When I was a municipal politician I found that, as far as challenges went, understanding planning documents was right up there with my aspiration of swimming Lake Ontario while doing the butterfly stroke.
So earlier this year when Ontario Municipal Board ruling PL050611 came out I went looking for help to understand it.
Rani Khan, a lawyer and colleague at the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic, read the 49 page ruling and provided comments that were helpful to me.
But this is my blog and what follows are my opinions.
The ruling involved a Kitchener Official Plan and Zoning by-law amendment that attempted to “clean up” a 10 block area in that city known as Cedar Hill. Cedar Hill apparently needs cleaning up as twenty percent of this area’s residents are persons with disabilities and/or persons in receipt of social assistance. Many live in shelters, group homes or rent-geared-to-income housing.
The City had decided that this situation represented an “over- concentration” resulting in “an unhealthy social environment.” The neighbourhood was on “a downward trajectory.” Scary stuff, indeed.
Some of the parties represented at the OMB hearing suggested that Kitchener was doing a little bit of “people zoning.” The important planning principle to keep in mind being that you zone for uses not for people.
This is an important and probably precedent setting case. Way back in 2003 the City had put an Interim Control By-law in place that banned any new “downward trajectory” promoting facilities. But, significantly, a commitment to do more study to promote the development of new....lodging houses and residential care facilities in all other appropriate areas of the city was made.
After four weeks of hearings last year the Board accepted the municipalities’ (Kitchener and Waterloo Region) arguments that there was, in fact, a concentration and that the City is entitled to develop initiatives to distribute facilities throughout the city. The Board, though, had a problem with the fact that the promised additional study never happened. As a result the Board ruled that the restrictive measures put in place were premature and gave the municipality 15 months to do the study it should have done five years ago.
In other words if a city is going to restrict opportunities for housing people with disabilities and/or those on assistance they’ll have to do appropriate preparation required by the Planning Act.
There is, of course, a lot more to this. I’ll have more to say later this week.
In the meantime you can view this interim decision on the OMB website (http://www.omb.gov.on.ca) by typing in PL050611.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Election Year
(A version of this story originally appeared on the Hamilton Spectator poverty Blog.)
Here is a story about how municipal politicians can lose their way in an election year.
The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) assists municipalities with their social program costs.
Recently OMPF reconciled the 2008 allocations against real expenditures and costs and as a result many municipalities received more money. Hamilton got about $3.1 million dollars; the Region of Niagara got $2.1 million.
I became aware of this late last month when reading a bulletin from CATCH (Citizens at City Hall). CATCH is a volunteer community group that encourages civic participation in Hamilton. The CATCH story focussed on the fact that Hamilton Councillors were all going to be getting about $250,000 each to spend in their wards on sidewalk repairs. "In a shift from normal practice" they apparently decided not to follow the usual priority setting process for allocating funds. This is indeed a shift but it is an election year and you'll see more shifts and other silliness before October 25th.
The CATCH story went on to note that $3.1 million of the $3.6 million fund being divvied up by the Councillors came from the OMPF reconciliation dollars. But shouldn't that money be going back into social services? That suggestion was rejected by Council.
I mentioned Niagara. They took their monies and put $600,000 into Emergency Medical Services and the remaining 1.5 million into an account to offset the Community Services net deficit. That makes sense; seems logical.
Up in Thunder Bay the city got $1.3 million back. Government member Michael Gravelle, the MPP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, was "absolutely delighted about this additional funding for social programs and other services."
Hamilton politicians seem to be marching to a different drummer here or am I missing something?
Here is a story about how municipal politicians can lose their way in an election year.
The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) assists municipalities with their social program costs.
Recently OMPF reconciled the 2008 allocations against real expenditures and costs and as a result many municipalities received more money. Hamilton got about $3.1 million dollars; the Region of Niagara got $2.1 million.
I became aware of this late last month when reading a bulletin from CATCH (Citizens at City Hall). CATCH is a volunteer community group that encourages civic participation in Hamilton. The CATCH story focussed on the fact that Hamilton Councillors were all going to be getting about $250,000 each to spend in their wards on sidewalk repairs. "In a shift from normal practice" they apparently decided not to follow the usual priority setting process for allocating funds. This is indeed a shift but it is an election year and you'll see more shifts and other silliness before October 25th.
The CATCH story went on to note that $3.1 million of the $3.6 million fund being divvied up by the Councillors came from the OMPF reconciliation dollars. But shouldn't that money be going back into social services? That suggestion was rejected by Council.
