It looks like we are about to have another round of claims and counter-claims about taxes. Two prime candidates for mayor are blasting each other on this very topic. Neither of them seem to have much to say other than to dump on the other.
Mr. O'Brien is reviving his "zero means zero" slogan from 2006 and Mr. Watson, who has pulled the number 2.5% out of the air, is criticizing O'Brien for his failure to deliver zero for the last four years.
Rather than having a serious discussion about the City's finances, the two gentlemen are engaged in political slogan swapping.
As I write this, I am reading the text of Mayor O'Brien's press release of September 11. Apparently all Council candidates are to be approached and asked for their comments on Mr. O'Brien's proposals. My understanding is that if I fail to sign on and swear fealty to this "plan", I will be cast into outer darkness and other candidates for Council will be blessed with the warmth of Mr. O'Brien's embrace.
Hidden behind the over-the-top rhetoric of both Watson and O'Brien, there may be some worthwhile ideas. I hope through many re-readings I will be able to find something of value.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Council numbers and ward boundaries
Just to add to the discussion about the Watson proposal for reduction in the size of City Council, I think there is an interesting comment in Walter Robinson’s column in today’s Sun. (I rarely agree with Mr. Robinson but I don’t dismiss everything he says.) The quote is "I have long advocated for a reduced council size – ideally two per federal ward,.which could yield a potential of eight partially rural-minded councillors up from the current designated four councillors."
Robinson’s point is that rural issues would receive more attention at City Hall if there were more Councillors with a rural component in their ward. In fact it is the insistence that rural residents be represented by Councillors with no urban or suburban content that has limited the rural voice at City Hall. The only real exception to this rule is the present Cumberland ward which combines rural and suburban areas.
When the ward boundaries were last re-examined in 2005, I appeared before the OMB to challenge the process adopted by the then Council. In my argument I made reference to the two classic ways of gerrymandering electoral districts – either concentrate a particular group or interest in a limited number of districts (so they get only representatives from those limited districts) or spread the interest group around so that they are always a minority in every electoral district (and thus never succeed in electing a representative).
The 2005 boundary revision used the Greenbelt and the urban boundary to define three groups of wards. Stated simply there are urban wards inside the Greenbelt, suburban wards outside the Greenbelt and rural wards outside the urban boundary. Only Cumberland (ward 19) is an exception.
I would argue that in defining our wards we have gerrymandered to deliberately reduce the rural voice on Council. Under the present system only four out of twenty-three Councillors have any interest in rural issues.
This approach of creating three defined types of ward contributes to the divisiveness of Council. In addition, it has created wide variations in the number of voters per ward. According to the figures on numbers of electors issued by the City Clerk, there are 35,093 electors in Orleans ward (46% above average) and only 13,554 electors in Stittsville ward (44% below average).
No matter what you think the magic number is for representatives on Council, there is good reason for the new Council to look into ward boundaries for the 2014 election. I think this requires a lengthy discussion following the election. I would have preferred Jim Watson to have pledged to have a Good Government Review without prejudging the outcome in the midst of an election campaign.
Robinson’s point is that rural issues would receive more attention at City Hall if there were more Councillors with a rural component in their ward. In fact it is the insistence that rural residents be represented by Councillors with no urban or suburban content that has limited the rural voice at City Hall. The only real exception to this rule is the present Cumberland ward which combines rural and suburban areas.
When the ward boundaries were last re-examined in 2005, I appeared before the OMB to challenge the process adopted by the then Council. In my argument I made reference to the two classic ways of gerrymandering electoral districts – either concentrate a particular group or interest in a limited number of districts (so they get only representatives from those limited districts) or spread the interest group around so that they are always a minority in every electoral district (and thus never succeed in electing a representative).
The 2005 boundary revision used the Greenbelt and the urban boundary to define three groups of wards. Stated simply there are urban wards inside the Greenbelt, suburban wards outside the Greenbelt and rural wards outside the urban boundary. Only Cumberland (ward 19) is an exception.
I would argue that in defining our wards we have gerrymandered to deliberately reduce the rural voice on Council. Under the present system only four out of twenty-three Councillors have any interest in rural issues.
