The Mayor is missing Bingo to hear Sir Elton singo
Don’t let the sun go down on Sudbury Sunday night?
Councillors paid their due, so what’s the hullabaloo.
But will they feel the love next Sudbury election night?
(With apologies to Stompin Tom)
Today’s question:
If Elton John came to Burlington would it create a political controversy?
In Sudbury – yes, Sudbury - it’s the new Watergate.
Just last month Sir Elton’s upcoming appearance at the Sudbury Arena was trumpeted as “the biggest concert in the city’s history." No arguments here.
“(M)onumental and will generate tremendous excitement for everyone in our city," noted the Sudbury Arena manager, who next week returns to more mundane matters such as keeping the Zamboni running.
Not the kind of Excitement that was Expected
The "excitement" has to do with the fact that city councillors got first dibs on tickets for the March 2nd concert. Local leaders snared 120 ducats ($87.50 to $129.50) before the box office opened. When the tickets went on sale to the masses, they were gone in minutes. No surprise.
According to the CBC, “outrage among fans who saw no reason why (the Councillors) should be able to jump the line” ensued.
At first Councillors dug in. After all they had paid for the tickets.
Rumours followed - the man who gave us Don’t Shoot Me - I’m Only the Piano Player - would skip the Big Nickel due to the bad vibes.
Municipal officials pressured the Sudbury Star: (C)ontinue “to report on the ticket controversy, the Elton John concert conceivably could be cancelled.”
Now, at Mayor John Rodriguez’s request, seventy-one tickets have been returned to the promoter. Forty-nine tickets are still out there - sold to family or friends or given to charity.
Today, the local paper reported the City has spent $12,000 during the last few days to hire a private law firm, as well as a public relations company to help it “deal with the ticket fiasco.”
Live/Learn and Rest
Sudbury has come clean (more or less) and grudgingly provided information to the public on the ticket buying.
"While this matter has been a significant learning process for the city, we sincerely hope that the disclosure of this information will put this matter to rest," Mark Mieto, the city's chief administrative officer, told the Sudbury Star.
Could this happen in the City of Burlington?
Not likely.
First - ask yourself why would Elton John come here? Sure, we’d like him to sing Candle in the Wind at the grand opening of the new pier. But it ain’t going to happen.
Old timers will remember Guy Lombardo, Jayne Mansfield and other greats at the old Brant Inn. I myself heard Lawrence Gowan at Sound of Music a few years ago and saw - have I mentioned this before - PET in Central Park during the Trudeaumania days of 1968.
But Elton John is big. He is, to these aforementioned entertainers, as George Orwell is to this blogger.
Besides, I’m sure we have policies in our town guarding against the kind of abuse of power we’ve seen this month at Sudbury’s Silly Hall.
Actually, I should know this having been there. But, of such policies, I have no recollection, as they say.
I remain confident, nevertheless, that, if policies are needed Mayor Cam and the Gang of Six will, in their wisdom, attend to it.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Greetings on Family Day
For a time I was a municipal councillor.
One of the really difficult things - and I took this seriously – was bringing greetings from the City. This was a frequent assignment for a Councillor acting as deputy when the mayor wasn’t available.
The required off the cuff comments were tough for me.
As today is Family Day I worry what I would have said if I were assigned “greetings” on this date.
So here it is.
On behalf of the City of Burlington I’d like to welcome you here on the first Family Day and tell you to “Take a Hike.”
I say “Take a Hike” not just because the exercise will do you good but also because if you don’t have a car (and many of you don’t) or you choose not to drive for environmental reasons you’ll have no choice as there is no Public Transit in Burlington today.
Take a Hike to our eastern and western borders and ride Oakville Transit or Hamilton Street Railway as they are running today.
Or take a longer hike to just about any other municipality in the area (e.g. Brampton, St. Catharines, Guelph, Mississauga, Niagara Falls, Oshawa etc.) and you can ride a bus today.
But Seriously
Perhaps I’m missing something but isn’t something terribly wrong here? Shouldn’t Burlington residents have the opportunity to visit family members at Joseph Brant or get to work (40% of us are working today) or recreational opportunities by public transit?
A 2006 consultant’s report, accepted by Council, recommended provision of holiday service. Why are we so different than other communities? (I’ve found two where transit isn't running today – Milton and Port Perry.)
