Some candidates have websites that may help voters to understand what the issues are, or which issues the candidate finds important. There usually is also background and contact information. A few candidates have declared or contacted us to state they are running "developer free" campaigns (meaning they are not accepting funding from developers). Some have also stated they are "corporate-free" as well, or accepting donations only from individuals.
As I have more information from candidates, I will add it here. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have a website or a developer/corporate-free campaign. Also see "Who is Running in November" for contact information for all candidates.
Race for Mayor:
Jim Abernethy - developer/corporate-free campaign
http://www.jimabernethy.ca/
Richard Ward - developer/corporate-free campaign
richardward2006@gmail.com
Jim Schell
http://www.jimschellformayor.net/
Regional Wards 1 & 2 Race
George Van Dyke - developer/coporate-free campaign
http://www.georgevandyk.com/
Regional Wards 3 & 4 Race
John Buddo
http://www.johnbuddo.com/
Linda Gasser - developer/corporate-free campaign
http://www.lindagasser.com/
Local Ward 1 Race
Adrian Foster
http://www.adrianfoster.ca/
Local Ward 2 Race
Ron Hooper - developer/corporate-free campaign
ron.hooper@sympatico.ca
Steve Rowland
http://electsteverowland.blogspot.com/
Local Ward 3 Race
Willie Woo - developer/corporate-free campaign
willie.woo@rogers.com
Local Ward 4 Race
Wendy Partner - developer/corporate-free campaign
http://www.wendypartner.ca/
And don't forget to check in frequently with the Vote Clarington (Metroland) blog as reporter Jennifer Stone follows the Clarington campaign trail.
29 Sept 2006
22 Sept 2006
Campaign Donors continued
Please click on images to enlarge.
Clarington Local Ward Candidates:
Gord Robinson, presently local Ward 4 Councillor, is running for the same Ward 4 seat in the upcoming election. In 2003 he received a total of $1000.00 from 3 contributors, with no individual donations of $100.00 or less. Mr. Robinson was unopposed in 2003 so did not need to raise the funds to run an active campaign.
Adrian Foster is the Ward 1 local Councillor and is running for Ward 1 again in this election. This is the only seat that so far has no challengers. In 2003, of a total of $3589.92 in contributions, $300.00 came from individuals who contributed $100 or less, and Mr. Foster contributed $2674.92 to his own campaign. Update: Mr. Foster now has one challenger (Sept.28).
Not nominated to run to date:
Pat Pingle is presently the local Ward 2 Councillor, and is not nominated to run in this election to date, although there is still time and I have not heard that she is definitely not running. Ms. Pingle's total contributions received in 2003 were $1375.00 with no contributions of $100.00 or less, however since she ran unopposed, there was no need to raise substantial amounts of money for a campaign.
See previous post for Campaign donors for Mayor Mutton and Councillors Schell, Trim and MacArthur.
(Source: Clarington Clerk's Department)
Clarington Local Ward Candidates:Gord Robinson, presently local Ward 4 Councillor, is running for the same Ward 4 seat in the upcoming election. In 2003 he received a total of $1000.00 from 3 contributors, with no individual donations of $100.00 or less. Mr. Robinson was unopposed in 2003 so did not need to raise the funds to run an active campaign.
Adrian Foster is the Ward 1 local Councillor and is running for Ward 1 again in this election. This is the only seat that so far has no challengers. In 2003, of a total of $3589.92 in contributions, $300.00 came from individuals who contributed $100 or less, and Mr. Foster contributed $2674.92 to his own campaign. Update: Mr. Foster now has one challenger (Sept.28).Not nominated to run to date:
Pat Pingle is presently the local Ward 2 Councillor, and is not nominated to run in this election to date, although there is still time and I have not heard that she is definitely not running. Ms. Pingle's total contributions received in 2003 were $1375.00 with no contributions of $100.00 or less, however since she ran unopposed, there was no need to raise substantial amounts of money for a campaign.
See previous post for Campaign donors for Mayor Mutton and Councillors Schell, Trim and MacArthur.
(Source: Clarington Clerk's Department)
21 Sept 2006
Campaign Donors - No 'Developer-free' candidates in 2003
There are no declared 'developer-free' incumbents in this election, and only 3 challengers who are 'developer-free so' far - 2 in the Mayoral race and one in the Wards 3 & 4 Regional seat race.
Please click on images for a larger view.
Clarington Mayoral Candidates:
By far the largest campaign war chest was amassed by John Mutton in 2003, which is not surprising since he was running for the top job as Mayor, even though he was the incumbent an had only one challenger. Of the $40,140.00 in campaign contributions, he raised only $344 from single contributors who donated $100 or less. You will see on the list of contributors developers and corporations who put forward applications that the Mayor (and Council) were then asked to approve over the last 3 years. He certainly has the support of developers. Rarely is there debate from other Councillors over applications the Mayor supports. Much has been said about the lack of opposition or debate on anything the Mayor supports over the last several years. Why?
Next is Jim Schell, who was Regional Councillor for Wards 1 & 2 in 2003, and in 2006 is running for Mayor. Jim had no contributions of $100 or less. Jim's total contributions received were $1375.00. However, since Mr. Schell was acclaimed in 2003, he didn't need to run a full campaign or raise money to do so.
