By Staff
July 27th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette asked for some comment on the street party that was partially funded by the city and attended by the Mayor last weekend.
Here is the response from Chris Glenn, Director of Recreation, Community and Culture:
“Love My Neighbourhood is a program that has been running for several years. It provides a one-time per year grant of up to $500 per neighbour, resident or street section, condominium, or apartment group in Burlington.
“Not all applications require the full $500 support. These funds support the neighbourhood with nominal costs associated with insurance coverage, equipment rental fees and entertainment with the neighbours also contributing to the overall event.
“Organizers must agree to provide a free and inclusive event or activity to their community. Invitations are often sent by the organizers to their local councilor or all members of council.”
There is a list of what is what is and is not covered by funding.
The information on the city website is crystal clear on alcohol and cannabis:
Is that wine in those glasses – maybe it’s water.
Is alcohol or cannabis permitted?
“The City will not fund or permit the purchase of any alcohol beverages, tobacco or cannabis products. Alcohol or cannabis products are not permitted at Love My Neighbourhood events or on public property.”
Here is the link to the rules for those applying for a grant – they are lengthy and they are very clear.
Director Glenn said: “To date, we have approx. 70 applications for 2022.” And adds: “Hopefully this helps clarify.”
To some degree it does. We will ask now if there is a procedure in place to recover the grant and will Glenn advice members of Council individually what the rules are?
The one thing this incident has done is raise the profile of the program.
I’m sorry — WHAT??? Are you kidding me? I can’t catch a bus at the nearby stop because they rarely come by and when they do it’s super late. The public trash cans in my neighbourhood park are regularly OVERFLOWING onto the weedy grass. The tall, blooming weeds that have sprouted in the medians of nearby boulevard look terrible. But my tax dollars are paying for random street parties?? Really? Who made this irresponsible decision? Please, can we vote this person out of office?
I obviously do not know where you live, but where I live the buses are always right on time. Probably because they are generally pretty much empty; so don’t have to stop. Ha Ha ! I agree with you about the weeds. I have asked my councilor to get something done about the problem. The dollars set aside for this program if reassigned to the weed issue likely would have little impact. My questions to you:-
* If getting rid of the weeds; making sure the garbage cans are emptied; and getting the busses to be on time would required you pay more in taxes, would you be ok with that?
* Have you voiced these concerns/complaints to your local councilor?
BTW there is an election in October. Make sure you vote.
“…where I live the buses are always right on time.”
Okay, lucky for people in *your* neighbourhood. They certainly aren’t on time in mine! And an empty bus suggests that the service is not reliable enough for people to want to use it.
But I suspect you would never consider taking a bus.
“I agree with you about the weeds. I have asked my councilor to get something done about the problem. The dollars set aside for this program if reassigned to the weed issue likely would have little impact.”
So if you believe that the $$ used for street parties wouldn’t be enough to clean up weeds, then that means those dollars can be thrown away on whatever frivolous activities someone comes up with? What other funds are being tossed around for trifling purposes?
“If getting rid of the weeds; making sure the garbage cans are emptied; and getting the busses to be on time would required you pay more in taxes, would you be ok with that?”
I don’t understand your point here. Why doesn’t the city use my EXISTING tax dollars to provide efficient, working services for residents? You know, the dollars that I have ALREADY given them to pay for regular city amenities like buses, public landscapes, trash services, etc.
Are you running for office, Mary Hill? I’ll be sure not to vote for you!
Marie, please let me respond you each point your have made. Like so many here you read into others comments things that have not been expressed solely as a wY to make your argument.
“an empty bus suggests that the service is not reliable enough for people to want to use it.”
What evidence to you have to draw that conclusion. Might buses be empty for the same reason GO and TTC are not fully used? People enjoy the convenience of their cars.
I have taken the bus on occasions but being reasonably affluent and enjoying the convenience of a car, I drive.
“So if you believe that the $$ used for street parties wouldn’t be enough to clean up weeds, then that means those dollars can be thrown away on whatever frivolous activities someone comes up with?”
You are putting words into my mouth. I never expressed that sentiment. Obviously the dollars from the program together with cutting other programs could be amalgamated to cover the cost for a weed program. That’s weeds at bus stops and medians, not pot type of weed LOL.
