- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Newmarket needs a new Library. 
That's been my view for years.
But it looks like no-one on the Council nor, astonishingly, the Library Board agrees with me. They are happy to make do with what they’ve got, putting their money in “outreach”.
The Library Board’s resident clown, Councillor Victor Woodhouse, dangled the prospect of a new Library at the Town’s Committee of the Whole on 8 April 2024 which was considering the Library’s “Report to the Community 2023”. He asked the Board Chair, Darryl Gray, and the Library’s Chief Executive, Tracy Munusami:
“We talk from time to time about the library expanding and doing something different and something more and I wonder if you can shed any light on the new building we've talked about? I think in the order of $40 million.”
As soon as the words were out of his mouth he confessed it was just a joke!
Oh dear!
Ten years ago, in 2014, I recall the former Library Chief Executive Todd Kyle making a very persuasive case for a new building. The Park Avenue library was too small. Newmarket spent less per capita than successful libraries in similar-sized communities. Ours is one of the smallest libraries per capita in the Province. The building was difficult to service and there was insufficient parking. People have been talking about a new library, off and on, for years.
Space at a premium
The Library Board admits space is tight. But they believe the way around this is to take the Library out into the community through “outreach”.
Unfortunately, we do not have statistics showing where (a) new members and (b) existing members of the Library live. Some councillors, such as Ward 7’s Christina Bisanz, have been wondering aloud if library services are reaching people in her patch, a million miles from the Library’s downtown location.
At the time of the last municipal election in 2022, there was some talk about opening a second branch but this never really got off the ground. Then people toyed with the idea of a mobile library. But that too was parked.
And the Deputy Mayor, Tom Vegh, no longer says:
“The debate over the need for a new public library is long over. The only question now is where and when.”
Today, his focus of attention is the Lendery, the Library of things, like pots and pans and power washers that people can borrow free of charge.
New Library no longer an aspiration
But what I find so depressing is that a new library is not even an aspiration. Not even to the Library Board.
Of course, the Town has other things to spend its money on such as Mulock Farm (which I support) but, at some stage, it will have to start thinking about a new building.
In the meantime, we need accurate, up-to-date statistics and explanations of what they mean. There are 5,357 new members but we have no breakdown showing how many live in Town and how many outside.
This information used to be given as a matter of course.
In-person visits to the Library is new. How is that measured?
Annual Reports
Library Board Vice Chair, the effusive Councillor Kelly Broome, told the meeting on 8 April 2024 when discussing the Library’s “Report to the Community” that if councillors had all the annual reports lined up before them they would see the significant increase in services in recent years. Hmmm. I think that’s gilding the lily somewhat.
Library usage dropped off dramatically during the COVID years (as expected) but is now recovering. But many of the key metrics show us only slowly getting back to where we were in earlier years.
We still don’t have the full palette of usage statistics for 2023 (which are normally presented to the Board by April) but we do have figures from previous years. Here are the statistics for 2014 - the year Todd Kyle spoke out. And here are the figures for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
A report going to the NPL Board later today shows that, in our area, Georgina and East Gwillimbury have three libraries apiece. Neighbouring municipalities such as Aurora and Whitchurch-Stouffville have a single library like us but with much smaller populations.
At some point Newmarket will have to bite the bullet.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Update on 16 May 2024: Newmarket Today: Newmarket Library eyes Monday openings
Click "read more" below for the discussion on the Library's Report to the Community 2023 which was presented to the Town's Committee of the Whole on 8 April 2024.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Southlake Regional Health Centre and the Municipality of King held a “follow-up” to the meeting on 1 November 2022 when the developer Michael Rice offered some of his land in the Protected Greenbelt at Bathurst as the site of a new acute hospital. 
The follow-up meeting was on 24 January 2023 – eight days after we learned the proposed hospital site at Bathurst was being planned to accommodate a Long-Term Care facility, a money-making add-on championed by Rice.
