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.
In the 1950's, then USA Senator Joseph McCarthy used the term "communist" to label and malign anyone who didn't support his particular view of the world.
ReplyDeleteIn this election campaign, some are starting to use the same tactics as McCarthy only this time the catch phrase is "developer".
Anyone who is a "developer" or has received donations from a "developer" or has even been seen talking to a "developer" is automatically suspect regardless of their personal views or positions.
It appears that some at this web site should re-evaluate thier committment to democratic institutions and practices.
If the developers had started a campaign that urged voters to reject any candidate who was an "environmentalist" or received support or money from an "environmentalist" or even was seen talking to an "environmentalist", this blog would be apoplectic in its reaction to such an attack.
As a truly committed environmentalist, the anti-developer approach does more damage to our cause than all the opposition from others combined.
Let's win elections on the merits of our cause and not by adopted McCarthyistic tactics and corporist demagoguery.
Looks to me like you're doing what McCarthy did - labeling and maligning anyone who doesn't support your particular view of the world.
ReplyDeleteWhoever said you can't talk to a developer? Whatever happened to freedom of speech, when you attack anyone for having a viewpoint other than your own? Maybe you're the one who should re-evaluate your committment to democratic institutions and practices.
I am not an environmentalist. My objection to developers having so much clout with our municipal politicians is from a strictly personal position. I have seen the increase in taxes due to poorly planned development, too-low development fees (or waived altogether), inadequate infrastructure and more. Traffic is getting more and more congested, the air is getting worse. And the sprawl is spreading.
What is your excuse for the urban sprawl that has become the norm for Durham Region overall? Have you been watching as they try to reduce the greenbelt and declare more land for future development beyond what is needed for the next 30 years? Do you think sprawl is a good thing? If you were a truly committed "environmentalist" I doubt you would be such an apologist for the present politicians who have been advocating sprawl for years.
So my question to you is, which developer-funded candidate are you stumping for? And why are you afraid to use your name?
In response to p. marshall from courtice, I didn't use my name to see if my comments would be taken at face value or instead would I be subject to personal attack for challenging the views of the McCarthyists.
ReplyDeleteI wish to thank you for confirming my hypothesis. Anyone not conforming to your personal point is attacked immediately. You just couldn't help yourself as you used the very "developer" label that I had indicated in my first post.
I made no comment on sprawl nor did I attack or support any particular political position. I merely pointed out that labelling anyone is McCarthyistic and not worthy of those who truly believe in democratic principles and inclusive debate.
Those opposing sprawl, bad decision making and narrow influences on elected officials can make their points more than effectively without labelling and name-calling.
You obviously cannot. I thank you for being more eloquent than I in making my point.
I won't challenge your name because I assume as with most posters on this blog, the name may or may not be real. That is the strength of participating in a blog. You ignore the poster and deal only with the content of the post.
Kudos to you, P. Marshall.
ReplyDeleteAnd further...I do not believe for one second that the moderator was suggesting an anti-developer campaign. I do believe, the moderator knows more, than they are willing to print.
Even if this moderator is personally, anti-developer, they have that right to freedom of speech, no?
(I certainly don't, according to durhamregion.com)
At the very least, this moderator is providing the general public with much needed information, and reminding us to do our own research on our candidates - for we the people, to make an informed decision. And I thank her.
This blog article from May 2006, seems timely right now:
http://claringtonwatchdog.blogspot.com/2006/05/development-hungry-councillors.html
BTW, Richard Ward, who has attended more than 2000 council meetings, is a 'developer-free' mayoral candidate. He is not accepting corporate or developer dollars. Nor is he an environmentalist. Regardless of his vast knowledge and experience, Richard Ward is just out there, 'on the fringe', not doing anything so important. He is merely looking out for our tax dollars.
And "... corporist demagoguery"? The reference that the winners of this election could ever be headed up by a corporatist demagoguery, is ludicrous - because nowhere in the definition does it cover "bullyism" - the true reality of this election.
Welcome to Muttonville...Mr. Anonymous
To "Anonymous":
ReplyDeleteYou are calling the blogger, me or anyone else who may disagree with you "McCarthyists".
Do you understand the definition of McCarthyism? From the American Heritage Dictionary:
n.
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
You are the one who is using accusatory methods to try to SUPPRESS OPPOSITION. You are accusing people of subversion with no evidence whatsoever. How McCarthyish of you.
Did the blogger attack you? I've seen only one reply from the Watchdog in the comments section so far, and it was a polite answer to a polite-sounding comment from someone in Bowmanville. Or are you just pointing the finger at me, for daring to respond to your ludicrous post? The blogger could easily not approve our posts (yours OR mine) and not have to submit to silly accusations by an anonymous poster. But he/she approves them. Why? I suspect it is because it is as he/she says - so that we can discuss issues and come to our own conclusions. But you are not trying to "discuss" the issues. You are trying to suppress the opinions of others by accusing them of McCarthyism. How trite.
If I were the blogger, I would ban your posts, but then it wouldn't be an "inclusive debate" as you say so he/she will probably let you (and me) spout off here.
Your excuse for not giving your name does not ring true either. I suspect you are either a candidate or a supporter of a candidate, most likely one who welcomes large donations from developers.