Any ideas what can be done?
One of the really difficult things - and I took this seriously – was bringing greetings from the City. This was a frequent assignment for a Councillor acting as deputy when the mayor wasn’t available.
The required off the cuff comments were tough for me.
As today is Family Day I worry what I would have said if I were assigned “greetings” on this date.
So here it is.
On behalf of the City of Burlington I’d like to welcome you here on the first Family Day and tell you to “Take a Hike.”
I say “Take a Hike” not just because the exercise will do you good but also because if you don’t have a car (and many of you don’t) or you choose not to drive for environmental reasons you’ll have no choice as there is no Public Transit in Burlington today.
Take a Hike to our eastern and western borders and ride Oakville Transit or Hamilton Street Railway as they are running today.
Or take a longer hike to just about any other municipality in the area (e.g. Brampton, St. Catharines, Guelph, Mississauga, Niagara Falls, Oshawa etc.) and you can ride a bus today.
But Seriously
Perhaps I’m missing something but isn’t something terribly wrong here? Shouldn’t Burlington residents have the opportunity to visit family members at Joseph Brant or get to work (40% of us are working today) or recreational opportunities by public transit?
A 2006 consultant’s report, accepted by Council, recommended provision of holiday service. Why are we so different than other communities? (I’ve found two where transit isn't running today – Milton and Port Perry.)
Any ideas what can be done?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Something Positive for a Winter Day
I was going to write something on Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller’s annual environmental report - Reconciling Our Priorities – but it is so depressing.
Basically, he says that our planning processes and mechanisms are outdated and loaded with conflicting priorities. We have no effective mechanisms in place to reconcile conflicting priorities.
Who needs such excessive negativity in the middle of February? We’ll come back to Gord’s report at a later day.
Happy Days
How about some good news?
I just read that RWDI Consultants in Guelph have proven that restaurants with a drive-through window are more environmentally friendly than those without.
This is indeed good news particularly as there seems to be one of these things at every corner.
Apparently RWDI found that a drive-through serving 150 vehicles in an hour is roughly equivalent to the emissions from one motorcycle operating at 50 km/h for an hour, or two home woodstoves operating for an hour, or about three six-horsepower lawnmowers operating for an hour.
Last March your blogger sent crack gonzo journalist Hunter R. Wilson to a New Street phone booth to research drive through activity (see Drive Throughs Need Restrictions(03/12/07). How could we have been so wrong as to not take into account all the pollution being caused by non drive through patrons driving their cars around parking lots looking for empty spaces like RWDI did?
Well, I wasn’t very good in science and these consultants are. Four hundred employees with doctorates and engineering and science degrees can't be wrong.
And they get paid for this stuff. Whereas, I with my an undergraduate arts degree, am just blowing smoke.
Proposed Change
So based on this research here is an idea.
Let’s close down these places that sell food but have been unable to adapt to our car culture. Every restaurant without a drive through should be illegal. That will just be a start.
Next step will be a requirement that all retail operations will be required to have a drive through.
It will be good for the environment. And it cheers me up just thinking about it. How about you?
Basically, he says that our planning processes and mechanisms are outdated and loaded with conflicting priorities. We have no effective mechanisms in place to reconcile conflicting priorities.
Who needs such excessive negativity in the middle of February? We’ll come back to Gord’s report at a later day.
Happy Days
How about some good news?
I just read that RWDI Consultants in Guelph have proven that restaurants with a drive-through window are more environmentally friendly than those without.
This is indeed good news particularly as there seems to be one of these things at every corner.
Apparently RWDI found that a drive-through serving 150 vehicles in an hour is roughly equivalent to the emissions from one motorcycle operating at 50 km/h for an hour, or two home woodstoves operating for an hour, or about three six-horsepower lawnmowers operating for an hour.
Last March your blogger sent crack gonzo journalist Hunter R. Wilson to a New Street phone booth to research drive through activity (see Drive Throughs Need Restrictions(03/12/07). How could we have been so wrong as to not take into account all the pollution being caused by non drive through patrons driving their cars around parking lots looking for empty spaces like RWDI did?
Well, I wasn’t very good in science and these consultants are. Four hundred employees with doctorates and engineering and science degrees can't be wrong.
