First a little refresher for you. This is an issue that began in 2008, when Orono resident Jim Richards was banned from speaking at Clarington council meetings after saying the Durham regional chairman acted like a "bully". Mayor Abernethy said he could come back if he apologized; Mr. Richards refused.
You should also know that Mr. Jim Richards was given an important Provincial Citizenship Award in 2008, and Mayor Abernethy then gave him a Clarington Award a few weeks later. The very next week the Mayor first told Mr. Richards he couldn't use the word "bully" in describing the actions of Regional Chair Anderson toward a resident the previous week (which had brought the resident to tears), and would have to retract his statement, which he was not allowed to even finish. Mr. Richards refused to retract, and the Mayor made him sit down. He later told Mr. Richards to leave Council Chambers when Mr. Richards stated he would not be giving a written apology to Council for his statement, and was banned from making further delegations to Council until he made such an apology.
Mr. Richards went to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and in 2009 the CCLA indicated council's action might "infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". In March 2009, council voted to rescind the earlier decision to ban Mr. Richards. Matter closed? Not quite.
On April 26, 2010, Jim Richards' presentation supporting direct election of the Chair of Durham Region was cut short, after Mr. Richards suggested once again, in his opinion, that the present Regional Chair is a bully.
Clarington Council has refused to apologize, or to follow the advice of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seems some of them have a very short memory. I don't believe the Charter has changed in the interval between last year and this year.
So Jim Richards, who has twice been banned from speaking at Clarington council for referring to the Regional Chair as a "bully", is continuing with his lawsuit against the Municipality of Clarington, because he believes the municipality has violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But due to the civil liberties issues to be dealt with by the CCLA after the G20 in Toronto, will not be able to assist Jim in his endeavour for an apology until sometime next year. With the elections only a short time away, Jim would like to see this matter dealt with before the current council.
Below is a letter written by Jim seeking public support and assistance for his legal challenge. I plan on donating and I hope you will consider doing so as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FREEDOM of SPEECH
Jim Richards
For those of you following this issue; both, those supporting the Mayor, (Councillors Trim, Novak, Robinson and Hooper) and those supporting Jim Richards and Freedom of Speech, please allow me to set the record straight.
I commend Councillors Adrian Foster, and Willie Woo for remaining committed to citizens rights. That is not to say that both or either of them condone my use of the word "bully", but only that they support my right to use it.
Two years ago, Mayor Abernethy not only stopped me from finishing a delegation to Council because I used the word "bully", to describe in part, and in my opinion, the actions of our unelected Regional Chair. Roger Anderson, but he asked me to rescind my comment and I refused. In addition to being silenced at that particular meeting, the Mayor and associates then went on to ban me from speaking at future meetings.
This was in direct violation of our rights as provided for by the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I enlisted help from the Canadian Civil Liberties Assoc., (CCLA) and they pointed this out in a letter to the Mayor and Council.
Subsequently, I was invited back to speak and at that time, a number of councillors who understand that freedom of speech is a basic tenet of a free and democratic society offered their apologies. None was forthcoming from Mayor Abernethy however. I had already lost respect for him due to his handling (bungling) of the incinerator issue, but now, I had lost respect for him as a man, a leader and a person.
This past April, during a delegation regarding direct election of the Regional Chair, I again referred to Chair Anderson as acting like a bully, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, the mayor once again curtailed my delegation and asked me to take back the remark. I refused. Again, he would not let me complete my delegation at a duly called meeting of Council.
Can you believe this is Canada? Can you believe it's 2010? What are Canadian men and women fighting for in Afghanistan if not freedom?
I returned to Council in May and asked the Mayor for an apology. He smugly refused. The Mayor did however ask town solicitor Dennis Hefferon for a legal opinion on the matter. Mr. Hefferon informed the Mayor that the section of the Procedural By-law he was using to curtail my rights as a citizen was ambiguous, and that it would not stand up in a court of law. In spite of this, Abernethy still refused to apologize.
At a council meeting on July 12, 2010 Councillor Foster made a motion, seconded by Councillor Woo asking the Mayor for an apology on my behalf. Abernethy refused. At this meeting, the Mayor and Council were in receipt of yet a second letter from CCLA pointing out the error of their ways.
I will now launch a potentially costly lawsuit against Mayor Abernethy and the Municipality of Clarington for infringement on my rights, but I need financial assistance. "I'm setting up a 'legal defence fund' and would ask you to consider a donation (big or small) to teach not only Mayor Abernethy but all other political bullies that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in a free and democratic society".
If you care to contribute, please contact me at the email address below. You can use the same address to simply offer best wishes, or tell me to go to hell! You can also contact the Mayor and Council and tell them what you think of their draconian behaviour (or offer support for the Mayor if you wish) by sending an email to the Municipal Clerk at pbarrie@clarington.net
If I win this lawsuit, I will be in a position to pay back your donations. If I lose, we all lose; not just the money, but our freedom of speech and expression in Clarington!
I have set up a bank account at C.I.B.C in Orono (Account #8254931, Transit #04742) and you can visit any CIBC branch to donate, or I will accept donations by mail at: J. Richards, P.O. Box 442, Orono, ON, L0B 1M0. Make all donations out to Jim Richards (you can put 'legal Defence Fund' in the memo line). I have enlisted a third party to oversee this account.
Email Jim: jmr.naturepix@rogers.com
or phone: 905-983-5605
***********************************************
Also see: "Clarington mayor refuses to apologize, freedom of speech debate escalates" (Metroland, May 5, 2010) and "Free speech exists in Clarington council chambers too" (Metroland Editorial, May 6, 2010)
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
6 Jan 2010
Municipal Election 2010 - Watchdog or Lapdog?
This should be an interesting year for Clarington residents, and in fact for everyone in Durham Region. It is an election year, so self-serving rhetoric will abound from many incumbents and from some challengers.
When considering your choices, take the time to get to know a little about the candidates. Incumbents have an advantage with built-in name recognition, but just recognizing a name is not a reason to vote for someone. Some of our worst representatives both locally and at Regional Council are incumbents. Certainly in Clarington that is the case in my humble opinion.
When deciding who you might want representing you at the region, keep this question in mind: Do you want a watchdog for Clarington residents or a lapdog for Regional interests and an unelected chair above all else? We need watchdogs, not lapdogs. We need people with the courage to stand up for their own municipality and residents and not people who will 'compromise' (sell out) on issues of great importance to our communities. We need politicians who don't say "I was elected to represent the Region of Durham" (Mayor Abernethy). I thought he was elected to represent the municipality of Clarington.
There are always wonderful EXCUSES made by politicians for the decisions they make. Some are valid, many are not.
Revisiting the incinerator decision
What is wrong with this pic
ture? Lots. Do we need servicing for employment lands designated as the Science Park in Bowmanville and the Energy Park in Courtice? Yes, we do. Are we held hostage by Durham Region's unelected Chair and reduced to begging to get our fair share? Yes. Should we perhaps find another way to pay for servicing of these lands, other than being reduced to accepting buy-offs from the Region just to get an agreement to begin an EA to consider servicing? Is there a law that says we must depend on Regional tax money for our services rather than being inventive and thinking outside the box to find a better way where we can be the authors of our own destiny instead of waiting for crumbs from the Region? Clarington has not gotten our fair share without having to give up more than anyone should - being the garbage dump for the Region. Sewage plant and municipal waste incinerator, auto wreckers, nuclear plant and cement factory, new 407 link and on and on - all spewing unhealthy emissions and adding to our already poor air quality and health risks. And all right along the 401 - gateway to Clarington! Such a beautiful sight. Rationale from the consultants: this air shed is already so polluted, adding a little more won't make a difference. Well sorry, but it makes a difference to us. To the residents of Clarington!
ture? Lots. Do we need servicing for employment lands designated as the Science Park in Bowmanville and the Energy Park in Courtice? Yes, we do. Are we held hostage by Durham Region's unelected Chair and reduced to begging to get our fair share? Yes. Should we perhaps find another way to pay for servicing of these lands, other than being reduced to accepting buy-offs from the Region just to get an agreement to begin an EA to consider servicing? Is there a law that says we must depend on Regional tax money for our services rather than being inventive and thinking outside the box to find a better way where we can be the authors of our own destiny instead of waiting for crumbs from the Region? Clarington has not gotten our fair share without having to give up more than anyone should - being the garbage dump for the Region. Sewage plant and municipal waste incinerator, auto wreckers, nuclear plant and cement factory, new 407 link and on and on - all spewing unhealthy emissions and adding to our already poor air quality and health risks. And all right along the 401 - gateway to Clarington! Such a beautiful sight. Rationale from the consultants: this air shed is already so polluted, adding a little more won't make a difference. Well sorry, but it makes a difference to us. To the residents of Clarington!Were our 3 Regional Councillors (Mayor Abernethy, Councillors Novak and Trim) right to completely disregard votes taken at Clarington Council (before the flip-flop of Local Ward 4 Councillor Gord Robinson) declaring us an unwilling host, and not supporting the building of an emission spewing incinerator in our community? Were they right to completely support every vote at the Region to promote the building of an incinerator, start to finish over the last few years? Were they right to completely disregard the overwhelming majority of residents who care more about their health and the health of their children and grandchildren than getting half-baked promises from an Region that we no longer have any faith in?
Are our Regional representatives right to sell out our future health for a 'business plan' that is totally dependent on Durham Region? Who has faith that the Region or Province will adequately monitor this garbage burner? Both their records are lacking historically and the vote of Regional Council to reduce monitoring from what was originally promised to residents because it would cost too much, appear to care more about their own financial health than the physical and financial health of their residents, especially those in Clarington and in Oshawa who will be most heavily affected by emissions. But remember that all surrounding communities, including those outside of Durham Region, will be affected by the increase in tiny particulate matter which can have a profound effect on health and by a substantial increase in dioxins and furans, known cancer causing emissions. These emissions won't be adequately monitored, and some won't be monitored at all. I suppose many of these politicians subscribe to the idea that "What we don't know won't hurt us".
