Laurie Watt on Municipal Affairs

Talking trash

There’s no issue that’s dirtier, smellier and more inconvenient than garbage – as everyone in Toronto can attest to as it piles up in their parks.

It’s an essential municipal service, one of the key responsibilities municipalities have, along with safe drinking water and sewage treatment. It’s part of the triumvirate of the basic services essential for living together.

And the trouble is there’s no good place for garbage. No one wants it near them. No one wants it burned – for example, incinerated – near their home. No one wants it hauled past their home en route to a faraway dump, with the costs, fuel fumes and disturbance that massive truckloads of trash cause.
So, after more than 20 years, the question remains what to do with North Simcoe’s trash?

There is no easy answer, unfortunately.

Simcoe County has examined the costs of incinerating and hauling garbage out of the area; they are much more than developing a landfill site and these costs blend both financial and environmental.
And despite our best efforts to divert through recycling and composting, there are some items that are destined for landfill. Until we can get manufacturers to take responsibility for packaging – we will fill our garbage cans with stuff that will likely be buried. A prime example is the packaging on a toy truck. The array of refuse includes screws, hard plastic tags that allow the car to be attached to a boxboard frame – that’s put inside a larger box, with a plastic window to showcase the item. Around some, but not all, is a layer of shrink wrap.

Getting to the toy takes as much determination and persistence as fighting – or building – Site 41in Tiny Township. Successive municipal administrations have been looking for a spot for North Simcoe’s waste for more than 20 years.

For the county, gaining access to the site has been fraught with frustration, as have opponents’ requests for information. The latest development is that the Community Monitoring Committee has been denied a groundwater model because it is deemed proprietary information by the county’s consultants.

If someone hires and pays a firm to do a model, isn’t that information theirs?
The refusal to release the information does nothing to reduce concerns about groundwater, but in fact increases suspicions and concerns about the site.

Part of the answer is in coming clean – opening up discussion, while putting a temporary moratorium on construction. We have learned a lot about groundwater and source water protection in the past 20 years. We also value the finite resource.

The keys would be honesty and openness, rather than attempts to bury inconvenient facts, which will inevitably leach out into our minds as time passes and poison us all as we try to care for our environment and live together peacefully.

Campaigning may distract council next year

In the lazy, (hopefully) hazy days of summer, the last topic on the minds of many is who will be running for mayor – especially since the election isn’t until November 2010.
But that’s not the case in some circles.

The topic of who will run for mayor is hotter than many of the days we’ve had this month.
Perhaps it’s because politicos haven’t adjusted to the four-year term; introduced in December 2006, the four-year term is designed to give municipal councils time to implement their priorities before being distracted by campaigning and eventually being made lame ducks.

But there has been chatter for months about who will run for mayor.
Late last summer Coun. Lynn Strachan told me over lunch she was interested. Former Mayor Rob Hamilton came out in the early spring and said he’d make another run at the mayor’s chair.
And this week, the ‘silly season’ seemed to heat up.

Perhaps it’s due to the troubles in the provincial Progressive Conservative riding association (two members were recently charged with gang sexual assault) that two councillors – Rod Jackson and Andrew Prince – are eyeing the party’s 2011 nomination. At least we know they’ll be back running for council to keep up their profiles – and won’t be taking a run at the mayor’s chair.

So who else wants to be mayor?
Mayor Dave Aspden literally has money in the bank for a campaign; he didn’t spend all he raised in the 2006 election – and he has the better part of $20,000 with which to purchase signs and pamphlets, etc. He could point to this council’s track record of having lower tax increases than the previous two mayors’ terms, smile and ask for votes.

Ward 1 Coun. Mike Ramsay has run for the mayor’s chair before. Had he jumped in to the mayoralty race in 2006, he very likely would have won. But things don’t appear so certain for 2010 – at least with the field growing more crowded. But the Central Collegiate history teacher did well in his ward and he has been building linkages, particularly with history aficionados.

Ward 2 Coun. Jeff Lehman has higher aspirations than councillor. Even in the last municipal election, there was chatter that Lehman would be a great mayor in 2010. Lehman is ambitious and he is building linkages among community groups and organizations; he also has strong Liberal Party ties that would undoubtedly help him if he jumps from the mayor’s chair into another level of politics.

