Details

My Freedom of Information request for documents relating to the Town’s position on Glenway has been turned down by Town Officials (see letter below). The material is to be kept under lock and key.

However, I am told I can make a deputation to Council to ask for this decision to be set aside and I fully intend to do this.

For us to understand what really happened on Glenway we need access to key documents. The OMB adjudicator has already ruled in favour of the developer, Marianneville, though we await her written decision and reasoning.

Until we get the OMB’s written decision there is little point in holding the “lessons learned” meeting that was promised by the outgoing Council in April 2014. In this context, it would be totally weird if reports, minutes and documents, explaining the thinking of councillors and their advisers, were kept secret.

What lessons could be learned in these circumstances?

I hope all those running for election will support my FoI request. But, if not, I’d like them to explain why.

---------------------------------------------------

Town Officials refuse FoI Request

October 8, 2014

Dear: Mr. Prentice

RE: Request for Information A17-14-54

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

This letter is in response to your request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the confidential memorandums listed as a) b), c), that were presented to the Special Council meeting on 7 April 2014, and to examine d) the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) meeting on 7 April 2014.

Access to these memorandums and minutes is being denied based on Section 6(1) (b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This section states: that “[a] head may refuse to disclose a record, that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public”.

These meetings were held in Closed Session under the authorization of Section 239(2) (a) of the Municipal Act. This section authorizes holding a meeting in closed session if the subject matter being discussed is “the security of the property of the municipality or local board” and the confidential memorandums were discussed in closed session under Section 239(2) (e) of the Municipal Act. This section authorizes holding a meeting in closed session if the subject matter being discussed is “litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board”.

The decision to disclose a record related to a closed meeting is made by Council (i.e., Clerk does not have such authority). You have the option to make this request in writing to Council, or by making the request yourself by making a deputation to Council at a Committee of the Whole or Council meeting.

(The letter goers on to tell me I can ask for this decision to be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.)

And what I am asking for:

(1) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Ruth Victor, Ruth Victor Associates, regarding Application for Official Plan Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval, Marianneville Developments Limited (Glenway)

(2) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Mary Bull and Johanna Shapira, Wood Bull LLP regarding Marianneville Developments - Phase 2

(3) the confidential memorandum dated 4 April 2014 from the Assistant Director of Planning regarding Marianneville Developments Limited

(4) the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) on 7 April 2014.

 

Details

To the Newmarket Theatre where, at long last, it is time for the candidates for Mayor and Regional Councillor to debate and strut their stuff on stage. The result is a terrific, entertaining evening full of drama and laughter. And all free.

With a straight face and with as much solemnity as he can muster, the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, tells us:

“This time next year Davis Drive will be finished!”

Mayoral wannabe, Chris Campbell, dismisses this as a complete “fantasy”.

Archbishop Dorian Baxter, reminds us of our biblical life span of three score years and ten, before revealing he is 64.

“I am praying I see the completion of Davis Drive!”

Gales of laughter bring the house down. What a delightfully witty Mayor he would be!

Davis Drive: Taylor feels the pain

For the many vocal critics of Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor, Davis Drive has become a metaphor for Newmarket Council under their stewardship. There is endless delay, disruption and mismanagement (with more to come when work on the Yonge Street rapidway gets underway next year). Throw into this deadly mix business closures and we have all the conditions for a perfect storm. There is no end in sight.

Earlier, Taylor tells us people in his office have been in tears about Davis Drive. He feels their pain.

Wolk says work on Davis Drive is too far down the road to cancel but vows there is “no way we are going to rip up 2.6 km of Yonge Street between Davis and Mulock”.

Decisive, bold but probably impossible.

Wolk wants more all-day two-way GO trains (who doesn’t) but this is something not in his gift.

For two years Darryl Wolk has been poking John Taylor in the ribs with a long, pointy stick, trying to get a reaction.  There are the accusations of cronyism and the Old Boys Club. That it is in Taylor’s genes to play both sides. That he moralises about the importance of confidentiality while giving information to people on condition they don’t reveal where it came from.  I suppose you could call it municipal insider trading.

