Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 09 February 2015

This Thursday (12 February) Glenway residents will be gathering at Crosslands Community Church, 47 Millard Ave West, at 7pm to hear more about the planned transformation of their neighbourhood.

In an effort to be helpful, Newmarket’s Committee of the Whole last week (2 February) directed staff:

“to prepare a document for the residents of Glenway outlining frequently asked questions related to the Marianneville applications and other development in Ward 7, and (details of) upcoming public meetings to be provided at the February12, 2015 Glenway Preservation Association meeting and subsequently distributed by mail to residents of Ward 7.”

I have a raft of questions, mostly relating to who knew what and when. But here are a few for starters:

The pre OMB Hearing phase (before March 2014)

(1) On what date did the Mayor learn that the Glenway lands were for sale and by what means did he get this information?

(2) Did the Director of Planning recommend purchase of the lands in 2010 or before and if not, why not?

(3) Did (a) the Mayor or (b) the Town consider buying the Glenway lands in 2010 or subsequently?

(4) Was there any oversight of Ruth Victor as she developed policy on Glenway and, if so, what form did it take?

(5) On what date did (a) the Mayor and (b) the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, learn that Ruth Victor was minded to recommend allowing development on the Glenway lands?

(6) When were the Regional Councillor and Newmarket councillors informed that Ruth Victor would recommend allowing development?

(Why is this relevant?  Ruth Victor was appointed as external planning consultant on the Glenway file way back in 2011. Did the Mayor simply let her get on with it – in effect, ceding control of policy making to Victor? Was the Mayor a spectator or did he have a position on whether the golf course should be developed? Former councillor Maddie Di Muccio noted in her blog of 19 October 2011 there was no oversight and if the consultant recommended approval of the development the Town’s position would be undermined by its own expert witness. This is, of course, precisely what happened.)

 (7) Did the Director of Planning ever consider that the September 2013 Transportation Study (prepared for the Town by external consultants GHD) might be relevant to the March 2014 OMB Hearing?

(Why is this relevant? The Study went through a series of revisions and was not published until April - after the OMB Hearing had concluded. The Study made specific reference to the possible relocation of the GO Bus Terminal but that relocation was not the “current vision” of Metrolinx.)

(8) What instructions did our councillors give to the Town’s legal counsel and lead negotiator, Mary Bull, on the terms on which she could settle with Marianneville? Was she given a completely free hand? What conditions, if any, were attached?

The OMB Hearing (March 2014)

(9) For what reasons the Director of Planning and his senior staff did not attend the OMB Glenway Hearing?

(10) Were they advised to stay away and, if so, when, by whom and for what reasons?

(11) Did the Director of Planning receive report-backs, daily or otherwise, on what had been considered at the OMB Hearing and from whom?

(12) On how many occasions did the Director of Planning brief Mary Bull prior to or during the OMB Hearing on matters that had arisen or were likely to arise?

(13) Did the Director of Planning brief Mary Bull on the possibility of co-locating the bus terminal and GO train station and, if so, on what date?

(14) How many meetings did the Director of Planning have with Mary Bull to brief her on the Secondary Plan and on which dates did these take place?

(15) What directions did the Council give to Mary Bull giving her authority to negotiate and settle with Marianneville?

(The agreed settlement gives Marianneville 742 residential units – up from 730. On 22 April 2014 Mary Bull told councillors that the discussions she had with Marianneville must remain private. If the details were revealed it would run counter to public policy considerations where the objective is to facilitate a settlement. She also says that the negotiators reached a settlement following directions set by Council. So, can we see those directions? Marianneville’s settlement offer, as their lawyer, Ira Kagan, reminded us on numerous occasions, was made public.)

(16) Did the Director of Planning share the views of Ruth Victor on the development of Glenway?

(This was asserted by Marianneville’s Ira Kagan in his concluding remarks but could not be tested as no planner employed by the Town sat through the OMB Hearing.)