Hype and Hyperbole
I hope those same politicians are given a pile of hurt in October. There has been too much dishonesty, too much hype and hyperbole.
Here is a question that should be asked of each one of those who voted on June 24 to approve the very faulty EA (more on that later) produced to support building of the now infamous Durham Incinerator:
"Your rationale or excuse for continuing to vote approval of the incinerator forward at each milestone was that you wanted to get ALL the information. You said that you were voting forward the incinerator at each step of the way without having complete reports or having satisfactory information at that point was so that you could get more information at the next step. If that were true, then WHY did you vote to approve an incomplete EA with incomplete reports which where completed and submitted to the Province more than a month after you voted to approve? Why have no questions been asked or protests lodged by Regional Councillors after seeing that this EA was incomplete and faulty. Why are you still supporting it?"
More questions might be asked as well, such as, "Why did you consider only the hired gun's (consultants) and proponents of incineration to have credible information but not that of local and regional doctors and doctors and scientists worldwide? Why did you not consider the credible articles in medical journals, peer reviewed and widely accepted that were presented to you by local residents? Why did you allow yourselves to be reeled in and see only what the proponents wanted you to see? Why didn't you give both sides equal consideration?"
We'll get into specific claims and comments made by our incumbents during this election year (both past and present statements). But I implore you to get involved this year. We have several incumbents in Clarington who should be replaced due to past performance on a number of issues; in my estimation 4 of our 7 Clarington Councillors need to 'feel the pain' of their callous disregard for the health of their citizens. Health and quality of life should be a #1 priority, and an incinerator is inconsistent with both objectives.
There are better alternatives. Incineration is the most expensive, least environmentally friendly solution to the waste problem. This fact is being shown across North America by Councils and Trustees choosing better solutions and refusing to capitulate to the incineration industry and their claims of safety. Sure incinerators are relatively more safe now than they were 20 years ago. But does that mean they are safe? NO. It means they've cleaned up their act somewhat, but the technology does not yet exist to make them "safe".
The horse-trading by a powerful, unelected Regional Chair must be curtailed, especially when it benefits another Region (York) and hurts physically and financially residents in our own region. Backroom deals between York and Durham have been ongoing for some time. Durham must be put first for a change. These deals so lauded by some of the lapdog politicians are not so great for Durham, if you take the time to investigate them and not just settle for the distortions and embellishments served up on a platter for and by Regional Council and Committees.
WAKE UP CLARINGTON! Get involved. Voice your concerns. Make your voice heard. Don't settle for less than we deserve. Don't settle for lapdogs instead of watch dogs for our municipality.Watch for more information on all of this - 2010 election, incineration health risks, better solutions, Regional shortcomings, and of course the "Elect The Chair" campaign, renewed.
24 Sept 2009
Who will speak for us? Redux
I first published this in February, 2008. Not much has changed and ALL of it still holds true as it did 19 months ago. See a few updated comments in red below.
Where to begin? Although I've been away for some time, I've kept up with all the goings on over the incinerator. And in my travels I've had the opportunity to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about incineration, and the pro-incinerator lobby. They are powerful and vocal and are everywhere. They are masterful at showing the best side of incineration and hiding the deep, dark deadly secrets.
They will show you the clean, Darlington-looking control rooms and allow you to speak with those who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They will point out a school or daycare or apartment building or clothesline just within spitting distance of the incinerator and tell you everyone is content and happy with it. And it makes you want to spit.
If you travel a little farther afield and speak to people not on the industry's "okay list", you'll find a lot of worry, a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lot of anger surrounding the incineration industry. Especially from those who were led to believe that it was safe with few emissions because of all the scrubber technology and monitoring. They found out differently AFTER the fact. They found out that livestock on farms were affected and now it's not safe to drink the milk or eat the meat that has 'bio-accumulated' toxins in them. It has now begun to hurt the farming industry and as that knowledge spreads, it will devastate it.
They found out that they are having higher rates of birth defects in infants in areas within a 20 - 90 km radius of these stacks. They are having more chronic lung disease problems such as asthma (sound familiar?) and certain types of cancers.
But in most cases, their governments are silent. They don't want to be sued and they want to keep up their denials. There are some in government who are trying to speak out and are muzzled. There are many in the general population who are not muzzled and are being heard world-wide, if you care to listen.
Our elected (and unelected) officials have chosen not to listen. They are content to listen only to the paid EFW lobbyists the Region hired to promote incineration. Yes, that's right, they were hired to get it through the EA process and get it approved. They were not hired to do objective testing or studies - and that is more than evident from the so-called studies already completed. Look at the air quality statistics brought forward at Regional Committees and Council, and at Clarington Council numerous times. Those numbers came from the appendices of the Region's very own hired consultant's studies so they cannot dispute them. But those numbers were hidden deep in those pages and never, not once, brought forward by the consultants in all their presentations to committee, council, or the public at the public information sessions, even when asked about them. When air quality numbers are hundreds and thousands of times worse in Clarington than in East Gwillimbury, but they are rated as equal or both "neutral" for advantage or disadvantage, you know SOMETHING isn't right.
And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Confidence in the EA process has been dwindling as it has become increasingly evident that results appear to be manipulated in such a way as to promote or ensure the desired outcome of the process. This is not wild speculation. It seems so abundantly obvious if anyone takes the time to actually read not only the executive summary of these studies, but also dig deep into the bowels of the consultant's analysis to extract the fact from the faeces.
That so many of our elected officials are taken in by this spin and haven't taken the time to flush out the truth for themselves is highly disturbing. These are the people who are entrusted with our health and well-being, yet they refuse to listen to the groundswell of doctors in Durham Region who are vehemently opposed to this incinerator. They refuse to read the medical journals or numerous studies that would support the contention that there are emissions that cannot be captured by present technology - emissions that are bioaccumulative and dangerous to humans, especially in the fetal stages, infants and toddlers, and those with chronic illness who are already compromised. Tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate all organs including the brain through the blood/brain barrier.
They are entrusted with keeping our environment safe and healthy, yet refuse to listen to experts or environmental groups and choose instead to believe the consultants who are paid to PROMOTE incineration, the lobby groups and the industry.
They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain.
They should be caring a lot more than they are - and should show some common sense. Mayor Abernethy continues say they MUST push this EA through (though he neglects to say it should be done properly instead of FAST). The way this EA is being conducted, speed is so much more important than accuracy, and speed is a good way to hide many of the facts that should be made public knowledge.
Take the ridiculous reasons given by most Regional Councillors for approving the Courtice 01 site as the preferred site for the incinerator to be built - so that they can get ALL the information needed to make an informed decision. Then they went ahead and made a MAJOR decision in the EA process steps WITHOUT having the necessary information to make that decision. Talk about loony and backward. They needed to have technology information before choosing the site. They completely ignored the information given to them by residents and doctors and experts regarding air quality, for example, using that fake excuse that they want to get more information. Why make such an important decision without having the information first? We know why - it is an excuse they can use to push the EA farther and farther down the road and enable it to skip over information that should be given tough scrutiny. Instead it will get short shrift.
Sept 2009: And it did. This Regional Council approved the EA studies at their June 24th meeting, the last meeting prior to their summer vacation. This was BEFORE all the studies were completed, BEFORE all the results had been reported, BEFORE the Peer Reviews were completed, BEFORE the final of the DRAFT EA was completed.
Which means that ALL those ridiculous excuses for pushing this EA ahead at every step were just that - ridiculous excuses. That they wanted to have "ALL the information" before giving approval? If that were really true, wouldn't they have waited for the final studies and peer reviews to be completed before approving it? There is no excuse or justification for their actions that will make this community believe them or trust them again.
The public is not being fooled, other than a few who have listened to their politicians and not questioned any of the information or done any research themselves. And those are the people who won't be changed anyway. They're probably still using that old DDT in their yards and have kept the asbestos in their walls and don't worry about it because they're not sick yet. They probably smoke too (no lung cancer yet) and think there will be hundreds of jobs to run this new facility. They certainly haven't done their homework there, either.
The incinerator lobby can be excused to some degree for their shameless promotion of EFW, WtE, incineration or whatever you want to call it. They get paid for it. But the fact that our politicians in whom we place our trust are shamelessly promoting it and not even asking questions is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.
That our Mayor Abernethy and Regional Councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak put the Region AHEAD of Clarington is disgraceful and inexcusable. Where they got the idea that their first allegiance is to the Region, above Clarington and its residents is not hard to figure out. They are being used by the Region to get what the Region wants. And they haven't even figured that out yet.
Add Local Clarington Councillor Gord Robinson to this bunch. He betrayed his constituents in Clarington, including his agricultural constituents by flip-flopping and voting to approve the Host Community Agreement - an agreement that did NOT contain the monitoring that had been promised to Clarington residents previously by the Region, but ended up being too expensive for them to include in the final EA. No agricultural monitoring for effects from the incinerator. He told other Councillors it was included when it wasn't. A request from the Agricultural Committee was not even considered by Clarington Council because Councillor Robinson decided to betray us all and receive it for information, not vote to endorse it. While I was not present at that meeting, it was talked about afterward by residents and the information can be found in Council minutes.
It is unbelievable that these three (Abernethy, Trim, Novak) voted AGAINST the motion by Brian Nicholson that said if a municipality was an unwilling host, the region would not force an incinerator on them. They would not even protect their own municipality - the Region as always comes first. None of the three can claim they are being protective of Clarington or NOT putting the Region first in all things incinerator.
