As the terms of the first four-year Councillors in Ontario history wind down there is a changing of the guard in towns small and cities large across the province.
While eager newcomers join long time-experienced veterans many dedicated Councillors chose to pursue other interests or have had that choice made for them by voters.
I heard one of those who was volunteering to pursue new interests speak earlier this year and thought she had some interesting things to say.
Susan Eagle, was first elected to London (ON) Council in 1997. Ms. Eagle, who grew up in Toronto the daughter of a minister, didn’t have a clear career path to municipal politics. She started as a minister.
According to a story by Kenzie Love in the Internet paper The Reporter, Eagle wasn’t terribly interested in traditional ministry but did have a passion for feminist and liberation theology. Ordained in 1977 by 1984 she was quite involved in tenant issues through the outreach work she was engaged in with her London church. She saw a way that she could pursue this outreach work in municipal politics and was elected in 1997 as a Councillor on London’s southwest side.
When I heard Eagle earlier this year she was reflecting on 13 years at City Hall.
While municipalities don’t have the powers that she believed they had when she arrived at City Hall Eagle has determined that “you make change by being on the inside not outside.” So, it was worth the effort.
Achieving change though can be “frustrating, time consuming and glacial” but by building partnerships and “broadening the base of an issue” you can get results.
Ms. Eagle noted that general media indifference to a social justice agenda exists even as demand for services outstrips the capacities of cities.
The City has become a “safety net” for some citizens so municipalities (like hers) have moved into what she calls “soft services” such as transit subsidies and landlord licensing.
Ms. Eagle offered encouragement for social justice activists and other progressive types.
Don’t give up. Turn up at public meetings.
“A full public gallery changes entrenched votes,” she asserted.
Susan Eagle is now moving to full time work as a Minister at Grace United Church in Barrie.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
HOW I’M VOTING PART 3
Today, as promised, I’m back to public transit as it ought to be at the top of our minds as we make our decisions on October 25th.
I was optimistic in the early months of the current 4-year term Burlington Council.
Back then Burlington Council had just created a Transit Advisory Committee that was going to provide input to Council and staff on initiatives and strategies affecting public transportation services.
At the time I noted that the “creation of this committee is one indication that municipal public transit and the environment is being taken more seriously these days.”
I was wrong.
Just a little over a year later along with fellow transit advocate Doug Brown I was back at City Hall. Ridership on Burlington Transit was up according to a staff report.
But this wasn’t stopping some members of Council from taking a knife to it.
“I won’t be swayed by a couple of good months,” noted one veteran Councillor who thought the City had to “look at a simplified system.”
Simplified? One can only imagine.
Empty Buses?
This idealized simplified system comes out of a simplified thinking that typically comes from people who have little direct exposure to transit and little appreciation of how important it is. Unfortunately, some of these simplified thinkers get elected.
It isn’t just here. If you follow local news in other communities you’ll see similar simplified thinking. Local politics is often captive of what I’ve labelled as RATS. Have you noticed those people who get hot and bothered about public transit vehicles; those who Rail Against Public Transit? They’re RATS. Get it?
Toronto Star’s Urban Affairs Reporter Carole Vyhnak reported a couple of years ago on Sandra Cassidy, an Ajax Ontario resident, who was railing against Durham Transit Route 222.
Like RATS everywhere Cassidy knows that:
*Buses are “mostly empty.”
*Buses roaring down her street are a “safety hazard.”
*Since “everyone in the area has at least two cars” we don’t really need public buses.
Ms. Cassidy was not successful in getting Route 222 pulled and I’m happy to report that the route has recently expanded.
More recently Mark Towhey, a policy advisor for Toronto mayoral Candidate Rob Ford, called for a stop to funding the TTC. He’d sell off its assets.
On his blog Towhey demonstrated a keen understanding of the issue:
“Well, life’s tough. Instead of being the only three people on a 60-passenger bus, perhaps these people will have to introduce themselves, get to know their neighbours and share a taxi.”
That same kind of thinking exists in Burlington where a Ward 5 Candidate did some fancy arithmetic and came up with the “fact” that the buses are empty 98.5% of the time. An incumbent used a similar figure earlier this year. They are just wrong, but like the little boy who yelled ‘fire’ in the theatre they get lots of attention.
I’ll be back with some more before Monday’s election.
I was optimistic in the early months of the current 4-year term Burlington Council.
Back then Burlington Council had just created a Transit Advisory Committee that was going to provide input to Council and staff on initiatives and strategies affecting public transportation services.
At the time I noted that the “creation of this committee is one indication that municipal public transit and the environment is being taken more seriously these days.”
