Doug Holyday, Perversion of Democracy and Hubris

Toronto Star Queen’s Park columnist Martin Regg Cohn is into it with Conservative by-election candidate Doug Holyday.

Today he accused Holyday of hubris.  Read it here. http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/07/14/ontario_byelections_doug_holydays_wordplay_piles_hubris_upon_hypocrisy_cohn.html

Long time municipal politician Holyday was unsuccessful nine years ago in getting Toronto Council to adopt sanctions against municipal politicians who chose not to complete their terms.

If Holyday wins the provincial by-election on August 1^st, he will be such a politician. 

Holyday seems to remember only some details of his motion.

Read Regg Cohn’s column and the motion (which I’ve copied below) and you’ll see why the columnist has accused Holyday of hubris.

Oh, I’ve highlighted (by underlining) a few of my favourite sections of the motion.

------------------------------------------------------------- 

J(10) Request to Amend The Municipal Elections Act to Allow a Municipality to Place Restrictions on the Terms under which their Members may Stand for a Higher Office

 

Moved by: Councillor Holyday
Seconded by: Councillor Ootes

“WHEREAS in an open and accountable free society, an oath of office calls for a total commitment to fulfill the duties and responsibilities that voters expect and deserve during a term of office; and

 
WHEREAS our democratic institutions are not a business, nor are the votes a
commodity to be purchased and then ignored at will; and
 
WHEREAS it is incumbent upon individuals when standing for office to recognize that the public fully expects that winning candidates will honour their selection with conscientious dedication for the full period of the mandate;

and

WHEREAS any disruption in a term of office can cause a new election to be held with considerable cost to the taxpayers; and

WHEREAS should the Council decide upon an appointment in place of an election, the democratic rights of citizens to elect their representatives is denied and perversion of the system ensues; and

WHEREAS the financial difficulties endured by Council to balance the budget and maintain services make it imperative that no unnecessary expenses be incurred; and

WHEREAS citizens standing for office should be aware of both the remuneration and demands of office and understand that the public expects that they, once elected, honour that trust and complete their term; and

WHEREAS any time a Councillor is absent (with or without pay) from Council

deliberations, the ward involved remains unrepresented on many key issues; and

WHEREAS it has never been more important to have a strong Council unaligned with political party interests to best effect negotiations with other levels of government; and

WHEREAS it is manifestly unfair that some councillors use their candidacy for higher office to buttress the evaluation of their local incumbency by voters; and

WHEREAS a councillor’s role in governing Toronto affairs should not be used like a Las Vegas poker table where you ‘fold a hand’ and play another later without risk, penalty or moral censure; and

WHEREAS the public, according to published surveys, perceives the democratic process to be so fundamentally flawed and controlled by opportunists, that voter turnout is at an all-time low;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Council recognize the electoral abuse that takes place when a Ward remains unrepresented for weeks at a time and enact appropriate safeguards to prevent voluntary absenteeism in the pursuit of another office;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT candidates for Council should swear

upon filing their nomination papers that, if elected, they will serve at least half the term of their mandate before seeking another office, or as a result of such a decision, trigger automatic dismissal;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Toronto Council request the Government of Ontario to amend The Municipal Elections Act to allow a municipality to place restrictions on the terms under which their members may stand for a higher office.”

Employment Standards Act Violations

(A version of this posting appeared recently on www.hamiltonjustice.ca)

The Workers Action Centre reported earlier this month on a new study released by the Chinese Canadian National Council-Toronto Chapter.

The study called “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back” documents widespread employment standards violations facing Chinese workers.  http://www.workersactioncentre.org/updates/survey-shows-widespread-esa-violations-including-pay-below-minimum-wage/

For example of the workers surveyed:

**Twenty percent were paid less than minimum wage.
**Only half received public holiday pay.
**Seventy-seven percent said they never receive overtime.

An earlier report by the Workers Action Centre documented similar abuses. The fact that 1 in 3 low-wage workers had experienced unpaid wages in the previous 5 years was indeed shocking. http://www.workersactioncentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/pb_unpaidwagesunprotectedworkers_eng.pdf 

The Worker’s Action Centre wants to immediately increase fines and penalties for employers who break the law and make it mandatory for all employers with a confirmed violation to face a fine. 

This just makes sense.

Need to Extend Rent Controls

(An earlier version of this story appeared at http://www.hamiltonjustice.ca)

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants (ACTO) put out a news release earlier this month. The news release should offer encouragement to tenants and tenant advocates.