This is why these three must NEVER be allowed to be re-elected in Clarington. (Add Councillor Robinson so there are now four) They have given up their right to speak for us since they have never spoken for us. They speak for the Region at all times. This is something none of us should forget, no matter how this incineration farce turns out. They have not stood up for Clarington. Only our four local councillors have done so. Hats off to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Woo and Robinson (REMOVE ROBINSON). They are the only ones looking our for our welfare, and it can't be easy with the pressure from the Region and from our Mayor. They deserve our gratitude and our support. And more than ever now.
Now comes the PR farce the Mayor is trying to foist upon the good citizens of Clarington. These people who will be speaking are not experts on incineration. They are promoters, lobbyists, but where are the experts? How can residents give their councillors questions to ask the presenters before they hear them speak? Our hands are tied and the Mayor knows it. That is why these people were invited by our Mayor are being promoted in this forum rather than at an open forum where residents can ask questions.
There is so much more to say on this subject and it will be said. The entire scenario as it is playing out simply disgusts me. All that I hold dear, namely fairness, openness, honesty, transparency, democracy... they are all missing from this entire process. The dirty little bag of tricks continues but is not fooling anybody. Instead it is strengthening those in opposition to this entire debacle. The word is rapidly spreading. They may have the votes at Regional Council to approve this incinerator. But WE have the votes at the ballot box, and we will not forget.
I reiterate: WE WILL NOT FORGET.
Watch now for all the green washing attempts by individual Councillors and Mayors who voted in favour of the incinerator without having all the facts first, without listening to the residents, without considering all the documented evidence against incineration and without regard for our health or that of our children. WITHOUT having any proof that is is SAFE. The best that could be said by our Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kyle, was that he couldn't find irrefutable proof that it ISN'T safe. But he also could not find proof that it IS safe.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Whatever happened to the Precautionary Principle?
Where to begin? Although I've been away for some time, I've kept up with all the goings on over the incinerator. And in my travels I've had the opportunity to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about incineration, and the pro-incinerator lobby. They are powerful and vocal and are everywhere. They are masterful at showing the best side of incineration and hiding the deep, dark deadly secrets.
They will show you the clean, Darlington-looking control rooms and allow you to speak with those who depend on the industry for their livelihoods. They will point out a school or daycare or apartment building or clothesline just within spitting distance of the incinerator and tell you everyone is content and happy with it. And it makes you want to spit.
If you travel a little farther afield and speak to people not on the industry's "okay list", you'll find a lot of worry, a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lot of anger surrounding the incineration industry. Especially from those who were led to believe that it was safe with few emissions because of all the scrubber technology and monitoring. They found out differently AFTER the fact. They found out that livestock on farms were affected and now it's not safe to drink the milk or eat the meat that has 'bio-accumulated' toxins in them. It has now begun to hurt the farming industry and as that knowledge spreads, it will devastate it.
They found out that they are having higher rates of birth defects in infants in areas within a 20 - 90 km radius of these stacks. They are having more chronic lung disease problems such as asthma (sound familiar?) and certain types of cancers.
But in most cases, their governments are silent. They don't want to be sued and they want to keep up their denials. There are some in government who are trying to speak out and are muzzled. There are many in the general population who are not muzzled and are being heard world-wide, if you care to listen.
Our elected (and unelected) officials have chosen not to listen. They are content to listen only to the paid EFW lobbyists the Region hired to promote incineration. Yes, that's right, they were hired to get it through the EA process and get it approved. They were not hired to do objective testing or studies - and that is more than evident from the so-called studies already completed. Look at the air quality statistics brought forward at Regional Committees and Council, and at Clarington Council numerous times. Those numbers came from the appendices of the Region's very own hired consultant's studies so they cannot dispute them. But those numbers were hidden deep in those pages and never, not once, brought forward by the consultants in all their presentations to committee, council, or the public at the public information sessions, even when asked about them. When air quality numbers are hundreds and thousands of times worse in Clarington than in East Gwillimbury, but they are rated as equal or both "neutral" for advantage or disadvantage, you know SOMETHING isn't right.And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Confidence in the EA process has been dwindling as it has become increasingly evident that results appear to be manipulated in such a way as to promote or ensure the desired outcome of the process. This is not wild speculation. It seems so abundantly obvious if anyone takes the time to actually read not only the executive summary of these studies, but also dig deep into the bowels of the consultant's analysis to extract the fact from the faeces.
That so many of our elected officials are taken in by this spin and haven't taken the time to flush out the truth for themselves is highly disturbing. These are the people who are entrusted with our health and well-being, yet they refuse to listen to the groundswell of doctors in Durham Region who are vehemently opposed to this incinerator. They refuse to read the medical journals or numerous studies that would support the contention that there are emissions that cannot be captured by present technology - emissions that are bioaccumulative and dangerous to humans, especially in the fetal stages, infants and toddlers, and those with chronic illness who are already compromised. Tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate all organs including the brain through the blood/brain barrier.
They are entrusted with keeping our environment safe and healthy, yet refuse to listen to experts or environmental groups and choose instead to believe the consultants who are paid to PROMOTE incineration, the lobby groups and the industry.
They should be protecting agriculture in the region, including livestock operations, but have ignored expert studies and peer review literature which explains the risks and already proven effects on the food chain.
They should be caring a lot more than they are - and should show some common sense. Mayor Abernethy continues say they MUST push this EA through (though he neglects to say it should be done properly instead of FAST). The way this EA is being conducted, speed is so much more important than accuracy, and speed is a good way to hide many of the facts that should be made public knowledge.
Take the ridiculous reasons given by most Regional Councillors for approving the Courtice 01 site as the preferred site for the incinerator to be built - so that they can get ALL the information needed to make an informed decision. Then they went ahead and made a MAJOR decision in the EA process steps WITHOUT having the necessary information to make that decision. Talk about loony and backward. They needed to have technology information before choosing the site. They completely ignored the information given to them by residents and doctors and experts regarding air quality, for example, using that fake excuse that they want to get more information. Why make such an important decision without having the information first? We know why - it is an excuse they can use to push the EA farther and farther down the road and enable it to skip over information that should be given tough scrutiny. Instead it will get short shrift.
Sept 2009: And it did. This Regional Council approved the EA studies at their June 24th meeting, the last meeting prior to their summer vacation. This was BEFORE all the studies were completed, BEFORE all the results had been reported, BEFORE the Peer Reviews were completed, BEFORE the final of the DRAFT EA was completed.
Which means that ALL those ridiculous excuses for pushing this EA ahead at every step were just that - ridiculous excuses. That they wanted to have "ALL the information" before giving approval? If that were really true, wouldn't they have waited for the final studies and peer reviews to be completed before approving it? There is no excuse or justification for their actions that will make this community believe them or trust them again.
The public is not being fooled, other than a few who have listened to their politicians and not questioned any of the information or done any research themselves. And those are the people who won't be changed anyway. They're probably still using that old DDT in their yards and have kept the asbestos in their walls and don't worry about it because they're not sick yet. They probably smoke too (no lung cancer yet) and think there will be hundreds of jobs to run this new facility. They certainly haven't done their homework there, either.
The incinerator lobby can be excused to some degree for their shameless promotion of EFW, WtE, incineration or whatever you want to call it. They get paid for it. But the fact that our politicians in whom we place our trust are shamelessly promoting it and not even asking questions is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.
That our Mayor Abernethy and Regional Councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak put the Region AHEAD of Clarington is disgraceful and inexcusable. Where they got the idea that their first allegiance is to the Region, above Clarington and its residents is not hard to figure out. They are being used by the Region to get what the Region wants. And they haven't even figured that out yet.
Add Local Clarington Councillor Gord Robinson to this bunch. He betrayed his constituents in Clarington, including his agricultural constituents by flip-flopping and voting to approve the Host Community Agreement - an agreement that did NOT contain the monitoring that had been promised to Clarington residents previously by the Region, but ended up being too expensive for them to include in the final EA. No agricultural monitoring for effects from the incinerator. He told other Councillors it was included when it wasn't. A request from the Agricultural Committee was not even considered by Clarington Council because Councillor Robinson decided to betray us all and receive it for information, not vote to endorse it. While I was not present at that meeting, it was talked about afterward by residents and the information can be found in Council minutes.
It is unbelievable that these three (Abernethy, Trim, Novak) voted AGAINST the motion by Brian Nicholson that said if a municipality was an unwilling host, the region would not force an incinerator on them. They would not even protect their own municipality - the Region as always comes first. None of the three can claim they are being protective of Clarington or NOT putting the Region first in all things incinerator.
This is why these three must NEVER be allowed to be re-elected in Clarington. (Add Councillor Robinson so there are now four) They have given up their right to speak for us since they have never spoken for us. They speak for the Region at all times. This is something none of us should forget, no matter how this incineration farce turns out. They have not stood up for Clarington. Only our four local councillors have done so. Hats off to Councillors Foster, Hooper, Woo and Robinson (REMOVE ROBINSON). They are the only ones looking our for our welfare, and it can't be easy with the pressure from the Region and from our Mayor. They deserve our gratitude and our support. And more than ever now.
Now comes the PR farce the Mayor is trying to foist upon the good citizens of Clarington. These people who will be speaking are not experts on incineration. They are promoters, lobbyists, but where are the experts? How can residents give their councillors questions to ask the presenters before they hear them speak? Our hands are tied and the Mayor knows it. That is why these people were invited by our Mayor are being promoted in this forum rather than at an open forum where residents can ask questions.
There is so much more to say on this subject and it will be said. The entire scenario as it is playing out simply disgusts me. All that I hold dear, namely fairness, openness, honesty, transparency, democracy... they are all missing from this entire process. The dirty little bag of tricks continues but is not fooling anybody. Instead it is strengthening those in opposition to this entire debacle. The word is rapidly spreading. They may have the votes at Regional Council to approve this incinerator. But WE have the votes at the ballot box, and we will not forget.
I reiterate: WE WILL NOT FORGET.