I was wrong.
Just a little over a year later along with fellow transit advocate Doug Brown I was back at City Hall. Ridership on Burlington Transit was up according to a staff report.
But this wasn’t stopping some members of Council from taking a knife to it.
“I won’t be swayed by a couple of good months,” noted one veteran Councillor who thought the City had to “look at a simplified system.”
Simplified? One can only imagine.
Empty Buses?
This idealized simplified system comes out of a simplified thinking that typically comes from people who have little direct exposure to transit and little appreciation of how important it is. Unfortunately, some of these simplified thinkers get elected.
It isn’t just here. If you follow local news in other communities you’ll see similar simplified thinking. Local politics is often captive of what I’ve labelled as RATS. Have you noticed those people who get hot and bothered about public transit vehicles; those who Rail Against Public Transit? They’re RATS. Get it?
Toronto Star’s Urban Affairs Reporter Carole Vyhnak reported a couple of years ago on Sandra Cassidy, an Ajax Ontario resident, who was railing against Durham Transit Route 222.
Like RATS everywhere Cassidy knows that:
*Buses are “mostly empty.”
*Buses roaring down her street are a “safety hazard.”
*Since “everyone in the area has at least two cars” we don’t really need public buses.
Ms. Cassidy was not successful in getting Route 222 pulled and I’m happy to report that the route has recently expanded.
More recently Mark Towhey, a policy advisor for Toronto mayoral Candidate Rob Ford, called for a stop to funding the TTC. He’d sell off its assets.
On his blog Towhey demonstrated a keen understanding of the issue:
“Well, life’s tough. Instead of being the only three people on a 60-passenger bus, perhaps these people will have to introduce themselves, get to know their neighbours and share a taxi.”
That same kind of thinking exists in Burlington where a Ward 5 Candidate did some fancy arithmetic and came up with the “fact” that the buses are empty 98.5% of the time. An incumbent used a similar figure earlier this year. They are just wrong, but like the little boy who yelled ‘fire’ in the theatre they get lots of attention.
I’ll be back with some more before Monday’s election.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
How I'm going to Vote Part 2
Many of you will be on the edge of your ergonomically perfect computer chairs wondering how my Internet voting project went.
It didn't. I got no response on the registration (see my previous post) and Internet voting is now closed. To be fair I may have pushed a wrong button or perhaps I was approved and inadvertently deleted the approval e-mail. Or maybe my PIN number was sent off to some poor disenfranchised Floridian Gore supporter still trying to make the 2000 Presidential election right.
Before I get back to transit I wanted to talk about something that isn't being talked about by candidates in the municipal election. That's poverty.
Twenty eight thousand (28,000) people in Halton live below the Low Income Cut Off (LICO). The LICO is one way, probably the best way, to measure poverty.
Community Development Halton and Poverty Free Halton just put together a video about what it is like to live in poverty in Halton. You can see Being Poor in Halton by going to the CD Halton website.
A questionnaire was sent out to candidates and you can see their
answers too at www.cdhalton.ca
One more thing in the interest of full disclosure a young Burlington filmmaker named Graham Wood made the video. I've known Graham 25 years.
It didn't. I got no response on the registration (see my previous post) and Internet voting is now closed. To be fair I may have pushed a wrong button or perhaps I was approved and inadvertently deleted the approval e-mail. Or maybe my PIN number was sent off to some poor disenfranchised Floridian Gore supporter still trying to make the 2000 Presidential election right.
Before I get back to transit I wanted to talk about something that isn't being talked about by candidates in the municipal election. That's poverty.
Twenty eight thousand (28,000) people in Halton live below the Low Income Cut Off (LICO). The LICO is one way, probably the best way, to measure poverty.
Community Development Halton and Poverty Free Halton just put together a video about what it is like to live in poverty in Halton. You can see Being Poor in Halton by going to the CD Halton website.
A questionnaire was sent out to candidates and you can see their
answers too at www.cdhalton.ca
One more thing in the interest of full disclosure a young Burlington filmmaker named Graham Wood made the video. I've known Graham 25 years.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
HOW I’M GOING TO VOTE IN THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION
I’ve decided to try Internet Voting just to see how it works.
To do this I needed to register (to internet vote) and it needs to be done from September 27th – October 11th
It took me about three minutes to get registered. The key thing I needed was my Voter Information Notice that includes a 13-digit EID number that I had to enter along with a number of simple questions.
