to transportation hubs, possibly without public debate. The current Council certainly did not acquiesce to the 374 Martha Street proposed high rise a few years ago. Yet this same Council voted 5 – 2 in favour of a 23 storey condo on November 30, 2017 across the road from our 8 storey signature City Hall – going past the 12 storey current storey zoning and even going past the recommended 17 storey zoning in a Downtown Mobility Hub Plan not yet approved.
This decision has ignited public opinion against the over-intensification of the downtown. They see high rises coming on many corners of Brant Street, and with many mid-rise condos in between. And they see many high buildings destined to come on nearby north-south streets east and west of Brant Street.
During the Vietnam War an infamous sentence was uttered by a field commander which showed the absurdity of war – “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”. Brant Street and our downtown does not need to be destroyed in order to save it.
Gently intensifying the downtown will continue as it has in the past, using appropriate zoning already in place. City planners and City Council need only enforce our current Official Plan and use the concepts already in place in our Tall Building Guidelines and soon to be in place in our Mid Rise Building Guidelines that the Planning Department has committed to.
Our downtown Bus Station is not a Mobility Hub and there is no plan to make it one. Our downtown does not need to be over-intensified through a designation as an Urban Growth Centre. I am asking City Council to inform the Province that Burlington can and will meet its 2031 growth target through dramatic intensification around our three GO Stations, the appropriate place for high rise condos with retail and office space.
That’s where the thousands of new residents will be housed, hopefully with a good number of affordable, family-sized units.
The downtown will intensify too, but not in the dramatic fashion envisioned by the Planning Department.
I am asking City Council to request that the terms Mobility Hub and Urban Growth Centre be removed from the Provincial Growth Plan for the Downtown Precincts and instead be placed on all three GO Stations.
Let our downtown, which admittedly does need to change, do so in a measured and controlled fashion that adheres to reasonable and defendable zoning restrictions already in place. Do not follow through on an Official Plan that would create the “Metropolis” of Halton in our downtown.
 Gary Scobie, a long time resident of Burlington is a frequent opinion contributor to the Gazette. He was a member of the Waterfront Advisory Committee and has been a strong advocate for maintaining public access to the waterfront.
 By Pepper Parr
December 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
There are almost as many views on what Burlington should be doing in terms of its growth as there are people in the city.
 Citizens listening to the concerns community groups have over how developments in their neighbourhoods are handled by the Planning Department. The meeting was organized by the Engaged Citizens of Burlington – ECoB When Lisa Kearns, one of the ECoB organizers, stood at the lectern in the Burlington Baptist Church she told the 150+ audience that they had to do their homework and then hoisted a three in loose-leaf binder up and told the audience the information they need is out there – but you do have to work to find it and then offered to share what she had with anyone interested. We didn’t see anyone asking to borrow the binder.
Many of the people involved in what is a complex subject are reluctant to identify themselves publicly. One of those wrote in and said: “Seems that this group is questioning the “Urban Growth Centre” designation in Downtown Burlington. The answer is really, really simple – all people have to do is go back to and look at the original Places to Grow document from 2006 – Schedule 2. The designation is right there. No municipal approval is required. The Province says “this is it” now “do it”. All of this talk about evidentiary materials is a complete waste of time.
“People must also consider “The Big Move” which designates the mobility hub in the downtown as an “Anchor Mobility Hub”. Anchor Mobility Hubs are focal points with the potential to transform urban structure and improve transit. In other words … big changes are expected.
“There is an Appendix B which indicates that the downtown mobility hub is expected to accommodate 2,900 boarding per day. The question should be “why is the City not planning for this?” not is it really a hub.
“This same Appendix B includes a population target for the downtown anchor hub of greater than 25,000 people and jobs by 2031. The City is not even close to being able to accommodate this target.
“Most importantly, some people selectively ignore the fact that City Council unanimously approved its Strategic Plan that identifies the downtown as an area where intensification and redevelopment is to be directed.”
Joe Gaetan, a frequent contributor to the Gazette explains that the 2017 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, was prepared and approved under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 to take effect on July 1, 2017.
Section 2, entitled, Where and How to Grow, contains S, 2.2 Policies for Where and How to Grow, and S 2.2.3 entitled, Urban Growth Centres and contains the following:
“Urban growth centres will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum density target of:
b)400 residents and jobs combined per hectare for each of the urban growth centres in the City of Toronto;
200 residents and jobs combined per hectare for each of the Downtown Brampton, Downtown Burlington, Downtown Hamilton, Downtown Milton, Markham Centre, Downtown Mississauga, Newmarket Centre, Midtown Oakville, Downtown Oshawa, Downtown Pickering, Richmond Hill Centre/Langstaff Gateway, Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, Downtown Kitchener, and Uptown Waterloo urban growth centres;”
Oakville took an approach that attached more importance to Employment and Commerce. Their Livable Oakville committee produced a very detailed report – something Burlington might want t56o at least review.
 The Sims building across from city hall is the only office building in the core of the city – the city of Burlington is the largest tenant. Burlington has never succeeded in attracting commercial operations into the downtown core – parking space wasn’t possible – thus the major concentrations of corporate offices are along the north and south corridors.
“The Burlington Official Plan appears to be mostly silent on job creation or preservation of work land or spaces.
“This should be a concern to all and one more reason why our Official Plan process must be stopped in its tracks.”
Background material:
Where to download a copy of the Places to Grow legislation.
The Big Move – what it is and where to get a copy of the document.
 By Pepper Parr
December 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
We received the following this morning:
The article published in this morning’s Gazette titled “Major organizational moves by the city manager seem to be out of focus” is wholly inaccurate for the following reasons:
Parks & Recreation has NOT been merged into Roads, Parks & Forestry (RPF). Parks & Recreation continues to be a separate department headed by Chris Glenn
There has been no reorganization undertaken by the city manager, except the creation of a deputy city manager position and changes to department names only.
Council was fully briefed and aware of the creation of a deputy city manager position, to say so otherwise in incorrect.
Mary Lou Tanner will continue to lead the Official Plan and the Mobility Hub initiatives as deputy city manager; a competition to hire a new Director of Planning will begin in January.
Ms Tanner’s appointment as the deputy city manager was in no way a demotion and as previously stated was a result of a comprehensive internal competition
On November 9th, the City Manager, James Ridge announced a renaming of departments at city hall and moving responsibilities into the newly named departments under the people who were to head them up.
The renaming of the departments in the city was to more accurately reflect the services that are provided to residents.
 As of Jan. 1, 2018 Roads and Parks Maintenance will become the Roads, Parks and Forestry Department; with Mary Battaglia as lead.
Planning and Building will become the Department of City Building – Planning, Building and Culture with Mary Lou Tanner as lead.
Then on December 9th, Ridge announced that he had appointed Mary Lou Tanner as the deputy city manager after a comprehensive internal competition.
There is something about this picture that is out of focus.
If it was a “comprehensive internal competition”, and we will take the city manager’s word that it was – the competition had to be announced, those wanting to go after the job had to prepare their application, fine tune it, submit it and then let the Director of Human Resources and the City Manager review what they had.
The Director of Human Resources may well have been one of the applicants for the new position; we will let that slide.
 Newly minted Deputy City Manager Mary Lou Tanner Re-org November 9th, Tanner made deputy city manager December 9th – All this got done in less than a month?
What does the appointing of Tanner as Deputy City Manager do to the absolutely critical work being done on the planning side?
As of the 21st of this month the city doesn’t have a Planner. Tanner, the woman who was doing the job is now the “city’s representative for all Agencies, Boards and Commissions; acting in an advisory and liaison capacity for each organization and helping plan and coordinate major capital projects.”
Not much in the way of executive authority there
“Being responsible for the diversity and inclusivity portfolio; ensuring a strategy is developed, and implemented across the organization for all services and programs.”
Important but not the same level of influence as the Director of Planning
“Overseeing the Project Management Office, ensuring the priorities of this office are aligned with the Strategic Plan and corporate work plans and work with the Senior Leadership team to identify and establish priorities across the organization.”
 City Manager James Ridge – now has a Deputy to aid the important work he does, Tanner was a part of the Senior Leadership Team – now she “works with them”. Will Tanner have any clout? Will she be making decisions or does everything she does slide up to the desk of the City Manager?
There is going to be a “transition plan including an acting Director of City Building will be announced in the near future; however in the meantime Tanner will continue to lead the work on the completion of the city’s new Official Plan.”
How much of this were the city Councillors fully aware of? The City Manager is responsible for the administration of all city staff and serves at the pleasure of city council. Is Council pleased?
The time line for the approval of the Official Plan has been stretched out to April of 2018 from the original end of January 2018 date.
None of this looks very encouraging – we are changing horses in the middle of a fast flowing stream.
Troubling.
 Director of Parks and Recreation Chris Glenn There some additional concerns. Parks and Recreation is now merged in intro Roads Parks and Forestry under the direction of Mary Battaglia who is a Director. She now has Chris Glenn, also a Director working under her?
Transportation doesn’t seem to have a home at a time when there are several significant studies being done on just how people are going to get around the city given all the intensification that is to take place.
Where does Capital Works fit into the new organization?
On Friday, the 8th of December we had occasion to be at the Fire department following up part on a news story and met with a deputy fire chief who advised us that the Fire Chief was still on the site of the blaze that shut down the Paletta operation in the south-east of the city.
That’s where a Fire Chief is supposed to be – where the problems are. The fire was basically out – with some hot spots that needed a close watch to ensure that they didn’t flare up.
 Is the apparent senior staff reorganization a good one or is it a picture out of focus. The city has a problem – getting the new Official Plan in place and helping the citizens understand the mobility hubs. It is seen as a “hot spot” to hundreds of informed and involved people in Burlington. This is not a time to have senior staff fully immersed in the work they are in place to do.
Being made Deputy City Manager doesn’t look like a promotion – looks like the City Manager just got someone out of the way
And that is very troubling.
Links to related news stories:
Appointment of Deputy city manager.
Renaming of city departments.
By Pepper Parr
December 13th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It was the Mayor’s first Facebook Live production during which the number of people on line was just a bit over 80. Viewer traffic was pretty steady – opened at just under 40 and rose to 80.