The release talked about a bill tabled in the Ontario legislature. If passed, Bill 82 would extend rent controls to more than 50,000 households not currently covered. (http://yourlegalrights.on.ca/news/proposed-bill-would-extend-rent-regulation-more-50000-households?tid_ref=12)

Cindy Forster (MPP Welland), a former mayor, tabled the legislation.

Many advocates and tenants are aware that the current Residential Tenancies Act (2006) exempts residential properties built after November 1, 1991 from the rules governing rent increases.

In ACTO’s news release Mary Todorow, policy analyst for ACTO, noted that opposition to getting rid of the exemption has always focussed on the idea that such a change would prevent new rental units from being developed.

“And so the loophole has remained in place for years. However, the exemption from regulation has not sparked the construction of badly needed rental housing,” says Todorow.”

Private member bills like this one don’t pass very often. However, if tenants contact their elected representatives perhaps something will change.

Meanwhile the City of Toronto Council’s Executive Committee has agreed to look at the issue. In addition, NDP MPP Johan Schein wants to rid the province of this two-tier system of tenant protection. He has started an on-line petition (http://www.jonahscheinmpp.ca/rent/)

See this Toronto Star story for more details http://www.thestar.com/business/real_estate/2013/05/31/pressure

Changes to the Ontario Municipal Board on the Way?

A private members bill that would exempt Toronto from the Ontario Municipal Board’s oversight passed second reading earlier this month in the Ontario Legislature.

Bill 20 (Respect for Municipalities-city of Toronto, 2013) now goes off to the Finance Committee for more study.

Abolish the OMB?

Maybe. 

Reform it? 

That’s for sure.

However, it is not just the City of Toronto that needs the change.  
Apparently the City of Toronto does such a good job of planning they don’t need the OMB.  If it was gone, they would set up their own appeals process. 

Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina) who championed the bill pointed out correctly that the 25 OMB members are “unelected and unaccountable.” 
In the debate, a paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association conference in 2009 was cited by Marchese.  The paper looked at OMB rulings from 2000 to 2006. When the developers were up against the City of Toronto developers won nearly 2/3 (64%) of the time.

“You get the picture; right?  It’s the people with money who tend to win. It’s just the way the system works. It’s not a level playing field. It can never be a level playing field, argued Marchese.”

In fact, New Democrat member and former mayor Michael Prue (East York) went even further.

“I recall the chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, before a committee of this Legislature, coming in and brazenly stating that—she was asked, “What is your mandate?” She stated, “My mandate is to facilitate the development industry in this province,” Prue recalled.

There were some amendments to the Planning Act several years ago which said the Board had to have regard to municipal decisions and plans.

“Well, in 2009, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled that “have regard to” basically means nothing. The OMB only has to provide minimal deference to the municipality,” the court ruled—“only minimal deference.” It means, “Yes, we heard you, but no, we’re not going to listen to you,” continued the Trinity Spadina MPP.”

Others in the debate pointed out that most provinces don’t have the equivalent of an OMB.

But if you got rid of it and other cities followed suit would challenges end up in court?
Minister of Labour Yasir Naqvi:

“Courts are more expensive, take a longer time, and there is no expertise.”

Naqvi went on to say, as others have, that the status quo does not work.

“We need to reform the OMB,” said the Ottawa representative.

His reform would incorporate four aspects.


1. Communities need to develop community design plans and then incorporate them into their Official Plan.  They are then enforceable and not just aspirational.

2. The appeal mechanism should be changed to one that is more of a process where decisions can only be overturned if there is “an egregious error council has made.”

3. Mandatory mediation should be part of the OMB.

4. Legislation is needed that will prevent litigation against public participation so that developers are not using tools to suppress communities.

Minister of Transportation Glen Murray, a former mayor, spoke in support: 

“I have to tell you, having sat through OMB hearings; it is a machine for consultants to make money. You bill $500 an hour. Lawyers love it. Planners love it. Architects love it. No one makes more money.”

Here is hoping when this bill gets to the Finance Committee that they will have a far ranging discussion on reforming the OMB and not just addressing Toronto’s concerns.

You can read the bill at http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet&BillID=2737

My Last Word on Rational Transit Fares

Picking up from my last post I want to be clear that I’m not expecting any one municipality to go it alone on implementing funding for a restructured transit and transportation system.

Presumably Metrolinx is taking the lead on this.  Progress is painfully slow.

