Category Archives: Planning & Policies

Policies, plans, economic development, strategic planning, sustainability and future-looking ideas for local municipal politics.

Collingwood Turns a Blind Eye to Hydro One Sale

ostrich likeIt would seem that much of Ontario, and many of its stronger municipal councils, are voicing opposition to the province’s ill-advised plan to sell Hydro One to a private, for-profit group, and are writing to the premier to protest.*

The popular sentiment is that selling an essential utility like hydro – that brings the province almost $340 million annually – makes about as much sense as throwing your paycheque out the car window while giving the car keys to a total stranger. It will only make us less competitive and less attractive to business and industry. It will hurt small business and our competitiveness.

Once Hydro One is in private hands, we lose all control over this essential service. We will never be able to recapture it. But the Wynne government is determined to give us long-term pain for a short-term gain, and in the process push us closer to an American-style corporate control of our resources. This is from a government that recently decide what the province needs most right now is more MPPs – more snouts at the trough to waste our tax dollars – instead of more teachers or nurses or someone actually productive.

It’s another example of the (G)Liberals blundering into policy swamps for which they have no maps or guides. While I have never agreed with the inconsistently-cobbled-together Tory energy policy, at least they never threatened to sell a public utility. Clearly the (G)Liberals have ceased pretending they are working for the greater good and are cruising on an agenda we voters and taxpayers were unaware of at the time of the last election.

And where, you ask, is Collingwood Council in this debate – a debate that is crucial to our future? With its head in the sand.

Continue reading

Connection Got It Wrong

Block 9The story in this weekend’s Connection about Block 9 underground parking incorrectly suggests council is doing something right when it was actually trying to do something wrong. But they tried to take credit for doing good when their efforts at malice failed.

I expect mistakes like this from the Enterprise-Bulletin because it doesn’t have anyone on staff with a history that goes back very far (aside, that is, from the generally bad, mistake-prone writing that makes it painful to read…), but not the Connection.

The story notes:

After a short in-camera session, council voted unanimously to allow the developer to build underground parking on property on Huron Street.
Assaff owns block 11 of the former Shipyard lands at the corner of Heritage Drive and Huron Street, and under the master plan for that site, underground parking is allowed.

Let’s leave aside the dubious legality of going behind closed doors over parking for a moment (which the media didn’t question…) and discuss the parking issue.

Continue reading

Block Nine Revisited

Block 9

I went down to the harbour today to take a couple of photographs of the piece of town land known as “Block 9.” I wanted to show my readers just how little a piece it is and what condition it’s in now. The aerial photo above shows the property outlined in orange (the photograph is several years out of date, but the property lines remain the same).

The photograph below shows the land from the northwest corner, looking southeast. Notice the water that has collected because the land lies much lower than surrounding properties and has no drainage (no, it isn’t a swimming hole: it’s a breeding ground for mosquitoes). Also notice the hoarding along the south that extends along Huron Street in front of the private property, but only to the eastern edge of the town property:
Block 9

Here’s a photo looking southwest from the northeast corner. the building on the right is the new Bank of Montreal building. Notice the hoarding on the left does not extend across the border of the town land, so the public can see this dreary piece of untended, public property. Shouldn’t the town be forced to live up to the same property standards the rest of us have to obey?

Block 9

Continue reading

Sit on Your Hands

Sit on your hands and don’t do anything. That’s in essence the advice in the editorial of the Enterprise-Bulletin, June 3. It’s a strongly anti-business message: telling the business community, the municipality, developers, and everyone around us that Collingwood is, once again, closed for business.

Which coincides with the anti-business attitude of several members of the current council, but is hardly good for the community’s economic health.

The editorial concludes:

By all means, let the waterfront plan and the strategic plan pursue their course and hold off any decision’s (sic) on Assaff’s Block 9 ask until after that time…*

Hold off developing a commercial area on private property until when? Until the fabled “strategic plan” is completed? That will be presented to council in late 2015 if we are lucky and all the planets align. The writer offers no rationale for this bizarre suggestion, but readers understand it’s a tugging of the forelock to the Deputy Mayor who spoke openly against the proposal to sell a piece of vacant town land this week, in order to allow a commercial development to go ahead.

By the time this council gets around to reading the strategic plan report, assuming it even arrives this year, the construction season will be long over, pushing any progress into spring 2016 at the earliest. And what if council doesn’t agree with it and send sit back to be rewritten with conclusions that meet council’s preconceived expectations (or administrative staff’s – as with the flawed report on the shared agreement with Collus)?

Continue reading

Good News for the Rec Facilities

Centennial PoolA story in this week’s Collingwood Connection vindicates the decision to build the two new rec facilities last term. According to the story, usage of the two facilities – the new arena at Central Park and the renovated Centennial Pool – is soaring.

Plus as an added benefit, Centennial pool is able to host competitions all year round – and it does. Just drive by it on a swim meet weekend and you’ll see the parking lot full; dozens of families attend, many of them staying here for shopping, food or even overnight. It’s a great economic benefit, not merely recreational. And everyone who uses the pool loves it; swimmers, visitors, seniors who use the therapeutic pool, parents, teachers – they all have positive things to say.

Net operating costs for the two sites totalled $628,000 for 2014. That’s the cost to service thousands of people at both sites over the year. Consider that for many years the town operated the Contact Centre for about 40 members at a cost of $250,000 a year. These sites serve 100 times as many users for about two-and-a-half times the cost. And the Contact Centre couldn’t host events or spectators like the new facilities can.

That net operating amount will continue to be reduced as usage climbs and the town’s revenue increases. And from all indications, that usage will only continue to rise. The number of people signed up for swimming lessons alone is up by 30% over last year.