The (then) Chief Executive of Southlake, Arden Krystal, and the hospital’s Vice President of Capital Facilities, the tight-lipped John Marshman, were invited. King’s dissembling Mayor Steve Pellegrini and the Township’s Chief Administrative Officer, Daniel Kostopoulos, were to host the meeting at King Municipal Centre.
No Records
In the absence of any records of the meeting other than the invitations I asked King to look at the files held by Pellegrini and Kostopoulos and yesterday I was told:
“A search has been conducted and no responsive records were located.”
On 1 March 2024 I asked Southlake if they had any records of the meeting. They tell me they need more time as they must consult “third parties” – presumably King Township.
I am now told to expect a reply from them by 30 May 2024.
The endless months-long delays between filing a Freedom of information request and getting an answer are sapping.
But it is the cavalier disregard of basic record keeping that stings. No agendas, no minutes, no emails, no notes of any kind.
No Paper Trail
It is all off-the-books. No paper trail. Word of mouth.
We know the meeting happened. And that it followed the hugely consequential meeting on 1 November 2022. Which itself is part of the wider RCMP investigation into the Greenbelt scandal.
But, for the moment, we don't know who said what to whom.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
On 13 February 2024, Aurora council considered a proposal from York Regional Council to locate a new 55-unit transitional housing/ emergency shelter for men at 14452 Yonge Street on land owned by the Region. 
The Mayor, Tom Mrakas, voted against the proposal and the new shelter - which had been in the works for years - was rejected by Aurora Council 4-3.
In an on-line post the day after the vote, Mrakas claims he asked the Regional Council a year before – in January 2023 – to look for alternative sites. Where is the evidence for this?
No Objections
In fact, for long enough, Mrakas didn’t raise any objections to the proposed shelter until nearby residents expressed alarm. They feared their neighbourhood would be changed for the worst with property values tumbling and crime soaring following an invasion of wild homeless men. In the blink of an eye Mrakas became the residents’ vociferous champion.
He challenged York Regional Council to find accommodation for the homeless in their own underused properties, pointing to the new Regional HQ in Newmarket.
He promises to bring a motion to York Regional Council to force the issue. (See bottom right for original motion)
High noon is Thursday 11 April 2024.
Muscular Mrakas
I expected a muscular Mrakas to come out swinging in defence of his outraged residents. Instead, we saw a low-key and hesitant Mrakas calling simply for a review of the Region’s property portfolio to ensure it was providing “value for money” for taxpayers.
No mention of putting homeless men in the Regional HQ.
After reading his media posts I felt rather let down. This is the Mayor who famously tells us he stands by his residents, right or wrong. And if they don’t want a Regionally owned and operated shelter for homeless men in their neighbourhood - with round-the-clock supervision by trained and qualified staff – then that’s good enough for him. The homeless men have gotta go somewhere else.
Dodging
At last week’s meeting, Mrakas dodged questions from Newmarket’s John Taylor.
When Taylor asks him what he meant by the term “supportive housing” Mrakas can’t answer and instead makes a snide remark about wordsmithing.
Taylor quizzes Mrakas on his reasons for rejecting the shelter in Aurora. Mrakas said it did not fit “seamlessly” into the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning regulations. But, by the same token, would putting homeless men in the Regional HQ – an office building – fit “seamlessly” into Newmarket’s own Official Plan and zoning regulations?
Silent
Mrakas is asked by the Chair if he wants to respond to Taylor’s points. But a feeble Mrakas stays silent.
“that specifically speaks to housing in this building”.
Mrakas says if the reference offends anyone he would have no problem taking it out.
No-brainer
Richmond Hill Mayor, David West, agrees that drawing up an inventory of what the Region owns is a “no-brainer”. Everyone agrees with that.
He calls for an analysis of the implications of converting office buildings to residential.
Good point.
I am still waiting to hear if Aurora Town Hall can accommodate homeless men.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Update on 18 April 2024 from the Aurora Banner: Residents' Group "extremely disappointed"
Update on 25 June 2024: Tom Mrakas tweets he is thrilled that York Region staff have abandoned plans to locate a shelter for homeless men at 14452 Yonge Street. In fact, it doesn't get a mention.