I now have to wait until the Clerk approves me. And I’m a little worried. Perhaps the Clerk is screening this blog before giving approval. We were told at an information session that it would take 24 hours or more for the approval and I’ve been waiting for 3 ½ days. And while I’m eager to vote I can’t actually do it until October 5th. The voting period then lasts until October 13th. I didn’t understand this at first (Shouldn’t it go right up to election day? ) but the idea is that if someone tried to vote by Internet and for some reason was not able to make it work they would still have a chance on election day (October 25th).
So while I wait for the opening of the internet voting I’ve got some time to contemplate who I’ll vote for.
A lot of what is going into my decision has to do with this City’s traditionally poor support for public transit.
Good transit is a must for a good city. There are the environmental reasons for using transit as an option to gas spewing single occupant vehicles, of course. Then there is the equity issue. It just seems to me a given that all citizens should be able to get around the town where they live and use its services and amenities. For those who choose not to have a car, can’t afford one, or maybe have health issues meaning they can’t drive good public transit is a must.
In Burlington support for public transit has been crummy relative to other similar communities.
A survey of eight peer transit properties done in 2008 showed Burlington
way behind. We were last in number of revenue passengers; last in passengers per capita; and at the bottom in the revenue per cost ratio.
But our fares were the highest. The number of revenue hours of service per capita was 8th of 9 and the amount the local taxpayer was spending on a per capita basis was the second lowest of the nine cities studies.
My point: Council is not giving the support to the service they should.
I’ve attended numerous meetings on public transit matters over the years and can tell you that Burlington council just doesn’t get it.
My next posts will elaborate.
To do this I needed to register (to internet vote) and it needs to be done from September 27th – October 11th
It took me about three minutes to get registered. The key thing I needed was my Voter Information Notice that includes a 13-digit EID number that I had to enter along with a number of simple questions.
I now have to wait until the Clerk approves me. And I’m a little worried. Perhaps the Clerk is screening this blog before giving approval. We were told at an information session that it would take 24 hours or more for the approval and I’ve been waiting for 3 ½ days. And while I’m eager to vote I can’t actually do it until October 5th. The voting period then lasts until October 13th. I didn’t understand this at first (Shouldn’t it go right up to election day? ) but the idea is that if someone tried to vote by Internet and for some reason was not able to make it work they would still have a chance on election day (October 25th).
So while I wait for the opening of the internet voting I’ve got some time to contemplate who I’ll vote for.
A lot of what is going into my decision has to do with this City’s traditionally poor support for public transit.
Good transit is a must for a good city. There are the environmental reasons for using transit as an option to gas spewing single occupant vehicles, of course. Then there is the equity issue. It just seems to me a given that all citizens should be able to get around the town where they live and use its services and amenities. For those who choose not to have a car, can’t afford one, or maybe have health issues meaning they can’t drive good public transit is a must.
In Burlington support for public transit has been crummy relative to other similar communities.
A survey of eight peer transit properties done in 2008 showed Burlington
way behind. We were last in number of revenue passengers; last in passengers per capita; and at the bottom in the revenue per cost ratio.
But our fares were the highest. The number of revenue hours of service per capita was 8th of 9 and the amount the local taxpayer was spending on a per capita basis was the second lowest of the nine cities studies.
My point: Council is not giving the support to the service they should.
I’ve attended numerous meetings on public transit matters over the years and can tell you that Burlington council just doesn’t get it.
My next posts will elaborate.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
ISSUES #1
In local politics issues can be grouped in three categories.
Potholes
First you’ve got “potholes.” Used euphemistically I’m talking about any kind of issue constituents may perceive when roused from the backyard pool/barbecue and forced to venture round front to see how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. The extent to which havoc has been wrought in these mean suburban streets by various miscreants, reprobates and the slapdash work of public servants is a significant aspect of any pothole issue.
Experience has shown that the most prevalent pothole peeves include:
• Garbage - not well collected/not collected on time
• Traffic - too much/too fast
• Cars parked in violation of the three hour parking by-law
• Various concerns related to neighbours’ inadequate property and yard maintenance and deportment.
• Improper or tardy removal of snow in winter and leaves in fall.
Cities have engaged qualified staff (mostly well paid) to deal with these matters but, you should know, these issues are best handled by the ward politician. He/she is only too glad to be of service and will usually resolve these matters and in return you will remember him at election time. (Please note the municipal election is two weeks earlier this year.)
Neighbourhood
A second category, call them neighbourhood issues, are planning matters that deal with minor modifications or significant changes to land uses. This is tricky stuff complicated by the neighbourhood’s perception of whether it is, in fact, a minor or significant change (it is almost always significant) and a lack of understanding of the fact that property owners have legitimate expectations of their rights under planning regulations.
The way neighbourhood matters get resolved has an important long term impact on the kind of community we live in.
