Gordon Prentice at Large - Politics in Newmarket
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
I am in the cavernous Crosslands Community Church to hear at first hand what lies in store for the residents of Glenway whose lives will soon be turned upside down.
As I enter, I see Brad Rogers of Groundswell whose face is creased in a huge grin. As loyal lieutenant to the developer, no doubt he will be getting his share of the multi-million dollar jackpot.
There are lots of empty seats - quite unlike the earlier meetings where it was standing room only. The atmosphere is subdued. I sense a feeling of resignation in the air.
The agenda is all about the nuts and bolts of how Glenway will be developed. Bob Shelton, the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, runs through a series of slides briefing us on the “Interface Compatibility Plan” and the “Tree Location and Planting Plan” and so on.
Macavity
Alongside Shelton sits the softly spoken Peter Noehammer, the newish Commissioner for Development and Infrastructure Development who has been with the Town for five months. He does not have the long institutional memory of, say, the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, who, like Macavity, is nowhere to be seen. Joining them on the platform is Ward 7 councillor, Christina Bisanz, Regional Councillor John Taylor and His Worship, Tony Van Bynen.
Down below the salt, in the audience, I see councillor Dave “it’s pointless to consult the public” Kerwin; Tom Vegh and, at the very back, Tom Hempen.
The GPA’s Dave Sovran is MC for the evening and Brian Gard, the Deputy Sheriff, takes us through the chronology, explaining how we ended up in this sorry mess.
Who is the Glenway “go to” person?
Dave Sovran wants to know who the Glenway “go to” person is at the Town now that Ruth Victor has gone. Peter Noehammer clearly doesn’t have a clue and wanders up hill and down dale before suggesting the “planning department”. Oh dear! Alternatively, people should contact the ward councillor, Christina Bisanz, who will direct them to the appropriate staff member.
Now the meeting is being opened up to questions from the public.
What’s going to happen with the Glenway West lands, also owned by Marianneville?
Shelton tells us it is too early to say but the developer had a pre-consultation meeting with the planners on 20 January but “there are no specifics of what they propose”.
Let’s have a dialogue
The Mayor, applying the soothing balm for which he is famous, tells us some concessions may be negotiated – providing everyone is “reasonable”. The word is left undefined. “Let’s have a dialogue and see if we can come up with a reasonable compromise.” It is all totally meaningless.
Now we hear someone ask if the Town would consider purchasing the land. Soon we are engulfed in Mayoral waffle of the highest quality. The Town is considering 40 properties and pieces of land and might purchase some if it is the right fit… blah blah blah. Now Van Bynen gives one of his beaming smiles and says to the questioner: “How’s that for a non-answer?”
There is no outrage. We are in a Church, after all.
Now an earnest Eric Smith, dressed in combative red, submerges himself in a series of questions about aquifers or artesian wells and the threat to people’s basements from water penetration as a result of the proposed development. He conjures up a picture of the planned Regional Building – which he dubs the aquarium – slowly sinking into a swamp. He is heard in silence as befits someone who gives the impression of knowing what he is talking about.
Worryingly, this is all news to Noehammer who is on safer ground when asked about construction dirt and noise. We learn the wind comes from the west and dirt will blow directly into folks’ houses. Will there be some kind of barrier? Don’t fret says Noehammer. The residents are to be protected by 130 conditions that developer will have to comply with before getting the go-ahead. Ah!
Now an interesting question about servicing – hooking up the new houses to the water mains and sewers. Bob Shelton, with all the skill of an old pro, says staff will, in due course, be making a recommendation to Council about when the hook up should take place now that the OMB has made its decision.
Shelton, more delphic than usual, tells us the question to be asked is this: “What is the fit across the municipality?” He could have told us the priority areas get hooked up first. That’s the Davis Drive and Yonge Street corridors and, more generally, the urban centre. Everything else waits in line. But he didn’t.
We feel bounced around
Now the Mayor fields a question about the OMB and how the Town handled things. “There was never, ever a compromise of process.” (Meaning he wants us to believe the Town did things by the book.) “We feel as bounced around as you do.”
Now he is being asked a question about the GO Bus Terminal and the Mobility Hub, matters which figured so prominently in the OMB Hearing.
The Hub, he says, is focussed on the Tannery. “That’s all I’m aware of.”
Is the Mayor seriously asking us to believe that there will be no Mobility Hub study of one of the busiest intersections in Newmarket, Yonge and Davis, where explosive growth is promised with 13,500 new residents and 10,100 jobs?
The Secondary Plan, endorsed by the Town last June and now waiting for Regional approval, reminds us that Metrolinx wanted two Mobility Hubs – one at the Tannery and another at Yonge/Davis. The one at the Tannery has a huge circle on the map, denoting its status. The one at Yonge/Davis a small red dot – identified in the document nevertheless as a “mobility hub”.