Watch now for all the green washing attempts by individual Councillors and Mayors who voted in favour of the incinerator without having all the facts first, without listening to the residents, without considering all the documented evidence against incineration and without regard for our health or that of our children. WITHOUT having any proof that is is SAFE. The best that could be said by our Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kyle, was that he couldn't find irrefutable proof that it ISN'T safe. But he also could not find proof that it IS safe.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Whatever happened to the Precautionary Principle?
4 Aug 2009
2010 Election not that far away - Abernethy the first target
People are already gearing up for the 2010 municipal elections, even 
though they are a little over a year away. But it is not too soon to begin planning to oust certain municipal politicians who very blatantly gave the one-finger salute to their residents during the last couple of years. Residents have every right to target those who refused to listen to overwhelming opposition to the incinerator, especially when so many tried to make their voices heard.
Silly me. I always thought that we elected our municipal council and mayor to represent us and to do what is best for the residents of Clarington. What happened? Do they not know that WE are their bosses? Have they become so big-headed that they don't need to listen to those who elected them? Do they honestly believe that they know better than 80% of the residents of Clarington? Do they really believe that the Region's propaganda was any more honest than the biased and misleading studies done by their paid consultants?
Those consultants were hired for one reason. They were hired to see the EA process through to a favourable conclusion (favourable to the already decided end result of the Region to make incineration the option of "choice"). Numerous times residents were told publicly that the Region had decided on this course of action in 2000, with their 20 year waste management plan. Of course that plan only mentioned that burning garbage should be looked into. It did not say that this was the course that should be taken.
Too many of our myopic councillors either can't read and comprehend or they intentionally twisted that plan to mean exactly what they wanted it to mean. The writing was on the wall (and in the direction given to the consultants) before the EA even began.
The writing is now on the wall for several councillors and a handful of Mayors of Durham municipalities. But none more so than Clarington, which harbours 4 who need to be replaced.
The Mayor of Clarington, with his sometimes incomprehensible mutterings needs to be soundly punished and relegated to the trash heap. He was not able to fool all his residents with such gems as his declaration in explaining his "No Waste by '38" motion which he made a point of making clear "didn't mention incineration or landfill". The reason for that? "Neither of these two options is acceptable to me, but you've got to do something with it," Abernethy stated.
You could have fooled us. The mayor was a huge supporter of incineration from the start, despite his attempts to convince residents that he was looking for the truth (not a very funny joke) and that he hadn't yet made up his mind. Early on he took a trip to Nova Scotia and made a home video of the Halifax Otter Lake landfill. All he was interested in was the seagulls (meaning there was garbage present) and that it didn't look pretty. He made that DVD available to people who made it available to even more residents for their viewing pleasure. Abernethy also promoted an industry made propaganda infomercial for SYSAV - yes, promoting incineration in Europe. He played it for audiences around Clarington, all the while promoting incineration. Yet he had the audacity to continue to tell people he hadn't yet made up his mind. How insulting to the residents of Clarington.
As recently as last month he said neither landfill NOR INCINERATION are acceptable. The way he has promoted incineration for the last 2 1/2 years it is apparent that he believes incineration is not only acceptable, but desirable. The facility will have floors so clean you could eat off them (his comments about the European incinerators) and even more important - no seagulls!
This mayor ran his 2006 campaign on having "an honest and open government". He also said, "The role of council is to manage the assets of the municipality and ensure that there is a democratic process." What exactly does "democratic process" mean to this man?
On his campaign video he also said, "There's a lot of important issues that have to be dealt with, and have to be dealt with uh, fairly, uh, dealt with uh in the best interest of all of the people of the municipality." Is that what he has done? NO.
"I think that what needs to be done is we need to have a look to see what will Clarington look like in 50 years from now." Well, for the next 30 - 35 years at least we will be dumping more pollution into an already dirty air shed where record numbers of children now have asthma, older adults have respiratory problems, and cancers are already on the rise. Now we will be adding to those problems and adding new ones. Does he care? Apparently not.
In 2006 Abernethy said, "Our municipal Council needs a made in Clarington agenda." Does that sound familiar? Like the "Made in Durham garbage solution" he is always promoting (which isn't made in Durham at all)? This incinerator being forced on Clarington residents is most certainly NOT a "made in Clarington agenda". Was this an outright lie, or was he so quickly and easily sucked in by Regional Chair Roger Anderson immediately after he was elected? Enquiring minds want to know! This Mayor betrayed Clarington and put the Region first and foremost, unlike the other mayors in the Region. He said on more than one occasion that he was "elected to represent the Region". Funny, I thought he was elected as Mayor of Clarington to represent Clarington.
He ranted against the "Mutton shell-game experience" - or was that "Mutton-Schell game" - (his words). "Higher taxes, higher salaries, higher mileage charges, and numerous international trips," Abernethy said. So what has changed since 2006? It has only gotten worse. Have we heard an apology to Mutton since then? No, only attacks on his campaign financing by Abernethy's former campaign team, and those charges are ongoing. Was Mutton faultless? Hell no. But was he worse than Abernethy? That is debatable at this point, but I'd say no. At least Mutton didn't give away the (Clarington) store to the Region while he was in office. Would he have, on the incinerator issue? Very possibly he would have supported the incinerator as he did quite a job in facilitating the political acceptance of the incinerator and approval of Covanta as the builder/operator. But we won't know because Abernethy beat him to the punch. At least Mutton surely would have gotten a better deal for Clarington. As it is, there is hardly anything in the Host Community Agreement that wasn't already in the works or owed to Clarington without it. That's another discussion altogether.
Speaking of Mutton, Abernethy said, "I've had enough of their experience. Have you?" I can tell you that I, along with the majority of Clarington residents (according to several recent polls), have had enough of the Abernethy experience. More than enough.
Abernethy in 2006 asked us to vote for change. This is not the change we wanted or anticipated. A Mayor who refuses to listen to the residents unless you are one of his favoured friends, or unless you are someone he considers "important to the community". Anyone who is a plain old resident, a plain old taxpayer isn't important to him and he has shown people that in spades, including not allowing street parties which could foster more community spirit. Including the elderly who have been the first to have services cut. Including those speaking out against the incinerator, who were basically given the Trudeau salute, in so many words. Including those asking for more time to speak or to be allowed more input. He shut people up, made them sit down if he didn't like what they had to say, and even went so far as to throw people out. One of the biggest complaints about former Mayor Mutton was that he was a bully. Abernethy has turned out to be as big a bully. But he hates that word because he threw out a resident for calling his best buddy Roger Anderson a bully. He'd better take a good look in the mirror.
I wonder what half-truths this Mayor will tell us during his 2010 campaign. Or will he give up and run away, knowing he hasn't a chance in hell of being re-elected?
Mary Novak and Charlie Trim deserve the same fate, although the word on the street is the Trim is retiring, allowing local ward 4 councilor Gord Robinson to attempt to move up to Charlie's regional seat. Fat chance, after the betrayal of his constituents and those of the entire municipality. Were it not for Robinson, who has now been given the label "traitor", at least we would have remained an unwilling host, which, in spite of statements to the contrary publicly by Anderson, everyone knew would be the nail in the coffin at the Regional Council vote. And it was. This man deserves to hit the unemployment line next year and there are already groups seriously working toward that end.
There are groups spread across Durham Region already making plans for the 2010 election. They are organizing and are determined. They are looking for strong, ethical and honest candidates who understand what democracy is and who will listen to their residents rather than their political bosses in issues affecting our very lives. There will be some massive campaigns not only in support of good candidates but also against those who need to be replaced.
Those who chose to ignore the will of the people will suffer the consequences in 2010. And they will deserve it. They think 2010 is far enough away that people will forget the insulting behaviour of these councillors and mayors, but the opposition to these people is building, not waning since the June Regional vote. We are not stupid. We will not forget. The damage done to our municipality which now has a very deserved reputation as being the dumping ground for Durham Region is irreparable. And Durham Region's reputation for being the dumping ground for York Region is also building. From Stop the Incinerator to Stop the Stink, we get all the crap from York while York Region gets all the benefits. Is that the sign of a good and effective Durham Regional council or leadership? We think not.
The "Elect the Chair" movement is alive and well, and has now been joined by the "Dump Durham's Democratically Deficient" Mayors and Councillors. The most targeted already of the Mayors is Abernethy, O'Connor, Pearce, Perkins, Shepherd and Ryan. Some (most) of these are very vulnerable. Pearce is probably the least vulnerable, even though Scugog could do so much better. The rest are not at all secure in their seats according to local sources. There are more Councillors already with a bull's eye on their backs. Stay tuned for more in coming days, weeks and months. Mayor Abernethy can be assured that we will "Vote for Change" in 2010.
though they are a little over a year away. But it is not too soon to begin planning to oust certain municipal politicians who very blatantly gave the one-finger salute to their residents during the last couple of years. Residents have every right to target those who refused to listen to overwhelming opposition to the incinerator, especially when so many tried to make their voices heard.Silly me. I always thought that we elected our municipal council and mayor to represent us and to do what is best for the residents of Clarington. What happened? Do they not know that WE are their bosses? Have they become so big-headed that they don't need to listen to those who elected them? Do they honestly believe that they know better than 80% of the residents of Clarington? Do they really believe that the Region's propaganda was any more honest than the biased and misleading studies done by their paid consultants?
Those consultants were hired for one reason. They were hired to see the EA process through to a favourable conclusion (favourable to the already decided end result of the Region to make incineration the option of "choice"). Numerous times residents were told publicly that the Region had decided on this course of action in 2000, with their 20 year waste management plan. Of course that plan only mentioned that burning garbage should be looked into. It did not say that this was the course that should be taken.
Too many of our myopic councillors either can't read and comprehend or they intentionally twisted that plan to mean exactly what they wanted it to mean. The writing was on the wall (and in the direction given to the consultants) before the EA even began.
