Only a year ago McMaster University and the City of Burlington signed a Memorandum of Understanding to build a new campus on a site in downtown Burlington.
Today, in a letter to the City, the Hamilton school says it has changed its mind. While it is making “progress” it will be pursuing new sites within the City i.e., not downtown.
Only last year (October 6, 2006) McMaster President Peter George said:
"Burlington's downtown will be an exciting place for our students, faculty and staff to be. "This location in particular allows our students and faculty close connections with the business community, while enjoying close proximity to the many support services they require."
“Any More Surprises”
At Community and Corporate Services Committee of Burlington council on Tuesday(October 30) one Councillor said the City has been “spurned.” Another Councillor interpreted it differently - McMaster is merely going back a “half step” to their previous position of wanting a campus in Burlington not just a 120,000 square foot downtown site.
No matter what your interpretation “hundreds and hundreds of hours of work” by city staff appear to have been wasted.
A motion to ask senior McMaster staff to come to the table with Burlington politicians ASAP was passed. In spite of two teams working on the project (joint negotiating and joint project teams) we still got surprised noted Councillor Rick Craven. “Will there be more surprises?”
A Short Leash
Councillor John Taylor noted that “everything was wonderful” from the University’s perspective when they met with Council last February. Then there were no plans for a campus. Now it appears Mac is trying to put the City on a “short leash for a December decision” that will apparently be made by the University’s Board of Governors.
"McMaster is anxious to finalize its plans in Burlington. This project has been evolving since its inception and we continue to look forward to working in partnership with the Mayor, council and city staff," says University Vice President IleneVP Busch-Vishniac in their letter.
Back To School
Working in partnership, eh? I’m going to have to go back to school to get a better understanding of what partnerships are about. This one seems rather one-sided.
At the end of the day though I don’t think the City will be pushed around.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Orwell Would Worry
Through his writings George Orwell raised many serious concerns regarding how we use or misuse language. In 1984, he introduced readers to “doublethink” and “newspeak.” The concept of doublespeak came after his death.
I’m not sure what concept the following story illustrates but I imagine Mr. Orwell would have a word or two on how we manipulate language should he come across recent Burlington reports.
A Committee is Born
In the year 1984 the City of Burlington (Ontario) formed a citizen committee called the Mundialization Committee. Its stated mandate was/is to promote the city as “a World Community” dedicated to the UN philosophy of peaceful co-operation among the peoples of the world.
Responsibilities and Objectives of the Local Committee
According to a recent report (October 4/07) the committee is involved with numerous programs that promote Burlington as a global community. Programs include celebrating United Nations Day, maintaining Twin-City relationships with Itabashi (Japan) and Apeldoorn (The Netherlands) and acting as a catalyst between the twinned cities and within Burlington so as to involve citizens in activities that “share our differences.”
Many hard working and dedicated volunteers have toiled on this committee but is what they are doing mundialization?
Mundialization is …
The concept of mundialization stresses awareness of global problems, a sense of shared responsibility and a commitment to solving problems through a just democratic world law rather than force. Cahoors France was the first mundialized city in 1949. Many other communities particularly in France and Japan have followed suit. Dundas (1969) was the first Canadian municipality to go this route. (see Wikipedia for more.)
A Proposal
Burlington resident Peter Hubner’s recent suggestion that our community develop a partnership with a “third world” country failed to find favour at the Mundialization Committee or with city staff. A committee report (CC 187 – 1) dismisses the idea as it doesn’t “match the current assessment criteria used for evaluating inter-municipal relationships.”
"Criteria." Are you ready for this? Those criteria include:
# Adding value to the city’s strategic plan.
# Consideration of lifestyles.
# Level of interest in the business community.
Is this doublethink, double speak or something else? Let’s call it Burlspeak and acknowledge that we really can’t allow ourselves to call this work mundialization anymore.
In the meantime, I hope Council will take another look at Mr. Hubner’s idea – one that is more in harmony with the original intent of mundialization .
I’m not sure what concept the following story illustrates but I imagine Mr. Orwell would have a word or two on how we manipulate language should he come across recent Burlington reports.
A Committee is Born
In the year 1984 the City of Burlington (Ontario) formed a citizen committee called the Mundialization Committee. Its stated mandate was/is to promote the city as “a World Community” dedicated to the UN philosophy of peaceful co-operation among the peoples of the world.