So far there are 2 declared 'developer-free' candidates for Mayor in this election - Jim Abernethy and Richard Ward.
Clarington Regional Candidates:
Charlie Trim is next. Charlie was/is Regional Councillor for Wards 3 and 4 and is running for that same seat in this election. From individual donors who contributed $100 or less, Mr. Trim received $70.00. Total contributions to Mr. Trim were $4920.00.
Linda Gasser is a "corporate-free candidate" running for the Regional Wards 3 & 4 seat and is accepting campaign contributions from individuals only.
The next incumbent is Don MacArthur, who is presently local Ward 2 Councillor, but will be running for Jim Schell's vacated Wards 1 & 2 Regional seat. From individual donors who contributed $100 or less, Mr. MacArthur received $50.00. Mr. MacArthur's total contributions amounted to $2875.00.
We'll cover the last 3 councillors in our next post.
(Source: Clarington Clerk's Dept.)
Please click on images for a larger view.
Clarington Mayoral Candidates:
By far the largest campaign war chest was amassed by John Mutton in 2003, which is not surprising since he was running for the top job as Mayor, even though he was the incumbent an had only one challenger. Of the $40,140.00 in campaign contributions, he raised only $344 from single contributors who donated $100 or less. You will see on the list of contributors developers and corporations who put forward applications that the Mayor (and Council) were then asked to approve over the last 3 years. He certainly has the support of developers. Rarely is there debate from other Councillors over applications the Mayor supports. Much has been said about the lack of opposition or debate on anything the Mayor supports over the last several years. Why?
Next is Jim Schell, who was Regional Councillor for Wards 1 & 2 in 2003, and in 2006 is running for Mayor. Jim had no contributions of $100 or less. Jim's total contributions received were $1375.00. However, since Mr. Schell was acclaimed in 2003, he didn't need to run a full campaign or raise money to do so.So far there are 2 declared 'developer-free' candidates for Mayor in this election - Jim Abernethy and Richard Ward.
Clarington Regional Candidates:
Charlie Trim is next. Charlie was/is Regional Councillor for Wards 3 and 4 and is running for that same seat in this election. From individual donors who contributed $100 or less, Mr. Trim received $70.00. Total contributions to Mr. Trim were $4920.00.Linda Gasser is a "corporate-free candidate" running for the Regional Wards 3 & 4 seat and is accepting campaign contributions from individuals only.
The next incumbent is Don MacArthur, who is presently local Ward 2 Councillor, but will be running for Jim Schell's vacated Wards 1 & 2 Regional seat. From individual donors who contributed $100 or less, Mr. MacArthur received $50.00. Mr. MacArthur's total contributions amounted to $2875.00.We'll cover the last 3 councillors in our next post.
(Source: Clarington Clerk's Dept.)
20 Sept 2006
Former Mayor Hamre drops out of race
So, the poll changes once again. After entering the race only 1 week ago, former Mayor Hamre has decided to withdraw from the Mayoral race in Clarington. She didn't give any reasons for her withdrawal, but we suspect she may have overestimated the amount of support she still has here after an absence of 6 years. Our poll at the time she withdrew (see left) indicates not a lot of support, but she was a late entry into the race and was slowly moving up a bit.She may have other reasons for withdrawing. She may simply have decided she doesn't still have the desire needed to mount a full campaign once again. No doubt there will be plenty of speculation.
Will she throw her support behind one of the candidates? We doubt it but we've been wrong before! We will just have to wait and see what happens.
See today's Metroland story online "Former mayor reconsiders bid for top job" and also Jennifer Stone's Vote Clarington blog entry - And with that, she was gone... - which shows our former Mayor has not lost the quick trigger temper or become more gracious during her 6 years of retirement. Yes Jennifer, we'll miss her just as much as you will!
We're back to 5 candidates for Mayor, so please update your vote on the poll (to the right) if you had previously voted for Diane Hamre. The other Clarington races are heating up too, so stay tuned for more.
19 Sept 2006
Development Dollars in Campaigns - Why is it important to us?
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan - 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)
When you look at the amount of money donated to candidates by those in the development industry, and then at resulting future development decisions, you have to wonder. Especially when you see all the political machinations in trying to give a boost to land speculators or developers who already have bought up cheap farmland in anticipation of being able to change zoning to suit their desire to add yet more money-making (for them) subdivisions to the ever-increasing sprawl.
Knowing who contributes to campaigns and understanding the interests of those contributors may help to explain the candidates views and the directions they take in municipal governance. If those willing to contribute money to candidates are few and share common interests, such as the development industry, and those common interests are not necessarily shared by a wider public, they may be able to influence what candidates come forward, what views those candidates hold and what chances they have for election. If elected, these large contributors appear to hold more influence over the elected than the average citizen. Could this be why average citizens are shouted at, ridiculed, and badgered when speaking in opposition to Council's (Regional or local) position on some of these issues? Our "apparently" pro-development Council has produced urban/suburban sprawl that is automobile dependent, unfriendly to mass transit, lacking density to support other services and dependent on infrastructure outside the boundaries of our smaller municipalities.
