Patrick Brown has put the ‘Progressive’ back into the Ontario PC party, as he gears up to give Kathleen Wynne a run for her money in the next provincial election in 2018. His mission is to move his party back to where it was before Tim Hudak took it on a wild joy ride that ultimately alienated the voters.
Patrick Brown, leader of the Progressive Conservative opposition party at Queen’s Park.
He acknowledges that climate change is real, is caused by humans, and he is in favour of a provincial carbon tax to help mitigate it.
Brown sounds like he’d adopt the B.C. carbon tax model if he got a chance. B.C.’s carbon tax increases over time and is intended to be revenue-neutral since income taxes have already been correspondingly reduced. Not everyone in his own party agrees with him on the idea of a carbon tax though. Perhaps that has something to with it being federal Liberal policy.
Brown opposes Premier Kathleen Wynne’s more complicated ‘cap and trade’ approach to carbon pricing/taxation. Implemented this year, there is an annual provincial greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) cap, which declines every year in line with Canada’s strategy on climate change. All large emitters must buy GHG allowances annually to operate their businesses. As we’ve already seen at the gas pumps, the oil companies and utilities will pass much of the cost of the allowances onto their customers, much like the B.C. carbon tax does.
Air pollution coming out of Hamilton smoke stacks.
The big difference with Ontario’s system is that the price of carbon here eventually gets determined in the market place by the buyers and sellers of allowances. This will eventually take place through an auction, rather than arbitrarily by government decree. It is conceivable in Ontario, though perhaps unimaginable, that the price of carbon could be lower in some future year, because of lower demand for allowances relative to the annual cap – something that wouldn’t ever happen with a flat carbon tax.
A second difference is that Ontario’s system is not intended to be revenue-neutral. The provincial government actually intends to spend much of the proceeds from allowance sales on transit infrastructure and for subsidies to business and consumers to assist them to adopt low carbon technologies, like electric vehicles. The provincial folks feel that is a more effective way to help consumers reduce their carbon footprint, rather than simply lowering their income taxes.
Ontario’s cap and trade will also include provisions for smaller entities to create emission credits, also called offsets, and sell these in the market place alongside allowances. For example a hog farmer could convert methane emissions (~30 times more potent that CO2) into useable energy, thereby reducing those emissions and offsetting his/her normal electricity or heating requirements. Being able to sell carbon credits into the market will provide an additional incentive to spur innovation and help pay for the costs of the technology.
No air pollution here: an electric charging station in a city garage.
Finally since cap and trade is a market instrument it requires a large number of buyers and sellers of GHG allowances and credits to work efficiently. So initially Ontario’s program will be integrated with that of California and Quebec, though other provinces and states may join later. A common trading registry and on-line format will be available for all participants in the cap and trade system.
The whole Ontario approach is complex, but no more complex than what we already see with our security exchanges, trading derivatives, hedge funds, etc. And carbon emissions trading schemes do work, as New Zealand, Japan and Europe can attest, though not always without some warts or hiccups. Emissions trading was actually invented by a University of Toronto economist, John Dales in 1968, though the idea that pollution can be monetized goes back much further in economic history.
The US acid rain cap and trade program is perhaps one of the best examples of the effectiveness of that market-based approach. Even the Harris/Eves government ran a small trading program to reduce nitrogen and sulphur emissions from the former coal-fired electricity plants.
The B.C. carbon tax, Canada’s first, received glowing praise for seeming to reduce GHG emissions during Canada’s last recession. But it has failed to do so once the economy rebounded. Since there is no cap on emissions, those who complain that it is just another tax are right. And there is no guarantee that the federal GHG reduction targets, which the former Harper government established and which the Trudeau government has since adopted, will ever be met.
Another negative is that, like any other sales tax, carbon taxes are regressive. Revenue neutrality just means there is a re-distribution of income – a reverse Robin Hood effect – giving the extra money the poorer folks paid to fill their gas tanks to those better off through their income tax reductions. Ontario’s system will still hurt the poor but at least there should be tangible alternatives for them to access lower carbon technology, including, hopefully, less costly transit.
Mr. Brown is certainly on the right track in telling his party to get behind the climate change struggle. He just needs to put politics behind him, listen to the business community and think through on the advantages of the cap and trade program Ontario has just started to implement. And while taking the tarnish off the ‘P’ in his party’s name, he should recall that there is no shame in adopting somebody else’s good idea, but it would be a shame to change just for the sake of change.
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
The fundamental elements of a successful democracy are an informed public, a free press and an electoral system which best reflects the will of the vast majority of the voters.
At the time the disparate Canadian provinces undertook confederation, voters had but two federal political entities to choose from: the Liberal Party founded in 1861 and the Conservative Party established in 1854.
With just two political parties First Past the Post made sense.
So it was natural for Canada’s election system to be premised as a choice between only two parties. The candidate with the highest vote count would win their election poll in a system called first-past-the-post (FPP). Since the national popular vote typically coincides with the number of seats in a two party system, the public was well represented.
150 years later a lot has changed. Additional political parties representing a more diverse population with more complicated issues and demands have emerged. Recently 100% of Canadians have been governed by political parties which claim a majority of parliamentary seats, regardless that their popular support amounts to less than 40% of the voters.
At the 2012 federal Liberal convention in Ottawa, former leader Stephan Dion chaired an electoral reform policy session, also attended by Justin Trudeau. Although many present, including Dion expressed a preference for proportional representation, there was a consensus to promote a ranked/preferential ballot as a transitional or first step.
Former Minister of Democratic Institutions and Peterborough-Kawartha MP Maryam Monsef addresses the crowd during a town hall meeting on electoral reform. Jessica Nyznik -Peterborough Examiner/Postmedia Network
Three years later, as Mr. Trudeau was struggling his way up from third place in the election campaign, he added another vote-getting promise – that this would be Canada’s last federal election under FPP. However once the election was over and the brass ring was firmly in his hand, the urgency seemed to have vanished. He appointed a relatively inexperienced MP as his minister of democratic institutions. She was slow off the mark, proceeded to organize an unfortunate on-line survey, and mis-managed her special parliamentary committee.
The committee finessed the government by recommending a proportional representation approach but only if subject to a referendum. But there is simply not enough time left in the electoral term for that to reasonably happen. So the PM shuffled his junior ministers and announced that he was breaking his promise because there didn’t appear to be a consensus for change.
Except there is consensus. Mr. Trudeau’s own party wants it – they had in fact passed a policy resolution calling for this kind of change. The third parties (NDP, Greens, BQ) are almost unanimous in their desire to adopt proportional representation. And that just leaves the Tories who like the status quo, knowing that FPP is the only way they could ever win majority government again.
But the Conservatives poll less than 40% of Canadians at best. So the government doesn’t need a referendum to change our political system, it already has the numbers. Besides, changing from FPP was an election promise, and Trudeau won the election.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau leaving a stage. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
Politicians break promises at their own peril. I’d bet that electoral reform is one that will come back to haunt Mr. Trudeau. It is unknown how many NDP, Bloc and Green supporters walked their votes to the Liberals largely because of the promise of electoral reform. Judging by the reaction among the media and those commenting on social media, if they did, they won’t make that journey again. Mr. Trudeau has just lost a huge chunk of personal credibility and trust. That will cost him in support come election time.
There are also Liberals who now feel betrayed and alienated by a leader in whom they had put so much faith and trust. Once lost it is almost impossible to regain the hearts of his once loyal supporters. He can expect to see party unity suffer and membership start to decline. Volunteer workers will become less available, and contributions will start to dry up. Come voting day it will be that much harder to get out the vote and fewer volunteers will be there to help get it out.
Mr. Trudeau has been overexposed in his first year in office, and most of that has been positive, at least up until now. Both main opposition parties will have new leaders for the 2019 race and as they energize their party faithful expect to see them stick Trudeau with this issue until the votes are finally counted.
Finally, what will become of all those reluctant millennials who thought they were voting for a different kind of politics and politician? Perhaps some of them will show up at the National Day of Action for Electoral Reform at Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto, this Saturday 2-4 PM. See you there?
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
Bfast – Burlington for Accessible affordable Transit, published a piece on what a consultant said to city council.
They, Bfast, seem to be suggesting that consultants don’t always get it right,
Brent Toderian
On February 11th, noted Urbanist and Twitter phenom Brent Toderian was invited to come to Burlington to speak with City Council and Staff, as well as to present to the public as part of Mayor Goldring’s “Inspire Burlington” series.
Here are some things we picked up on from Brent’s presentation to Council:
Brent Toderian’s first point was that we need to change our thinking from being a suburb to being urban. We need to look at three dimensional streets rather than one dimensional roads. He noted that a suburb with more density will result in gridlock and congestion. In order to make this transition, and to position us for success our government needs to treat the Official Plan review as a rethink, not a tweak. Part of this is being willing to fail before we succeed.
Mobility: Brent stressed the need to prioritize transit, walking, and cycling over cars. We now have a very car-centred system meaning that we have to go well beyond the so-called balanced approach to moving budget dollars from cars to transit, walking and cycling. The car as the primary means of getting around has had a 40-50 year head start, so just seeking balance now won’t get us there. He also stressed that in urban places, balance isn’t good enough.
Transit: Brent noted that western Canada’s largest condo developer has said that the key factor in real estate development has changed from “location, location, location” to “transit, transit, transit”. Brent called improving transit “our strongest opportunity” as a city.
Strategic Plan and Budget: Brent noted that the City’s Strategic Plan was good – but the budget was not. He stated “the truth of a city’s aspirations is not in its plan, but in its budget”.
Making the transition -“pull the bandaid off quick” Brent was very critical of the slow approach re bike lanes. He said this approach maximized the controversy. Instead, he recommended rapid completion of a viable network that would work immediately. He also said that separation was needed on arterials – but not on other streets. Although he cited cycling in this approach, it would also apply to transit.
Prioritize the incentive for taking transit: Brent said that drivers need to see a benefit to take transit for example, bus only lanes that allow buses to move faster than cars.
Parking: Brent emphatically said “get out of Park’n Ride” (will Metrolinx listen?). He suggested that the City constrain the supply of parking.
Intensification: Brent discussed how building density right is a challenge because it can result in “the sweet spot of failure”; intensification on too low a scale will create traffic congestion but not enough density to support efficient transit. We need to have an honest conversation about the real cost and consequences to growing the right and wrong ways, with respect to climate change and public health. The starting point of “I don’t want the city to change…” is common, but ‘stable neighbourhoods’ are a lie. All cities are changing in ways beyond the control of local government, so take the word ‘stable’ out of your vocabulary. Cities should reject the idea that there is an optimal number for growth (how big should we get) and worry about quality instead of quantity.
Doing the wrong thing better: Painted bike lanes were one example of this; need to make sure we don’t mistake for doing the right thing.
Public Engagement: Your goal should be to convince the convinceable; as leaders you need to change the conversation. Just because we don’t have consensus doesn’t mean we can’t have an intelligent conversation.
Burlington Transit: It was upsetting to hear that Brent Toderian did not get to meet with anyone from Burlington Transit.
As I read through the piece I found myself asking – is this how we decide what kind of a city we want and how we build it? Do we have to bring in consultants who have never lived here, never walked the streets, never attended an event?
Toderian told city council that they need to get rid of rural names – hang on – Walkers Line, Guelph Line and Appleby Line are part of the history and a part of the feel for the city. They remind of us our rural roots.
They no next to nothing about how rich our agricultural background is.
These consultants want to come into town for short periods of time, get very well paid for their time, spout all the most recent flavour of the month in urban design and move on to the next consulting assignment.
City manager James Ridge – an old friend of Toderian who he had worked with during his time in Vancouver. Toderian got turfed by a th Vancouver city council.
Both city manager James Ridge and Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner, both relatively new to Burlington, knew of Toderian and his work – they thought the guy was great before he had spoken as much as a paragraph. It was almost like he was a member of the club coming back into the circle.
It’s the citizens that decide what kind of a community they want. Consultants have a place and their opinions are important but the people who grew up in the city and want to see it evolve and be something they at least recognize when they are taking their grandchildren to events.
There is nothing wrong with progress and growth – it just has to take place at a pace that works for the people who live here. Why else do we have a community?
Back in October of last year Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward told her following, that the city was “poised to endorse “interim” tall building guidelines and then send them out for public consultation. “You need to make your voice heard, because Burlington’s future will be shaped by these guidelines. I didn’t endorse the guidelines at committee and won’t at council.”