And they get paid for this stuff. Whereas, I with my an undergraduate arts degree, am just blowing smoke.
Proposed Change
So based on this research here is an idea.
Let’s close down these places that sell food but have been unable to adapt to our car culture. Every restaurant without a drive through should be illegal. That will just be a start.
Next step will be a requirement that all retail operations will be required to have a drive through.
It will be good for the environment. And it cheers me up just thinking about it. How about you?
Friday, February 08, 2008
Misleading Data?
GTA residents pay an average of only 5% of their property taxes to run local transit systems, the Sustainable Urban Development Association (SUDA) has found.
Halton is the worst of the Regions at 2.1% and Burlington is worse than that at 2.06. Oakville taxpayers pay 38% more of their property tax dollars to transit.
But you can do anything with statistics. Everyone knows that.
This is a classic example. I'm pretty certain.
How come, you say?
Well because Burlington is committed to transit. It says so right there in their Strategic Plan.
One of the leading causes of smog and pollution is vehicle exhaust with single occupant vehicles being a major contributor. Burlington will provide transit services that offer a transportation alternative to single occupancy vehicles and that integrate with other transit services throughout the region.
And there is more:
Burlington will be a clean, green and environmentally healthy city where the city actively participates and encourages environmentally responsible programs, policies and actions that work to improve and restore our natural environment
So these statistics are misleading although I worry (it is my nature) because Burlington’s air quality is pretty bad. Recently I read we had the worst day in the province in 2006. But this is proably just another case of manipulating data.
Our Medical Officer of Health, Bob Nosal, reports that we have approximately 190 premature deaths in Halton each year because of poor air quality.
He also says that an important strategy in dealing with air pollution includes smarter planning of communities and a greater dependency on transit. We all know that, right?
In the meantime I’m sure someone can explain the fact that Ajax spends 3.4% of their property tax dollars on transit. They are probably neglecting their downtown.
And Markham at 5.38%. Well, that only makes sense because they have some many more transit riders than we do.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Disraeli knew what he was talking about.
Halton is the worst of the Regions at 2.1% and Burlington is worse than that at 2.06. Oakville taxpayers pay 38% more of their property tax dollars to transit.
But you can do anything with statistics. Everyone knows that.
This is a classic example. I'm pretty certain.
How come, you say?
Well because Burlington is committed to transit. It says so right there in their Strategic Plan.
One of the leading causes of smog and pollution is vehicle exhaust with single occupant vehicles being a major contributor. Burlington will provide transit services that offer a transportation alternative to single occupancy vehicles and that integrate with other transit services throughout the region.
And there is more:
Burlington will be a clean, green and environmentally healthy city where the city actively participates and encourages environmentally responsible programs, policies and actions that work to improve and restore our natural environment
So these statistics are misleading although I worry (it is my nature) because Burlington’s air quality is pretty bad. Recently I read we had the worst day in the province in 2006. But this is proably just another case of manipulating data.
Our Medical Officer of Health, Bob Nosal, reports that we have approximately 190 premature deaths in Halton each year because of poor air quality.
He also says that an important strategy in dealing with air pollution includes smarter planning of communities and a greater dependency on transit. We all know that, right?
In the meantime I’m sure someone can explain the fact that Ajax spends 3.4% of their property tax dollars on transit. They are probably neglecting their downtown.
And Markham at 5.38%. Well, that only makes sense because they have some many more transit riders than we do.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Disraeli knew what he was talking about.
Friday, January 25, 2008
WHAT THIS CITY NEEDS IS MORE POLLING
On Monday night Burlington City Council will consider spending up to $40,000 to get public input regarding the proposed Performing Arts Centre. You can find that report CC-241-07 on the City’s website.
Your blogger believes in public input. You can never have too much of it.
In this particular instance there hasn’t been an actual poll done on a Performing Arts Centre (PAC) in quite some time. Not since November 2004 actually.
Previous Poll
In that poll only 78% of Burlington respondents thought building a PAC was a "good" or "excellent" idea. When given detailed financial implications the support increased, but only slightly, to 83%. One of eleven respondents was strongly opposed to this idea and, it must be noted, with a margin of error in the survey of 4.9% this opposing figure could be as high as one in seven against. Artsy types will try to convince you that the margin of error could also indicate that only one in twenty is opposed. Well, that can certainly be clarified with another poll. Let’s get on with it, I say.