But municipalities ought to make some effort to, as the Mayor of Burlington said recently, find a rational way to set transit rates.

On some levels the City of Burlington has made an effort to develop a rational policy.  At least they have to the extent they’ve gone and found expertise to help them plan.

Take a look at the 1998 Transit White Paper informed by IBI consultants; lots to say in this report re establishing a fare structure.

Or the 2006-15 Transit Service Review authored by another consultant (iTrans) in 2006.  It ran 189 pages and right there on pages 67 through 71 there is a rational plan to establish fares.

Important aspects of these reports were ignored by Council and yet another consultant was hired in 2011.  At that time I was told by a Councillor that Dilllon consultants weren’t like the previous two consultants. No siree.  They would bring a business-like approach and not simply respond to a public who just keep demanding more service that really isn’t affordable.

Well, Dillon did a fair bit of work on The Route Ahead.  But they didn’t finish the job.   Perhaps their plan for rational fare structure wasn’t what Councillors wanted either.

 Do you see a pattern here?

 Anyway, here is the first public meeting last year where staff had great difficulty bringing Dillon’s report forward without Dillon or the report being present.  Former Mayor Walter Mulkewich asks some good questions in the video.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhPjPD_MRis&feature=related

Let’s Get the Price Right

Way back in June 2008 I wrote about a report that had just come out written by Trent University Professor Harry Kitchen.

This report was called Financing Public Transit and Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton: Future Initiatives.
 
We need an effective and efficient public transit and transportation system for economic and environmental reasons. An important aspect of what must be done is setting correct prices.

Kitchen’s argument was this:

“A more efficient and effective transportation system can only be achieved if users (businesses, individuals and governments) pay for the infrastructure and operational cost of services it provides – building, maintenance and repairs plus environmental damages."
 
He set out some principles.
 
For example, those who benefit from local infrastructure and the services it provides should pay for it. (This is called the benefits based model.)

According to Kitchen, services such as public transit and highways “have a mix of private and public good characteristics” and, therefore, financing should be based on the theory of “second best.”

Principles of efficiency and fairness would suggest that car and truck drivers pay a charge that reflects the full cost (capital, operating plus congestion and environmental costs).

But car and truck drivers pay nothing to local governments for each trip taken while transit users are charged when they travel.

This logic justifies some subsidization of public transit but also provides rationale for the implementation of road charges that are designed to control road use.

So while subsidizing public transit makes sense Kitchen says that determining the exact subsidy (and what you’ll pay at the farebox) is a “tricky business” that really has more to do with politics than actual costs.

But it shouldn’t be that way.

If there was a level playing field “public transit might not require a subsidy to be competitive: certainly it is unlikely that it would require the size of subsidy it often gets.”

 In the report Kitchen explored seven different ways to help fund the restructured GTAH transit and transportation system.

1. Dedicated Municipal Fuel Tax
 
2. Tolls and Congestion Charges

3. Tax on Non residential Parking Spaces
 
4. Vehicle Registration Charges

5. Drivers License Charges

6. High Occupancy Toll Lanes
Apparently HOV lanes in the U.S. are not meeting their objectives. So in some cases these lanes are being turned into High Occupancy Toll Lanes where you can pay for the pleasure of getting a faster ride

 7. Value Capture Levies
If a property’s value is enhanced through spending on public infrastructure and zoning decisions it could be appropriate to capture some of the gains that the private sector has realized.

A sequel to this report came out earlier this year.  You can find it at http://www.rccao.com/news/files/RCCAO_JAN2013_REPORT_LOWRES.pdf

 
Tomorrow I’ll come back to the proposed Burlington fare increase.

 

Burlington Transit – Fares Going up – Service Going Down.

In a previous posting I tried to find humour in the City of Burlington’s idea about raising transit rates.

The Toronto Star, Canada’s most widely read paper, quoted Burlington’s Mayor as saying that there should be a clear rationale to determining fares.

But that isn’t happening and a proposed 8% hike is  against the advice of staff and totally arbitrary coming out of the environmentally/transit challenged head of some Burlington Councillor.  So at the end of the day I guess raising rates really isn’t funny.

But now that Burlington’s transit planning is becoming so well known with a story in the Star of all things I thought a little history might help.

Last year we put this video together to show how badly resourced Burlington Transit is compared to other communities.

I looked at it today. While the data is a year old it reflects the historical trend. And the acting is terrific.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V6cEdvQHp0