Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 06 November 2017

Back Story: In 2008 Metrolinx published "The Big Move" - a visionary transportation plan designed to get the Region moving. It looked forward to 2031.

Metrolinx is now consulting the public on its update, the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan. Despite its length, it is packed full of graphics and colourful photos and makes for easy reading. However, it leaves answers to simple questions up in the air, unaddressed.  

A Place to Grow

Newmarket, a designated Place to Grow, may have to wait a quarter of a century before getting a 15 minute Go Rail service which our neighbour to the south, Aurora, will enjoy within the decade. The 15 minute all-day, two-way service from Toronto to Aurora will be up and running by 2025 at the latest.

We learn that the "15 minute GO Rail service extension" on the Barrie line from Aurora GO to East Gwillimbury GO Rail Station is "proposed" - but that's all we are told.

Projects in delivery, in development and proposed

The appendices (see below) list projects in delivery, in development or simply proposed but there is nothing in the body of the Draft Plan to indicate when the proposed projects will actually materialise. There are caveats and health warnings about future funding and future uncertainty but nothing is pencilled in to indicate the year or even the decade when Newmarket might get its 15 minute all-day two way-service.

This is hugely significant. If we have to wait until 2041 development along Davis Drive will undoubtedly be affected. A 15 minute service is impossible without grade separation at Davis Drive. If the road cannot go over the rail track (because of ground conditions) can the rail track go over the road? This astute question was posed by Ward 4 councillor, Tom Hempen, at the Town's Committee of the Whole last month but he didn't get an answer.

Grade Separation is key

The Town already has its Urban Centres Secondary Plan in place forecasting the future arrival of 32,000 people in the Yonge-Davis corridors at "build-out". Is this remotely realistic if we haven't sorted out the grade separation issue? And, by the way, when is build-out expected?

When the 2041 Draft Plan was considered by York Region's Committee of the Whole on 2 November 2017, the absence of a timeline was immediately spotted by Markham's Regional Councillor, the diligent Jack Heath. He was concerned about the absence of a date for completing the Yonge Subway Extension and says he wants it opened on a specified date, say 2031.

He calls for - and gets -  the support of his colleagues. He says they should tell Metrolinx:

"This is the kind of time-frame York Region is thinking of. You (Metrolinx) come back and show us how it can be done."

Straight talking

This is an example of the kind of no-nonsense straight-talking that should have been employed with Newmarket's 15 minute service. In a debate where a number of members speak (Jones, Heath, Taylor, Spatafora, Rosati and Dawe) Van Trappist's lips are zipped.

John Taylor outlines his concerns. He tells us he hasn't seen a lot of thought or interplay go into the relationship between GO Bus and GO Rail in Newmarket. He goes further and says it seems very little thought has been given to Mulock (the proposed new GO Rail Station).

Mary Frances, the President of York Region Rapid Transit Corporation, tells him work is underway and

"You will be involved."

Oh dear!

The problem here is that Taylor is supposedly already centrally involved. He is a member of Metrolinx Barrie Regional Express Corridor Committee so if he doesn't know what is going on, then what hope for the rest of us?

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Correction on 7 November 2017: John Taylor has been in touch to say I may have misquoted him. He writes:

"My memory of what I said was that there seems to be very little thought given to the interplay between the existing Newmarket Station, the proposed Mulock Station and the existing GO Bus Station. I do not believe I said (and certainly did not intend to say) that no thought had been given to the Mulock Station (period). I am satisfied at this point that the planning for the Mulock Station is appropriately advanced for where it currently is in the planning process and the timeline ahead. However, I would like to see more detail or thought given to the interplay between the three stations."

Taylor is correct. I've checked my notes. As he spoke to the Regional Committee of the Whole I wrote: "Taylor wants more thought on interplay between the 3."

Draft Transportation Plan - appendices

Appendix 3B of the Draft Plan lists the "projects in delivery". These include:

* the Barrie line 15 minute GO Rail service from Union Station to Aurora GO

* the Barrie line all-day GO Rail service from Aurora GO to Barrie's Allandale Waterfront GO (half hour service in peak periods then hourly in the evenings and at weekends).