Next Steps
Doing a survey will add an additional cost of $400,000 in construction related cost escalation to the project (about $120,000 per month); but, as I said, you can never have too much public input.
It wouldn’t hurt to test public opinion on a few more important public issues at the same time. That would be a good use of taxpayers’ hard earned dollars.
Here are a few questions that could be asked.
Should Saskatchewan be required to have daylight-saving time like the rest of Canada?
Did the Leafs do the right thing in replacing General Manager John Ferguson Jr. earlier this week?
Would you be in favour of renting out the Council Chambers on Monday nights so that comedians could perform and raise money to pay for the additional costs to the Performing Arts Centre that will result from this survey?
I admit that I’m not a pollster. These questions could undoubtedly be better worded -but you can never have too much public input.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Your blogger believes in public input. You can never have too much of it.
In this particular instance there hasn’t been an actual poll done on a Performing Arts Centre (PAC) in quite some time. Not since November 2004 actually.
Previous Poll
In that poll only 78% of Burlington respondents thought building a PAC was a "good" or "excellent" idea. When given detailed financial implications the support increased, but only slightly, to 83%. One of eleven respondents was strongly opposed to this idea and, it must be noted, with a margin of error in the survey of 4.9% this opposing figure could be as high as one in seven against. Artsy types will try to convince you that the margin of error could also indicate that only one in twenty is opposed. Well, that can certainly be clarified with another poll. Let’s get on with it, I say.
Next Steps
Doing a survey will add an additional cost of $400,000 in construction related cost escalation to the project (about $120,000 per month); but, as I said, you can never have too much public input.
It wouldn’t hurt to test public opinion on a few more important public issues at the same time. That would be a good use of taxpayers’ hard earned dollars.
Here are a few questions that could be asked.
Should Saskatchewan be required to have daylight-saving time like the rest of Canada?
Did the Leafs do the right thing in replacing General Manager John Ferguson Jr. earlier this week?
Would you be in favour of renting out the Council Chambers on Monday nights so that comedians could perform and raise money to pay for the additional costs to the Performing Arts Centre that will result from this survey?
I admit that I’m not a pollster. These questions could undoubtedly be better worded -but you can never have too much public input.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Sprawl - Cause and Impacts
A different take on what ails local government today can be found in Lawrence Solomon ‘s book Toronto Sprawls - A History (U of T Press, 2007).
His theme is this:
Government did not take a supporting role in creating the mess of urban sprawl we have today but rather took “the lead role” and “also directed the show.”
The book, a lean 120 pages, puts forward a well-documented case that citizens wanted to live in more compact cities. Governments “acted not to satisfy the public’s desires but to frustrate them.”
For example, early 20th century local government was antagonistic to the idea of low rise apartment buildings as a dangerous social intervention that ”compromised child rearing, promoted sexual promiscuity and otherwise threatened family life.” Ever wondered how the term “Toronto the Good” originated?
Suburban growth was actively promoted by government throughout the century. First (around 1902) there was the garden suburb movement which addressed the “overcrowding” issue; then an unsuccessful attempt to enhance town life with indoor rural industries following WWI; then the Veterans Land Act that tried to entice veterans into becoming part time farmers.
All these policies were failures as they were not congruent with people’s desires.
The Fifties and On
With the establishment of Metro Toronto (1953) government moved to “partial amalgamation, full sprawl” the very purpose, Solomon argues, being to take taxes from the city (Toronto) “in order to fund services needed in the suburbs” (North York, Scarborough etc..).
This trend continued through the Robarts/Davis years with more partial amalgamations(Halton, Peel Durham and York.)
It has played out with the City of Toronto initially subsidizing the Metro suburbs through various levies and now Metro residents subsidizing the costs of the GTA suburbs through provincial taxes.
The author depends on research from the sixties (Clark - Suburban Society) to make the case that most people who left for the burbs moved there “half heartedly.” Apparently they would have preferred the superior lifestyle of the urban centre. Your blogger has some doubts on this point.
It is clear though that prior to “subsidized sprawl” the burbs were developing compactly along transportation corridors.
What Might Have Been?
The author believes that had governments the will sprawl could have been stopped years ago. The City of Toronto could have achieved densities similar to the desirable areas of the world’s great cities and accommodated the population of Metro and most of the GTA.