This approach of creating three defined types of ward contributes to the divisiveness of Council. In addition, it has created wide variations in the number of voters per ward. According to the figures on numbers of electors issued by the City Clerk, there are 35,093 electors in Orleans ward (46% above average) and only 13,554 electors in Stittsville ward (44% below average).
No matter what you think the magic number is for representatives on Council, there is good reason for the new Council to look into ward boundaries for the 2014 election. I think this requires a lengthy discussion following the election. I would have preferred Jim Watson to have pledged to have a Good Government Review without prejudging the outcome in the midst of an election campaign.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Strange Mix
It was surprising that Jim Watson proposed a borough council system for Ottawa at the same time as suggesting that City Council be reduced to 14 to 17 Councillors. Both ideas are worth discussing, but by bringing the two concepts together, Watson may have ensured that little progress can be made on either.
On the borough idea, surely the former Minister of Municipal Affairs realizes that a real borough system would require legislation from Queens Park. Nevertheless the concept of devolution of decision-making to a local level does have merit and could be accomplished with relative ease.
The question is why Watson did not stop there, but went on to talk about cutting the number of Councillors. This provoked the knee-jerk reaction of protecting rural voices on Council and the counter-reaction about "rep-by-pop" as the basis of democracy.
The trial-balloon about a Council cut-back has drowned out any meaningful discussion about devolution, and that is a pity. The editorial in today’s Le Droit speaks about Watson’s diversion. By talking as if reducing the number of Councillors would be a meaningful saving of expenditure, it could be argued he has effectively concealed the shallowness of his thinking about devolution. I hope that was not his intention.
On the borough idea, surely the former Minister of Municipal Affairs realizes that a real borough system would require legislation from Queens Park. Nevertheless the concept of devolution of decision-making to a local level does have merit and could be accomplished with relative ease.
The question is why Watson did not stop there, but went on to talk about cutting the number of Councillors. This provoked the knee-jerk reaction of protecting rural voices on Council and the counter-reaction about "rep-by-pop" as the basis of democracy.
The trial-balloon about a Council cut-back has drowned out any meaningful discussion about devolution, and that is a pity. The editorial in today’s Le Droit speaks about Watson’s diversion. By talking as if reducing the number of Councillors would be a meaningful saving of expenditure, it could be argued he has effectively concealed the shallowness of his thinking about devolution. I hope that was not his intention.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Unfortunate entry into the campaign
It is regrettable that Terry Kilrea used his entry into the election campaign to blast the plan for a francophone centre in the west end of the city. The race for Bay Ward is so fractured, that another entrant into the race does little to clarify things.
But looked at from a distance, the attack on the francophone centre (and the implied assault on the francophone community in Ottawa) can only be seen as divisive.
This morning's Le Droit has an editorial calling Kilrea a "clown". Surely this is indicative of the interpretation which French-speaking residents have applied to Mr. Kilrea's comments.
My own view is that the "divide and conquer" approach has been over-used in Ottawa politics. We need to stop pretending that the interests of our rural and urban residents are diametrically opposed. It is time to move to another level of politics in which we cherish the diverse elements of our community and strive to work together in building a better city.
But looked at from a distance, the attack on the francophone centre (and the implied assault on the francophone community in Ottawa) can only be seen as divisive.
This morning's Le Droit has an editorial calling Kilrea a "clown". Surely this is indicative of the interpretation which French-speaking residents have applied to Mr. Kilrea's comments.
My own view is that the "divide and conquer" approach has been over-used in Ottawa politics. We need to stop pretending that the interests of our rural and urban residents are diametrically opposed. It is time to move to another level of politics in which we cherish the diverse elements of our community and strive to work together in building a better city.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Provincial responsibility - a copout?
The expansion of the Carp landfill facility is back in the news. The less-known part of the story is that the Carp facility is not for the ordinary residential waste but rather for ICI - industrial, commercial and institutional waste.
In every discussion about this matter, municipal officials (both elected and staff spokespeople) make the point that ICI waste is a provincial responsibility. Usually this leads to an explanation that the city can't do much because decisions are taken at Queen's Park.