Neigbourhood issues are the purview of the ward councillor (although sometimes the mayor “helps out”) who works with appropriate city staff and with a proponent who wants to make change which is at odds with the neighbours who are typically happy with the status quo. An outbreak of NIMBY inevitably will ensue.
Community Priorities
A third category is issues of broad community interest. Or, at least, issues that ought to be of broad interest as their impacts will be long term to all residents both from a cost and benefit perspective.
In my town (Burlington) I can think of at least 4 such issues. I’ll come back to them later this week.
Potholes
First you’ve got “potholes.” Used euphemistically I’m talking about any kind of issue constituents may perceive when roused from the backyard pool/barbecue and forced to venture round front to see how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. The extent to which havoc has been wrought in these mean suburban streets by various miscreants, reprobates and the slapdash work of public servants is a significant aspect of any pothole issue.
Experience has shown that the most prevalent pothole peeves include:
• Garbage - not well collected/not collected on time
• Traffic - too much/too fast
• Cars parked in violation of the three hour parking by-law
• Various concerns related to neighbours’ inadequate property and yard maintenance and deportment.
• Improper or tardy removal of snow in winter and leaves in fall.
Cities have engaged qualified staff (mostly well paid) to deal with these matters but, you should know, these issues are best handled by the ward politician. He/she is only too glad to be of service and will usually resolve these matters and in return you will remember him at election time. (Please note the municipal election is two weeks earlier this year.)
Neighbourhood
A second category, call them neighbourhood issues, are planning matters that deal with minor modifications or significant changes to land uses. This is tricky stuff complicated by the neighbourhood’s perception of whether it is, in fact, a minor or significant change (it is almost always significant) and a lack of understanding of the fact that property owners have legitimate expectations of their rights under planning regulations.
The way neighbourhood matters get resolved has an important long term impact on the kind of community we live in.
Neigbourhood issues are the purview of the ward councillor (although sometimes the mayor “helps out”) who works with appropriate city staff and with a proponent who wants to make change which is at odds with the neighbours who are typically happy with the status quo. An outbreak of NIMBY inevitably will ensue.
Community Priorities
A third category is issues of broad community interest. Or, at least, issues that ought to be of broad interest as their impacts will be long term to all residents both from a cost and benefit perspective.
In my town (Burlington) I can think of at least 4 such issues. I’ll come back to them later this week.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
REPORTING FROM EDMONTON
While Edmonton may be called the City of Champions local politicians are treated as much like chumps here as anywhere else.
We are talking about the surprising developments over the last ten days when Edmonton Oiler Owner Daryl Katz played “the good old Hamilton card.”
That is what Edmonton Sun reporter Terry Jones called it anyway. Those
NHL-Hockey-deprived Hamiltonians may not get it but your blogger understands this to refer to a tactic once used by former Oiler owner, Gretkzy trader and convicted fibber Peter Pocklington.
The story in the local media is that Edmonton Mayor Fred Mandel didn’t get a hint of Katz’s dalliance with the Ambitious City’s Mayor Fred until June 28th - just before it broke online.
As far as the rest of Council they are described by the Sun’s Clara Ho as “perplexed” – which your blogger would assert is the normal state of Councillors when such high level wheeling and dealing is in the works.
There is such consternation out here that a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new locker room to be enjoyed by the football playing Eskimos suddenly seemed of no consequence.
Oilers President Patrick Laforge – says the Hamilton developments have nothing to do with the Oilers. “It is purely a business strategy,” he told all who would listen.
But Journal Columnist Paula Simons thinks the Oilers are guilty of bad manners. “Blindsiding, perplexing, and alienating Edmonton’s mayor and city councillors isn’t merely rude. It’s weirdly self defeating.”
Apparently this is another in a series of recent blunders by Katz. Earlier Council misunderstood his $100 million pledge towards a new arena. It turned out to be a commitment to invest in the area around the arena. A recent application that would blanket zone 16 acres of that area came forward without plans or design.
Concerns?
“(T)here were all kinds of people who were fully own board with the arena two or three months ago, who are now asking all kinds of questions,” notes Councillor Ben Henderson.
The Sun’s Jones thinks Katz, like Pocklington before him, should be required to sign a location agreement.
That might help and it is an idea that might have legs.
We are talking about the surprising developments over the last ten days when Edmonton Oiler Owner Daryl Katz played “the good old Hamilton card.”
That is what Edmonton Sun reporter Terry Jones called it anyway. Those
NHL-Hockey-deprived Hamiltonians may not get it but your blogger understands this to refer to a tactic once used by former Oiler owner, Gretkzy trader and convicted fibber Peter Pocklington.