Another possible contender is Ward 7 Coun. John Brassard. Brassard, however, won’t likely get involved in a campaign he feels would be mere muckraking. He prefers to talk vision and would probably opt to stay on council, in hopes of elevating the discussion and to build support for a 2014 bid.

That leaves only a few councillors who may be committed to doing the job of councillor for the next year which really is quite sad. More than ever, city council needs bright, visionary and committed people.

Perhaps we’d have been better off with a three-year-term after all. Let’s just hope when councillors return in August, they are focused on accomplishing things rather than on playing political games.

Where was city’s advocate during premier’s visit?

It’s not often the premier comes to town.
And on a quiet Tuesday, he ventured to the city to give Georgian College more cash.

Business leaders were there; Arch Brown, a pillar of the community, sat in the front row. Georgian College president Brian Tamblyn made a speech; RVH CEO Janice Skot looked on as nursing students greeted the premier in the nursing-simulation lab. Even Simcoe County (which supports the hospital and the college) was there, in the person of Oro-Medonte Mayor Harry Hughes.

Not surprisingly, Barrie Mayor Dave Aspden wasn’t there.
Aspden has an incredible ability to be away when provincial officials are in town. Admittedly, there was just a day’s notice of Dalton McGuinty’s visit.

But in a community that’s designated as the region’s urban growth centre, in a community that needs provincial investment (yes, cash!) for roads, schools, hospitals, parks, so that it can be a complete community, you’d think the mayor would delay an out-trip or venture back to smile and thank the province for its cash.

But no, not Aspden.
Aspden has really never understood the job of mayor. A key part of the role is to serve as the city’s advocate.

We can go back to March 2007 when Aspden skipped a Large Urban Municipalities of Ontario (LUMCO) meeting, at which mayors would be discussing a strategy to get more cash from the federal and provincial governments. Since then, the lobby group has been pretty successful, with changes to the gas-tax and new infrastructure funding.

The upper levels of government seem to be realizing the local level – although it gets only eight cents of every tax dollar – delivers a lot of services. There’s a lot of value, in more ways than one: monetary and quality of life. Quality of life, too, has an economic role to play, as communities around the globe compete for investment and top entrepreneurial and creative talent.

The mayor routinely misses meetings; in fact, it’s so routine, it’s hardly a topic of conversation any more. No one keeps track.

Barrie has received a lot of cash from the upper levels – and Aspden cannot take any credit for it.
Neither can he take credit for being an effective ambassador for the city.

Almost three years into his term as mayor, he should know better.

A tale of two mayors

The mayor got angry, called a recess and, behind closed doors, used profanity as he vented his anger at a councillor who tried to boot him from a boundary negotiating committee. He emerged red-faced, wrath continuing to spill out in unspoken words and body language.

Where did this happen?

It happened in Innisfil last week.
Perhaps it shows the two communities are more alike than either would care to admit.
Innisifil has always prided itself on being a smaller town, more community-minded.
But last Wednesday’s outburst in Innisfil is eerily familiar in Barrie. In April 2007, councillors called in the OPP to investigate Barrie Mayor Dave Aspden’s judgment during boundary discussions after news leaked that he travelled to China with a developer who has major interests in Innisfil. He was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.
The story continues …

Police were called in; they are investigating. No one can issue a statement, now that the investigation is underway.

Again, this sounds eerily familiar to another Aspden 2007 incident, when the Barrie mayor refused to answer councillors’ questions related to his intervening in a police administrative matter – thereby breaking the Police Services Act’s code of conduct.
Barrie Police couldn’t investigate. City council joined in the call for the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) to investigate.

Once OCCPS began its investigation, protocol required the mayor be suspended from his police board duties.

Now, in Innisfil, with Jackson serving on the board of the South Simcoe Police, it appears he broke the code of conduct – which holds him to a higher standard of behaviour. Police have yet to determine whether Jackson could be facing charges of assault.

Alas! This gets even more surreal. Just a few weeks ago, a member of the Barrie Police Services Board was charged with assault and OCCPS was called; Don MacNeil is still technically on the board.

In the Wild West of politics and development, in the neighbouring communities of Barrie and Innisfil, politicians struggle not only to get along with their neighbours, but their own councils.

How will it end?  Perhaps a higher authority – the province – should step in and restore order. Or perhaps next year, voters will realize they got the government they deserved in 2006 – and they should resolve to get involved in the November 2010 elections. That’s when the curtain will finally fall on this act.