“The guidelines are more than an endorsement of good design. They’re an endorsement of tall buildings. They could lead to approvals for tall buildings on lots not intended for them, so long as they conform to the guidelines.
Just Guidelines – do they represent the city you want to live in? In order to have a specific number of metres space between two buildings – you have to have two buildings.
“Do we want a future which protects the livability, diversity and small town feel of our city, or something akin to Vancouver without the mountains?”
How did we get here?
“The guidelines were developed by outside consultants (BrookMcIlroy) at the request of city staff to deal with tall building applications already coming in.
“They draw heavily on a style of planning called “Vancouverism” – narrow towers on podiums, setbacks to allow public activity on the street. Vancouver’s former city planner, Brent Toderian, is advising the city on planning, transportation and transit.”
City council did pass the Guidelines and developers took to them with great gusto. The city’s Official Plan (OP) is in a sort of limbo while the planning department works at crafting a brand new OP. The old plan is still the rule but no one is doing all that much to support the document.
Less than six months after the Guidelines were approved a developer who had been assembling property on the east side of Brant street north side of James walks into city hall with an application that appears to conform with the Tall Building Guidelines.
Meed Ward points out that “Council had one week to review the guidelines. There was no prior public consultation. The development community was consulted before the report was prepared. Members of the city’s Housing & Development Liaison Committee received an electronic copy, with an invitation for tall building developers to attend one-on-one meetings with staff. But even developers said there wasn’t enough public consultation.
“Given the lack of public input, I had proposed the guidelines be considered “draft,” then sent out for community input. We need a “Made in Burlington” solution, not a model designed for a different city.”
However, the rest of council voted to put the Guidelines on the books.
The planning department committed to following up with the development community to hear their concerns.
The way the Tall Building Guidelines got put in place reminded Meed Ward of what was being done back in 2008 when planning changes to Old Lakeshore Road gave height along the waterfront without meaningful city-wide public input. That process created the Save Our Waterfront movement where 2,000 residents across the city sought better public consultation on changes like this, and eventually led to the creation of Burlington’s Community Engagement Charter.
The fear back in 2010 was that tall buildings would get built along Old Lakeshore Road with heights in the eight to fifteen storey range – that didn’t go anywhere. What was proposed was 28 storeys (reduced later to 26) just a block away.
Save Our Waterfront also propelled Meed Ward into public office. She had previously run against Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven and took a beating. She moved to ward 2, set up shop there as a persistent city council delegator and beat then ward Councillor Peter Thoem handily.
Meed Ward fears “We’re heading back to that era at council, where public input is bypassed, minimal or after the fact.”
All this led to a community meeting on Saturday that had about 60 people touring parts of the downtown core with comment from planners and a consultant on the look of specific buildings and what worked and what didn’t work all that well.
This after the Guide lines are already on the books and have been used by the ADI Development Group to justify their wish to put up two tall buildings (19 storey’s each) in Alton Village, a community with two story houses and townhouses where traffic congestion is horrendous.
The ADI Development Group project for the Alton Village was negotiated with the Planning department – but got killed at city Council after significant community opposition – it is no at the OMB appeal stage. It appears to meet the Tall Building Guidelines.
The Alton Village community organized and convinced council to not go with the Planning department recommendation – this after negotiating at considerable length with a developer that is not easy to negotiate with. It was a tough day for city planner Mary Lou Tanner – and it will be a tough OMB hearing which the developer has asked for on an expedited basis.
It will be tough on the taxpayer when the legal bills on this one come in.
Meed Ward points out that endorsing the guidelines now before we have finished our Official Plan and Zoning reviews may end up superceding our planning vision.
The risk she said is that the city will “get development applications that conform to the guidelines on setbacks or podiums, but are in places we don’t envision tall buildings. It will be very difficult to hold our ground and direct height to where we want it if the building meets our design guidelines, especially with the ever present threat of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Tall buildings lead to more tall buildings; and sure enough along comes a development for 26 storey’s right across the street from city hall.
The space marked “subject site” is where a 26 storey tower that meets all the Tall Building Guidelines is proposed – right across the street from city hall.
The guidelines help pave the way, claims Meed Ward who adds that “pretty soon we will have lost meaningful control over planning and implementing a community vision for our city.”
Meed Ward wonders if “we’re headed toward intensification coupled now with a focus on tall buildings.
Is the city past the tipping point; is the die cast?
Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his adopted non-de-plume, George Orwell, would be in his element were he alive to witness America’s latest president in action. Like Big Brother out of the Orwellian novel ‘1984’, the Trump presidency has been transitioning the English language towards Newspeak. Among the various intricacies of Newspeak was the construct of ‘Blackwhite’ – “impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts…and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
George Orwell – his “1984” was ahead of its time. Is it’s time today?
‘Alternative Fact’ is today’s version of Orwell’s Blackwhite. Trump’s lieutenant Kelly Anne Conway, was being questioned on a US talk show over why the Trump administration was so ridiculously insistent that more people attended the inauguration than actually did. She responded their’s were just ‘alternative facts’. But as any reasonable person knows, ‘alternative facts’ are not facts. They are falsehoods – or worse – out and out lies.
Former dragon, and most recent applicant for the job of leader of the federal Conservative Party, Kevin O’Leary has his own version of alternative facts. He recently complained that Ontario trails Michigan in auto investment because “business there enjoys “30% less in tax, no regulations and no carbon tax.”
First of Ontario doesn’t trail. The two jurisdiction have been alternating closely for first place in auto production in North America, though Ontario actually has a stronger five year record. And according to the Premier, Ontario also outpaced Michigan with a recent $2 billion investment in the auto sector.
Kevin O’Leary – he will be heard from – will Canadians listen. His candidacy will tell us more about ourselves than about him.
To claim that an historic industrial state, like Michigan, lacks regulations comparable to those in Ontario, governing everything from the industrial workplace to the environment is just plain nonsense. It’ is true that Michigan hasn’t, nor is likely to have a carbon tax in the near future. Still the combined federal-state corporate taxes there run at close to 40% (38.9%) compared to the combined rate of only 28.5% in Ontario – Ontario’s tax regime is almost 30% lower.
That O’Leary, the investor, lacks a handle on something as basic as corporate tax rates, or was too lazy to look it up, is inexcusable for someone vying to be our future PM. But then maybe he was just making up stuff, hoping nobody would fact-check – or that no one would care. This is Canada so we should hope he is wrong on that account.
O’Leary has also jumped on the Ontario electricity rate bandwagon. It is true that Ontario’s rates have risen to become among the highest in the country but they are close to those in Detroit and far lower than many other jurisdictions south of the border including New York and Boston, where Mr. Wonderful has a second home and must pays the bills – so should know better.
Kevin O’Leary, aka Mr. Wonderful, in New York. (Photograph by Stephanie Noritz)
Trump may have spun some big whoppers and got away with it, but O’Leary is not Donald Trump, charisma notwithstanding, So when he finds himself onto the next debate platform, it will be his lack of knowledge of the issues, and his willingness to build his campaign on falsehoods, which will cost him the nomination. For if there is anything Canadian voters expect more of their federal leaders than being able to also speak reasonably fluent French, it is intellectual honesty and competence.
After all, running the country is not a game shown, like the Den or the Tank. But if it were, most Conservative voters should say ‘I’m out’ to O’Leary’s pitch. Perhaps it would be best for Mr. O’Leary to stick to the business he understands and where he has been successful, leaving politics to those who can tell the difference between the facts as they are and the alternative facts as he’d like them to be.
Seldom at a loss for words and never shy about getting an opinion out – Keven O’Leary will make the campaign trail interesting.
O’Leary has been supported by the Toronto Sun and has assembled a team, including former premier Mike Harris. His entry into the race will be an interesting diversion for as long as it lasts. In at least one of his open letters to the Premier he raises some legitimate criticisms. Unfortunately those points will be lost in the dust of the bigger picture – the world of his alternative facts.
In the end, if this is the worst damage our Mr. Wonderful can inflict on Kathleen Wynne, she is doing a far better job than her poll numbers would indicate. And ironically by giving her government new credibility, he may have just thrown the Premier a lifeline and another term in office.
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
Mayor Rick Goldring on the State of the City: January 25th,2017
The Gazette has published the Mayor’s State of the City report for most of the last six years. Links to previous addresses are at the bottom of this address.
Today marks my seventh State of the City Address. Since the first time I stood before you, we have made significant progress, which I will share with you.
My colleagues from Burlington City Council are with us today. I am proud to work alongside these men and women who are deeply committed to our city.
Please welcome Councillors Rick Craven, Marianne Meed Ward, John Taylor, Jack Dennison, Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster.
Our City Manager James Ridge is also here today. James is a key part of the leadership at the city along with the Burlington Leadership Team and our staff. I am proud of the dedicated staff working hard every day to make this city the best it can be.
We continue to work closely with all orders of government. Joining us this morning is Oakville North-Burlington Member of Parliament Pam Damoff, as well as Burlington Member of Provincial Parliament Eleanor McMahon, who last year was also named Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
I want to recognize Burlington Member of Parliament Karina Gould, who was not able to join us today, on her appointment as Minister of Democratic Institutions.
I am pleased to see Oakville Mayor Rob Burton, Halton Hills Mayor Rick Bonnette and Milton Mayor Gord Krantz. It is great working with you as we build strong communities and a prosperous region at Halton Regional Council.
It is a privilege and an honour to serve as Mayor of Burlington. This community means everything to me.
I grew up in Roseland. I attended Nelson High School, Tecumseh and Lawrie Smith. I opened a business on North Service Road. I raised my family in Burlington. In short, my roots in this community run deep.
My wife, Cheryl, is here today. She has supported me every step of the way on my path in municipal politics. They say behind every successful man is a surprised woman. Thank you for not showing your surprise, Cheryl.
Every day, I am thinking about how to make Burlington better. There’s nothing 9 to 5 about being mayor or councillor. Our minds are working 24/7 on ideas and finding solutions to concerns.
Today, I want to talk with you about:
What we are doing to create more local jobs and strengthen our economy.
How we are growing as a city, and what we are doing to keep people and goods moving.
And what investments we are making to ensure the best quality of life for our residents.
This morning, you will hear more about some of our successes, our challenges and the hard work yet to come.
We are all in this together.
What are we doing to create more local jobs and strengthen our economy?
It goes without saying, economic development is critically important for Burlington.
The good news is that we already have a solid foundation.
Last year, MoneySense Magazine ranked Burlington as the best mid-sized city in Canada for the fourth year in a row. Burlington also ascended to the second best city in the country in the 2016 rankings, after Ottawa.
In 2016, Canadian Business and PROFIT listed Burlington as Number 10 on its annual list of Canada’s Best Places for Business.
It cited the fact we have a low unemployment rate, strong connectivity to major markets and a well-educated population as driving economic factors. In fact, 65 per cent of Burlington’s adult population has some form of post secondary education.
This independent recognition reminds us that we already have a thriving economy.
Burlington Economic Development Corporation – known as the BEDC – is leveraging these assets every day.
As a member of the board of directors of the BEDC and someone who has been involved in business, I know first-hand the importance of adapting to a changing market.
In a 2016 report, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce identified a critical gap in Canada’s business growth strategy. Here in Canada we are starting many businesses, but they are not growing into large organizations.
We also know from Industry Canada that more than 40 per cent of new jobs in Canada come from companies less than five years old. This represents a significant opportunity for Burlington to strengthen the resources available, renew the entrepreneurial energy that exists locally and develop Burlington’s brand as a great place not only to start, but to grow a business.
Aligned with the City of Burlington’s Strategic vision of A City That Grows, the BEDC developed an innovation and entrepreneurship strategy in 2016. It is focused on strengthening local support for entrepreneurs across the region.
BEDC has invested significant time and resources to develop this strategy. Staff reviewed data, looked at comparable cities and their strategies, and connected with the business community. More than 50 stakeholders weighed in.
And this is what they said: the local ecosystem is alive and well. And they need a physical space in Burlington where entrepreneurs, mentors, investors and established businesses can connect to build new relationships and tap into shared resources.
As a result of this feedback, the BEDC is focused on three key areas for supporting innovation and entrepreneurship:
Building entrepreneurial energy. This is what happens when you bring like-minded people together who are focused on solving complex problems through innovation.
Providing the critical support that companies need to grow.
And helping provide access to capital.
As noted by the stakeholders, innovation and entrepreneurship is already thriving in Burlington.
