justcaws.com

I had the following column published in the Guelph Mercury – June 2008. As the city begins the budget process for 2011, I thought I would post it again.

Recently, Councillor Karl Wettstein the chair of city’s finance, administration, and corporate services committee asked city taxpayers for help to avoid an “unacceptable” 6.5 per cent property tax hike next year.

Well like any other taxpayer in this city, I have some thoughts on the matter.

First, let’s get beyond the whining about the downloading of social programs and services from the province to the city.

Yes, that was a misguided decision by the previous Tory regime in Ontario, but the policy hasn’t been substantially reversed by the current government, so it’s time to deal with this reality. Doing so will mean that cuts have to be made, but any educated voter should know that it’s not the fault of council and city hall.  They have been given the jurisdiction to fund programs without the proper financial support from the province. That doesn’t mean, however, that this gives council and city staff the licence to pass the cost onto the municipal taxpayer through continued, annual tax increases.

So sharpen your pencil, city hall, and make cuts – we won’t hold you accountable.

But if you do nothing but pass the costs on, that shows ineffective leadership and you will be held to account.

Where specifically can you cut?

How about charging for all parking, or returning bus service to previous levels? When you are in a budget squeeze you can’t do both. Besides, the two plans contradict one another when it comes to the environment. The city wants to increase bus service to every 20 minutes to encourage people to take public transit, but the city offers two-hour free downtown parking, which makes it easier to take the car. Talk about sucking and blowing at the same time. Right now we can’t afford either option.

When you are in a budget crunch, you can’t cut your revenues, increase spending and remain solvent. If you want to attract people downtown, have businesses stay open beyond the supper hour. In terms of increased bus service, I think this is a fantastic idea, but can only be put in place if the city can afford to do it — which it can’t.

I would like to retrofit my house with the latest in environmental friendly products, but I can’t afford the upfront cost, no matter how much savings can be amortized down the line.

The other area to look at is increasing community user fees.

Taxpayers like myself are already getting a tax break on their kids’ sport fees from the federal government. So a fee increase only takes back the discount that parents have been getting.

Our budget crunch will mean that all fees will have to be increased. This only makes sense in times of inflation.

The greater tax pool has subsidized low fees for too long and now it is time for users to pay the true cost.

We also need to have a taxpayer protection plan put in place that permanently limits tax increases to minimum levels — one per cent or two per cent).

That would force future municipal governments, regardless of political leanings, to work within their means.

Also, let’s hope our local elected officials don’t play us for fools again with the annual bait and switch game.

In recent years the city has floated a high tax increase only to hear the public yell and scream. The large increase was never going to happen, but it makes a lower increase more palatable and makes people think their elected officials made some tough choices to reduce the budget.

In reality, all we are left with is a delay of fiscal prudence and another unacceptable tax increase.

So council and city staff, enough with the excuses –anything higher than a two per cent increase and you haven’t done your job.  Start cutting and making the tough calls. If the voters get mad — and they will — just remind them your hand was forced on this.

If they continue to complain, tell them to vote accordingly in the next federal or provincial election.  It’s time for showing leadership and spending within our means. Anything else is unacceptable.

Looks like another Leaf season is going to wither on the vine. While I am not blind to this team’s deficiencies – I do think they are underachieving. With the talent on the ice they should be 10-12 pts. better than they are and fighting for a play-off spot.

For this reason, I thought they should have fired Wilson 25 games ago. Now, they’re too buried in the standings to make a run. That would probably make some say there is no point in firing the coach at this point in the season. Usually I would agree – but not with the caustic Wilson leading this team. Keeping him on for the rest of the season would be a big mistake.

Wilson’s negative attitude is no fit for a young Leaf club. He’s killed the confidence of Kadri and now Gustavsson. Wilson continually calls out his young players for poor play. All this has done is ice a team that looks uptight and plays not to lose -which is a sure fire way not to win.

Wilson is a good coach – his record and time in the game prove this.  He is just the wrong coach at the wrong time for the Leafs. An interim guy who can rebuild the confidence of the team is needed right away.

