Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 19 February 2016

To the York Region Administrative HQ to hear the big debate on whether the Chair should be (a) directly elected by the people or (b) indirectly by Council Members with all the nods, winks and nudges that that entails. There is also a related and overlapping debate on whether York Region should embark on a review of its governance.

But first up there is a deputation from the City of Markham. Ward 4 councillor, Karen Rea, is in favour of direct election. People should judge the candidates on a multiplicity of measures. What is their vision for the Region? Are they capable of doing the job? Are they honest and trustworthy? She says that where municipalities have taken a position on the issue of direct election their Mayors should vote in line here at the Region. She says councils in Markham, Aurora, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury all voted in favour of a directly elected Regional Chair but their Mayors, as we shall soon see, will vote against.

One of them, Markham’s silver-tongued Mayor, Frank Scarpitti, the highest paid Mayor in Ontario in 2014 on a salary of $230,234 (including taxable benefits), looks on impassively as Rea makes her points. He will not forget what she said today.

Stunned and Electrified

Now York Region’s appointed Chair, the jovial Wayne Emmerson, electrifies the meeting by telling us the Region learned unofficially last night that Bill 42 (which mandates the direct election of the Chair of York Region) would be going into Committee at Queen’s Park on Wednesday 24 February 2016 and Wednesday 2 March 2016 and the committee clerk at Queen’s Park had to be informed of any requests for deputations by 5pm tomorrow (Friday 19 February).

I hear howls of outrage. The Region’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bruce Macgregor, tells us the Region’s Director of Communications discovered this little nugget on Canada Newswire last night. There has been no official communication from the Province. But I suppose that is because the Bill has nothing to do with the Government. It is a Private Member’s Bill promoted by Chris Ballard and individual MPPs will choose either to support it or not as takes their fancy.

“Structured on a go-forward basis”

Now we turn our attention to another report on the agenda that lies alongside the one on the Regional Chair. Newmarket’s Tony Van Bynen called for a review of regional governance, believing it impossible to change the method of electing the Chair without looking at all the other bits and pieces of the machinery of government. He tells us in his weird bank manager prose it is important to look at all the options and “how we should be structured on a go forward basis”.

Markham’s Frank Scarpitti confesses he doesn’t know why we are doing this. Our model here at the Region works quite well. Why is the Province just singling out York Region? I am tempted to shout out: "It is a Private Member’s Bill. Why not ask Chris Ballard!”

Scarpitti tells us that if it ain’t broke why try to fix it?

His face creases into his trademark smile as he aims to wound. “These discussions (about electing the Chair) are good for (raising) the political profile of people.” He says we should instead be talking about the many positive things the Region has done. He tells us we are the envy of the Province and, indeed, Canada. South of the border people are filled with awe when they see what is happening inYork Region. Never one for understatement, Scarpitti tells us:

“At the end of the day there is no perfect system… but what we have is 80%-90% perfect.”

“We are perfect”

Now the serious love-in begins with Wayne Emmerson telling his electorate (ie those sitting around the horseshoe table)

 “this municipality has worked really well together”.

That said, he thinks a governance review could be useful. He is bending over backwards to appear reasonable. He hears direct election in Waterloo seems to work.

Markham’s Jack Heath, famous for reading and digesting all his committee papers and then regurgitating them at length, agrees with Scarpitti. The current system doesn’t need fixing. 

Aurora’s Mayor Geoffrey Dawe gushes on about collegiality and how everyone is really nice to him. He has to rely on that goodwill if he is absent and needs a colleague to speak on his behalf. He is the sole representative of Aurora. He hopes the review will look at “alternate representation” so someone else from Aurora can step into his shoes if he is away.

King’s Steve Pellegrini agrees the Region is 80%-90% perfect and wonders why the review of governance is necessary. “We get along extremely well.”

East Gwillimbury’s sole representative, Mayor Virginia Hackson, unsurprisingly agrees with Dawe about alternates and says the study should go ahead. She talks about collegiality which morphs into congeniality. Either way, she’s a happy Mayor.