The text explains that a Regional Shopping Centre Study Area is planned for the Upper Canada Mall site and this will involve “mobility hub study considerations.”
Why the self defeating and obfuscating semantics? Is Yonge/Davis a mobility hub or not?
A Tale of Two Circles
Intriguingly, the Secondary Plan has another giant circle at Mulock Drive denoting the site of a planned new GO Rail Station. Yet Metrolinx told me last September:
"While the Town of Newmarket supports a new station at Mulock Drive, GO Transit has no plans to build a station in this location.”
As we all know, Metrolinx urged the Town to delineate the study area of the Mobility Hub at Yonge and Davis but this was rejected by the Director of Planning. Why?
A line on a map would inevitably have had to include the GO Bus Terminal, adjacent to Glenway. This would have made it difficult for the developer to maintain there was not “a shred of evidence” that the Bus Terminal may, at some stage, be moving.
What other explanation is there?
But if there is one we should hear it, in person and in detail, from the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery.
contact email:
Update on 14 February 2014: Read the GPA Question and Answer document that was handed out at the meeting on 12 February 2014. Click "Documents" in the panel above left and navigate to "Glenway". Click on GPA Q&A 12Feb14
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
The defection of Eve Adams to the Liberals has raised a few eyebrows. But it happens all the time. What surprised so many was the way in which Justin Trudeau welcomed her into the fold, enthusiastically embracing a die-hard life-long Conservative. The Liberal big tent is now so commodious it will accommodate pretty much anyone who wants to enter.
And now we hear that Adams is seeking the federal Liberal nomination for the Toronto riding of Eglinton-Lawrence. The current Liberal MPP says this will happen “over his dead body”.
Good on him.
Politicians such as Adams are always ready to complain that their Party has changed – not them – even when it is perfectly clear that by jumping ship they are driven by calculation and not conviction.
The Liberals need Adams like they need a dose of anthrax.
New convention needed
We need a new convention where MPs and MPPs swapping parties should automatically resign their seats, trigger a by election and stand for re-election under their new party colours.
This happened recently in the UK where two Conservative MPs, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, frustrated by their Party’s position on the European Union, resigned their seats in the House of Commons and were successfully re-elected as UKIP MPs.
But this is very unusual. The list of Party swappers at Westminster goes back centuries, even before the creation of the UK. The list here in Canada is also impressively long. And full of famous faces.
Short-changing the voters
But trading in one Party for another – without asking the voters first – is to short change the electorate. Wildrose people in Alberta are still spitting feathers over the defection of its leader, Danielle Smith, to the Conservatives. An apologetic Preston Manning offers up a mea culpa for his role in the mass defection. But the damage is done. It fuels public cynicism and more people walk away from party politics, disillusioned.
Fewer people are choosing to join a political party as a way of changing things. Filling in a party membership form is increasingly seen as something bordering on the eccentric.
The big tent is more of a bivouac, and getting smaller all the time.
Sudbury
Elsewhere... I am left wondering how many people in Sudbury – whatever their politics – felt inspired by the recent campaign. The Party pooper on this occasion, Glenn Thibeault, (NDP to Liberal) at least had the grace to resign his seat in the Federal Parliament before seeking a new berth at Queen’s Park.
Under the Liberal Party rules, the nomination was in the gift of the Premier, Kathleen Wynne. She knifes the former Liberal candidate, Andrew Oliver, in the ribs in favour of the NDP turncoat who goes on to win the seat, just. Turnout at 40% was sharply down.
The police are now investigating whether attempts were made to bribe Oliver, a quadraplegic, to stand aside and give Thibeault a clear run. Should we care?
Meanwhile, Thibeault feels bad about letting his former colleagues down.
No wonder people are repelled by this circus.
contact email:
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
This Thursday (12 February) Glenway residents will be gathering at Crosslands Community Church, 47 Millard Ave West, at 7pm to hear more about the planned transformation of their neighbourhood.
In an effort to be helpful, Newmarket’s Committee of the Whole last week (2 February) directed staff:
“to prepare a document for the residents of Glenway outlining frequently asked questions related to the Marianneville applications and other development in Ward 7, and (details of) upcoming public meetings to be provided at the February12, 2015 Glenway Preservation Association meeting and subsequently distributed by mail to residents of Ward 7.”
I have a raft of questions, mostly relating to who knew what and when. But here are a few for starters:
The pre OMB Hearing phase (before March 2014)
(1) On what date did the Mayor learn that the Glenway lands were for sale and by what means did he get this information?
(2) Did the Director of Planning recommend purchase of the lands in 2010 or before and if not, why not?