It is strange that we so often seem to run up against provincial policies and decisions which the people of Ottawa are unable to change. First Ottawa is the second largest municipality in Ontario; surely that should give us some influence. Second, the Premier is elected in an Ottawa electoral district; surely he has some interest in Ottawa issues. Third, an Ottawa Councillor is the Chair of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; surely he gets a hearing in Toronto. And finally, until recently the Minister of Municipal Affairs also represented an Ottawa riding; there must have been talk about Ottawa issues around the Cabinet table.
With all these prominent Ottawa connections with the province, it is a mystery that Ottawa doesn't get its way on issue after issue.
Has Ottawa failed to effectively articulate its concerns to the province?
In every discussion about this matter, municipal officials (both elected and staff spokespeople) make the point that ICI waste is a provincial responsibility. Usually this leads to an explanation that the city can't do much because decisions are taken at Queen's Park.
It is strange that we so often seem to run up against provincial policies and decisions which the people of Ottawa are unable to change. First Ottawa is the second largest municipality in Ontario; surely that should give us some influence. Second, the Premier is elected in an Ottawa electoral district; surely he has some interest in Ottawa issues. Third, an Ottawa Councillor is the Chair of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; surely he gets a hearing in Toronto. And finally, until recently the Minister of Municipal Affairs also represented an Ottawa riding; there must have been talk about Ottawa issues around the Cabinet table.
With all these prominent Ottawa connections with the province, it is a mystery that Ottawa doesn't get its way on issue after issue.
Has Ottawa failed to effectively articulate its concerns to the province?
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Clive's bombshell
I guess we were all surprised by Clive Doucet's announcement on Tuesday that he is a candidate for Mayor. Like most other people, I thought that he would say that would not be running for re-election as Councillor for Capital Ward. He did say that, but he startled many by going on to declare himself a candidate in the race for Mayor.
I am not one of Clive's confidants and haven't had a chance for even a brief conversation with him since the announcement, but I think I understand his motivation.
I think that Clive Doucet still has things he wants to say. He probably considers that his statements would be ignored if he is seen as a "lame duck". In particular, I expect that he will wish to make known his views on Lansdowne, on transit, and possibly, on environmental issues during the run-up to October 25.
If I am right, all the political calculations about Doucet's chances or how his entry affects other candidates may not be relevant to his thinking. If his aim is to speak out on issues, that may have been motivation enough.
I am not one of Clive's confidants and haven't had a chance for even a brief conversation with him since the announcement, but I think I understand his motivation.
I think that Clive Doucet still has things he wants to say. He probably considers that his statements would be ignored if he is seen as a "lame duck". In particular, I expect that he will wish to make known his views on Lansdowne, on transit, and possibly, on environmental issues during the run-up to October 25.
If I am right, all the political calculations about Doucet's chances or how his entry affects other candidates may not be relevant to his thinking. If his aim is to speak out on issues, that may have been motivation enough.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Puzzled by Roger and friends
I would recommend reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today (Sunday May 30) entitled "The Lansdowne Four".
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game."
I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
The prime spokesman for the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group, Roger Greenberg, is quoted as saying "What I'm not used to is people taking facts and deliberately changing them to suit their purposes. I've never seen that before. But I guess that's part of the game. I'm just not used to playing that game."
I think Mr. Greenberg would do everyone a big favour by going further and listing the specific facts and how he considers that those facts have been distorted.
Another point that Mr. Greenberg could usefully elaborate is the fine distinction he is making in his statement "This is clearly not a sole-source contract. This was an unsolicited proposal."
First, I'm not sure that I understand the difference. Maybe Mr. Greenberg has a valid point; I just don't understand what that point is.
Second, I find the idea that it is an unsolicited proposal is hard to square with a passage earlier in the same article, a passage worth quoting:
The way Greenberg tells it, OSEG learned that its modest plan to lease Frank Clair Stadium from the city was a non-starter after meeting with Mayor Larry O'Brien and city manager Kent Kirkpatrick in the fall of 2007.
"Their comeback to us was, 'Guys, listen. We're not going to spend upwards of $100 million in taxpayers' money to fix up the stadium so you can play 10 games of football a year'" Greenberg recounts.
If the businessmen wanted to propose something more comprehensive, O'Brien and Kirkpatrick told them, the city would listen.
