- Written by Gordon Prentice
Maddie Di Muccio has withdrawn her accusation that PC MPP wannabe, Stephen Somerville, was responsible for the YouTube ad that portrayed her as a scheming opportunist.
A hyperventilating Di Muccio described the ad as “filth”
@MISSISSAUGAMUSE @JonPukila agreed. The ad attacked my children. Its filth and so is anyone who defends it.
9:15pm - 10 Feb 14
In her press release of 11 February, she said she was shocked and saddened that “a fellow candidate” had targeted her with an “ugly, negative attack ad”.
“he knows my message is resonating with PC members, he knows I can win this nomination, so in response he’s resorting to attacking my character with a negative ad. It’s sad; it’s shocking; it’s wrong”
At that stage, apart from Di Muccio, there were two other candidates in the race for the nomination. Stephen Somerville (a he) and Jane Twinney (a she).
If we rely on ordinary English usage, it is as plain as the nose on your face that Di Muccio was blaming her arch rival for the nomination, Stephen Somerville.
But now, on impeccable authority, I am told that the dissembling Di Muccio told local journalists:
the references to “he” were in a general sense and not directed at a male
Oh dear! Oh dear!
She was then asked if she knew who was responsible for the You Tube ad. She said she did not know.
Does she seriously expect anyone other than the most feeble-minded to believe this hokus pocus?
And yet she has the audacity to tell her Twitter audience that liars are destroying good people in politics.
@LeitchDoug @TicknerSafety liars are destroying good ppl in politics! Agreed.
9:52am - 26 Jan 14
Di Muccio’s press release attacking Somerville as the person responsible for the You Tube ad has now been air brushed out of her narrative of events – as if it never happened. On the Sun News Network, in two long interviews, here and here, it was not mentioned once. Nor did it get into the front page story in the Newmarket Era Banner.
After she had been dumped, Di Muccio tells her Twitter followers that only she had the popular support to keep Newmarket-Aurora blue.
@flutterbye146 @gaylebg @sunlorrie @Dleebosh @timhudak I truly believe I was the only cand't that could hold riding. Popularity scares some.
9:27pm - 12 Feb 14
Now she is back undermining Somerville, highlighting the irony of a candidate who, apparently, makes money selling windmills while cynically opposing them.
@DougGillespie7 @dmbman0077 @RayHeard @SodbusterRick irony: a candidate who makes $$$ selling wind mills & opposing them at the same time.
6:48pm - 14 Feb 14
But her real contempt is reserved for Tim Hudak. He cannot take honest criticism from someone paid to comment on Ontario politics. (ie Di Muccio)
Di Muccio re-tweets this from a follower that says comments made while wearing her media hat shouldn’t be held against her.
@MaddieDiMuccio @horsesandbeer - sure you did. Things said/done while columnist were done in line of duty. Shouldn't be held against.
1:15pm - 15 Feb 14
Di Muccio says that is why Tim Hudak blocked her nomination.
@BarbaraBierman @horsesandbeer *I agree* But Hudak didn't agree. And that's why he blocked me.
1:16pm - 15 Feb 14
Having observed Di Muccio’s style of politics over the past few years, I think the real reason is more prosaic.
Hudak probably concluded that Maddie Di Muccio is a nasty piece of work who is better off at the Sun News Network rather than soiling Queen’s Park.
Stephen Somerville may well agree.
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Maddie Di Muccio is “stunned” and “overwhelmed” by the news that she has been blocked from being nominated as the Progressive Conservative candidate for Newmarket Aurora in the Provincial Parliament.
What on earth did she think was going to happen after accusing fellow Progressive Conservative candidate Stephen Somerville of being behind the YouTube ad which portrays Di Muccio as a self serving opportunist.
In her press release yesterday Di Muccio
“…expressed sadness and shock that a fellow candidate has targeted her with an ugly, negative personal attack ad.