(3) Did (a) the Mayor or (b) the Town consider buying the Glenway lands in 2010 or subsequently?
(4) Was there any oversight of Ruth Victor as she developed policy on Glenway and, if so, what form did it take?
(5) On what date did (a) the Mayor and (b) the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, learn that Ruth Victor was minded to recommend allowing development on the Glenway lands?
(6) When were the Regional Councillor and Newmarket councillors informed that Ruth Victor would recommend allowing development?
(Why is this relevant? Ruth Victor was appointed as external planning consultant on the Glenway file way back in 2011. Did the Mayor simply let her get on with it – in effect, ceding control of policy making to Victor? Was the Mayor a spectator or did he have a position on whether the golf course should be developed? Former councillor Maddie Di Muccio noted in her blog of 19 October 2011 there was no oversight and if the consultant recommended approval of the development the Town’s position would be undermined by its own expert witness. This is, of course, precisely what happened.)
(7) Did the Director of Planning ever consider that the September 2013 Transportation Study (prepared for the Town by external consultants GHD) might be relevant to the March 2014 OMB Hearing?
(Why is this relevant? The Study went through a series of revisions and was not published until April - after the OMB Hearing had concluded. The Study made specific reference to the possible relocation of the GO Bus Terminal but that relocation was not the “current vision” of Metrolinx.)
(8) What instructions did our councillors give to the Town’s legal counsel and lead negotiator, Mary Bull, on the terms on which she could settle with Marianneville? Was she given a completely free hand? What conditions, if any, were attached?
The OMB Hearing (March 2014)
(9) For what reasons the Director of Planning and his senior staff did not attend the OMB Glenway Hearing?
(10) Were they advised to stay away and, if so, when, by whom and for what reasons?
(11) Did the Director of Planning receive report-backs, daily or otherwise, on what had been considered at the OMB Hearing and from whom?
(12) On how many occasions did the Director of Planning brief Mary Bull prior to or during the OMB Hearing on matters that had arisen or were likely to arise?
(13) Did the Director of Planning brief Mary Bull on the possibility of co-locating the bus terminal and GO train station and, if so, on what date?
(14) How many meetings did the Director of Planning have with Mary Bull to brief her on the Secondary Plan and on which dates did these take place?
(15) What directions did the Council give to Mary Bull giving her authority to negotiate and settle with Marianneville?
(The agreed settlement gives Marianneville 742 residential units – up from 730. On 22 April 2014 Mary Bull told councillors that the discussions she had with Marianneville must remain private. If the details were revealed it would run counter to public policy considerations where the objective is to facilitate a settlement. She also says that the negotiators reached a settlement following directions set by Council. So, can we see those directions? Marianneville’s settlement offer, as their lawyer, Ira Kagan, reminded us on numerous occasions, was made public.)
(16) Did the Director of Planning share the views of Ruth Victor on the development of Glenway?
(This was asserted by Marianneville’s Ira Kagan in his concluding remarks but could not be tested as no planner employed by the Town sat through the OMB Hearing.)
Post OMB Hearing (after March 2014)
(17) For what reasons is the area of the Anchor Mobility Hub at Young and Davis not shown on the Schedules to the Secondary Plan, as requested by Metrolinx?
(18) On what date did the Director of Planning form the view that the two Mobility Hub studies would consider, as part of their remit, the possible co-location of the GO Bus Terminal and GO Rail Station?
(19) When is the Upper Canada Mall Master Plan scheduled for completion?
(Why is this relevant? The Secondary Plan was amended in June 2014 to allow for the possible integration of transit on the site.)
Freedom of Information Request
(20) Will the Town make available, as part of the lessons learned process, the documents listed below – if necessary in a redacted form?
(My Freedom of Information request to the Town for the documents listed below was refused on 8 October 2014.)
(1) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Ruth Victor, Ruth Victor Associates, regarding Application for Official Plan Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval, Marianneville Developments Limited (Glenway)
(2) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Mary Bull and Johanna Shapira, Wood Bull LLP regarding Marianneville Developments - Phase 2
(3) the confidential memorandum dated 4 April 2014 from the Assistant Director of Planning regarding Marianneville Developments Limited
(4) the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) on 7 April 2014.
Role of Staff
On 29 September 2014, Regional Councillor John Taylor helpfully explained the process of putting previously confidential information into the public domain.
“…in-camera discussions go through a process and most of them eventually, if not all of them, eventually, come out of camera. You go through a process that takes time and staff review it and they report back to us how to bring it out in its entirety or partially and at what stage.”
Given that the role of staff is also part of “lessons learned” how can the public be assured that information is not held back simply to protect staff from embarrassment or criticism?
contact email: