Thursday, 17 October 2013
Things may be changing
Oh common Evelyn…You should know how it works now. Whoever claps the loudest or cries the loudest gets what they want. Don’t you know?…We’re a big corporation now It’s to improve the quality of life for "all" Aurorans. Just add it to the tax bill.…It’s only money.
*************************
I would have agreed before last night.
Reaction of some Councillors was the norm.
How people in the neighborhood expressed themselves seemed to me to be a breakthrough.
If the land had a huge price, of course they would not expect the town to pay they said.
The interest of the larger community was acknowledged.
They want to be heard but I believe they are also willing to listen.
The Mayor did not make the commitment, Councillors did.
I didn't hear Councillor Thompson . Councillors Pirri and Humfreys weren't at the meeting.
The former Mayor appeared to have the subdivision agreement or part, to suggest
there was no requirement for in-camera discussion.
The objective of course was to create mistrust.
It was ever thus.
Convince the unwary of dirty deeds by others so that Phillydilly can ride to the rescue and save the day.
The Section of the agreement not dwelt upon ,was the site not chosen by the town for a neighborhood park.
$2 million were taken from the developer instead.
Former Councillor MacEachern , Chair of Leisure Services Advisory Committee consistently argued against neighborhood parks because of cost of maintenance.
One development in particular in the south east corner of town, a single street of homes . Less than fifty.
The Councillor argued it was acceptable for mothers with small children to cross Bayview or Leslie at the traffic lights to reach a park.
The facility recommended was a tot lot.
The Councillor argued against it. I believe I won that vote.
The Mavrinac situation is not clear yet. Information is outstanding and steps are needed .
Councillor Gallo is an eager beaver
But I think the people in the neighborhood are not unmindful of the interest of the town as a whole .
They don't want to be seen as nimbies . At the same time they do want Council to know how they feel.
It's what most people would do in the circumstances.
I just hate to see that exploited by cold -blooded unscrupulous individuals who care nothing about anybody but themselves.
And I think we have just taken a step forward
Wednesday, 16 October 2013
I WENT TO A GARDEN PARTY.....NOT
I went to Councillor Gallo's meeting in the Council Chamber. A fair turnout. All appear to be of the same mind. The town should keep the site no longer required for a school for a park.
Councillor Gallo assured the audience he wants that too. It's why he walked around, hand-delivering his letter and organized the meeting.
Except for Councillor Pirri, all members of Council were present and were equally supportive
One other was there in support of Councillor Gallo. The former Mayor.
The Councillor explained he could not talk about what Council had talked about in closed session.
The former Mayor, reading from a document , contended nothing needed to be discussed in closed session.
Terms from the subdivision agreement were read.
That was the first round of applause.
I suggested the information might be what they wanted to hear.
They didn't want to hear that.
In a reproving tone, I heard they didn't want the back and forth . They found that tiresome.
That wasn't surprising. The pattern is well established.
The just want to be assured the town will ake into consideration
It's not hard to calculate what people want to here. Au contraire, It's remarkably easy.
It's not hard to figure what they don't want to hear. That's equally easy.
In the cold hard world of reality ,it is sometimes hard to avoid telling people things they don't want to hear.
In politics , it's best not to. People don't get mad at you. The sweet sound of applause is heard instead.
Councillor Gaertner excitedly took advantage of warm and fuzzy to introduce the former Mayor by title with a glowing testimonial of how "she always fought for you"
The applause was slightly tepid.
It was a moment of irony.
The former Mayor signed the subdivision agreement.
The site was set aside with three others for school sites.
No park site was required.
$2 million dollars in lieu of a park was taken instead.
A former Councillor and chairman of the parks and recreation advisory committee was on record as opposed to neighborhood parks. Because they cost too much to maintain.
Land recommended for purchase, for a community park , at raw land prices was rejected by the pair and their cohorts. Including Gaertner and Gallo.
The neighbors are naturally not interested in history.
Nor are they suggesting the town pay tens of millions for the school site.
They just don't want more houses or more traffic . And they want the site to become a park.
Councillor Gallo assured the audience he wants that too. It's why he walked around, hand-delivering his letter and organized the meeting.
Except for Councillor Pirri, all members of Council were present and were equally supportive
One other was there in support of Councillor Gallo. The former Mayor.
The Councillor explained he could not talk about what Council had talked about in closed session.
The former Mayor, reading from a document , contended nothing needed to be discussed in closed session.
Terms from the subdivision agreement were read.
That was the first round of applause.
I suggested the information might be what they wanted to hear.
They didn't want to hear that.
In a reproving tone, I heard they didn't want the back and forth . They found that tiresome.
That wasn't surprising. The pattern is well established.
The just want to be assured the town will ake into consideration
It's not hard to calculate what people want to here. Au contraire, It's remarkably easy.
It's not hard to figure what they don't want to hear. That's equally easy.
In the cold hard world of reality ,it is sometimes hard to avoid telling people things they don't want to hear.
In politics , it's best not to. People don't get mad at you. The sweet sound of applause is heard instead.
Councillor Gaertner excitedly took advantage of warm and fuzzy to introduce the former Mayor by title with a glowing testimonial of how "she always fought for you"
The applause was slightly tepid.
It was a moment of irony.
The former Mayor signed the subdivision agreement.
The site was set aside with three others for school sites.
No park site was required.
$2 million dollars in lieu of a park was taken instead.
A former Councillor and chairman of the parks and recreation advisory committee was on record as opposed to neighborhood parks. Because they cost too much to maintain.
Land recommended for purchase, for a community park , at raw land prices was rejected by the pair and their cohorts. Including Gaertner and Gallo.
The neighbors are naturally not interested in history.
Nor are they suggesting the town pay tens of millions for the school site.
They just don't want more houses or more traffic . And they want the site to become a park.
Let Me Count The Ways
In Richmond Hill, there are parents of a family with a closing date for a new home in Aurora.
In Aurora , there's a builder ready to meet a commitment to meet the closing date for the home he built for the Richmond Hill family.
Also in Aurora , there's a team of professional staff who cannot authorize what is needed for
grading of the lot of the new home to be completed for occupancy by the closing date.
Also in Aurora as a matter of the public record, eleven pages of legal opinion from the town solicitor advises the political body they cannot withhold permission for that which is necessary to allow grading of the lot of the home built by the builder to be ready for the new Aurora family on the date committed to close.
Of Aurora Council ,five members steadfastly refused to accept legal advice from the town's solicitor.
Councillors John Abel , Sandra Humfreys ,John Gallo, Wendy Gaertner and Chris Ballard
voted to deny that which is necessary for the home to be completed by the closing date.
At the behest of neighbors who believe their right is paramount to enjoy the sight of trees bought and paid for and owned by a new neighbor , the five voted together, to a round of unneighborly applause .......
For a resolution to
SAVE THE TREES
The lot is currently being graded in accordance with approved grades, with three trees standing on a mound twelve feet away from the house and the walkout basement doors
Somebody should take a pictur.
In Aurora , there's a builder ready to meet a commitment to meet the closing date for the home he built for the Richmond Hill family.
Also in Aurora , there's a team of professional staff who cannot authorize what is needed for
grading of the lot of the new home to be completed for occupancy by the closing date.
Also in Aurora as a matter of the public record, eleven pages of legal opinion from the town solicitor advises the political body they cannot withhold permission for that which is necessary to allow grading of the lot of the home built by the builder to be ready for the new Aurora family on the date committed to close.
Of Aurora Council ,five members steadfastly refused to accept legal advice from the town's solicitor.
Councillors John Abel , Sandra Humfreys ,John Gallo, Wendy Gaertner and Chris Ballard
voted to deny that which is necessary for the home to be completed by the closing date.
At the behest of neighbors who believe their right is paramount to enjoy the sight of trees bought and paid for and owned by a new neighbor , the five voted together, to a round of unneighborly applause .......
For a resolution to
SAVE THE TREES
The lot is currently being graded in accordance with approved grades, with three trees standing on a mound twelve feet away from the house and the walkout basement doors
Somebody should take a pictur.
What the
I wrote a post already this morning. I went in later to correct errors. The post vanished before my very eyes,
My granddaughter tells me nothing is ever lost. It's just tucked away somewhere, I don't want to write it again so It will have to wait till she comes home to help me find it.
Unless someone out there already has it printed ad can by the magic of modern technology flip it back to me.
It would be much appreciated.
My granddaughter tells me nothing is ever lost. It's just tucked away somewhere, I don't want to write it again so It will have to wait till she comes home to help me find it.
Unless someone out there already has it printed ad can by the magic of modern technology flip it back to me.
It would be much appreciated.
Monday, 14 October 2013
A Little Information is a Dangerous Thing
E-mails are coming in fast and furious , urging council to keep the vacant site on Mavrinac vacant,
The neighbors want a park on the site. It showed on the plan as a school site when they bought their homes.
Traffic is growing and they don't want any more houses.
Councillor Gallo's letter ,circulated throughout the neighborhood , gives scant information.
The site is owned by the developer, obligated to set it aside until the schoolboard could decide .on the basis of school population ,whether it would be needed.
Four sites were set aside for schools. Three have been taken up. None for a park The Town took $2million instead.
One of the sites is for a public high school.
The value of the site reflects the number of lots that can be created or the number of units if a town house application is made.
The neighbors were not informed about that. They may not be in the mood to hear it . That would be part of the calculation when the letter was circulated before details could be released.
The $2 million dollars the town took from the developer reflected the value of raw land, the value when the developer was obliged to provide land for a park.
More later.
The neighbors want a park on the site. It showed on the plan as a school site when they bought their homes.
Traffic is growing and they don't want any more houses.
Councillor Gallo's letter ,circulated throughout the neighborhood , gives scant information.
The site is owned by the developer, obligated to set it aside until the schoolboard could decide .on the basis of school population ,whether it would be needed.
Four sites were set aside for schools. Three have been taken up. None for a park The Town took $2million instead.
One of the sites is for a public high school.
The value of the site reflects the number of lots that can be created or the number of units if a town house application is made.
The neighbors were not informed about that. They may not be in the mood to hear it . That would be part of the calculation when the letter was circulated before details could be released.
The $2 million dollars the town took from the developer reflected the value of raw land, the value when the developer was obliged to provide land for a park.
More later.
Sunday, 13 October 2013
When is a Secret Not a Secret
The subdivision agreement gives the town first right of refusal if a school board has no need of a site
set aside for a possible school.
The agreement is a public document.
For the town to be considering first right of refusal means the school board has decided not to use the site. It must be a matter of public record.
That a decision is pending can be deduced from that which is already public. information.
In camera meetings happen when the municipal interest needs to be protected
Only three aspects of this issue are not already public; an acceptable price., the right purpose and the decision
I'm not sure why the asking price for the land should be the town's secret to keep.
Tenders are opened in public. Bids are analyzed and listed in public. Recommndation is submitted to Council and subject to debate;
I believe the decision to be made on the unneeded school site should debated and decided in public.
For that reason, Councillor Gallo's use of town stationery to under-inform a specific neighborhood is of secondary importance.
The real question is when does the public officially get to hear about it?
set aside for a possible school.
The agreement is a public document.
For the town to be considering first right of refusal means the school board has decided not to use the site. It must be a matter of public record.
That a decision is pending can be deduced from that which is already public. information.
In camera meetings happen when the municipal interest needs to be protected
Only three aspects of this issue are not already public; an acceptable price., the right purpose and the decision
I'm not sure why the asking price for the land should be the town's secret to keep.
Tenders are opened in public. Bids are analyzed and listed in public. Recommndation is submitted to Council and subject to debate;
I believe the decision to be made on the unneeded school site should debated and decided in public.
For that reason, Councillor Gallo's use of town stationery to under-inform a specific neighborhood is of secondary importance.
The real question is when does the public officially get to hear about it?
Anothe Pot Boiler On The Way
I'm back. I need you to think about something.
Remembe the tumult a few weeks ago when Bell Telephone erected a tower to better serve cell phones clients in the neighbourhood.
It was in a field in King Township.
In contrast to wood poles and wires everywhereI I found the white tripod outlined against blue sky with white clouds scudding about. neat and appealing. If we must have modrn amenities and it seems we do , the simplicity of the tower is a vast impovement over what has beeen.
But some of the nearest neighbours were furious. they had not een consulted.
Despite assurance the Town had no authority in the matter of a cell phones tower in a field in a neighboring muncicpality.
Despite that King Township had dome everything required under Federal law and their own regulations.
The neighbors demanded the town spend whatever it cost to file an injunction to stop the erection of the Tower.
It was already up and running.
Then the fact a communication had gone out from the Town's planning department stating the Town had mo comments was discovered.
We had no comments.
Then the demand was for a judicial inquiry to track down the villainous staff person who sent out the communication.
Notwithstanding that judicial inquiries cost millions and would accomplish nothing useful, the neighbors continued to insist.
The only thing sillier was the majority of Council seriously considered the outrageous demand.
We have a legal department consisting of two solicitors ,three law clerks and one other.
But Council authorized an outside legal opinion about the logic doing it.
It cost $9,000 of your hard-earned tax dollars.
The advice confirmed what had been said already.
Spending massive amounts to challenge Bell's authority to do business would be utterly futile.
I still find it mind-boggling.
But I have another reason to ask you to think about it.
Supposing a majority (there were some) was in favour of an inquiry.
What would have been the purpose.?
Find out who sent the e-mail stating the Town had no comment.
Then we would all know why Council could not acced to the neighbors demands.
We would have a fall guy.
What would they have done then to satisfy the mob?
Now fast forward.
Why did staff insist Council had to make the decisions about the trees at 33 Longthorpe Crescent?
Do you begin to have a glimmer of undestanding about how this Council functions ?
Even as we speak syet another pot is being stirred in the north east of Town by Councillor Gallo.
A school site is being relinquished in a new subdivision. The Town has first right of refusal to buy the site.
No park was required in the subdivision agreement. $2 million was extracted instead.
Councillor Gallo has notified the neighborhood the site is available and invited their input.
They want a park, tennis courts, ic surface or a swimming pool on the site.
They think it belongs to the town and plans are to give it back to the developer.
Remembe the tumult a few weeks ago when Bell Telephone erected a tower to better serve cell phones clients in the neighbourhood.
It was in a field in King Township.
In contrast to wood poles and wires everywhereI I found the white tripod outlined against blue sky with white clouds scudding about. neat and appealing. If we must have modrn amenities and it seems we do , the simplicity of the tower is a vast impovement over what has beeen.
But some of the nearest neighbours were furious. they had not een consulted.
Despite assurance the Town had no authority in the matter of a cell phones tower in a field in a neighboring muncicpality.
Despite that King Township had dome everything required under Federal law and their own regulations.
The neighbors demanded the town spend whatever it cost to file an injunction to stop the erection of the Tower.
It was already up and running.
Then the fact a communication had gone out from the Town's planning department stating the Town had mo comments was discovered.
We had no comments.
Then the demand was for a judicial inquiry to track down the villainous staff person who sent out the communication.
Notwithstanding that judicial inquiries cost millions and would accomplish nothing useful, the neighbors continued to insist.
The only thing sillier was the majority of Council seriously considered the outrageous demand.
We have a legal department consisting of two solicitors ,three law clerks and one other.
But Council authorized an outside legal opinion about the logic doing it.
It cost $9,000 of your hard-earned tax dollars.
The advice confirmed what had been said already.
Spending massive amounts to challenge Bell's authority to do business would be utterly futile.
I still find it mind-boggling.
But I have another reason to ask you to think about it.
Supposing a majority (there were some) was in favour of an inquiry.
What would have been the purpose.?
Find out who sent the e-mail stating the Town had no comment.
Then we would all know why Council could not acced to the neighbors demands.
We would have a fall guy.
What would they have done then to satisfy the mob?
Now fast forward.
Why did staff insist Council had to make the decisions about the trees at 33 Longthorpe Crescent?
Do you begin to have a glimmer of undestanding about how this Council functions ?
Even as we speak syet another pot is being stirred in the north east of Town by Councillor Gallo.
A school site is being relinquished in a new subdivision. The Town has first right of refusal to buy the site.
No park was required in the subdivision agreement. $2 million was extracted instead.
Councillor Gallo has notified the neighborhood the site is available and invited their input.
They want a park, tennis courts, ic surface or a swimming pool on the site.
They think it belongs to the town and plans are to give it back to the developer.
Saturday, 12 October 2013
Last Post of the Week-end
This will be my last post this week-end. My reservoir of good intent is at low ebb. Hardly the right mood for Thanksgiving week-end.
I made a serious mistake.
A particularly virulent attack that made me come to grips with blog being used in a way tI do not use it, was published in error.
I apologize to the parties for that.
I spent the morning writing a response, documenting how a subdivision is planned, how park sites are chosen and why I did not vote to spend millions on a sliver of land in a completed subdivision.
The response received was brusque. "send me your phone number."
It prompted a memory of a situation during the 2003/6 term of office,
An application was received for a parcel on John West Way , designated for multiple residential-institutional use .
The land had sat vacant long after the Town house neighborhood was complete. A change in use had already been processed to provide a buffer between the town houses and Bayview Avenue commercial use.
Residents of town houses backing onto the land had enjoyed free use of the property. Some had installed gates from rear yards.
Council was lobbied for the town to purchase the multi-million dollar parcel for a park. All kindsof nightmare scenarios were presented. An incinerator for body parts and other unmentionables was
speculated. One resident claimed to have first-hand knowledge of the aawful consequences of approving the application.
John Gallo was spokesperson for the residents as President of the Ratepayers Association..
History repeats itself. Councillor Gallo has informed neighbors of a decision pertaining to a site for a school and not required. The town has first right of refusal .
The matter was dealt with in camera in an abundance of caution . It would have been better not. The community had no opportunity to hear the rational ,pro and con, for the Council decision.
Residents are now expressing their desire for the land to be purchased for park.
A couple of weeks ago, I knew nothing about this site . I received an e-mail expressing serious concern about it being used as a dump.
" Neighbors push wheel barrow loads of yard and household waste down the street and dump it over the fence" I was told. The last straw was when an elderly woman carried an animal carcass down the street in broad daylight and dumped that over the fence as well.
The plea was for the town to do something about the problem.
The town already had a file on the problem.
*****************
The last comment I received this morning was particularly obnoxious . It was in defense of Council Gaertner. The Councillor;s unfounded speculation the builder of the house at 33 Longthorpe Court had deliberately planned the need to cut down the trees, was repeated .
As always I was accused of being the true villain of the piece and architect of all that's mean and spiteful and malfeasance into the bargain.
About the same time that Mr. Gallo was petitioning Council to purchase land at a cost of millions with potential for hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue, Councillor Gaertner's
eligibility to retain her seat was less than certain.
The family home was sold. The clerk was having trouble making contact Phone calls to the Councillor's elderly parent's home in North York , answered in the Councillor's voice, denied her presence. Finally an address in Aurora was provided .
The Councillor was said to be renting a room in the home of a Council colleague.
When the family were re-united a new home was purchased in Aurora.
Problem solved.
So, you know, like I said the other day, I have taken my share of drubbing.
I Still do.
But even in the best of times, I will take only so much before I lobb some of it back.
Have a great Thanksgiving everybody
I made a serious mistake.
A particularly virulent attack that made me come to grips with blog being used in a way tI do not use it, was published in error.
I apologize to the parties for that.
I spent the morning writing a response, documenting how a subdivision is planned, how park sites are chosen and why I did not vote to spend millions on a sliver of land in a completed subdivision.
The response received was brusque. "send me your phone number."
It prompted a memory of a situation during the 2003/6 term of office,
An application was received for a parcel on John West Way , designated for multiple residential-institutional use .
The land had sat vacant long after the Town house neighborhood was complete. A change in use had already been processed to provide a buffer between the town houses and Bayview Avenue commercial use.
Residents of town houses backing onto the land had enjoyed free use of the property. Some had installed gates from rear yards.
Council was lobbied for the town to purchase the multi-million dollar parcel for a park. All kindsof nightmare scenarios were presented. An incinerator for body parts and other unmentionables was
speculated. One resident claimed to have first-hand knowledge of the aawful consequences of approving the application.
John Gallo was spokesperson for the residents as President of the Ratepayers Association..
History repeats itself. Councillor Gallo has informed neighbors of a decision pertaining to a site for a school and not required. The town has first right of refusal .
The matter was dealt with in camera in an abundance of caution . It would have been better not. The community had no opportunity to hear the rational ,pro and con, for the Council decision.
Residents are now expressing their desire for the land to be purchased for park.
A couple of weeks ago, I knew nothing about this site . I received an e-mail expressing serious concern about it being used as a dump.
" Neighbors push wheel barrow loads of yard and household waste down the street and dump it over the fence" I was told. The last straw was when an elderly woman carried an animal carcass down the street in broad daylight and dumped that over the fence as well.
The plea was for the town to do something about the problem.
The town already had a file on the problem.
*****************
The last comment I received this morning was particularly obnoxious . It was in defense of Council Gaertner. The Councillor;s unfounded speculation the builder of the house at 33 Longthorpe Court had deliberately planned the need to cut down the trees, was repeated .
As always I was accused of being the true villain of the piece and architect of all that's mean and spiteful and malfeasance into the bargain.
About the same time that Mr. Gallo was petitioning Council to purchase land at a cost of millions with potential for hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue, Councillor Gaertner's
eligibility to retain her seat was less than certain.
The family home was sold. The clerk was having trouble making contact Phone calls to the Councillor's elderly parent's home in North York , answered in the Councillor's voice, denied her presence. Finally an address in Aurora was provided .
The Councillor was said to be renting a room in the home of a Council colleague.
When the family were re-united a new home was purchased in Aurora.
Problem solved.
So, you know, like I said the other day, I have taken my share of drubbing.
I Still do.
But even in the best of times, I will take only so much before I lobb some of it back.
Have a great Thanksgiving everybody
An E-mail exchange
Below is my response to a resident's concern. I tried to put his e-mail first and my response to follow.
But it didn't work .
I don't know why
She swallowed a fly
Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.
There is information relevant to the issue.
First is the nature of a subdivision agreement:
School Boards and the municipality are required to indicate at the time of a development proposal whether sites for schools or a park will be required.In turn, the applicant is required to set aside whatever sites may be indicated.
Often it's many years before a subdivision plan is complete. When there is considerable development going on, the need for a school in a particular area is not always clear.
If sites are not requested at the beginning of the planning process, they cannot be obtained afterwards.
This subdivision agreement called for the town to have first right of refusal if sites chosen by the school boards are not required.
The price at that point is no longer for raw land .It's a reflection of all the costs of developing the subdivision; cost of your lot multiplied many times over.
In this instance ,the town did not require a park site based on the Master Recreation Plan .
That's the document that supports the calculation for development charges.
It's a convoluted process .
Sometimes when I try to explain it I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to glaze over as they conclude I'm giving them the run around. Nothing can be that complicated. Unfortunately for all of us, it is that complicated and worse.
Because we did not require a park ,we took 2 million dollars in lieu instead.
The town's need now is for community park. It's a large parcel that will accommodate
a variety of sports fields such as you mention and parking , servicing, toilets lighting nd all the other amenities you can imagine.
The town, by law, only take five percent of land for a park . It means a community park designation will not come from any development currently designated.
It follows if we are to provide such a facility, a large parcel of land will have to be purchased.
The site at Mavrinac is surrounded by homes.
Our regulations call for buffers to be established between homes and parks. By the time a buffer would be provided the site would hardly accommodate any of the facilities that interest you.
The price would be what it cost to provide roads and services , carrying charges for money and the years it took for that and all the professional services necessary to complete the process.
Your home probably incurred $100.000 in taxes even before it was built.
The market value assessment to determine the level of property taxes to be paid to the corporation for your share of municipal services includes all those hidden taxes.
You pay interest on the mortgage you raised to pay the hidden taxes.
You pay taxes on taxes for as long as you own the home.
You contributed to the $2 million dollars the town took in lieu of parks.
And you still did not pay what it would cost to purchase that land for a small neighborhood park.
Council must make the decision to exercise the option or not.
I have voted no.
I hope the above explanation helps to explain why.
You can't afford it and neither can I.
Evelyn Buck
Our family is has come to realize you are meeting to discuss the open lot on Mavrinac Blvd. (2B lands, block 208) in the coming weekWe are Aurora residents who live across from this lot .*******************
We wish to express our desire that the land become a park or other public space such as tennis courts, baseball diamond, outdoor rink or pool.
We have two young daughters and believe that family amenities are badly needed in this area.Current parks are crowded and there is a lack of public space most notably tennis courts, baseball diamonds and pools (we come from an area that had all these amenities nearby).Further to this we would like to note that something should be done to calm traffic on this street rather than make it worst and we are hopeful that you will not allow development of townhouses on this land as it is already very densely developed and traffic is a concern especially with a 1 and 3 year old who plays outdoors often.Thank you and looking forward to meeting you in person,_____________________
Friday, 11 October 2013
A Quandary Resolved
I really appreciate receiving comments. They validate what I'm doing here. It has to be really obscene for me to reject instantly.
Otherwise I hmm and haw, generally prevaricate and most often publish.
I can't justify that any more.
As a general principle, my remarks are not personal. The post is a political free-for-all. Whoever chooses to engage in town politics at any level should know that here, nothing, absolutely nothing is sacrosanct
It's my blog. I don't do it. So please refrain.
Otherwise I hmm and haw, generally prevaricate and most often publish.
I can't justify that any more.
As a general principle, my remarks are not personal. The post is a political free-for-all. Whoever chooses to engage in town politics at any level should know that here, nothing, absolutely nothing is sacrosanct
It's my blog. I don't do it. So please refrain.
About Ownership and Property Rights
A neighbor walked past my house a couple of days ago. She called to me:
"I don't know how often you get told Evelyn. You're doing a good job for us on Council. We need you there"
My neighbor is an original home-owner, as I am. Her house is on Knowles Crescent.
It's a street of fifty-nine homes. The Town spent a million dollars during the last term , re-paving,
installing storm sewers, curbs and gutters. It's picture postcard pretty.
Five home-owners got $60,000 distributed among them to fix up their driveways in the style they were accustomed on threat of taking legal action against the town.
I wasn't persuaded that was right and I said so. I was pretty sure the neighbors would feel the same way about using their tax dollars that way.
I received an invitation on Sunday to visit 33 Longthorpe Crescent from the owner of 31 Longthorpe. He wanted to illustrate how Number 33 could be graded to suit the purpose of the owner of 31. His.
I politely refused . I talked a bit about the excitement of kids making new friends and creating a new neighborhood.
I had been to the site before. I knew all I needed to know about the lay of the land .
Number 33 is different from the rest. It's the end of a cul-de-sac...pie-shaped with rear lot lines shaped like patchwork in a quilt. The abutting lots belong to the same neighbors objecting to removal of trees that don't belong to them.
As a councillor,I have nothing to say about how lots are graded. Developers hire engineers to do that.
Plans are submitted to the town and engineers check them out and give them the stamp of approval.
I think that's how it should be.
Even if I didn't, interference on my part would be seen as micro-managing and that's definitely a no-no.
Five thousand trees have just been cut down on a development on Leslie Street in the vicinity of St.John's Side Road.
The town hasn't heard a dickie -bird about that. Not from Councillors, neighbors or passers-by.Not even from Susan Walmer, passionate advocate of the crazy bylaw to permit injury
and destruction to trees.
Ms Walmer was at Council on Tuesday, speaking in passionate support of a more restrictive bylaw.
Council was informed ,municipalities who have one don't prosecute .
Maybe because no judge is likely to punish a person for cutting down his own trees on his own property for his own good reason.
Especially if the penalty is a fine in excess of a hundred thousand dollars like Councillor Gaertner would like to see.
Councillor Gaertner owns neither property nor tree.
Twenty-per-cent Logic Eighty-per-cent Emotion
It" s nice being the hero of the day. I like it. But there's neighbour with a problem that needs to be resolved and we should get at it.
Yoir Council is not altogether atfault There's enough blame to go around. Mistakes were made and it's time to talk less and ghet it fixed.
With one exception ,everybody at the table realised on Tuesday ,the gig was up. For the grading to srve its purpose the trees had to go. Like it or not ,the neighbours will just have to put up with it.
Tuesday night I called the Mayor's attention three times to the question on the table. It was to approve the planting plan. Three times he acknowledged I ws right but added it was sensitive subject and he would allow the cmments.
I have never seen aanything resolved by circuitous discussion.
Councillor Humphreys acknowledged she understood the solicitor;s advice that Council never had the authority to approve or disapprove but as she listened to what she was saying her anger grew visibly and she vowed to vote for the trees.
The Mayor thought he was doing the right thing and with discussion Council would arrive at thee right decision. Then he failed to bring the quuestion to the point of decision.
Councillor Gaertner got riled up enough to accuse the builder of deliberately plotting to destroy the trees. I heard a short bark and the builder nearly jumped out of his seat.
Councillor Gaertner's often makes everybody in a room gasp while the Councillor herself remains totally oblivious to the reaction.
Councillor Gallo, Ballard and Gaertner have formed a loose alliance. I think they look to each other for support ,then find themselves under an obligation to do so.
The mayor took the thing to a point where he didn't know how to bring it to a close.
There wasa group of neighbours. There was applause for people who said the right thing. That has a powerful effect on Councillors. They're on camera. What if the crowd gets out of hand.
The Mayor said at the beginning we are going to deal with civility. And he meant that.
But you know, to keep control, when you have a bunch of people sure they are right and determned for things to go their way, you have to be at least as bloody -minded as they are .
The Mayor did say he would clear the room if they didn't respect the Council.
"We do the talking " he said. I thought that was a good line.
But it went on too long nd then he turned to the CAO and asked if he had a solution forCouncil.
I objected on a point of order.
The CAO said. "Table the recommendation and pass a resolution to save the trees. "
Well, you know, I culdn't believe it.
The eleven page report .written by the solicitor, set out in detail why Council had no authority in the matter of the trees. The question to be decided was the plan for planting seven tees , replacing three
that had to be removed.
I've never seen a solictor's clear and unequivocal advice rejected .
The report was signed by the solicitor, the planning director and the C.A.O.
And Council did what he said.Which was nothing.
We did not approve the planting plan. We passed a resolution "to save the trees"
Like we're going to place guards around trees privately owned on private property twenty-for hours
seven days a week.
Like I said. A new neighbour has a problem.
He has seen the enemy. And we are it.
What it will take now is for a Councillor who argued and voted twice for a decision he did not have the authority to make, has to have the courage to admit he did not understand, and ask for the vote to be re-considered.
The problem will not correct itself.
It remains.
Yoir Council is not altogether atfault There's enough blame to go around. Mistakes were made and it's time to talk less and ghet it fixed.
With one exception ,everybody at the table realised on Tuesday ,the gig was up. For the grading to srve its purpose the trees had to go. Like it or not ,the neighbours will just have to put up with it.
Tuesday night I called the Mayor's attention three times to the question on the table. It was to approve the planting plan. Three times he acknowledged I ws right but added it was sensitive subject and he would allow the cmments.
I have never seen aanything resolved by circuitous discussion.
Councillor Humphreys acknowledged she understood the solicitor;s advice that Council never had the authority to approve or disapprove but as she listened to what she was saying her anger grew visibly and she vowed to vote for the trees.
The Mayor thought he was doing the right thing and with discussion Council would arrive at thee right decision. Then he failed to bring the quuestion to the point of decision.
Councillor Gaertner got riled up enough to accuse the builder of deliberately plotting to destroy the trees. I heard a short bark and the builder nearly jumped out of his seat.
Councillor Gaertner's often makes everybody in a room gasp while the Councillor herself remains totally oblivious to the reaction.
Councillor Gallo, Ballard and Gaertner have formed a loose alliance. I think they look to each other for support ,then find themselves under an obligation to do so.
The mayor took the thing to a point where he didn't know how to bring it to a close.
There wasa group of neighbours. There was applause for people who said the right thing. That has a powerful effect on Councillors. They're on camera. What if the crowd gets out of hand.
The Mayor said at the beginning we are going to deal with civility. And he meant that.
But you know, to keep control, when you have a bunch of people sure they are right and determned for things to go their way, you have to be at least as bloody -minded as they are .
The Mayor did say he would clear the room if they didn't respect the Council.
"We do the talking " he said. I thought that was a good line.
But it went on too long nd then he turned to the CAO and asked if he had a solution forCouncil.
I objected on a point of order.
The CAO said. "Table the recommendation and pass a resolution to save the trees. "
Well, you know, I culdn't believe it.
The eleven page report .written by the solicitor, set out in detail why Council had no authority in the matter of the trees. The question to be decided was the plan for planting seven tees , replacing three
that had to be removed.
I've never seen a solictor's clear and unequivocal advice rejected .
The report was signed by the solicitor, the planning director and the C.A.O.
And Council did what he said.Which was nothing.
We did not approve the planting plan. We passed a resolution "to save the trees"
Like we're going to place guards around trees privately owned on private property twenty-for hours
seven days a week.
Like I said. A new neighbour has a problem.
He has seen the enemy. And we are it.
What it will take now is for a Councillor who argued and voted twice for a decision he did not have the authority to make, has to have the courage to admit he did not understand, and ask for the vote to be re-considered.
The problem will not correct itself.
It remains.
Thursday, 10 October 2013
How To Grade a Lot
This brochure is from www.aurora.ca . if you are not familiar with this brochure, i would read it because it visually outlines how PROPER GRADING AND DRAINAGE should be performed!!
Go to figure 3, since it shows that water should go directly away from the back of a walkout basement, not sideways along the foundation and out through the centre of the yard.
Has everyone lost their common sense when analyzing the issue at 33 Longthorpe. If they cannot see the light in this matter, I highly recommend the town revise this brochure from Engineering Services
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
What's Your Price?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Environmental Purity":
10:16.... should have thrown the crackpot in jail.
She objected because the company that had the contract to tablulate the census was Lockheed-Martin (a US mega corporation that among other things is a defense contractor).
When the RFP was issued, Lockheed-Martin was the ONLY response.
What can you do? The government would have been chastised if they did not issue an RFP; then they are chastised when they do and award the contract.
Now you have wackos objecting. Lock her up.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 9 October 2013 13:24
*************************
1.1 billion dollars of tax revenues thrown away when legitimate contracts were cancelled by the government that signed them in the first place.
The same government that committed to close coal burning plants in the same location on the eve of a previous government.
The same politicians elected to protect taxpayers from the excesses of bureaucracy.
10:16.... should have thrown the crackpot in jail.
She objected because the company that had the contract to tablulate the census was Lockheed-Martin (a US mega corporation that among other things is a defense contractor).
When the RFP was issued, Lockheed-Martin was the ONLY response.
What can you do? The government would have been chastised if they did not issue an RFP; then they are chastised when they do and award the contract.
Now you have wackos objecting. Lock her up.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 9 October 2013 13:24
*************************
1.1 billion dollars of tax revenues thrown away when legitimate contracts were cancelled by the government that signed them in the first place.
The same government that committed to close coal burning plants in the same location on the eve of a previous government.
The same politicians elected to protect taxpayers from the excesses of bureaucracy.
The Pretzel Performance
I heard something horrifying yasterday. Grossly unjust. I can't believe it happened in our town.
Last night I asked for an item to be added to the in -camera agenda and it was.
I am responsible to protect the privacy of the individual so I can't provide details. But I also needed
to double check the facts.
Surprisingly that proved to be problematic. Asking for the facts might be perceived as "micro-managing"
Perish that thought.
The job of a twenty-sixyear employee with an unblemished record is said to have been wiped out
and taken away in re-organising for the customer service plan.
"Isn't that what you wanted ...for jobs to be reduced" I was asked.
I ended up swearing at a Councillor.
He asked "What do you want us to do? Storm the Bastille. ?"
"Damned right" I said. " and I will storm the F...... Bastille if I something so f.....unfair is going on"
When I calmed down, I thought about their reaction.
The administration is the Bastille? A No Go for Councillors?
The role of Councillor is nothing more than social convener.
Concerts, Sports Hall of Fame, entertaining the crowd ,building a teen centre and financing high -brow culture with hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.
When told the poor were rioting because they had no bread, Marie Antoinette said:
"Let them eat cake"
The old bait and switcheroo technique at work here . Now he's for it then he's not. With luck, if someone tries to recall which side he was on, they can easily be convinced he was always on the side of the angels. Whichever that happened to be.
BTW I haven't finished with the Level of Services study yet.
The consultants deemed recreation programs discretionary". They could be eliminated to save money.
Budget for recreation programs is $5 million.
Revenues recovered is $5 million.
Even Steven
No other municipality recovers costs as we do. And it's not all in user fees. Staff actively solicit sponsorships from local business to keep costs down.
There's irony for you Recreation staff ask tax paying employers to contribute to programs for families . And they do so generously.
Then politicians put their hands into the same pockets and take money to hand over to private operations.
Council is currently contemplating delineating an area of downtown to be eligible for grants and loans to spruce up their properties. The largesse to come out of taxpayers pockets.
The idea came from the back room boys.
You don't know who they are.
If I told you, you still wouldn't know.
Last night I asked for an item to be added to the in -camera agenda and it was.
I am responsible to protect the privacy of the individual so I can't provide details. But I also needed
to double check the facts.
Surprisingly that proved to be problematic. Asking for the facts might be perceived as "micro-managing"
Perish that thought.
The job of a twenty-sixyear employee with an unblemished record is said to have been wiped out
and taken away in re-organising for the customer service plan.
"Isn't that what you wanted ...for jobs to be reduced" I was asked.
I ended up swearing at a Councillor.
He asked "What do you want us to do? Storm the Bastille. ?"
"Damned right" I said. " and I will storm the F...... Bastille if I something so f.....unfair is going on"
When I calmed down, I thought about their reaction.
The administration is the Bastille? A No Go for Councillors?
The role of Councillor is nothing more than social convener.
Concerts, Sports Hall of Fame, entertaining the crowd ,building a teen centre and financing high -brow culture with hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.
When told the poor were rioting because they had no bread, Marie Antoinette said:
"Let them eat cake"
The old bait and switcheroo technique at work here . Now he's for it then he's not. With luck, if someone tries to recall which side he was on, they can easily be convinced he was always on the side of the angels. Whichever that happened to be.
BTW I haven't finished with the Level of Services study yet.
The consultants deemed recreation programs discretionary". They could be eliminated to save money.
Budget for recreation programs is $5 million.
Revenues recovered is $5 million.
Even Steven
No other municipality recovers costs as we do. And it's not all in user fees. Staff actively solicit sponsorships from local business to keep costs down.
There's irony for you Recreation staff ask tax paying employers to contribute to programs for families . And they do so generously.
Then politicians put their hands into the same pockets and take money to hand over to private operations.
Council is currently contemplating delineating an area of downtown to be eligible for grants and loans to spruce up their properties. The largesse to come out of taxpayers pockets.
The idea came from the back room boys.
You don't know who they are.
If I told you, you still wouldn't know.
Monday, 7 October 2013
Environmental Purity
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Why Oh Why are there no sensible answers.":
We think we are such big shots ! I once watched from high on a hill how Quebec City got rid of their snow. It was an awesome sight. Trucks came from all directions, in convoys, down to the docks. The snow was simply dumped in the river.
***************************
I read once years ago, Montreal has a trap door in the bridge over the river. They dumped the snow through that trap door into the river.
The Provincial Ministry of the Environment has invited nominations from Municipalities for environmental initiatives.
The Environmental Advisory Committee was created in 2006, I think.
It was to have 7 members. Thirteen people applied. Councillor Gaertner suggested all should be appointed.
They were.
The Director of Public Works was required to attend meetings of the committee as staff support.
He said; "I don't mind Councillor Buck"
In the next budget funds for an environmental engineer were included . Budget for the position, salary, benefits and equipment ,eight years ago was over $100,000.
The Director wasn't required to attend any more meetings.
I queried the function of the environmental engineer. To identify environmental initiatives, was the response.
Every year I asked what environmental initiatives had been identified.
Early this term, a treatment facility for melting snow was recommended. The relatively small gravel permeable parking lot being used to dump the snow ,as to be paved and a facility constructed underneath, intended to remove salt from the snow as it melted in the warmth of the Spring.
This story extends over three Council terms. Different Councillors. Different Mayors.
The project was included in the capital forecast in 2007.
Original total cost was estimated at $ 750,000.
The design of the facility was undertaken at a cost of $167,000.
Early in this term , the project was recommended to proceed.
This Council did not accept the recommendation for the treatment facility the first time . It was established salt could not be removed from snow melt.
The capital forecast increased to $850,000.
The recommendation returned It was no longer salt that needed to be removed. Now it was about pathogens. animal excrement.
Still it wasn't accepted.
The final reason was because the snow dump was in the wellhead protection area. Still it was a no go.
Finally, it is approved to be included in the plans for the $20 million dollar joint facility for works and parks.
It adds a $1,000,000. to the project.
All members of Council, with one exception, agreed to proceed .
No argument was presented to support the decision. The vote was taken and passed
We think we are such big shots ! I once watched from high on a hill how Quebec City got rid of their snow. It was an awesome sight. Trucks came from all directions, in convoys, down to the docks. The snow was simply dumped in the river.
***************************
I read once years ago, Montreal has a trap door in the bridge over the river. They dumped the snow through that trap door into the river.
The Provincial Ministry of the Environment has invited nominations from Municipalities for environmental initiatives.
The Environmental Advisory Committee was created in 2006, I think.
It was to have 7 members. Thirteen people applied. Councillor Gaertner suggested all should be appointed.
They were.
The Director of Public Works was required to attend meetings of the committee as staff support.
He said; "I don't mind Councillor Buck"
In the next budget funds for an environmental engineer were included . Budget for the position, salary, benefits and equipment ,eight years ago was over $100,000.
The Director wasn't required to attend any more meetings.
I queried the function of the environmental engineer. To identify environmental initiatives, was the response.
Every year I asked what environmental initiatives had been identified.
Early this term, a treatment facility for melting snow was recommended. The relatively small gravel permeable parking lot being used to dump the snow ,as to be paved and a facility constructed underneath, intended to remove salt from the snow as it melted in the warmth of the Spring.
This story extends over three Council terms. Different Councillors. Different Mayors.
The project was included in the capital forecast in 2007.
Original total cost was estimated at $ 750,000.
The design of the facility was undertaken at a cost of $167,000.
Early in this term , the project was recommended to proceed.
This Council did not accept the recommendation for the treatment facility the first time . It was established salt could not be removed from snow melt.
The capital forecast increased to $850,000.
The recommendation returned It was no longer salt that needed to be removed. Now it was about pathogens. animal excrement.
Still it wasn't accepted.
The final reason was because the snow dump was in the wellhead protection area. Still it was a no go.
Finally, it is approved to be included in the plans for the $20 million dollar joint facility for works and parks.
It adds a $1,000,000. to the project.
All members of Council, with one exception, agreed to proceed .
No argument was presented to support the decision. The vote was taken and passed
Why Oh Why are there no sensible answers.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Various Degrees of Conundrum":
Another example of pure HOGWASH.
"Salt is used to melt snow and ice.
Straight salt spread on street means no snow to remove from said street."
Straight salt is put on the street in order to prevent it from icing up after you plow it. You don't put salt onto the snow when it's 6 inches deep. You plow the snow with the front of the truck and you salt the road at the back.
What world do you live in?
Moderate comments for this blog.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 7 October 2013 08:55
*******************
O.K. Smart Ass. I'm living in your world obviously or you wouldn't be reading my blog.
You say salt doesn't get spread snow.
We know salt melts ice.
We know salt stops water from freezing into ice.
We know salt certainly would melt snow if it came into contact with snow.
We know melted snow and ice is water.
Now you argue salt doesn't get spread on snow.
And that makes me from another planet.
The point in contention is :
Why are we spending a million dollars on a treatment facility to remove
salt and other ethereal stuff from snow when there is no salt in the snow.
Where there is salt, there cannot be snow.
Furthermore, if there is a problem dumping snow,which has obviously had no contact with
salt ,on the protected area of the well head, why are we dumping it on the wellhead area.
Why, when winters are becoming warmer, have we switched from using a mixture of salt and sand
to using straight salt on primary streets and straight sand on secondary streets. At greater expense
according to consultants examining service levels.
My job is to ask questions. Staff's job is to provide the answers.
Why do we have work crews available to move snow from about one per cent of the streets in town; load it into trucks with a loader the size of a teaspoon and transport it to dump it in a place it shouldn't be, to be treated by a facility constructed under the pavement at a cost of a million dollars.
What are they doing when there is no snow to clear off streets. Would the front end loader and truck be needed, if it wasn't being used to clear snow uncontaminated by salt off a few streets in the town core?
Snow is currently being dumped on a disused parking lot with a permeable surface where it melts
in the Spring thaw sinks into the ground and is filtered on its way down. the same way all the rest of the snow does that falls on Aurora in winter.
The previous snow dump is the current site of the community gardens, flourishing very nicely thank you very much. No harm done there to the environment after many years of winter snow melting in the Spring.
According to Gordon Barnes, resident environmentalist, melted snow from our current site flowed out towards a slow-growing ginko tree in the arboretum and did no harm there either after three or four years of continuous use of that site for dumping snow.
Now then, I may be the only one of nine people at the Council table not satisfied with answers
provided to my questions.
It would be foolish to imagine I am the only taxpayer in town who doesn't recognize a boondoggle when I see one.
If I don't get satisfactory answers, I conclude there are none.
*******************
O.K. Smart Ass. I'm living in your world obviously or you wouldn't be reading my blog.
You say salt doesn't get spread snow.
We know salt melts ice.
We know salt stops water from freezing into ice.
We know salt certainly would melt snow if it came into contact with snow.
We know melted snow and ice is water.
Now you argue salt doesn't get spread on snow.
And that makes me from another planet.
The point in contention is :
Why are we spending a million dollars on a treatment facility to remove
salt and other ethereal stuff from snow when there is no salt in the snow.
Where there is salt, there cannot be snow.
Furthermore, if there is a problem dumping snow,which has obviously had no contact with
salt ,on the protected area of the well head, why are we dumping it on the wellhead area.
Why, when winters are becoming warmer, have we switched from using a mixture of salt and sand
to using straight salt on primary streets and straight sand on secondary streets. At greater expense
according to consultants examining service levels.
My job is to ask questions. Staff's job is to provide the answers.
Why do we have work crews available to move snow from about one per cent of the streets in town; load it into trucks with a loader the size of a teaspoon and transport it to dump it in a place it shouldn't be, to be treated by a facility constructed under the pavement at a cost of a million dollars.
What are they doing when there is no snow to clear off streets. Would the front end loader and truck be needed, if it wasn't being used to clear snow uncontaminated by salt off a few streets in the town core?
Snow is currently being dumped on a disused parking lot with a permeable surface where it melts
in the Spring thaw sinks into the ground and is filtered on its way down. the same way all the rest of the snow does that falls on Aurora in winter.
The previous snow dump is the current site of the community gardens, flourishing very nicely thank you very much. No harm done there to the environment after many years of winter snow melting in the Spring.
According to Gordon Barnes, resident environmentalist, melted snow from our current site flowed out towards a slow-growing ginko tree in the arboretum and did no harm there either after three or four years of continuous use of that site for dumping snow.
Now then, I may be the only one of nine people at the Council table not satisfied with answers
provided to my questions.
It would be foolish to imagine I am the only taxpayer in town who doesn't recognize a boondoggle when I see one.
If I don't get satisfactory answers, I conclude there are none.
Sunday, 6 October 2013
Politics..Politics..Poitics
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Gift That Keeps On
Giving":
" Dropped on them out of the blue " Really? Did it not occur to them that
they might be inconvenienced by the renovation of the buildimg.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 6 October 2013 18:35
*******************
We will hear on Tuesday from aflc users and why they are upset. We are already hearing by e-mail. . I hope the anonymous comment is not a hint of their reception from Council.
I must say it sounds like it
I read it and an old thought re-occurred.
The original decision was to choose the location and retain an architect. Funds estimated for the project were $4.2 million. The main advantage of that option was availability of a site. Buying a new location would have cost more it was thought.
Teen space was to be new and occupy land in front of the building
I did not vote for it for reasons expressed at the time. I thought it was penny wise and pound foolish.
Council approved funding and authorized the competition to choose an architect.
In July a new recommendation was advanced to approve $ 2.6 million additional funds.
,
It occurs to me now, a potential increase to that extent, would dictate a run past the Mayor first before the plan was even formulated.
It would certainly have been vetted by the Executive Management Team and signed off on by the Chief Administrative Officer.
It was two thirds on the way to approval before it even hit an agenda.
And a jam-packed agenda it was. As was the previous and the one before that.None of which were completed although we burned the midnight oil repeatedly.
Many decisions were weighty. None received the attention they deserved.
When I cast my mind back over the summer it seems Council's role in the process has been substantially diminished.
It has never been more obvious.
My argument for a stay... and time to review... was dismissed.
Councillor Abel suggested it was nothing but a delaying tactic. I was opposed to the project from the beginning. He hinted I was aligning myself with the opposition who have their own agenda.
The comments were offensive but I did not take offense. Councillor Abel changes his argument so
often it's like a spinning roulette wheel....round and round it goes... where it stops nobody knows.
The point is , I believe the impetus for the decision made in July was in play long before the recommendation hit the table.
No one person was responsible for the changes in the plan.
Not the architect. Not the Director.
If Councillors outside the circle didn't know the extent of the change how could users
have anticipated how greatly the facility would be altered.
I don't think the decision was made for the benefit of teens or other groups who use the centre.
I think the decision was a political imperative.
Giving":
" Dropped on them out of the blue " Really? Did it not occur to them that
they might be inconvenienced by the renovation of the buildimg.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 6 October 2013 18:35
*******************
We will hear on Tuesday from aflc users and why they are upset. We are already hearing by e-mail. . I hope the anonymous comment is not a hint of their reception from Council.
I must say it sounds like it
I read it and an old thought re-occurred.
The original decision was to choose the location and retain an architect. Funds estimated for the project were $4.2 million. The main advantage of that option was availability of a site. Buying a new location would have cost more it was thought.
Teen space was to be new and occupy land in front of the building
I did not vote for it for reasons expressed at the time. I thought it was penny wise and pound foolish.
Council approved funding and authorized the competition to choose an architect.
In July a new recommendation was advanced to approve $ 2.6 million additional funds.
,
It occurs to me now, a potential increase to that extent, would dictate a run past the Mayor first before the plan was even formulated.
It would certainly have been vetted by the Executive Management Team and signed off on by the Chief Administrative Officer.
It was two thirds on the way to approval before it even hit an agenda.
And a jam-packed agenda it was. As was the previous and the one before that.None of which were completed although we burned the midnight oil repeatedly.
Many decisions were weighty. None received the attention they deserved.
When I cast my mind back over the summer it seems Council's role in the process has been substantially diminished.
It has never been more obvious.
My argument for a stay... and time to review... was dismissed.
Councillor Abel suggested it was nothing but a delaying tactic. I was opposed to the project from the beginning. He hinted I was aligning myself with the opposition who have their own agenda.
The comments were offensive but I did not take offense. Councillor Abel changes his argument so
often it's like a spinning roulette wheel....round and round it goes... where it stops nobody knows.
The point is , I believe the impetus for the decision made in July was in play long before the recommendation hit the table.
No one person was responsible for the changes in the plan.
Not the architect. Not the Director.
If Councillors outside the circle didn't know the extent of the change how could users
have anticipated how greatly the facility would be altered.
I don't think the decision was made for the benefit of teens or other groups who use the centre.
I think the decision was a political imperative.
The Gift That Keeps On Giving
There's a storm brewing over the youth centre plans at the Aurora Family Leisure Complex.
Council approve new plans and $2.6 million additional funds for the project on July 16th.
Four voted against the recommendation . Five were in favour.
We had a jam -packed agenda. One significant decision after another.
We hadn't completed an agenda since May and worked until 12 midnight evey time.
We were in summer recess.
I think the vote came down to Councillors taking sides .
My argument was that we should stop at that point to review everything from the point of several sites being identified as options.
Since the site chosen turned out to have soil problems and cost $2.6 million dollars more to build , I thought that was good reason to review the choice of site.
I was not successful.
Councillor Abel argued I hadn't been in favour of a youth centre from the beginning. I was just trying to sabotage the project. He said the AFLC hadn't been built to Code in the beginning and this Council was having to spend more money to correct the mistakes of the past.
That was the sense of it. The words are mine. If it wasn't so damned insulting and expensive thatlast comment would have made me chuckle.
I don't think of Councillor Abel as the Wise Old Man of the East.
Anyway, users of the AFLC have discovered Council's last decision means their fitness programs will be shut down for the next twelve months and the teen cenre, ather being an addition to the existing building, will be distributed space throughout the centre.
The concept has not been well received. Especially being dropped on them from out of the blue.
A delegation is expected at Tuesday's meeting .
Put out, pardon the pun, users are appealing to their elected representatives to change the decision.
Excuse me whle I turn my face to the side, cover it with my hand and indulge an evil grin..
Council approve new plans and $2.6 million additional funds for the project on July 16th.
Four voted against the recommendation . Five were in favour.
We had a jam -packed agenda. One significant decision after another.
We hadn't completed an agenda since May and worked until 12 midnight evey time.
We were in summer recess.
I think the vote came down to Councillors taking sides .
My argument was that we should stop at that point to review everything from the point of several sites being identified as options.
Since the site chosen turned out to have soil problems and cost $2.6 million dollars more to build , I thought that was good reason to review the choice of site.
I was not successful.
Councillor Abel argued I hadn't been in favour of a youth centre from the beginning. I was just trying to sabotage the project. He said the AFLC hadn't been built to Code in the beginning and this Council was having to spend more money to correct the mistakes of the past.
That was the sense of it. The words are mine. If it wasn't so damned insulting and expensive thatlast comment would have made me chuckle.
I don't think of Councillor Abel as the Wise Old Man of the East.
Anyway, users of the AFLC have discovered Council's last decision means their fitness programs will be shut down for the next twelve months and the teen cenre, ather being an addition to the existing building, will be distributed space throughout the centre.
The concept has not been well received. Especially being dropped on them from out of the blue.
A delegation is expected at Tuesday's meeting .
Put out, pardon the pun, users are appealing to their elected representatives to change the decision.
Excuse me whle I turn my face to the side, cover it with my hand and indulge an evil grin..
Saturday, 5 October 2013
The Road Less Travelled
I'm Not Surprised has left a new comment on your post "The Path Not Chosen":
You chose not to participate; are you really in a position to bitch about the result
Posted by I'm Not Surprised to Our Town and Its Business at 5 October 2013 22:18
*****************
I am participating....Silly.
I am not bitching about the result.
Time allocated to Councillors to speak in Monday's workshop would certainly not have been adequate to deal with the report as I have in several blog posts.
Nine people at the table needing to be accommodated. Everyone entitled to their moment in the sun.
The Mayor invited questions. We were informed we could continue to direct questions to the consultants after the meeting . They would be addressed in the final report.
In any case, I have no questions. I challenge the purpose and merit of the exercise.
In essence, the report concludes the community is satisfied with services provided. There is no concern with cost of service.
Costs are higher in Aurora than municipalities of similar size and structure because our level of service is higher . Like taking 10 kms longer an hour for snow plowing than Newmarket.
The only area where costs can be reduced according to the consultants, is in recreation. Even though it's the only area where costs are recovered by payment of user fees and facility rentals.
The service has been identified by the admiistration as "discretionary" and can therefore be cut completely.
Over $ 7million for fire protection and over $4. million for library services are not included in the calculation of gross operating cost per capita .
$ 980. for every man,woman,child, infant and elderly person for services the town provides without fire protection and library services.
Add the two and the real cost would likely be $1250 . per capita. Far beyond any comparator municipality.
Utter nonsense to suggest level of service might be the culprit.
My obvious conclusion is we are doing a lousy job of managing resources.
That cost is horrendous. And it does not include taxes for the Region and Education purposes. It's only a third of the whole.
I think it's a scandal.
Would consultants put that comment in a report paid for by the client.
Not bloody likely.
Take the Planning Dept, two bodies are assigned to retention and expansion of business.
How do they do that? The report states 100/150 visits are made to business annually.
Pshaw. no such thing.
In a public meeting , the manager was asked and replied he did not consider meeting with business to be his function. It's difficult to identify how the function leads to either expansion or retention of business.
The latest proposal from that division is for Council to put their hands in our pockets for funds to provide grants and loans to property-owners in a particular neighborhood to help them spruce up their properties and theoretically and automatically succeed in business.
In the CAO's department, there's a division for " special projects" It's not traditional. Just started this year. No purpose specified but cost is $150,000.
The consultant finds no room there for savings because the administration deems the service to be "mandatory"
Whereas recreational programs , deemed to be "discretionary" could be cancelled to save cots.
Notwithstanding the contra- indices of such high use and popularity as to bring in millions of dollars in user fees and facility rentals that cover their costs.
I have no questions to ask.
Instead, except for providing information that refutes its own conclusion, I think the report is absolute bunkum.
How'd you like them apples of participation?
Need I say more.
You betcha
You chose not to participate; are you really in a position to bitch about the result
Posted by I'm Not Surprised to Our Town and Its Business at 5 October 2013 22:18
*****************
I am participating....Silly.
I am not bitching about the result.
Time allocated to Councillors to speak in Monday's workshop would certainly not have been adequate to deal with the report as I have in several blog posts.
Nine people at the table needing to be accommodated. Everyone entitled to their moment in the sun.
The Mayor invited questions. We were informed we could continue to direct questions to the consultants after the meeting . They would be addressed in the final report.
In any case, I have no questions. I challenge the purpose and merit of the exercise.
In essence, the report concludes the community is satisfied with services provided. There is no concern with cost of service.
Costs are higher in Aurora than municipalities of similar size and structure because our level of service is higher . Like taking 10 kms longer an hour for snow plowing than Newmarket.
The only area where costs can be reduced according to the consultants, is in recreation. Even though it's the only area where costs are recovered by payment of user fees and facility rentals.
The service has been identified by the admiistration as "discretionary" and can therefore be cut completely.
Over $ 7million for fire protection and over $4. million for library services are not included in the calculation of gross operating cost per capita .
$ 980. for every man,woman,child, infant and elderly person for services the town provides without fire protection and library services.
Add the two and the real cost would likely be $1250 . per capita. Far beyond any comparator municipality.
Utter nonsense to suggest level of service might be the culprit.
My obvious conclusion is we are doing a lousy job of managing resources.
That cost is horrendous. And it does not include taxes for the Region and Education purposes. It's only a third of the whole.
I think it's a scandal.
Would consultants put that comment in a report paid for by the client.
Not bloody likely.
Take the Planning Dept, two bodies are assigned to retention and expansion of business.
How do they do that? The report states 100/150 visits are made to business annually.
Pshaw. no such thing.
In a public meeting , the manager was asked and replied he did not consider meeting with business to be his function. It's difficult to identify how the function leads to either expansion or retention of business.
The latest proposal from that division is for Council to put their hands in our pockets for funds to provide grants and loans to property-owners in a particular neighborhood to help them spruce up their properties and theoretically and automatically succeed in business.
In the CAO's department, there's a division for " special projects" It's not traditional. Just started this year. No purpose specified but cost is $150,000.
The consultant finds no room there for savings because the administration deems the service to be "mandatory"
Whereas recreational programs , deemed to be "discretionary" could be cancelled to save cots.
Notwithstanding the contra- indices of such high use and popularity as to bring in millions of dollars in user fees and facility rentals that cover their costs.
I have no questions to ask.
Instead, except for providing information that refutes its own conclusion, I think the report is absolute bunkum.
How'd you like them apples of participation?
Need I say more.
You betcha
The Path Not Chosen
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Various Degrees of Conundrum":
It sounds as though you have been marginalized in this report. I find it difficult to understand why the consultants did not just phone you with their questions. It is not as if you are off the rada
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 5 October 2013 20:15
***************
I had the opportunity to offer input to the study. Staff let me know when the consultants would be talking to Councillors. It was o be my call to make an appointment.
The Mayor was disappointed that I did not.
I didn't choose to . The consultants probably didn;t know I existed.
I didn't vote in favour of another consultant study.
When politicians want something said and don't want to be the ones to say it, ta consultant is retained, or a solicitor or whoever else they can pay to say it. It's a modern practise.Now that we are not a small town and have a $52 million budget.
Once , many years ao, we had an officer whose advice was always sound and honest. But he had a serious problem getting things done. He was well liked and valued for his strengths . But his weakness was a serious liability to the corporation.
A consultant was retained to discover the problem that we knew full well and recommend a solution.
He advised the position of Chief Administrative Officer would entail making sure things got done in a timely manner.
Recruitment was set in motion. Applications were received.
The person with the problem was appointed to the office with the necessary advance in salary and responsibility.
The story ending was not happy ever after.
Consultant reports can paper over a variety of problems.
With a willing buyer and a willing seller.
I am neither .
My input was unlikely to see the light of day . The clients would have found it unacceptable.
Like any other discordant notes and I'm sure there were some that didn't survive the final edit, it would not have fit the desired outcome
Council has now approved the content.
The final report will be written and presented in December.
To be used for reference henceforth to influence any and all decisions that need to be made.
Particularly at budget.
It sounds as though you have been marginalized in this report. I find it difficult to understand why the consultants did not just phone you with their questions. It is not as if you are off the rada
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 5 October 2013 20:15
***************
I had the opportunity to offer input to the study. Staff let me know when the consultants would be talking to Councillors. It was o be my call to make an appointment.
The Mayor was disappointed that I did not.
I didn't choose to . The consultants probably didn;t know I existed.
I didn't vote in favour of another consultant study.
When politicians want something said and don't want to be the ones to say it, ta consultant is retained, or a solicitor or whoever else they can pay to say it. It's a modern practise.Now that we are not a small town and have a $52 million budget.
Once , many years ao, we had an officer whose advice was always sound and honest. But he had a serious problem getting things done. He was well liked and valued for his strengths . But his weakness was a serious liability to the corporation.
A consultant was retained to discover the problem that we knew full well and recommend a solution.
He advised the position of Chief Administrative Officer would entail making sure things got done in a timely manner.
Recruitment was set in motion. Applications were received.
The person with the problem was appointed to the office with the necessary advance in salary and responsibility.
The story ending was not happy ever after.
Consultant reports can paper over a variety of problems.
With a willing buyer and a willing seller.
I am neither .
My input was unlikely to see the light of day . The clients would have found it unacceptable.
Like any other discordant notes and I'm sure there were some that didn't survive the final edit, it would not have fit the desired outcome
Council has now approved the content.
The final report will be written and presented in December.
To be used for reference henceforth to influence any and all decisions that need to be made.
Particularly at budget.
Various Degrees of Conundrum
I have read it again, ,again and again. Searching over and over for an explanation.
Why Fort Erie and Bradford West Gqillimbury were among comparator municipalities chosen by the consultants for their study of service levels in Aurora.
Fort Erie is away from the epicenter that is the GTA. In Niagara Region.
Bradford West Gwillimbury is part of Simcoe County the largest County in Ontario. But not a Region.
Fort Erie's population is 30,000. Police services are regional. Fire protection is volunteer . Commercial and industrial assessment are negligible.
Fort Erie's budget is $19million about a third of our own but carried by half the number of Aurora's population.
Bradford was amalgamated with West Gwillimbury , a rural township in 1999. Their population is a under 30,000. They too have little commercial or industrial assessment to share the tax burden. Residential property carries the load,
They operate a police department in partnership with Innisfil. They have eight full-time people in the fire department. The Firefighters are volunteers. There's a court house in Bradford. Security is provided by the police department.
In York, that's a regional responsibility.
Bradford West Gwillimbury has hundreds of miles of road to maintain in winter and summer,
Gravel roads wash out in heavy rains.
Maintenance is ongoing, year round.
Farmlands are not assessed at the same rate as urban.
Aurora' s fire protection budget is over 7 million dollars. The library budget is over $4million.
Aurora-Newmarket operate joint fire protection. Newmarket is the senior partner because they are the largest . Not because they are the contractor.
I'm not poring over budgets for details Bits and pieces I obtained in two phone conversations. Precise figures are on web sites of the two municipalities. But for my purpose,it's not certainty of detail is not required.
Comparative per capita cost for service levels not comparative are not likely.
Because they are not, overall placement of Aurora's percentages would be skewed.
Input to the study from the Mayor and Council indicates the community is well pleased with service levels. No concerns are noted with a continually increasing tax burden and gadabout spending.
All Councillors are noted to have participated. I didn't. Seems all who did agreed everything in the garden is rosy.
Interviews were private.
It states Newmarket clears snow at 50 miles per hour. Aurora 41.
The study contends that's higher level of service . Results in higher costs therefore.
I don't think so.
Straight salt is used on primary roads. Sand on secondary.
Also a higher service level justifying higher cost.
I don't think so.
The study makes no reference to requirement for a million dollar treatment facility to remove salt from snow, removed from streets. to be dumped in a well head area.
Where there is salt, there is no snow. No need for warmer temperatures of Spring to melt
Salt is used to melt snow and ice.
Straight salt spread on street means no snow to remove from said street.
That's its purpose.
Input to the study from the administration, indicates a need to "push down " responsibility for decision making to lower echelons to give the CAO time for high level planning.
Apparently people in management positions are in need of skills training to meet the responsibilities of management positions.
Need for re-organisation is indicated in the study. We did that four years ago following another consultant study.
The administration is managed by an Executive Leadership Team. Used to be know as Management Team. More collaboration is needed between Directors who form the Executive Leadership Team .
I'm not done yet.
Why Fort Erie and Bradford West Gqillimbury were among comparator municipalities chosen by the consultants for their study of service levels in Aurora.
Fort Erie is away from the epicenter that is the GTA. In Niagara Region.
Bradford West Gwillimbury is part of Simcoe County the largest County in Ontario. But not a Region.
Fort Erie's population is 30,000. Police services are regional. Fire protection is volunteer . Commercial and industrial assessment are negligible.
Fort Erie's budget is $19million about a third of our own but carried by half the number of Aurora's population.
Bradford was amalgamated with West Gwillimbury , a rural township in 1999. Their population is a under 30,000. They too have little commercial or industrial assessment to share the tax burden. Residential property carries the load,
They operate a police department in partnership with Innisfil. They have eight full-time people in the fire department. The Firefighters are volunteers. There's a court house in Bradford. Security is provided by the police department.
In York, that's a regional responsibility.
Bradford West Gwillimbury has hundreds of miles of road to maintain in winter and summer,
Gravel roads wash out in heavy rains.
Maintenance is ongoing, year round.
Farmlands are not assessed at the same rate as urban.
Aurora' s fire protection budget is over 7 million dollars. The library budget is over $4million.
Aurora-Newmarket operate joint fire protection. Newmarket is the senior partner because they are the largest . Not because they are the contractor.
I'm not poring over budgets for details Bits and pieces I obtained in two phone conversations. Precise figures are on web sites of the two municipalities. But for my purpose,it's not certainty of detail is not required.
Comparative per capita cost for service levels not comparative are not likely.
Because they are not, overall placement of Aurora's percentages would be skewed.
Input to the study from the Mayor and Council indicates the community is well pleased with service levels. No concerns are noted with a continually increasing tax burden and gadabout spending.
All Councillors are noted to have participated. I didn't. Seems all who did agreed everything in the garden is rosy.
Interviews were private.
It states Newmarket clears snow at 50 miles per hour. Aurora 41.
The study contends that's higher level of service . Results in higher costs therefore.
I don't think so.
Straight salt is used on primary roads. Sand on secondary.
Also a higher service level justifying higher cost.
I don't think so.
The study makes no reference to requirement for a million dollar treatment facility to remove salt from snow, removed from streets. to be dumped in a well head area.
Where there is salt, there is no snow. No need for warmer temperatures of Spring to melt
Salt is used to melt snow and ice.
Straight salt spread on street means no snow to remove from said street.
That's its purpose.
Input to the study from the administration, indicates a need to "push down " responsibility for decision making to lower echelons to give the CAO time for high level planning.
Apparently people in management positions are in need of skills training to meet the responsibilities of management positions.
Need for re-organisation is indicated in the study. We did that four years ago following another consultant study.
The administration is managed by an Executive Leadership Team. Used to be know as Management Team. More collaboration is needed between Directors who form the Executive Leadership Team .
I'm not done yet.
Friday, 4 October 2013
The Bad Old Days
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "To Emphasize the Point":
I'm not use if you are referring to the employee of which I m thinking. But one of them had to get a lawyer & fight very hard to get the money to which he was entitled. Hope he is still out there as a character witness.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 4 October 2013
***************
I published the original comment without thinking much about it. It was a long time ago. Long enough that no person's right to privacy could be affected.
But it struck me ,when I received the above, since I knew nothing of it,I have no way of confirming the truth of it. I'm not saying there is none. Just that I don't know it.
So we will say no more about it.
The point being made was funds disbursed in severance packages as a frequent event and no longer, should ,with other factors mentioned contribute to a reduced tax burden.
It was an awful. awful time.
And its not happening now, Thank God!
I'm not use if you are referring to the employee of which I m thinking. But one of them had to get a lawyer & fight very hard to get the money to which he was entitled. Hope he is still out there as a character witness.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 4 October 2013
***************
I published the original comment without thinking much about it. It was a long time ago. Long enough that no person's right to privacy could be affected.
But it struck me ,when I received the above, since I knew nothing of it,I have no way of confirming the truth of it. I'm not saying there is none. Just that I don't know it.
So we will say no more about it.
The point being made was funds disbursed in severance packages as a frequent event and no longer, should ,with other factors mentioned contribute to a reduced tax burden.
It was an awful. awful time.
And its not happening now, Thank God!
I Did Not Know About That One
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "To Emphasize the Point":
I'm not sure if you are referring to the employee of which I m thinking. But one of them had to get a lawyer & fight very hard to get the money to which he was entitled. Hope he is still out there as a character witness
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 4 October 2013 13:09
**********************
No, it wasn't that one and it wasn't two others I know about .
I don't know anything about the one you're talking about.
There was a bylaw officer on contract. They were sloppy about getting contracts signed. Made that the excuse and undertook the expense of recruiting for six positions. Signed up five of the officers they already had on contract.
He sought me out beforehand and told me what they were doing and why.
He was inclined to have his say about people who were not pulling their weight and the job not being done the way it should.
They did exactly what he said they would.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the employee of which I m thinking. But one of them had to get a lawyer & fight very hard to get the money to which he was entitled. Hope he is still out there as a character witness
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 4 October 2013 13:09
**********************
No, it wasn't that one and it wasn't two others I know about .
I don't know anything about the one you're talking about.
There was a bylaw officer on contract. They were sloppy about getting contracts signed. Made that the excuse and undertook the expense of recruiting for six positions. Signed up five of the officers they already had on contract.
He sought me out beforehand and told me what they were doing and why.
He was inclined to have his say about people who were not pulling their weight and the job not being done the way it should.
They did exactly what he said they would.
To Emphasize the Point
This story , like the Consultant Study on Service Levels has a purpose.
In the last term a situation repeated many times. The Mayor took it upon herself to raise hell in a particular direction. An employee of eighteen years standing stood his ground.
It turned out to be in ground for dismissal.
He walked out the door with a settlement sufficient to pay off his mortgage, buy a new car and then some. Started a new job the following Monday in another regional municipality for more money than
he was paid in Aurora after eighteen years.
I asked to be informed of the circumstances. I was refused the information. It was the authority of the administration and not my right to kow.
Of course I kept burrowing and learned what I have revealed above.
I told you it was not a solitary incident.
There was never a separate public accounting of how much tax money was paid out in severance settlements during that time. But there were severl in the hundreds of thousands range.
Then there were the legal fees. Also contrived to remain a dark and dusty secret.
Except for the $70,000 paid to the lawyer to hunt me down like a dog.
The $650,000 it cost for the OMB hearing on the Westhill Development Application. That didn't include all the court proceedings and legal costs beforehand and repeated failure to get a joint board environmental hearing .
Phenomenal waste of resources was reflected in the annual spending levy in the previous term.
The election should have meant an immediate reduction in the tax levy required to support the profligate spending.
It didn't . Each year since taxes continued to increase.
Assessment growth, new grants from gas tax sharing from senior levels of government , intended to lessen the burden on home-owners, create jobs and stimulate the economy , have not reached our pockets.
Even the Province absorbing increases in education taxes for the last ten years has not provided intended relief to the property tax burden.
When the Mayor says taxes must rise he believes that's true. He is not skeptical .
Because it was there when they got there, they think CULTURE is an essential service .
it should be provided "free"
Picking our pockets to distribute largesse to every Tom,Dick and Harry is perfectly acceptable.
To say nothing of pandering shamefully to every outrageous demand from the nimby set within our midst.
The pattern was set by the last lot. It caused them to be ejected without a parachute.
Unfortunately ,those who replaced them, like Michael Ignatieff thought the election was about them. Not the people.
In the last term a situation repeated many times. The Mayor took it upon herself to raise hell in a particular direction. An employee of eighteen years standing stood his ground.
It turned out to be in ground for dismissal.
He walked out the door with a settlement sufficient to pay off his mortgage, buy a new car and then some. Started a new job the following Monday in another regional municipality for more money than
he was paid in Aurora after eighteen years.
I asked to be informed of the circumstances. I was refused the information. It was the authority of the administration and not my right to kow.
Of course I kept burrowing and learned what I have revealed above.
I told you it was not a solitary incident.
There was never a separate public accounting of how much tax money was paid out in severance settlements during that time. But there were severl in the hundreds of thousands range.
Then there were the legal fees. Also contrived to remain a dark and dusty secret.
Except for the $70,000 paid to the lawyer to hunt me down like a dog.
The $650,000 it cost for the OMB hearing on the Westhill Development Application. That didn't include all the court proceedings and legal costs beforehand and repeated failure to get a joint board environmental hearing .
Phenomenal waste of resources was reflected in the annual spending levy in the previous term.
The election should have meant an immediate reduction in the tax levy required to support the profligate spending.
It didn't . Each year since taxes continued to increase.
Assessment growth, new grants from gas tax sharing from senior levels of government , intended to lessen the burden on home-owners, create jobs and stimulate the economy , have not reached our pockets.
Even the Province absorbing increases in education taxes for the last ten years has not provided intended relief to the property tax burden.
When the Mayor says taxes must rise he believes that's true. He is not skeptical .
Because it was there when they got there, they think CULTURE is an essential service .
it should be provided "free"
Picking our pockets to distribute largesse to every Tom,Dick and Harry is perfectly acceptable.
To say nothing of pandering shamefully to every outrageous demand from the nimby set within our midst.
The pattern was set by the last lot. It caused them to be ejected without a parachute.
Unfortunately ,those who replaced them, like Michael Ignatieff thought the election was about them. Not the people.
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Pearls of Wisdom . Or A Handful of Ball Bearings
The interim report on service levels is taking more than reading a couple of times to mke sense of the figures.
Bradford West Gwullimbury and Fort Erie are the only two municipalities with higher per capita cost
for municipal services.
Bradford West Gwillimbury is not a municipality within a Region. Last I heard, police service is their responsibility. That;s a big expense that doesn't show in our per capita cost because cost for policing is at the regional level. Bradford also has a Court House which may r may not mean extra cost for security.
I have a call in to speak to Jay Currier, the CAO.
I spoke to someone in Fort Erie today.They have a population of 30,000. They are in Niagara Region.
They have a Volunteer Fire Brigade . In Aurora Fire Protection costs over $ 7 million . How can we have less per capita cost for service than Fort Erie when we are carrying a heavy burden that they are not.
It's not included in the per capita cost of services. Because we have a contract with Newmarket to provide the service. But we pay for it in our taxes . Why is it not included?
Same thing with the library. Taxes provide the revenue to pay for the service.
The question was asked; why are they not included ? The answer did not register.
Recreation Services are identified as most expensive. But that's not accurate. Recreation programs recover, I think ,75% of their cost. The Clerk tells me , more than most municipalities.
The $400,000 grant and $150,000 maintenance bill for Church Street School is included the cost of recreation. No revenue is collected for rent or user fees . It's a contract for service. Why is it not excluded like Library and Fire protection.
I will continue to read, seek out answers and bring forward delicious little fragments of *contra-indices in the study .
I will keep you posted as I go.
It will be my pleasure.
In an odd little juxtaposition during the meeting , one of the consultants volunteered the information ,
apropos of nothing, that museum's enjoy only 2% support from the public.
Yet the main presenter made no reference to hundreds of thousands of dollars handed out to a faceless Culture Board and free maintenance and use of a facility that cost millions of capital dollars to provide.
* consultant lingo.
Bradford West Gwullimbury and Fort Erie are the only two municipalities with higher per capita cost
for municipal services.
Bradford West Gwillimbury is not a municipality within a Region. Last I heard, police service is their responsibility. That;s a big expense that doesn't show in our per capita cost because cost for policing is at the regional level. Bradford also has a Court House which may r may not mean extra cost for security.
I have a call in to speak to Jay Currier, the CAO.
I spoke to someone in Fort Erie today.They have a population of 30,000. They are in Niagara Region.
They have a Volunteer Fire Brigade . In Aurora Fire Protection costs over $ 7 million . How can we have less per capita cost for service than Fort Erie when we are carrying a heavy burden that they are not.
It's not included in the per capita cost of services. Because we have a contract with Newmarket to provide the service. But we pay for it in our taxes . Why is it not included?
Same thing with the library. Taxes provide the revenue to pay for the service.
The question was asked; why are they not included ? The answer did not register.
Recreation Services are identified as most expensive. But that's not accurate. Recreation programs recover, I think ,75% of their cost. The Clerk tells me , more than most municipalities.
The $400,000 grant and $150,000 maintenance bill for Church Street School is included the cost of recreation. No revenue is collected for rent or user fees . It's a contract for service. Why is it not excluded like Library and Fire protection.
I will continue to read, seek out answers and bring forward delicious little fragments of *contra-indices in the study .
I will keep you posted as I go.
It will be my pleasure.
In an odd little juxtaposition during the meeting , one of the consultants volunteered the information ,
apropos of nothing, that museum's enjoy only 2% support from the public.
Yet the main presenter made no reference to hundreds of thousands of dollars handed out to a faceless Culture Board and free maintenance and use of a facility that cost millions of capital dollars to provide.
* consultant lingo.
It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Doesn't Know Posterior Orifice from a Hole in the ...":
@ 21:49
Being careful to just speak for myself so I don't get my head snapped off, I am deeply disappointed in what we did in that election. And I accept my share of the blame for listening to words that turned out to be as substantial as fluff on the bedroom floor
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 3 October 2013 10:42
*********************
You should not be disappointed in what we did.
There was something evil abroad in our town that had to be cauterized.
The drastic remedy gave us six new Councillors, including the Mayor, with no experience and little background in town affairs or even what t
the election was about.
All they did was offer to serve.
The job looks easy. It's not.
Council has put its best foot forward. They've worked hard with continued energy and enthusiasm.
The shortfall in collective experience just could not be made up. The legacy of problems was terrible. Corrections had to be made that took more than they had to give.
Michael Ignatieff has said he never realized until the night before the election the job was not about him.
It was about the people.
He thought he could be the Prime Minister of Canada without even a sense of what the job was about
let alone the experience to handle it.
Ignatieff had a political party behind him that thought the same.
So don't be so down on yourself.
We did what we had to do.
The play goes on.
@ 21:49
Being careful to just speak for myself so I don't get my head snapped off, I am deeply disappointed in what we did in that election. And I accept my share of the blame for listening to words that turned out to be as substantial as fluff on the bedroom floor
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 3 October 2013 10:42
*********************
You should not be disappointed in what we did.
There was something evil abroad in our town that had to be cauterized.
The drastic remedy gave us six new Councillors, including the Mayor, with no experience and little background in town affairs or even what t
the election was about.
All they did was offer to serve.
The job looks easy. It's not.
Council has put its best foot forward. They've worked hard with continued energy and enthusiasm.
The shortfall in collective experience just could not be made up. The legacy of problems was terrible. Corrections had to be made that took more than they had to give.
Michael Ignatieff has said he never realized until the night before the election the job was not about him.
It was about the people.
He thought he could be the Prime Minister of Canada without even a sense of what the job was about
let alone the experience to handle it.
Ignatieff had a political party behind him that thought the same.
So don't be so down on yourself.
We did what we had to do.
The play goes on.
Higher price...better product? Ain't necessarily so
So now, I've attended to bits and pieces of other business. It's time to get to the Service Levels Study and interim report. I've read it again. It;s important when responding to documentation to be thorough.
First it has to be understood when a consultant is retained ,they are given terms of reference by the client. That's us. Or to be precise, the town's administration.
There's always a purpose for a study. Whether to prove a point or otherwise.
The Mayor's business experience was partner in a consulting business that helped business to solve problems. A consultant study of precise design would be the natural recourse for the Mayor and his supporters on Council to resolve a problem.
So what problem would the Service Levels study resolve. What answers are contained in the interim report.
We are spending more on services than other comparator municipalities.
The study concludes it's because we are providing a higher level of service.
The Mayor posited during Monday's discussion, a higher level of service increases the value of Aurora properties. Conclusion? taxes represent investment.
Huh!! And pigs can fly !!!
It's a good thing the service level study simmered for a couple of days.
I try not to be cynical. But I cling to the right to be skeptical.
The problem identified but not acknowledged is dissatisfaction in the community with continued increase in the tax burden.
The Mayor's recorded opinion supports the requirement for taxes to increase.
In all it's fancy lingo and comparator percentages, the study appears to justify the spending and suggests no opportunity for economy other than reducing jobs.
The term of office is three-quarters complete.
Not a lot of time and only one budget left to make the performance appear to be something other than it is.
Because Excellence it is not.
To be continued:
First it has to be understood when a consultant is retained ,they are given terms of reference by the client. That's us. Or to be precise, the town's administration.
There's always a purpose for a study. Whether to prove a point or otherwise.
The Mayor's business experience was partner in a consulting business that helped business to solve problems. A consultant study of precise design would be the natural recourse for the Mayor and his supporters on Council to resolve a problem.
So what problem would the Service Levels study resolve. What answers are contained in the interim report.
We are spending more on services than other comparator municipalities.
The study concludes it's because we are providing a higher level of service.
The Mayor posited during Monday's discussion, a higher level of service increases the value of Aurora properties. Conclusion? taxes represent investment.
Huh!! And pigs can fly !!!
It's a good thing the service level study simmered for a couple of days.
I try not to be cynical. But I cling to the right to be skeptical.
The problem identified but not acknowledged is dissatisfaction in the community with continued increase in the tax burden.
The Mayor's recorded opinion supports the requirement for taxes to increase.
In all it's fancy lingo and comparator percentages, the study appears to justify the spending and suggests no opportunity for economy other than reducing jobs.
The term of office is three-quarters complete.
Not a lot of time and only one budget left to make the performance appear to be something other than it is.
Because Excellence it is not.
To be continued:
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
Doesn't Know Posterior Orifice from a Hole in the Ground
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Stupid is As Stupid Does":
Thanks for the "news".... When will you and yours get over this? The Hydro building was surplus to the Town. In an effort to not incur costs, parks moved there. It was not a purpose built building for parks.
The QYrR leased this "surplus" building because their own was too old and the Hydro building was available (was it not for sale?).
Clearly you have never dealt with the DND before. Life is not like a box of chocolates with them, what you see is what you get.
And that's all I can say about that.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 2 October 2013 10:06
*********************
The building was never surplus. It was never advertised for sale or lease.
It was purpose built for Aurora Hydro and it perfect for the needs of the town parks department.
They were able to build park furniture and shelters in the winter , for God's sake.
The fact is the Department of National Defense was contemplating shutting down the Aurora Armories. It was their imminent demise that motivated the Queen's York Rangers
Leasing the hydro building to the department of national Defense had nothing whatsoever to do with the interest of the Town of Aurora.
It w as done contrary to the town's interest.
Twenty million dollars contrary.
Thanks for the "news".... When will you and yours get over this? The Hydro building was surplus to the Town. In an effort to not incur costs, parks moved there. It was not a purpose built building for parks.
The QYrR leased this "surplus" building because their own was too old and the Hydro building was available (was it not for sale?).
Clearly you have never dealt with the DND before. Life is not like a box of chocolates with them, what you see is what you get.
And that's all I can say about that.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 2 October 2013 10:06
*********************
The building was never surplus. It was never advertised for sale or lease.
It was purpose built for Aurora Hydro and it perfect for the needs of the town parks department.
They were able to build park furniture and shelters in the winter , for God's sake.
The fact is the Department of National Defense was contemplating shutting down the Aurora Armories. It was their imminent demise that motivated the Queen's York Rangers
Leasing the hydro building to the department of national Defense had nothing whatsoever to do with the interest of the Town of Aurora.
It w as done contrary to the town's interest.
Twenty million dollars contrary.
Tid Bit
At the close of the debate on the tree Bylaw last night, Councillor Gaertner had one last question.
"Is $100,000. the maximum penalty we can impose who cut down trees without permission"
Penalties and punishment do appear to pre-occupy the councillor's attention.
It seems the group are still following in their mentor's footsteps.
Councillors Ballard and Gallo apparently brought an academic, a Professor no less, from Toronto University to convey to people who attende their meeting that Aurora was in cure staits for loss of tree canopy.
Does anyone re-call the Professor who came from Trenton to testify that power lines caused
leukemia in children. The third and last time she came she had a suitcase full of gadgets to schill to protect residents from "dirty"electricity in their homes.
The fear strategy worked . the votes from that side of the town put the former Mayor into the chair,
Then there was the promise existing hydro lines would be buried deep in the ground .
That was never going to happen.
But who remembers?
Oh yes and there was another Professor from York University invited by Her Honour to take the podium during a Council meeting and proclaim to the world that his research proved all decisions made by municipal councils were in favor of developers.
He had checked election expense statements of Councillors in the GTA , but not Aurora, and determined it to be so. Kind of like reading the entrails.
He appeared on Roger's Cable with Jamie Young a couple of times and made the same clam.
Never heard of again after that.
Considering how many government agencies have their hands on development proposals during the ten or fifteen years it takes to get an application approved, the last one being the municipal Council, I'm not sure how the less than eminent Professor came to his conclusion.
I would concur however whoever benefits from Aurora Council decisions an inordinate number are not made to the advantage of the people at large.
Ergo...the Bylaw to Permit Injury and Destruction to Trees
The vote last night was five to four. With Councillors Humfreys,Gaertner,Gallo and Ballard voting in favor of the insanity.
It still has to be ratified by Council next Tuesday.
"Is $100,000. the maximum penalty we can impose who cut down trees without permission"
Penalties and punishment do appear to pre-occupy the councillor's attention.
It seems the group are still following in their mentor's footsteps.
Councillors Ballard and Gallo apparently brought an academic, a Professor no less, from Toronto University to convey to people who attende their meeting that Aurora was in cure staits for loss of tree canopy.
Does anyone re-call the Professor who came from Trenton to testify that power lines caused
leukemia in children. The third and last time she came she had a suitcase full of gadgets to schill to protect residents from "dirty"electricity in their homes.
The fear strategy worked . the votes from that side of the town put the former Mayor into the chair,
Then there was the promise existing hydro lines would be buried deep in the ground .
That was never going to happen.
But who remembers?
Oh yes and there was another Professor from York University invited by Her Honour to take the podium during a Council meeting and proclaim to the world that his research proved all decisions made by municipal councils were in favor of developers.
He had checked election expense statements of Councillors in the GTA , but not Aurora, and determined it to be so. Kind of like reading the entrails.
He appeared on Roger's Cable with Jamie Young a couple of times and made the same clam.
Never heard of again after that.
Considering how many government agencies have their hands on development proposals during the ten or fifteen years it takes to get an application approved, the last one being the municipal Council, I'm not sure how the less than eminent Professor came to his conclusion.
I would concur however whoever benefits from Aurora Council decisions an inordinate number are not made to the advantage of the people at large.
Ergo...the Bylaw to Permit Injury and Destruction to Trees
The vote last night was five to four. With Councillors Humfreys,Gaertner,Gallo and Ballard voting in favor of the insanity.
It still has to be ratified by Council next Tuesday.
Stupid is As Stupid Does
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Tomorrow ...to the meat of a consultant study":
"Possibly some of the developments occurring in such a facility might be dangerous, explosive, toxic - you take your choice."
Talk about "too stupid for words"!
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 1 October 2013 23:05
****************
Let me tell you about stupid.
The town is proceeding with plans for a joint works and parks facility to the tune of $20 million.
In the last year of the previous Council, the parks department were evicted from the hydro building
which the town owned and suited the parks purpose to a T.
Had they been allowed to move their entire operation there, the works department could have taken over the parks building abutting their own at the end of Scanlon Court.
There would be no need to purchase land and build a new twenty million dollar facility.
The hydro building was leased to the federal government with a permanent lease for use by the Queen's York Rangers.
The town spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing it up for the Rangers
The Rangers in turn,vacated the armouries that occupies a corner of the town park.
It's empty now. And likely to continue so.
The Region ,by osmosis , became aware of the town's not unused, library building and how well its thick floors would lend themselves to installation of heavy machinery.
Without as much as a by-your-leave from the people of the town henceforth known as "the owners" the Region partnered with Seneca College and proceeded to pursue an opportunity for something known as a Fab/Lab to be established in the town's building on Victoria Street in Library Square.
Note , the only thing known about a Fab/lab is that it needs thick concrete floors capable of supporting heavy machinery.
The Aurora Armouries has floors firmly anchored to the ground. For years it housed an entire fleet of army vehicles and served as a drill shed.
It is owned by the Federal government.
It is empty.
Not used by anybody.
Occupying space in the town park. Not accessible to the town for any purpose.
You want stupid. There's stupid boy.
"Possibly some of the developments occurring in such a facility might be dangerous, explosive, toxic - you take your choice."
Talk about "too stupid for words"!
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 1 October 2013 23:05
****************
Let me tell you about stupid.
The town is proceeding with plans for a joint works and parks facility to the tune of $20 million.
In the last year of the previous Council, the parks department were evicted from the hydro building
which the town owned and suited the parks purpose to a T.
Had they been allowed to move their entire operation there, the works department could have taken over the parks building abutting their own at the end of Scanlon Court.
There would be no need to purchase land and build a new twenty million dollar facility.
The hydro building was leased to the federal government with a permanent lease for use by the Queen's York Rangers.
The town spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing it up for the Rangers
The Rangers in turn,vacated the armouries that occupies a corner of the town park.
It's empty now. And likely to continue so.
The Region ,by osmosis , became aware of the town's not unused, library building and how well its thick floors would lend themselves to installation of heavy machinery.
Without as much as a by-your-leave from the people of the town henceforth known as "the owners" the Region partnered with Seneca College and proceeded to pursue an opportunity for something known as a Fab/Lab to be established in the town's building on Victoria Street in Library Square.
Note , the only thing known about a Fab/lab is that it needs thick concrete floors capable of supporting heavy machinery.
The Aurora Armouries has floors firmly anchored to the ground. For years it housed an entire fleet of army vehicles and served as a drill shed.
It is owned by the Federal government.
It is empty.
Not used by anybody.
Occupying space in the town park. Not accessible to the town for any purpose.
You want stupid. There's stupid boy.
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
Tomorrow ...to the meat of a consultant study
I haven't voted in support of a town budget for years for two reasons. I don't believe we should be taxing people to buy "culture". And I don't believe we're getting value for our money in other areas.
We spend a lot of money on consultant studies. The average price is between $60 and $70,000 dollars.
What consultants do, I think is the responsibility of Directors.
Last night ,a committee meeting was held to receive an interim report on a study of service levels. The study cost $60,000.
A power point presentation was made.
Directors were called upon to respond to the findings.
Councillors were invited to ask questions.
I did not opt to provide input into the study. Choosing instead to see what was reported .
It is highly informative .
The final report will be presented in December.
But there's no need to wait that long for my take.
Right now, I have to hang out my laundry.
Then I have to go and get gas.
General Committee to-night.
I'll be back to-morrow.
Tomorrow Tomorrow
I'll tell you tomorrow
It's only a day away
We spend a lot of money on consultant studies. The average price is between $60 and $70,000 dollars.
What consultants do, I think is the responsibility of Directors.
Last night ,a committee meeting was held to receive an interim report on a study of service levels. The study cost $60,000.
A power point presentation was made.
Directors were called upon to respond to the findings.
Councillors were invited to ask questions.
I did not opt to provide input into the study. Choosing instead to see what was reported .
It is highly informative .
The final report will be presented in December.
But there's no need to wait that long for my take.
Right now, I have to hang out my laundry.
Then I have to go and get gas.
General Committee to-night.
I'll be back to-morrow.
Tomorrow Tomorrow
I'll tell you tomorrow
It's only a day away
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
