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 .

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.

ALGAE AND THE LAKES

Since 2002 a Halton Region advisory committee has been quietly working on the nuisance algae problem.

I’m a member that committee - the Lake Ontario Shoreline Algae Action Advisory Committee (LOSAAC. The group is putting the finishing touches to a report going to Council.

This “nuisance” problem is primarily an odour. A stink this summer lasted 8 or 9 weeks - longer than in recent memory. Caused by an aquatic plant called Cladaphora the smell won’t kill us – but we should be concerned.

I am not a Scientist but.....

The science to the smell is this:

· Wastewater treatment and other human activities put phosphorous into the lake.

· An invasive species, zebra mussels, clean the water, ingest large quantities of phosphorous, and then poop it out on the lake bottom where it sits ready to help the algae grow.

· Population growth means we are putting more phosphorus into the lake. Conservation Halton, using actual flow measurements and water sampling, has calculated that we dump 13,611 kilograms of phosphorus into the lake each year. A scientific team working with LOSAAC says when we are built out we’ll be loading 23,192 more kilograms into the lake each year making it a more attractive place for cladaphora growth and smellier too.

Invasive species, phosphorous, hardening of the shoreline and population growth all contribute to the algae problem but there is a bigger picture.

Beware of Invasive Species

In 2005 several scientists put out a paper called Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration. They claim that we are at a ”tipping point of irreversible changes.” Areas of the lakes are experiencing ecosystem breakdown. Stresses have overwhelmed natural processes “that normally stabilize and buffer the system from permanent change.”

There is some improvement (e.g. contaminant trends going down, the return of bald eagles and cormorants) but the overall trend is disturbing.

“The near-shore aquatic system has lost its ability to adapt to changes, loss of shoreline, the destruction of wetlands, and urban and agricultural run off. These trends are accelerating.”

In one of several workshops organized by the province’s Environmental Commissioner and Pollution Probe held about a year ago one participant noted:

“The problem isn’t invasive aquatic species, toxics, climate change, or any
other of the many issues we face. The Problem is us. Our lifestyle has to adapt to the environment. Until we humble ourselves, and understand that we are the invasive species, we won’t get it.” (A Public Dialogue on the Future of the Great Lakes.)

I’ll return to algae and the Great Lakes in future postings.

Cosmetic Pesticide Use

A special meeting of the Community Development Committee (CDC) of Burlington Council will be held this Tuesday.

The lone agenda item will be a look at restricting the cosmetic use of pesticides.

Procedural tomfoolery at last week’s CDC saw staff sent away to check on whether Council has already dealt with the matter this year (they hadn’t) and to revise their report.

The new report takes out the recommendation that actually authorizes staff to proceed with developing a by-law. (Certainly wouldn’t want staff dashing off headlong and doing something that two-dozen municipalities in Ontario have already done.) A final Council approved recommendation could change this.

An Old Issue But Some New Views

Burlington Council has dealt with this one before. In fact, four of the current group of seven approved some outreach and an awareness campaign in 2002. Pressure from the professional lawn spraying lobby and lack of support from the head Halton health honcho, Dr. Bob Nosal, has meant nothing has happened since then.

However, the good doctor has changed his mind. He writes:

“…Given the limitations of current provincial and federal regulations, the Medical Officer of Health supports initiatives and measures taken by municipalities to reduce the use of pesticides for lawn care including by-laws that restrict pesticide use on private property.”

Watch what you drink

Nineteen year Council veteran, John Taylor, believes “there is no proven causal relationship between pesticides and disease when pesticides are properly used.”

According to Taylor, council’s only known chemist, it is “just a case of dosage and exposure.” Taylor notes that there are even two documented cases of drinking excessive amounts of pure water leading to death. I doubt that Taylor will be swayed by arguments from the delegations this week.

Councillor Rick Craven might though. His vote to support moving to a by-law will leave Cam Jackson to break a three-three deadlock.

Here’s hoping that the Mayor sees his way to supporting a by-law without the need for excessive and costly consultation.

With our increased awareness of the damage we are doing to our environment this really shouldn’t be this difficult.

AN AGENDA FOR INACTION #2

Perhaps your blogger was too harsh in criticizing the staff report on carbon dioxide reductions in a previous posting. And after all Burlington Council, not staff, call the shots.

So off to the Council debate at March 27th's committee to be enlightened on the corporation's action plan to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

First, the Sustainable Development Committee delivers a passionate, well researched presentation pleading for a 25% reduction in carbon emissions over 1994 levels by 2012. After all more than 400 other North American communities are already doing this.