Our city is home to one of Canada’s most active angel investing groups, Angel One Investor Network. Since incorporating in September 2011, Angel One members have closed 84 deals investing over $23 million.
Silicon Halton, a grassroots group started by local entrepreneurs eight years ago, hosts regular meetups and demo nights for technology entrepreneurs across the region. It provides peer support and mentorship.
Haltech, Halton’s Regional Innovation Centre, works with Halton technology companies to accelerate innovation for business growth. The City of Burlington is proud to be a community partner.
Burlington is ideally situated in the heart of the innovation corridor, which is the area between Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto.
With these assets, Burlington has endless opportunity to strengthen innovation and renew entrepreneurship. This translates into new business in Burlington. And new jobs once those businesses succeed and grow.
The BEDC’s innovation and entrepreneurship strategy will take shape in 2017 through the development of an Innovation Centre right here in Burlington.
I am thrilled to announce that yesterday, the BEDC board approved the lease for this new Innovation Centre. It will be located across the road from us here at the Convention Centre in the Burloak business park at 5500 North Service Road.
A one-stop destination for new and growing technology companies, the space will be dedicated to connecting, developing and advancing entrepreneurs at all stages.
It will serve as a base camp for companies looking to access programming, support and mentorship to help them scale their business.
Leveraging the contributions and expertise of numerous partners, the centre will be home to more than 8,500 square feet of space dedicated to increasing the connectivity, visibility and vibrancy of innovation and entrepreneurship in Burlington.
This centre will help businesses looking to start up or grow in Burlington. It will also connect larger, more established companies to the start-up ecosystem.
The facility will provide event space, meeting areas, programming and incubation space to members of the start-up community.
The BEDC is proud to lead such an exciting new initiative for Burlington and hopes to open the doors in June 2017.
As the BEDC supports innovation and entrepreneurship helping new businesses, it remains committed to established companies.
For example, the BEDC helped Ippolito Produce with its recent expansion. The second generation farming company, which started from humble roots, has grown into North America’s largest supplier of fresh Brussels sprouts. Ippolito also has a full line of Queen Victoria and Coast King vegetables.
BEDC helped facilitate zoning and building permits for Ippolito’s 80,000 square foot reinvestment in a state-of-the-art food facility on Howard Road. The company also received a $1.7 million grant from the provincial government. This assists the company in bringing 40 new jobs to the area.
Partnerships are essential to strong economic development in Burlington.
The DeGroote School of Business is one of the leaders of academic innovation in our city, making it an ideal partner.
Last year, the school launched new programs based at Burlington’s Ron Joyce Centre, including the world’s first Executive MBA in Digital Transformation. It also established the Health Leadership Academy. This is an interdisciplinary venture created in partnership with the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine.
These two programs help attract the best and brightest students in the world to Burlington.
DeGroote will also continue to work with BEDC and the City of Burlington in developing an innovation ecosystem that sets the stage for Burlington’s economic future.
And the BEDC is working with universities and colleges like McMaster and Mohawk to keep these great minds in Burlington.
How are we growing as a city? What we are doing to keep people and goods moving?
We made major advances last year on the first of the four pillars of our Strategic Plan – A City that Grows.
Our Planning and Building Department is leading implementation with Grow Bold, which is the theme of our new Official Plan.
Why are we choosing to Grow Bold?
The City of Burlington is at a unique time in its history.
With very little greenfield left to be developed for traditional suburban-type neighbourhoods, the city is essentially built out.
Making the decision to grow within our urban boundary gives the City of Burlington the opportunity to define the type of development we want.
We have identified where we want to see growth over the next 25 years. We have identified our traditional neighbourhoods that will see modest changes going forward.
We are committed that half of Burlington remain urban and the other half rural. The vast majority of people I talk with want to keep it that way.
In my view, as population density increases in Greater Golden Horseshoe area, it is more important than ever to ensure people have connectivity to natural spaces through places like the Cootes to Escarpment EcoPark System and our rural areas.
What does Grow Bold mean? Let’s take a look at the video.
Our mobility hubs – which are the areas around our three GO stations and downtown Burlington – offer significant opportunity for smart growth. Right now, staff is developing extensive plans that will show what our mobility hubs look like in the future. Along with that will be community engagement in the coming months.
Our new Official Plan will focus our growth at: our GO stations, in downtown Burlington, the Plains Road/Fairview corridor, Uptown area around Upper Middle Road and Appleby Line, at some aging retail plazas, and from an economic development perspective, our Prosperity Corridor along the QEW.
I want to take time today to talk about the whole issue of housing affordability.
When I say affordable housing, I am not talking about subsidized or social housing; I am talking about housing that is affordable for the vast majority of people, from millennials to seniors, and everybody in between.
As we all know, housing prices in Burlington and the whole GTHA have increased dramatically over the last number of years.
I have heard from many people, including my Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee and seniors, who are very concerned about the prospects of being able to afford to live in Burlington.
The most recent numbers from the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington show that for December 2016, the average sale price for all housing units in Burlington was just over $700,000. This is a 29 per cent increase from December 2015.
The average for a freehold or detached home was up 35 per cent to $840,000. If I include the sales in Burlington by Toronto Real Estate Board Members, the averages are higher by 6 to 7 per cent.
Why are our prices escalating like this?
Low interest rates. People from outside Canada are inundating the market with cash, which we are seeing to a minor extent in Burlington. Job creation in the GTHA is strong. Home-buying millennials are an extremely large population group. Immigration from outside of Canada. Migration from within Canada, as Canadians are flocking to Ontario at the highest rate in 29 years. The Provincial Growth Plan restricts where new home building can take place. And in Burlington, as I mentioned earlier, we have no more room for traditional, suburban-type development. This is putting upward pressure on the existing housing stock. If we do not grow, the prices will increase at an even steeper rate.
The most recent Halton State of Housing report for 2015 identifies the maximum affordable purchase price of $357,000 for a household income of $102,000.
What do we do about this?
The work our planners are doing around our mobility hubs, particularly around our GO stations, is critical. This work will create neighbourhoods that will foster and encourage an appropriate blend of housing units, including rentals, in such a way that will assist in facilitating some degree of relative affordability.
Recognizing that there is virtually no room left for traditional suburban development, staff, working with the community, need to find a way to make living in dense, multi-unit development more desirable for families.
We also want to build housing that appeals to aging baby boomers to downsize into this type of development. As a result, this helps turn over our single-family-home neighbourhoods to allow families who can afford these homes to move in. And this will help keep our schools viable.
There are some people in our community, myself included, who are concerned with over-intensification of various developments. In fact, Burlington City Council recently voted against two development proposals – one in downtown Burlington and one in Alton – that we felt were examples of over-intensification.
I am also concerned about the risk of under-intensification, as this can contribute to housing that is out of the reach financially for the vast majority of people.
Transportation and traffic congestion is an issue I hear about from the people of Burlington.
There are three key factors we need to take into account when we talk about transportation.
The first is Burlington’s location within a fast-growing area.
Currently, the population of the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area, which includes the regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham, as well at the cities of Toronto and Hamilton, is approximately 7 million people. That number is expected to grow to 10 million by 2041.
Halton Region alone is expected to grow from 530,000 to 1 million people by 2041. A meaningful part of that growth will occur in Burlington.
That’s a lot of cars.
And our city, like so many other North American cities, was built for the automobile at a time when both land and oil were cheap. As a result, we rely on the automobile as the primary mode of transportation without even thinking about it.
A second factor that must be considered when we talk about transportation is that Burlington is located at a point where several major highways intersect.
These highways are an asset. But during evening rush hour, and especially during a full or partial closure, these highways can clog some of our city streets.
Every day, 200,000 vehicles use the QEW to travel through Burlington. During the peak hours, there are 20,000 vehicles per hour.
Naturally, when there is significant congestion on the QEW, drivers look for an alternative route to bypass the congestion. Much of the issue we have in Burlington is really the result of cut-through traffic, especially during the p.m. peak period.
We will continue to invest in our street network to facilitate the movement of vehicles. Our capital budget over the next 10 years forecasts an investment of $300 million in our roads, with such projects as resurfacing and reconstruction, new underpasses and intersection widening.
And this brings us to the third factor for Burlington when we talk about transportation planning.
More than 90 per cent of all trips made within the city on any day are made by the automobile.
The average weekday we see 260,000 trips that start and end in Burlington. Fifty per cent of those trips are five kilometres or less. These are ideal distances to take the bus, where available, or ride your bicycle. Destinations two kilometres or less are ideal for walking.
We want to provide people with more transportation options. We want to make it more appealing, especially for those short-distance trips.
Our new neighbourhoods around our GO stations and in downtown are going to be mixed-use, compact, walkable, bikable and transit-friendly.
We are working with Brent Toderian and Jarrett Walker, who are leading thinkers on planning and transportation, to find a made-in-Burlington approach to transportation as we grow.
We will be hard at work on a transit strategy in 2017 and making key decisions around where we focus our resources. Recognizing we will have more dense development in the key growth areas I have identified, it is logical to invest more money on public transit there.
This year will see a new cycling master plan.
I want to see us establish a network that will allow people to safely get to more places on their bicycle. My preference is off-road, protected bike lanes, where possible.
We are now trying some new ideas when it comes to planning when it comes to alternative transportation.
Last fall, for example, we decided to give a one-year road diet a try on New Street. This fall, staff will report back to council about the results of this initiative. It will be up to council to decide how to use what we learned going forward.
I want to emphasize that some of our new ideas might work, and some might not. And that’s OK. We must be innovative and unafraid to try new transportation approaches if we want to attain the goals of the second pillar of our strategic plan – A City That Moves.
What are we doing to ensure the best quality of life for people in Burlington?
Everything I have spoken about today contributes improving the quality of life in our city.
A lot of the planning that takes place at Burlington City Hall is done with one goal in mind: we are building a great city.
An important part of great city building is strengthening our sense of community.
As Burlington continues to grow, this sense of community remains a priority. Burlington has a small-town feel and we want to maintain that as we grow in a responsible and planned way.
I recently read a book called Blue Zones by Dan Buettner, a respected National Geographic Fellow.
Dan has discovered certain places in the world that have the highest percentage of centenarians. People in these areas live the longest and are the healthiest. The three major factors he identified were: social connectivity, a plant-based diet and physical activity.
With respect to social connectivity, these people chose social circles that support healthy behaviours, belong to a group and have a sense of purpose.
So, how do we build on our sense of community in Burlington?
One way is the City of Burlington’s Love My Hood initiative.
Love My Hood builds neighbourhood connections through community-led events and activities. People get together to plan an event and invite the neighbourhood to attend. The Love My Hood program makes this easy by providing toolkits and other resources.
We are asking residents to organize neighbourhood events to build on our sense of community in 2017. The City of Burlington’s goal is to help facilitate 150 Love My Hood events to mark Canada’s 150th birthday.
Of course, there are many other events held year-round that bring people together and boost citizen pride. In fact, Burlington was named the Municipality of the Year for 2016 by Festivals and Events Ontario. This award recognizes the best in municipal leadership and festival and event partnerships in the province.
Fostering community building and a sense of belonging is also achieved through age-specific initiatives.
The City of Burlington has worked hard to make our community more youth friendly. No Socks for Ivan offers safe spaces across the city for youth to interact. This program has been very successful. Last year alone, No Socks for Ivan saw more than 10,000 youth visits.
Last year, the City of Burlington was also acknowledged, for the first time, as a platinum-level Youth Friendly Community. This designation is awarded to communities that demonstrate a commitment to youth 13 to 19 years of age.
We know that if we want to create a well-designed city that is green and healthy, with a variety of housing and transportation options, we need everyone to be part of the planning – especially our young people.
To connect with residents aged 18 to 35, I created the Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee in spring 2016. We need millennials to be engaged now to help us create a community where they will want to live, work and raise their own families.
This new committee is developing initiatives focused on how to keep and attract millennial-aged residents. It also concentrates on creating opportunities to engage millennials with their community. I encourage you to read more about this group at Burlington.ca/millennials.
As with most communities across the country, we are experiencing significant growth in our older adult and seniors’ population. This demographic shift over the next 20 years means we must plan city services with a holistic approach.
As such, the city is working on a new Active Aging Plan to help keep older adults healthy, active and engaged in their community. Burlington’s Active Aging Plan will look at future needs and opportunities in a number of key areas, from transportation and outdoor spaces to social participation and making information easier to understand and more accessible.