Same old Friday funding announcement

Sometimes the news week falls into a routine.
The trouble is, when things become routine, they are more than likely to be overlooked, not valued or appreciated, and possibly, the subject of jokes.

“How can you tell tomorrow is Friday?”
“Aileen Carroll is announcing money.”
We don’t know how much, what for or when – just that there’s an announcement tomorrow and more info will come.

So it was no surprise that when the media advisory, scanty on details appeared, it didn’t get the attention it deserved.

Just like the boy who cried “wolf”, we didn’t pay attention, perhaps when we should have.
The Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board got $25.4 million in funding for school expansion as the week was winding down; it’s just too bad it was portrayed so routinely.

Sometimes you just have to be honest and upfront – it’s just that takes the steam out of the announcement.

Crying wolf, crying cash

Sometimes the news week falls into a routine.

The trouble is, when things become routine, they are more than likely to be overlooked, not valued or appreciated, and possibly, the subject of jokes.

“How can you tell tomorrow is Friday?”

“Aileen Carroll is announcing money.”

We don’t know how much, what for or when – just that there’s an announcement tomorrow and more info will come.

So it was no surprise that when the media advisory, scanty on details appeared, it didn’t get the attention it deserved.

Just like the boy who cried “wolf”, we didn’t pay attention, perhaps when we should have.

The Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board got $25.4 million in funding for school expansion as the week was winding down; it’s just too bad it was portrayed so routinely.

Sometimes you just have to be honest and upfront, even if it takes the steam out of the announcement.

Boundary legislation is just the beginning

The long-awaited day finally arrived Thursday: it had been expected for months Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson would intervene, with legislation, to solve the ongoing Barrie-Innisfil boundary dispute.

The acts had to play out and the stage was set when Innisfil walked out of provincially-facilitated negotiations in February 2008.

The province had given some hints as to what it would do. MMAH regional director Larry Clay had forewarned Simcoe County the province had concerns with the county’s growth plan, and the province reserved the right to distribute 40,000 “unallocated” people.

Barrie, Innisfil and the county all criticized the province for not releasing the numbers when the schedules for Places to Grow were released a few years ago. But, at the time, Barrie and Innisfil were in provincially-assisted talks; the province, likely and rightly, wanted to give local politicians the opportunity to work it out.

That was not to be.
So the county tried to distribute the numbers. The province raised concerns with those numbers too. It went so far as to lodge a challenge to Innisfil’s official plan at the Ontario Municipal Board (a hearing that has yet to occur).

So really, there should have been few surprised people Thursday.
There should be a lot of relieved people that the antics are hopefully over and we can get on with implementing Ontario’s Places to Grow in our region.

Discussions are not over; in fact, public discussions, as opposed to private political talks, are about to begin.
The legislation is not yet passed.

There will be talks and studies related to the province’s strategic vision for the county, including one on transportation. Getting just a page of mention in the province’s 36-page vision statement, however, is incredibly significant: moving people, attracting and creating jobs, protecting the environment are all important tenets of Places to Grow and transportation is a key implementation strategy. The province could learn from the county, and should perhaps read the county’s transportation study completed last year.

There will not only be local talks, but provincial hearings as part of the legislative process.
The provincial solution is really the starting point, not the end, in creating a better community for our children, no matter where in Simcoe County we reside.

Watson needs to intervene

In politics, a few words can mean a lot, mostly to the person who says them.
In reality, however, those words can be virtually irrelevant.

This truth became very clear this week after I interviewed Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson following Question Period Thursday. I quoted him about his intention to intervene; for the first time, he said “It will be up to the province to come up with a solution if we can’t find one locally. And I am prepared to move on that sooner rather than later.”

I missed the “if we can’t find one locally.”
And thanks to Watson’s press secretary’s tape, the few words were found.

These few words would matter to the politicos who dance and play their parts in the theatrical drama on the political stage.

But the reality is few, if any, are holding out hope for a local solution. But as the Good Book says, “three things remain: faith, hope and love.” (Oh dear, perhaps I should check the quote.)
Perhaps Simcoe County Warden Tony Guergis would be; he wants Watson to tell Barrie to work with the county. Guergis envisions a regional government to which Barrie would report on planning issues. He said this in a press briefing at Queen’s Park Thursday afternoon.