For anyone still following this team, firing Wilson can’t come soon enough.

 The redevelopment plan at the corner of Stone/Gordon sure has caught the attention of this city and its residents. This isn’t surprising when you consider that an out of town developer wants to replace an existing hotel with two twin towers of 16 and 14 storeys, next door to mature family neighbourhood.

 As expected, most of the vocal reaction to this project has been negative. There have been a few whispers that this project is the type of growth Guelph should embrace as part of a move to increase the density of housing development within the city’s core. While I support increased city intensification to reduce sprawl – this is not the project to embrace.

 If you are against this development – get in line. A full gallery at last Monday’s City Council meeting and two well attended community events opposing this redevelopment are proof that the developer – Abode Varsity Living, has awakened the spirit of civic action for which Guelph is known. 

 So far, the opposition has been primarily concerned with height and density of the building. The fact that Abode is seeking ten amendments to the city’s official plan certainly has sparked resistance as well. While these are certainly valid concerns – I believe the greatest damage this development inflicts upon the neighbourhood is a significant drop of property values. This drop will not come from the size of building – but who lives in it.

Adobe by law cannot discriminate against non-students who may want to live in the buildings. The University of Guelph has indicated that it is no longer building residence due to limited growth and demand. So, it seems rather inevitable that this project over time will move from student purpose to one that is made available to anyone who can pony up the rent. The affordable housing units that this project will soon become will certainly devalue the property values of nearby homes.

Saying that you are against the size and scope of a building is certainly a more popular argument to make than saying you don’t want certain people living next to you and bringing down the neighbourhood. Focusing on the size of this development however, is only going to get you a smaller building.  But in the end a building half size of the original, is still not going to add any value to the area.

I believe the overwhelming size of this project is a red-herring and that it’s the builder’s intention to pull the ol’ bait and switch on the City of Guelph and its concerned residents. I doubt the builder has any intention to build a residence of the scope proposed. Hence, the reason it hasn’t done an exhaustive study on the impact of such a large project. The City has been left to order a bunch of reports and complete the due diligence that should have been done by the builder. 

I am confident the city will reject this redevelopment on its own merits. My concern is what changes will take place and what the final project might look like.

Arguments against the redevelopment should focus on rejecting this development for reasons that cannot be accommodated regardless of the final size and scope of this project.  

Pollution of all kinds, security concerns, decreased property values, and the fact that the development has no connection with the University of Guelph are just a few reasons for the city to soundly reject any version of this plan.

When changes are eventually made to this proposal and the final scaled down proposal is brought forward, Council should keep in mind that the site in question is not just any piece of property.  This corner is a gateway to our beautiful city.

It neighbours beautiful, mature family homes that represent the perfect mix of development and green space that sets this city apart. Disrupting this balance for the purpose of intensification would compromise Guelph’s values and standards which are the foundation of this great city.

I am hopeful the recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona will generate a ground swell of support for increased restrictions on the use of assault weapons in the U.S. where I was born. While I could easily go along with a complete ban of all guns – I know politically that will never happen. Too many argue that law-abiding citizens have the “right” to own a gun. While I do not agree with this viewpoint, I can and do respect the position. If people want to use guns for sport or believe they must carry a weapon for the protection of themselves or their families – I get that.

What I don’t get, is the opposition to reasonable limits placed on easy access to guns – specifically automatic weapons. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum surely we can find common ground in keeping guns and automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. The shooter in Tucson was kicked out of College and needed a mental health clearance to get back in. Yet he can go to a Sportsman Warehouse and buy a semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun with ease. Does the right of an American to own a gun supersede the right to an education? The answer is no, but a background check system full of loopholes and an ineffective database have made access to dangerous weapons all too easy for the mentally ill.

To join the U.S. Army you need to go through an exhaustive process that the Tucson killer did not pass. I would like a similar process that includes a condition of mental health, before any civilian is cleared to carry any assault weapon. Of course, you may question any civilian’s sanity who wants to carry an Uzi. In all seriousness, rather than focusing on banning guns we need to strengthen the requirements of ownership.

