My View - Part 6 Final Part- Springwater Township’s Response to Questions regarding the Mega Developments of the Midhurst Secondary Plan

On May 17^th of this year the township held an information meeting and provided documents as an overview for the Midhurst Secondary Plan titled Midhurst 20/20. There was also a public open house on the Midhurst Secondary Plan EA process on May 29^th.

In September the township published its response to the questions posed and held a special council meeting on September 17^th with a hired lawyer to outline the township’s position. This is the sixth installment of articles on this complex issue. I encourage you to read the document yourself (found on the township website under Governance/Public Consultation/Midhurst Secondary Plan) and form your own opinion. Certain questions and answers are truncated for space consideration.

This is the last in a six part series that dissected the answers provided.

Question 57: Is the Township Council going to cancel the MSP since the current residents of Midhurst are opposed to it?

Township Answer: The matter will be discussed by the Township Solicitor at the Special Meeting of Council to be held on September 17^th.

My Opinion: Since Collins, McLean, Webster, Clement and regrettably my councilor McConkey think this development is good for the township, they in fact passed a motion at the meeting to “not revisit, discuss or revise” the MSP. Only Hanna and Ritchie to their credit opposed the motion. Everyone was caught off guard and expected them to only receive the report as the Council typically does. I believe the constant visits by the landowners and developers to the mayors office preceding this meeting pushed them to table and approve the ill conceived resolution.

Question 64: Is Midhurst being developed to encourage annexation to the City of Barrie

Township Answer: No.

My Opinion: I agree. The reason Barrie will never be interested in Midhurst will be the legacy costs of the infrastructure. Barrie is already in a huge infrastructure replacement deficit and the expensive infrastructure required to service Midhurst will be much more expensive as the pipes run approximately 5 kilometres in either direction for water and sewer. Unfortunately since council says the Midhurst current residents do not have to connect, half the distance will have no connections making it very inefficient. Barrie’s growth direction from the province and their own official plans puts most of the development to the south into the approved annexed lands in Innisfil. They also built their state of the art “surface water” facility in the south end. Ironically if the MSP goes, within a few years the residents would want to be part of Barrie as the Springwater tax assessment increase, caused by the MSP infrastructure, will make Barrie’s taxes look like a bargain.

Question 65: Will there be a cost to the current taxpayers if Council rescinds the Midhurst Secondary Plan?

Township Answer: It is likely that legal action would be taken against the township if the secondary plan was cancelled.

My Opinion: I don’t agree. It is clear in the municipal act and the planning act that the Council has a right to approve or reject plans. There are also sections that specifically make the council and township immune to lawsuits if they conduct business in a rightful manner. This council has caved to the intimidation and threats of a few and has put all of us up for ransom because they lack the fundamental guts to make good decisions. Again only Hanna and Ritchie have illustrated through their votes that the MSP in its present form is flawed. The rest of council followed the enchanting tunes of the pied pipers; the landowners and the developers.

Question 66: How can future Township Councils be bound to the current Council’s contention that the Township will not force current residents to connect to the new water and sewer systems?

Township Answer: The current Council cannot bind a future Council.

My Opinion: I agree. Once all the costs are in, the township will quickly realize they need revenue from the existing 1400 homes in Midhurst and you will pay to hook up. Calculations range anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000 a lot to hook up. The township will of course give you a low rate loan that you can pay off over 20 years on your tax assessment bill. That’s a mere $3,000 to $4,000 a year added to your tax bill. These are just some of the legacy costs of this ill-conceived MSP.

Question 67: Did the Province mandate that the village of Midhurst Grow?

Township Answer: No. The 1998 Official Plan established development rights within the Midhurst Settlement Area.

My Opinion: The “No” answer is correct. The second part is not factual. In 1998 there was a “study area” established to research and find where best it would be to add the projected 3,500 people to the village, not 25,000 people. Don’t take my word for it, review the signed affidavits of Harold Parker, Paul Fleming and Ian Bender that were all in the loop at the time. The last two councils have danced to the tune of some well connected landowners and their representatives. The mega growth in Midhurst is not mandated, not included in any study up to 2008 and is an example of council not doing their job to protect the best interests of its constituents.