Georgina’s Mayor Margaret Quirk also wants the review to take a look at alternates. She wonders aloud why Georgina has two reps before reminding us that her colleague, Danny Wheeler, has been off sick for three months. Had he been the sole rep Georgina’s voice would not have been heard.

Cottage Country bonus representation

There are gales of laughter when we are told Georgina gets two representatives because the population of cottage country doubles in the summer. It was decided in the old days this was the right thing to do.

Now Newmarket Regional Councillor, John Taylor, makes the first in a series of spirited interventions. He supports the governance review and the accompanying analysis. He also supports direct election of the Chair and it is time to look at things holistically.

Former MP and Mayor of Vaughan, Maurizio Bevilacqua, doesn’t see a downside to the review. He wants a review of governance every three or four years. It is that important. Perhaps he has been seared by the Di Biase scandal. He says he wants greater representation for Vaughan despite the widely held view that four members from Vaughan equal five members from Markham. This unleashes more hoots of laughter.

Vaughan’s Gino Rosati punctures the balloon. The review is a futile exercise. He says there are more important things to spend their time on.

Bruce Macgregor says they have a couple of academics on board to help staff with the review. But, curiously, he wonders what problems they are trying to solve.

Made in York

Emmerson says Chris Ballard wants a “Made in York” solution so he wants the Region to put together a menu of its own making and hand it over to Queen’s Park.

The usually reactive Van Bynen has been taking an initiative. He says he has been in touch with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and something on municipal governance will be coming forward within the year! That kind of imprecision is worse than useless. He complains, with some justification, the Region has been left flat-footed with no time to respond to Bill 42.

Markham’s Frank Scarpitti says Van Bynen is sincere in his comments but the reality is the Province is gonna do what it is gonna do. Scarpitti is against the governance review, believing it will soak up valuable time, and deflates expectations of the academics, saying dismissively:

 “We can get great professors who have written books but have they sat around a Council table?”

Emmerson puts the governance review to the vote with only Scarpitti against.

“I am quiet and like to listen”

Now we are moving on to the related debate on the election of the Regional Chair with the motion being moved by one of Markham’s four Regional Councillors, Joe Li. With York Region responsible for raising and spending billions of dollars he says it is time for accountability and transparency.  The motion is seconded in a strange lukewarm and listless way by Whitchurch-Stouffville’s  Mayor, Justin Altmann, the man who tells us

“I am quite quiet and like to listen”.

He says, almost apologetically, it is essentially a matter for the Province.

Scarpitti immediately asks him if he is withdrawing his support for the motion.

No, says Altmann, quietly.

Now Markham’s Jim Jones is telling us we need a directly elected Chair. So too does Markham’s Nirmala Armstrong though she is not pleased with the way the Province has handled things.

Where power really lies

Vaughan’s Gino Rosatti wants the Province to make the decision on electing the Chair.

“The real power here lies with Mr Macgregor! And he is not elected!”

There is much chuckling. Everyone realizes the power of the bureaucracy, while often camouflaged, is immense.

Markham’s Jack Heath is not in favour of direct election. People owe their allegiance to their local municipality and not to the regional tier. And where are people going to find over $600,000 to contest an election across the region. From developers?

Richmond Hill Mayor, David Barrow, is also against direct election. He again misunderstands that Bill 42 is a Private Member’s Bill. “If the Province is looking for change let the Province make the change.” And any change should apply Province-wide. Barrow says the Chair should have a municipal background. It seems to me the candidates will, in large part, be self selecting. Are we going to see someone run for Regional Chair with no previous municipal experience? Perhaps but unlikely.

More tellingly, Barrow believes the Chair should wield some meaty executive powers. This needs to be explored further.

Popularity v Experience

Richmond Hill’s Vito Spatafora is indignant that York Region is being singled out. He says the Chair should have the experience to deal with big regional issues. “That’s quite a juggling act. You don’t want someone (getting elected) on a popularity vote.”