Durham Region's choice to proceed with their ill-advised "Option 3", to designate "Future Growth Areas", signaling their intention to allow more sprawl in these areas as soon as allowed to do so, is just such an example of pandering to special interests rather than the public good. Their attempts at removing more lands from the Provincial Greenbelt for future development is another signal. And they are still trying to remove lands but have put it off until after the election (no doubt because of the strong opposition by voters!). Once the election is over, however, they will have 4 years to try to get voters to forget what they're doing. Their own planning staff have told them that there is enough land designated within present urban boundaries to last until 2031 for development, but still this group wants to give a leg up to developers, who really don't need that extra help. It's your average citizen who needs help in trying to control "sprawl".
The importance of the development industry in municipal campaign funding is substantial. The development industry is by far the largest segment of all contributions in Durham Region in general and Clarington specifically. This is not surprising given the political economy of the development industry and the vital role that municipal politics plays in the creation of profit for developers.
How does developer money help certain candidates? That money helps give a candidate publicity and profile. When voters know little about the candidates, those with more election signs, more brochures, more backing may appear to be more credible while those with smaller campaign chests may seem to be "fringe" candidates, representing "fringe" views. Untrue and unfair, especially when it comes to new candidates, but there it is.
We do have some (very few) candidates who are not accepting corporate or developer dollars. Ask them when they knock at your door or you attend an event where candidates are present (both incumbents and new candidates). Hopefully they'll be truthful because that information is available to the public. Speaking of which, through being given that information for the 2003 election campaign, we found that EVERY SINGLE Clarington Candidate in 2003 did accept/receive money from the development industry.
What can we do to change this? Look at the record of incumbents and find out all you can about the challengers. Remember that incumbents have a head start - they already have signs and campaign literature. They have a "base". They have free advertising in the form of speeches at council that are reported in the local newspapers (along with name/face recognition). They have more opportunities to attend functions in an "official" capacity and carry some "clout" (or they think they do). Look at their true record, not the spin that accompanies campaigns in the form of literature and sound bites.
You may want to support 'developer-free' candidates with contributions - financial or time or simply our votes. Ask questions about all the "issues" and make informed decisions. Try to get local groups to host debates and 'meet and greet' type events for all local candidates. Go and meet the candidates and ask a lot of questions. Don't just depend on "name recognition" when you receive your ballot. And be sure to vote after doing your research.
15 Sept 2006
Why so many candidates? Are we dissatisfied?
Why are there so many candidates in this election for Clarington Mayor and Council seats? Could it be because of higher than normal voter dissatisfaction with our present Council? Even ex-mayor Hamre has declared she is running in this election because she wants to get Council "back on track to the station called democracy" (source Orono Weekly Times Sept. 13 article). She retired in 2000 and has not been happy with the direction our municipal council has taken. And she's not alone.
There has been much discussion (and complaining) by voters over the last couple of years about all the "in camera" sessions by this council. Then they come out and vote but you don't know what they are voting on. There seems to be far too much of this when it should be an open and transparent council. Then again we don't know what goes on behind closed doors so we don't know what is being voted on. Sure there are things that must be discussed "in camera" such as some personnel matters, but there seem to be SO many private sessions these days and people wonder why.
Then there are the complaints about the fact that there is little debate on issues - it seems most things are just rubber-stamped by council. The greatest debate comes from residents who come as delegations before council to speak on issues. But too often they are interrupted and intimidated if they disagree with a council position or if they dare to criticize any of council's actions. Or they are acknowledged and thanked for their input, the Mayor asks quickly "Are there any questions" for this speaker and rapidly "There are none so thank you". And then on to the next delegation. Even when questions are asked, it seems the resident's concerns too frequently fall on deaf ears. When lawyers or agents for the development industry get up to speak, however, they seem to be given greater attention as well as respect. Correct or not, that is the perception.
Then we have the unprecedented salary increases. The average pay for local councillors prior to 2000 was $17,000. Last year Clarington's four local councillors were paid $35,000, with the two regional councillors taking home $85,000 depending on what committees they sit on. Regional Councillors prior to 2000 were paid $46,000. (This includes Regional pay).
Add to that the incredible mileage rate increase. This council more than doubled their mileage allowances. The new flat rate increased the mayor's mileage allowance from $570 a month to $1,293. Councillors' mileage rates jump from $228 to $564 per month.
There is also the perception of council being "developer friendly" in their decisions, which ties in with the fact that every single one of our present council and mayor had developers as donors to their last campaign. There are already a couple of new candidates who have declared that they will NOT accept donations from the development industry or companies who do business with the municipality. And there is much support for this action from groups such as the Sierra Club of Canada, Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition, Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, Ontario Smart Growth Network and many individual Clarington voters. Taking this step makes it more difficult for these candidates without the deep pockets in that sector, but makes for a candidacy that is not beholden to any of the developers and candidates who won't feel pressure to do any reciprocal favours for anyone if elected.
Incumbents already have an advantage over new candidates with name recognition, previous literature to hand out and signs from previous campaigns. They also have the restrictive Clarington sign by-law that gives them another advantage over those who would run against them, and while it could easily have been changed at any time over the last few years or even in the lead-up to this election, it has not been done. They already have abundant vehicles for "campaigning" including speeches made at council meetings leading up to an election, their pictures being featured in the local newspapers without having to put in "ads", their seats on various boards and councils within the region and public appearances in the official position of mayor or councillor at local events.