Update on 7 November 2024: From Newmarket Today: Aurora Councillor regrets voting against the Shelter earlier this year.
Click "read more" for transcript of the exchanges at the Committee of the Whole on 11 April 2024.
Read more: Housing the homeless: the case against Tom "not in my patch" Mrakas
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Why shouldn’t municipalities be given powers to build homes for those in housing need? 
That’s the question being asked by Richmond Hill’s Joe DiPaola, and why not?
Governments have long since left the field to the private sector which is, for a million and one reasons, happier building monster homes rather than the more modest affordable ones.
The Man with the Plan
Step forward Joe Di Paola, the man with the plan.
DiPaola is married to Charity McGrath who was once a wannabe Progressive Conservative MPP for Newmarket-Aurora. But her Parliamentary ambitions turned to dust after she was accused of dirty tricks by fellow conservatives in trying to secure the PC nomination.
In any event, Joe DiPaola is saying some interesting things. And we should listen.
At York Region’s Committee of the Whole on 7 March 2024 in a debate on homelessness DiPaola joined Newmarket’s John Taylor in calling for vigorous action to tackle the crisis in housing affordability and the relentless rise in homelessness.
Last month Taylor told Regional councillors the number of people experiencing homelessness was growing exponentially.
He warned that without drastic action there would be tent encampments all over York Region within three to five years.
A report from Region’s Commissioner of Community Services and Chief Planner underlined the scale of the problem:
“Demand for subsidized housing continues to grow with 2,400 new eligible applications added to the Region’s subsidized waiting list in 2022 and the supply is not keeping up. As of December 31, 2022 there were 14,867 households on the subsidized waiting list with about 371 applicants housed annually on average between 2008 and 2022.”
Allow municipalities to build affordable homes
DiPaola’s solution is for the Province to allow municipalities to build affordable homes. He talks about the possibilities in Richmond Hill:
“We have a 20-acre parcel that we owned for a Civic Centre on Young St and Major Mackenzie. And we've abandoned a $220 million Civic Centre. We don't need that office space. It’s not required like we thought it was. And we have an opportunity. The only thing we have proposed is a park.
“If municipalities were allowed we could take 5 acres, build 2,000 units. It would cost about $600 million. We would be able to offer them at $800 a unit per month to people and then break even. Because we're not paying for the land. We're not paying for the financing costs. We have the money.
“We have over $350 million in reserves in Richmond Hill. We could dip into that as long as we're assured that we get that stream of income. If we were allowed to be the builders we could solve the problem.
Practical Plan
DiPaola refers to the elephant in the room. Everyone is saying the right things but no-one has a practical plan to tackle the problem. He says his Richmond Hill example could be applied in York region and across the Province.
“The Region's resources are far greater than Richmond Hill. But if the provincial government allowed municipalities - solely for the purpose of providing housing for their vulnerable residents - where we're allowed to take our property and build… within a strict regulated formula and using the list of people that are already qualified as the most in need for housing. We have a list there. Built the units and start to put people into units that we supply.
“In the 70s and 80s we never had this problem because the federal government realized that housing was important and they built subsidized housing for people who weren't able to afford it themselves. Now they're unwilling to. It seems like the Province is also unwilling. I think we have the ability. Why don't we just take on the role of creating subsidized housing in our region and house people who need to be housed?
“I think we could do 10,000 to 20,000 units in the next three to five years and we could fund it in a way that doesn't even impact our financial positions - both the nine local municipalities and the region using land that we own on key transportation corridors. It can be done.”
Fundamental Disagreements 
Debates at York Region rarely involve members challenging their colleagues on what they have to say. That’s not the way they do things. Most criticism is indirect and sotto voce. No-one wants to cause offence or unpleasantness by fundamentally disagreeing with a colleague’s position. “Debates” are nuanced affairs.