Did the Mayor rise to the occasion?
 Mayor had all kinds of notes, some of which he read from, others that he referred to for specific data. Well he did and he didn’t. A call from a viewer asking him to explain mobility hubs was awkwardly answered – see it for yourself at minute 15. It was pretty clear that the Mayor didn’t have a firm grip on that subject – and if he doesn’t – how do the rest of the population get to understand it?
His comments on a meeting he had with former Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller on what was happening at the Meridian Brick operation that threatens the value of properties on West Haven Drive will have been a surprise to many.
According to the Mayor Meridian is doing what they are supposed to be doing, the Region is doing what they are supposed to be doing, the province is doing what they are supposed to be doing and the city is doing what they are supposed to be doing. You can watch that segment at minute 32.
The Mayor said he “will continue to advocate for the residents” which had people on West Haven gasping. They have been pressing the Mayor to bring a motion to Council asking the Minister of Natural Resources to put a HOLD on the expansion of the quarry until all the studies have been completed.
 Mayor, live on a Facebook presentation. At the most recent Meridian Brick sponsored community meeting they said that they planned on cutting tree in part of the east quarry this winter.
Residents are terrified that the company will slip in any day now and cut the trees – once they are cut down there is no going back.
Traffic and transit took up much of the time – housing both affordable and the needs of the seniors community were given quite a bit of the one hour broadcast.
Oddly, the Mayor made no mention of the Task Force the Mayor created to address the issue of seniors’ housing in Burlington. Last April the Mayor had the Hon. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario on hand to talk about housing for seniors – not a mention on what that Task Force has done.
Viewers learned that the Goldring household consists of the Mayor, his wife and seven daughters. We learned that Cheryl, the Mayor’s wife, has a family tradition of buying each of the seven daughters a new pair of pyjamas each year. The “girls” range in age between 26 and 42 – that would be quite a pyjama party.
The Mayor did something like this with Cogeco TV in a broadcast from Council chambers for what was billed as a call in program – no one called in. So this was an improvement
Was the live production worth watching? It was. You can see the whole thing HERE.
 By Ray Rivers
December 11th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
This is one of a several part series on affordable housing
Over the 20th century the world’s population grew by 400 percent despite two world wars which killed off tens of millions of young people of child rearing age. Canada ranks 2nd in the planet by land mass but only 38th by population. Still we have multiplied from seven million in the early 1900’s to five times that number today.
Statistics Canada is projecting that we’ll be fifty or sixty million by the middle of the century. The post-war baby boom and the baby boom echo have been a big part of our growth. But that has now concluded as Canada, like other developed nations, has seen its natural birth rate plummet, for all but our indigenous communities.
 Immigrants who landed in Canada and came through Pier 21, which is now a museum. This country was built on the backs of these people – they are us? We are a nation of immigrants, including our first nations whose numbers were devastated by smallpox and other imported diseases introduced by the European settlers. Over the last decade Canada had welcomed roughly 250,000 migrants a year. More recent immigration plans will bumped these numbers to the point where we’ll be taking in a million more people over the next three years. And of course there is ongoing pressure to admit more refugees.
So even if we don’t actually have more children to take our places there will still be increased demand for housing. And most of those immigrants will be moving to cities in southern Ontario, Alberta, BC or Quebec, where housing markets are already relatively tight pushing up the demand and therefore the price of housing. Still, demographics is only one factor in this equation when it come to housing demand and supply.
Land use and fiscal (tax and government spending) policies also play a role. After all for most people their home is their biggest investment, and yet capital gains on that investment is tax-exempt, making ownership very desirable. A second or third home can also be a good source of rental income, in addition to being an appreciable asset.
 Everything north of Dundas and the 407 is rural – no development except in the hamlets; Kilbride, Lowville. The housing growth will have to be south of the dividing line. BC and Ontario recently introduced special taxes on non-resident owned property, a policy which has been credited with discouraging speculation and cooling down their steamy housing markets – at least for now. Some municipalities are considering additional taxes on vacant homes in order to encourage landlords to better utilize the existing housing stock. And then there is the impact of Air B&B, influencing house market dynamics – the conversion of long term to short term rental units adding new challenges to rental markets.
Developers and the real estate sector decry the constraints on land development, such as they see with the provincial Green Belt. Their biggest complaint is that this impacts there ability to convert cheap farm land into masses of single family homes, traditionally the most sought after type of housing, but also the least efficient. Why grow food when it so much more profitable to grow houses.
 Once some of the best farm land in the province. “…they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” Burlington was once home to some of the best farm land in Ontario. Nothing epitomizes its unfortunate transition to today’s urban form more than Mapleview Mall – where maple trees are no more. Indeed this development gives real meaning to Joni Mitchell’s song ‘Big Yellow Taxi’ – they paved paradise and put up a parking lot. It symptomatic of the demise of low growth rustbelt cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Hamilton at one time or another.
Highly touted GO commuter service is of little use if your job is scattered among the scads of low density industrial sprawl areas throughout the GTA. Spending up to half of one’s working day just commuting is crazy! And then there is the cost of that transportation, a huge price to pay for living the old ‘50s California suburban dream.
So the provincial planning whiz kids dreamt up this ‘places to grow’ stuff which municipalities treat as license to continue sprawl under another name. And of course developers love it. Because they can now make even more money than before building higher density homes on that same old cheap farmland, and occasionally tearing down low rise apartments to reach for the sky.
And there is the matter of municipal zoning policy. Originally designed to protect Dick and Jane in their comfy split-level from the horrors of industrial pollution, zoning has become the true enemy of sustainable living, creating silos in our cities which can only be broached by the automobile.
One only has to look at the parking lot at Mapleview during the Christmas season to get the point or Costco anytime. Strip malls, big box stores and shopping plazas have replaced the local corner store for much of what we buy. And nobody walks to get there. More recently on-lines sales and home delivery, à la Amazon, are threatening to re-shape the future of the shopping mall as consumers literally take to heart that old jingle – ‘let your fingers do the walking’.
Hong Kong has been called the best city for commuters with extensive public transportation options and one of the lowest car ownership rates. 38% of commuters use bicycles or walk to work and shop. And extremely high urban density has made transit both economic and a convenient way of moving about the city. But then do we really want to live in a city where you sleep in a tower and travel to get to anywhere else thorough a canyon?
 Prime Minister Trudeau announces a $40 billion dollar federal-provincial partnership deal to match the need for more affordable housing. Mr. Trudeau recently announced a $40 billion dollar federal-provincial partnership deal to match the need for more affordable housing with real substance. It was one of his promises in the last election. That will require provincial buy-in, something which would have been easier back when more provincial governments also wore the red party colours. Nevertheless it is an ambitious undertaking. And of course money alone will not solve the matter of housing affordability.
Demographics, tax and land use policies are the keys to shaping the future of housing and urban development period. Next week, in this column, we will explore options and entertain possible solutions as we put some meat onto these bones we’ve now laid bare.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington in 1995. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Population Growth – StatsCan Projections – Population of Canada–
Birth Rate in Canada – AIRBNB – Hong Kong Housing –
Bad Policies – Market Bubble – Housing Outlook –
Liberal Housing Election Promise – Housing Announcement –
 By Pepper Parr
December 4th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
In an earlier version of this story, we incorrectly said that Tom Muir had aligned himself with the Bateman parents. He was very sympathetic with the Bateman situation but worked with the Pearson parents
Margaret Wilson, the Reviewer brought in by the Ministry of Education to do formal review the Halton District School Board (HDSB) decision to close two of the city’s seven high schools has said she expects to have her report in the hands of the Ministry well before Christmas.
She is perhaps on her second draft of the document.
 Margaret Wilson Being the professional she is Mrs. Wilson did not tip her hand during her conversations with media.
She is reported to have said to one of the participants during the second evening of public delegations that she “would recommend a second PAR (Program Accommodation Review) if she had very good reasons.”
The HDSB PAR review will be the 13th that Wilson has done – she is an experienced hand at this game. Wilson noted that the only time she recommended that a PAR be done a second time was when she did one at the HDSB – and at that time she recommended to the Ministry that a second PAR was advisable.
Many of the Pearson and Bateman parents are hoping that she does the same thing again.
All Wilson can do is make a recommendation. It is the Minister of Education who can order the Director of Education to hold a PAR. It is not clear if the school board trustees can choose not to proceed.
 Halton Board of Education voting to close two of the city’s sven high schools. The trustees voted on June 7th to close the schools. Parents from both Bateman high school and Pearson high school appealed to the Ministry of Education for a review of the process the HDSB went through in making that decision.
The Board held a PAR – a Program Accommodation Review and created a PAR committee consisting of two parents from every high school in the city. That committee was scheduled to meet on five occasions – and met on seven occasions when the Director of Education felt the additional time the PARC people wanted was justified.
The PARC was never able to arrive at a consensus. The structure of the PAR was such that the two high schools had to fight within the PARC to keep their school open.
 PARC members placing small paper dots beside their preferences when the committee was eliminating some of the options. Central high school was exceptionally well organized – they held a fund raising event that put $14,000 into their war chest and then did a tremendous amount of research that pointed to some serious flaws in the board of education staff position.
What turned the tide for Central was their research that showed it was going to cost $400,000 a year basically forever to bus students from the Central community to other high schools in the city. Somehow the Board of Education staff failed to figure that out on their own.
With that information in had the Director of Education revised his recommendation to have Bateman closed instead of Central high school. That put the fat in the fire and had the Bateman parents howling – claiming that the Central parents had thrown them under the bus.
 Central high school parents demonstrating outside the school board administrative offices. The result was that parents were now fighting to save their school – rather than looking at the serious flaws in the process and convincing the Board to take an approach where everyone could work together to find a solution that worked for everyone.
The Bateman parents were asleep at the switch. They should have seen that their school was at risk but they did nothing in the way of organizing until they had to and by then it was too late.
The Bateman community that is leading the Administrative Review request has difficulty sharing information. There were reported differences of opinion within the group and they were not able to work with the Pearson parents on a combined approach.