Turning to Emmerson, he gushes:

“The Chair is there to guide and lead us along. To say we are not transparent is insulting.”

King’s Pellegrini is also against direct election. Why are they targeting just one Region? (Duh! Because it’s Ballard’s Private Member’s Bill and it only applies to York Region.)

East Gwillimbury’s Virginia Hackson says councils are split on the issue. Her council voted for direct election. She voted against and she will again today.

Love is in the air

Mayor Margaret Quirk tells us that Georgina didn’t take a position on Bill 42. But looking at Emmerson she confesses:

“I don’t know if direct election can get us a better candidate than what we have now.”

Now Newmarket’s Van Bynen is telling us he supports democracy, but not right now. He was the sole vote at Newmarket Council against direct election but that won’t stop him voting against direct election today. Parroting the speech he gave at Mulock Drive he says direct election would “change the dynamics of the Regional Council”. He wants a governance review first. It’s putting the cart before the horse. And any change should be applied Province wide.

Maurizio Bevilacqua now applies the soothing balm for which he is famous. Everyone presents a very valuable perspective. Wayne Emmerson has given “stellar leadership”. But if there are changes these should be uniform across the Province.

Big Money

On the vexatious question of raising huge sums of money to contest elections across the Region, he wants to turn the taps off at source. He doesn’t take money from developers or from unions. He suggests there is a way of keeping big money out of municipal politics.

Markham’s Nirmala Armstrong will be supporting direct election. We all saw the votes being cast for Wayne Emmerson but the process for electing the chair was not transparent. Who knows what deals or trade-offs she was thinking of?

Taylor wants to send a message to the Province. Direct election of the Chair offers an exciting opportunity to engage with people and get a conversation going. He says the Region has struggled to catch the eyes and get the ears of residents. Elections will bring energy to regional government.

Aurora’s Geoffrey Dawe was in a minority of one on his Council (8-1) and nothing he has heard since has changed his mind. He will be voting against today.

Vaughan’s Gino Rosatti wanders all over the shop, musing about the nature of democracy and opining on the relative merits of Parliamentary and Presidential systems. All that, I think, is for another day.

Now it is time for Emmerson to wind up. Like a controlled explosion, he vents in a muffled way, taking exception to statements that suggest there is not enough accountability or transparency at York Region. (Fair enough. But why not live stream Council and Committee of the Whole meetings? Having an audio feed is simply absurd. It's not the 1950s.)

We have come full circle and it is time to vote. In favour of direct election 5. Against 14.

In favour: Joe Li (Markham), John Taylor (Newmarket), Justin Altmann (Whitchurch-Stouffville), Nirmala Armstrong (Markham) and Jim Jones (Markham).

Against: Steve Pellegrini (King), Margaret Quirk (Georgina), Gino Rosatti (Vaughan), Frank Scarpitti (Markham), Vito Spatafora (Richmond Hill), Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket), David Barrow (Richmond Hill), Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan), Geoffrey Dawe (Aurora), Michael Di Biase (Vaughan), Mario Ferri (Vaughan), Virginia Hackson (East Gwillimbury), Jack Heath (Markham), Brenda Hogg (Richmond Hill).

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 11 February 2016

Bob Forrest’s latest plans for a condo in the middle of Newmarket’s Heritage Conservation District are worse than even I expected. His 7 storey building will disfigure forever the Town’s historic downtown. And, if approved, it will set a precedent for a rash of similar developments blighting Main Street South.

Bob Forrest tells us “the current proposal is 4^th generation since the initial June 2013 public meeting” as if this makes any difference. If the concept was bad at the outset, a few tweaks here and there do not change that original assessment. It is monstrously out-of-place. It is a massive intrusion on the Town’s delicate historic centre.

Forrest wants to build a seven-storey mixed use building with 165 residential units and 5 retail/commercial units.

Forrest’s consultant planners, MHBC Planning, say

“the proposed residential units are intended to be rental in tenure, providing housing options for young people and empty nesters within the historic downtown. The Proposals will provide 199 private parking spaces in three levels of underground parking.”