What Can be Done?
Solomon says sprawl can still be stopped. Congestion pricing, replacing market value assessment with user fees or other forms of taxation and by allowing widespread deregulation are some options.
Food for thought.
SPRAWL TRIVIA
**In spite of legislative restrictions 20,000 new apartment units were created from 1921 to 1931 typically in three and four storey walk ups.
**The four lane Toronto Bypass (the 401) was described as a “motorists dream” providing some of the most soothing scenery in Metro - “a long way from the big city” when completed in 1956.
**Latest density figures (people per acre)
Old City of Toronto 28.0
North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough 10.13
GTA Regions 6.8
His theme is this:
Government did not take a supporting role in creating the mess of urban sprawl we have today but rather took “the lead role” and “also directed the show.”
The book, a lean 120 pages, puts forward a well-documented case that citizens wanted to live in more compact cities. Governments “acted not to satisfy the public’s desires but to frustrate them.”
For example, early 20th century local government was antagonistic to the idea of low rise apartment buildings as a dangerous social intervention that ”compromised child rearing, promoted sexual promiscuity and otherwise threatened family life.” Ever wondered how the term “Toronto the Good” originated?
Suburban growth was actively promoted by government throughout the century. First (around 1902) there was the garden suburb movement which addressed the “overcrowding” issue; then an unsuccessful attempt to enhance town life with indoor rural industries following WWI; then the Veterans Land Act that tried to entice veterans into becoming part time farmers.
All these policies were failures as they were not congruent with people’s desires.
The Fifties and On
With the establishment of Metro Toronto (1953) government moved to “partial amalgamation, full sprawl” the very purpose, Solomon argues, being to take taxes from the city (Toronto) “in order to fund services needed in the suburbs” (North York, Scarborough etc..).
This trend continued through the Robarts/Davis years with more partial amalgamations(Halton, Peel Durham and York.)
It has played out with the City of Toronto initially subsidizing the Metro suburbs through various levies and now Metro residents subsidizing the costs of the GTA suburbs through provincial taxes.
The author depends on research from the sixties (Clark - Suburban Society) to make the case that most people who left for the burbs moved there “half heartedly.” Apparently they would have preferred the superior lifestyle of the urban centre. Your blogger has some doubts on this point.
It is clear though that prior to “subsidized sprawl” the burbs were developing compactly along transportation corridors.
What Might Have Been?
The author believes that had governments the will sprawl could have been stopped years ago. The City of Toronto could have achieved densities similar to the desirable areas of the world’s great cities and accommodated the population of Metro and most of the GTA.
What Can be Done?
Solomon says sprawl can still be stopped. Congestion pricing, replacing market value assessment with user fees or other forms of taxation and by allowing widespread deregulation are some options.
Food for thought.
SPRAWL TRIVIA
**In spite of legislative restrictions 20,000 new apartment units were created from 1921 to 1931 typically in three and four storey walk ups.
**The four lane Toronto Bypass (the 401) was described as a “motorists dream” providing some of the most soothing scenery in Metro - “a long way from the big city” when completed in 1956.
**Latest density figures (people per acre)
Old City of Toronto 28.0
North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough 10.13
GTA Regions 6.8
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Burlington Council Makeup
Years ago I learned that one could be considered informed on local matters if one read the Burlington Post.
I strive to follow this sage advice but admit to slipping from time to time as I lose sight of the news under the cover of all those ads.
Anyway lately I noticed a front page story capturing the concerns of many of my neighbours. It seems that the leaf collection program has been vanquished by the earlier than usual arrival of winter. Indeed, emerging from my self-imposed winter hibernation I observed piles of last fall’s raked leaves appearing from under the melting snow. Global warming, I guess, but what can I do about it? Leave it to the Prime Minister.
This story though caught my eye as a matter I could sink my teeth into.
“Is city council too small?
DO WE NEED MORE POLITICIANS?”
Jason Misner, Burlington Post reporter says it is (too small) and we do need more politicians in a “My View” opinion piece (December 28th).
Misner an earnest, hard-working reporter who has covered Burlington Council for nearly two years makes a good case for this much needed reform. I’ll get back to Jason’s argument but first some historical perspective.