Councillor Rick Goldring (Ward 5) won't go quite that far but argues strongly for a 20% reduction by 2010. Polls show climate change is the public's top concern ahead of health care and education, Goldring notes.

"We can analyze to death but we must take action," says Goldring.

Similarly Councillor Rick Craven (Ward 1) calls for "real action" and the need to "translate our intentions" if we expect citizens and the broader community to act on climate change as well.

Veteran Councillor John Taylor (Ward 3) believes support for Goldring's views would be the equivalent of signing a blank cheque - something he has never done in eighteen years on Council. Taylor wants the issue to go to Strategic Planning but tips his hand on his position in a rant about empty buses and how we have been "throwing money" at public transit for years. News of such spending will surprise riders of squeaky braked 24 year old buses.

Councillor Jack Dennsion (Ward 4) agrees with Taylor. It is a strategic planning issue.

Mayor Cam Jackson acts "mayoral" and says both Goldring and Taylor are right. Your blogger double checks his notes. How can this be?

Jackson thinks there is a bigger picture and wants to get all council onside through the Strategic Planning process. Good luck to you, Mayor Jackson. Achieiving a Buzz Hargrove/Jack Layton reconciliation would be an easier task.

Councillor Peter Thoem (Ward 2) is glad that we are finally talking about this critical issue which he is happy to deal with at strategic planning.

Committee Chair Carol D'Amelio, in earlier questions, seems to indicate that our expectations shouldn't be too high. We are a growing community and so emissions can be expected to go up.

Here's hoping that Council will get its act together on to this critical issue.

Strategic Planning (Future Focus) starts April 2nd. The process could use some input. Give your Councillor a call. Ask them to live up to the previous 2002 committment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Tell them this matters.

AGENDA FOR INACTION

The City of Burlington is committed to being “a leader in making a high level of environmental performance a primary goal of its policies.....”

So how is this leader in high level environmental performance doing? Let’s look at greenhouse gas reduction and a report coming to committee of council this week.

In 1994 the City of Burlington pledged to reduce its corporate greenhouse gas emissions by 20%.

These emissions are actually up by 21% according to a staff report being discussed at Tuesday March 27th meeting of Community and Corporate Services Committee. But that isn’t too bad because our population is up 16%, say the report’s authors.

And rather than address how to get to the goal the report suggests the goal be changed.

It references the 20% target.

It looks at the Kyoto target of a 6% reduction.

It contemplates getting back to the 1994 levels.

And finally opts for a new per capita target 40% poorer than the one envisioned in 1994 . (The new target is recommended to be. .07 tonnes per capita emissions versus the .05 tonne goal when the city set the target.)

Other cities are reducing their corporate emissions. Toronto has cut back 36% from 1990 levels. And if a growing city like Calgary can maintain a 6% reduction target surely Burlington can do better.

It is hoped that environmentally aware councillors like Rick Goldring will send this report back for more work or reconfirm the old targets and find ways to achieve them.

Otherwise the city’s self proclaimed role as an environmental leader will be exposed as the fish story it has become.

Disingenuous and Duplicitous - Indeed!

When former colleagues of yours are called names you take notice.

Burlington Councillors and Mayor Cam Jackson were recently called "disingenuous" and "duplicitous" by Hamilton Councillor Margaret McCarthy according to the today's Hamilton Spectator.

Let's see "duplicitous": Comes from the word "duplicity". It means tricky, suggests you're deceitful. It implies double dealing.

And "disingenuous" - lacking simplicity, frankness or sincerity; not straightforward; crafty.

Flamborough representative McCarthy uttered these harsh words after Burlington Council came up with what was described as a "compromise" position on the possible expansion of Waterdown Road.

When the name calling comes from a Hamilton politician, in a city where a major achievement is to get a quorum for a council meeting and civility and respect for the public are not often present - well, as my father use to say "consider the source."

The only thing achieved by such mud flinging is to raise the name calling politician's profile in the local press. Mission accomplished.

McCarthy is also quoted as saying the city's new position is "not defensible." This "d" word comment merits consideration.

One can argue that there is no Burlington position now. Not yet. Staff have been asked to take another look at the file.

One suspects, however, that when they come back with the same professional opinion that they put forward a year ago and when the various other experts (Conservation Authority, Escarpment Commission and Regional Planners) hold firm we'll find that Burlington may be on the hook for most of the costs of the inevitable road widening.

That will be disappointing. And taxpayers will be disgruntled.