Gordon Prentice at Large - Politics in Newmarket
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
The Mayor of King, Steve Pellegrini, today revealed that the Township facilitated the in-person meeting on 1 November 2022 between Michael Rice and Southlake Hospital which resulted in Greenbelt land being offered to Southlake for a nominal fee.
This was three days before the Government first publicly announced that certain lands in the Greenbelt (including the Rice lands) were to be opened up for development.
Mayor Pellegrini told me earlier today:
“Rice Group reached out to the Township initially to meet regarding their lands in King. Subsequently, the Township facilitated a meeting with the Rice Group and Southlake Hospital.”
Mayor Pellegrini is sticking to his story that the Province can build a hospital anywhere it likes. He insists:
“The Province does not require removal of land from the Greenbelt to build a hospital. They may build provincial infrastructure on any land that they deem suitable.”
If he is following the advice of professional planning staff in his own municipality then it puts them at odds with the Region’s Chief Planner, Paul Freeman, who says:
“a hospital would be considered institutional and directed to settlement areas given the agricultural designation on the subject lands.”
On 1 February 2023, Mayor Pellegrini told Newmarket Today they had been looking for a new site for a hospital since 2019 and had explored the area for that reason. He said a different landowner had offered land in that vicinity.
I am waiting to hear from the Municipality how they went about looking for a suitable site in King. How did they “explore the area” and who was involved in the search? The Mayor says a different landowner had offered land in the vicinity? Who was that landowner and was he or she prepared to gift Greenbelt land to Southlake? Will he tell the Integrity Commissioner even if he won’t tell me?
Although King does not have any records relating to the 1 November 2022 meeting Southlake does.
We wait to hear more.
Read more: Selling the Greenbelt: Rice asked for meeting with Southlake
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
Tom Vegh, the politician who supped at the developers’ trough for years, yesterday turned on his former paymasters.
Speaking in yesterday's debate at York Region on the impact of Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster Act 2022), Vegh accused the Ford Government of bringing in legislation which would mean taxpayers subsidising developers.
“We also talk about the taxpayers subsidizing growth. This is really a case of taxpayers subsidizing developers.”
These are very same developers who have subsidized Vegh for years. Bailing him out. Saving him from disqualification for overspending on his election campaigns. Now he has the nerve to bite the hand that feeds him.
The "Ford Tax" impact
Vegh’s three-minute contribution was noteworthy as he rarely speaks in debates at the Region. He is mostly invisible. Comfortable when keeping his thoughts to himself.
Vegh also argued that any property tax increases resulting from Ford’s More Homes Built Faster legislation (Bill 23) should be dubbed “the Ford tax”.
“We keep talking about the property tax impact. This is just a comment about language. This is really the Ford tax impact and I think we should just just start calling it the Ford tax. Quite frankly, let him own it.”
With this statement Vegh has now burned his bridges with the Provincial Progressive Conservatives. For years he harboured the ambition of going to Queen’s Park himself. 
Tom Vegh MPP.
On 5 December 2016 Vegh told residents in Ward 1 that he was ready for a bigger challenge. In his Community e-letter he confessed he really wanted to be an MPP and he was up to it:
"If I am successful in the nomination and am given the opportunity to be your Newmarket-Aurora PC candidate, I promise to represent your interests at Queen's Park with the same vigor (sic) and professionalism as I have as your Ward 1 Newmarket councillor."
Impertinently, Vegh also suggested the projected tax rises presented by the highly competent Regional Treasurer, Laura Mirabella, should be vetted by an outside third party to give them more credibility. He said that third party would defend themselves:
“in a way that perhaps carries a bit more credibility than how we defend ourselves because of how people feel about government, politicians etc.”
Vetting Vegh
Vegh should know why people are skeptical of politicians and the promises they make. He is the man who solemnly promised a new public library in Newmarket. And a new Seniors' Centre. Neither materialised. We could have done with some independent third party vetting of Tom Vegh back then.