* Yonge Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Mulock Drive to Davis Drive. (With BRT buses have their own exclusive right of way, fully separated from other traffic.)

Appendix 3C shows projects in development including the Yonge Bus Rapid Transit (Richmond Hill, Aurora, Newmarket - 19th Ave to Mulock Drive.

Appendix 3D lists other projects proposed in the Draft 2041 Plan including

* the Barrie line 15 minute GO Rail service extension from Aurora GO to East Gwillimbury GO Rail Station.

* the Green Lane Priority Bus (Davis Drive to East Gwillimbury GO). (Priority bus services run fully or partially in a semi-exclusive right of way - a lower order than BRT.)

Consultation meeting

Metrolinx is hosting a public consultation session on the Draft 2041 Regional Transportation Plan from 6.30pm - 9pm on Wednesday 8 November 2017 at the Newmarket Community Centre, Doug Duncan Drive.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 30 October 2017

Newmarket is represented on York Regional Council by the Mayor, Tony Van Trappist, and Regional Councillor John Taylor.  

I don't always agree with Taylor but at least he consistently makes an effort to engage in the debate. By contrast, Van Trappist, hunched over and deep in his own thoughts, rarely seeks to intervene. For the most part, he is a gawping spectator at events.

Fortunately, as from 1 January 2018, Newmarket Council will have new powers to appoint a named substitute or "alternate" for the Mayor when, for whatever reason, he chooses not to attend.

Lassitude and torpor

If he stays away this will have a number of positive benefits. The substitute will bring fresh energy to the Regional Council chamber, replacing the lassitude and torpor we have come to associate with Van Trappist. The substitute is also likely to report back to Newmarket Council - something that happens now but only in a very perfunctory way. A short written report would be a major step forward.

With my proposal, Van Trappist would keep the $68,194.33 in "stipend" and other benefits and expenses he gets from York Region. We do not want him to feel short-changed. In any event, he deserves proper compensation for his work on the York Region Data Consortium and the Community Partnership Council. And he also chairs a "Broadband Strategy Advisory Task Force" which was established a few years ago to:

"support staff in advancing the goals of the York Region Broadband Strategy".

York Telecom Network   

Earlier this month (12 October 2017), the Region's Committee of the Whole had a report before it recommending the setting up of the York Telecom Network - a York Region owned entity with a Board of Directors. It will be up and running on 1 January 2018. Is this a big deal or not?

The report says:

"The fibre network owned by the Region has the potential to have positive economic and community impact beyond addressing the Region's information technology needs. Through incorporating a separate entity "YTN Telecom Network Inc" the Region can optimise these benefits by making the network more accessible and nimble."

Isn't this worth a word or two from Van Trappist? After all, he's on the new Board.

The sound of silence

Aurora Mayor, Geoff Dawe, who is in the Chair for this part of the proceedings, asks if anyone wants to comment. Here is Van Trappist's chance to shine. Broadband is supposedly his big thing. There is a long pause as we wait for someone to say something. Silence. Van Trappist moves the report be received.

And, without missing a beat, they move on to the next item of business.

A member of the public sitting in the row in front of me gets up to go. He turns and says with a broad smile:

"Did Tony fall asleep over there?"

gordon.prentice@shrinkslessor square.ca

Update on 30 October 2017: This post has been amended to correct an earlier inaccuracy. Tony Van Bynen does not serve on the Audit Committee. Van Bynen also occupies a seat on the York Region Rapid Transit Corporation.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 26 October 2017

Tonight, Redwood Properties will be holding their second open house on the proposed development at 17645 Yonge Street.

The Statutory Public Meeting will be held on Monday 6 November 2017 in the Council Chamber at 395 Mulock Drive. People will be able to raise concerns then about the nature of the development. Three immediately occur to me.

Affordable Housing

The developers do not propose to have any affordable housing. Councillors will have to take a view on this. Do they pay lip service to Provincial plans and York Region's targets and allow the developer to get away with zero affordable apartments, shifting the burden onto other developers in years to come?