Over the past year, city staff has conducted research and engaged the community. A citizens’ advisory committee was also formed to shape the direction of the plan.
We look forward to unveiling the Active Aging Plan later this year.
In order to invest in transportation improvements, increase services for our residents and develop more community-building initiatives, we need money. And we receive that money primarily from property taxes.
The operating budget for 2017 was approved this week.
When combined with the Halton Region and the school boards, the overall property tax increase is 2.56 per cent. That includes a 4.42 per cent increase in the city’s portion.
The increase means we can maintain and enhance existing services, add new services and help address our infrastructure deficit.
New investments in 2017 will allow us to add resources for managing our tree canopy, support the implementation of the strategic plan and improve the quality of our play fields.
Speaking about investing our tax dollars, the Joseph Brant Hospital expansion and redevelopment is progressing.
Burlington City Council, representing the people of our city, stepped up to invest $60 million. The province’s investment in this project is significant, as is the community’s investment, matching the city’s $60 million contribution.
Let’s take a look at the new update from the hospital.
Because we are creating more local jobs and strengthening our economy.
Because we are growing responsibly in alignment with our transportation network.
And because we are investing to ensure the people of this city have a high quality of life,
Burlington is ideally positioned for continued prosperity.
I ask each and every one of you to get involved in our community over the next year. There will be many opportunities for public engagement and community building.
Let us know if you have an idea you would like to develop at the Innovation Centre.
Tell us what amenities you envision at our new neighbourhoods around our GO stations and in our downtown.
And don’t forget to organize your Canada 150 Love My Hood event. Go to burlington.ca/lovemyhood. I want us to reach our goal of 150 events. I look forward to attending as many of these celebrations as I can.
We can make Burlington the best place it can be today and for the future.
For Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward it was a good budget – bad budget. There were thing she liked and things she thought were a mistake.
For Meed Ward the $550,000 they gave the city manager to spend on “project management” was something she needed clarity on; she wasn’t clear on just what the deliverables were going to be.
When city manager James Ridge was explaining what he was going to do with the $550,000 he said he was “surprised” the city hadn’t put in something like this years ago.
Councillor Meed Ward saw the 2017 budget as both a “good” and a “bad” budget. |She chose not to vote for the budget. A principled statement.
What bothered Meed Ward was that the $550,000 was going into the base budget – which meant it was there until someone decides to take it out. And in Burlington city staff are not very quick at taking anything out of the budget. The Finance department did say however that they had cut $1 million out of spending from the 2017 as they were putting the plans together. There was no breakdown of where the savings were found.
Meed Ward liked the $200,000 that was put into upgrading the playing fields.
She was content with the 1.25 tax levy dedicated to infrastructure.
She was Ok with the $4.8 million that was given to the hospital as the city’s portion of the $120 million the province said the city had to come up with for the refurbishment/redevelopment of the Joseph Brant Hospital.
Meed Ward wanted something done on transit – but that football got kicked further down the field – they are waiting for the draft of the Master Transportation Plan to come in – due in Q2
Councillor Sharman (ward 5) was all for the budget. He loves the $550,00 the city manager wants to spend on project management and said, with some gusto, that the 1.25% levy dedicated to infrastructure was long overdue. On that one he is correct. Why this wasn’t done a number of years ago boggles the mind.
Sharman pointed out that Staff did not support the $200,000 spend on playing field improvement but he liked the idea of spending some of the money needed to upgrade the fields this year with more to follow next year.
Councillor Sharman uses a unique mathematical equation to arrive at the rate of tax increase levied on the tax payers.
Every council member noted that the next budget is going to dig even deeper into the pockets of taxpayers. Don’t expect those statements to be repeated in the October 2018 municipal election
Sharman explained, as he always does – that the tax increase is really not 4.42 but closer to 3%. He does this mathematical magic by including what the Board of Education spends along with what the Region spends – and if the city controlled the spending by those two bodies – Sharman would be correct.
The city has no impact whatsoever on Board of Education spending and little influence on what the Region spends. Oakville has the same number of Regional representatives as Burlington but that town has a lot more clout.
Councillor Taylor (ward 3) said he had decided to support the budget and recognized that city staff had dug deeper and pulled out very significant savings – he then added that the 20 year growth goal is not going to be met.
Business process management – put in place in 2015 – Councillor Taylor wants to see some of the benefits of that process paying off – soon.
Taylor has been on city council longer than any other member of council – he knows where the bones are buried – and if his nose smells something – the chances are that there is something foul coming our way.
It was all supposed to come together – and the payoff was going to make it all worth the cost. Project managers are apparently needed now to make this work.
Taylor mentioned the process improvement procedures that were put in place a few years ago which he supported. He said he felt it was “time we saw some benefits now”.
Councillor Craven did what was expected – took yet another shot at Councillor Meed Ward and upbraided her for the comments she had made on transit. Meed Ward had said she felt the free transit service on Monday’s for seniors from 10 am to 3 pm should be tried on a pilot basis. Council turned down that idea choosing instead to wait for the draft Master Transportation Plan to arrive.
Councillor Rick Craven, centre, with a copy of the 2013 budget on a memory stick. Finance does a superb job of giving council members all the information they could possibly want.
Craven told his colleagues that their job as Council members was to listen to what was said to them and then he pointed to the Integrated Transit Advisory Committee that was very critical of what Jim Young produced on behalf of the Burlington Seniors Advisory Committee about the transit service.
Councillor Dennison noted that he had chosen not to comment on the budget during the Standing Committee discussions. He added a significant comment when he said he had a grand total of 3-4 people at his ward meeting to talk about the budget which was apparently less than the city had at the budget briefing event they held at the Haber Recreation Centre in December.
Dennison pointed out that the $340,000 being spent on a bus route intended to service the seniors community was set up as a pilot project that was still in the budget.
He wanted to know why city staff had assumed that the increase in $200,000 in parking fines during a six month period would not continue to grow.
Staff had said that they felt a saturation point has been reached.
The city spent a very pretty penny on the new parking meters – to have those machines bring in an additional $200,000 in revenue to the city suggests they just may have made a solid decision – not that those getting the parking tickets will see it quite that way.
Dennison did think the city should look for more in the way of a return on its investments. It also brought in $200,000 in revenue. He wanted to know where that income was applied.
Dennison is not a big fan of the cultural sector – he does like the Sound of Music festival but feels the cultural sector, which is costing much more than a million a year, is a little too steep.
Finally the leaves are an issue for the ward 4 Councillor. He, along with Councillor Lancaster, want to see better leaf collection. The change in the weather this year, had trucks out picking up leaves while they were still on the trees and then not being available when the leaves were on the ground.
Burlington is apparently one of the few cities that has a leaf collection program. Try taking that one away from them.
Councillor Lancaster noted that “budgets are always a challenge” but that she “believed the 2017 budget represents what our residents want”.
Councillor Blair |Lancaster the day she filled in for the Mayor and chaired a council meeting. She liked the seat so much she had her Mother pose with her. She didn’t get to wear the chain of office – probably never will.
Lancaster was very much onside for that $550,000 spend on “project management”. She pointed out that this is the first time that funds have been put in place to support the Strategic Plan initiatives. Other council members had pointed out that in the past the city had crafted a Strategic Plan and then not put any money behind it. The city manager was probably the major force for creating a 25 year Strategic Plan which, while nice in principle – is not binding on future city council’s.
Lancaster told her colleagues that “residents should be happy”
Mayor Goldring was enthusiastic – this was a good budget and he was happy with the “heft” the project spending would give the city manager.
What worried Mayor Goldring was the lack of any assessment growth. He said the growth needs to be six times what it was last year and explained that it does take time for the benefits of assessment increases to work their way to the city’s till.
There is a fiscal study coming sometime in the 2Q that may have some of the answers.
Mayor Goldring regrets the lack of assessment growth that would put more money into the city’s cash coffers. Hoping that there will be an increase next year.
Mayor Goldring said he was looking to the Economic Development Corporation to deliver on its mandate to bring new business to the city. There haven’t been many (any?) new business announcement lately.
The vinyl record company that finally got the record presses operating will tell you a very sad story about the hoops they had to go through to get their building permit in hand.
The last word on the budget and what it is expected to do goes to Joan Ford who said: “This budget clearly sets out initiatives to plan for the future. These initiatives became key priorities for new city investment when developing the budget this year. Connecting the strategic plan to the budget provides accountability between what is achieved and the cost to the taxpayer.”
Let’s see how that works out.
Tax billing
With the budget passed the Finance department can now begin to send out the tax bills – that is when the rubber will hit the road. The public doesn’t pay that much attention to the goings on at city hall but when that envelope with the tax bill arrives – the sticker shock take effect.
The city has to pass a levying by-law before they can send out both interim or final tax billing. They have done that.
Interim tax billings are produced in January based on the assessment as per the assessment roll provided by MPAC and ½ the appropriate tax rates.
The tax bill will clearly identify the City, property, owner, state the demand date, calculated taxes levied and any arrears owing against the property.
Final tax billings are produced subsequent to the passing of the annual city budget and are based on tax rates established by by-law from the budget requirements of the City, Region and Ministry of Education.
The billing will be calculated to produce a tax billing equal to the assessment times the appropriate rate, all local improvement charges and any special charges levied by the city.
Tax bill will arrive soon enough – hold your breath for a moment before you open it.
The Municipal Act requires tax billings be sent to every taxpayer at least twenty-one calendar days before the first installment due date.
Due dates for the payment of taxes are traditionally as follows: Interim Bill: February and April. Final Bill: June and September.
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs or more than 25 years. He has been described as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom. He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. In this article, one of a series Muir suggest what he feels are obvious solutions to the problem the Board of Education believes it has. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy means you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed.
The Gazette published the results of the 25 questions put to residents at the public meeting held by the Board on December 8.
There has been some concern expressed that the responses may be biased because of the representation by school is not even.
This is because all of the schools are not explicitly named as the primary option for closures, so there is a selection bias built right into the sampling frame itself, used by the Board consultant.
This sample of the resident/parent/student populations reflects the selection of schools that are directly named for closure or other changes – Central, Pearson, and Hayden. It is expected that the population of these schools would self-select to participate.
The low turnout from the other schools is also expected on similar grounds as not being in the selected schools directly affected.
These are the parents that answered the 25 questions put to them by the Ipsos facilitator the Board of education hired to collect and analyze the data. The vast majority of them were from Central high school.
In my opinion, the selection of schools is biased, so the turnout population sample reflects this bias – in effect the net bias balances out.
This is my summary of the details of the responses. The opposite views and votes are found by subtraction from 100%.
When you consider these closely, you can see what parents think about what they were asked, and what they want.
We have set out all 25 questions and the responses to each question – they are shown in red.
The Questions and the responses:
Question 1: Which high school are your representing tonight? The number beside the school was the number people in the audience would key in. The screen displayed a number that indicated how many devices had been handed out and another number showing how many people had responded.
7. Aldershot 7
6. Dr. Frank J. Hayden 43 5. Lester B. Pearson 43 4. Nelson Public 6 3. Robert Bateman 5 2. Burlington Central 150 1. M.M. Robinson 2
Question 2: How important is the availability of mandatory / core courses for your child(ren) within your home school?
3. Very Important 187 3. Somewhat Important 58 2. Not Very Important 12 1. Not at all Important 3
Question 3: How acceptable is it to attend a school outside of a home school for mandatory / core programming for your child(ren)?
4. Very Acceptable 22 3. Somewhat Acceptable 42 2. Not Very Acceptable 64 1. Not at all Acceptable 135
Question 4: How important is the availability of optional / elective courses within your home school for your child(ren)?
4. Very Important 94 3. Somewhat Important 117 2. Not Very Important 38 1. Not at all Important 14
Question 5: How acceptable is it for your child(ren) to attend a school outside of a home school for optional/elective courses?
4. Very Acceptable 37 3. Somewhat Acceptable 92 2. Not Very Acceptable70 1. Not at all Acceptable 62
Question 6: How willing are you to have your child(ren) take a mandatory/core course in an alternative method (e.g., summer school, night school, e-learning or attend another school?
4. Very Willing 55 3. Somewhat Willing 54 2. Not Very Willing 57 1. Not at all Willing 96
Question 7: How willing are you to have your child(ren) take a optional/elective course in an alternative method (e.g., summer school, night school, e-learning or attend another school?
4. Very Willing 90 3. Somewhat Willing 74 2. Not Very Willing 46 1. Not at all Willing 49
Question 8: How important is it for you high school to offer a full range of pathway programming (e.g., workplace, college, university)?