But we know Watson’s not holding out much hope on that. In Question Period, he recounted the series of fruitless meetings held in February and March, in which ministry staff met privately with Barrie, Innisfil and Simcoe County – and then will all three.

Then, of course, there were the extensive talks led by provincial development facilitator Alan Wells which failed in February 2008.

And, of course, there’s the series of studies that go back to 2002, including one in which Barrie invited its neighbours to talk about growth, followed by the Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP), which recommended focusing growth in the region in “Barrie and area.”

Then there was the county process throughout 2007 and 2008, which ultimately led to plans to scatter growth mostly between Innisfil, Bradford West Gwillimbury, New Tecumseth and Wasaga Beach. The province has raised serious concerns with that plan and is challenging Innisfil’s official plan (which implements the growth for the town) at the Ontario Municipal Board.

So, in reality, there truly is little hope for a local solution.
Watson needs to intervene sooner rather than later.

The reality is there are deadlines; any municipal ward changes must be made by Dec. 31, so that on Jan. 1, which technically is Nomination Day, candidates can register to run in the November 2010 municipal election.

And to be fair, if boundaries change, ward boundaries will change, and the residents should have some say in the shape of those and what their municipal council will look like.
No politician would surrender and give up territory; this will take a provincial ruling.

And as for Innisfil’s Fair Growth campaign, what better way for incumbent councillors to raise their profiles and increase their name recognition, with taxpayers footing the bill?

Watson needs to step in and solve this issue – to not only add some teeth to his government’s Places to Grow policy, but to reduce uncertainty to encourage business and to stop the campaign that Innisfil taxpayers are paying for, which are doing more for the profiles of incumbent councillors than building community.

Fact and fiction regarding Barrie’s growth

The voice on the radio is so authoritative and blunt:  “What are the politicians of Barrie up to? Did you know they want to double their population...”
“And take thousands of acres from Innisfil to do it?”

Not only are we talking misinformation. We’re talking Lies.
That, however, is the start of the claims Innisfil is making to get people involved in its “fair growth” campaign, designed by a Toronto public-relations firm and featuring radio ads, mobile signs, a petition, website and a Queen’s Park demonstration next Thursday, May 28.

Having covered Barrie City Hall since 2001, I have seen first-hand how Barrie has been planning and changing the way it grows. Having covered Simcoe County since 2006 – beginning with the Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) report on growth that included the province, the county, Barrie and its neighbours – I understand the environmental rationale for Barrie growing south.

And as I’m out there fielding questions, I saw the need to take some fairgrowth.ca claims and questions to Barrie officials. Barrie’s boundary working group chairperson Coun. Jeff Lehman provides us with answers.

1. Barrie wants to double its population.
Untrue.
Ontario’s Places to Grow planning policy sets Barrie’s population, within its current boundary, at 180,000 by 2031. The province also set aside 40,000 “unallocated” -- which was to be distributed through the facilitated talks with provincial development facilitator Alan Wells. Barrie’s target is 220,000 – which also happens to be its current sewage treatment capacity. (Barrie’s population is now 135,000).

2. Barrie wants to take thousands of acres from Innisfil; specifically 6,427 acres and $7 billion in assessment.
Untrue.
Most of the land under discussion is part of the previously negotiated “moratorium” lands set aside in agreements in the 1980s; these lands cannot be developed until an agreement is reached.
“We have no idea where the $7 billion number comes from,” said Lehman.

3. Barrie wants the racetrack and the money it will bring in.
Untrue.
“All negotiations and studies in the past have indicated that should the boundary need to expand to include the raceway, an agreement would be reached regarding revenue from the raceway continuing to go to Innisfil,” said Lehman. Innisfil does depend on the revenue from the racetrack; it amounts to about one quarter of Innisfil’s operating budget.

4. Barrie hasn’t made good use of lands it annexed before. Why would this time be any different?
This one is a good one – I’ve seen first-hand how the city has sent plans back to developers and told them to build more intensively: two examples are townhouse developments, one at Harvie/Essa/Ferndale, the other not far from the GO station on Mapleview East.
In 2005, Ontario passed Places to Grow, a legislation that requires municipalities grow smarter and more compactly. As part of this plan, Ontario has designated Barrie as an Urban Growth Centre, which requires higher densities and more jobs.
“Barrie wants slower growth. Our plan is for suburban growth to occur at a much slower pace than it has in recent years,” said Lehman, adding the city has a plan to intensify downtown and along major arterial roads.