To make money, Forrest is packing them in with a vengeance at a density of 430 units per net hectare. He has also reduced the floor to ceiling heights to ensure the new condo is lower than the highest point of the steeple in the adjacent Trinity United Church.

Let there be Light

Forrest’s shadow studies (which show the impact of shadows cast by the new development) seem to suggest the Church will be in shadow at certain times of the year. This is not good news for the Church and its magnificent stained glass windows nor for the parishioners but I am no expert and need more information on this.

Forrest is quick to say the new Condo won’t take parking spaces away from others elsewhere. He does this by exceeding the Town’s parking standards which specify 1.10 spaces per residential unit. His condo requires 1.21 spaces.

Most telling of all, Forrest’s condo only works if he can use Town-owned land but the Town is under no obligation whatsoever to comply. Yet Forrest claims he has an "agreement in principle" for a land swap. Who promised him that?

His planning consultants, MHBC Planning, say:

"The Subject Lands are comprised of a number of parcels owned by both the Owner and the Town of Newmarket… The Owner has an agreement in principle with the Town that will allow for a land exchange and strata agreements that will accommodate sub-grade parking for the rear of the Proposal, while allowing the Town to continue to own and operate the surface.

Beyond the Pale

The underground parking will extend beyond the boundary of the land that Forrest owns.

Forrest’s consultants say the

“proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan.”

They go on to say Forrest’s condo plan

“is in the public interest and represents good planning”.

I laugh out loud as I read this. It is the kind of statement I regularly hear from planning professionals and planning lawyers who are the hired guns of rapacious developers with very deep pockets. It is standard formulaic planning prose meaning absolutely nothing.

Forrest’s own heritage advisers are, nevertheless, slightly more circumspect.

GBCA (Architects) say their client’s plan

“finds a balance between maintaining two-to-three-storey buildings throughout the Heritage Conservation District Plan boundaries and increasing, density, sustainability, financial viability and vibrancy in the historic Downtown.”

But, tellingly, they go on to say there are numerous competing interests that “ultimately must be weighed by Town Council.”  

They are throwing the ball back into the Town’s court.

Forrest’s proposal

“seeks to balance the complementary interests of increasing density, while preserving heritage character as best as possible.”  (My underlining.)

They conclude:

“(Our analysis) concludes that the proposed development, while not meeting the Heritage Conservation District’s Plan in terms of height restrictions, could be mitigated in order to allow the Town to meet a number of other planning goals in the Historic Downtown Core. This Heritage Impact Assessment includes examples of how architectural design can further enhance the compatibility of new construction in Heritage Conservation Districts. The conservation and rehabilitation of four heritage buildings as part of the development is in keeping with the intent of the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan.” (my underlining)

Disneyfication

The reference to conserving and rehabilitating the four heritage buildings (including one dating from 1840) essentially means retaining the facades. It is the casual Disneyfication of irreplaceable historic commercial buildings.

Our charming streetscape goes from 3 storeys to 7. The Heritage Conservation District policy is shredded. The Town’s historic centre is transformed forever with copy-cat proposals waiting in the wings. The Town’s parking standards are ignored. The developer gets Town-owned land and laughs all the way to the bank.

Unless we stop it.

Once and for all.

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

See the plans and drawings here.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 10 February 2016

The Metrolinx Board today included additional criteria for assessing proposed new GO rail stations as part of its ambitious Regional Express Rail program.

The Town of Newmarket flagged up Mulock Drive as the potential site of a new rail station although it is unclear what practical steps the Town has taken to advance the case beyond the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, telling Metrolinx Chief Planner, Leslie Woo, that it is a “priority”.

There is nothing to suggest the Town has made any moves to purchase the land at Mulock Drive which has been up for sale for months. It is on the market for $9,500,000. Last October the asking price was $7,995,000.