Post OMB Hearing (after March 2014)

(17) For what reasons is the area of the Anchor Mobility Hub at Young and Davis not shown on the Schedules to the Secondary Plan, as requested by Metrolinx?

(18) On what date did the Director of Planning form the view that the two Mobility Hub studies would consider, as part of their remit, the possible co-location of the GO Bus Terminal and GO Rail Station?

(19) When is the Upper Canada Mall Master Plan scheduled for completion?

(Why is this relevant? The Secondary Plan was amended in June 2014 to allow for the possible integration of transit on the site.)

Freedom of Information Request

(20) Will the Town make available, as part of the lessons learned process, the documents listed below – if necessary in a redacted form?

(My Freedom of Information request to the Town for the documents listed below was refused on 8 October 2014.)

(1) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Ruth Victor, Ruth Victor Associates, regarding Application for Official Plan Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval, Marianneville Developments Limited (Glenway)

(2) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Mary Bull and Johanna Shapira, Wood Bull LLP regarding Marianneville Developments - Phase 2

(3) the confidential memorandum dated 4 April 2014 from the Assistant Director of Planning regarding Marianneville Developments Limited

(4) the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) on 7 April 2014.

Role of Staff

On 29 September 2014, Regional Councillor John Taylor helpfully explained the process of putting previously confidential information into the public domain.

“…in-camera discussions go through a process and most of them eventually, if not all of them, eventually, come out of camera. You go through a process that takes time and staff review it and they report back to us how to bring it out in its entirety or partially and at what stage.”

Given that the role of staff is also part of “lessons learned” how can the public be assured that information is not held back simply to protect staff from embarrassment or criticism?

contact email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 04 February 2015

The Town has today officially released information showing how much was spent hiring:

(a)   an external planning consultant (Ruth Victor) who concluded there was no reason why development should not occur on the former gold course lands. Ruth Victor cost $129, 000 in fees up until 25 November 2013 when the Town decided, at the eleventh hour, to back Glenway residents at the OMB. 

(b)  a legal team (Mary Bull and Johanna Shapira) to put the Town’s case to the OMB. The performance of the external lawyers was woefully inadequate. Embarrassingly so.  I blogged at the time – only half in jest – that I could have made a better fist of it. Their fees came in at $489,841.

(c)  The Town’s external planning consultant (Eric Chandler). On 28 March 2014, I wrote: “The Town relied on Eric Chandler, a retired Chief Planner at New Tecumseth who, despite his genial manner and wide experience, could not answer for decisions made by the Town’s planning department. There was no-one from the Town Planning Department sitting in, addressing issues there and then, as they arose.” Mr Chandler, in his role as witness at the OMB Hearing, cost $50,091.

(d) The external planning consultant (plan review) cost $31,337.

(e) OMB Hearing meeting space and sundry items such as reimbursement for planning assitance to locate and secure independent planner cost $17,022.

Excluded from the above are the Town’s internal costs (principally planning and legal) which are assumed to be unquantifiable.

These figures provide the backdrop to the forthcoming Glenway lessons learned meeting.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 03 February 2015

Back Story: The grasping and calculating developer, Marianneville, wants to build 74 Town houses on the site of the former club-house. This is the first in a long series of  applications which will change this quiet residential neighbourhood out of all recognition. They are turning their attention to the adjacent Glenway West lands which will, if they have their way, be developed too.

It is Monday 2 February and the Council Chamber is an oasis of calm as councillors decide how best to handle the continuing hot potato that is Glenway. The atmosphere is very different from the histrionics that marked the last Council term.

We are listening to Christina Bisanz, the recently elected councillor for Ward 7 and former chair of the Glenway Preservation Association (GPA). In a measured and matter-of-fact way, she tells councillors what she expects of them. The Glenway Preservation Association’s briefing meeting to update residents is on 12 February and the community will be looking for specific answers to specific questions.

People want specific details

She lays her cards on the table. She wants to know about any previous discussions the council may have had about buying the Glenway lands. People have concerns about compatibility between what is proposed and what is already there. They want to know about the Glenway West lands. The Committee report that councillors have in front of them is, she says, good so far as it goes but people will be expecting more specific details.