 Denise Davy, c0-chair of the Bateman high school parent group,standing talks to the representative from the auto body industry at an Administrative Review meeting Bateman had a great story to tell – few people in the city knew of how strong a program there was at that high school for students who faced personal challenges coping with traditional school programs.
It didn’t help that few of the trustees visited all the high schools to see first-hand what was being done at Bateman.
What was, by contrast, really interesting was that Wilson visited every high school and made a point of visiting the two model shops that were operational at Bateman.
The most significant flaw in the PAR process was the way the Board trustees handled their vote. On June 7th – their meeting went until well past mid-night while they heard the last of the delegations.
The PAR rules call for a period of ten days between the last of the delegations and the vote. That didn’t happen.
To make the situation just that much worse – the province, realizing that the PAR process was a mess, ordered a moratorium on all PARS on June 28th. Using the 10 day rule the Halton situation would not have been saved even if the Board had followed their own rules. There for the sake of 11 days went two high schools.
 Will the nursery at Pearson high school be lost to the community when the high school closes? Pearson, a smaller high school that had been stripped of most of the elementary feeder schools was basically starved to death by board boundary reviews.
They needed more time to get themselves organized but never did have the mass that Bateman and Central were able to pull together.
Their argument was that there is a place for a smaller high school in Burlington and that they needed the feeder schools put back in place.
The Director of Education is of the view that a high school enrollment should bet at the 1000 + level.
A piece of corollary damage is the impact on the exceptional nursery that has been run at the school since it opened.
Should Mrs. Wilson decide not to recommend a second PAR be held the city will have to adjust to that reality?
Part of the solution is to elect better trustees and get a Chair in place who understands what the job is and then how to do it.
Burlington has also to come to terms with the fact that it has just 4 of the 11 votes – its trustees need to reach out and develop coalitions with the trustees from Milton, Oakville and Halton Hills.
The decision to close the Robert Bateman high school was more a blow to those parents who had their children in special needs classes.
 Tom Muir – an inveterate delegator. Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident who doesn’t have children aligned himself with the Pearson contingent and worked with them as they prepared their request for an Administrative Review.
Muir is of the view that “closing Bateman is a disaster for these needy kids and their parents. It will be life-altering. It can’t just be “moved” and “transitioned”. Nelson he added is no place for Bateman kids.
“It is clear that closing any school will stress many students, overcrowd others. MMR will be over capacity by 2020 and will need trailers. Hayden remains pig stuffed and will be for the foreseeable future, with 12 now, and maybe 18 trailers, in future.”
Muir believes there is sufficient material grounds to recommend a voiding of the 2017 PAR, and to replace it with another PAR or suitable process.
By Staff
December 1st, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
A city Council Committee of the Whole listened to delegations in an afternoon and an evening session yesterday.
There were three delegations from people representing developers setting out the impact the proposed Official Plan would have on their projects.
This was followed by four people who delegated in the afternoon – in the evening there were nine registered delegation.
The Gazette will report on what those people had to say. We want to pass along what Jim Young, an Aldershot resident, had to say. Young is perhaps the best delegator this Council has seen during 2017. He has been superb and taught this council some badly needed lessons. He was instrumental is convincing this city council to maintain the ten minute time allocation for delegation. Staff had proposed that it be limited to five minutes – and council was prepared to go along with it.
During his delegation on the Official Plan Young had this to say:
I am not here today to condemn or oppose the latest rendition of the Official Plan.
 Jim Young Neither am I opposed to intensification, downtown density or the concept of mobility hubs.
My first concern is a Big Picture concern about the validity and workability of an Official Plan that is contingent upon several other plans, if those contingent plans are not yet in place.
The draft Official Plan references the Cycling Plan and the Transit Master Plan, both of which have been in development for several years and are still some time from completion. It also references The Downtown Parking Study, which as we speak is still seeking public input and an Area Specific Plan for the Downtown Mobility Hub which according to your timeline will not be completed until June 2018
There are matters of great importance which will impact the lives of citizens embodied in the official plan which council are being asked to vote upon when the prerequisite building blocks are not yet in place.
Is it fair or reasonable for you to vote on detailed areas of intensification and density before we have the Transit Plan in place to move people through these propose areas of intensification?
Can you really make a decision which will determine the walkability and the transport modal split for cycling to ensure livability in our new high density intensified city, if we don’t have a cycling plan in place to support it?
 Jim Young speaking at a public meeting on transit issues. He has led some of the public commentary on how the transit service is not meting the needs of the citizens Can we plan for a forecast 19,000 new residents every 10 years, many of whom the new intensified precincts are designed for and almost all of whom will bring cars if we do not have a parking plan in place? If buildings are approved with 1.2 parking spaces per unit while the average Ontario household owns 1.7 cars, where will we put the all cars? We cannot just hope people will be less inclined to own a car. We need to have that plan in place.
The proposed intensification precincts are premised upon the success and high level of utilization of the downtown mobility hub; yet the Area Specific Plan for that will not be presented to council until June 2018.
 In 2012 the Official Plan Review team set out how many moving parts there were in the Official Plan. Young points out that many of the parts are contingent upon several other plans that have yet to be determined before the bigger picture is cast in stone. How do we intensify around a mobility hub when we don’t have the details of what that hub will look like, how it will work? If it will work?
I am asking how can council and staff move forward on this very complex and, for our city, somewhat revolutionary, official plan if the building blocks of all the other supporting infrastructure plans are not in place?
A lot of common sense there. Using a well-worn phrase Young pointed out that the Planners had ‘put the cart before the horse.’ He got that right.
Good questions – Jim Young didn’t get any answers – staff have yet to comment on the points brought up during the delegations yesterday. That is supposed to take place when the Committee of the Whole resumes this afternoon.
By Deby Morrison,
November 390th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It is unacceptable to be rushing this Official Plan through Development and Committee tonight to head to Council for a vote when the public has been given 14 days to comment on such major and drastic changes to the future of this City. Defer the approval of the Official Plan to June, 2018. Defer approval of the Downtown Mobility Hub precinct plan and Official Plan policies until June, 2018.
The Official Plan was released November 9, 2017 to the public, an email went out Nov 13/17 and the public was given 14 days to Nov 27/17 to comment. After only 14 days, why is this plan being considered today, November 30, 2017, at a Planning & Development committee meeting to be sent to Council for a vote? Noted, there were three public open house presentations of this plan from November 16 to 20th, 2017, 4 days, during which time I was out of the Country; I am sure that I am not alone in this situation. Many Burlington residents are still unaware that the Official Plan has been released.
This Plan is recommending drastic changes to the City and is going to forever change the landscape and culture of Burlington and our Downtown. This should not be rushed to Council prior to a specific, detailed design of the Downtown Core has been established and further public consultation and discussion. I haven’t had time to review the entire report, but I do not agree with raising heights to 17 to 25 storeys from 4 to 8 storeys in entire precincts and changing precinct borders without a more refined, detailed design of the Downtown Core.
 The fight is for what kind of growth there will be on Brant Street – the spine of the Downtown core. I am pro development, but I am NOT pro development of a canyon of 25 storey condo buildings up the entire length of Brant Street. What a sure way to kill the Downtown core for people and entrepreneurial business and encourage car traffic. What is being proposed would create a most unfriendly environment for people and create a congested traffic mess. This City is going to end up with what King Street in Toronto has become.
Toronto is spending millions trying to figure out how to end the daily traffic gridlock and bring people back to King Street at night. We have history and lessons close by to draw from, why would we do this to our Downtown Core? Who is benefiting from this type of Development and why are we in such a rush to move forward in this manner?
I attended many of the public sessions on developing the new official plan and the grow bold initiatives and was left with the impression that the majority of residents did not support this level of increased height and density in the core. The City is on target to meet their intensification targets of 200 people/jobs per hectare as we are already at 174 jobs/hectare, without this level of intensification in the Core.
It would be irresponsible to change these zoning laws without having a Downtown Design, Transit, Traffic and Infrastructure Plans in place. The traffic and construction time and effect of these buildings will gridlock the downtown in the near term and forever be a detriment to the appeal and draw to our downtown core. Any successful City needs a successful Downtown.
 Proposed Downtown Core precinct Making zoning law changes for Developers over these past years has led Developers to overpay for downtown properties as they gambled on whether or not they would be able to build 23 storeys vs. the zoned 4 to 8 storeys. These Developers have allowed the Downtown Core to become somewhat shoddy as they have not kept their properties in good repair nor have they allowed entrepreneurial business owners to sign long term leases. Developers wanted to be ready to go when “the height was right”. Should Developers be rewarded for these actions; driving up property prices and encouraging decaying property conditions. Why should the residents of the City have to pay the price because Developers are lamenting that they can’t make a profit on 4 to 8 storeys as a direct result of their own decision to overpay for property. Should Developers be driving the design and future of our Downtown Core? Or should the citizens of Burlington be the driving force behind the design of our Downtown?
A wonderful Downtown ‘culture’ has been emerging the past few years with interesting entrepreneurial businesses bringing residents and tourists alike to our Downtown Core. Kellys, a major draw for residents & young people from far and wide, Centro Garden Store & their Sunday Farmer’s market & Maker’s Markets, Tamp Coffee, a major meeting hub for business & residents, the Burro, draws a younger crowd from far and wide, just to name a few and none of these businesses will survive the higher rents these new high rise condos bring.
In fact, Kellys has been given their walking papers by a Developer, Centro is slated for a 17 storey development and we won’t get these businesses back. We should be nurturing and encouraging these business owners, as against all odds, they were building a culture and environment that was drawing young people, residents and tourists to the core. If there’s any doubt about that just look at the current businesses at ground level in the current high rise condo towers: real estate, bank, mortgage, franchise, medical, empty; absolutely no draw or culture to be found.
Sometimes what’s in the buildings is more important than the buildings and we have an opportunity to foster and create that environment in our City. Part of the Downtown Core should be developed into an area where these businesses can flourish, perhaps a Pedestrian Promenade. This should be designed prior to any change in the Official Plan. We only have one Downtown Core, there is no where else in our City for these businesses to relocate or this type of Pedestrian friendly area to be developed. I’m sure if this type of project was tendered to Developers, we’d see some wonderful plans.