4. Very Important 120 3. Somewhat Important 89 2. Not Very Important 33 1. Not at all Important 15
Question 9: How concerned are you that your child(ren) has access to appropriate learning facilities (e.g., kitchens, science labs, gyms, libraries)?
4. Very Concerned 165 3. Somewhat Concerned 58 2. Not Very Concerned 16 1. Not at all Concerned 19
Question 10: How concerned are you that some high schools have large amounts of specialized learning spaces that remain underutilized?
4. Very Concerned 18 3. Somewhat Concerned 56 2. Not Very Concerned 92 1. Not at all Concerned 92
Question 11: How important is it for your home school to have a full range of extracurricular activities (e.g., drama, arts, athletics, clubs) for your child(ren)?
4. Very Important 121 3. Somewhat Important 92 2. Not Very Important 35 1. Not at all Important 13
Question 12: How likely are you to support your child(ren) participating in extracurricular activities at another school?
4. Very Likely 72 3. Somewhat Likely 69 2. Not Very Likely 49 1. Not at all Likely 68
Question 13: How important is it for your child to have access to the highest level of competition in athletics?
4. Very Important 19 3. Somewhat Important 30 2. Not Very Important 170 1. Not at all Important 141
Question 14: How important is the physical condition of your existing school to you (e.g., environmental sustainability, energy consumption, safety)?
4. Very Important 75 3. Somewhat Important 37 2. Not Very Important 32 1. Not at all Important 95
Question 15: How important is it to you that the board ensures schools have an up-to-date, fully-accessible learning environment (e.g., elevators, air conditioning)?
4. Very Important 56 3. Somewhat Important 38 2. Not Very Important 32 1. Not at all Important 116
Question 16: How important is it you to preserve existing community partnerships at your child(ren)’s current school (e.g., swimming pool, library, community centre)?
4. Very Important 97 3. Somewhat Important 36 2. Not Very Important 49 1. Not at all Important 69
Question 17: How important is it you to minimize the use of portable classrooms?
4. Very Important 159 3. Somewhat Important 27 2. Not Very Important 27 1. Not at all Important 39
Question 18: The Board’s current walk distance is a maximum of 3.2 km. How important is it that your child(ren) are within the Board mandated walking distance to reach school?
4. Very Important 198 3. Somewhat Important 22 2. Not Very Important 21 1. Not at all Important 12
Question 19: Which of the following is your child(ren)’s most common form of travel to school currently? (list methods)
6. School Bus 37 5. Car (drive or drop off) 32 4. Public Transit 0 3. Walk 176 2. Bike 17 1. Other 4
Question 20: How important is it to you that the Board be fiscally responsible by reducing transportation to reach school?
4. Very Important 151 3. Somewhat Important 44 2. Not Very Important 22 1. Not at all Important 30
Question 21: How important is it for your child(ren) to spend their secondary school years in one school community?
4. Very Important 238 3. Somewhat Important 14 2. Not Very Important 6 1. Not at all Important 0
Question 22: The Ministry does not fund empty pupil places. To what extent do you agree that the Board should reallocate its limited budget to fund these spaces?
Question 23: The Board’s MYP states it will maintain a minimum overall average of 90% building capacity. To what extent to do you agree with this goal around future sustainability of Burlington secondary schools?
Question 24: The goal in the current MYP is to use innovative approaches to student learning spaces (e.g., classrooms, gymnasiums). To what extent do you feel the current situation of Burlington high schools is sustainable?
4. Very Sustainable 91 3. Somewhat Sustainable 55 2. Not very Sustainable 20 1. Not at all Sustainable 25
At this point people began walking out. Answers for the 25th question were not collected.
Question 25: Of the four themes, which is most important to you?
4. Programming and enrollment 0 3. Physical state of existing schools 0 2. Geographical and transportation Issues 0 1. Fiscal responsibility and future planning 0
Very little is known about the parents who are members of the Program Accommodation Review Committee other than that they have a tremendous amount of work ahead of them. There is no remuneration for the members of the committee.
Tom Muir’s analysis of the answers that were given to the questions asked.
Readers are going to have to shift up and down the pages to read the question and all the responses Muir has analyzed. Awkward – but it was the only way to set the data out for readers.
1) It is apparently important there be no school closures:
– the Board allocate the budget to fund empty spaces (Q22, 74%);
– present empty spaces are sustainable (Q24, 76%) – question also said MYP goal is to use innovative approaches to learning space use;
– response disagrees with Board 90% utilization goal (Q23, 78%);
– response not concerned about empty spaces being underutilized (Q10, 71%).
2. The importance of the home schools for core/mandatory subjects, and even optional/elective, is quite emphatic (Q2, 94%; Q3, 76%; Q4 80%; Q6, 58%; Q5, 51%), and consistent;
– Q7 indicates some support (63%, but only 35% are very willing), for optional/elective in alternatives like summer school, night school, e-learning, another school.
– do not agree with the Board 90% utilization goal (Q23,78%); – and again, want the Board to allocate the budget to fund empty spaces (Q22, 74%); – see being within 3.2 km, or 2 mile, Board mandated walking distance to home schools as important (Q18, 86%) – 69% already walk, 14.5% ride bus (Q19); – see reduction in bus transportation to each school as important (Q20, 79%); – see spending secondary years in one school as important (Q21, 98%); – are concerned that appropriate learning facilities be accessible (Q9, 86%); – want a full range of pathway programs (Q8, 81.3%); – feel current situation is sustainable – as above in 1. (Q24, 76%); – see it as important to minimize the use of portables (Q17, 74%).
4. Suggesting further support for retaining all schools are the following:
– a full range of extra-curricular activities (e.g., drama, arts, athletics, clubs) is important (Q11, 82%) – in my view, this implies more schools with more space for fewer students, means more opportunities; – parental support to help students do extracurricular at another school is not at all likely, or not very likely, for 45% of respondents, compared to 55% at somewhat or very likely (Q12); – the importance of the highest level of competition in athletics is not important (Q13, 81%) – in my view, this implies the larger top tier schools with large student populations are not important in this regard.
5. Other parent/resident views reflect a small majority percent expressing that:
– the physical condition of the school as not at all or very important (Q14, 53%); – that the importance of the school as up-to-date and fully accessible, with elevators and air conditioning, is not at all or not very important (Q15, 61%); – preserving existing community partnerships at current school (pools, libraries, community center) is very to somewhat important (Q16, 53%).
Again, the opposite views and percent support can be derived by subtraction with regard to response preference bracket.
I believe my analysis is accurate. It is unbiased and done in good faith.
Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
The development that council voted not to go forward with in the Alton Village got punted to the Ontario Municipal Board faster than the lawyers could lick the envelope and get the postage on it.
The city now has to go looking for legal talent to represent them on what is going to be a difficult case.
The city planner did her job – she asked council for specific direction – got it and set out working with the developer.
The project gets brought back, the community delegates against the project and council votes it down
The developer says he is “shocked” and notes that he never did like the Mayor; we now have personalities introduced to a sticky legal case.
Planning department and council talked past each other on this project. Did the city manager not see the disconnection? Apparently not.
How did this mess happen?
A regular reader, who is not identified for good reasons, wrote some comments that are strong enough to be passed along.
The writer is well qualified to make the comments:
“It’s obvious the city has a monumental challenge at the OMB, having to hire outside planners against the staff recommendation.
“I found watching the meetings on video revealing and alarming at how decisions are made at city hall. What struck me is how the planning department and council talked past each other, not understanding what the other was saying and what they were agreeing to. The planning department was presenting a new approach to handle the application – yet no one seems to have a hand on the tiller, guiding the process so ensure good decision making and mitigate the city’s risk.
Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner
“Back at the July 11, 2016 meeting, the Planning Director was clear what she was asking for. Her focus was on seven design principles she identified and pointed out that she did not yet have agreement with Adi because two of these principles were not yet met:
Principle 5 – Implement tall building best practices. The modified design recommendations from staff (below) achieve this principle.
Principle 6 – Provide appropriate transitions between buildings. This is achieved with the modified design recommendations.
“She was asking council members to endorse the design approach and recommendations and direct staff to prepare an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment subject to these design recommendations (i.e. the remaining two principles) being met.
“When the majority of council voted in favour of the Planning Director’s requests, she thought she had their support to negotiate with ADI to make these design changes and develop recommendations based on the outcome of these negotiations.
Lots of talking; not enough listening.
“Back at the July 11, 2016 meeting, a few council members, including the Ward 6 councillor, expressed concern about the tower height. However, the report they approved never committed to reviewing the number of storeys, only “to optimize building placement and ensure an appropriate fit and transition in scale.”
Is this city council so deeply into a group think that they no longer know ho to listen?
“People were talking around the horseshoe, but seems like there was not enough listening. With no amendments to the report, it’s surprising that council would be surprised that the December report contained no changes to the number of storeys.
“Most of council didn’t seem to know what they were voting for, given the comments that this was just “going forward for discussion”. It wasn’t – the planning director was asking for approval to negotiate several design changes – but nothing to do with height – and in fact she did just that and brought back the file for approval. Their approval set off the chain of events that directly lead to Adi appealing to the OMB. We’re now in the soup we’re in because of that ill-considered decision and poorly thought through process.
“The director of planning never corrected the statements that this report was “just to continue discussions:” She should have been very clear about what she was asking. That lulled everyone, including the public, into thinking substantive changes were coming when clearly they were not – only the two design tweaks staff mentioned in the report. So the public didn’t show up in force till the 11th hour, and then council flips because as Tom Muir said, “it’s politics stupid”.
“Meanwhile, the public was ignored for months – with many council members waking up to their firm opposition only at the December meeting.
The lesson here is to:
a) know what you’re voting on;
b) get the public involved EARLY not at the end. I suspect (hope) this is the first and last time this process will be followed on a planning file given the mess it has created.
Chasing the shiny new object:
“The Planning Director’s recommendations were based on the Tall Building Guidelines – not the Official Plan or public input.
“The influence of outside consultants like Brent Toderian are obvious. From a professional perspective, city planners are captivated by the Vancouverism urban form, which they regard as the exciting, fresh approach to planning. They’re keen to import his thinking to Burlington.
“The Planning Director rushed through these guidelines earlier in the year, with most of council supporting her request, with only an “interim” proviso slapped on it.
“However, no effort was expended to get public input. Planning staff calls them “best practices”, but the guidelines have never been evaluated or debated to determine if Vancouver’s urban form is right for Burlington neighborhoods.
“An honest discussion on intensification desperately needed. This slipshod decision-making process is in the context of never having a healthy public discussion and getting broader buy-in on the right kind of intensification for Burlington.
Consultant Brent Toderian – the chief evangelist for the tall narrow buildings on a podium-planning model.
“The mayor had a “rah-rah” presentation at his Inspire Series – leaning heavily on Brent Toderian – the chief evangelist for the tall narrow buildings on a podium-planning model.
“We should be asking if intensification is the city’s highest ambition, or is it simply a means to a higher goal. Instead all we get are the empty “Grow Bold” platitudes.
“The lack of clarity on the meaning and limits of intensification, the disregard for the Official Plan and the embrace of the Tall Building Guidelines, coupled with the public being bypassed raises concerns about the nature of the relationship between the city’s planning department and the development industry.
“These factors breed uncertainty in our community for who decides what gets developed where.
The Halton District School Board held a public meeting to gather data on what people felt about how public educations are delivered and paid for. The Gazette has run a three part series on the data collected. This is the third of the series.
The 25 questions were asked of about 350 people attending the event. 256 were given hand held clickers to enter their responses. 58.6% of the responders were from Central high school; 16.8% from Pearson and 16.8% from Hayden; 2.7% from Aldershot ; 2.3% from Nelson; 2% from Bateman and .8% from Robinson.
Quite how the members of the PARC are going to evaluate and use data that is so heavily skewed to one school will be interesting to watch.
Question 18:The Board’s current walk distance for secondary students is a maximum of 3.2 km. How important is it that your child(ren) are within the Board mandated walking distance to reach school? Very 78.3%; somewhat 8.7%; not very 8.3%; not at all 4.7%
Question 19: Which of the following is your child’s most common form of travel to school currently?