The Mayor, always most comfortable when strapped into a procedural straightjacket, suggests the GPA could send a deputation to appear before the Committee of the Whole as part of the lessons learned exercise. (I don’t think so.)

Regional Councillor John Taylor has his own ideas. He is worried about the number of meetings being proposed and the potential for confusion. He loves process issues and is in his element. He wants a letter to go out to residents setting out the schedule giving people the opportunity to go to the meetings on topics they are interested in.

Facilitated discussion

Taylor also wants to discuss with the community the future of the Glenway West lands. He also wonders aloud about the best format for the “lessons learned” meeting. And he wants a date for it to give people as much notice as possible. He suggests it should be separate from the Committee of the Whole. Maybe a broader facilitated public meeting where residents have an opportunity to participate.

Christina Bisanz, without missing a beat, says it is important to have a facilitated discussion. Clearly, this is crucial to avoid people skilfully avoiding questions and, generally, wasting time by ski-ing off-piste.

The Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton cautions against asking for too much detail on 12 February. There will inevitably be gaps in the material going to the GPA meeting. The lessons learned meeting will be “more fulsome”.

“My one concern is that the meeting that is scheduled for next week would not have enough complete information. So I could see that as being more administrative but with a bit of an overview. But the “lessons learned” meeting would be one that could be more fulsome…”

Advance notice of questions 

He says it would be useful to know the kind of questions people are posing and these can be addressed in the lessons learned meeting. This is an invitation too good to miss. I am already sharpening my pencil.

Shelton continues:

“Perhaps the GPA meeting could focus on what questions do they want answered in that upcoming format so that we have a clear understanding. And that would be in a more controlled environment, if I can use that word, in terms of whether it is in the Chambers or live streamed for those who cannot attend. But we would have advance (notice of the) questions the GPA are looking to be answered and one I heard referenced is one on property considerations. If we know what these questions are there may be the need to have a closed session with council to look at what has happened chronologically in terms of property issues and get Council direction in terms of where we go from here in that regard.”

Ward 5 councillor, Joe Sponga, supports Christina Bisanz. He is concerned about infill in established neighbourhoods. Would the experience of Glenway have lessons for other infill areas? The Mayor says a lot of work has been done already on infill policy but Glenway is different in scale. He is saying there is no read-across.

Clearly, the Mayor sees Glenway providing ammunition for his treatise on OMB reform. But, inconveniently for His Worship, it wasn’t just the OMB that screwed up. The OMB delivered a decision. It did not get to the truth.

We should all learn the lessons of Glenway says Bob Shelton

Now it’s Bob Shelton again, tip-toeing through the tulips on the “lessons learned” process.

“I am just going to deal with the point that the councillor (Joe Sponga) indicated relative to applying any lessons learned to other developments etc. That is the approach that is used in a continuous improvement environment and so, if there are any lessons that can be learned, and learned by all parties involved in the process, those lessons can be applied to other developments so I think it would be premature until the lessons learned exercise takes place to determine what the lessons are and how they should be applied and where they should be applied. So I suggest that should be a follow-up to a lessons learned exercise.”

The GPA’s Dave Sovran and Brian Gard are seated in the front row of the public gallery and, unexpectedly, after a request by Taylor, they are invited to speak. Brian Gard steps forward with some refreshingly blunt unscripted remarks. His frustration with the whole Glenway debacle is palpable.

Panel Discussion

He says it is not just about timeliness or about process.

“We’d like to discuss everything. Even the $1,000,000.”

Glenway is - and always has been - a Town-wide issue. He wants staff and councillors to be part of a panel discussion, taking questions at next week’s GPA meeting.

Shelton can’t let the reference to Glenway costing the Town $1,000,000 pass without comment. We learn a report is being finalised and should be ready shortly. He says less than $600,000 is related to the “OMB component” of the Glenway costs.