The Town’s approach has been altogether far too leisurely given that the Metrolinx Board will be meeting on 28 June 2016 to consider a list of recommended new stations.

When evaluating proposed new GO Rail Stations, Metrolinx will now ask itself:

How well situated is the station in relationship to future market demand?

Can the station support future development and intensification? What is the likely timing?

Metrolinx will look at the number and scale of recent development proposals. (You can check out the updated key criteria here at page 19 of the new stations report.)

Leslie Woo told the Metrolinx Board that including economic development potential as a criterion for assessing new stations will mean further discussions with municipalities. Her report says

“Surrounding development potential was noted as an important lever for municipalities to support transit-oriented design and broader policy objectives for intensification. That potential should be reflected in the evaluation.”

Whether that basic spadework on Mulock Drive has been done by the Town – or, indeed, the Region, is doubtful. As I said months ago, the proposed GO Rail Station is nothing more than a circle on a map. There is no evidence that anyone has done any serious thinking about putting a new station there. Certainly not the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, who spends his time gazing out of the window while telling everyone else his staff is overworked.

Van Bynen, who is too often a spectator when it comes to big decisions rather than a prime mover, has four months to make the case for Mulock Drive.

I can’t see it. Van Bynen is a cautious gradualist.

He was careful not to create a fuss when Metrolinx announced the all-day two-way fifteen minute train service would terminate at Aurora.

"In my own mind the difference between a 15 minute and 30 minute service doesn’t change the world immensely although I think eventually we’ll need to get there. But I’d rather see us easing into that, responding to the demand as we go forward.”

In the same way, it would be completely out of character for the cautious Van Bynen to take to the barricades over Mulock Drive. He will wait, sniff the wind and see what happens.

And, as a result, nothing will.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 08 February 2016

Last week I was surprised to learn (agenda item 6) that the person who chairs the Town’s “Development Co-ordination Committee” - whose members include senior Town staff from planning, engineering and legal services - is an outside planning consultant in private practice here in Newmarket.

The development coordinator, Howard Friedman, operates at the interface between the Town and the so-called “development community”. He has been doing the job since 1998.

Mr Friedman’s contract with the Town is up for renewal but councillors, if they choose, can go out to tender or provide the service in-house.

Blurring the Boundaries

Regional Councillor John Taylor tells us Mr Friedman is an extremely reputable person who has been doing great work for the Town. I have no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise but it is a strange state of affairs when the person who co-ordinates the Town’s response to developers works with developers himself and is paid by them indirectly.

Conflict of Interest

These revelations were news to me but also, I suspect, to old hands like Dave Kerwin, a councillor since Confederation. He wondered aloud how Mr Friedman can be “our coordinator” when he is dealing with other developers. Isn’t there a conflict of interest? Apparently not.

The Town’s waffly Director of Planning, Rick Nethery tells Kerwin that if there is a conflict of interest Mr Friedman declares it, asks a staff member to take the chair and leaves.

This, of course, is as it should be but I cannot help wondering how many times Mr Friedman has declared such an interest since 1998. No-one asked. It could be he doesn’t do a lot of work with developers in Newmarket where he is based but spends his time in surrounding municipalities. In fact, I have no idea how many development coordination committees he chairs or how much time he spends coordinating things. The metrics were entirely absent from the discussion.

Long term contract

Mr Friedman runs what is essentially a one man business – HBR Planning Centre which operates out of 66 Prospect Street. Unusually these days, HBR does not seem to have a website. We are told HBR was first hired by the Town on an informal basis way back in 1998. Things were formalized in 2001 with a contract between HBR and the Town and this was updated in 2010. It expired at the end of last year. I do not know if the development coordinator position has ever gone out to tender.

Over the past five years, the Town has spent around $108,000 on the coordinator but this is reimbursed by the developers who are, by all accounts, very happy with the arrangement. Indeed, the development community consider it “best practice” in York Region.