Responsibilities and Objectives of the Local Committee
According to a recent report (October 4/07) the committee is involved with numerous programs that promote Burlington as a global community. Programs include celebrating United Nations Day, maintaining Twin-City relationships with Itabashi (Japan) and Apeldoorn (The Netherlands) and acting as a catalyst between the twinned cities and within Burlington so as to involve citizens in activities that “share our differences.”
Many hard working and dedicated volunteers have toiled on this committee but is what they are doing mundialization?
Mundialization is …
The concept of mundialization stresses awareness of global problems, a sense of shared responsibility and a commitment to solving problems through a just democratic world law rather than force. Cahoors France was the first mundialized city in 1949. Many other communities particularly in France and Japan have followed suit. Dundas (1969) was the first Canadian municipality to go this route. (see Wikipedia for more.)
A Proposal
Burlington resident Peter Hubner’s recent suggestion that our community develop a partnership with a “third world” country failed to find favour at the Mundialization Committee or with city staff. A committee report (CC 187 – 1) dismisses the idea as it doesn’t “match the current assessment criteria used for evaluating inter-municipal relationships.”
"Criteria." Are you ready for this? Those criteria include:
# Adding value to the city’s strategic plan.
# Consideration of lifestyles.
# Level of interest in the business community.
Is this doublethink, double speak or something else? Let’s call it Burlspeak and acknowledge that we really can’t allow ourselves to call this work mundialization anymore.
In the meantime, I hope Council will take another look at Mr. Hubner’s idea – one that is more in harmony with the original intent of mundialization .
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
LET'S MOVE BEFORE THEY RAISE THE PARKING RATES!
(from the 70’s hit song All Right Now by A. Fraser / P. Rodgers)
Today’s question:
Can Municipal Councillors find more important things to work on then parking rates?
Answer:
Probably not, judging by the recent kafuffle at Burlington City Council ably reported on by Spectator columnist Joan Little.
I confess to flashing back a year when as a caretaker Councillor I had to deal with the same issue.
Calls and e-mails poured in like seawater through a New Orleans levee after staff recommended implementing a fifty cent per hour (I think) parking rate on downtown meters. The recommendation followed a year of dialogue with downtown businesses, focus groups and work of a paid consultant.
After all of that well … let’s just say in the annals of taxing injustices this one ranked right up there with that tea party in Boston when Sam Adams and wealthy American smugglers rallied against British imperialism.
Your humble blogger/former caretaker Councillor got caught up in this and (worse perhaps) another later debate over the necessity to purchase “historic looking” parking meters that could better fit into a heritage neighbourhood.
Let’s face it, it is hard for any Councillor who claims to be responsive to public input to ignore constituent concerns.
But there are more important issues.
How about the fact that all Ontario Great Lakes municipalities including ours aren’t meeting legislated reporting requirements on the health of public beaches? (see www.waterkeeper.ca for more)
That might be worth some consideration and debate.
Today’s question:
Can Municipal Councillors find more important things to work on then parking rates?
Answer:
Probably not, judging by the recent kafuffle at Burlington City Council ably reported on by Spectator columnist Joan Little.
I confess to flashing back a year when as a caretaker Councillor I had to deal with the same issue.
Calls and e-mails poured in like seawater through a New Orleans levee after staff recommended implementing a fifty cent per hour (I think) parking rate on downtown meters. The recommendation followed a year of dialogue with downtown businesses, focus groups and work of a paid consultant.
After all of that well … let’s just say in the annals of taxing injustices this one ranked right up there with that tea party in Boston when Sam Adams and wealthy American smugglers rallied against British imperialism.
Your humble blogger/former caretaker Councillor got caught up in this and (worse perhaps) another later debate over the necessity to purchase “historic looking” parking meters that could better fit into a heritage neighbourhood.
Let’s face it, it is hard for any Councillor who claims to be responsive to public input to ignore constituent concerns.
But there are more important issues.
How about the fact that all Ontario Great Lakes municipalities including ours aren’t meeting legislated reporting requirements on the health of public beaches? (see www.waterkeeper.ca for more)
That might be worth some consideration and debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)