Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "We all have our rights":
Some groups get their fees waived . Others do not. I think you can expect every one of them to make the attempt to slip past. It is up to Council to make each decision and this Council lets most organizations slip by. I would like to see more consistency with reasons given about there maybe being a one-time need to help out.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 18 August 2014 08:43
****************************
But every one of them don't. They pay the fees .
Dozens of groups in Aurora volunteer in numerous areas. They know the policy. They are consulted on user fees and believe it's applied equally.
But it's not.
There is a grant policy with approved eligibility. Decisions are made at staff level.
If an application is not eligible, the applicant can bypass the process and delegate to Council.
It's a golden opportunity for political magnanimity. Dole out taxpayers dollars like a philanthropic organization. Like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
As long as those picking up the tab are paying little attention, it's a safe gambit . Applicants know a good thing when they see it and money fairly sails out of the town coffers.
This term has not been as bad as last . Groups and individuals came from all over for free facilities to raise a bundle at no cost.
Sometimes it almost seemed they had been invited or at least the word had gotten about.
During the futile debate on Church Street School ,Councillors received e-mails from culture cravers from farther than. Orillia and Waterloo when it looked like the new Council might retrieve the facility for its original intent.
Now ask yourself how the Culture Centre fits into the policy of grants and user fees.
Costs of construction of facilities are paid with tax resources or development charges. New homeowners pay ninety per cent of the latter by a tax hidden in the cost of their homes.
Facilities are not used by all. The policy is for people who use them to pay costs of
operation.
The greater use,the more reasonable the fees. More down time in a facility means higher user fees.
Commercial or outside users mean more reasfees for local groups.
Fee waivers increase the burden.
I don't understand waiver requests from fund-raisers. Hundreds of residents participate in fund-raiser. Thousands are raised. The user fee represents barely a fraction of the whole.It might A donation to a cause might be $42,000 rather than $44,000.
Revenue to keep user fees reasonable is reduced by that amount. From thetown's lerspective, why is that sensible.
Take that $750,000 cheque given to the Mayor for the hospital by 2C developers in Aurora.
Were they asked to pay it over and above millions of dollars of development charges ?
Did someone suggest it would be good public relations? Why do they need good public relations?
WHoever was responsible for the initiative, it was not Council.
Does the Region include hospitals in development charges. Why would they? Health care is a provincial responsibility.
Monday, 18 August 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I have no idea why the Mayor [ and maybe the mayor of Newmarket too ? ] were in the middle of the cheque-gifting. The money went straight to South Lake. It did not make any pit-stops at town halls.
Warren Buffet is not a philanthropic organization.
Bill Gates and his wife Melinda conduct what is probably the largest philanthropic program in the world.
The developers donation to the hospital is excellent public relations for them. Did they have to do it? No. But let's not kid ourselves, everything is done for a reason. The money will be coming from the new homeowners of the 2C development. Take the $750K and divide by the number of houses being built by the contributing developers and they'll tack that on to each house. (There's more than 2,000 homes being built so that's about $375 donated per home on what will be probably $400K, $500k, $600k, $700k and upwards on the cost of a home. In the scheme of things it's tiny to the overall project. Still a nice gesture. It's not like businesses operate on the idea of "oh, we've got extra cash lying around, what should we do with it." As I said it's all done for a reason.
I just read a quote attributed to Mayor Dawe concerning the announcement of the donation that the 2C development will be a "series of new neighbourhoods with 40 percent green space, complete with urban forests, and new trails to complement our robust, expanding trail system.”
How do they define & calculate the 40%? Is that actual forests & trails, or is that including boulevard grass & plants inside street roundabouts, or perhaps the backyards that can be cut with a "weedeater".
All I seem to see in that area is a lot of clear-cutting & massive earth moving. Can someone point in to a current map or diagram showing where homes will be and where this 40% will be?
Such photo- ops are part of the perks of sitting on the Board. SouthLake has a very good PR department and any large donor receives photos and sometimes invitations to special events.
If that money was not directed at specific project, it would be nice if some of it filtered down to mediate the parking fees. That would help everyone using the facilities.
I like the " Forest " area being touted to purchasers without mentioning the wheeling & dealing going on to have the entire thing declared off-limits to those living there.
Cllr Humfryes is consistent with groups asking for their fees to be waived. She always agrees and gushes all over what an excellent job they are doing for the community and how important it is to support such efforts which can only result in benefits. When that little speech is over, she tries to get the treasurer to agree that council can afford the " token " of esteem by taking it for a fund such as the contingency fund.
It is absurd when she applies that illogic to organizations that are racking in thousands of dollars from the same individuals who supply council's funding.
Say what, 14:29?
14:29, can you explain your comment a like more. What do you mean by "the entire thing declared off-limits to those living there". If it's off limits to those living there, it's off limits to the rest of us Aurorans. I was looking forward to hiking in a new area of Aurora.
Do you mean to say they are promoting to new homeowners that they will be close to private forested areas and mixing that conversation with the trails, so that it appears that the forests are part of the new trail systems, when in fact these forests are private?
It makes me laugh every time I see the various developers signs and ads using such slogans like "get back to nature", and the descriptions on their site plans of "natural heritage systems". When did we start calling existing trees and fields "natural heritage". As a side note, I Googled it all and it seems that planners, towns, the province and conservation groups have been using this term for quite a while. Heritage means "inherited from the past", but in my perspective natural heritage system is an area where developers don't clear cut and move earth to level the land. So this area is left untouched and is touted as preserving nature and costing the developer nothing but possible big gains in marketing. I wouldn't doubt that they would rather just clear everything instead of having to work around these natural areas.
I also love how they show families and young children against a backdrop of trees. It's a joke. Just like one of them calling their area "Aurora Trails", it makes people think they have a special piece of Aurora when in fact it's high density 20' wide townhouses . But that's marketing and the real estate industry.
Footnote: And with all of this development and "nature" intertwining between housing and wildlife being pushed to find new habitats, we wonder why coyotes and such are seen in our neighbourhoods. Give your heads a shake people, everything we do effects nature and the world around us. We want nature around us, but only the good parts, let the animals find their own new homes.
9:38
- Off-limits to all if those pulling the strings [ and, no, I am not the least bit paranoid ] are successful. That part of the development is to be " kept safe ". from intruders. You will be looking for new hiking elsewhere.
To 9:38
Excuse me, please. There were exactly 2 healthy coyotes who left the golf course for a few days when the heavy snows hid their usual prey. They did not harm but Auroran residents went into a frenzy and held a town hall meeting.
You should not cry " Coyote "
To 17:29 from 9:38
I think you may have misunderstood my point, I wasn't crying "coyote". Because we develop what use to be their territory we shouldn't expect that they perhaps wouldn't return as you note when heavy snows hide their usual prey. If we have new urban areas with "natural heritage systems" then we have to think that these may still be corridors for animals of all types. And I certainly agree with you that Aurora did seem to go into a frenzy.
Post a Comment