This is my final submission on this matter and you should be concerned and do your own homework as you will pay the price of the creation of the City of Midhurst. I will repeat, it is still not too late to slow down and modify this terrible plan for Midhurst. In January I encourage as many people as possible to file nomination papers and run for an elected office and bring about the change we need. It was refreshing to see 12 people attend the recent election information session hosted by the Township Clerk. It is obvious that more people than I are not happy with the direction of this council.

Talk to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council and tell them to stop the greatest calamity that Springwater has ever experienced. The Midhurst Plan as planned is a disaster waiting to happen and you and I cannot afford it!

My View - Part 5- Springwater Township’s Response to Questions regarding the Mega Developments of the Midhurst Secondary Plan

On May 17^th of this year the township held an information meeting and provided documents as an overview for the Midhurst Secondary Plan titled Midhurst 20/20. There was also a public open house on the Midhurst Secondary Plan EA process on May 29^th.

In September the township published its response to the questions posed and held a special council meeting on September 17^th with a hired lawyer to outline the township’s position. This is the fifth installment of articles on this complex issue. I encourage you to read the document yourself (found on the township website under Governance/Public Consultation/Midhurst Secondary Plan) and form your own opinion. Certain questions and answers are truncated for space consideration.

Question 38: Will the new municipal wells impact existing private wells?

Township Answer: No. Extensive testing in accordance with Provincial regulations was completed. The testing did not identify any areas where existing wells will be impacted. They then refer to the Phase 1 and 2 EA.

My Opinion: In theory there may not be an impact as I understand there is high rate of flow in this particular aquifer. However any shallow wells that exist today may be impacted in a drought period because of the significant amount of water that will be withdrawn from the lower aquifer. Typically one aquifer is not significantly impacted by another but until the operation commences we are dealing with modelling scenarios which may or may not be accurate.

Question 39: What will the increase in flow attributable to the MSP be in Willow Creek?

Township Answer: The township provided some flow rates. In the EA 1 and 2 the average flow rate of 270L/s is noted. A further 3 years analysis estimates it at 400L/s. They state the flow from the wastewater treatment plant at buildout will be 140L/s. They also include a peak flow rate of 7,000L/s

My Opinion: All the data is interesting. Unfortunately no one seems to note that the Minesing Wetlands are being negatively effected in the last 25 years because of additional flows and build-up. The Steelheaders conservation group has great data as does Nancy Chong that was provided to the township. None of this has been considered nor has it been mentioned that both the NVCA and MOE have expressed concerns about dumping this much effluent into that small stream of Willow Creek. By the township’s own numbers the average flow based on the 270 L/s would be a 60% increase in per second flow and even using the higher numbers of 400 L/s it means a 30% increase. What happens if we find that we are already at 120% of the Willows capacity for flow? None of these questions have been addressed and the potential for ecological disaster cannot be overstated.

Question 52: What efforts will be made to mitigate the impact on local agricultural operations as mandated in the Provincial Policy Statement?

Township Answer: The PPS does not apply to Midhurst as it is not an expansion of the existing settlement boundary.

My Opinion: We are not all stupid or idiots, is the short answer, if you think we will swallow that answer. Think about it. (Sorry to reuse these two sentences from the last article.) First of all the PPS applies to all development from 2005 onwards. The MSP was not approved by council until 2008 and after 3 letters of expressing non-compliance the County approved the plan in 2011. The council has totally ignored the serious impact that the MSP will have on the Ag industry and has specifically ignored concerns expressed by the OFA and local farmers such as Rob Wright.

Question 55: Shouldn’t the MSP development plan be delayed until a major employer such as a Honda settles in the community?

Township Answer: The MSP has been approved by the Township, County and Province. Therefore it is permitted to proceed.