We have a gem on the Lake, let’s be careful going forward and foster a thriving “Niagara-on-the-Lake” destination, not a “Toronto Queen’s Quay Nightmare” on the Lake.
I am pro development downtown, however, I am for reasonable, responsible development with a defined design plan prior to pushing forward.
Deby Morrison is a member of the Core Residents Association.
 By Staff
November 23, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Jim Young sent us a note earlier today – a group of people who are very unhappy with city council’s decision to approve a 23 storey tower on Brant Street opposite city hall want to find a way to appeal that decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Jim Young Young is the Aldershot resident who took city council to task over their attempt to limit delegations to five minutes from the current practice of ten minutes.
 421 Brant – a 23 storey tower approved by city council by a 5-2 vote. He mentioned to us that the group, Engaged Citizens in Burlington, planned a meeting under very short notice – it was to take place at City Hall, but had to be hastily rearranged when city officials banned the group from using the city hall room.
Banning seems to have become a bit of a practice at city hall. It can only be described as an astonishing decision by people who have a limited understanding of what community engagement really means.
The group was able to pivot quickly and will hold their meeting on Saturday, November 25th at Bunton’s Wharf, Brant St. and Lakeshore, 1.00 pm to 3.00 pm. The entrance to the building is on the Brant Street side
Young describes the now approved tower as a “23 story monstrosity, so out of character, in conflict with city height bylaws and opposed by 1435 signatures on a petition collected over just one week, may be the final straw for people who are opposed to downtown development.
Both the Gazette and Spectator columnist Joan Little have written about the need for new forms of engagement in Burlington
Little suggested it may be time for the good people of Burlington to organize to fight back against their city council’s refusal to listen to their concerns. Citizens feel ignored on new street bike lanes, under funding for transit, lake shore hotels and condo developments and most recently on the 23 story tower on Brant Street just across from City Hall.
City hall has this annoying habit of thinking that if you say something often enough it will become true. In the comments made by the judges hat gave the reward they said:
- The city knows “How to make P2 a part of everyday practice in the city of Burlington, through the Burlington Community Engagement Charter adopted in April 2013. Engagement was included as a strategic direction in 2016 Strategic Plan.”
- “Employees now ask how to engage — not whether.”
- “Engagement is part of the annual budget, has a dedicated, full-time staff person, and communications personnel promote and coach on P2.”
- “Demonstrates an organizational long-term commitment to P2, beginning in 2013 and now enshrined in the 25-year Strategic Plan.”
Really!
Related article:
Young takes city council to task.
By Pepper Parr
November 21st, 2017
BURLINGTON,ON
It was close to a throw away idea, something that was put on the table, almost as a distraction.
The Halton District School Board trustees were debating the staff recommendation to close two of the city’s seven high schools.
No one was sure quite what to call the initiative: was it to be a theme school, an incubator, a magnet to attract a specific group of students.
Part of the reason for coming up with an idea was to give the Aldershot high school more of a purpose. There are elementary schools in Burlington that has a larger enrollment than Aldershot.
Despite how low the enrollment at Aldershot was – it wasn’t going to be possible to close that school.
Especially when during the early stages of the PAR process when Central high school was recommended for closure.
 The idea for something different in Aldershot got included with the resolution the trustees were debating – it both didn’t have traction in the minds of any of the trustees and several didn’t event understand what the idea was about.
With the decision to close Pearson and Bateman done – the parent groups at both schools shifted their energy to getting a request for an Administrative Review approved by the Ministry of Education.
The schools that were to remain open settled back and resumed a normal life.
 Superintendent Terri Blackwell talking to a parent during public meetings on high school closings. Superintendent Terri Blackwell was given the task of overseeing the transition of the schools that were being closed into schools that were being kept open. She was also given the task of handling what became known as the Aldershot Exploration.
They started out by asking people for ideas – what did people want?
Blackwell was working with a clean slate. There was no agenda – it was almost as if they threw the spaghetti against the wall to see what stuck.
And a lot of that spaghetti did stick. There were more than 200 ideas sent in.
And they were good – so good that Blackwell and her team found that they had to create themes and came up with 15 of them – which is really quite remarkable.
     The public got to see the themes at an Open House on November 13th. The ideas were set out on tables at stations where the themes were displayed.
The next step for the Blackwell is to narrow the 15 down to a manageable number. “We don’t have to choose the one theme – this is a wide open situation” said Blackwell. “We want to see where the interest is and then begin thinking how we could make what the public has suggested work.”
Making it work is not a simple matter – curriculum material has to be created, figuring out where the staff will come from and understanding where the students will come from are just part of the challenge.
Some of the parents who were on the PAR think the idea is a great one and has the potential to offer courses that meet the needs of the changing world high schools are going to be going into.
         Blackwell is excited and the people working on the project are just as excited.
Steve Armstrong thinks this is an idea that could define what the Halton School Board is all about.
The final recommendation to the Board of Trustees will be a concept developed from one of these themes, a morphing of multiple themes or a yet to be developed theme as a result of continued input, ideas, and research.
The Halton District School Board has created a survey for the public to provide input on the themes identified.
We encourage parents/guardians, students and community members from Halton and beyond to give their input as it will further inform the Exploration Committee.
• All responses will remain anonymous.
• The order in which the themes appear in the survey is alphabetical.
 The HDSB has sent an email to parents/guardians of all current elementary and secondary students, as well as staff, with a link to the survey. Members of the public can complete the survey directly
The survey is available from Monday, November 13 to Monday, November 27, 2017.
 By Pepper Parr
November 20th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It was direct and to the point – the New Street Road Diet was to come to an end with instructions to the Director of Transportation that will be debated at city council November 27th.
Direct the Director of Transportation Services to convert the existing bike lane pilot project (New Street from Guelph Line to Walkers Line) to the original four-lane cross section.
Assuming city council members vote to approve the staff recommendation that will bring to an end a project that was poorly designed and poorly communicated to the public.
The idea of a Road Diet was about as divisive as they get. It was so bad that the Mayor found himself being challenged at the Y when he was getting in some exercise.
New Street was having new pipes put in which meant digging up the road in stages and then re-surfacing it all. Why not use the occasion to test the idea of a road diet – which is a re-configuring of the lanes to make room for dedicated bike lanes on both sides of the road.
The cyclists loved the idea. Those who drive their cars on New Street wanted everyone to believe that the world was about to come to an end.
And that was where the issue stuck in the craw of many – they didn’t feel safe sharing a roadway with vehicles.
Many pointed out that there was an excellent trail system yards to the south.
 The trail runs parallel to New Street from Rossmore in the east to Martha in the West. The completion of the Elgin Street promenade will allow cyclists to get to the canal and on into Hamilton. Neither the Transportation department nor most of city council could tap into the public concern.
The issues wasn’t about people riding their bikes – it was where they were going to ride their bikes and how safe they would be.
The cycling lobby, and there most certainly is a cycling lobby, wanted those lanes on New Street. Those people feel safe on their bikes in almost all forms of road traffic – they would feel save on the QEW if there were a HOT bike lane.
But for the average citizen who is Ok with the idea of hoping on their bike to run a short errand or visit with a neighbour – they just didn’t want to put themselves at risk.
The Cycling Lobby didn’t take the time to fully listen to the average citizen who understands the issues – they just don’t want to put their lives on the line to support a good idea.
The report goes to a Council Committee on November 27, 2017 and then to city council for approval on December 11, 2017
This city council needs a win badly on this one.
The Staff report sets out much of the detail and data collected during the Pilot Program.
 Vito Tolone, Director of Transportation had to stick handle an awkward file – he was in a no-win situation. The transportation people convinced themselves that providing cycling facilities, particularly throughout key transportation corridors, such as New Street, served to provide more mobility choice to the residents of Burlington, and ensures that all road users, including cyclists, have access to safe facilities.
The purpose of the pilot project was to provide an opportunity to evaluate the impacts and benefits of on-road cycling
The outcomes of the pilot project were to be used to help inform the development of future cycling projects and the Cycling Master Plan Update which is currently underway.
This all started in July of 2016 when City Council approved transportation services department report with the following direction:
Direct the Executive Director of Capital Works and Director of Transportation Services to report back on the performance of the pilot project prior to the top layer of asphalt being placed on the section of New Street between Guelph Line and Cumberland Avenue;
Following Council approval, staff converted New Street (between Guelph Line and Walkers Line) from a four-lane cross section to a three-lane cross section consisting of two through lanes and a centre two-way left-turn lane. The revised three-lane cross section included buffered on-road bike lanes. The pilot officially “launched” on August 23rd, 2016.
New Street is a minor east-west arterial that runs parallel to the QEW and Fairview Street, providing key connections to the major north-south arterial road system.
New Street accommodates both residential and commuter traffic and provides access to adjacent residential, commercial and institutional developments as well as the surrounding established neighbourhoods.
 City hall went to great lengths to explain the project to the public – few people attended the information session at Bateman high school where there was a lot of detailed information. 24-hour traffic volumes along New Street range between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day. Prior to installation of on-road bike lanes, an average of 60 cyclists per day used New Street.
Prior to the pilot project, this section of New Street consisted of a four-lane cross- section (two travel lanes per direction) within an overall roadway width of 14.0 metres.
The posted maximum speed limit throughout the corridor is 60 km/h exclusive of school zones.
The Pilot Project Design called for a reallocation of the existing roadway through the removal of two through vehicle lanes and introduction of a centre two-way left-turn lane. The preferred design achieved dedicated cycling facilities and reprioritized the function of the street in order to better accommodate bikes.
 Lane configuration prior to the bike lane installation (left graphic) and lane configuration during the pilot project (right graphic) 3. Community Feedback
New Street has been identified as a key commuter cycling corridor given its continuous length, topography, and proximity to GO Stations. Under the previous lane configuration, New Street averaged 60 cyclists a day (June, 2016).
Installation of the pilot has increased cycling use to an average of 80 cyclists per day. Cycling volume data was obtained from a traffic camera situated at the intersection of New Street and Cumberland Avenue.
Based on feedback received from bike lane users, the pilot project has increased levels of comfort, safety and enjoyment of this mode of travel. Users also noted that extending the buffered bike lanes to Burloak Drive and connect to cycling infrastructure in Oakville should be pursued.