“I don’t understand your point here”
I was not making a point. I was asking a simple straight forward question, which begged a yes or no answer. But you did not answer the question. My thoughts behind the question is that for the past decade or so pressure has been on council to reduce the tax burden or at worst keep any increased to a bare minimum. That pressure has resulted in staff cuts, and loss of high service levels. Now inflation is well above 5%. That means products and services purchased by the City are costing more. Just like they do for you or me. The City buys fuels from its vehicles and machinery. The cost of those fuels has gone up way, way more that 5%. How do you suggest the City cover these increased costs? Options are either increased taxes or reduced services or reduced manpower. If one wants a better level of service one has to pay for it.
Are you willing to pay more to keep or even improve service levels, or are you ok with a reduced level of service to keep your taxes where they are?
I am not running for any elected position at any level of government. I would be an awful politician. Way too outspoken and direct.
BTW I would not vote for you either.
I certainly have no idea why taxpayer dollars should be spent encouraging neighbours to get together. Who in the city felt that the way to get neighbours together was to provide funds? How ridiculous, and unnecessary.
Years ago neighbours on Hager and surrounding streets got together once a year. The only contribution from the city was the use of barriers to close off the streets to prevent cars from going down them. The families brought over food etc. with one street being designated as the food/activity centre. There was certainly no liquor or wine served.
At the very least the group involved in putting together this “neighbourhood party” should not be getting any taxpayer dollars and if this money was given out in advance of the gathering they should be returning this money, since they obviously did not follow the rules of NO ALCOHOL.
Why the mayor and councillor Bentevegna would have thought it was a good idea to attend boggles the mind.
Mrs Hersh, negative as always.
No need to remind us how boggled your mind is. We know! LOL
In this time of divisiveness here in Canada and around the world, it would seem a very positive action by the City to by way of this grant progam encourage community get togethers and bonding.
“ Mrs Hersh, negative as always.
No need to remind us how boggled your mind is. We know!”
And then you say this? “ In this time of divisiveness here in Canada and around the world”
Talk about hypocrisy
Good grief!
Colour me a cynical old Baby Boomer, but since when did the City get into the business of event planning? Why are taxpayers subsidizing neighbourhood social events? Is this a critical or essential service?
There is a concept called “personal responsibility” which seems to have been forgotten in this debate. It’s based on the notion that individual citizens assume the onus for paying for those things which are not essential services, or which are deemed “optional” or “social”. If a group of residents want to get together to host a social activity then God bless them and good luck to them, but don’t expect beleaguered taxpayers to pay for it!
My tennis club membership is coming due in September. Maybe I should send the invoice to the City to see if they’ll pay for it.
It appears to me that the rules for these tax payer funded parties need to be changed. In a year leading up to a municipal election, our tax dollars should not be spent, on what was clearly a campaign event.
Many folks know where this event was held and the close connection the Mayor has to this particular group of residents.
The funds for this event should be returned to the city without question.
Stephen White. You are a true baby boomer. LOL. You now sound just like our parents did !
“Event planning” sounds good and feisty, but the City is not involved in any of the planning of an event. City staff administering the program ensure that the event details submitted meet the criteria for a grant as laid out in the program. The organizers of the event do the planning.
If you wished to put on an event at your pretorian tennis club aimed at getting community members to take up the sport, you might well qualify for a grant.
Bonnie, we’re all invitees MMW supporters? Were any political speeches made?
What in your mind specifically in how the event unfolded and took place demonstrates it to be “clearly a campaign event” and not just a community event put on by residents attended by the residents’ mayor and local councilor.
The Gazette mentions in its headline that the local councilor was also present. No one has expressed any criticism of the councilor, just the Mayor. Why’s that?
Editor’s note: There was a follow up piece on Councillor Bentivegna asking him for comment which we have yet to receive. These MMW apologists are working hard to deflect as much as they can.
David: Well….I would sooner be a Baby Boomer who takes personal responsibility than someone who is entitled and expects government to assume responsibility for every aspect of my personal well-being and happiness. This is another example of a Council that can’t set priorities, can’t control its budget, and can’t say “no”.
Rather than spending money on frills perhaps the focus should be on substantive issues like like traffic congestion, effective service delivery, public transportation and the myriad of other issues that exist. That was the point I was trying to convey, but I suppose the logic and salience of that argument was lost in your moment of vitriol.
Stephen, I had no problem with 99% of your comment because it is reasonable and it’s your opinion to which you are entitled. Sure I disagree with some of what you said. But that’s ok too. But, Stephen why write the last sentence? Totally un-called for. Vitriol (definition – cruel and bitter criticism) really ? I don’t think you can point to anything I said as vitriolic. My comment was lighthearted as denoted by the LOL tag.