My Opinion: Not exactly an answer from the township. Part of the answer is also wrong as only the first 300 hectares have been approved to proceed in the MSP. Barrie for example require developers, in certain areas of development, to illustrate that there are actual jobs not just land for future jobs before development will be approved. Of course we should include in all our development plans that jobs come first before building shoe boxes for people to hibernate. Currently 90% of our non-farm workers leave everyday for work. I understand that no significant job creation has occurred even though we have allocated many dollars to the effort in the last two years. Attaching actual job creation to approving residential development is not unique unless you are in a township like Springwater where most of the council thinks the developers know what’s best for all of us.

I will repeat, it is still not too late to slow down and modify this terrible plan for Midhurst. It will affect all of us especially where it hurts, in our pocket books with increased taxes. I am pleased that many more people are coming to Council and Planning meetings in recent months as residents realize that regardless of where they live they will pay the price of the bad decisions and direction of the Midhurst Secondary Plan. In January I encourage as many people as possible to file nomination papers and run for an elected office and bring about the change we need. I will write one more article on the Township’s response to the concerns of the Springwater Residents about the MSP and ask you to become informed by reading the information on the Springwater website.

Talk to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council and tell them to stop the greatest calamity that Springwater has ever experienced. The Midhurst Plan as planned is a disaster waiting to happen and you and I cannot afford it!

My View - Part 3- Springwater Township’s Response to Questions regarding the Mega Developments of the Midhurst Secondary Plan

On May 17^th of this year the township held an information meeting and provided documents as an overview for the Midhurst Secondary Plan titled Midhurst 20/20. There was also a public open house on the Midhurst Secondary Plan EA process on May 29^th.

In September the township published its response to the questions posed and held a special council meeting on September 17^th with a hired lawyer to outline the township’s position. This is the third installment of articles on this complex issue. I encourage you to read the document yourself and form your own opinion. Certain questions and answers are truncated for space consideration.

Question 23 Where will wastewater be discharged to?

Township Answer: Willow Creek by Golf Club Road.

Question 24 What happens to pharmaceuticals cleansers etc. that pass through the sewage plant and is discharged?

Township Answer: The WWTP will use state of the art technologies and will be designed in accordance with Ministry of Environment (MOE) regulations.

Questions 26 and 27 also speak to the issue and the township provides reference to 2008 studies of EA 1 and 2.

My Opinion: I am surprised that this is not the biggest issue with the township. This week there are news stories outlining the concern of the health of the Nottawasaga River watershed and in particular phosphorous runoff from development and farming. Developers will point to farmers but the modern farmer is better at chemistry in their crop growth than the scientists trying to justify unneeded growth in rural areas such as Midhurst. The developer’s engineer at the open house on Oct 23 stated that at low flow the Midhurst development wastewater discharge would increase flow by 30%. With the Nottawasaga watershed already stressed, how does adding 10,000 homes to the situation improve things? There is already evidence from the Steelheaders Group that many fish species are being negatively affected because of urban sprawl and the Midhurst Mega development may just push it over the edge in my opinion. Nancy Chong from Midhurst recently included an excellent article on other species negatively impacted.

Question 25: Can the township provide the specific study which changed the growth from 2004 Growth Study to that of the 2008 Midhurst Secondary Plan?

Township Answer: A report regarding density for the new development was received by the Planning Committee on April 28, 2007 under resolution PC-2008-119. The density changed to 40 people/jobs per hectare.

My Opinion: This is one of the first errors of the Springwater council. Overnight they changed from an anticipated growth of 6,500 to 28,000 without digesting the impact they were putting in motion. The point missed is that in 2005 and 2006 the Province released its Provincial Policy Statement and its Places to Grow to stop sprawl. The township ignored it and under the enthusiasm and thirst for growth the council which included the current Collins and Clement unleashed this hideous situation we are now faced with. Instead of growth being controlled and farmland saved they just multiplied the number of homes they could put on the land instead of reducing the area for the 6,500 specified in the 2004 plan. The council of the day and then this council had a great number of opportunities to rescind the MSP, reduce the settlement area boundaries and take back control of planning in Springwater. We should not be surprised as Collins has stated many times that we should leave development to the developers as they know how best to use the land. She is right in one way, they will stuff as many houses on a piece of dirt as possible.