So I don’t know what other members of the Regional Council thought of Joe DiPaola’s thought-provoking contribution.
But this was Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti's veiled rebuke:
“We, the Region and our local municipalities, are absolutely not equipped to spend the millions of dollars that are required to address homelessness.”
This is the same Frank Scarpitti who voted against a Vacant Property Tax in York Region on the grounds it would infringe property rights and be the thin end of the wedge.
Tom Mrakas
Now our gaze turns to Thursday, 11 April 2024.
That’s when Aurora’s stridently populist Mayor Tom Mrakas will tell the Region’s Committee of the Whole that homeless people should move in to York Region’s underused public buildings such as their brand new HQ on Yonge Street.
I’m waiting to hear from the Region if Tom ever asked them to look for an alternative location for the shelter in Aurora that has given him so many headaches.
I am assuming the Mayor has already prepared for the inevitable question in everyone’s mind next Thursday – even if it is not articulated.
Has he reviewed all the buildings owned by his own municipality – including Aurora Town Hall – to see if there is any space there to accommodate the homeless?
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
See also from York Region: Affordable Private Market Housing Implementation Plan; Community Housing Development Master Plan and Homelessness in York Region and Development of Homelessness Service System Plan
Click below for more from Joe DiPaola. He says municipalities are allowed to build elaborate luxury indoor swimming pools and tennis courts and community centres but not the homes that people need. A typical subdivision community centre comes in at $200M.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Background: On 1 November 2022 the developer Michael Rice offered to gift land at Bathurst in the protected Greenbelt in the Township of King to Southlake for a new acute hospital. This was three days before the Government publicly announced it would be opening-up parts of the Greenbelt to development. King and Southlake have long insisted they have no records of that meeting. 
Drawing a line
On 27 November 2023, Southlake’s former Chief Executive, Arden Krystal, sought to draw a line under the year-long controversy about building a new hospital in rural King Township.
In exasperation, she declared:
“I have exhausted all disclosure and have no further details.”
Follow-up meeting
In late December 2023, I learned that King Township and Southlake planned to have a “follow-up” to the 1 November 2022 meeting on 19 December 2022.
It was subsequently re-scheduled to 24 January 2023.
I asked King and Southlake for sight of the records of this important meeting.
Invitations only
Yesterday, 4 April 2024, King released its records, consisting of invitations to the hour-long meeting at King Municipal Centre. Nothing else.
There is no agenda for this follow-up meeting. No minutes. Nor any reports of any kind. It was another one of those ethereal gatherings of important people, discussing consequential matters, where there are no records. Everyone present apparently commits everything said to memory.
Mayor Steve Pellegrini, who fabricates, presides. King’s Chief Administrative Officer, Daniel Kostopoulos, is there too with Southlake’s Chief Executive, Arden Krystal, and the hospital’s Vice President of Capital Facilities, John Marshman.
Who said what to whom remains a complete mystery.
Records unnecessary
Arden Krystal believes there are many instances where record keeping is simply unnecessary. She explained what happened on 1 November 2022:
“During the November 1, 2022 meeting, discussions remained hypothetical and high-level with no commitment to action. It was merely a discussion of potential opportunities since the land in question was in the Greenbelt and, therefore, unavailable in its current state. Even if the land had been available, we were not in a position to provide meaningful commitment as Southlake had not even convened its formal strategic process for redevelopment.”
Original reasoning
Plainly, much of Arden Krystal’s original reasoning no longer applies. The first meeting of Southlake’s Land Acquisition Sub Committee was held on 5 December 2022 and Southlake convened a meeting on 16 January 2023 specifically to discuss the “Bathurst & Davis Drive Opportunity”, the location of the hospital and how and where a new long-term care facility would fit it.
On 1 March 2024, I asked Southlake for sight of all records of that meeting on 24 January 2023.
Playing it long
They tell me I should expect a reply by 1 May 2024.
We shall see.
Southlake and King both play it long, keeping information close to their chest, hoping we lose interest and go away.
That’s how the system works.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Page 5 of 273