The writing is now on the wall for several councillors and a handful of Mayors of Durham municipalities. But none more so than Clarington, which harbours 4 who need to be replaced.
The Mayor of Clarington, with his sometimes incomprehensible mutterings needs to be soundly punished and relegated to the trash heap. He was not able to fool all his residents with such gems as his declaration in explaining his "No Waste by '38" motion which he made a point of making clear "didn't mention incineration or landfill". The reason for that? "Neither of these two options is acceptable to me, but you've got to do something with it," Abernethy stated.You could have fooled us. The mayor was a huge supporter of incineration from the start, despite his attempts to convince residents that he was looking for the truth (not a very funny joke) and that he hadn't yet made up his mind. Early on he took a trip to Nova Scotia and made a home video of the Halifax Otter Lake landfill. All he was interested in was the seagulls (meaning there was garbage present) and that it didn't look pretty. He made that DVD available to people who made it available to even more residents for their viewing pleasure. Abernethy also promoted an industry made propaganda infomercial for SYSAV - yes, promoting incineration in Europe. He played it for audiences around Clarington, all the while promoting incineration. Yet he had the audacity to continue to tell people he hadn't yet made up his mind. How insulting to the residents of Clarington.
As recently as last month he said neither landfill NOR INCINERATION are acceptable. The way he has promoted incineration for the last 2 1/2 years it is apparent that he believes incineration is not only acceptable, but desirable. The facility will have floors so clean you could eat off them (his comments about the European incinerators) and even more important - no seagulls!
This mayor ran his 2006 campaign on having "an honest and open government". He also said, "The role of council is to manage the assets of the municipality and ensure that there is a democratic process." What exactly does "democratic process" mean to this man?
On his campaign video he also said, "There's a lot of important issues that have to be dealt with, and have to be dealt with uh, fairly, uh, dealt with uh in the best interest of all of the people of the municipality." Is that what he has done? NO.
"I think that what needs to be done is we need to have a look to see what will Clarington look like in 50 years from now." Well, for the next 30 - 35 years at least we will be dumping more pollution into an already dirty air shed where record numbers of children now have asthma, older adults have respiratory problems, and cancers are already on the rise. Now we will be adding to those problems and adding new ones. Does he care? Apparently not.
In 2006 Abernethy said, "Our municipal Council needs a made in Clarington agenda." Does that sound familiar? Like the "Made in Durham garbage solution" he is always promoting (which isn't made in Durham at all)? This incinerator being forced on Clarington residents is most certainly NOT a "made in Clarington agenda". Was this an outright lie, or was he so quickly and easily sucked in by Regional Chair Roger Anderson immediately after he was elected? Enquiring minds want to know! This Mayor betrayed Clarington and put the Region first and foremost, unlike the other mayors in the Region. He said on more than one occasion that he was "elected to represent the Region". Funny, I thought he was elected as Mayor of Clarington to represent Clarington.
He ranted against the "Mutton shell-game experience" - or was that "Mutton-Schell game" - (his words). "Higher taxes, higher salaries, higher mileage charges, and numerous international trips," Abernethy said. So what has changed since 2006? It has only gotten worse. Have we heard an apology to Mutton since then? No, only attacks on his campaign financing by Abernethy's former campaign team, and those charges are ongoing. Was Mutton faultless? Hell no. But was he worse than Abernethy? That is debatable at this point, but I'd say no. At least Mutton didn't give away the (Clarington) store to the Region while he was in office. Would he have, on the incinerator issue? Very possibly he would have supported the incinerator as he did quite a job in facilitating the political acceptance of the incinerator and approval of Covanta as the builder/operator. But we won't know because Abernethy beat him to the punch. At least Mutton surely would have gotten a better deal for Clarington. As it is, there is hardly anything in the Host Community Agreement that wasn't already in the works or owed to Clarington without it. That's another discussion altogether.
Speaking of Mutton, Abernethy said, "I've had enough of their experience. Have you?" I can tell you that I, along with the majority of Clarington residents (according to several recent polls), have had enough of the Abernethy experience. More than enough.
Abernethy in 2006 asked us to vote for change. This is not the change we wanted or anticipated. A Mayor who refuses to listen to the residents unless you are one of his favoured friends, or unless you are someone he considers "important to the community". Anyone who is a plain old resident, a plain old taxpayer isn't important to him and he has shown people that in spades, including not allowing street parties which could foster more community spirit. Including the elderly who have been the first to have services cut. Including those speaking out against the incinerator, who were basically given the Trudeau salute, in so many words. Including those asking for more time to speak or to be allowed more input. He shut people up, made them sit down if he didn't like what they had to say, and even went so far as to throw people out. One of the biggest complaints about former Mayor Mutton was that he was a bully. Abernethy has turned out to be as big a bully. But he hates that word because he threw out a resident for calling his best buddy Roger Anderson a bully. He'd better take a good look in the mirror.
I wonder what half-truths this Mayor will tell us during his 2010 campaign. Or will he give up and run away, knowing he hasn't a chance in hell of being re-elected?
Mary Novak and Charlie Trim deserve the same fate, although the word on the street is the Trim is retiring, allowing local ward 4 councilor Gord Robinson to attempt to move up to Charlie's regional seat. Fat chance, after the betrayal of his constituents and those of the entire municipality. Were it not for Robinson, who has now been given the label "traitor", at least we would have remained an unwilling host, which, in spite of statements to the contrary publicly by Anderson, everyone knew would be the nail in the coffin at the Regional Council vote. And it was. This man deserves to hit the unemployment line next year and there are already groups seriously working toward that end.
There are groups spread across Durham Region already making plans for the 2010 election. They are organizing and are determined. They are looking for strong, ethical and honest candidates who understand what democracy is and who will listen to their residents rather than their political bosses in issues affecting our very lives. There will be some massive campaigns not only in support of good candidates but also against those who need to be replaced.
Those who chose to ignore the will of the people will suffer the consequences in 2010. And they will deserve it. They think 2010 is far enough away that people will forget the insulting behaviour of these councillors and mayors, but the opposition to these people is building, not waning since the June Regional vote. We are not stupid. We will not forget. The damage done to our municipality which now has a very deserved reputation as being the dumping ground for Durham Region is irreparable. And Durham Region's reputation for being the dumping ground for York Region is also building. From Stop the Incinerator to Stop the Stink, we get all the crap from York while York Region gets all the benefits. Is that the sign of a good and effective Durham Regional council or leadership? We think not.
The "Elect the Chair" movement is alive and well, and has now been joined by the "Dump Durham's Democratically Deficient" Mayors and Councillors. The most targeted already of the Mayors is Abernethy, O'Connor, Pearce, Perkins, Shepherd and Ryan. Some (most) of these are very vulnerable. Pearce is probably the least vulnerable, even though Scugog could do so much better. The rest are not at all secure in their seats according to local sources. There are more Councillors already with a bull's eye on their backs. Stay tuned for more in coming days, weeks and months. Mayor Abernethy can be assured that we will "Vote for Change" in 2010.
28 May 2008
Clarington's shame
I am so glad last night's Clarington Council meeting was televised, as it was an interesting show. I'm not sure which of the television genres you could call it though.
Drama? Not really as dramas are normally scripted and fictional. While Council's actions may at times appear scripted and their self-serving justification for actions fictional, it is real life and affects residents both directly and indirectly.
Comedy? Not really funny because it is Clarington's residents who are suffering.
Educational TV? Yes, from the point of view that delegations bring factual, relevant and interesting information forward, even if it is ignored or not understood by Council. The Mayor and Regional Reps comments? Useless excuses that don't contain one bit of real logic.
Suspense? Not a chance, since we know how our 3 Regionals will vote on everything concerning incineration. They continue to insult us with their claims they haven't yet made up their minds, but continue to help Durham Region to bull-doze it through to completion. They ignore the valid medical and scientific journal articles brought forward by residents and only choose to 'believe' the ridiculous, incomplete and incorrect pseudo-reports generated by the Region and the Region's consultants.
This council has lost all credibility with the majority of residents. They are not standing up for us and now they are bargaining not only with their "unwilling host" bargaining chip (which should never have been intended for that use) but they are bargaining with our very health and our lives. That is unforgivable.
While the Mayor and Novak and Trim all spoke and voted AGAINST becoming an unwilling host, they are now using it as a bargaining chip to get more money and more goodies from the Region with a promise to re-visit the unwilling host position if the Region gives them the goodies they want. So while they never supported it, they are now using it to blackmail the Region. Optics are horrible.
And the rest of our Council has caved in and agreed to bargain away our lives for goodies too. All except Councillor Foster. We have one person standing up for us all these days. He is the only one worthy of our respect and we'll give it to him. We will also remember this at election time.
Our other 7 actually voted in their closed-door, secret meeting on Tuesday night to SUPPORT 
the Region's excruciatingly flawed Business Case. Did they even bother to READ it? How could anyone accept such a flawed, obviously biased excuse for a Business Case without being totally embarrassed?
the Region's excruciatingly flawed Business Case. Did they even bother to READ it? How could anyone accept such a flawed, obviously biased excuse for a Business Case without being totally embarrassed? And our Mayor happily trucked out that resolution of support at Regional Council tonight when they were to vote on the Business Case. I've never seen anything more disgusting in my life.
And the soap opera continues... (more to come)
15 Feb 2007
Region endorses direct election of chair
Even though our Clarington council voted against endorsing direct election of the Chair of Durham Region, at it's Feb. 14th meeting, Regional council voted 15 to 13 to endorse Oshawa MPP Jerry Ouellette's private member's bill calling for the direct election of Durham's regional chairperson. Now it is up to the Province to pass the bill. Let's hope that will be the case.Mayor Parish , who has worked to change the way the Chair is appointed said,"Option two could be that (Municipal Affairs) Minister (John) Gerretsen might say they want this to go under the provisions of the triple majority act."