Some Clarington residents have commented that they have observed how council's attention to the wants or needs of the voter changes when an election is imminent. Suddenly the mayor is more cordial to delegations. Suddenly there are more "speeches" by councillors at council meetings. Suddenly there is more of an attempt, whether superficial or sincere, to accommodate the wishes of voters. Still there is little debate among this group of municipal officials and still they seem to rubber-stamp most motions.
Clarington voters are increasingly speaking up about their dissatisfaction with the current council on a number of issues, which might be the reason there are more candidates for all seats in this election than usual. Except for Local Ward 1, where there is still only one candidate (the incumbent) but there are rumours that there will be additional candidates before nominations close on September 29th.
Is it a good thing to have so many candidates? Perhaps not, as it dilutes the votes and may allow for someone who is not really the best candidate for the position to slip through and win. Or those wanting change may dilute the vote to the extent that the one incumbent for a position will win over challengers simply because there are more choices for "change" and only one incumbent. It is always good to have more than one candidate for each seat as it affords the voter a choice. But having too many may not be a good thing either. We'll have to wait and see how this election turns out.
We will also have to wait and see whether there are any withdrawals of nominations by October 2nd which is the last date for withdrawals for this election. And we will all have to take a good, long, hard look at the candidates in our wards and the mayoral candidates. We'll have to try to learn all we can about each one and then make an informed decision when we vote.
Candidates are welcome to comment here if they wish, and may let us know whether they have put any restrictions on their own campaigns regarding who they will accept donations from. They can also comment on any other issues they would like to speak up on.
There is much interest in Clarington leading up to this election, and with good reason. We do deserve better.
There has been much discussion (and complaining) by voters over the last couple of years about all the "in camera" sessions by this council. Then they come out and vote but you don't know what they are voting on. There seems to be far too much of this when it should be an open and transparent council. Then again we don't know what goes on behind closed doors so we don't know what is being voted on. Sure there are things that must be discussed "in camera" such as some personnel matters, but there seem to be SO many private sessions these days and people wonder why.
Then there are the complaints about the fact that there is little debate on issues - it seems most things are just rubber-stamped by council. The greatest debate comes from residents who come as delegations before council to speak on issues. But too often they are interrupted and intimidated if they disagree with a council position or if they dare to criticize any of council's actions. Or they are acknowledged and thanked for their input, the Mayor asks quickly "Are there any questions" for this speaker and rapidly "There are none so thank you". And then on to the next delegation. Even when questions are asked, it seems the resident's concerns too frequently fall on deaf ears. When lawyers or agents for the development industry get up to speak, however, they seem to be given greater attention as well as respect. Correct or not, that is the perception.
Then we have the unprecedented salary increases. The average pay for local councillors prior to 2000 was $17,000. Last year Clarington's four local councillors were paid $35,000, with the two regional councillors taking home $85,000 depending on what committees they sit on. Regional Councillors prior to 2000 were paid $46,000. (This includes Regional pay).
Add to that the incredible mileage rate increase. This council more than doubled their mileage allowances. The new flat rate increased the mayor's mileage allowance from $570 a month to $1,293. Councillors' mileage rates jump from $228 to $564 per month.
Collecting on a per-kilometre basis would be a complicated procedure for councillors who make numerous trips a day, said Regional Councillor Jim Schell (who is running for Mayor in this election)Now, if it's too difficult for our politicians to keep track of mileage (and these are the people who are running our municipality???), then why not simply use a trip odometer?
There is also the perception of council being "developer friendly" in their decisions, which ties in with the fact that every single one of our present council and mayor had developers as donors to their last campaign. There are already a couple of new candidates who have declared that they will NOT accept donations from the development industry or companies who do business with the municipality. And there is much support for this action from groups such as the Sierra Club of Canada, Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition, Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, Ontario Smart Growth Network and many individual Clarington voters. Taking this step makes it more difficult for these candidates without the deep pockets in that sector, but makes for a candidacy that is not beholden to any of the developers and candidates who won't feel pressure to do any reciprocal favours for anyone if elected.
Incumbents already have an advantage over new candidates with name recognition, previous literature to hand out and signs from previous campaigns. They also have the restrictive Clarington sign by-law that gives them another advantage over those who would run against them, and while it could easily have been changed at any time over the last few years or even in the lead-up to this election, it has not been done. They already have abundant vehicles for "campaigning" including speeches made at council meetings leading up to an election, their pictures being featured in the local newspapers without having to put in "ads", their seats on various boards and councils within the region and public appearances in the official position of mayor or councillor at local events.
Some Clarington residents have commented that they have observed how council's attention to the wants or needs of the voter changes when an election is imminent. Suddenly the mayor is more cordial to delegations. Suddenly there are more "speeches" by councillors at council meetings. Suddenly there is more of an attempt, whether superficial or sincere, to accommodate the wishes of voters. Still there is little debate among this group of municipal officials and still they seem to rubber-stamp most motions.