Vehicle volumes were collected using automatic traffic recorders used to measure the volume, direction of traffic flow, traffic speed and vehicle classification.
Recognizing that a reduction in lane capacity on New Street had potential to result in diversion, traffic data was collected to substantiate the impact of the pilot project to nearby neighbourhood streets.
 The most notable change in traffic volumes (net increase) was recorded along Woodward Avenue where the daily traffic volumes rose by 16% and while the volume is within acceptable limits of the roadways classification it is an increase nonetheless. The pilot project resulted in negligible impacts to the other surrounding roadways.
Vehicle travel times were recorded before and during the pilot project in order to quantify the increase in travel times as a result of reducing lane capacity and introduction of on-road bike lanes. Bluetooth technology was utilized as a means to collect a large data sample of vehicles (30,000 vehicle sample) traveling through a predetermined section of the corridor.
Vehicle travel times were recorded before and during the installation of the pilot project and excluded the period during which watermain and other sewer work was actively under way and disruptive to traffic flow.
 Data collected under stabilized conditions (post watermain work) indicates that the travel times have increased on average by approximately one and a half minutes during the evening peak hour in the westbound direction.
Collision experience was also examined as part of the evaluation of the pilot project. Before and after analysis appears to indicate a downward trend, however, with less than one year of collision data available under unimpeded road pilot conditions, staff are not comfortable drawing conclusions as it relates to the overall safety of New Street.
Staff received over 1100 comments and suggestions via e-mail, telephone, social media and in person. Feedback predominantly showed a lack of support for the on-street bike lane installation. Increase to travel time, increased traffic congestion and lack of use by cyclists were recurring themes in opposition to the pilot project.
 It was all hands on deck – the city was promoting the use of bicycles – that got Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward on her bike – not something seen very often, Positive feedback cited sense of improved traffic and safety conditions for those residents who reside on New Street. Cyclists who utilized the on-road bike lanes noted that they experienced greater comfort and convenience and felt they promoted safer cycling.
Cycling Master Plan Update
The 2009 Council approved Cycling Master Plan is currently being updated to determine the next critical steps in the evolution of the city’s cycling infrastructure. The focus of this study, which is being undertaken by Alta Planning and Design and led by Transportation Services staff, is to provide guidance and expert opinion on facility types and locations and to recommend a minimum network for cycling in the City of Burlington.
Within the scope of this study, New Street was examined to confirm its suitability as an east-west cycling spine and evaluate the most appropriate type of cycling for the corridor. The existing buffered on road bike lanes were not identified to be problematic and are an appropriate facility type, however, based on a preliminary review, a continuous higher order cycling facility on New Street would provide an important east- west connection for the City and is more likely to generate new cyclists to the corridor.
Transit Network
In recent months, Transit, Planning and Transportation staff have been working together towards developing a frequent transit network for the City of Burlington. The lane configuration on New Street was to play a prominent role in providing the necessary road infrastructure to accommodate high frequency transit service. From a transit perspective, a four-lane cross section best serves the needs of passengers when being dropped off at the curb without blocking bicycle traffic and having to merge back into traffic flow.
While cycling numbers have increased by 20 per day along the New Street corridor, it is not apparent that it can be attributed solely to the on-road bike lanes. Vehicle travel times have risen somewhat and traffic diversion to parallel routes has also increased.
Before and after collision data does not provide any conclusive evidence of any safety improvement at this time. Future frequent transit service along New Street is better served by a four-lane cross section.
An increase in cycling volume is not the only measurable considered however, with no clear indication that cycling volumes have increased as a result of the pilot coupled with the negative impacts to travel times, diversion and future transit, staff do not recommend carrying on with the pilot project or extending it to Burloak Drive.
New Street provides an opportunity to create a critical spine for a cycling network in the City of Burlington. The length, location and cross section can accommodate a number of alternative cycling facility types. The test of any selected facility is its ability to attract more regular everyday “commuter” type users if we are to achieve the goal within our strategic plan of a higher cycling modal share.
After considering which facility best fits our goal to increase the cycling mode share, staff have concluded that dedicated, off road paved cycle tracks provide the greatest advantage.
The cycle track option was presented in transportation services department report TS- 10-16 in July 2016 with some preliminary assessment completed to determine cost implications. Recognizing the considerable cost of such a facility, staff recommend pursuing senior government funding which has been available in the past for cycling related infrastructure.
Next Steps – New Street Resurfacing:
Resurfacing of New Street from Cumberland Avenue to Walkers Line was included in the 2017 Capital Budget and was deferred to provide for full test of the New Street pilot project. With Council approval of this report the lane configuration for New Street will be confirmed and the resurfacing of New Street from Guelph Line to Walkers Line can be completed. The total cost including, inspection, testing, net HST and contingency is $650,000.
 The dedicated cycling lanes were not fully tested – road re-surfacing, sewer main replacement and repairs got in the way of a full fledged test. Storm Sewer Repairs
During completion of the asphalt rehabilitation on New Street, east of Guelph Line a significant storm sewer failure occurred. Upon detailed investigation, it was determined that full replacement of 340 metres storm sewer and 3 maintenance holes was warranted. To ensure motorist safety and have the work completed as soon as possible to allow the road lanes impacted to be reopened; King completed much of this work in 2017, with a small section of sewer work still to be completed. The additional cost to complete the storm sewer replacement is estimated to be $335,000. The total cost including, inspection, testing, HST and contingency is $392,000.
Public Engagement Matters:
In the Staff report that will go to the Standing Committee on the 27th, they say: City staff created a project website (www.burlington.ca/newstreetpilot ) where all the information was posted and where residents were able to provide their input.
Based on the emails, letters, social media posts and telephone conversations, staff produced a summary of comments received in favour and opposition of the pilot project. As part of public engagement, staff also received a petition that contained over 2,700 signatures of Burlington residents who are in opposition to the pilot project.
Conclusion:
The evaluation and subsequent analysis indicates that desired increase in cycling activity has not materialized based on the data collected before and after the pilot project. It is difficult to confidently attribute the increase in bicycle volume of 20 per day solely on the buffered bike lanes. However, there is also a recognition that the cycling volume may have been negatively impacted by the limited length and lack of connectivity to a larger east-west cycling network.
Travel time, during the evening peak hour has increased and while not excessive, does add time to motorists evening commute. There has been some nominal traffic diversion to Spruce and Woodward Avenues and while considered to be within the volume threshold of both roadways classification, it is not the function of a collector roadway to facilitate what is essentially “through” volume.
New Street is expected to play an important role in supporting a frequent transit network that is currently being evaluated. The preferred lane configuration for higher frequency transit operation on New Street is a four-lane cross section.
Cycle tracks, provide the greatest level of protection and encourages more people to use cycling as a commuting mode of transportation. Increasing the cycling mode share is aligned with the goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan and upcoming Transportation Plan.
The implementation of cycle tracks on New Street presents funding challenges, however, senior levels of government are continuing to invest in cycling infrastructure and New Street is an ideal candidate for consideration. Staff will consider for inclusion, the implementation of cycle tracks in the capital budget and forecast in future years and will continue to pursue funding opportunities from both the provincial and federal governments.
This is a Staff recommendation that Council will take to – Councillor Jack Dennison will remonstrate over the missed opportunity to get more people out on bikes – the two women who brought in several thousand signatures on a petition will sleep well when city council kills the idea on December 11th.
By Staff
November 19th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 3 of a multi-part series.
Residents of the city, especially those in the downtown core, have been bombarded by Mobility Hub proposals – there are four of those; an application for what many believe is the first of many 20 + storey high rise buildings on Brant street, (the first one has been approved by city council); a new Official Plan that is now in draft form and a proposal to tear down the existing Waterfront Hotel and build a couple of high rise towers on that property.
 The land for this development was assembled in the mid 80’s; approved by city council in 1995. While all this is going on the Bridgewater development, first approved back in 1995, rises floor by floor to its 22 storey level.
There is a group of people who have organized themselves behind the working name: Plan B.
Yes, they will have a petition but this group has some well heeled residents who have had enough – they are not going to tolerate changes to their waterfront.
They have the support of the Mayor and the Council member for ward 2, Marianne Meed Ward – which they feel they don’t particularly need. They are working towards getting the support of a much wider – city wide – public that the politicians will want to get behind.
 Plan B – stands for Better So where did Plan B come from?
Well there’s the Plan B organization and then there’s the Plan B – Waterfront Hotel Redevelopment proposal.
First things first. The people.
The City Planning Department’s September 14th Workshop 3 on the Waterfront Hotel Redevelopment left a lot of residents feeling disenfranchised with the process. The Emerging Preferred Concept, largely based on the previously presented Concept 1, was introduced and the rationale for it’s selection was hastily presented.
 What about the green space that everyone had pleaded for in previous workshops? Oh, that would be between the two buildings. Really! This was followed by a “prescriptive” (the Mayor’s words) workshop to critique the proposal, at each table, most of which had a tactical member from Mr. Vranich’s organization. (Draco Vranich is the owner of the Waterfront Hotel)The problem was that few attendees believed what was being sold and for good reason.
The Emerging Preferred Concept (above) included a 14-18 storey building on the west end of the property, abutting the east border of Spencer Smith Park, effectively making the park gateway down Brant Street a right-hand turn only! What about the green space that everyone had pleaded for in previous workshops? Oh, that would be between the two buildings. Really!
How could anyone believe The Planning Partnership’s recommendations when their evaluation of a design with a building on the west side (previous Concept 1) was that it could provide the exact same a) step back from Brant Street corridor b) transition to surrounding context c) create a gateway at Brant/ Lakeshore and c) provide transition to Spencer Smith Park, as a design with no building on the west side (previous Concept 2)?
And when the attendees tried to ask questions and raise concerns, there was just not enough time or microphones! Some of those disenfranchised citizens decided to do something about it, so Plan B was born.
It’s not rocket science.
The Plan B design simply employed the City’s own Concept 2; reducing the height of the buildings from 20 & 30 to 22 & 14 respectively, and effectively stepping the buildings down to the lake and the south eastern pathway of the park.