Newmarket’s Mayor, retired bank manager, Tony Van Bynen, agrees. He particularly likes developers picking up the tab and not the Town and says this is a model that should be replicated elsewhere:

“I have had conversations with representatives of York Region BILD and the process that we use – the development coordination committee – gets high response, high accolades from the (development) industry and in fact they’ve recommended that with all the building going on in East Gwillimbury they consider something similar to that process is very effective. That was a new concept that Newmarket introduced and it has been very successful and is recognized as such by the industry. The good news is that we get to recover those costs.”

But what do the developers get out of this arrangement?

And, more generally, how many Town functions are contracted out to the private sector, at what cost, and for what reasons?

No slack in the organisation

The Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, is quick to say staff is overworked and there is no slack in the organisation. Of course, we’ve heard this one many times before. The Glenway file, for example, was handed to an outside consultant with disastrous results. Bob Shelton, the Chief Administrative Officer, thinks going out to private consultants helps the Town to handle the peaks and troughs of a variable workload.

It is certainly true that the consultancy sector across Ontario seems to be booming, taking on projects that used to be done in-house. Often we are told there is a lack of in-house capacity or expertise. Sometimes consultants are hired to provide cover, bringing “objectivity” to a tricky process (such as updating the Council’s Code of Conduct).

The Town’s Institutional Memory is contracted out to the private sector

Nethery tells us there is a lot of staff turnover and the new people hired by the Town cannot begin to match Mr Friedman with his long 18 year tenure in the job

“This allows (Mr Friedman’s) firm to provide valuable insight as to why certain decisions were made or why certain Town practices are in place as well as past issues that may have resulted in the current processes or practices… HBR has managed to ensure a balance between the Town’s best interests being protected while respecting the challenges that face developers.”

I find it astonishing that the Town’s institutional memory has been contracted out to a private consultant, no matter how good he may be at respecting the challenges facing developers – whatever that may mean.

Nethery struggles to give examples

We are told: “HBR’s problem solving approach has also earned the respect of the development community” but when Christina Bisanz asks him “to give examples of things they troubleshooted on our behalf that perhaps were exemplary” he is all at sea.

Nethery says he is at a loss to give a particular example. He says you’ve got to see the man in action to appreciate the full range of the qualities he brings to the job. He is skilled at looking for consensus between developers and the Town. And where there are conflicting views he looks for solutions and comes up with innovative recommendations.  

“For example, maybe some suggestions around phasing or there may be some suggestions around particular language be included in a sub-division agreement that would address the concerns the Municipality has while still recognizing the demands being put on the developer.”

“You might see conflicting interests within the municipal requirements so engineering might have something that’s a bit at odds with public works or planning or to recreation and it is the development coordinator’s role to ensure that those things get worked out and ironed out before comments are forwarded to the developer.”

“I could probably give you lot better examples if I’d had a little bit more time to think about it. But certainly we have been very pleased with his performance.”

Why not do this work in-house?

Now Nethery tells Bisanz why the Town doesn’t hire someone to do this work. There is the problem of finding someone in-house with (a) the free time to take it on and (b) the skill set.

“If we were to be looking for, say, an internal person then we would have to determine is there somebody with some free time (which I think we know what the answer to that is) so it would mean we would have to come up with someone with a new assignment.

An in-house person would have to progress chase and be senior enough to issue instructions to the Town’s Directors who report to him.

"So that person has to be someone who can frankly rattle our cage if we haven’t responded in a timely way… (It) would have to be someone at a fairly senior level as opposed to someone who may be early on in their career. You know, giving direction to the Municipal Solicitor or someone else.”

Two for one

Councillors are told they needn’t go out to competitive tender if the technical expertise of the current provider is deemed to be unchallengeable and where continuity of service is a paramount consideration. There are other reasons too – where the work would not be done efficiently or in a timely manner. In fact, we learn that going out to tender could jeopardize the whole operation and

“for some period of time the development community would actually be paying for two consultants through the transition from HBR to another consultant.”

That sounds like a lot of hassle - which probably explains why Mr Friedman’s contract has been renewed for three years.

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