Gun control measures have been muted by the gun lobby who oppose any restrictions that interfere with their right to bear arms. Democracies, however, place restrictions on behaviour all the time for the safety and well being of society. Illegal drugs are a perfect example where we have laws in place to restrict a dangerous product from being used by otherwise law-abiding citizens. We also don’t hand out driver’s liscences to those who pass a background check – we test for competence.

For me, I see the pro-gun crowd and the pro-pot activists as one in the same. While they probably would not have each other as facebook friends, they do share very similar libertarian beliefs. They both want the “state” to leave them alone and not interfere with what they believe are their inalienable right to their product. It’s the role of the moderate and rationale majority to keep these two groups in check. In the U.S., one has to wonder – where are those people who pursue efforts for the common good?

Yes, I have heard the argument that increased gun control laws won’t have any impact because guns are readily available on the “street”. That maybe true, but that doesn’t mean society should allow easy, legal access to a dangerous product. We don’t do it for illegal drugs such as cocaine – so how is it perfectly legal to sell semi-automatic weapons to anyone walking off the street? Keep in mind also, that the recent high profile multiple gun murders in the U.S. (Tucson, Virginia Tech) are ones where the killer(s) didn’t get their guns and ammo on the street, but at legitimate retail outlets.

It is true that no matter what restrictions you place on weapons that people can never be completely safe from unbalanced individuals bent on killing their fellow man. The recent tragic incident of a Toronto police officer who was killed by a mentally ill man driving a snow plough proves this. But at least in this case his rage only caused the loss of one courageous soul and not multiple victims. Few things bring greater carnage than a crazed killer with an automatic weapon spraying rounds of ammo into a crowded area.

I love my country of birth. But its gun culture and a lack of political will to enact common sense regulation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill undermine its standing in the eyes of the world.

It also makes me very glad that I have dual citizenship and can call Canada my home.

I have never hidden the fact in past posts and comments that I am big supporter and admirer of U.S. President Barack Obama.

I find him an inspirational figure whose politics and viewpoints are for the most part in line with my own.

Many might find that surprising since in Canada I consider myself a Conservative (in Ontario anyway) and tend to hold many right of centre views. People who have lived in the States or follow its politics are not surprised however.

The reason is that the political spectrum in the U.S. is much further shifted to the right than in Canada. Or Canada is shifted more to the left. Take your pick.
On major issues from healthcare to gun control there is major difference to where the middle ground falls in these two countries.

This reality makes it perfectly understandable for a person to be a viewed as a right-wing Conservative in Canada and a bleeding heart liberal in the U.S..

I have the misfortune of falling into one of two categories that make one feel undervalued here. While I don’t suffer the fate of residing in one of Guelph’s new neighbourhoods, I’m one of its motorists. My heart goes out to those who are part of both camps. They’re on the outside, looking in when comes to city planning. Just looking at a couple of examples indicates that how you get treated in this city seems to depend greatly on two things – where you live and whether you have the gall to still travel by car.

Take our “hurry up and wait” Hanlon Expressway. I have lived in this city for over a decade. Each year I have heard and read about imminent upgrades pending for this vital city artery. Yet, sure enough, years pass and nothing is done. Unfortunately, with its increased traffic, the constant delay in getting the Hanlon up to speed is not just a convenience issue, but a safety issue one as well.

Anyone travelling south on the Hanlon during peak times knows its hazards. Insufficient space in the left-hand turning lanes at its major intersections cause a queue of left-turning vehicles that spills into the left-hand passing lane. I’m not the only one who has come up quickly behind a car that is stopped because of such a bottleneck. I’ve avoided rear-ending anyone and spurring a chain reaction of destruction. That’s largely because I’m aware of these trouble spots and try to skirt them. This seems to be the same policy that too many of our elected officials take on our Hanlon Delay-way.