Plus we now have use of the Eddie Bush arena as a convention, event and trade show venue, which offers not only more revenue but many more spin-off opportunities for local businesses. This coming weekend will see its first use when it hosts a large federal Liberal Party convention.

As expected, the new facilities are very energy-efficient to operate. That was a prime reason for approving them, but it’s good to see that recognized in print. It has proven a wise decision.

Continue reading

Propaganda?

Newsletter frontLast term, when council sent out community newsletters to keep residents informed, the illiterati screamed these were ‘propaganda’ and a waste of tax dollars.* Now this council has done the same thing and these nattering nabobs of negativity have raised their voices and screamed… nothing. Their silence is deafening.

Well, they wouldn’t want to embarrass their friends on council, would they? Even if this council repeats the same practice as those they reviled last term…

Let’s not dwell on the hypocrisy of the sycophants and bloggers, else we will never get further (it would fill pages and pages to recount…). Let’s instead look at the ‘newsletter’ that came in your mailbox recently.

It’s not the same as the newsletters sent last term, you will notice.

The first impression it gives the reader is: dullness. It’s so insipid it makes my teeth hurt. Greyness abounds. It has not a single speck of colour anywhere. Not even in the town’s logo. There are some graphics, but the greyness just reduces them to insignificance. Lettering on the low-contrast grey pictures is almost impossible to read, and the background images are so faint they look like dirty smudges.

Newsletter frontOne may argue that colour costs more to publish, but presentation is everything. After all, this newsletter reflects the town, its staff and council. Surely not even the current council is as drab as this monochrome presentation. It simply sucks the brightness out of the day to unfold it. The additional cost of colour could easily have been paid without affecting taxes had council not voted itself a raise and instead spent your taxes more wisely on communication.

But this piece also reflects on the town’s CAO. After all, the buck stops on his desk.

Last term, the interim CAO read and approved all of our newsletters before they went out because he was keenly aware – as any competent CAO is – how important it is to get both the message and the medium right. I can only assume that, if the current CAO takes his responsibility for communications equally as seriously, that he read and approved this piece. In which case, what does this piece say about his communication skills or his dedication to council and the community?

Since we have it in front of us, let’s dissect the newsletter’s contents, style, spelling and grammar. Channel your inner editor and graphic designer with me for a few minutes.

Continue reading

Illegal or Just Inappropriate Meetings?

StoogesCollingwood’s three standing committees consist solely of three members of council, each.*

These committees of three each hold regular, published monthly meetings, hear public delegations, address public issues, post an agenda, receive staff reports, vote on issues, have recorded minutes, have staff to record them, and make recommendations back to council.

In other words they are treated identically to any regular council meeting.  Their recommendations are read into the council minutes and voted upon.

Yet none of these committees has a quorum (majority) of council on it.

When one person is absent, as has happened several times since they were struck, the committee consists of a mere two members of council. Three – and sometimes two – members of council can make recommendations about policy, events or issues on behalf of the town that may be approved by council.

Is this democratic? Open? Accountable? Clearly not, if two people can decide issues for the whole town.

More to the point, is it legal?

As I understand it, according to Section 237 of the Municipal Act, to be legal, a meeting requires a quorum of council: in this case, a minimum of five members, and councils cannot alter that requirement (emphasis added):

237 (2) The council of a municipality referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of subsection (1) may reduce its quorum requirement but may not reduce it to less than a majority of its members. 2001, c. 25, s. 237 (2).

According to a paper published by George H. Rust-D’Eye for the Ontario Municipal Administrators’ Association, November 20, 2014 (emphasis added):

Councillors are legislative decision-makers of the municipality, and, with the exception of the head, who is the chief executive officer, they have no individual executive or ministerial duties. Moreover, they have no authority to act for the corporation except in conjunction with other members constituting a quorum. As legislators, they fulfil a role similar to members of Parliament or the Provincial Legislature.

In a report to the City of London, the Ombudsman noted that,

…having a quorum means a sufficient number of members (a majority in this case) are present to legally transact business.

The corollary seems to me that not having a quorum means the committee cannot legally conduct business relating to the town. Yet each one does.

As I read the various reports and laws, an official meeting requires a quorum. Without it, it is not a legal meeting. But even if it is – what is open and transparent about two or three out of nine deciding what policies or recommendations to make to council?

Continue reading

Signs – of the Apocalypse?

signCouncillor Cam Ecclestone made a comment at council earlier this month that he had been contacted by several residents concerned about the new sign on the Rexall Drug store on Huron Street, its size and colours. Coun. Doherty chimed in about it with similar comments.

Aside from the question why anyone would contact a member of council whose sluggish performance at the table would win an award for best impersonation of a somnambulist, one has to wonder who these residents are who are so concerned about a rather ordinary corporate/franchise sign.

Well, I mean aside from the handful of petty ideologues who want to blame all the evils under the sun on the developer, that is. He, of course, has nothing to do with the corporate signage of a tenant in one of his buildings.

But that’s logic, and these folks are not concerned with logic. They hate everything he does and has ever done, and will ever do, so why not blame him? Didn’t he give us that bad winter, after all? Isn’t he responsible for all those frozen pipes? So why stop hating him now?

No matter to them that the building is in neither the heritage district nor the BIA, so does not have to comply with any sign restrictions therein. Nor that the building actually passed a heritage impact assessment that said it was just fine, signs and all. Nor that the sign went through all necessary and stringent site plan agreements and was approved by town staff as conforming with our own bylaws.*

(And these approvals are entirely out of council’s hands, past and present, so councillors questioning them are in fact questioning staff’s integrity….)

No matter that the building and its tenants are located downtown, rather than outside the core where they might have been, and they will help bring more people to the area, and they and their clients will likely use local services and businesses.**

Continue reading