I mentioned Niagara. They took their monies and put $600,000 into Emergency Medical Services and the remaining 1.5 million into an account to offset the Community Services net deficit. That makes sense; seems logical.
Up in Thunder Bay the city got $1.3 million back. Government member Michael Gravelle, the MPP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, was "absolutely delighted about this additional funding for social programs and other services."
Hamilton politicians seem to be marching to a different drummer here or am I missing something?
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Cities Need New Revenue Sources
Caught my eye recently:
Montreal has ideas to find more revenue.
Their Finance Committee spent 67 hours meeting with various city agencies working to cut their $400 million budget shortfall, reported the Toronto Star’s Andrew Chung.
Serendipitously, perhaps, while these meetings were going on, $300,000 in extra policing costs ensued when Montreal Canadien fans rioted in the streets. Then, in a moment of enlightenment some bright spark had an idea - make the hockey club play. Ah, pure genius.
Expect feeble excuses from the Hab’s front office like:
The individuals who broke store windows, looted stores and set police cars on fire were hooligans, not Canadien fans.
These hoolifans weren’t even at the game.
Les Canadiens pay more than $8 million in property taxes each year and bring many other economic benefits to the city.
Give me a break please.
Understand this: Municipalities are behind the eight ball. They need new revenue sources. My town, Burlington, got it right earlier this year when they decided to charge residents if firefighters had to attend their car accident. Unfortunately, council backed down.
But I’ve got a few other ideas.
Park Bench Fees
An elderly couple camps out for hours on the bench at my local park. Cute, you say? But this as an opportunity. After all it’s the city’s bench. Slap a fee on these folks. Use that bench in excess of 15 minutes you should pay appropriate user fees.
Street Hockey Permits
I like street hockey; hate it when residents want ball-hockey-playing kids off the road. But, if these kid’s parents had to pay for a street hockey permit the neighbours wouldn’t have grounds to complain and the fees would enrich city coffers. Call this a win win!
Excessive Constituent Calls
Some of you will know I was a councillor once. And, yes, I loved my constituents - all of them; well nearly all of them. But there were a few, a very few, who demanded a lot of my time. Of course, many other constituents never bothered me. Wouldn’t it be fair put in place a charge against constituents who call or e-mail you more than say once a week? All these contacts could be calculated and put on the bothersome constituent’s tax bill as a user fee.
These are but a few ideas. You’ll have some too. Like garage sales. There were 46 advertised in the Burlington Post last Friday. Can you imagine how many “underground” ones were going on? What an opportunity if the city could just get back some revenue….The possibilities are endless.
Montreal has ideas to find more revenue.
Their Finance Committee spent 67 hours meeting with various city agencies working to cut their $400 million budget shortfall, reported the Toronto Star’s Andrew Chung.
Serendipitously, perhaps, while these meetings were going on, $300,000 in extra policing costs ensued when Montreal Canadien fans rioted in the streets. Then, in a moment of enlightenment some bright spark had an idea - make the hockey club play. Ah, pure genius.
Expect feeble excuses from the Hab’s front office like:
The individuals who broke store windows, looted stores and set police cars on fire were hooligans, not Canadien fans.
These hoolifans weren’t even at the game.
Les Canadiens pay more than $8 million in property taxes each year and bring many other economic benefits to the city.
Give me a break please.
Understand this: Municipalities are behind the eight ball. They need new revenue sources. My town, Burlington, got it right earlier this year when they decided to charge residents if firefighters had to attend their car accident. Unfortunately, council backed down.
But I’ve got a few other ideas.
Park Bench Fees
An elderly couple camps out for hours on the bench at my local park. Cute, you say? But this as an opportunity. After all it’s the city’s bench. Slap a fee on these folks. Use that bench in excess of 15 minutes you should pay appropriate user fees.
Street Hockey Permits
I like street hockey; hate it when residents want ball-hockey-playing kids off the road. But, if these kid’s parents had to pay for a street hockey permit the neighbours wouldn’t have grounds to complain and the fees would enrich city coffers. Call this a win win!
Excessive Constituent Calls
Some of you will know I was a councillor once. And, yes, I loved my constituents - all of them; well nearly all of them. But there were a few, a very few, who demanded a lot of my time. Of course, many other constituents never bothered me. Wouldn’t it be fair put in place a charge against constituents who call or e-mail you more than say once a week? All these contacts could be calculated and put on the bothersome constituent’s tax bill as a user fee.