Avoiding the issue, rather persuading the province to act on the Hanlon sadly demonstrates, yet again, how this city lets ideology trump pragmatism and common sense. Take Coun. Maggie Laidlaw’s rationale for her tepid support of the Hanlon Expressway. She believes we won’t be driving cars in 20 years anyway. One would hope city hall would be would be pleading with Queen’s Park to bring our transportation infrastructure up to the level needed for a city with aspirations of being a hub of commerce. Unfortunately, we get different priorities when our civic leaders believe that everyone should ride a bike or take the bus regardless of where they live.

The intersection of Rickson and Edinburgh also demonstrates where this city’s priorities lie. It received considerable attention after a fatal collision a few years back. Many area residents tried unsuccessfully to get traffic lights at the intersection. The city decided only to install a crossing signal. Now, years later, with more traffic using the road and a nearby school now built, the city must reconsider. Traffic lights are a must for the safety of motorists and pedestrians at this location. Just try crossing Edinburgh at Rickson. Your plan better include getting out of your car or asking a passing pedestrian to hit the crossing signal. Otherwise, it’s a quick look both ways before you slam the pedal to the metal to avoid hidden cars moving up and around a bend one way and motorists coming up a steep hill in the other direction.

Now, compare that to the streets and intersections of Guelph’s old neighbourhoods. Many of these lightly-travelled streets have so many stop signs, traffic lights, and traffic calming measures that I get passed by people using walkers when driving there. If all the traffic lights and signs are still deemed necessary in one end of town, the same standard should be applied everywhere.

The debate on whether Guelph should have grown as it has is over. Recent arrivals are here now and paying property taxes, just like everyone else. Cars aren’t going away either. They may all become electric, but they still require safe roads going forward.

Avoiding these realities and treating our fellow citizens like second-class members will only make Guelph a second-class city. We deserve better.

Hey I love hockey as much as the next Canadian – but the following of this Jr Hockey “World” Championship is getting nuts. There kids – not pros. Just because TSN has blown this tournament out of proportion, giving it more hype and coverage than it deserves (just like they do with the CFL) doesn’t me we need to lose our perspective. It is a non-professional hockey tournament in which a few northern countries participate. Enjoy it for what it is – win or lose.

Written some negative things about unions in the past, that made some label me as a anti-union or a union buster etc. . So let me clarify.

When it comes to Private – Sector Unions I do believe in the right to organize and negotiate collectively. When the work itself is low-skill and offers the worker little or no protection - I do believe unions have a necessary place in society.  All one needs to do is read the book the “Grapes of Wrath” to understand the need for workers to organize. 

I am encouraged to see worker’s in China and other parts of the developing world beginning to understand the power of the collective and fight for better wages and work conditions.

My frustration is not directed toward private-sector unions – but unions in the public-sector, and more specifically teacher unions.  

Teaching, I believe is a profession that requires great skill and passion for one’s success.  Unfortunately, teacher unions have denigrated this great profession into one that believes that all teacher workers are of equal ability and skill.  This is a myth that no one believes, but it permeates throughout education and impedes any meaningful reform.  What it has done though, is create a race toward mediocrity among its members. 

Teachers have told me that we need a union to ”protect” us from an abusive government that would rein in compensation and increase expectations and accountability. To that I say this –  we live in a democracy. If a government is elected to reform education, who are we to stand in the way?

In a democracy citizens are able to shape public public policy – including education.  If we deny parents and others the ability to influence the education system through  the threat of strikes and other actions, then people will choose other alternatives such as private and charter schools.

After over ten years of teaching and early in my career being actively involved in my teachers’ union one thing  has become clear.  That I cannot believe strongly in education and support my teacher’s union. They are a liability toward the cause of public education. They stand in the way of any meaningful improved teacher performance and appraisal.

Through the threat of work stoppage, they continually fill their pockets while needed money is drained from other areas of need within the education system.       

I believe public school teachers realize the role they play in supporting and defending public education. I remain hopeful teachers would rather support a Teacher Association that promotes and protects public education and not just their job.