School bus 14.5%; car 8.6%; Public transit 0%; walk 68.8%; bike 6.6%; other 1.6%
Question 20: How important is it that the Board be fiscally responsible by reducing transportation to each school? Very 61.1%; somewhat 17.8%; not very 8.9%; not at all 12.1%
Question 21: How important is it for your child(ren) to spend their secondary years in one school community? Very 92.2%; somewhat 5.4%; Bot very 2.3%; not at all 0%
Question 22: The Ministry does not fund empty pupil places. To what extent do you agree that the Board should reallocate its limited budget to fund these places? Strongly 52.6%; 21.6%; somewhat disagree 12.1%; strongly agree 8.3%
Question 23: The Board’s MYP (Define) states it will maintain a minimum overall averae of 90% building capacity. To what extent do you agree with this goal around future sustainability of Burlington’s secondary schools? Strongly agree 8.3% ; somewhat agree 14.1%; somewhat disagree 22%; strongly disagree 55.6%
Question 24: The goal in the current MYP is to use innovative approaches to student learning spaces (e.g. classrooms, gymnasiums). To what extent do you feel the current situation in Burlington high schools is sustainable? Very 47.6%; somewhat 28.8%; not very 10.5%; not at all 13.1%
Question 25: Of the four themes which is the most important to you?
The facilitator wanted to know which of the four themes the questions were put into was the most important to the audience
The themes were:
Programing and enrollment Physical sate of existing school Geographical and transportation issues Fiscal responsibility and future planning
Data on the choices was not captured
Members of the PARC at a quick meeting after the first public meeting at Gary Allan high school early in December.
It took a little arm twisting to get the data from the Board of Education. The Gazette was at first told it would be made available to the PARC and then released to the public. The Gazette persuaded the Board that it was public information gathered at a public meeting and was therefore public – and they released it the following day.
Scott Podrebarac, a Board of Education Superintendent and Chair of the PARC
Scott Podrebarac, a Board of Education Superintendent and Chair of the PARC, said a more fulsome report will be prepared before the first working meeting of the PARC in late January.
Parent comment varied – little of it all that positive:
One parent said: “My thoughts are that if the purpose of the meeting was to actually gather public input, it pretty much failed big-time. If the purpose was simply for the board to be able to check off a box that they satisfied Ministry or Board guidelines to hold a public session to say they gathered public input, I suppose they accomplished their mission. The meeting occurred, but that’s about it.
Parents and some students at the public meeting where data was gathered.
Another said: “We thought since it was billed as a chance for us to answer their questions and ask our own questions that (a) the questions we were answering would be non-biased and easy to understand. They were neither; and (b) that our own questions for them would be answered, not simply asked and then left to float off into the air.
I don’t see how they will be able to use the data to prove anything, since many schools were barely represented according to the attendance figures from each school, and since it was clearly publicly aired over the course of the entire evening that people were confused by the questions, found them biased, and felt they were not being heard at all with their own questions.
The fact that many Superintendents and senior staff and the Director all fled the meeting instead of offering to answer those questions, certainly did not go over well.
In 2013 city council approved a Community Engagement Charter
Purpose and function of the charter was to have a citizen’s voice at the table and make public involvement part of everyday practice within the City of Burlington. The ChAT team provides pre-consultation advice on public involvement issues or opportunities prior to launching a formal public involvement plan or activity.
Shortly after the Charter was approved the General Manager of Community Services assigned a task force of residents who had been involved in developing the Engagement Charter, as well as city staff responsible for coordinating engagement activities in the city to form ChAT. The team’s role is to ensure that community engagement is part of everyday practice at the City of Burlington.
In April 2014 City Council received the Charter Action Plan developed by ChAT which was to serve as a guide, created with input from staff and residents, which translated the Community Engagement Charter into a series of actions.
As ChAT continues its work in community engagement, staff is, at the same time, engaging in public involvement opportunities as part of everyday practice. This report reflects the work in which ChAT has had a direct involvement or influence.
Portions of community feedback on a city commissioned survey.
Council adopted the 2015-2040 Strategic Plan, a blueprint for city-building. To support and deliver the promise of true community engagement, the city, in 2016 created two new positions: Michelle Dwyer as the Corporate Public Involvement Lead, dedicated to community engagement, and Kwab Ako-Adjei a Senior Manager of Government Relations and Strategic Communications.
ChAT describes itself as an integral part of changing how city staff involve the community in important issues, projects and policy. The group has undergone a year of significant transition. Two citizen members left ChAT at the end of 2015 and a third citizen member left in late 2016. These members left due to personal commitments and relocation.
Chris Walker, an original member of SHAPE Burlington and Shaping Burlington and Bob Elliot, a new resident of Burlington are now citizen representatives on ChAT
There has been some delay in the 2016 work plan. ChAT has identified some new goals, including creating a standardized tool for public involvement and creating a larger, community-based group to help build community capacity.
This all really good stuff – what causes genuine concern is when three Council members worked as a committee and brought forward a motion to reduce the amount of time a citizen would have to delegate at a Standing Committee from ten minutes to five minutes.
John Searles, a citizen ChAT member delegated to a council meeting recently and advised them that if they did pass such a motion they would be violating the intent and purpose of the Engagement Charter.
If ChAT had real clout that motion would never have gotten on the agenda. But it did and it was heavily debated.
ChAT in principal is a nice document – in practice – don’t bet much more than the cost of a cup of coffee on it and expect them to really defend your rights. The current council, for the most part, takes the position that they were elected to run the city and they will do as they see fit and as long as the decisions they make serve their interests. Getting re-elected is in their best interests so from time to time they go along with a delegation.
The ChAT report makes mention of the first ever virtual meeting with the media (press conference) on July 6, 2016. I was part of that event and was the only media person involved in the conference call – there was one other person representing a media outlet but not a reporter. He was just taking notes.
The media seldom hears anything about ChAT – which is because they don’t say very much.
Then look at the people who sit on the ChAT representing the city and then count the number of citizen’s there to represent your interests.
Portion of citizen feedback on a city commissioned survey. Link to the full report at the end of this article.
The following summarizes ChAT’s work plan and accomplishments in 2016:
Increase the number of people participating on the insight Burlington panel and Let’s Talk Burlington, our online survey tools.
Participation in both survey platforms was stable in 2016 and a third survey tool (iSurvey) was also used. It should be noted that Let’s Talk Burlington (MindMixer) contract will be completed as of December 31, 2016. The Insight Burlington (Vision Critical) contract will be completed as of February 28, 2017. Securing a successor online survey platform is a priority for 2017. Until then, our iSurvey tool will be used to engage with residents online.
Should there be agreement in 2017 to continue with the Community Survey (statistically valid telephone survey that asked residents their opinion on a number of topics including public involvement), we will be better able to gauge or benchmark movement in this area.
The community engagement plaques have been produced and are being installed in public buildings across the City.
There is going to be a community engagement checklist for staff to use in preparing community engagement plans for city projects and initiatives.
A terms of reference has been completed for the core group.
The 2017 workplan for the ChAT team is:
Finalize and roll out the staff checklist for community engagement no later than Q2 of 2017.
Recruit an additional citizen member for the ChAT core team, with an emphasis on reflecting Burlington’s diversity no later than Q1 of 2017. Following this, expand ChAT by recruiting and creating a larger, community-based group to help build community capacity.
Using ChAT’s leadership and in consultation with staff and residents, secure a new online survey platform no later than Q3 of 2017.
Meet with the appropriate citizen advisory committees to bring awareness of the community engagement charter and its’ associated rights and responsibilities throughout the year.
Committee Composition – Citizen Members
John Searles, Yvette Dhillon (until October 2016), Gloria Reid (until December 2015), Chris Walker (started March, 2016) and Bob Elliot (started May, 2016)
Centre: City manager James Ridge with Corporate Public Involvement Lead Michelle Dwyer talking to the KPMG consultant who helped the city draft the 25 year Strategic Plan
Staff Members: Michelle Dwyer (City Manager’s Office), Donna Kell (City Manager’s Office), Sean Kenny (Planning and Building), Doug Pladsen (Parks and Recreation), James Ridge, (City Manager – team champion), 2016), Wanda Tolone/Roxanne Gosse (admin support). Jeff Crowder, Kwab Ako-Adjei (October, 2016), Carla Marshall and Sharon Will (ad hoc members).
Donna Kell, Manager Public Affairs. She directs a staff of 2.5 people plus a summer intern.
ChAT sets out the following list of changes made to public policy due to community engagement and public involvement:
Survey Topics that were posted online through Insight Burlington, Let’s Talk Burlington or iSurvey:
1. Downtown Streetscapes (Insight Burlington: 314 responses/Let’s Talk: 37 participants)
2. Parking Signs (Insight Burlington 356: responses/Let’s Talk)
3. Art Gallery of Burlington – use and satisfaction (Insight Burlington: 343 responses)
4. Strategic Plan (draft stage) (Insight Burlington: 181 responses)
5. Burlington Public Library (Insight Burlington: 275 responses)
6. Burlington Inclusivity Advisory Committee (Let’s Talk: 5 participants)
7. Events Strategy (Insight Burlington: 413 responses)
8. Townhouse Development (Insight Burlington: 424 responses)
9. Official Plan Visuals and Tagline (Insight Burlington: 428 responses)
10. Insight Burlington Member Satisfaction (Insight Burlington: 277 responses)
11. 2017 Budget part 1 (Insight Burlington: 405 responses/Let’s Talk: 23 participants)
12. Canada 150 Mosaic Mural (Let’s Talk Burlington: 19 participants)
13. 2017 Budget – follow up survey (Insight Burlington: 316 responses)
14. City Apps – Survey live until November 21, 2016. As of November 15th, 303 surveys have been completed.
Portions of the community feedback on a city commissioned survey.
The following are some of the topics in 2016 that the public provided feedback using the iSurvey platform:
1. Burlington Transit South Service Road survey – 101 responses 2. Mapping youth friendly locations in Burlington – 6 responses 3. BurlingtonTransit.ca post launch survey – 35 responses 4. Yardstick survey – gauging park use and satisfaction survey – 33 responses 5. Parks & Recreation program surveys (skating, music lessons, golf, 55+ etc) surveys may still be open – 3,000 + responses 6. Carving a new path in Downtown Burlington – 40 responses 7. Space allocation in city recreation facilities – 23 responses 8. Canada 150 mosaic mural theme – 839 unique responses 9. Post delegation survey (still open) – 20 responses 10. Fire safety – school programs survey – 21 responses 11. Live and Play guide (vote for the cover) – 11 responses 12. Love your Playground survey – 1,229 responses 13. Sports field user – maintenance survey – 23 responses 14. Lakeside Vision Survey – 52 responses Delegations: 171 people delegated (spoke to committee or council about an item on the agenda) to committees of council/council between November 2015 and November 2016.
Citizens delegate to Council when they are unhappy with what is taking place. Expect members of the current council to mention the number of delegations to show how accessible they have been.
Twitter is monitored by the city and responded to 7 days a week
ChAT communicates with the following city advisory committees:
One can only wonder how the conversation with the Cycling Committee went – there is a reported 2000 plus signatures on a petition to put an end to the New Street road diet.
There is a developer who has completed a land assembly and is now meeting with the planning department.
And the project isn’t going to go anywhere in the immediate future – because the concept of a mobility hub and an Innovation District are still being thought through within the Planning department.
At a recent council meeting Burlington Economic Development Corporation Executive Director, Frank McKeown pointed out that the city needs to understand innovation districts from a land use perspective.
First problem is that the city’s Official Plan does not recognize the concept of an Innovation District.
Something along these lines was planned for Burlington’s downtown core – but McMaster stiffed the city when a nicer deal came along.
The Burlington Employment Lands Policy Recommendations and Conversion Analysis report describes the general features of an Innovation District and provides a series of case studies and research. In general, the research affirms that innovation districts are composed first of an economic development marketing strategy, and that land use policy interventions are used to:
• Implement the vision • Address land use compatibility • Provide incentives
There is a role for land use planning policy to support the initiative by enabling area specific planning and working closely with any given anchor institution.
The success of innovation districts requires a mix of attributes and features. The right institutional anchor in place, the unique features of the area (old waterfront, older industrial area, natural heritage/open space), and transit and active transportation options are all critical to the success of an innovation district.
Planning staff have considered the recommendations offered in the Burlington Employment Lands Policy Recommendations and Conversion Analysis report and have determined that there is an opportunity to identify one or more potential innovation districts in the city.
The first step in any innovation district process is the development of the economic development strategy and brand designed to leverage the economic, networking and physical assets of the area. Where a strategy is developed an area specific plan should be initiated in support of the strategy that considers critical elements in support of the district including connectivity and access to the District.