Question 28: If high density housing means low income families, will the township or school board be implementing after school programs for children?

Township answer: Mentions that high density is not just geared to low income families. Also mentions School Board is responsible for programs and some are currently offered at Forest Hill Public School.

Question 29: Will transit be available to take children to sports activities in Barrie in the evenings?

Township answer: A transit plan is part of the EA 3 and 4 studies and transit will be considered once an adequate population and demand are present.

My Opinion: These answers confirm the naivety of the last two councils. They are acting like we are adding a few more homes in the area. The current school cannot handle the influx as planned and a whole new approach will be needed costing us all more money. I agree that there will not be a lot of low income families as there is no transportation or local services. My guess would be that once the ball starts rolling and a few large homes are built and its too far down the road to turn back that you will see the developer propose new plans with lower density bigger houses and the township will simply comply or the developer will take the case to the OMB and get their way anyway. This all contradicts the concept of having affordable housing as part of the mix. The plans of today that were seen last week will be quite different as this mega venture progresses. As far as transit let’s face it a basic system of a couple of buses in  Midhurst would be in excess of a $1M a year which will not be self-sufficient through a rider pay system increasing taxes again. This whole mega development is so ill conceived it is almost inconceivable. Even the developer will not commit to a timetable for transit because it is not their problem. It will be our problem in the end to deal with.

In the next installment I will spend a lot of time dissecting questions 34 to 37 which is quite complicated. Please read the document from the Sept 17^th meeting and you will better understand my comments in the next article.

It is still not too late to slow down and modify this terrible plan for Midhurst. It will affect all of us especially where it hurts, in our pocket books with increased taxes. I am pleased that many more people are coming to Council and Planning meetings in recent months as residents realize that regardless of where they live they will pay the price of the bad decisions and direction of the Midhurst Secondary Plan.

Talk to the Mayor, Deputy and Mayor and Council and tell them to stop the greatest calamity that Springwater has ever experienced. The Midhurst Plan as planned is a disaster waiting to happen and you and I cannot afford it!

My View - Part 4- Springwater Township’s Response to Questions regarding the Mega Developments of the Midhurst Secondary Plan

On May 17^th of this year the township held an information meeting and provided documents as an overview for the Midhurst Secondary Plan titled Midhurst 20/20. There was also a public open house on the Midhurst Secondary Plan EA process on May 29^th.

In September the township published its response to the questions posed and held a special council meeting on September 17^th with a hired lawyer to outline the township’s position. This is the fourth installment of articles on this complex issue. I encourage you to read the document yourself (found on the township website under Governance/Public Consultation/Midhurst Secondary Plan) and form your own opinion. Certain questions and answers are truncated for space consideration.

Question 34: What studies have been done to satisfy the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (the guiding document for all development in Ontario)?

Township Answer: The Midhurst Settlement Area boundaries were originally established approximately 25 years ago……(they include a number of reference documents you should read.)

My Opinion: Township’s answer is extremely flawed and at the least misleading. There are affidavits on file from former councilors Fleming and Parker that state clearly that the boundaries were a “study area”. It only became a settlement area in 2008. Due to the lack of due diligence on the part of this council and the previous council, an unplanned area to develop a city was unleashed. The intent of the council that established the “study area” was to choose a part of it when the need was evident and then create an area to expand Midhurst. The “study area” presented a number of opportunities, but it was never conceived that the entire area would be developed as a city.

Question 35: The County wrote letters in Sept and Oct 2008 questioning the Midhurst Secondary Plan compliance with the PPS. Why did the County on Oct 2011accept that it was then in compliance with the PPS?

Township Answer: They do not provide a real answer. They refer to the letters that the County sent in Sept, Oct and Dec of 2008 whereby the County expressed concerns that the MSP offended the PPS, lacked servicing details, questioned the boundary (see above answer), questioned the population as it exceeded the County’s Growth Plan that had been signed off by the municipalities and so on. They then refer to the 2011 letter that approved the MSP but the letter does not say how the MSP was in compliance.