“Desperate candidates do desperate things,” said Di Muccio. “My opponent knows I have strong support in the party’s grassroots, he knows my message is resonating with PC members, he knows I can win this nomination, so in response he’s resorted to attacking my character with a negative ad. It’s sad; it’s shocking; it’s wrong.”
She produced no evidence whatsoever that Somerville was responsible. It was a classic Di Muccio smear. This is a woman who is perfectly prepared to slither from the gutter of politics into the sewer if it suits her purpose.
Indeed, Darryl Wolk, the PC candidate for Regional Councillor, tweeted a few weeks ago that he would rather abstain in the ballot than vote for Di Muccio if she were the PC candidate.
@_capps @horsesandbeer I will not vote Maddie even if she wins nomination. Will decline my ballot.
1:41pm - 28 Jan 14
Di Muccio has alienated hundreds of people in the Progressive Conservative Party and beyond. Why single out Somerville?
Now she tells us she is off to Sun News Network.
I doubt she will be asked what evidence she has on Somerville.
That really is the story.
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Newmarket’s janus faced Ward 6 councillor, Maddie Di Muccio, hopes to follow Frank Klees to Queen’s Park as MPP. The Progressive Conservatives choose their candidate on 20 March and Di Muccio has launched her website electmaddie.ca
On the home page she writes a peon of praise for Frank
Frank Klees has served our community and the province with distinction for almost 20 years and the people of Newmarket-Aurora have benefitted from his principled leadership in the community and at Queen's Park. Like you, I am saddened to hear of his decision to retire after this current term is over.
But Frank's legacy of community service will guide us as we embark on choosing who will be our next MPP.
Compare that gushing tribute to what she said about Klees on 19 September 2013 on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. (Taking the pulse of the PCs.)
Di Muccio tells viewers she does a lot of campaigning and knocking on doors and Tim Hudak “comes across as distrustful”.
Then she goes on:
“What he (Tim Hudak) did with Hillier and Sherman (ie fire them), why didn’t he do this with Klees? I mean Klees is the guy, let’s not forget, who wanted to run for Speaker. That would have thrown everything in disarray.”
“And to me – I’m looking at this as an insider – I am thinking is he afraid to do that to Frank Klees? If anyone deserved it, you can make that argument, that, you know, he was not just, he is the maverick that always causes trouble.”
Now John Mykytyshyn responds:
“You make a good point. There was Frank who maybe wasn’t feeling loved and was looking for other options and could have pursued running for Speaker. And he had a conversation with his Leader (Tim Hudak) - and I wasn’t there for it but this is what I’ve heard – who said “You know Frank I appreciate what you are thinking but we need you, not just me, the Party needs you.”
“And Frank Klees did what he has always done whether he was a policy guy or an elected official. He’s done what is in the best interests of the Party.”
Di Muccio fires back:
“I don’t agree with that.”
As an aside… Two months ago Maddie Di Muccio threatened legal action against me yet there is still no sign of any letter from her lawyer, Darryl Singer. I have concluded the letter is never going to arrive and that her threats are totally worthless.
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Monday night’s Statutory Public Meeting on Bob Forrest’s proposal to dump a nine storey condo in the heart of Newmarket’s historic downtown was a watershed moment.
People turned out in droves and made their views known.
In the Council Chamber there is standing room only.
And our councillors, led by an impressively forensic Chris Emanuel, get straight to the point.
The Forrest redevelopment, involving the demolition of historic commercial buildings, can only proceed in its present form if Town owned land is sold to the developer or if there is some kind of land swap.
Chris Bobyk, the developer’s mannequin, tells Chris Emanuel that, for technical reasons, the underground car park could not be built solely under the land that Forrest owns.
Staying within the curtilage of the land that Forrest owns, they would have to go down 4 levels and that’s way too deep. The soil down there is simply too wet.
We learn the car park would go down two levels but would have to be “spread out” and would, therefore, inevitably encroach on Town owned land.