These are but a few ideas. You’ll have some too. Like garage sales. There were 46 advertised in the Burlington Post last Friday. Can you imagine how many “underground” ones were going on? What an opportunity if the city could just get back some revenue….The possibilities are endless.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Shipwreck
With my family I recently spent some time in the Galapagos - an amazing place.
I've been gathering my thoughts notes and photos as I think there are some lessons to be learned from "the enchanted islands" when this past week a ship sunk there with 16 Canadians on board. Everyone is OK. News reports indicate the passengers, who lost their passports in the mishap, will be returning to Toronto from Quito (tomorrow) Sunday.
The ship, the Alta, is a modern luxury motor sailor about 150 feet long. Hard to believe it could sink. A lighthouse malfunction may be to blame.
Here is a picture of the Alta that I took from my cabin. We were about to head by panga (Zodiac) to North Seymour, the island in the background, on this warm Wednesday February 24th.
Shipwrecks wouldn't normally enter into a blog on municipal politics but I thought this was interesting.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Last Call
A group I'm involved with is showing a movie this Thursday that looks at
urban renewal and its impact on the poor.
The evening is entitled "Hamilton’s Last Call" and includes a panel discussion.
The movie tells what happened when aggressive developers buy a century-old, flophouse - Toronto's Gladstone Hotel. When the hotel is tarted up to become a hot spot for the arts long-time staff and residents begin a five-year struggle to survive.
“Last Call at the Gladstone Hotel” is an award winning film directed by Neil Graham, & Derreck Roemer.
We are showing it in Hamilton because the same thing is happening here with little public concern for the fact that the people who live in places like the Gladstone often end up on the street when "renewal" takes place.
Please consider attending this free event:
Thursday March 4th
7 pm - 9 pm
at the SKYDRAGON CENTRE
27 King William Street
Hamilton
If you can't make it but want to see the movie let me know and I'll make it available to you.
urban renewal and its impact on the poor.
The evening is entitled "Hamilton’s Last Call" and includes a panel discussion.
The movie tells what happened when aggressive developers buy a century-old, flophouse - Toronto's Gladstone Hotel. When the hotel is tarted up to become a hot spot for the arts long-time staff and residents begin a five-year struggle to survive.
“Last Call at the Gladstone Hotel” is an award winning film directed by Neil Graham, & Derreck Roemer.
We are showing it in Hamilton because the same thing is happening here with little public concern for the fact that the people who live in places like the Gladstone often end up on the street when "renewal" takes place.
Please consider attending this free event:
Thursday March 4th
7 pm - 9 pm
at the SKYDRAGON CENTRE
27 King William Street
Hamilton
If you can't make it but want to see the movie let me know and I'll make it available to you.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
TERM LIMITS
Case Ootes who has served the residents of East York for 21 years recently announced that he will not seek re-election. Somewhat surprisingly after all this time Ootes has decided that term limits are the way to go. That's one of the beauties of municipal politics. You just keep learning.
Locally three members of Burlington (Ontario) Council complete their first four year term this year. Of the veterans Councillor Rick Craven will have served ten years come the October election. Jack Dennison and Carol D'Amelio are coming up on 16 years. Councillor John Taylor arrived in November 1988 - the same municipal election year that voters sent Mr. Ootes to East York Council. One could argue that this Burlington Council has a good balance - experienced members and some rookies bringing new ideas.
Like other flavours of the month term limits was a hot topic in these parts 15 years ago. That’s when a movement to have smaller councils was in vogue. Burlington was the most successful shrinker in those “less government is better government days.” The head local shrinker, now proroguing MP, Mike Wallace led the charge to take council size from 17 to 7. My recollection is that Wallace also championed term limits (6 - 9 years) in those days. I'm not sure what his position was when he left for Ottawa after 12 years of local council duty. (Others remember that then rookie Dennison favoured two terms and out but I'm not sure. I wasn’t taking notes.)
I'd always thought that limiting Councillors to two or three terms was a bad idea ‘cause the electorate ought to decide when it is time for someone to go. If voters think a councillor has over stayed his welcome, is coasting or perhaps has become palsy walsy with the development community there’s a simple solution - vote for someone else.
I think I'm changing my mind, though. Perhaps I’m just following the crowd because I believe most voters, if asked, would say eight years (two terms) of municipal service is enough.