If that happens, five municipalities would have to vote in favour of direct election. In that case, Mayor Parish said the fate of the issue would rest in Whitby and Clarington. "Unless Whitby and Clarington change their position, you are not going to get a triple majority," Mayor Parish said.
Therefore it is important that Clarington take another look at it, seriously, without undue rhetoric or theatrics. Why not hold a public meeting on the issue, at an evening meeting so more people can attend. Or a web poll on the clarington.net website? Even a referendum is not binding unless at least 50% of the voting public responds, which never happens at election time and most certainly wouldn't even happen on a web poll. But why not let people have their say, or is this council afraid to do so? They seem to be listening on other topics, but for some reason just squirrel this issue away so it doesn't have to be dealt with out in the open.
Many residents of Clarington, and all over Durham Region, take this issue very seriously. Let's hope that the Province signs this bill into law so we don't have to depend on Clarington and Whitby to re-visit, re-evaluate, and re-vote and come to the logical and correct conclusion. However, in case we end up having to go under the provisions of the triple majority act, we should be prepared. Council should be prepared.
If this partially new council really wants to listen to the residents of Clarington, as they seem to want to do, then this is an issue they should bring back to the table, rather than just brushing it aside.
Please read "Electorate says yes to voting for Regional chairperson" (Metroland article) or the front page article, "Ajax seeks support for Regional Chairman motion" in the February 14th edition of The Canadian Statesman, by Jennifer Stone. Also see my previous blog entry and comments from the public.
14 Feb 2007
Regional Chair choice, No choice
On Monday night, Clarington Council "received for information" an Ajax resolution calling for the election of the Regional chairman, rather than the present method of having Regional Council select Regional chair.
Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering each put the question on the ballot at last November's election - something that would have not cost anything for Clarington to do. Those three municipalities voted overwhelmingly to have direct election of the Chair. Clarington chose not to let the public have a voice. They believed, as they apparently do now, that they know better than the great majority of residents. Democracy NOT at it's finest.
On Monday night, rather than endorsing the Ajax resolution, they received for information instead. That basically means they do NOT agree with it. Councillor Foster commented that receiving for information does not mean tacit approval. We know that. We know receiving for information basically means it's put on a shelf and ignored. We also know that endorsement would have meant approval. Receiving for information certainly doesn't mean approval by our Council.
Why was Clarington afraid to put the question to the taxpayers in a non-binding referendum in November? Perhaps because they knew what the answer would be? Why not debate it in public so we can know their reasons for wanting to keep the status quo?
We would really like Councillor Foster to explain his comment that, "the ultimate in
democracy is the lynch mob". That is a very shocking (and bizarre) comment from the Ward 1 Councillor. "Just because it's democratic doesn't mean it's a good idea," said the councillor. "I do not think, for Clarington and the smaller municipalities, that this is a good idea."
WHY does he not think it's a good idea for the smaller municipalities? Has he been present at Durham Regional Council meetings over the last 3 years of his term, or since being re-elected this term? Has he attended any of the regional committee meetings? He may not be a regional councillor, but that should not stop him from taking an interest in what is happening at the region, since it affects Clarington, and these meetings are open to the public as well as local councillors. Has he ever seen Chairman Anderson rule the roost, put forward his own opinions very strongly, even against regional staff recommendations? How about Anderson's hard push to remove Clarington (Ward 1, no less) lands from the Provincial Greenbelt?
No one can tell us that an elected Chair would have more power than the presently appointed (annointed) one. Conceivably an elected Chair would have to answer to the people, so might be less powerful than he is right now. Presently he has only Regional Council to answer to, and not the public. Not the taxpayers. He wields as much power and pushes as hard as our previous Mayor did in Clarington. He doesn't have to agree with the experts (staff) or bother to follow their recommendations. He can take the political route and the rest of us be damned.
Therefore, please explain to us why democracy isn't a good thing in this case. We've had our voices taken away from us enough during the last term. We did think this term might be different, at least in Clarington.
Councillor Foster should clarify his position and his remarks. The rest of Council and our Mayor should also weigh in specifically on their reasons for not endorsing the Ajax resolution (or Pickering or Oshawa resolutions).
My feelings on this subject are well known as I've written on the topic or made comments numerous times, including "Why can't we vote for Regional Chair?" last April. There are plenty of other posts and other people who outline reasons for electing Regional Chair. You might also want to have a look at the "Elect the Regional Chair Blog". I would also like to invite any or all of our Clarington Council (and anyone else) to comment here on this blog in the comments section.
We deserve better.
Oshawa, Ajax and Pickering each put the question on the ballot at last November's election - something that would have not cost anything for Clarington to do. Those three municipalities voted overwhelmingly to have direct election of the Chair. Clarington chose not to let the public have a voice. They believed, as they apparently do now, that they know better than the great majority of residents. Democracy NOT at it's finest.
On Monday night, rather than endorsing the Ajax resolution, they received for information instead. That basically means they do NOT agree with it. Councillor Foster commented that receiving for information does not mean tacit approval. We know that. We know receiving for information basically means it's put on a shelf and ignored. We also know that endorsement would have meant approval. Receiving for information certainly doesn't mean approval by our Council.
Why was Clarington afraid to put the question to the taxpayers in a non-binding referendum in November? Perhaps because they knew what the answer would be? Why not debate it in public so we can know their reasons for wanting to keep the status quo?
We would really like Councillor Foster to explain his comment that, "the ultimate in
democracy is the lynch mob". That is a very shocking (and bizarre) comment from the Ward 1 Councillor. "Just because it's democratic doesn't mean it's a good idea," said the councillor. "I do not think, for Clarington and the smaller municipalities, that this is a good idea." WHY does he not think it's a good idea for the smaller municipalities? Has he been present at Durham Regional Council meetings over the last 3 years of his term, or since being re-elected this term? Has he attended any of the regional committee meetings? He may not be a regional councillor, but that should not stop him from taking an interest in what is happening at the region, since it affects Clarington, and these meetings are open to the public as well as local councillors. Has he ever seen Chairman Anderson rule the roost, put forward his own opinions very strongly, even against regional staff recommendations? How about Anderson's hard push to remove Clarington (Ward 1, no less) lands from the Provincial Greenbelt?
No one can tell us that an elected Chair would have more power than the presently appointed (annointed) one. Conceivably an elected Chair would have to answer to the people, so might be less powerful than he is right now. Presently he has only Regional Council to answer to, and not the public. Not the taxpayers. He wields as much power and pushes as hard as our previous Mayor did in Clarington. He doesn't have to agree with the experts (staff) or bother to follow their recommendations. He can take the political route and the rest of us be damned.Therefore, please explain to us why democracy isn't a good thing in this case. We've had our voices taken away from us enough during the last term. We did think this term might be different, at least in Clarington.
Councillor Foster should clarify his position and his remarks. The rest of Council and our Mayor should also weigh in specifically on their reasons for not endorsing the Ajax resolution (or Pickering or Oshawa resolutions).
My feelings on this subject are well known as I've written on the topic or made comments numerous times, including "Why can't we vote for Regional Chair?" last April. There are plenty of other posts and other people who outline reasons for electing Regional Chair. You might also want to have a look at the "Elect the Regional Chair Blog". I would also like to invite any or all of our Clarington Council (and anyone else) to comment here on this blog in the comments section.
We deserve better.
17 Nov 2006
New leadership, new faces
First of all, we want to congratulate all the winners and to thank all candidates who ran in this election. Not all of our
"preferred" candidates were elected, but several were and we look forward to a new year and a new council. And we hope that many of the candidates from this election will continue to attend council meetings, to present ideas, and to keep this group honest and accountable to the residents both in Clarington and in Durham Region.
All our new councillors will have a bit of a learning curve, and none more than our new Mayor, Jim Abernethy. But my hope is that he will be given 
some time and some leeway for getting up to speed before people begin criticizing or hounding him. It's a big job, but remember that this is a man who felt strongly enough about the previous leadership and the issues facing Clarington that he put his hat in the ring months before ex-Mayor Mutton's personal problems came into the picture - long before the assault charges were laid. So Mr. Abernethy deserves to be given a chance to address the problems Clarington has faced over the last several years, including the "democratic deficit". He will address the financial state of Clarington and will work hard on our economic development. He will be courteous to residents who make delegations to council and allow them to have their say. We will be watching of course, and while encouraging him in his new position, we will also hold his feet to the fire when necessary. But we welcome him as our new Mayor and look forward to good changes in Clarington.
While we hope that our new council will get along with each other, we also hope to see some much needed debate over issues, instead of the rubber-stamp approach that seemed to be the norm during the last term or two. We hope input from residents will be seriously considered and that fewer decisions will be made behind closed doors.
There will be much to discuss in the months to come and we hope voters in Clarington will attend council meetings and become involved in the process. The first meeting of the new council is on December 4, at Town Hall in Bowmanville, council chambers on the 2nd floor.
"preferred" candidates were elected, but several were and we look forward to a new year and a new council. And we hope that many of the candidates from this election will continue to attend council meetings, to present ideas, and to keep this group honest and accountable to the residents both in Clarington and in Durham Region.
some time and some leeway for getting up to speed before people begin criticizing or hounding him. It's a big job, but remember that this is a man who felt strongly enough about the previous leadership and the issues facing Clarington that he put his hat in the ring months before ex-Mayor Mutton's personal problems came into the picture - long before the assault charges were laid. So Mr. Abernethy deserves to be given a chance to address the problems Clarington has faced over the last several years, including the "democratic deficit". He will address the financial state of Clarington and will work hard on our economic development. He will be courteous to residents who make delegations to council and allow them to have their say. We will be watching of course, and while encouraging him in his new position, we will also hold his feet to the fire when necessary. But we welcome him as our new Mayor and look forward to good changes in Clarington.While we hope that our new council will get along with each other, we also hope to see some much needed debate over issues, instead of the rubber-stamp approach that seemed to be the norm during the last term or two. We hope input from residents will be seriously considered and that fewer decisions will be made behind closed doors.