My Opinion: The first three letters from the County were spot on in 2008 which explains why there was not a lot of concern by Midhurst residents, as based on the County’s objections, the MSP was dead. That is also why there was very little discussion during the 2010 elections as it was felt that the MSP was a non-starter as it offended so many higher level policies. Unfortunately the developers and planners behind the scenes were pulling the strings at all levels, the township leaders unknown to the residents were lobbying to move the mega growth forward and we as taxpayers all got taken. At one council meeting prior to the 2011 County approval of the MSP, the Deputy Mayor (whom I hear is slated to make a run for mayor next year) stated they were working behind closed doors for the residents. No one imagined that they were working against the best interests of all Springwater ratepayers and specifically against the Midhurst people who asked the question.

Question 36: Why did the Province issue a transition regulation as part of Amendment #1 which permits a portion of the MSP to develop?

Township Answer: The Township was not involved in the development of Amendment #1(read the special rule).

My Opinion: We are not all stupid or idiots, is the short answer, if you think we will swallow that answer. Think about it. The province conducted both public and private meetings under the auspices of the Ontario Growth Secretariat which was established by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Infrastructure prior to the passing of Amendment #1 and the Transition Rule. Without the Transition Rule the MSP would not be permitted as it still offends all the policies that were outlined by the County’s objection in 2008. Township representatives attended both types of meetings (I saw them at the public meeting in Barrie). The only answer I can give is that there answer is less than truthful. If they had objected to the MSP it would never have occurred. Our meeting with the Growth Secretariat revealed that only the citizens group AWARE objected to any of the growth plans for the entire Simcoe County area. All municipalities supported the growth as did the development community. You be the judge. We only have the MSP and a future City of Midhurst because of either incompetence or lack of care of our two senior elected officials who are also our County Councillors.

Question 37: Is the 300 Ha permitted for development within the MSP still held up by and/or under appeal before the OMB?

Township Answer: It is not held up and allowed to move forward through the Planning Process.

My Opinion: I agree but my disappointment with the lack of action and fear of developers by this council is almost unbelievable. Our current council has had numerous opportunities to stop this absurdity since they took office. They have failed to meet the responsibilities they promised to us in the last election. The MSP still can be undone as it is not financially viable. Take the time to read the excellent reports from Barrie about Development Charges (I attended the meeting) and their concern about debt. Our situation will be much worse than that on a relative basis if the MSP proceeds. You and I will pay for it in annual double digit tax rate increases because our elected officials simply “don’t know what they don’t know”.

It is still not too late to slow down and modify this terrible plan for Midhurst. It will affect all of us especially where it hurts, in our pocket books with increased taxes. I am pleased that many more people are coming to Council and Planning meetings in recent months as residents realize that regardless of where they live they will pay the price of the bad decisions and direction of the Midhurst Secondary Plan.

Talk to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council and tell them to stop the greatest calamity that Springwater has ever experienced. The Midhurst Plan as planned is a disaster waiting to happen and you and I cannot afford it!

 

The Midhurst Development Plans Lovefest

It was like yesteryear and everyone from the developers of Midhurst were well prepared and our unwitting staff and council were eating out of their hands. Everyone was, as they say in England, “kicking the ball in the same direction”.

On October 23 at the Simcoe County Museum with coffee and timbits, the new city of Midhurst was unveiled by the developers. In a word, it is a beautiful development and great planning if it were in Barrie, Orillia, Midland or Alliston. It is not the typical small developments we have seen in Springwater since the beginning of rural living by urban workers. This is no Snow Valley or even the new large Yorkwood development on Sunnidale. The City of Midhurst is simply massive and unprecedented for a small rural municipality.

 

I was surprised to see our Mayor Linda Collins lead off the festivities and CAO Robert Brindley speak to the order of the development process. A layperson had no doubt that the Springwater Council was in 100% support of everything that was presented and the landowners group did a great job at conducting the orchestra. Few would understand that the command performance of all councillors being present that two of them are opposed to what is planned. Only Hanna and Ritchie have had the courage to push back the tide of the runaway train called the Midhurst Secondary Plan.