They just did what they thought the Planning Department should have done in the first place when they produced their Emerging Preferred Concept; provide the owner with the opportunity to develop his property in a fashion that respected his as-of-rights in exchange for more green space available to the public at the east end of Spencer Smith Park. A natural win-win!
Part 1: The background – how we got to where we are.
Part 2: Citizens want input.
 This is the Plan B design – notice how it has both Brant and John Street emptying into the park.
By Pepper Parr
November 2nd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The city of Burlington Planning department has basically wrapped up their work on the draft of the new Official Plan – a red ribbon and a bow and it will be ready for the public. The document is going to get to the public November 10th.
When Suzanne Mammel heard that she at first gulped and then said to herself – really!
Mammel is the Executive Officer of the Hamilton Halton Home Builders Association (HHHBA); the wording of the Official Plan is critical to her membership and vital to the citizens of Burlington.
 Suzanne Mammel is the Executive Officer of the Hamilton Halton Home Builder’s Association Mammel, who at first says the current Official Plan is sadly out of date and that “if we are going to have a new Official Plan then let’s get it right” feels the most significant document the city has is being rushed through the Planning department. Why she asks.
Part of her concern with the rush that is taking place to get the document passed by city Council is that they appear to be trying to get it in place before the next municipal election. Besides being a very important document – it is also a very long document. “I spent weeks reading that document – I’m one of the few people that has read every page of it – I took it to Newfoundland and to Hawaii as I travelled.
“This document sets out policy before all the background work has been done.
“Representing my association, I met with the city planners and took them through a 30 page document that set out our concerns – we didn’t get any answers from the planners – they weren’t ready to respond.”
Mammel said she gets the impression that the planners are not going to listen to anyone.
When an Official Plan is written the document goes through several version – sometime six or seven versions – “the differences get worked out”.
Mammel was very surprised that there was not more in the way of delegations
Big rush to get the new Official Plan approved by Council – why? Can’t the city take the time to get it right the first time? The Official Plan the public will see later this month will have gone through just two versions. Mammel is of the view that her association will not support the Plan and are prepared to take it to the Ontario Municipal Board if that becomes necessary.
“We want the city Planning department to do their job properly – let’s do it right and take the time to get it right”, said Mammel.
Where is the problem?
Mammel is of the view that the politicians “are positioning themselves for an election that is less than a year away and they want to be able to say that they have put a new Official Plan in place. The problem with that approach is that once the Plan is final the thing has no teeth to fix it.”
The city has rushed forward with the Mobility hub concept – and are pushing hard to get the Downtown Mobility Hub approved so they can put a check mark in the box and tell the public it has been done.
Mammel isn’t at all sure that the public really understands what it taking place.
People in Burlington complain bitterly that city council consistently allows developments that do not conform to the Official Plan. Mammel explains that is happening because the existing plan is so badly out of date. She sees the need for a new Official Plan and wants to ensure that the city gets it right.
Mammel is a graduate of Queen’s University where she studied music – she then studied engineering at Mohawk College and has worked in the construction sector since graduating. She has been with the HHHBA for the past three years.
 Ground zero for the Downtown Mobility Hub – no one is all that clear on what the location will look like until the new owners of the site block of properties to the immediate north take their development to city hall. While the Official Plan is at the top of her list – the Mobility hubs leave her shaking her head. The Downtown Mobility hub was to be a place where people could get public transit to wherever they wanted to go – but the planners seem to want the taller buildings to be further up Brant Street. “Wouldn’t they want the density to be as close as possible to the Downtown Hub?” she asks.
The public struggles to understand the role developers play suggests Mammel – “they build the homes we live in and they have to contend with a regulatory regime that is complex and ever changing.”
“Developers take significant risks – they have to pay for the land assembly – and we are talking about millions of dollars. They have to pay the development charges and for all the studies that have to be provided to justify a development.
“Do they do well financially? Yes they do” says Mammel but there are developers that have lost it all.
The company that is building the Bridgewater today is not the company that started the work. Right now things are very good for developers – but look back to the 80’s and the early 2000’s – it was a very very tough time then.
 The block was recently sold – the developer wants to have shovels in the ground within two years – which means Kellys Bake Shoppe is looking for a new home. The mix of housing available to the public is a challenge for the developers.
The politicians want to see what they call “affordable” housing – by which they don’t mean social housing. The difficulty is that in Burlington property assembling is very expensive. Add to that the cost of the studies that have to be done and you have a very significant investment. $350,000 homes are a thing of the past.
There are developers in this city said Mammel who have projects they want to go forward with now but the city isn’t ready. Those developers can put their efforts into some other piece of property they have assembled but very few of the developers who serve this city are in a position to move from project to project quite that easily.
 Suzanne Mammel oversees the interests of the development community for both Hamilton and all of Halton. Burlington is now attracting new developers who see the opportunities – the Elizabeth Interiors site on Brant Street attracted a number of bidders including National Homes and Reserve Properties – just two examples.
The provincial requirement that Burlington grow and the lack of very little in the way of “greenfield” space means that the growth will be in the high rise sector. The single residence housing that is the Burlington we have now is no longer possible. The cost of land and the demand for housing, explains Mammel is not what it was 10 – 15 years ago. It is a different market requiring different solutions.
While Mammel was not prepared to go on record with any comment on the municipal election that is ten months away she does wonders if the public is beginning to see the significant differences in the direction the known contenders for the office of Mayor want to take?
Building homes and condominiums and apartment buildings is a business – there are risks and for those who take those risks there are rewards. The public tends to see the rewards and shrug off the risks.
By Pepper Parr
October 23rd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
A year from today the people of Burlington will troop out to the polls to elect a Mayor, members of city council and school Board trustees.
Who will be in the races and what will the issues be?
We now know that the current Mayor will be in the race; he declared that last week.
 Meed Ward with the Mayor. Mike Wallace is understood to be lining up support and Marianne Meed Ward is understood to be on the same trajectory – one that will have her wearing the Chain of Office. That is something she has wanted to wear since the day she decided to move into ward 2 from ward 1 and run for that seat. She handily defeated Peter Thoem SPELL by focusing her campaign on saving the waterfront. She literally romped to victory in her second term and has grown to be a very effective representative for the people of ward 2 and has spread her impact into literally every ward in the city.
There is at least one new candidate for the office of Mayor. Aldershot resident Greg Woodruff has indicated that he plans to run. Woodruff ran for the office of Regional chair in 2014.
 Three of the our Burlington public School Board trustees sitting as observers during the PARC meetings. Election of school Board trustees is going to be contentious. The decision by the Board of Education to close two of the city’s seven high schools has divided communities and set them against each other. Parents from two of the school scheduled to be closed organized and filed requests for Administrative Reviews which were approved by the Ministry of Education. A decision from the appointed Facilitator should be in hand before the election.
The public School Board issues are clear; the same cannot be said for the municipal issues.
How the waterfront is managed is still very much an issue; added to that is just how the city is going to grow in the next decade has to be determined. That the population will increase significantly is a given – the province has mandated that Burlington grow and the developers have for taken proposals to the Planning department.
In 2014 the city decided their Strategic Plan would cover a 20 year time frame rather than the traditional four years. That led to the creation of a new approach to growing the city based on the creation of four mobility hubs. The Mayor talked about the need to intensify while one of his rivals maintained that the city was already meeting the population growth targets.
Programs to meet the needs of the growing senior’s population became an issue that was being given more in the way of the public attention – not all that much more in the way of funding.
Public transit was found to have been seriously underfunded during the last decade – the need for as much as $1 million a year for a number of years was part of the discussion.
 The planned look of the Joseph Brant Museum. The hope is that, weather permitting, the museum will open in 18 months. City council decided Burlington needed to transform the Joseph Brant museum and approved a $10 million plus project.
Citizens will also elect a Chair of the Regional council. Each member of the city council is also elected as a Regional Councillor – basically half of their salary come from the Region.
In 2014 every member of Council was returned to office.
Nominations officially open on May 1st of 2018.
By Pepper Parr
October 20th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
They all gathered at the Regional office in Oakville and talked up the new funding for repairs and retrofits to social housing in Halton in order to improve living conditions and fight climate change.
Linking social housing to climate change is a different twist –a sort of two birds with one stone thing.
Kevin Flynn MPP for Oakville, Indira Naidoo-Harris, MPP for Halton and Eleanor McMahon, MPP for Burlington were joined by Halton Regional Chair Gary Carr, at Halton Region in Oakville today to make the announcement.
 MPP for Milton – India Nadoo Harris  MPP for Oakville – Kevin Flynn  Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon Halton will receive up to $8,497,961 for repairs and retrofits to social housing apartment buildings over five years through the Social Housing Apartment Improvement Program (SHAIP), contingent on carbon market proceeds. This includes $1,659,751 for 2017-18.
This program is what the public is getting back from the carbon market the province created. That carbon market is what increased the cost of the gasoline you put in your cars.
 Explaining the intricate detail on just how this carbon market almost defies description. Writing it would be a challenge – understanding it is something else – getting people to read it is another dimension.
Suffice it to say this – we have a carbon market arrangement.
Proceeds from Ontario’s carbon market must by law be invested into programs that help households and businesses reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save money on energy costs. Programs include home energy retrofits, public transit, social housing retrofits, and electric vehicle incentives and infrastructure.
Halton will also be receiving $3.1 million over three years through the Home for Good Program to increase access and supports to help families in need remain permanently housed. This is part of the province’s goal to end chronic homelessness by 2025.
 These are very disturbing numbers – they point to a very serious problem for Burlington. Getting more affordable housing built is, at least for Burlington, a very pressing need. The Burlington Foundation released their Vital Signs report earlier this week. Look at the housing situation – those are very disturbing.
Kevin Flynn MPP for Oakville added a comment that points to a program – The Home for Good program – that “will receive $3.1 million over the next 3 years as part of the government’s Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy to end chronic homelessness for people living with complex physical and mental health challenges by the year 2025.
“This funding will provide housing assistance, as well as counselling, addictions services and life-skills training to ensure that anyone living in Halton Region will have the security – and dignity – of having a safe place to call home.”