Clarington voters are increasingly speaking up about their dissatisfaction with the current council on a number of issues, which might be the reason there are more candidates for all seats in this election than usual. Except for Local Ward 1, where there is still only one candidate (the incumbent) but there are rumours that there will be additional candidates before nominations close on September 29th.
Is it a good thing to have so many candidates? Perhaps not, as it dilutes the votes and may allow for someone who is not really the best candidate for the position to slip through and win. Or those wanting change may dilute the vote to the extent that the one incumbent for a position will win over challengers simply because there are more choices for "change" and only one incumbent. It is always good to have more than one candidate for each seat as it affords the voter a choice. But having too many may not be a good thing either. We'll have to wait and see how this election turns out.
We will also have to wait and see whether there are any withdrawals of nominations by October 2nd which is the last date for withdrawals for this election. And we will all have to take a good, long, hard look at the candidates in our wards and the mayoral candidates. We'll have to try to learn all we can about each one and then make an informed decision when we vote.
Candidates are welcome to comment here if they wish, and may let us know whether they have put any restrictions on their own campaigns regarding who they will accept donations from. They can also comment on any other issues they would like to speak up on.
There is much interest in Clarington leading up to this election, and with good reason. We do deserve better.
14 Sept 2006
Greenbelt primary focus of Official Plan vote
Durham Region's first full council meeting after the summer break saw the main issue being the contentious Durham Region Official Plan the main focus of delegations and Council.
The majority of delegations spoke in support of the Provincial Greenbelt Plan as well as Provincial Places to Grow. Two candidates for Clarington Council spoke in support of the Greenbelt as it stands with the Province - Richard Ward (candidate for Mayor) and Linda Gasser (candidate for Regional Wards 3 & 4). Ms. Gasser was badgered by Oshawa Mayor John Gray but she stood her ground and gave good answers. She was also questioned by Councillors Emm and Nicholson and Chair Roger Anderson, who tried to fluster her but didn't succeed. Mayor Parish, a member of the planning committee, asked numerous questions of Ms. Gasser and supported her efforts, as well as others. A welcome change in attitude from the nastiness especially of Mayor Gray. Chair of the Planning Committee, G. O'Connor looked plenty perturbed by most of the delegations, but took out her angst on Terry Nuspl from Pickering. There were some excellent speakers in support of the Greenbelt legislation and included lands and very few against it. Not at all reflective of the majority of regional councillors.
Last May Durham Region designated 2,200 hectares of greenbelt land for future development (to satisfy developers who supply the majority of election campaign funds for Durham politicians, perhaps?). An attempt to have council rescind its May decision on Wednesday failed on a vote of 15 to 9. This in spite of the fact that Durham planners say that Durham Region already has enough land designated as "urban" for development to accomodate the next 25 years of growth. But council agreed to postpone further discussion of the details of greenbelt intrusions until January 2007 - after the election - likely because of all the opposition to it from residents who showed up at Council chambers for the meeting.
This is typical of the Regional Council. Their very capable planning staff did support the greenbelt and did not support trying to change it - the Greenbelt legislation is LAW and the Province has made their intentions clear - they will NOT change it for the next 10 years But Regional Planning Committee (made up of some of the mayors/regional councillors) directed planning staff to do a report that would include removal of the subject lands from the greenbelt, or find a way to signal that if that was not possible, these lands were preferred for future development (pending studies, of course). Typical back-door approach that happens when they can't get what they want directly.
Good news though for Clarington. The west Courtice areas that the Region wanted removed from the Greenbelt so they could be slated for future development - were removed from the "Future Growth Areas" as per Clarington's wishes. But their inclusion in the Provincial Greenbelt will still be under assault by Durham Region in January when it comes before them again (after the election).
This is an important issue and should be an "election issue" for voters of Clarington. When your candidate comes around to your door or phones you or you have any opportunity to meet any of them, ask them their position on the Greenbelt. Don't be fooled if they say "they support it" - ask whether they will keep the Greenbelt boundaries intact until it is reviewed by the Province in 2015, or whether they agree with the attempt by Durham Region to remove some of the lands from the greenbelt designation. You may also want to ask them if they are accepting campaign contributions from developers. Don't let them double-talk you - get solid answers to your questions. Don't be afraid to ask.
So, bottom line is that Regional Council is still "developer friendly" and doesn't even try to hide it anymore (at least most of them). And here is one more good reason why the Regional Chair should be ELECTED by the voters, not appointed by a vote of Council.
It is also true that every single one of our present council and mayor had developers as donors to their last campaign. For example, in the last election, Mayor Mutton raised over $40,000 in campaign contributions. Approx. $1600 of it was from private individuals, and the rest was from corporations - mostly developers and contractors! No wonder our council and Durham Region is perceived as being "developer friendly".
And after the shouting down and nasty reception of several resident speakers at Regional Council on Wednesday (along with similar actions in Clarington Council chambers over the last while) - it's no wonder that these Councils are NOT seen as being "resident friendly".
For more, see "Bastard Child of the 905" in the Oshawa Metroland blog, along with the Globe and Mail's John Barber's Column in that same blog entry. See text below. Emphasis/bold is mine.