After reading that paragraph you know that there isn’t going to be a near future answer to any of the issues raised.
Station West – the ADI Development Group project that is currently being marketed.
It’s an empty field today – expect to see it become an active construction site during 2017. The development will include both apartments and various forms of townhouses.
Burlington decided a few months ago that it was going to go back to square one with its official plan and give up on the mandated requirement to review the existing plan – and has decided to write a brand new plan. That new Official Plan has to fit in with the Go Bold, Go Smart and Go Beautiful mantra that is coming out of the Planning department.
No one is really sure just what the slogan means and there has yet to be a public meeting of any sort to explain it to the public at large.
The Official Plan, say staff, should identify a general framework for identifying an area with potential to function as an innovation district and the approach for supporting these areas through land use planning.
In the near term the identification of a special study area around the existing DeGroote School of Business should be included as a potential innovation district.
Getting something off the ground has always been a front burner issue for the Economic Development Corporation – that dream has been in the works for more than three years. It may well end up still born.
Through the work on the Mobility Hub Area Specific Plans, staff suggest some consideration of connectivity to the potential innovation district should be included. This special study area is located within an area of employment. As such no sensitive uses like residential should be permitted in this innovation district. There is potential for accommodating sensitive uses like residential in proximity to the potential innovation district such as along the Fairview Corridor or in association with the Appleby GO mobility hub.
The ADI Development group appear to have all the clearance they need for their Station West Development in Aldershot and at one stage during the Strategic Plan discussions Aldershot was the hot button choice for the first Mobility Hub – that seems to have cooled of somewhat,
A plan for the area such as a Mobility Hubs Area Specific Plan or considered through an area specific plan for the innovation district would assist in identifying opportunities to cross significant barriers in the area (rail line, creek) and to link the innovation district to the intensification area identified along Fairview Street.
All the essentials are in place – couple of huge outdoor parking lots and a several floor indoor parking lot. A GO station. Space for private cars, taxis and city buses all converge on the site. Is there the potential to create an innovation centre in the area that now has a garden centre and several automotive dealers along Fairview east of the GO station. Land use economists argue that land in this areas should be used for a more productive use.
There are a couple of monkey wrenches that mess this thinking up a bit.
The DeGroote School of business location on the South Service Road is not one of the Mobility hub ideas being looked at. The four in the thinking stage are at the Aldershot GO station, the bus transfer location on John Street, the Burlington GO station and the Appleby GO station.
The Bureaucrats have to do their work – and credit to the Planning department, there are some very competent people over there who, if we give them the time and the resources needed, they will get it right.
Meanwhile there is a developer with three large junks of land that have been bought and paid for waiting to have the concept meeting with the planners to see what they think. The planners told the developer to come back when they are ready.
Nice – maybe the city could give the developer a tax holiday on the property while they wait?
Please take time to read Councillor Jack Dennison addition to the on line petition against the Road Diet on New Street. You will see he continues to view the project through his rose coloured cycling goggles. He neglects to tell you that Denmark, a world leader in cycling, keeps bicycles and vehicles separated by barriers.
This safety requirement was made in a clear and concise fashion to a delegation from Burlington, headed by the mayor.
Mr. Toderian, a consultant hired by the city told an open meeting at the Burlington Performing Arts centre ” The road diet on New Street is a poor design and its one I would not personally use. I would fear for my safety.”
Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison uses roller blades and his bicycle.
When will Jack tell about this?
Some other things that don’t get past the rose colour goggles.
A member of the cycling committee has put out a blog showing that sharrows give a cyclist a false sense of safety and should not be used.
Early data indicates that the transit time between Walkers and Guelph line has increased by 50 percent during evening rush hours and is even worse when the roadway approaches design capacity and gridlock starts to take place.
If the road diet was in place from Burloak to the Hospital, transit times on the route would be increased by close to fifteen minutes during rush hours, total capacity would be reduced and grid lock would occur more often.
Due to weather, bikes are only potentially viable five months of the year. In addition how does the hockey player strap his equipment bag on a bike?
In a meeting with Councillor Dennison he admitted that he did not have targets for the results to be judged against to measure success or failure. This is not a management style most people use.
Jack Dennison and his partner Jackie are avid cyclists.
Slowing speeds below 60 KPM increases green house gasses and becomes even worse in gridlock and stop and go situations. How much of an increase is Jack willing to accept when at the same time putting cyclists in a less safe environment?
The highway traffic act gives bicycles the right to use certain roadways. It also states they should stay within three feet of the shoulder and travel in single file. They are to obey all the rules of the road, yet according to Jack no tickets have been issued to cyclists in Burlington. Why is that when we know they ignore most stops signs?
We should encourage cycling. This can be done by licensing bikes that have proper reflectors, bells and lights, front and rear. Riders should be encouraged to wear clothing with reflective strips and if possible to have light coloured clothing.
Maybe some of the beatification money should have spent creating protected bike lanes that are a network rather than Hodgepodge of bits and pieces we have now.
The city has a number of Advisory committees made up of people appointed by city council.
Those appointed are, for the most part, made up of people who apply to sit on the committee.
Some of the advisory committees are very effective and play a significant role in developing policy that city council eventually adopts. The Heritage Advisory committee is one example as is the Cycling committee (BCC)
The green bike lanes are intended to help highlight the bike lane portion of the road, reminding motorists and cyclists to be aware of each other and drive with caution. This is especially important at intersections where cars must cross over the bike lane to make a right-hand turn. The new road markings are being installed as part of the resurfacing project on Guelph Line and Fairview Street.
That committee met Tuesday, September 27, 2016 with the following members present: Don Thorpe (Chair), Chris Ariens, Brad Slade, Jackie Lodder, Glenn Cockfield, Jeff Brooks, James Schofield, Brett Moore, Teresa Baerg. Also attending were: Councillor Jack Dennison, Dan Ozimkovic, Kendra Willard and Jo-Anne Rudy (Clerk)
Dan Thorpe advised that the Cycling Committee was requesting $150,000 in 2017 Capital budget to update Cycling Master Plan.
To the surprise of some- the committee has started working on a road diet for Maple Avenue from Lakeshore Road to just south of Mapleview Mall – a pilot project for next spring. The last pilot project on New Street was a total disaster – not because it was a bad idea but due to the terrible communications issues.
The Cycling Committee has also started working on a road diet for Lakeshore Road from water treatment plant to Eastport Drive. That part of the city is part of a very detailed and involved plan to turn the Beachway Park into a significant outdoor destination that might actually see the light of day – but that is at least a decade away.
The committee purchased four more bike repair stations which will be installed next year. One location will be the Elgin Street promenade. – looking for suggestions on other locations from committee.
The Burlington Cycling Advisory Committee is talking to the folks in Hamilton about creating a bike share program for the city.
The committee is talking with Hamilton to extend their BikeShare program to Burlington. Metrolinx is apparently willing to cover approximately half the cost. Need to determine strategy for balance of cost and get Council’s buy-in.
The committee has seven bike racks left for that can be given to any business that meets the criteria.
The committee reported in its minutes that the New Street road diet opened on August 23 – “very negative feedback was received at the beginning but is reducing. Collecting traffic and length of time data via Bluetooth technology which has shown that there hasn’t been a huge increase in travel delay. Will be going out with a drone to collect additional data. No issues have been received from police, fire, ambulance or Transit.”
What proved to be close at an albatross around the neck of the Mayor hasn’t really been given a chance. The New Street Road diet was an idea that seemed like a good one at the time. Shortly after the roads were marked with the sharrows the Region began digging up part of New Street for water pipes.
Special lanes for bicycles are marked with painted sharrows on city streets. Sharing the road is part of Burlington’s future – and is proving to be difficult for a city that is addicted it its cars – partly because transit is so inconvenient.
It seemed as if one level of government didn’t talk to or know what the other level of government was doing – when there is a committee that meets monthly to review who is constructing what where so that there is no overlap. Someone appears to have forgotten to send that meeting memo to Burlington’s Transportation department.
The Cycling committee is doing its job – they just don’t seem to be able to get aligned with what the Transportation department is doing.
Councillor Dennison provided his perspective on opening day and noted that traffic was moving well. He said he had received positive comments from residents and that it is safer to cross New Street and the speed of traffic is reduced.
In a test drive the Gazette did on New Street during rush hour traffic in the evening we didn’t experience anything in the way of delays worth mentioning. We saw just the one rider using the cycling lanes.
The Regional Health Department has $1,000 the BCC can use for an event or communication. Use it for communication and clear up the communication story quickly before they lose all their credibility.
Committee discussed and felt that although the data they appear to have is important information, now was not the right time for a communication on sidewalk cycling, given the current negative feedback for New Street.
Ontario is helping seniors across the province continue to connect with and contribute to their communities by supporting local programs that help them stay involved, learn new skills and lead active lives.
Organizations can now apply for support for local projects through the Seniors Community Grant program. Applications will be open until March 3, 2017 and can be accessed online.
Link to the applications forms: https://www.seniors.gov.on.ca/en/index.php
It didn’t require funding from anyone for this group of seniors to put their ideas and transit needs.
Successful projects will reflect the diversity of Ontario’s seniors and encourage seniors’ community involvement through volunteerism, learning, social inclusion and physical activity. Projects funded in past years have ranged from music therapy programs, to social media classes, to mentor-ship programs linking seniors with young people.
This year, projects focusing on raising public awareness and prevention of elder abuse will be given priority. This is part of the government’s commitment to help stop elder abuse by supporting a secure and supportive environment for Ontario’s seniors.
Supporting our seniors is part of our plan to create jobs, grow our economy and help people in their everyday lives.
The Seniors Community Grant Program, the first grant program in Ontario dedicated solely to seniors, is designed to give seniors more opportunities to participate in their communities by providing funding to not-for-profit community groups for projects that encourage greater social inclusion, volunteerism and community engagement for seniors.
Seniors taking in an afternoon concert.
This grant program will make $2 million available for projects across Ontario that will help more seniors become socially engaged and feel part of their communities. Grants range from $1000 to $8,000.
Read the program guidelines and use this application form.
Applications will be accepted between November 25, 2016 and March 3, 2017. Projects must not start prior to June 15, 2017 and be completed by March 31, 2018.
They’re red and blue, plastered across the map of America, the divided states representing the divided state of America. And it hasn’t changed much over the years – the reds and blues are pretty constant from election to election, except for a handful of battleground states.
Yes I called the election result but that wasn’t my preferred outcome. Now it seems that the glass ceiling will have to wait. And if Hillary was doing this for womankind, it didn’t work since nearly half of all female voters chose Trump anyway. But then this contest should never have been about gender… or sex. It should have been about the next four years. There was this entitlement thing. Again, Clinton and her cronies believed it was her turn, that she deserved to be president because she got beaten out by an African-American in 2008.
Trump’s folks called her an elite though she, and not her opponent, had pulled themselves up from a humble beginning. But she acted the part, perhaps overconfident in the knowledge that she was the the only qualified candidate. So she went high when he went low and allowed herself to be branded as corrupt and crooked by someone much closer to that description.
For at least a couple of generations now we have been conditioned by the television set. And when we get bored watching a re-run we change the channel to a reality show – its easy to do. Perhaps Clinton didn’t understand that the people wanted change, and not that phoney ‘yes we can’ change they were handed back in 2008. Even if unemployment has fallen to historic lows under Obama, slinging burgers is not the pathway to becoming part of a dwindling middle-class. The American dream just wasn’t working out for all those angry white voters who ended up propelling Trump into the White House.
Trump went rogue. End free trade! Build a wall! Kick out illegals! Tear up the climate change deal! Ban Muslim immigrants! Drop out of NATO! Make love with Putin! Plain speak so nobody could accuse the real estate magnate of mincing words. And when the pollsters and the media prematurely pronounced his imminent defeat, the voters thought what the hell? What have we got to lose? It was a Brexit echo, and it sure looks like Trump played that card from the beginning.
It should have been Hillary. Not because of some sexist reason, but because she was qualified and had some very progressive policies, which she rarely even got to talk about. Baggage drags you down, and she had too much, the flip side of all that experience. And then there was how she got be the nominee. Yesterday’s candidate won her party’s nomination with a stacked hand.
Nobody can say that Bernie Sanders would have performed better, but he was at least liked and respected for his years of experience, his ideals and his ethics. Perhaps the millennial crowd would have come out for him, because they sure didn’t for Hillary. And Bernie and Trump would have at least been fun to watch in debate.