Long serving members can find something else to do. If they want to return they can try again next time.
What do you think?
P.S. I’m pleased that Walter Mulkewich has his blog up and running again (see frame the issues) I’m not sure where the 21 year Council veteran and former mayor stands on term limits.
Locally three members of Burlington (Ontario) Council complete their first four year term this year. Of the veterans Councillor Rick Craven will have served ten years come the October election. Jack Dennison and Carol D'Amelio are coming up on 16 years. Councillor John Taylor arrived in November 1988 - the same municipal election year that voters sent Mr. Ootes to East York Council. One could argue that this Burlington Council has a good balance - experienced members and some rookies bringing new ideas.
Like other flavours of the month term limits was a hot topic in these parts 15 years ago. That’s when a movement to have smaller councils was in vogue. Burlington was the most successful shrinker in those “less government is better government days.” The head local shrinker, now proroguing MP, Mike Wallace led the charge to take council size from 17 to 7. My recollection is that Wallace also championed term limits (6 - 9 years) in those days. I'm not sure what his position was when he left for Ottawa after 12 years of local council duty. (Others remember that then rookie Dennison favoured two terms and out but I'm not sure. I wasn’t taking notes.)
I'd always thought that limiting Councillors to two or three terms was a bad idea ‘cause the electorate ought to decide when it is time for someone to go. If voters think a councillor has over stayed his welcome, is coasting or perhaps has become palsy walsy with the development community there’s a simple solution - vote for someone else.
I think I'm changing my mind, though. Perhaps I’m just following the crowd because I believe most voters, if asked, would say eight years (two terms) of municipal service is enough.
Long serving members can find something else to do. If they want to return they can try again next time.
What do you think?
P.S. I’m pleased that Walter Mulkewich has his blog up and running again (see frame the issues) I’m not sure where the 21 year Council veteran and former mayor stands on term limits.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Here We Go Again
A couple of weeks ago the Environment Commissioner came out with his annual report on the province’s Action Plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions(www.eco.on.ca). It is clear from the analysis that the emission reduction targets that were set for 2014 and 2020 will not be met. Urban sprawl and private autos are the big culprits.
Thirty-one percent of all emissions are attributable to the transportation sector. Not only is that sector the biggest emitter but it is increasing the most relative to the other sectors identified (e.g. electricity/ heat generation and industry etc..)
The transportation sector has seen a huge increase in vehicle emissions from "light duty gasoline trucks" like SUV’s, vans and pickups – 123% since 1990.
The Commissioner thinks we have to seriously consider road pricing to address our frightful greenhouse gas problems. Road pricing would take into account the true cost of our transportation infrastructure and could reduce congestion and improve our environmental conditions. Properly implemented it would be an important reform towards a fairer tax system. But is road pricing on the political agenda today?
Take my town Burlington (Ontario). Their idea of pricing strategies runs about as deep as Sarah Palin’s grasp of foreign policy matters. It goes like this: If you don’t run buses then you save money. Using that logic today (Jan 1) Burlington is the only Lakeshore GTA community not running buses.
We are repeating ourselves in lamenting this lack of recognition of the damage that personal automobile use is doing to our environment. We won’t get into the equity issue as we’ve done that before (see archives 2/16/08.)
Any ideas?
Thirty-one percent of all emissions are attributable to the transportation sector. Not only is that sector the biggest emitter but it is increasing the most relative to the other sectors identified (e.g. electricity/ heat generation and industry etc..)
The transportation sector has seen a huge increase in vehicle emissions from "light duty gasoline trucks" like SUV’s, vans and pickups – 123% since 1990.
The Commissioner thinks we have to seriously consider road pricing to address our frightful greenhouse gas problems. Road pricing would take into account the true cost of our transportation infrastructure and could reduce congestion and improve our environmental conditions. Properly implemented it would be an important reform towards a fairer tax system. But is road pricing on the political agenda today?
Take my town Burlington (Ontario). Their idea of pricing strategies runs about as deep as Sarah Palin’s grasp of foreign policy matters. It goes like this: If you don’t run buses then you save money. Using that logic today (Jan 1) Burlington is the only Lakeshore GTA community not running buses.
We are repeating ourselves in lamenting this lack of recognition of the damage that personal automobile use is doing to our environment. We won’t get into the equity issue as we’ve done that before (see archives 2/16/08.)
Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)