Don't mess with Durham
JOHN BARBER
Linda Gasser, an organic beef farmer aspiring to municipal office in Clarington -- an urban-frontier amalgamation of what used to be the few small towns and many farms and forests of Clarke and Darlington townships -- prepared meticulously for the presentation she made this week to Durham Region council, the body she hopes to join Nov. 13.
Standing at a lectern facing an oval-shaped parliament of stiff and comically sober incumbents, she offered a detailed, thoughtful critique of the region's latest retrograde attempt to prepare supposedly protected land for more of the same sprawl that is threatening to ruin the last of its old towns, farms and forests.
Despite six years of review, she said, the new official plan currently before council is a mess. "I lay responsibility for this official plan mess at the feet of the chair of planning committee, and [Durham Region] Chairman [Roger] Anderson."
At that, the oval went electric. Oshawa Mayor John Gray, chairing the meeting at the time, began shouting at Ms. Gasser. "You can't lay allegations here!" he bellowed, while fellow councillors rose to decry the monstrous offence in tones equally aggrieved and indignant. "Don't lay allegations!" he bellowed again and again.
"It's not an allegation," Ms. Gasser, shaken by the sudden uproar, replied quietly. "It's an opinion."
Mr. Anderson, the usual chairman of such gatherings, is more sophisticated than ludicrous Mayor Gray is in his mistreatment of constituents, preferring facetious mockery to clumsy intimidation. Thus, he contrived to mispronounce the perfectly phonetic name of one meek citizen he faced down, Terry Nuspl of Pickering, half a dozen times before she was able to begin her plea to preserve the farms and forests.
Chairman Anderson was all charm and jocularity as he insulted his constituent by mangling her name every way he could think of. Then he turned the proceedings over to attack-dog Gerri Lynn O'Connor, mayor of Uxbridge.
Mayor O'Connor mercilessly berated Ms. Nuspl for not knowing the precise name of the particular instrument that Durham had invented to punch holes in the Greater Toronto greenbelt -- and whether it is an attachment, schedule or appendix to the official plan.
The rules of procedure allow councillors to question citizens who come to speak in the chamber. But Mayor O'Connor made no pretense of asking questions as she viciously laid into the quaking citizen for not knowing the difference between an attachment and an appendix. After uttering one insincere, ineffective protest on behalf of the rules, Chairman Anderson just let her rip.
"It's a tried-and-true tactic in Durham," candidate Gasser reflected after the ugly meeting ended. "I try to be prepared for it but it still takes me aback."
Two themes dominate her doorstep discussions with voters during the current campaign, according to Ms. Gasser. One is strong support for the provincial greenbelt and new provincial policies restricting the sprawl so beloved of Durham council. "They see that it is really important to maintain the rural character of this region, this municipality in particular," Ms. Gasser said. "I hear a lot about that."
The other theme is disgust at self-serving politicians who abuse their constituents. "People don't really want to be shouted down at town hall," she said. "They are looking for politicians who treat them fairly."
In truth the two issues -- the greenbelt and political thuggery -- are perfect reflections of one another, both potent proofs of how isolated and unaccountable local politics has become in Durham, bastard child of the 905. Still scandalously dependent on the development industry to finance their campaigns, incumbents can afford to ignore public opinion while they serve vested interests. The reason? Hardly anybody bothers to vote.
The few citizens who do step up dare not mention in council what they all know to be obvious. Oh, how the politicians howl, how prickly and pompous they become when some meek voter dares to notice their slavish dependence on developer dollars. Like contrary opinions, the plain truth about local politics has no place in the perfect echo chamber of Durham council.
Consider the case of Clarington Mayor John Mutton, a notorious shouter who is campaigning for re-election while facing criminal assault charges. Mayor Mutton raised more than $40,000 to contest the 2003 election, of which individual constituents -- four in total -- contributed $1,600. The rest came from corporations, the vast majority of whom were developers and contractors from everywhere except Clarington.
Are the results of the official-plan debate any surprise in such circumstances? Of course not. Even though Durham planners say that the region already has enough designated urban land to accommodate another 25 years of sprawl, council voted to prepare another 15,000 acres for development -- lands specifically protected by provincial law as agricultural forever. Cowed slightly by mounting opposition that even they can't fail to notice, the Durhams courageously delayed their attempt to punch holes in the actual greenbelt until after the election.
Despite some "dumb political acrobatics," the result is clear, according to Ajax Mayor Steve Parish, the only council member who refuses corporate contributions. "They basically are still committed to the private interests that support them," he said. "This was really the triumph of private interests over the public interest."
Chairman Anderson blames his council's increasing notoriety on meddlesome Toronto newspapers. I hope he's right about the effect of the novel scrutiny, but nothing will change unless Durham voters start to meddle themselves.