The 2016 Census figures for Newmarket show we live in a well-off Town but there are significant numbers of people living on modest and low incomes who struggle to get by.

There are only 1,295 apartments in buildings in Town higher than 5 storeys. Of course, that is going to change but will people be able to afford to live in the new towers?

The Information Report published by the Town earlier this month on the site plan review process says this:

"The Town of Newmarket Official Plan requires that a minimum of 25% of new housing development outside of the Urban Centres and 35% of new housing development inside the Urban Centres will be affordable to low and moderate income households. A portion of these units should be accessible to people with disabilities and include a range of types, unit size, tenures to provide opportunities for all household types, including large families, seniors and persons with special needs. Affordability thresholds are determined annually by the Regional Municipality of York.

Affordable housing may be secured through appropriate agreements as a condition of development approval."

Exceptional Architecture

The height of the three towers - 21, 19 and 17 storeys - is unlikely to change. The Council never really embraced the thinking behind John Taylor's earlier proposed 15 storey height cap and that is now dead and buried.  

However, in 2013, the Town's planners, guided by Marion Plaunt, produced the Secondary Plan Directions Report. It talked lyrically about "exceptional architecture".

"The Urban Centres are a collection of character areas that will develop into neighbourhoods each with their own unique identity, highlighted by exceptional architecture and design, and signature public spaces and art that create iconic places. A high standard of design will govern the built form within the Urban Centres..." (Urban Centres Direction Report 2013. Page 28)

Whether Redwood on Yonge represents "exceptional architecture" is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. It will be for councillors to decide whether the three towers meet the high bar originally set by their own Directions Report and now reflected in the Town's Secondary Plan.

Putting important issues on Hold 

Is the Town going to give approval in principle to Redwood on Yonge and to what extent will the Town rely on so-called "Holds" as it did with Slessor Square?

These Holds are outstanding issues that have not been resolved at the time conditional approval is given. They are lifted as and when they are satisfactorily addressed by the developer. The Slessor holds included traffic impact and parking and source water protection.

We now know that the deep underground parking garage that was central to the earlier  Slessor Square design (and was waived through) could not have been built as envisaged because of the high water table.

And, while we are at it, whatever happened to the Master Plan for the Upper Canada Mall?

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 22 October 2017

Along with 99.99% of Newmarket residents, I had no idea until a few days ago that Councillor Tom Vegh's spouse purchased property at 366 Silken Laumann Drive from the Town of Newmarket in 2005 and then persuaded the Town to buy it back in 2009 - having discovered it couldn't be developed because of a storm water easement (which had been flagged up in the original Agreement of Purchase and Sale).

The land at 366 SLD is shown right.

The current Council has chosen not to make the Minutes of Settlement between the Town and the Veghs publicly available. You can read the details here. 

Sleuths from NTAG (the Newmarket Taxpayers Advocacy Group) uncovered the story and clearly have been working on it for ages. The report includes some commentary from the Town on why the litigation had been kept under wraps for years. One part leapt out at me:

"The disclosure of the requested records to the advocacy group would not increase public confidence in the operations of the Town."

There are many reasons why information held by the Municipality should be kept under lock and key but the impact of disclosure on public confidence in the operations of the Town is not one of them.

Similarly, the Town should not keep records private on the grounds their release would embarrass Town staff or councillors or highlight procedural failings or errors of judgement.

Special Treatment?

The question for me is a simple one. Did Councillor Vegh and his spouse get special treatment? If  someone bought Town land and subsequently changed their mind, would the Town buy it back from them? If not, what were the circumstances that persuaded the Town to buy back 366 Silken Laumann Drive? Did the Town follow its "Sale of Land" policy or its predecessor policy that was in force in 2009 when the decision to reimburse was made?

Who knows? Newmarket Council plays its cards close to its chest. Always has done. Councillors have it drilled into them from the outset that information is something to be guarded. And released only when it cannot do harm to the organisation or its reputation.

Mayor Van Trappist understands this. The old banker has secrecy in his DNA.