Political Cross-dressing

Wolk says Taylor’s support for PC candidate Jane Twinney at the recent Provincial Election is proof positive that he was backing Hudak’s plan to axe 100,000 public sector jobs. How absurd!  Taylor, a former Liberal candidate supports his friend Jane Twinney, a born again conservative. But Wolk, a conservative, backed Ballard, the Liberal candidate, in the very same election. Conclusion: there is a lot of political cross-dressing going on.

Taylor has been playing the long game, refusing to rise to the bait. But now he stands and trades blows with his tormentor.

Taylor slams Wolk for his “mis-facts”. The 80% of meetings on Davis Drive that Taylor allegedly missed “is a lie”.

Dipping into his book of famous quotations, he tells Wolk:

“Darryl, you are entitled to your own opinions; not your own facts.”

The temperature is beginning to rise.

Taylor dismisses outright Wolk’s plan to expand Newmarket’s boundaries into neighbouring municipalities to provide more land for business. “I do not support annexing neighbours.”

Taylor calls for high speed broadband (a good idea). Wolk blasts this as a foolish $330m experiment.

Wolk says he will cut industrial and commercial taxes to lure business from Markham and other places. Taylor predicts residential property taxes will go up if this happens.

The Soccer Club loan

Now the grudge match is descending into a bare-knuckle fight. Someone from the audience asks about the controversial loan to the Newmarket Soccer Club. Taylor, who is not taking prisoners, says the question comes from a person with links to the Wolk Campaign Team! Taylor reels off a list of statistics showing the Town and the Club both benefitted. Wolk counters with: “There is a shady deal here” but the wind has gone out of his sails.

Now Taylor is talking about Wolk supporting 40-50 storey buildings in Newmarket. He is exaggerating for effect (something I do myself) but Taylor draws attention to the fact that Wolk would do the developers bidding. Taylor, on the other hand, is the man behind the height cap (true).

Taylor accuses Wolk of having a hundred uncosted priorities plucked out of thin air. (Opening the Library on Mondays, is one example) If these were ever implemented, the cost would be crippling. When Wolk protests Taylor accuses him of “throwing darts again”.

Wolk is argumentative, focussed and well briefed. He stands his ground. But he needs a knock out punch to win. And he doesn’t land one.

It was a good, fast-moving debate and well done the Chamber of Commerce for organising it.

But perhaps we could have another debate organised by, say, York Region Poverty Alliance? There were big policy areas such as affordable housing that didn’t even rate a mention.

Someone took to the microphone last night to remind us that we are taxpayers, yes, but we are citizens first.

19 days to go.

 

Details

Mayor Tony Van Bynen has many fine qualities but leading from the front is not one of them.

He is a process and procedure man above all.

He is good at chairing meetings. I marvel at the exaggerated civility he deploys when dealing with his bête noire, Maddie Di Muccio. He loathes her but (mostly) does not let it show. To most people (and I include myself) he comes across as agreeable and avuncular.

But, in Newmarket Council’s many closed session meetings from which the public is barred, there may be another Van Bynen I don’t recognise. A Van Bynen with a vision for the Town, with firm views and a sense of urgency, giving clear direction to staff. But I doubt it.

Glenway: a key example

Take Glenway as the premier, gold plated example of Van Bynen’s modus operandi.

Glenway isn’t yesterday’s story. It is part of a continuing drama that is still playing out and it tells us volumes about Van Bynen’s approach.

Glenway isn’t a marginal or trivial issue of little consequence. I don't live in Glenway - nowhere near - but I imagine myself in the position of the many who do. Hundreds of Glenway people are going to see their lives turned upside down next year when the bull dozers and dumper trucks start appearing in the middle of their hitherto quiet residential neighbourhood. Property values will be hit. The quality of life will be dramatically impacted.

And the person most directly responsible for this tragedy is the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen.