5. If Barrie annexes my area, the lands will be turned into subdivisions.
Untrue.
“Barrie is growing smarter already ... We are going to grow slower on the edges and more inside our urban area.” How a land is zoned is determined through a public process that includes zoning, secondary plans and neighbourhood plans.

6. Judging by all the construction, Barrie can’t take care of what it already has. Why should it get more land?
Barrie has an aggressive $220-million infrastructure renewal program to repair roads and pipes. It creates 1,100 construction jobs and another 1,100 indirectly.

7. Barrie snubbed its nose at working with Simcoe County.
Untrue.
“Barrie is not in the county and has no vote at the table. It did, however, act as an observer, the only role it could have. Barrie co-operated fully by providing information requested throughout the study.”

8. Why, all of a sudden, is Barrie trying to steal land from Innisfil?
“Innisfil walked away from local negotiations. Barrie has been actively trying to reach a local solution with Innisfil to address this important issue since 2002. For the past two years, Barrie participated fully in facilitated talks between Innisfil, the county and Barrie. Innisfil walked away from the table rejecting the facilitated solution. In the past two months, Barrie attempted again to reach a local solution with Innisfil and Simcoe County. The demands of Innisfil cannot be satisfied by Barrie. Innisfil is demanding a change in provincial direction and policy.” (for more detail, see Question 4.)

9. Why can’t Barrie grow in another direction?
The Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) – a joint study by Ontario, Simcoe County, Innisfil and Barrie – concluded Barrie should expand to the south. Lake Simcoe and its tributaries can handle growth better than the Nottawasaga River valley that’s already stressed by settlements.

10. How will Innisfil residents be affected by a boundary change?
Directing growth and intenstification to the urban growth centre will allow Innisfil residents to continue to enjoy the rural lifestyle they chose.

Heritage and history emanate through communities; Barrie should try to appreciate that

As Lt.-Gov. David Onley joined in honouring Ontario’s first lieutenant-governor John Graves Simcoe by joining the county and sculptor Marlene Hilton-Moore in unveiling Simcoe’s bronze, a piece of Barrie history began to shatter.

It’s terribly ironic that as that occurred, an 1884 building that was most recently Steele’s China Shop was hit by a demolition crane. It punctured holes in its roof and in its rear wall.
Barrie tried to stop it, as the city clerk and CAO ran along Collier Street to the site with a copy of city council’s intent to designate in hand.

When I finished journalism school in 1986 and settled in at my first job at a Midland newspaper, I quickly learned the area I’d chosen as my new home was an historic one, filled with stories and events that shaped not only our nation but our sense of self as Canadians. Everywhere I looked, I saw history – Sainte-Marie among the Hurons, the Martyrs’ Shrine, Georgian Bay and the landscape that inspired the Group of Seven.

In Barrie, however, the historic landscape is that much more barren. The opera house is gone, as is the old post office and Barrie train station. Old city hall is remembered only with an arch. The old fire hall is a parking lot and parkette. On one old hotel site there’s a chip wagon; on another, a reflecting pond that doubles as an ice rink in the winter. Barrie’s record in preserving and honouring its history is poor.
Not that I was a history major. Although I took some history in university, I never did very well; the history department continually downgraded by papers not for their research and content, but for writing style. I wrote too much like a newspaper reporter.

But I can tell a story. And I love telling stories and hearing stories. And part of our community’s story is told by its buildings – their architecture and the role they played in the community. That is the fascinating part. That is the part that is critical in creating what’s known as a sense of place.

It’s this sense of place that creates an authentic experience, for tourists and for investment, which then adds up to longer-term prosperity. We return to the economic theories (I minored in economics) of Martin Prosperity Institute director Dr. Richard Florida. He says communities that offer a sense of place attract more-creative, well-generating professionals.

Barrie talks a good game about Florida and his theories to build a more-resilient economy. But the city hasn’t seemed to embrace protecting the past and using its heritage to create a more prosperous future.

Barrie must truly focus and work to appreciate, preserve and highlight its stories – whether told in buildings, organizations or in individuals.

Those who came before us laid the foundations of who we are; we need to respect them and learn from them, use their wisdom as well as our own creativity to build a better community for our children.