This raises two questions --
(a) Does the discussion with the Mayor and the City Manager constitute solicitation of an offer? If it does, I guess the "unsolicited proposal" description does not apply.
(b) Is the timing (autumn of 2007) correct? It is worth remembering that Council's approval of a design-to-build competition for Lansdowne was in late November of 2007. The announcement of the CFL conditional franchise was in March 2008. The suspension of the design-to-build competition was May/June 2008. The Lansdowne Live proposal indicating OSEG was moving beyond a simple stadium rental was revealed on October 17. 2008. If the timing in the Citizen article is correct, the most senior elected official of the city plus the most senior member of city staff had been in discussions with OSEG for a year prior to the public statement of the intention by OSEG to submit an "unsolicited proposal".
I share with Mr. Greenberg the desire to have the facts stated clearly. Those facts can be interpreted differently, but we continue to need facts.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Was there a wow?
Yesterday (May 27) there was a presentation by architects about the lovely buildings that could be built at Lansdowne Park. Mayor O'Brien said he had told the architectural team that he wanted people to shout out "WOW!" on seeing the ideas presented.
Actually no one stood up and shouted wow. Some of us thought that if we were about to be given a big gift by the city we also would take the time to draw some pretty pictures.
No one mentioned at the event that it is proposed the city's taxpayers pay 100% of the cost of the sinuous stadium. No one noted that the city is to kick in millions to provide parking for the shoppers in the stores at Lansdowne.
As usual, no one asked the obvious questions. Here is a little question for everyone to puzzle over. The public is invited to comment on the lovely pictures between June 1 and June 13. But on June 9, the staff report (plus all the other outstanding reports???) is to be tabled for consideration leading to the eventual Council discussion. So the question is -- why would anyone submit a comment between June 9 and June 13 since the comment will obviously be disregarded? In fact, why comment at all, since the conclusion of the staff report has already been written and staff are now hard at work searching their thesaurus for words of praise to apply to the so-called Lansdowne Partnership Plan. [Maybe "divinely inspired" would be too much but "approaching heaven on earth" might strike the right tone.]
If someone gave me land to build a house, chances are I could build a nicer house than if I had to pay for the land. Isn't that all the pretty pictures show?
Incidentally, from talking to architects, I gather the technical term for what was displayed yesterday is "eye candy".
Actually no one stood up and shouted wow. Some of us thought that if we were about to be given a big gift by the city we also would take the time to draw some pretty pictures.
No one mentioned at the event that it is proposed the city's taxpayers pay 100% of the cost of the sinuous stadium. No one noted that the city is to kick in millions to provide parking for the shoppers in the stores at Lansdowne.
As usual, no one asked the obvious questions. Here is a little question for everyone to puzzle over. The public is invited to comment on the lovely pictures between June 1 and June 13. But on June 9, the staff report (plus all the other outstanding reports???) is to be tabled for consideration leading to the eventual Council discussion. So the question is -- why would anyone submit a comment between June 9 and June 13 since the comment will obviously be disregarded? In fact, why comment at all, since the conclusion of the staff report has already been written and staff are now hard at work searching their thesaurus for words of praise to apply to the so-called Lansdowne Partnership Plan. [Maybe "divinely inspired" would be too much but "approaching heaven on earth" might strike the right tone.]
If someone gave me land to build a house, chances are I could build a nicer house than if I had to pay for the land. Isn't that all the pretty pictures show?
Incidentally, from talking to architects, I gather the technical term for what was displayed yesterday is "eye candy".
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Launching the campaign
I've just filed my nomination papers and am in the process of launching my website at http://www.brocklebank.ca/. One of the features of the website is provision for a series of "issue papers". These are designed to make my views available and to stimulate debate.
The first such paper is "Plan B for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park". The paper argues that we should take a step-by-step approach to the redevelopment project and it asserts that this would allow for more rapid improvement of Lansdowne while reducing the risk to the City. I hope people will read my ideas and make comments.
Let the debate begin!
Bob
The first such paper is "Plan B for redevelopment of Lansdowne Park". The paper argues that we should take a step-by-step approach to the redevelopment project and it asserts that this would allow for more rapid improvement of Lansdowne while reducing the risk to the City. I hope people will read my ideas and make comments.
Let the debate begin!
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)