In 2011, we learned the Town’s Planning Department allegedly couldn’t cope with the workload of the secondary plan. An outside planning consultant, Ruth Victor, was hired to handle the Glenway file - with disastrous consequences.

She sided with the developer, Marianneville, arguing there were no planning reasons why the former golf course could not be developed. She was hired to give a her professional opinion. But her recommendation to allow development became a de facto decision.

By the time councillors belatedly decided to back the Glenway residents (25 November 2013) and with the OMB Hearing looming, the die was cast.

Town paid consultant planner sides with developer

Victor, paid by taxpayers’ dollars, was summoned to the OMB Hearing by the developer, Marianneville, and became their star witness. The developer’s lawyer, Ira Kagan, told the adjudicator on 27 March 2014 that he was tempted just to call one witness, Ruth Victor, so compelling was her testimony.

“If I was really bold I would not have called another witness but I was scared not to.”

Kagan told the adjudicator that Victor had told him that Town planning staff “shared her opinions”.  This, of course, was never tested because planning staff boycotted the Hearing.

The hands-off Mayor

Which brings me back to the Mayor.

When did the Mayor first learn that Ruth Victor was minded to write a report backing the developer, Marianneville?

What did he do about it? Did he have a view? Did he try to give her a steer? What discussions did he have with the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, to decide the best way forward? Did he discuss the implications with other council members?

Was Van Bynen content to let Ruth Victor, in effect, determine the Town’s policy on Glenway?

The blunt truth is yes.

Van Bynen is famously hands-off leaving the professional staff to do the spade work, and call the shots. As a retired banker of 30 years standing, he is fixated on process and procedure. He follows the rules. And we know he contracts out to the professional staff key policy decisions that should be his and those of elected officials.

And he parrots, uncritically, the scripts written by others.

The Clock Tower on Main Street South

Hundreds of hours of Newmarket planning staff time (paid for by the taxpayers) have been devoted to Bob Forrest’s notorious condo project which, had it been allowed to proceed, would have wrecked the Town’s priceless historic downtown. (And it is not absolutely settled yet.)

Did Van Bynen have a view on how the historic downtown should be protected from developers determined to destroy it? If so, we didn’t hear him.

It was clear early on that Forrest’s project could only proceed if Town-owned land was made available to the developer. The Town had an absolute veto on this monstrous project. Did Van Bynen ever ask councillors if they wanted to sell Town-owned land to a developer whose project was inimical to their own Historic Conservation District policy? Or was he simply content to let things play out over many, many months?

In April 2013 I urged the Mayor to bring in a By Law immediately to protect the downtown from predatory developers. I was told this was something for the 2014 budget. It was only after a huge public outcry that Van Bynen was persuaded to act with some rare urgency.

In truth, Van Bynen enjoys being on the bridge but is not overly concerned about the ship’s destination. He is a man who lets things drift.

Lack of Transparency

Transparency and openness are recurring themes in this year's Municipal election.

Many of Van Bynen’s critics point to Newmarket’s debilitating culture of secrecy. A keen readiness to go behind closed doors to discuss matters that should be debated out in the open.

Plainly, there are legitimate reasons for going behind closed doors and to pretend otherwise, as the paranoid Maddie Di Muccio does, would be absurd. But in-camera meetings should not be used at the drop of a hat to shield the Council or any of its members from embarrassment or legitimate scrutiny and criticism or to protect fragile reputations.

I shall return to this.

 

Details

The Town of Newmarket has now released its Public Information Report setting in context the confidential memo on the Glenway West Lands that was leaked on Tuesday by Ward 7 hopeful, John Blommesteyn.

Blommesteyn is married to the excitable Ward 6 councillor, Maddie Di Muccio, who made a big song and dance about the memo which, she said, should be made public.

The leak caused a great kerfuffle and councillors decided on Monday (29 September) that the contents of the leaked memo should be set in context and be published today (Friday October 3).