This doesn’t satisfy Dave "I'm ten years older than the Mayor" Kerwin who has a bee in his bonnet about Glenway. He wants to show how the whole episode cost the Town an arm and a leg. He demands that Newmarket staff time is factored in.

Ever the showman, he says this for dramatic effect. He has been on the council since the dawn of time and knows, as much as I do, that planning staff (unfortunately) do not use time sheets, logging the amount of time spent on individual development applications.

Now Kerwin is chirruping on about his lovely home being open to members of the public who want to discuss things. Or they could meet him at the Newmarket Public Library from 9.30am til noon on Saturday. We hear people are dropping in to see him from all over Town. “They are becoming quite popular” he says, modestly.

Road Map

Now Taylor clambers back into the driving seat again.  He wants his letter to be prepared by staff showing milestones… 

“A road map of where we are going.”

This will be useful for those residents of Glenway who have already been to hell and back.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 28 January 2015

To the Newmarket Public Library for their latest IdeaMarket presentation, designed to get people thinking – and re-evaluating their own views.

A panel of five women who work with the victims of sexual assault describe the trauma of it all and how the women affected cope with the ordeal. They go on to tell us, in their own way, what needs to change.

I am here to listen and learn.

With former CBC celebrity, Jian Ghomeshi, up in Court again on 4 February, we launch into a discussion about "consent" and what it means. I learn there is outreach work done in Newmarket High Schools, getting young people to think about consent and how it manifests itself. One woman from the audience says nothing less than “enthusiastic consent” will do. I nod my head in agreement – but immediately realise that even that isn’t enough.

On her own admission, the White House intern, Monica Lewinsky had an enthusiastically consensual relationship with Bill Clinton but it was - no question about it - wholly inappropriate.

This is all difficult territory that has to be navigated with great care.

Rotherham, UK

Now I am listening to a panellist making a glancing reference to the Rotherham sexual abuse case where police apparently believed the abused teenage girls were little better than “sluts”. It was truly shocking. But the comment is not set in context.

The police were culpable but so were many others. A string of high profile cases in Rochdale, Derby, Oxford and elsewhere, linked teenage girls from broken homes with British Pakistani men who preyed on them. People were paralysed by fear they would be branded as racist if they drew attention to that fact. Now it is out in the open and much discussed.

Now we are talking about conviction rates and how too many of the supposedly guilty walk free. I hear one panellist complain that convicting on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” is perhaps too onerous and, maybe, the “balance of probabilities” would be better. Hmmm.

Convicting someone on, say, a 51%-49% probability is not my idea of justice but I am too polite to say so. I bite my tongue. We are all very respectful of each other’s opinions.

Sexual Assault and politicians

Now a woman in the audience reminds us of the alleged sexual assaults on two female NDP MPs that dominated the headlines last November. They allege they were sexually assaulted by two Liberal MPs, Massimo Pacetti and Scott Andrews, who both say they did nothing wrong. Justin Trudeau, kicked them out of the Liberal caucus and banned them from running as Liberal candidates in the forthcoming election – unless they are exonerated by an independent investigation, the prospect of which seems to have evaporated. More details are out there in the blogosphere.

The NDP MPs could, of course, report the alleged assaults to the police but they choose not to. And without a formal complaint, the police are powerless to act.

One of the panellists – a police officer from York Region – tells us that any complaint of sexual assault is dealt with sensitively and the anonymity of the complainant is protected.

But that’s true only for so long. If the police decide to prosecute then, clearly, it is all going to come out in Court.

The two NDP MPs don’t want to go down that route.

But if they don’t, the reputations of the two Liberal MPs, already put through the mangle, are destroyed forever.

Discuss.

Update on 3 February 2015: Joan Bryden writes: MPs having difficulty creating legal terms of new harassment policy. Sub- committee's work going nowhere fast as it tries to regulate behaviour.

Update on 5 February 2015: UK Government intervenes in child sexual exploitation scandal in Rotherham.

see also Joint Committee on Human Rights (UK Parliament) Violence against women and girls.

Update on 20 March 2015: Justin Trudeau: "I consider the matter closed."