Affordable housing comes under social welfare which is a Regional responsibility. All seven members of Burlington city council are also members of the Regional Council. This is a program Burlington city Councillors could work assiduously at to the benefit of those that cannot afford the Burlington market rate for rent. When a comparable unit goes for $894 in Hamilton and $1264 in Burlington – it is very clear that something is out of balance. Burlington needs more affordable housing.
 Regional Chair Gary Carr. Regional Chair Gary Carr said: “Providing safe, affordable and accessible housing opportunities is one of Regional Council’s strategic priorities. Maintaining and improving our social housing infrastructure is integral to providing high quality service to residents in our assisted housing communities. We are proud to work alongside our partners at the Provincial Government and are thankful for the provincial investment which will benefit Halton residents.” Political Pablum.
By Rory Nisan
October 19th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
When I grew up here in the 90s, North Burlington was a suburb of a suburb. It was not at the centre of Burlington, itself a suburb of the behemoth known as Toronto. The streets were quiet at night, schools were safe, neither over- nor under-filled. Many readers will know that Burlington enjoys a high ranking on various lists of places to live and it was equally considered a top destination when my family moved to Brant Hills in 1989.
Yet, Burlington has changed. For example, it has grown. More people and more traffic. And big change is ahead for our town.
 Burlington has indeed changed – the old Odeon Theatre entrance and the old Royal Bank building are shown. One of the biggest changes for North Burlington in many years may be upon us, as my alma mater, Lester B. Pearson High School, is on the verge of closure (though not if we can stop it), leading to MM Robinson and Hayden becoming XXL schools with kids spending much of their careers in portables and struggling as numbers in a big system.
A lesson that many of us who have worked to save Robert Bateman and Lester B. Pearson high schools have drawn is that we must send our best and brightest to public office, and then hold them to account between elections as well as at the ballot box. We were lulled into apathy and thus caught with our guard down when Pearson was first recommended for closure one year ago.
That unnecessary recommendation was followed up by a process of ‘consultation’ that led to little more than a rubber stamp by the Halton District School Board (HDSB) trustees, who voted on June 7, 2017 to close both Robert Bateman and Lester B. Pearson high schools. Now we as a community are dealing with the fallout caused by HDSB trustees, including several in Burlington, who were not up to the task.
Meanwhile, the city’s other elected body is overseeing major changes in the name of “mobility hubs” and “provincial growth targets” that mean that the next months and years are going to be critical to developing the character of Burlington for decades to come.
As a Gen-Y’er, I can’t help but notice the city is looking many years ahead, and including mobility hubs and the condos and young professionals that go with them in their plans, yet our voice is nowhere to be found on city council.
 Haber Recreation centre – best in the city is in North Burlington. Meanwhile, North Burlington is sometimes left out of the discussion of Burlington’s future. The city would usefully innovate and invest in building community and infrastructure in North Burlington to bring equality of outcome for North Burlington residents compared to those in the core. The south has Spencer Smith Park and all of its events; it has city hall and the lake as natural draws to bring people together.
North Burlington residents paid equally for the pier, the Burlington Performing Arts Centre and the Art Gallery.
With all of our tax dollars that have been invested in the downtown, we deserve more support for community activity in the North and the kinds of innovation, investments and energy that is brought to the downtown community.
The North has received some investment, yet we are seeing that investment being hampered in some cases. For example, the Haber Recreation Center, public library and Dr. Frank J Hayden High School complex is impressive, but its success is undermined by the conversion of much needed parking spaces into 12 unplanned and effectively permanent school portables. Furthermore the public library is being over-run by students because there isn’t enough space for them in the high school.
 City Manager James Ridge, on the right, was the city council voice at the PAR committee meetings – he didn’t have much to say. Our City Council has been nearly silent on the fallout from the HDSB’s mismanagement of pupil spaces in North Burlington, and especially on the foolhardy and nearsighted decision to close Lester B. Pearson high school, which will only make students’ lives worse. We need to hear from them on this decision that affects so many of us.
Finally, we do get out and enjoy the downtown when we can make the trip. And we want to see it continue to be a destination for everyone in Burlington and the surrounding area. Like almost everyone else, we do not want to see the lakeshore and downtown dominated by skyscrapers. With the Ontario Municipal Board being replaced by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal soon in order to empower cities, now is the time to say “no, thank you” to 22-story buildings on the lake, and demand only the best in terms of high-rises.
 Development is taking place – the three structure project on Lakeshore Road will limit the public view of the lake – the read line in the middle of this photograph is the width of the opening to the water. Development is inevitable and can be part of making a city better, but only if the development is carefully managed to not undermine what makes the city great. There is no reason we cannot hit our development targets without the highest of high rises in the downtown core, and that should be the goal. While we’re at it, we need to stop any high rises blocking views of the escarpment as well, or otherwise changing the character of neighbourhoods.
Finally, while City Council is telling us that the city is going to grow upwards rather than outwards, it is underinvesting in public transit to the point where safety is a concern.
At a city council meeting in September, one member made it clear that ‘throwing money at the problem’ wasn’t a sufficient answer. He may be right, but that member could be usefully reminded that it is their responsibility to lead the city towards innovating and investing to bring Burlington’s public transit up to par. For Burlington to be a modern city in 2017, these investments need to be made before the growth occurs, not after.
To make Burlington truly better, innovation and smart investments are key. With a strong tax base, we have every reason to expect this from City Council. They approved a tax increase above and beyond the recommendation of the city in 2017, so it is now up to them to show us they are making our tax dollars work to bring about a modern city in 2018.
We must watch them closely and ask for the best, because (a) our taxes are high enough as it is, and (b) Burlington is capable of greatness, but only if that greatness is nurtured and effectively managed by our elected officials.
Rory Nisan is a long-time Burlington resident and Lester B. Pearson High School alumnus. He has been an active member of the Save Pearson community organization.
By Pepper Parr
October 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
They get called shut-ins; people that just aren’t able to get out and mix with people.
Sometimes it is because they don’t have a car, sometimes it is because the public transit isn’t all that good and it takes forever to travel a small distance.
 Fred Hendriks, president of the Burlington Seniors Community – a group that is doing some much needed programing for seniors in the city. The Burlington Seniors Community, a private company that was created when some of the people who were active at the Seniors Centre were told they had to vacate the space they had in the building.
There were a lot of hard feelings but they did what they had to do and began creating programs for seniors they felt were needed.
That’s how Seniors Without Walls started as a pilot project that the BCSI people expect to grow.
Penny Hersh, one of the BSCI volunteers, explained how it got started. “The idea wasn’t ours – it was being done in other cities, Ottawa, Edmonton and Winnipeg are examples. The idea is to get people together by telephone on a conference call.
We keep the groups quite small – not more than 10 to 12 in a session.
People who want to take part just give us a call – 905-631-2524 – and we set them up. There is no cost.
BSCI has a contract with Mercury Teleconferencing who handle all the technical stuff.
Hersh explains that there are a lot of lonely people out there who can’t get out – and many of them don’t have a lot of friends or social contacts. They want to connect with people – and we make that possible.
The conferencing takes place twice a week – when the pilot has run for a number of months the BSCI will evaluate how things have gone and decide how they want to go forward.
“We got a lot of help from Heather Thomson at Community Development Halton” said Hersh and the Library is very interested in what we are doing.”
 Some equipment that is being considered for use by seniors. BSCI is in the process of re-defining themselves now that they are out on their own and not working with the city. They are looking into setting up some exercise equipment that will be outdoors that seniors can use. They held a Thanksgiving lunch and were a little overwhelmed with the turnout – but we didn’t turn anyone away” said Hersh.
 By Pepper Parr
October 13th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It has been a long time in getting to this point and the decision to take the plunge and transform the existing Joseph Brant Museum into a 17,000 square foot location was not a unanimous city council decision.
Councillors Jack Dennison and Marianne Meed Ward were not onside for this nor was Councillor John Taylor all that enthusiastic about the plans that were put forward – but all it took was the votes of four of the seven members of council – and that they got – so they moved on to the next step of breaking ground.
 Spades in place waiting for the breaking of the ground. Shortly before the spades were put into the ground Burlington MPP Eleanor announced that the province was going to come up with the final million that was needed to see the development as fully funded.
There was some concern about the $1 million actually coming from the province – but city council wanted this project so badly that they went out on a limb, decided which of the reserve accounts they would raid for the funds and hoped the province would come through.
With a budget that seem to have to edge into the 4% increase level each year and the discovery that Burlington transit is going to need a very healthy sum of money – that million as important.
 Barb Teatero and her husband during the round breaking ceremony for the transformed Brant Museum. With the immediate financial concerns covered the Museum Staff and the Museum Foundation Board gathered together and watched two indigenous dancers perform ceremonial dances and then took part in a smudging ceremony that was quite something to observe.
The weather held and the hope was expressed that 18 months from now a ribbon cutting ceremony would take place to open the site.
 Members of the White Pines Indigenous dance group atch while the dignitaries make the speeches. Aron Bell a noted indigenous story teller is in the center There are dozens of hurdles to overcome between now and then but Friday morning was an occasion to celebrate – the performances would have made Joseph Brant proud.
The original house was the building Joseph Brant died in – the structure on the site is a 1937 replica of the house Mohawk native Joseph Brant, Thayendanegea, built on a 1798 Crown land grant.
A modern addition to the museum will be built into the grassy area under the current museum.
The expansion, a modern addition to the museum will be built into the grassy area under the current museum by contractor Aquicon Construction that will add more than 12,000 square feet to its current size.
The hope and the expectation is that the transformed Joseph Brant Museum will become a cultural destination and a place to host national exhibitions and the collection of artifacts.
 Indigenous dancer does a grass dance to prepare the land for the ground breaking. During the ground breaking event McMahon said that those who worked so hard to make the ground breaking possible will, at some future distant date, be lauded for the decision they made.
We should make a record of those people in the event that the public finds that lauding is not what gets done. There are a lot of questions to be asked and the requirement for much, much more in the way of transparency and accountability.
There is some pretty fast poker being played here.