This is the silver bullet that kills this monstrous speculative development stone dead.
The Town is not compelled to sell its own land to a speculative developer or trade it in some other fashion.
Bobyk tells us a development with fewer than 150 units wouldn’t work. He is unable or unwilling to tell us how many of these units will be two bedroom or one bedroom. This is something for later.
Regional Councillor John Taylor says he wants to see something happen in this location but he laments that the developer is not listening. He says developers always insist it has got to be done their way or they can’t make money. He sees the pattern repeating in Slessor Square, Glenway and now the Clock Tower.
Dave Kerwin, a Newmarket councillor since Confederation, innocently asks if the success of the project depends on a land swap. Yes, is the mumbled reply.
Our councillors worry about the impact of the proposed development on parking in the downtown. We are told the development is short of 90 parking spaces. Where would the condo people park?
Tom Vegh, a member of the Newmarket Public Library Board, says the proposal is comical. The Library would be the new condo’s next door neighbour. Parking, he says, is difficult enough now.
Maddie Di Muccio, typically the developer’s friend, comes down against Forrest’s nine storeys.
The increasingly garrulous Ward 5 councillor, Joe Sponga, is, once again, all over the place talking at inordinate length about modern kitchens in old buildings, property values and wet basements. But he too comes to the conclusion there are problems with the developer’s proposals.
Now it is the turn of residents to have their say and every shade of opinion is represented. Although no vote is taken, I sense a clear majority against the Forrest development.
For me, two contributions in particular stood out.
Bob Buchan, President of the Newmarket Historical Society, but speaking in a personal capacity, powerfully reminds us of Main Street’s central place in the Town’s history.
And Athol Hart, chair of Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee, tells us he is not against the development, as such. It is simply in the wrong location.
Athol, too, spoke in a personal capacity and this perplexed me as there is no reason for him to do this. Seems to me it would have been helpful for people to have been told that his Committee is formally charged with advising the Town on all built heritage matters - and that it has formed a clear view on Forrest’s condo.
The Minutes of the Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee of 17 December 2013 tell us that the Committee is recommending to the Town Council
(a) That the three storey structure limit on development projects in the downtown core be upheld according to the Town of Newmarket Official Plan and the Heritage Conservation District Plan;
(b) And that the application for the Zoning By-Law Amendment as submitted by Main Street Inc. be rejected.
Terse and to the point.
And all the better for that.
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Bob Forrest’s speculative bid to erect a disfiguring out-of-place condo in the heart of Newmarket’s historic downtown can be stopped dead in its tracks if only the Town refuses to sell to the developer the extra land he needs for his project to work.
The underground car park in the original proposal and, we must assume, in the latest 9 storey version, extends beyond the boundary of the land owned by Forrest and under the existing Library parking and under part of Market Square.
In a memorandum dated 22 November 2013, the Town’s Director of Planning, Richard Nethery, told councillors that Forrest needed to buy Town land in order to proceed.
The Town is under no obligation to sell land it owns to a speculative developer.
It may be that Forrest has reworked his plans so that the underground car park does not extend beyond the footprint of the land he owns but, as I tap this out, no new plans have been posted on the Town’s website which indicates such a change.
There is other land too, above ground, that the developer needs from the Town.
There are a million reasons for rejecting Forrest’s Clock Tower development and these will be raised tomorrow at the Statutory Public Meeting.
But it remains a mystery to me that the proposal has gotten this far when the Town could have made it clear earlier on that it would not sell its land to a developer for a project that clashes so spectacularly with the objectives of the Heritage Conservation District.
With his typical bravura, Bob Forrest’s lawyer, Ira Kagan, last November appealed to the OMB to block the Town’s Heritage Conservation District By Law
“if it creates any additional burden (procedural or substantive) to the redevelopment of our clients lands”
Some mistake there surely?
Bob Forrest needs land that is owned by the Town of Newmarket if his project is, literally, to get off the ground.
Page 212 of 237