The majority of delegations spoke in support of the Provincial Greenbelt Plan as well as Provincial Places to Grow. Two candidates for Clarington Council spoke in support of the Greenbelt as it stands with the Province - Richard Ward (candidate for Mayor) and Linda Gasser (candidate for Regional Wards 3 & 4). Ms. Gasser was badgered by Oshawa Mayor John Gray but she stood her ground and gave good answers. She was also questioned by Councillors Emm and Nicholson and Chair Roger Anderson, who tried to fluster her but didn't succeed. Mayor Parish, a member of the planning committee, asked numerous questions of Ms. Gasser and supported her efforts, as well as others. A welcome change in attitude from the nastiness especially of Mayor Gray. Chair of the Planning Committee, G. O'Connor looked plenty perturbed by most of the delegations, but took out her angst on Terry Nuspl from Pickering. There were some excellent speakers in support of the Greenbelt legislation and included lands and very few against it. Not at all reflective of the majority of regional councillors.
Last May Durham Region designated 2,200 hectares of greenbelt land for future development (to satisfy developers who supply the majority of election campaign funds for Durham politicians, perhaps?). An attempt to have council rescind its May decision on Wednesday failed on a vote of 15 to 9. This in spite of the fact that Durham planners say that Durham Region already has enough land designated as "urban" for development to accomodate the next 25 years of growth. But council agreed to postpone further discussion of the details of greenbelt intrusions until January 2007 - after the election - likely because of all the opposition to it from residents who showed up at Council chambers for the meeting.
This is typical of the Regional Council. Their very capable planning staff did support the greenbelt and did not support trying to change it - the Greenbelt legislation is LAW and the Province has made their intentions clear - they will NOT change it for the next 10 years But Regional Planning Committee (made up of some of the mayors/regional councillors) directed planning staff to do a report that would include removal of the subject lands from the greenbelt, or find a way to signal that if that was not possible, these lands were preferred for future development (pending studies, of course). Typical back-door approach that happens when they can't get what they want directly.
Good news though for Clarington. The west Courtice areas that the Region wanted removed from the Greenbelt so they could be slated for future development - were removed from the "Future Growth Areas" as per Clarington's wishes. But their inclusion in the Provincial Greenbelt will still be under assault by Durham Region in January when it comes before them again (after the election).
This is an important issue and should be an "election issue" for voters of Clarington. When your candidate comes around to your door or phones you or you have any opportunity to meet any of them, ask them their position on the Greenbelt. Don't be fooled if they say "they support it" - ask whether they will keep the Greenbelt boundaries intact until it is reviewed by the Province in 2015, or whether they agree with the attempt by Durham Region to remove some of the lands from the greenbelt designation. You may also want to ask them if they are accepting campaign contributions from developers. Don't let them double-talk you - get solid answers to your questions. Don't be afraid to ask.
So, bottom line is that Regional Council is still "developer friendly" and doesn't even try to hide it anymore (at least most of them). And here is one more good reason why the Regional Chair should be ELECTED by the voters, not appointed by a vote of Council.
It is also true that every single one of our present council and mayor had developers as donors to their last campaign. For example, in the last election, Mayor Mutton raised over $40,000 in campaign contributions. Approx. $1600 of it was from private individuals, and the rest was from corporations - mostly developers and contractors! No wonder our council and Durham Region is perceived as being "developer friendly".
And after the shouting down and nasty reception of several resident speakers at Regional Council on Wednesday (along with similar actions in Clarington Council chambers over the last while) - it's no wonder that these Councils are NOT seen as being "resident friendly".
For more, see "Bastard Child of the 905" in the Oshawa Metroland blog, along with the Globe and Mail's John Barber's Column in that same blog entry. See text below. Emphasis/bold is mine.
Don't mess with Durham
JOHN BARBER
Linda Gasser, an organic beef farmer aspiring to municipal office in Clarington -- an urban-frontier amalgamation of what used to be the few small towns and many farms and forests of Clarke and Darlington townships -- prepared meticulously for the presentation she made this week to Durham Region council, the body she hopes to join Nov. 13.
Standing at a lectern facing an oval-shaped parliament of stiff and comically sober incumbents, she offered a detailed, thoughtful critique of the region's latest retrograde attempt to prepare supposedly protected land for more of the same sprawl that is threatening to ruin the last of its old towns, farms and forests.
Despite six years of review, she said, the new official plan currently before council is a mess. "I lay responsibility for this official plan mess at the feet of the chair of planning committee, and [Durham Region] Chairman [Roger] Anderson."
At that, the oval went electric. Oshawa Mayor John Gray, chairing the meeting at the time, began shouting at Ms. Gasser. "You can't lay allegations here!" he bellowed, while fellow councillors rose to decry the monstrous offence in tones equally aggrieved and indignant. "Don't lay allegations!" he bellowed again and again.
"It's not an allegation," Ms. Gasser, shaken by the sudden uproar, replied quietly. "It's an opinion."
Mr. Anderson, the usual chairman of such gatherings, is more sophisticated than ludicrous Mayor Gray is in his mistreatment of constituents, preferring facetious mockery to clumsy intimidation. Thus, he contrived to mispronounce the perfectly phonetic name of one meek citizen he faced down, Terry Nuspl of Pickering, half a dozen times before she was able to begin her plea to preserve the farms and forests.
Chairman Anderson was all charm and jocularity as he insulted his constituent by mangling her name every way he could think of. Then he turned the proceedings over to attack-dog Gerri Lynn O'Connor, mayor of Uxbridge.