Entertain an offer

The confidential memo, dated 5 September, 2014, was from the Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, describing his approach to Marianneville to see if they would “entertain an offer” by the Town to purchase the Glenway West lands.

The developer told him the lands were not for sale. Then Shelton tells councillors:

“After further discussion, I was advised that the developable 22 acre piece of property is proposed for development and thus not for sale, however they may entertain offers by the Town to purchase portion(s) of the remaining approximately 30 acres of land. This 30 acre piece is also intended for development, subject to certain successful studies being carried out. From my conversations it would appear the owner will not be acting on any of the west lands until late 2014 or more likely 2015.”

Nowhere in today’s context report is there any indication of what “development” Marianneville has in mind. Reinstating a golf course could, in theory, be “development” but that is probably for the fairies.

The Public Information Report does a pretty poor job of setting the leaked memo in context. Why didn’t it remind us of Marianneville’s final settlement offer of November 20, 2013?

Marianneville was desperate to get the Town to drop the OMB challenge. If the Town would agree to the Glenway development, Marianneville would offer the Town a chance to buy the Glenway West lands. The full details can be read here.

Town offered a ten year option to buy

Under its terms, the Town would have been granted a 10 year option to purchase approximately 57 acres of Glenway west lands for $5,500,000, the price fixed for ten years. And during the option period the land was to be maintained by Marianneville as “passive open space” allowing public recreational use.

The final settlement offer from Marianneville’s Ira Kagan continues:

“Given that approximately 26 acres of the option lands (ie the Glenway West lands) are developable, the fixed price for these lands may save the Town and its taxpayers tens of millions of dollars (in today’s dollars). There is no telling what the land will be worth in ten years.”

The settlement offer has been in the public domain for over ten months, buried in the Town’s website, and it does, I think, provide the necessary context. That’s probably why councillors went back to the developer to sound them out.

Glenway residents are likely to be up in arms at the prospect of further development of the west lands. But, of course, we are not privy to the nature of the development Marianneville has in mind.

For their part, Marianneville is probably spitting feathers that its intention to develop at least part of the Glenway West lands is now out in the open and a matter of public record - possibly months before any application to develop the lands would have been lodged with the Town.

And the Town’s official bureaucracy will now be concerned that anything marked “confidential” will leak like a sieve.

So, should the confidential memo have remained confidential?

More to come.

 

Details

I have never been hostile to the idea of the Council helping community organisations, providing the deal is transparent and can be justified.

So when some people were getting in a complete frazzle over the $2.8m loan to Newmarket Soccer Club last year, I was altogether more relaxed.

I see the Town has now confirmed that the loan has now been taken over by a commercial bank and the Town will have collected more than $125,000 in interest above the $2.8m loan which will be repaid in full.

Sounds OK to me.

The Newmarket Era - which regularly fails to see the big picture - had serious reservations at the time. The Town, it said, had "jumped the gun".

Councillor Maddie Di Muccio, foaming at the mouth, denounced the rescue deal in her blog on 5 September 2013. She wrote:

 “In what can only be described as one of the most bizarre and unprecedented decisions Newmarket Council has come up with this term, Mayor Tony Van Bynen, Regional Councillor John Taylor, and Councillors Emanuel, Twinney and Hempen decided that it would be a brilliant investment to pay off a 2.8 million dollar loan to save a floundering Newmarket Soccer Club that nobody else – including banks – saw fit to invest in. Myself, Councillors Sponga and Kerwin voted against the deal; and Councillor Vegh was absent.”

Most of her venom was directed at the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, and Regional Councillor John Taylor. But she is a woman who doesn’t forget.

Seven months later, still fulminating with rage, she was reminding her Twitter followers:

@RockNRollCroll   let’s not forget the other councillors who supported this taxpayer fiasco: Tom Hempen, Chris Emanuel and Jane Twinney.

4.37pm – 28 March 14

Meanwhile, Newmarket Soccer Club seems to be on the way up.

And good luck to them.

24 days to the election.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home