There will be much to discuss in the months to come and we hope voters in Clarington will attend council meetings and become involved in the process. The first meeting of the new council is on December 4, at Town Hall in Bowmanville, council chambers on the 2nd floor.
We want to thank all the campaign workers too, for helping the candidates to get their issues and
faces out there, get their signs (ugh!) up, help with canvassing (door knocking and phone calls), and all the other duties that are necessary in a campaign. Without campaign workers and supporters, our candidates wouldn't get far!
And lastly, kudos to the voters of Clarington, who did a pretty credible job in voting for most seats, and who voted in higher numbers than in the previous election, and higher percentage turnout than any of the other lakeshore (urban) municipalities in Durham Region. Let's keep up that trend and stay involved.
faces out there, get their signs (ugh!) up, help with canvassing (door knocking and phone calls), and all the other duties that are necessary in a campaign. Without campaign workers and supporters, our candidates wouldn't get far!And lastly, kudos to the voters of Clarington, who did a pretty credible job in voting for most seats, and who voted in higher numbers than in the previous election, and higher percentage turnout than any of the other lakeshore (urban) municipalities in Durham Region. Let's keep up that trend and stay involved.
15 Nov 2006
ELECTION RESULTS 2006
Election Results for Municipality of Clarington
Nov 13, 2006
x - denotes incumbents
Mayor
Jim Abernethy - 11,204x - denotes incumbents
Mayor
John Mutton-x - 5,968
Jim Schell - 4,596
Richard Ward - 495
Wayne Chaskavich - 291
Regional Councillors
Ward 1 & 2
Mary Novak - 3,081
Kevin McAlpine - 2,877
Don MacArthur - 2,718
George Van Dyk - 2,523
Arnot Wotten - 1,073
Mary Novak - 3,081
Kevin McAlpine - 2,877
Don MacArthur - 2,718
George Van Dyk - 2,523
Arnot Wotten - 1,073
Ward 3 & 4
Charlie Trim-x - 5,120
Linda Gasser - 3,079
John Buddo - 1,660
Local Councillors
Ward 1
Adrian Foster-x - 3,978
Oudit Rai - 1,988
Adrian Foster-x - 3,978
Oudit Rai - 1,988
Ward 2
Ron Hooper - 3,176
Colin Argyle - 930
Terry Lynch - 835
Mike Slocombe - 490
Steve Rowland - 259
John Sturdy - 186
Blair Smyth - 137
Colin Argyle - 930
Terry Lynch - 835
Mike Slocombe - 490
Steve Rowland - 259
John Sturdy - 186
Blair Smyth - 137
Ward 3
Willie Woo - 2,284
Kevin Anyan - 1,706
Kyrke Innis - 590
Lou DeVuono - 130
Ward 4
Gord Robinson-x - 2,743
Wendy Partner - 1,330
Paul Jones - 1,071
Trustee English Public
Cathy Abraham - 10,107
Steven Cooke - 7,536
Karen Hills - 6,108
Todd Shrigley - 3,405
Steven Cooke - 7,536
Karen Hills - 6,108
Todd Shrigley - 3,405
Trustee French Public
Sylvie Landry - acclaimed
Trustee English Separate
Maureen Day - 1,909
Granville Anderson-x - 1,337
Barbara Malone - 1,325
Andrew Bennion - 433
Granville Anderson-x - 1,337
Barbara Malone - 1,325
Andrew Bennion - 433
Trustee French Separate
Adrien Lamoureux - acclaimed
*****************************************
And our informal Mayoral Election Poll wasn't too far off:
Jim Abernethy - 43.4%
John Mutton - 23.4%
Richard Ward - 18%
Jim Schell - 12%
Wayne Chaskavich - 3.3%
We had a total of 1768 votes tabulated. Richard Ward and Jim Schell traded places in the actual result, but Abernethy was the leader from the start.
10 Nov 2006
More Mail-in Misgivings
Much has been written about our mail-in ballot system, in local papers, blogs, letters to the editor. Candidates have been ridiculed (as have their scrutineers) for wanting to watch the process closely, to identify problems so that they may be corrected or improved upon before the next election. Having these scrutineers at Town Hall is a good thing (thanks Martha)."Clarington's ballot problem relatively minimal, says ministry spokesman" - Some areas much higher - so reads the headline today for the Clarington Metroland on-line paper. I guess that makes it okay, since our rate of rejected ballots is smaller than some other municipalities? A rate of 3 to 4% seems to be acceptable to the municipality and to the ministry, but remember that there will almost certainly be many more when ballots are actually counted as there will be spoiled ones. How high will that raise the rejected ballot total?
"An array of issues led to the rejections including failure to sign or include the voter declaration and placing the voter declaration inside the secrecy envelope."
Failure to sign or include the voter declaration - fine. I can see that being a problem. But I'd like to know how they know that the voter declaration was placed inside the secrecy envelope? Don't you have to open that envelope to know that? I thought those secrecy envelopes couldn't be opened until the polls officially close at 8 pm on November 13.
"Some municipalities are making efforts to lower the rejection number using methods such as opening the end of the secrecy envelope to see if the declaration form has been included there, said the Ministry spokesman. Others are calling people who neglected to sign the declaration, to help increase the number of accepted ballots."
Again, I thought the secrecy envelope HAD to remain sealed until polls close. Is this actually permissible? What happened to the "secrecy" part of that equation? Wouldn't/shouldn't an unsealed secrecy envelope not conform to protocol and therefore once again be grounds for not being accepted? And wouldn't a
"secrecy envelope" that had been opened already be more susceptible to fraud? What is the difference between "opening the end of the secrecy envelope" and opening it at the flap? In either case the contents can be taken out, viewed, corrected (?), replaced within the envelope to be counted days later when polls close. What happens with those envelopes - are they taped up after being opened so that ballots don't fall out? Is premature opening of these ballots legally allowed???We have been critical of this mail-in ballot method of voting since 2000. There are still "issues" with it and people have a right to be concerned, especially the candidates.
There are plenty of other problems as well, including non-delivery of voting kits to voters, delivery to the wrong address, no verification of the signatures on the voter declaration form. Anyone could have extra votes if they picked up discarded voter kits from apartment lobbies, blue boxes, etc. Just sign that form because there is no verification on it other than the signature. Anyone who knows how to write can sign a name, and the voter's name is printed on the form itself so you know who's name to sign.
Voter turnout doesn't seem to be much heavier than it was in the last election, when we had all those acclamations and very few (seriously) contested seats. With the very large number of candidates in this election and the voter anger over a number of issues, you would think there would be a huge voter turnout this year. But so far (even though there are a few days left) it doesn't seem to have increased much, if at all. Hopefully there will be a large surge on Election Day of voters who choose to deliver their ballots in person. Or maybe there are a lot of voters who have decided, "What's the point"? Our Council doesn't seem to listen to us, there is never any "debate", and everything seems to have been decided before Council meetings even take place. Will new councillors show any more backbone in standing up to an intense, hard-ball Mayor? Will we have a new Mayor? We can hope for the best in this election. The call for "change" has gone out. It remains to be seen whether voters have heeded the call.
Every vote is important and must be counted. But for any municipality to open the secrecy envelope prior to election day is just plain wrong. And if they're not doing that, how do they know the voter declaration form is inside the secrecy envelope instead of in the outer, yellow envelope?
We are interested only in the integrity of the election process. But some of the statements made bring cause for worry. The chance for mail-in mishap is too great at the present time for our liking. Yes, we have voted, but we are not confident everyone's ballot will be able to be counted, or that some unscrupulous people have not had the opportunity to vote multiple times. It's the system, not the municipality we are criticizing. At least it is good to see that some of our concerns are being publicized this time around and are being taken seriously.
23 Oct 2006
Be careful with your ballots
Mail in ballot system - good or bad? I suppose that depends on your point of view. Personally, I'm not all that crazy about it. I actually enjoy going to the polling place, filling out my ballot, and dropping it in the box. I like that I have to make a small effort to actually go and vote. It is a privilege to be able to vote in elections.
When Clarington decided to change to the mail-in format there were a number of people who warned that this may not be the best way to go. The municipality argued that it would increase returns substantially if they made it easier for everyone to vote. Well, in 2003 we had a return of only about 35% of ballots (with mail-in voting). Perhaps if people had been made to travel all the way to a polling station (for most, within a few minutes drive of their home) we would have had an even more pitiful turnout?
The difference here is that one wonders what happened to the 65% of ballots that were not mailed back to the municipality. Today, with the very visible animosity among some of the candidates and all the sign vandalism, the intimidation tactics taken by some - it makes you wonder how many of the discarded ballots could possibly be picked up by an unscrupulous person, filled out and mailed in. I am not accusing any candidates of doing this, but there are some "supporters" out there who it seems will stop at nothing to try to 'help' their candidate to win. Not everyone is as honest as you or me.
There seems to be ample opportunity for this type of ballot stuffing and I seem to remember there were extra ballots in the election 3 years ago that could have changed the outcome for some of the candidates, but I don't believe anything was done about it.
This time around, there are still concerns that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of quite a few people. Although the municipality and clerk's office have tried to address these problems, we still feel there is room for improvement. People are being asked to shred or otherwise destroy ballots "or put them in the garbage, rather than recycling them", Patti Barrie said in a This Week article. That could be a lot of ballots ending up in the garbage.
This all begs the question... Just how accurate is our system of mail-in ballot voting in Clarington? There are other areas of concern as well, such as how/where ballots are stored for weeks on end after they begin coming in from voters.
If you care enough to vote, then you care enough to make the effort to vote in person. Internet voting may be the next step, and I'll be in favour of that if it can be made secure. I do not feel that our mail-in system is secure at all.