The story in the local media is that Edmonton Mayor Fred Mandel didn’t get a hint of Katz’s dalliance with the Ambitious City’s Mayor Fred until June 28th - just before it broke online.
As far as the rest of Council they are described by the Sun’s Clara Ho as “perplexed” – which your blogger would assert is the normal state of Councillors when such high level wheeling and dealing is in the works.
There is such consternation out here that a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new locker room to be enjoyed by the football playing Eskimos suddenly seemed of no consequence.
Oilers President Patrick Laforge – says the Hamilton developments have nothing to do with the Oilers. “It is purely a business strategy,” he told all who would listen.
But Journal Columnist Paula Simons thinks the Oilers are guilty of bad manners. “Blindsiding, perplexing, and alienating Edmonton’s mayor and city councillors isn’t merely rude. It’s weirdly self defeating.”
Apparently this is another in a series of recent blunders by Katz. Earlier Council misunderstood his $100 million pledge towards a new arena. It turned out to be a commitment to invest in the area around the arena. A recent application that would blanket zone 16 acres of that area came forward without plans or design.
Concerns?
“(T)here were all kinds of people who were fully own board with the arena two or three months ago, who are now asking all kinds of questions,” notes Councillor Ben Henderson.
The Sun’s Jones thinks Katz, like Pocklington before him, should be required to sign a location agreement.
That might help and it is an idea that might have legs.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
We Need the OMB
Getting back to my earlier blog on the Kitchener/Cedar Hill Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision (June 23rd) you’ll recall that I had more to say.
Here it is - for what it’s worth.
Remember I am not planner but… This case should give pause to those who question the value of the OMB.
What looked like good planning by the City Of Kitchener back in 2003 unravelled when the Interim Control By-Law was put in place without the additional study that was supposed to go along with it.
From where I blog it is hard to really get what happened. Reading the OMB Interim Decision, though, suggests that between the Council Committee meeting and the full Council meeting politicians changed their minds; or had their minds changed.
The “high priority” additional study was rejected at Council when elected officials voted to remove the clause that directed staff to do that work.
At the Regional level planning staff kept on expressing concern that the phase two analysis wasn’t happening. What happened?
City Planner Jeffrey Willmer gave this explanation as cited in the OMB documents:
{There was a} "shortage of leadership resources… Those efforts were not successful in having a new leader step up, and there were competing calls for resources.”
Got that?
No one appealed the laughably named Interim Control By-law. It continues in effect more than seven years after being put in place.
Human Rights Concerns
There’s a significant human rights issue here too.
Ontario Human Rights Commission Chief Barbara Hall notes:
“People with disabilities or on social assistance were the targets; they were told in effect ‘we don’t want more people like you in this neigbournood.’ The Human Rights Code says you can’t discriminate like that.”
Housing expert, Michael Shapcott, notes:
“Housing advocates have long argued that municipal restrictions that limit, or ban entirely, certain types of housing and services from certain neighbourhoods can amount to unfair discrimination and a violation of human rights laws."
The OMB has given the municipality 15 months to get it right. Let’s see what happens.
Here it is - for what it’s worth.
Remember I am not planner but… This case should give pause to those who question the value of the OMB.
What looked like good planning by the City Of Kitchener back in 2003 unravelled when the Interim Control By-Law was put in place without the additional study that was supposed to go along with it.
From where I blog it is hard to really get what happened. Reading the OMB Interim Decision, though, suggests that between the Council Committee meeting and the full Council meeting politicians changed their minds; or had their minds changed.
The “high priority” additional study was rejected at Council when elected officials voted to remove the clause that directed staff to do that work.
At the Regional level planning staff kept on expressing concern that the phase two analysis wasn’t happening. What happened?
City Planner Jeffrey Willmer gave this explanation as cited in the OMB documents:
{There was a} "shortage of leadership resources… Those efforts were not successful in having a new leader step up, and there were competing calls for resources.”
Got that?
No one appealed the laughably named Interim Control By-law. It continues in effect more than seven years after being put in place.
Human Rights Concerns
There’s a significant human rights issue here too.
Ontario Human Rights Commission Chief Barbara Hall notes:
“People with disabilities or on social assistance were the targets; they were told in effect ‘we don’t want more people like you in this neigbournood.’ The Human Rights Code says you can’t discriminate like that.”
Housing expert, Michael Shapcott, notes:
“Housing advocates have long argued that municipal restrictions that limit, or ban entirely, certain types of housing and services from certain neighbourhoods can amount to unfair discrimination and a violation of human rights laws."
The OMB has given the municipality 15 months to get it right. Let’s see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)