 The traditional dance wear has 365 small bell sewn into the skirt. The Joseph Brant Museum Transformation will include total square footage of 17,000 square feet in the expanded site. Construction is expected to take 18 months, depending on weather
The total project amount is approved at about $11 million, which includes a contingency fund and allows for cost increases due to a winter construction period. Funding includes:
$3.4 million from the City of Burlington
$4.7 million from the Government of Canada
$1.5 million from the Province of Ontario
$2.5 million from the Joseph Brant Museum Foundation
The museum has 25,000 artifacts and receives a reported 18,000 visitors a year.
Joseph Brant, Thayendanegea, was born in 1742 and died in 1807. In 1798, the Mohawk and British captain was granted 3,450 acres at the head-of-the-lake (Burlington Bay) by King George the third.
 The Joseph Brant tomb outside a Mohawk Chapel just outside Brantford, Ontario Brant’s body was carried by members of the Mohawk tribe from Burlington to Brantford, Ontario where his remains rest in a small white chapel,
By Cheryl DeLugt
October 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The intrinsic nature behind the school closures in Burlington is clearer than most may think. For almost a year now the Halton District School Board (HDSB) has been instrumental in its’ ability to have consistently provided the community a false sense of good intentions when it comes to closing our schools.
 Cheryl DeLugt and Steve Armstrong with the message from the community. Let’s face it….our schools were doomed, some would say…”A Done Deal”. Well, that was at least what was implied by the HDSB and how the majority of the community felt from the very beginning of the Program Accommodation Review Process (PAR). As the PAR process unfolded, it became more evident that closing a school or two was their primary objective.
The mere fact that our school was named and recommended to be closed in advance of any community input or public consultation, made it obvious the board had its own agenda, which in turn became the driving force behind the HDSB efforts to assure their plans to close Burlington high schools were achieved.
It now appears, to many community members, that the whole PAR process was intended to attain a controlled means of community input sufficient enough to claim community participation as part of the Halton District School Boards’ intent and plan to close two Burlington high schools. The process itself lacked honesty, transparency, logic, reason and effective community input. In addition, those who voted on the final decision were elected officials from outside of the affected communities, making the decision to close any schools in Burlington that much easier, or at least easier on one’s own conscience.
Fiscal responsibility to our community was by no means the predominate factor considered when making the decision to close our schools and if it was, a no school closure would have been given equal consideration. The cost savings of closing schools will be in the result of some staff savings and operating costs, but there will be added costs to decommission, insurance, maintenance, that will be added with closure. If one was to look at accounting for all costs, small schools such as Lester B Pearson are in fact more cost efficient on a per capita student basis than larger schools.
 Was Lester B. Pearson high school “doomed” from the beginning? Early on in the PAR process, it was apparent that there was reluctance and obstruction by the HDSB to engage in open and meaningful conversations with the general public and the communities affected by the school closures. This action alone revealed the school board’s lack of transparency and made many residents question the board’s motive for moving so quickly and forcefully to close our schools.
 Kim, a Lester B Pearson high school parent Perhaps the need for a greater emphasis on more open communication and input from our entire community including local and regional officials including the Mayor of Burlington, should have been actively part of the process. The Halton District School Board just recently announced its’ effort in exploring community partnerships now. In an effort of fairness, democracy, and the Ontario Ministry of Education principles, the HDSB had a moral and legal obligation to have explored other creative options more aggressively including possible community partnerships prior to proposing any school closures.
While the HDSB focuses their efforts on the transition process for Lester B Pearson high school and their desires for a “NEW” Administration building, many members of the community will now redirect their attention on the Burlington citizens appeal to the Ontario Ministry of Education now approved Administrative Review (AR).
With the AR soon underway, the need for better collaboration between the City of Burlington, its’ residents, and the Halton District School Boards prior restriction of information and the dissemination of correct, timely information in a transparent fashion will become apparent.
While the Halton District School Board continually reiterates to the public that the Administrative Review will NOT reverse their decision, it should indeed question it to a fair degree. The purpose of the Administrative Review (AR) is to thoroughly review the board’s honest commitment, integrity and ability to follow the HDSB and Ontario Ministry of Education policies while conducting the prior PAR process plus determine if there is need for HDSB procedural change.
 Ward 4 school board trustee Rachelle Papin at a school council meeting. In light of the approval of an AR, and with consideration of the facilitators findings, the community expects our elected Trustees to welcome the opportunity to openly review and change their June 7th, 2017 decision based on newly revealed supportive facts that the process they followed led them to a decision which was indeed without a doubt “flawed”.
After-all, how can and why would any school board or elected official stand behind a decision that they know was made using questionable methods, non- transparency and incorrect information and executed process?
A question we ALL should be asking at this point …especially the school board Trustees.
 Cheryl is a Registered Nurse who was a member of the Program Accommodation Review Committee that was unable to reach a consensus on which if any Burlington high schools should have been closed.
By Pepper Parr
October 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Two men, both from Aldershot, delegated at city council earlier this week – both had similar comments and both had problems getting their material into the record – no one knew what happened.
 Greg Woodruff, who ran for Chair of the Region in the 2014 election, had comments to make about the development planned for 35 Plains Road. While he didn’t like the idea of an additional two floors of density being given to a site that is zoned for six storeys – that wasn’t his biggest concern,
His objections to the 35 Plains road development were that the building is not of pedestrian scale. It is important he pointed out that we not create buildings which tower over the pedestrian walkway
Woodruff pointed out that the building does not comply with employment usage. This application he said seeks to remove employment space requirement and still want the “mixed use” designation.
The building is close to a transit hub, which allows people to commute to Toronto and would also allow people to commute to employment uses in Aldershot. There are people doing that now in Burlington.
Woodruff thought that 70% was a good requirement because it would create commercial pedestrian densities if enforced. “We are far better served with creating employment usage in the area than just residential. There is no vibrancy or transit enhancement created by people commuting to Toronto and gone from the area all day. Vibrancy requires people here all day – which employment usage properly creates.
 Woodruff then added that the 35 Plains Road proposal does not comply with the Aldershot Village vision. The vision calls for sites that have large landscaping and large generally open spaces.
Woodruff wants to see a minimum amenity area maintained. Zoning minimums are required because buyers can not asses reasonable levels. Creating a large number of small inexpensive low amenity units create a building were the major selling feature is low cost. Though this looks attractive at first long term it creates problems.
The developer wants the parking spaces reduced from a required 130 to a proposed 100 and have visitor parking reduced to 17 from the required 28 spaces.
Reduction of commercial parking is a mistake. While it is generally available vendors do no keenly enforce it.
Thus a shopper can park at once place and walk the near other businesses. At this site you can see someone using it and the adjacent bank without moving their car. However if customers cannot park easily vendors will enforce it – this requires movement of cars for every trip to every store.
We all know how this has worked out at the parking space at the No Frills plaza on Brant Street.
Woodruff told council of comments made by Brent Toderian at a public meeting. Toderian is a Vancouver based consultant who has done a considerable amount of work for Burlington who was asked:
How do you make density something that communities welcome?
 The Toderian line of thought – make sure that you’re spending the value on things that make density successful. Toderian responded: “I don’t support stupid density. I sometimes have as much concern about the YIMBY [Yes In My Backyard] movement as I do about the NIMBY movement. I don’t buy an absolute not-in-my-backyard, but I also don’t buy the argument that we should get rid of our zoning codes and have at it, build as much as we can. Both of those are the extreme.
Toderian was then asked: Explain density bonusing.
Toderian: “You have a base density, but [a developer] can increase to a higher density by negotiating amenities that make that higher density more livable. The key is to make sure that you’re spending the value on things that make density successful. Doing this “… gives the community a sense that the additional density is translating into something that’s going to support quality of life. They can see a connection between the additional density and amenities their community needs, but probably won’t be able to afford.
Woodruff doesn’t think the Planning department has taken to heart the Toderian line of thought. He suggested to Council that they were paying more attention to what the developer was asking for than they were to the zoning in place and the policies that had been adopted.
Tom Muir recognizes the difference between evidence-based policy-making, and policy-based evidence making. Tom Muir, who has been delegating to city council for more than 25 years saw the same kind of thing happening but chose different language to make his point.
“In my 45 years of policy and issues analysis I learned to recognize the difference between evidence-based policy-making, and policy-based evidence making. This looks to be the latter – decide what you want first, and then pick the evidence.
Oftentimes, sections of the Policy Framework said to be used, are selectively chosen that support the recommendation to approve. Other parts raising issues of approval are sometimes stated, but not followed up on. As a result, the viability of existing business and commercial economic development is being sacrificed by planning recommendations such as this one. What I continue to find disturbing is the continued de-commercialization of Aldershot.
Muir made it clear that both the Provincial Policy Statement and the city’s Strategic Plan point to the need for commercial uses to be planned for and increased not reduced and the needs of existing business to be accounted for, not sacrificed. “But the proposal” said Muir, “contradicts what the policy calls for. It talks about complete communities, but goes in the opposite direction
“Aldershot is losing retail to residential builds. We are told there needs to be more residents to support retail, which is not generally true except for a grocery store. However, if you get the residents, but no longer have the land supply to build retail/commercial, and a cost structure that is not competitive, you still don’t get the commercial.
What seems to be missing is any representation of the present reality, of the real businesses, with real business value, real jobs with real employees, and real customers, who are being plowed under, forced to leave and maybe drive more. This is happening at an increasing pace. Who of you speaks for these folks? The only one around this table that made sense of this is Councillor Meed Ward.
 Tom Muir: Its pie in the sky to me, promising a Mobility Hub utopia where the business dead will rise again. Muir argues that “we are told that the mobility hub plans will take us to another place with everything we want, and that we should celebrate, although here fanciful speculations are blurring proper judgement more and more, with each new proposal that comes along. Its pie in the sky to me, promising a Mobility Hub utopia where the business dead will rise again. I can hardly call this “good planning”.
Delegations are made before the meat and potatoes part of city Council meetings.
Council voted 6-1 in favour of the 35 Plains Road development that will be eight storeys in height with the first six floors being basically flush to the sidewalk – no set back and no trees.
Councillor Craven held a community annual meeting last week at which he brought his constituents up to date on the numerous developments taking place in Aldershot – the Gazette will report on that event soon.
|
|