So, PLEASE... if you are not going to vote, DESTROY your ballot when you receive it. Shred it. Mark it up so as to spoil it. Rip it up. Then put it in the garbage, not the blue box. But please be sure to destroy the ballot, for the sake of the integrity of this election.
When Clarington decided to change to the mail-in format there were a number of people who warned that this may not be the best way to go. The municipality argued that it would increase returns substantially if they made it easier for everyone to vote. Well, in 2003 we had a return of only about 35% of ballots (with mail-in voting). Perhaps if people had been made to travel all the way to a polling station (for most, within a few minutes drive of their home) we would have had an even more pitiful turnout?
The difference here is that one wonders what happened to the 65% of ballots that were not mailed back to the municipality. Today, with the very visible animosity among some of the candidates and all the sign vandalism, the intimidation tactics taken by some - it makes you wonder how many of the discarded ballots could possibly be picked up by an unscrupulous person, filled out and mailed in. I am not accusing any candidates of doing this, but there are some "supporters" out there who it seems will stop at nothing to try to 'help' their candidate to win. Not everyone is as honest as you or me.
There seems to be ample opportunity for this type of ballot stuffing and I seem to remember there were extra ballots in the election 3 years ago that could have changed the outcome for some of the candidates, but I don't believe anything was done about it.
This time around, there are still concerns that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of quite a few people. Although the municipality and clerk's office have tried to address these problems, we still feel there is room for improvement. People are being asked to shred or otherwise destroy ballots "or put them in the garbage, rather than recycling them", Patti Barrie said in a This Week article. That could be a lot of ballots ending up in the garbage.
As well, there have been discussions with Canada Post "and we've been assured that the kits that are addressed to a box are not dropped in the lobby," said Ms. Barrie. Any that aren't addressed to a specific apartment are to be returned to the municipality."The point isn't only where Canada Post delivers the kits to. I lived in an apartment for quite some time, and I know that people who get "junk mail" or unwanted ballots simply drop them in the lobby when they find them in their box. That is a great place for unscrupulous people to pick up plenty of unmarked ballots. The municipality, to my knowledge, does not check/verify the signatures on the forms, so anyone could be filling those out, couldn't they?
This all begs the question... Just how accurate is our system of mail-in ballot voting in Clarington? There are other areas of concern as well, such as how/where ballots are stored for weeks on end after they begin coming in from voters.
If you care enough to vote, then you care enough to make the effort to vote in person. Internet voting may be the next step, and I'll be in favour of that if it can be made secure. I do not feel that our mail-in system is secure at all.
So, PLEASE... if you are not going to vote, DESTROY your ballot when you receive it. Shred it. Mark it up so as to spoil it. Rip it up. Then put it in the garbage, not the blue box. But please be sure to destroy the ballot, for the sake of the integrity of this election.
7 Oct 2006
The signs are up - the race is on
Candidates signs have been up for just under a week now, and campaigns are getting into full swing. Now is the time to watch the newspapers, blogs and candidates websites for notices of upcoming "Meet & Greet" events, debates and other events where you can meet the candidates and ask questions. Visit campaign offices of mayoral candidates and make it a point to try to meet or even email candidates running in your local ward, for regional council, and for mayor and not only ask questions, but let them know what issues are important to you.
We have a chance to make a difference when it comes time to vote, and we have to live with the results for another 4 years after this, so please take the time to learn all you can about the candidates and to find out where they really stand. Do this by not only asking questions, but by finding out what their past record is if you are looking at an incumbent.
What issues are important to you? Of course quality of life in our community must be an important issue. That ties in with development, transportation, sprawl, accountability and a host of other issues you may find important if you think about it. Please think about it and be proactive in this election.
See "Who is Running in November" for help in knowing who is running in your area and how to contact most of them (those who had the information on the Municipal website as well as additional e-mail or website information is included). For information on who is running a developer-free campaign, if that is an important consideration, which we feel it is, see "Candidate Information".
We'll try to give you more help as time goes on, but for now, just be aware, think about the issues, and try to meet or ask questions of as many of the candidates as possible. Don't be intimidated and don't be afraid to disagree. Listen to what they have to say, and take your time in making a final decision. This matters to all of us who live in Clarington.
We have a chance to make a difference when it comes time to vote, and we have to live with the results for another 4 years after this, so please take the time to learn all you can about the candidates and to find out where they really stand. Do this by not only asking questions, but by finding out what their past record is if you are looking at an incumbent.
What issues are important to you? Of course quality of life in our community must be an important issue. That ties in with development, transportation, sprawl, accountability and a host of other issues you may find important if you think about it. Please think about it and be proactive in this election.
See "Who is Running in November" for help in knowing who is running in your area and how to contact most of them (those who had the information on the Municipal website as well as additional e-mail or website information is included). For information on who is running a developer-free campaign, if that is an important consideration, which we feel it is, see "Candidate Information".
We'll try to give you more help as time goes on, but for now, just be aware, think about the issues, and try to meet or ask questions of as many of the candidates as possible. Don't be intimidated and don't be afraid to disagree. Listen to what they have to say, and take your time in making a final decision. This matters to all of us who live in Clarington.
3 Oct 2006
Candidates and Issues
Jennifer Stone (Metroland newspapers & durhamregion.com) gives an overview of issues the 5 candidates for Mayor feel are most important to them and/or to the residents of Clarington in her Oct. 3rd article "Mayoral candidates speak to the issues". It's important to know the issues facing Clarington residents and to figure out what the candidates will do about them, so we hope you will take the time to read her article and to ask questions of the candidates. And not only those running for Mayor, but those running for ANY council seat.
It's no surprise that taxes, growth and accountability are the top issues. Taxes are always an issue, and especially when they have been steadily rising over the last few years - at a faster and higher rate than many feel is really necessary. Taxes will always be a sore spot with most residents, but especially when they face the large increases in property tax that some are facing this year.
Growth is always a hot topic for politicians - most of whom seem to feel that the more the better. The faster the better. The bigger the better. In a rural municipality like Clarington, where many have come to escape the "city life", traffic congestion, noise, pollution, etc., seeing what appears to be a developer-friendly council who can't wait to pave over paradise makes us crazy. Intensification within urban boundaries has to occur, but should be done in stages and in a way that will keep our communities user-friendly and safe. Expanding urban boundaries to accommodate the developers without a "need" for more space for development is something that has been done in the past and should be mitigated, and something that should not be allowed to happen in the future. Keeping infrastructure and services in step with development does not mean keeping artificially low development charges or waiving them altogether for certain developments. Clarington is a very desirable place to build, and we feel that there is no reason to keep development charges low to attract developers! As infrastructure ages, it is the residents who must pay for upkeep and replacement through their taxes. The same goes for all the recreation facilities within our communities. Yes, we need them especially for the youth in Clarington. But what about the Total Hockey Museum? Couldn't that money have been possibly better spent on a skateboard facility for Orono, for example? The lack of consultation with the public on some of these things makes people wonder whether our views even register at anytime other than leading up to an election.
Accountability is very important to us as residents of Clarington and as citizens of Canada. That means our politicians are accountable to us for their decisions. That means we are free to ask questions, criticize decisions made by any level of government, including our municipal council, expect to be treated with respect even when we disagree, and have the freedom to complain when we think huge raises in salary and mileage or taxes are not warranted nor deserved. We have the right to complain if we feel we have not been treated fairly or have been treated rudely. If politicians can't take criticism from constituents, then they should not run for public office nor put themselves in the public eye. If they try to shut down free speech or freedom of expression, they should be held accountable for that. We need an open and accessible municipal government and residents need to feel they can speak up when they have an objection or concern about something, rather than feeling afraid to speak.
It's no surprise that taxes, growth and accountability are the top issues. Taxes are always an issue, and especially when they have been steadily rising over the last few years - at a faster and higher rate than many feel is really necessary. Taxes will always be a sore spot with most residents, but especially when they face the large increases in property tax that some are facing this year.
Growth is always a hot topic for politicians - most of whom seem to feel that the more the better. The faster the better. The bigger the better. In a rural municipality like Clarington, where many have come to escape the "city life", traffic congestion, noise, pollution, etc., seeing what appears to be a developer-friendly council who can't wait to pave over paradise makes us crazy. Intensification within urban boundaries has to occur, but should be done in stages and in a way that will keep our communities user-friendly and safe. Expanding urban boundaries to accommodate the developers without a "need" for more space for development is something that has been done in the past and should be mitigated, and something that should not be allowed to happen in the future. Keeping infrastructure and services in step with development does not mean keeping artificially low development charges or waiving them altogether for certain developments. Clarington is a very desirable place to build, and we feel that there is no reason to keep development charges low to attract developers! As infrastructure ages, it is the residents who must pay for upkeep and replacement through their taxes. The same goes for all the recreation facilities within our communities. Yes, we need them especially for the youth in Clarington. But what about the Total Hockey Museum? Couldn't that money have been possibly better spent on a skateboard facility for Orono, for example? The lack of consultation with the public on some of these things makes people wonder whether our views even register at anytime other than leading up to an election.
Accountability is very important to us as residents of Clarington and as citizens of Canada. That means our politicians are accountable to us for their decisions. That means we are free to ask questions, criticize decisions made by any level of government, including our municipal council, expect to be treated with respect even when we disagree, and have the freedom to complain when we think huge raises in salary and mileage or taxes are not warranted nor deserved. We have the right to complain if we feel we have not been treated fairly or have been treated rudely. If politicians can't take criticism from constituents, then they should not run for public office nor put themselves in the public eye. If they try to shut down free speech or freedom of expression, they should be held accountable for that. We need an open and accessible municipal government and residents need to feel they can speak up when they have an objection or concern about something, rather than feeling afraid to speak.
29 Sept 2006
Candidate Information
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