Still, had it not been for the FBI intervention at the eleventh hour, which reinforced doubts about her character, Clinton might have won. And the FBI will likely get off scot-free, since the Republicans are in control now. Isn’t that’s how politics works – the winners get it all?
America was a nation divided before this election, those perennial red and blue states. And it won’t get any less divided over the next four years. Because people don’t always vote in their own self-interest, and they keep voting like they always did. And there can only be two parties in that very imperfect democracy south of the border, where check and balance has transitioned to confrontation and obstruction.
Hillary Clinton graciously wished Trump a successful presidency, whatever that means. One should expect he will be as divisive in governing as he was in campaigning – and big league. Some politicians focus on what unites us… ‘stronger together’. Others use racism and sexism to drive a wedge between the people, and pit one against another. It’s called divide and conquer. And it worked in the Divided States of America.
There were protests on the first two days following the election. Wouldn’t it have been more effective for those young people to simply have voted? After all, it won’t be long before governing America will be the responsibility of their generation.
Ray Rivers is an economist and author who writes weekly on federal and provincial issues, applying his 25 years of involvement with federal and provincial ministries. Rivers’ involvement in city matters led to his appointment as founding chair of Burlington’s Sustainable Development Committee. He was also a candidate in a past provincial election.
Everyone appears to still be in the dark as to just what is going on at the Seniors’ Centre.
One source said “I went on the Centre web site there was only a notice of what has happened and the Board would be meeting in November and the results of that meeting would be posted on that site, so like everyone else I am in the dark.
“There is a general notice at the Centre of what has happened issued by the city you could call and pick one up they are on the front counter.”
The Board seems to be hiding behind their web site.
The city has just moved in and taken over – so much for citizen participation.
The Seniors will get angry and at some point elect a new board.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward serves as the city representative on the Seniors Advisory Council.
The city council representative on the Seniors Advisory Board, Marianne Meed Ward has said she “was hoping the discussions the city and board were having over the past year would lead toward a new MOU that would benefit both parties.”
At the same time she said: “The BSCI now has an opportunity to chart a new role for itself serving seniors in Burlington, and I have committed to stay on the board to assist them in this transition for as long as they would like.”
This is very unlike Meed Ward. Every battle she has taken on – the Pier, the different developments during her six years as a city councillor, the sale of waterfront property – you name it – she has been at the front of the parade.
The Beachway was not in her ward and it drives Councillor Craven crazy when she involves herself in that issue. There has never been anything shy about Marianne Meed Ward in the past – so why the backing away now?
This was the organization with the potential to be a large part of what was going to propel her into the Office of the Mayor.
To say that the BSCI “now has an opportunity to chart a new role for itself” is so completely disingenuous.
It would appear that she too has left them to their own devices and with the leadership the BCSI has at the moment it is going to be slim pickings for the over 55 set.
For the first time in a very long time Meed Ward’s political instincts appear to have deserted her.
In response to the question: What happened? Ward 2 city councillor Marianne Meed Ward said she “ was hoping the discussions the city and board were having over the past year would lead toward a new MOU that would benefit both parties.
Meed Ward was talking about the significant change that has taken place in the way programs and services are being delivered at the Seniors’ Centre which is a piece of city property that the seniors use.
The Bistro, the heart of the Seniors’ Centre and the focal point for many of the administrative problems.
The Seniors organized themselves as a not for profit – Burlington Senior’s Centre Inc. (BSCI). They elect a board which serves for a two-year period. It is that Board that has been “negotiating” with the city
There was a Memorandum of Understanding that set out who was to do what and who was going to pay what that had been put in place a number of years ago after considerable disruption and happiness on the part of the seniors.
There was a meeting a number of years ago that drew 300 seniors and they were not happy. The MOU seemed to settle things down.
Now things have flared up again.
Joe Lamb wonders why someone didn’t call him.
Joe Lamb, the person who negotiated a very fat deal for the seniors wonders why no one called him when things were going wrong.
The current president of the BSCI, a non-profit organization, hasn’t been able to make himself available for any kind of interview. Fred Hendriks issues media releases and doesn’t allow for any follow up.
Some of those with past board experience complain that Hendriks isn’t much of a communicator – they got that right.
Meed Ward adds that “With the recent change, members of the Seniors Centre should not notice any difference to services or programming.”
Councillor Marianne Meed Ward listening to a senior.
She continues: “The BSCI now has an opportunity to chart a new role for itself serving seniors in Burlington, and I have committed to stay on the board to assist them in this transition for as long as they would like.”
Meed Ward is the city representative on the Seniors Advisory committee.
There is indeed trouble in paradise. Don’t think this story has come to an end.
The seniors are one of the few really well defined groups in the city with a lot of time on their hands. They have in the past badgered city councillors with telephone calls when they weren’t happy.
The French have a phrase for it – some things never change – Et certaines choses ne changent pas.
Yesterday there was a gas leak on a construction site.
The fire department and the gas company were able to get on site very quickly and shut the gas off.
A resident who was walking in the area wants to know why things like this happen.
When construction permits are issued do the contractors not know where the telephone lines are; where the gas lines are and where the water pipes are?
The project has been a long time getting to te point where the shovels were in the ground. within a week something struck a gas pipe line shutting down the immediate area for several hours. Fast work on the part of the fire department and the gas company averted a disaster.
Our resident wants to know: What is the procedure at The City of Burlington going forward with the developer who put Downtown Core residents and businesses in jeopardy yesterday when a gas pipe was ruptured during construction at Caroline and Elizabeth Streets?
She was walking by the site when the gas pipe was hit and the concentration of gas permeating the air was dense and made it difficult to breath. She didn’t know how gas pipes and pressure work when there is a rupture, but there was gas filling businesses on Brant Street. Wardell Insurance had all of their doors open as their building filled with gas; this building is directly across from City Hall. I observed firemen taking gas readings as far south as James Street.
How is it possible that a builder can still rupture a gas line in the middle of a City with all of the technology available in 2016 for pinpointing exact location? This site is bordered by an apartment building, town homes and businesses in a highly populated and travelled part of our downtown community.
Medica One or the Carriage Gate project – pick the name you like best – will go up at the top of John Street and consist of a medical offices building, an above ground garage and an apartment/condo complex. It will bring significant change to the intersection and drive redevelopment of the plaza to the immediate north, A transit hub a couple of blocks to the south then makes a lot of sense.
Is this developer capable of safely building a safe building in our midst? What are this developer’s credentials? Has this developer ever worked on a project of this scale? This is a disturbing start in the early stages of a multi-year construction at this site.
Does the developer pay the thousands of dollars for the emergency response personnel that were on site for the many hours that it took to secure the area and stop the gas leak? Is there any consideration for the businesses that either had to be evacuated or suffered loss of business?
It is absolutely terrifying to consider the consequences to our downtown community had the gas ignited.
City Council voted to endorse a report that enables the Director of Planning and Building and Chief Planning Officer to close the city’s current Official Plan Review process and start the preparation of a new Official Plan for the City of Burlington.
“With very little green field left for development in Burlington, the city is undergoing a very important transition,” said Mayor Rick Goldring. “We are no longer a city that builds new suburban-type neighbourhoods but one that is building a greener and healthier urban community for our residents. A new Official Plan is recognition of this direction and will help us lead the way in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area when it comes to managing urban sprawl.”
Upper Middle Road looking east towards Burloak – defined as Employment lands by the city – developer has asked that it be re-classified to residential.
The Mayor’s comment appears to neglect the significant stretch of land along Upper Middle Road where it meets Burloak that the property owners wants to see converted from employment lands to residential.
Nor does he appear to be taking into account the sizable development going on now at the intersection of Dundas and Walkers line where more than 100 homes are going to be built in the North West quadrant.
And then there is Eaglesfield where the Paletta interests have plans for residential homes.
Early drafts of the Strategic Plan had it as a four year plan. Somewhere along the way the time frame got changed. How?
Burlington’s current Official Plan was endorsed by Burlington City Council in 1994. Every municipality in Ontario is required by the provincial government to review their Official Plan every five years. The current review of the city’s existing Official Plan was started in 2011.
The strategic Plan that city council approved is now a 25 year plan. The current city council seemed to feel they could bind any future city council to this plan – doesn’t work that way. A future council could scrap the plan.
“In the city’s new Strategic Plan, approved in April, Council has made the decision to protect Burlington’s rural boundary and grow in its urban areas over the next 25 years,” said the city’s director of planning and building and chief planning officer, Mary Lou Tanner. “As we reviewed the city’s current Official Plan, we realized a reset of the document was required to reflect and help guide the city’s new priorities.”
“All of the work that has been undertaken as part of the Official Plan Review process, including policy research, analysis, studies, staff reports and community feedback, will be considered within the development of the new Official Plan. The community will also have an opportunity to share its feedback on the draft policies of the new Official Plan early in 2017.”
Not quite this bold. City has rejected the ADI development Group Nautique project – 26 storeys was just a little too much for then.
“We are looking forward to getting input from the community about the policies that are being considered for the new Official Plan,” said Tanner. “Burlington is going to Grow Bold over the next 25 years, embracing density in our urban areas. Now is the time for residents to have a say and help shape their city into a dynamic 21st century urban community.”
These changes are significant – they mark an almost totally new direction for the city.
This kind of change is the type of thing a government needs to have a clear mandate from the people paying the bills – you the taxpayer.
Director of Planning – Mary Lou Tanner. Her vision is to Grow Bold, Smart and Beautiful.
We have a strong statement about the direction the city is going to take from our new Director of Planning – Grow Bold. They tested the name with the Insight panel.
There are a lot of people in the city who don’t want to grow bold.
Yes there is a Provincial Policy Statement in place that requires the city to take on more growth – but, given that the city has decided to put an end to the urban sprawl of the past – what do they want to do with the urban Sprawl that we do have?
Can’t just leave it there to rot.
And – how did this Council manage to create a Strategic Plan that has traditionally been a document that reflected what a council wants to do during its term of office.
This Council decided that they would create a Strategic Plan for the next 25 years. The problem with the document is that one elected council cannot bind a future council to a program or plan.
The Gazette doesn’t recall there being a meeting at which the decision to write a 25 year plan rather than a four year plan was debated.
This council has approved a Strategic Plan that covers the next 25 years. The plan will not last that long.
And given that the council in place now did not get itself elected on a promise to prepare a 25 year Strategic Plan or the statement that the city was going to grow Bold – it doesn’t’ have a mandate to do what it is doing.
That of course isn’t going to stop them – they are boring a head full blast.
The 2018 civic election should certainly be interesting.
There is a three minute video that hypes the GrowBold philosophy – the opening scene is of the pier – the one that cost us twice what it was supposed to cost?
Check it out HERE. – the video, not the Pier – we all know where that is.
By Ray Rivers
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
Question 19
Yes I called the election result but that wasn’t my preferred outcome. Now it seems that the glass ceiling will have to wait. And if Hillary was doing this for womankind, it didn’t work since nearly half of all female voters chose Trump anyway. But then this contest should never have been about gender… or sex. It should have been about the next four years. There was this entitlement thing. Again, Clinton and her cronies believed it was her turn, that she deserved to be president because she got beaten out by an African-American in 2008.
Trump went rogue. End free trade! Build a wall! Kick out illegals! Tear up the climate change deal! Ban Muslim immigrants! Drop out of NATO! Make love with Putin! Plain speak so nobody could accuse the real estate magnate of mincing words. And when the pollsters and the media prematurely pronounced his imminent defeat, the voters thought what the hell? What have we got to lose? It was a Brexit echo, and it sure looks like Trump played that card from the beginning.
Still, had it not been for the FBI intervention at the eleventh hour, which reinforced doubts about her character, Clinton might have won. And the FBI will likely get off scot-free, since the Republicans are in control now. Isn’t that’s how politics works – the winners get it all?
Hillary Clinton graciously wished Trump a successful presidency, whatever that means. One should expect he will be as divisive in governing as he was in campaigning – and big league. Some politicians focus on what unites us… ‘stronger together’. Others use racism and sexism to drive a wedge between the people, and pit one against another. It’s called divide and conquer. And it worked in the Divided States of America.
Ray Rivers is an economist and author who writes weekly on federal and provincial issues, applying his 25 years of involvement with federal and provincial ministries. Rivers’ involvement in city matters led to his appointment as founding chair of Burlington’s Sustainable Development Committee. He was also a candidate in a past provincial election.