Kudos to Herman the man (previous poster). The article he gave a link to is timely. Apparently you haven't seen what has been going on with our Region and the Provincial Greenbelt, and didn't hear the badgering, ridicule and intimidation thrown at people who stood up to speak to the issue last week. Just like the treatment of some citizens by our Mayor at local council meetings.
Try to get informed before spouting off and accusing others of the very tactics you yourself are trying to use. You seem to be worried that people might actually start thinking more deeply about this issue! That alone would scare me away from those "development hungry councillors". Thank you for showing an example of the "bullying" side of this campaign. I thank you for being so eloquent in making that point. ;-)
Definition:
ReplyDeleteFrom the American Heritage Dictionary:
n.
1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
Evidence:
from the initial post by p.marshall
If you were a truly committed "environmentalist" I doubt you would be such an apologist for the present politicians who have been advocating sprawl for years.
So my question to you is, which developer-funded candidate are you stumping for?
from the second post by p. marshall
If I were the blogger, I would ban your posts,
and
I suspect you are either a candidate or a supporter of a candidate, most likely one who welcomes large donations from developers.
Verdict:
Case closed. guilty as charged.
Anonymous, I'm so glad you've admitted your guilt. Case closed. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteNow maybe you'll tell us which candidate you are or which one you're so staunchly supporting.
If not, it really doesn't matter. Just stop accusing people of McCarthyism. It's a ridiculous claim in this instance. You're over the top on this one, and obviously just trying to make trouble or intimidate people into not speaking their minds. Luckily at least some of us are not biting.
Thank you to Clarington Watchdog for bringing issues to the for and allowing us to speak our minds in a public forum. And for tolerating the boorish intimidation attempts of anonymous.
If I want to support a developer-free candidate I'll do so (as soon as I find out which candidates are not accepting donations from developers or corporations).
I am not supporting any candidates in the Clarington election. I am commenting on the absurdity of demonizing everyone based on who they receive support from or because they don't agree with your point of view.
ReplyDeleteSupport the candidate of your choice, as will I. Supporting candidates simply because they receive donations or don't receive donations from certain groups is a simplistic way to make your choice.
Are all developers evil manipulators who wish to rape and pillage the municipality? I think not. Are all enviromentalists altruistic and caring? Not always/
It is better to judge by actions and policy rather. If you choose to other path, that says a lot more about you than it does about those you are not supporting.
Anonymous, its so good to see you backtracking on your accusations of McCarthyism; on your demonizing everyone who didn't agree with you on developer dollars.
ReplyDeleteYou are not bothering to try to comprehend what others are saying. No one ever said you should make a choice based solely on whether candidates receive donations from developers or not. That was your own assumption. You obviously haven't been reading this blog as there have been numerous issues brought up - and development dollars is only one of the most recent.
The past record of incumbents has been a theme throughout this blog, so they are being judged by their actions and policy. That you have not bothered to read anything except these couple of entries says more about you than about those you are not supporting. Try to look at the entire picture in the future, not just one small aspect.
One reason it's important to look at donors is because these developers do business with the municipality and Council is called upon to make decisions on development applications every week.
ReplyDeleteWhy would a developer give campaign contributions to every single candidate in an election, even those who have no opposition and will be elected by acclamation? I assume they want to be sure that whoever wins will be covered. Or are they simply so generous they want to give everyone running an equal chance?
No one ever said that "all developers are evil manipulators who wish to rape and pillage the municipality"(Anonymous' words). But it would be foolish to misunderstand how business, lobbyists and politicians work and interact together. There can easily be a feeling of some obligation to someone who has given you large sums of money when they come before you for approval on one of their applications.
Even if there is not (for a few), there is the perception of bias which is just as bad when it comes to political decisions. Better not to be put in that position at all in the first place.
This is just my opinion, as someone who has attended many meetings where development applications or amendments have been approved by council because of a "political decision" rather than good planning, or rather than taking the recommendation of planning staff. It happens. Don't be so foolish to believe it doesn't, with more frequency than you might like to believe.
this is not the same "anonymous" that has posted previously, I just didn't want to go throught the whole sign-up process. This is great!! Its amazing how we get so far away from the REAL point here. Developers are not bad. Unless you live in some sort of wig-wam or grass hut, we are all benefitting somehow from some sort of developer. We are concerned about the urban sprawl in Clarington, or rather, the perceived lack of control that there is for it. We SPECULATE that the lack of control/planning is due to political favours granted by the municipal officials to SOME developers. There is certain evidence that supports this certainly which is why we now have questions regarding campaign funding.
ReplyDeleteMY speculation on this issue runs like this: Developers have certain financial goals that they can obtain in Clarington. In order to acheive some of them, they need the support of the municipal council. Each of the candidates has certain views on development in Clarington. The developers are likely to lend their support to those who have views most in line with their financial aspirations (btw - financial aspirations are not wrong!!). It is up to the VOTERS to determine what is best for the community in terms of development.
The key is information, if there is no support for candidates other than from these developers than we likely won't hear much of the other side. For the anti-developers that will read this; how much have you donated to the campaigns of candidates who are OPPOSED to the rampant development of the municipality.