In her comments the Regional Treasurer referred to Hemson Consulting.
And, no, Tom it’s not “Hempen Consulting” or “Hempton Consulting”.
It’s Hemson.
Update on 24 February 2023 from Newmarklet Today: The "Doug Ford Tax": York Region faces a 2% - 7% tax increase due to Bill 23
Update on 7 March 2023: From Newmarket Today: Deputy Mayor declares campaign deficit
Click “Read more” below to read Tom Vegh’s very rare contribution to the debate at York Region.
Read more: Tom Vegh turns on Doug Ford and his former paymasters – the developers
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
Bob Hepburn writes in this morning’s Toronto Star that political parties should be allowed to contest municipal elections. (Click "Read more" below) 
I agree.
The Province bans political parties from fielding candidates in municipal elections peddling the fiction that all candidates are independents, untainted by political ideology who just want the best for their patch.
In the race to succeed John Tory as Mayor of Toronto Hepburn says
“…most people will cast their ballots based more on sheer name recognition rather than where the candidates stand on critical issues or where they lie on the right-left spectrum.”
Hepburn goes on:
“The arguments for municipal parties are convincing. If the candidates were allied with established parties, we would better understand where they fit into the bigger picture for Toronto.
There would be party platforms, providing voters with vital information about candidates to better help them make their choices. Voter turnout, traditionally pathetic for local elections, could potentially increase. Parties help to recruit candidates and finance their campaigns, which could lead to greater diversity of serious candidates.”
Collapsing turnout
In a blog posted a few days before the last municipal election on 24 October in Newmarket I predicted that two-thirds of people wouldn’t vote. That was a big under-estimate.
In the event, turnout in the Town was a lamentable 24%.
Political parties – or newly created local parties - just might drive up voter turnout.
My experience of running for election locally last October only reinforces my view that things have got to change if we are to get people interested and engaged in local politics. The indifference and ignorance on the doorstep about municipal government and how it works was a real eye-opener.
I spent a lot of time talking to people. There was no rosette on my lapel to give voters a rough idea of my politics. I had to start from scratch explaining a bit about myself and why I was running. And then taking questions. Ten minutes at a doorstep was not unusual.
Raising the cash to campaign
There are very real disincentives running for election as an “independent”. For a start, you’ve got to raise large sums of money.
When I ran for Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor the rules allowed me to spend a truly colossal $57,153.35 on my campaign. My self-funding limit (the amount my spouse and I could spend on the campaign using our own money) was an eye-watering $17,241.40. In the event I only spent a small fraction of what was allowable.
But these huge sums of money would deter most people from throwing their hat into the ring. The alternative is to campaign on a shoe-string and hope for good local coverage in the press and media and an effective performance in the election debates (if there are any).
Heavy lifting
Political Parties get a bad press (often for good reasons) but they do the heavy lifting for candidates. They provide the finance and the support.
They would allow people to run for Mayor or Deputy Mayor (where the campaign limits are highest) without breaking the bank. (But if people want to run as independents there's nothing to stop them.)
Like-minded people could set up local parties to contest elections. Let’s say… “Newmarket First”. Candidates running under that banner would have a common set of priorities which they would present to the public, sharing campaign expenses and raising money as a local Party.
But if this is to work, political parties would have to reinvent themselves as local campaigning organisations. Identifying issues that people feel strongly about and offering solutions.
Hollowed out
And that is a big ask. Too many are atrophied and hollowed out with tiny memberships, leaving it to their MPs or MPPs (if they have one) to be their public face.
At their best, political parties shape the agenda and have a long institutional memory. When everyone else has forgotten the details of a crisis or local calamity or misjudgement, they can remember what happened and why. They can also bring in new blood, encourage younger people to get involved, and mentor those who might wish to run for office one day.
I had to run as an independent last October because the system wouldn’t allow anything else.
Silly system.
Read more: Political Parties should be allowed to contest municipal elections. Discuss