History
Burlington functioned pretty well with a 17-member Council - two per ward (one who covered Regional and city duties, one who was strictly a city representative) until 1997. Our current MP Mike Wallace caught up in the Mike Harris Commonsense thinking in vogue in 1996 saw it differently. Less government was the order of the day and fewer politicians were part and parcel of that now largely discredited and simplistic attack on local democracy.
Wallace took the lead and with the support of then Mayor Mulkewich convinced a majority of Council in a 9 -8 vote to downsize to its current six ward reps and a Mayor. Did any other Council in Ontario downsized itself to this extent?
Back to the Post Story
Misner argues that Council has a heavy workload and handles millions of dollars. He is worried that overworked Councillors may make hasty decisions because they could be tired at the end of a long day. He thinks “that issues that shouldn’t have been pursued” such as fighting Wal Mart would have had a different outcome with more than seven councillors.
More importantly in this blogger’s view is the fact that with the potential of Councillor member absences or conflicts of interest important decisions can be made for a community of 155,000 by as few as three people. (Joan Little has spoken strongly to this point in her Spectator column on more than one occasion.)
Options
Raising the number of Councillors to nine or eleven has merit. However, such a change would impact Halton Region Council where Burlington with about a third of the Regional population has one third of the representatives (7 of 21). Increasing the size of Halton Council isn’t on. Some sort of division of duties so that some Burlington Councillors serve at the Region and others just serve at the City might work.
Or we could just get rid of the Region as a political body. While the services it provides are important and typically well run the Halton politicians spend most of their time debating what to put in letters to senior levels of government all saying variations of the same theme - we need more money.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for the Region to go. Hopefully though, Jason Misner’s column will inspire some dialogue on reforming Burlington Council.
I strive to follow this sage advice but admit to slipping from time to time as I lose sight of the news under the cover of all those ads.
Anyway lately I noticed a front page story capturing the concerns of many of my neighbours. It seems that the leaf collection program has been vanquished by the earlier than usual arrival of winter. Indeed, emerging from my self-imposed winter hibernation I observed piles of last fall’s raked leaves appearing from under the melting snow. Global warming, I guess, but what can I do about it? Leave it to the Prime Minister.
This story though caught my eye as a matter I could sink my teeth into.
“Is city council too small?
DO WE NEED MORE POLITICIANS?”
Jason Misner, Burlington Post reporter says it is (too small) and we do need more politicians in a “My View” opinion piece (December 28th).
Misner an earnest, hard-working reporter who has covered Burlington Council for nearly two years makes a good case for this much needed reform. I’ll get back to Jason’s argument but first some historical perspective.
History
Burlington functioned pretty well with a 17-member Council - two per ward (one who covered Regional and city duties, one who was strictly a city representative) until 1997. Our current MP Mike Wallace caught up in the Mike Harris Commonsense thinking in vogue in 1996 saw it differently. Less government was the order of the day and fewer politicians were part and parcel of that now largely discredited and simplistic attack on local democracy.
Wallace took the lead and with the support of then Mayor Mulkewich convinced a majority of Council in a 9 -8 vote to downsize to its current six ward reps and a Mayor. Did any other Council in Ontario downsized itself to this extent?
Back to the Post Story
Misner argues that Council has a heavy workload and handles millions of dollars. He is worried that overworked Councillors may make hasty decisions because they could be tired at the end of a long day. He thinks “that issues that shouldn’t have been pursued” such as fighting Wal Mart would have had a different outcome with more than seven councillors.
More importantly in this blogger’s view is the fact that with the potential of Councillor member absences or conflicts of interest important decisions can be made for a community of 155,000 by as few as three people. (Joan Little has spoken strongly to this point in her Spectator column on more than one occasion.)
Options
Raising the number of Councillors to nine or eleven has merit. However, such a change would impact Halton Region Council where Burlington with about a third of the Regional population has one third of the representatives (7 of 21). Increasing the size of Halton Council isn’t on. Some sort of division of duties so that some Burlington Councillors serve at the Region and others just serve at the City might work.
Or we could just get rid of the Region as a political body. While the services it provides are important and typically well run the Halton politicians spend most of their time debating what to put in letters to senior levels of government all saying variations of the same theme - we need more money.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for the Region to go. Hopefully though, Jason Misner’s column will inspire some dialogue on reforming Burlington Council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)