In Camera Discussions

Regional Councillor John Taylor also recognises that information is power. In September 2014 he was telling the credulous that:

"In camera discussions go through a process and most of them eventually, if not all of them, eventually come out of camera. You go through a process that takes time and staff review it and they report back to us how to bring it out in its entirety or partially and at what stage."

As I've said before, that is a load of baloney.

But Taylor also says:

"At the end of the day there will still be matters that we simply cannot and will not disclose because it is not in the best interests of the residents."

The property transaction of Councillor Vegh and his spouse plainly falls into that category. It is something to be sealed forever. 

Taylor went on:

"We often have conversations or negotiations or litigation or decisions that sharing them publicly would harm the residents' interests in a financial way and in other ways. So, as a brief example, if we are talking about going to the OMB or purchasing a piece of land. These are two examples. Just like potentially selling your home. You wouldn't invite in all the other real estate agents to hear you tell your real estate agent about (what) your lowest offer would be, what you would accept. You would keep some things confidential because that is in the interests of yourself financially. And we do that exact process for the residents of Newmarket."

I accept there are circumstances where it would be absurd or even financially suicidal for the Town to disclose its thinking to another Party. 

But, that said, when should information be released to the public when the original raison d'etre for confidentiality has gone?

No concerns

Last week, as a curious non-member, I wandered along to the NTAG Open House at Madsen's Greenhouse to hear the new Town Clerk, Lisa Lyons, talk about "closed meetings".

The surroundings are surreal. I am sitting in half light under a leafy canopy with the Town Clerk in front of me in amongst the vegetation. A reading lamp illuminates her notes as she takes us through her slide presentation, as dense as the Amazonian jungle.

She says she wants to make more information available to the public proactively - without the Town having to be asked first. That's good. As we would expect from a Town Clerk, she tells us everything is proper and above board and nothing she has seen has ever raised any concerns in her mind. She is asked a question about the 2003 land swap at the Clock Tower (which is going to the Superior Court on 15 November 2017) but cannot comment as it was before her time.

Ms Lyons tells us some closed session matters concerning land, for example, can remain locked away and off limits for 10 years.

Glenway and public open space

Doesn't surprise me in the least. We only found out in June 2015 that in 2008 the Council had considered buying the Glenway lands but had decided against this after councillors were told by the CAO Bob Shelton that the Town was not in the business of running a golf course.

This little nugget of information was kept from the Glenway OMB Hearing.

“There is no evidence before the Board that the Town took any steps to acquire these lands for public open space and public park purposes.”

That's true so far as it goes. Had the Town let it be known it considered buying the land but decided not to, it would have introduced a new dynamic into the Glenway story. If the Town is not in the business of running a golf course, is it in the business of preserving open space at a time when the Town is slated for major growth?

The details were also kept from the Glenway "Lessons Learned" meeting.

Good Public Administration

I believe openness and transparency leads to better policy making and better public administration. But if councillors and staff want to keep things under wraps it's not that difficult. There are any number of ways the Town can keep information secret. Simply getting advice from staff may put a record off limits:

"A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure would reveal advice or recommendations of an officer or employee of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution."

This would allow the June 2013 closed session records on the Clock Tower, for example, to be kept confidential until their release "would no longer have any impact".  (But maybe we shall find out via the Courts or the OMB the form of the "tacit agreement" Bob Forrest alleges he had with the Town all those years ago.)

Declassifying material

It seems to me the Town should take steps to weed out and declassify material that no longer needs to be kept secret. The former Town Clerk, the excellent Andrew Brouwer, told me in 2015 there wasn't a "routine" process for disclosing closed session records as it would be time consuming and sometimes difficult to make a clear determination.  He would have to take into account factors such as privacy, third-party information, protection of financial interests and legal advice. Fair enough.

The Council can, of course, make all or part of a closed session record public on its own volition but even then the Town Clerk would have to ensure disclosure would be permitted by law and not run foul of access and privacy legislation.

In the absence of a process to declassify closed session records we are left with the alternative, Freedom of Information requests.

But, as we have seen with the Vegh case, FoI has its limits too.

If a Municipality is determined to keep its residents in the dark, it has plenty of options.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.