Mayor O'Connor mercilessly berated Ms. Nuspl for not knowing the precise name of the particular instrument that Durham had invented to punch holes in the Greater Toronto greenbelt -- and whether it is an attachment, schedule or appendix to the official plan.
The rules of procedure allow councillors to question citizens who come to speak in the chamber. But Mayor O'Connor made no pretense of asking questions as she viciously laid into the quaking citizen for not knowing the difference between an attachment and an appendix. After uttering one insincere, ineffective protest on behalf of the rules, Chairman Anderson just let her rip.
"It's a tried-and-true tactic in Durham," candidate Gasser reflected after the ugly meeting ended. "I try to be prepared for it but it still takes me aback."
Two themes dominate her doorstep discussions with voters during the current campaign, according to Ms. Gasser. One is strong support for the provincial greenbelt and new provincial policies restricting the sprawl so beloved of Durham council. "They see that it is really important to maintain the rural character of this region, this municipality in particular," Ms. Gasser said. "I hear a lot about that."
The other theme is disgust at self-serving politicians who abuse their constituents. "People don't really want to be shouted down at town hall," she said. "They are looking for politicians who treat them fairly."
In truth the two issues -- the greenbelt and political thuggery -- are perfect reflections of one another, both potent proofs of how isolated and unaccountable local politics has become in Durham, bastard child of the 905. Still scandalously dependent on the development industry to finance their campaigns, incumbents can afford to ignore public opinion while they serve vested interests. The reason? Hardly anybody bothers to vote.
The few citizens who do step up dare not mention in council what they all know to be obvious. Oh, how the politicians howl, how prickly and pompous they become when some meek voter dares to notice their slavish dependence on developer dollars. Like contrary opinions, the plain truth about local politics has no place in the perfect echo chamber of Durham council.
Consider the case of Clarington Mayor John Mutton, a notorious shouter who is campaigning for re-election while facing criminal assault charges. Mayor Mutton raised more than $40,000 to contest the 2003 election, of which individual constituents -- four in total -- contributed $1,600. The rest came from corporations, the vast majority of whom were developers and contractors from everywhere except Clarington.
Are the results of the official-plan debate any surprise in such circumstances? Of course not. Even though Durham planners say that the region already has enough designated urban land to accommodate another 25 years of sprawl, council voted to prepare another 15,000 acres for development -- lands specifically protected by provincial law as agricultural forever. Cowed slightly by mounting opposition that even they can't fail to notice, the Durhams courageously delayed their attempt to punch holes in the actual greenbelt until after the election.
Despite some "dumb political acrobatics," the result is clear, according to Ajax Mayor Steve Parish, the only council member who refuses corporate contributions. "They basically are still committed to the private interests that support them," he said. "This was really the triumph of private interests over the public interest."
Chairman Anderson blames his council's increasing notoriety on meddlesome Toronto newspapers. I hope he's right about the effect of the novel scrutiny, but nothing will change unless Durham voters start to meddle themselves.
12 Sept 2006
And then there were SIX
So, as of September 12 we now have six candidates for Mayor, so I'll have to change our poll.
Former Mayor Diane Hamre has now officially declared, so it's heating up even more. Will any drop out prior to the last day of withdrawal from Nomination (October 2nd) in the Mayoral race or any of the other races? Will anyone else be nominated to run in Ward 1 before September 29 (last day for nominating) - the only council seat race with only one candidate?
We'll just have to wait and see. Let's just hope that the increased interest by candidates will also translate into increased voter interest, and ultimately voter turnout.
We need to have debates, now more than ever. Who will step forward to host debates for these positions? We hope to see some scheduled sooner rather than later. There certainly is more interest than usual for this election so lets help people to get the information they need to make informed decisions.
Candidates are always welcome to give their comments on this blog. If voters have specific questions they're welcome to ask them here too. Or voice beefs, suggestions, support. The more the better.
Old poll results:
Who is your preference for Mayor at the present time?
John Mutton 10.5%
Jim Abernethy 57.0%
Jim Schell 22.8%
Richard Ward 6.1%
Wayne Chaskavich 3.5%
Go ahead and change your vote if you wish, or keep the same vote (Poll to the right)
Former Mayor Diane Hamre has now officially declared, so it's heating up even more. Will any drop out prior to the last day of withdrawal from Nomination (October 2nd) in the Mayoral race or any of the other races? Will anyone else be nominated to run in Ward 1 before September 29 (last day for nominating) - the only council seat race with only one candidate?
We'll just have to wait and see. Let's just hope that the increased interest by candidates will also translate into increased voter interest, and ultimately voter turnout.
We need to have debates, now more than ever. Who will step forward to host debates for these positions? We hope to see some scheduled sooner rather than later. There certainly is more interest than usual for this election so lets help people to get the information they need to make informed decisions.
Candidates are always welcome to give their comments on this blog. If voters have specific questions they're welcome to ask them here too. Or voice beefs, suggestions, support. The more the better.
Old poll results:
Who is your preference for Mayor at the present time?
John Mutton 10.5%
Jim Abernethy 57.0%
Jim Schell 22.8%
Richard Ward 6.1%
Wayne Chaskavich 3.5%
Go ahead and change your vote if you wish, or keep the same vote (Poll to the right)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