I spent a lot of time speaking with the developer’s experts and they were well prepared and answered all my questions openly and honestly. To be frank much more honestly and informed than the answers I have received from some of the elected officials.

The first question I had was quite simple, “Why build such a large development in Midhurst instead of Barrie which is a designated primary settlement area? Straight forward answer. The province is running out of development land and the landowners group and developer don’t own land in Barrie. The developers saw an opportunity and through lobbying and salesmanship convinced those in power that developing a city in Midhurst was a good idea. I don’t make that remark as a criticism of the developer, but I do criticize our council and staff for not properly defending the rural landscape and needs of our township. Developers are in business to build houses. That is what they do. They answer to investors and shareholders and owners the same as any business does. They, unfortunately for us, are doing a great job for their stakeholders. I suggest you read the recent Christopher Hume article, Toronto Star, Oct. 27, 2013 for a better overview of the problem with urban sprawl.

It was clear from the beginning that the designer has a lot of experience and has created wonderful community designs for urban centres. It was painfully clear that the Midhurst rural landscape is designed to be a future city landscape when the bulldozers move in. That is just the way it is and I offer no criticism about the design. My criticism has always been that these mega developments have no place in rural municipalities and it was never the intent of the province to permit this urban sprawl. I went as far as to say to the developers that I like their city designs and if I wanted to be a city dweller I would love to live in one of their developments. I also told them that, unfortunately for them, I chose to live in a rural community away from urban sprawl, so their development plans are unwelcomed by most of those directly impacted.

I did clarify and received confirmation that based on the Altus Report of 2009 that the Landowners Group and developers will pay for all the new infrastructure related to their planned mega growth. That is good, as I could not get lucid answers that made sense from our township. The developers lawyer did emphasize that it must be growth related to their developments and that raises a little red flag as I do believe their version of growth related infrastructure costs and the township’s vision may be different tunes from the same hymn book. I hope that gets clarified in the EA 3 and 4 studies. I won’t do my math right now but just point out that the initial infrastructure is $100M paid for by the landowners and developers. The replacement and maintenance will come from our taxes. Keep in mind that 50 years from now the replacement cost will be $250M based on an annualized inflation rate of 2%. That’s means we must set aside about $5M a year to have the funds to replace it and probably another $5M a year to maintain and operate it. These costs come from our tax dollars not development charges! That is a little scary and has been the cause of concern for Barrie, Mississauga and Vaughan which has resulted in huge fiscal deficits and tax increases. Currently we have an annual infrastructure deficit of about $2.5M which we started to borrow to keep on track. That part of the debt will grow by about $10M during the term of this council at the current rate.

The engineer informed me that the wastewater treatment plant discharge into Willow Creek will represent as much as a 30% increase in volume in a low flow situation. That somewhat shocked me and I hope the NVCA and MOE address what could become an ecological disaster. News on CTV this week states that there is a growing concern in regard to the water quality of the Nottawasga Watershed. Nancy Chong from Midhurst wrote a great article recently about other affected species. This mega development will not enhance it. When questioned about the phosphorus, the engineer stated there are new technologies but they are very expensive. So how much will this water treatment plant really cost in the end and what will be the impact on our taxes as it is operated and maintained? I know if someone gave me a two million dollar home, I could  not afford the heat, the hydro and the taxes. If the developer pays in excess of a $100M for infrastructure, will the operating cost have the same impact on us as a township. Will we get something free but cannot afford to operate it and maintain it unless we double our taxes?

It is unfortunate that there was not an open question period at the meeting, but as I said the landowners and developers paid the orchestra to play the tunes they wanted us to hear. I quite enjoyed my discussions with some of the key people and I will continue to meet with them and ask the questions that should be routine from our elected officials. It is unfortunate that only Hanna and Ritchie are concerned about the possible impacts of the mega developments around Midhurst. I don’t understand the blind embracement of the MSP plan by the rest of council, as I can see no net benefit. It will be harmful to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the township and each of us as residents. Ironically the Living Green Environmental Action Barrie eco friendly organization that sent a number of glowing letters in 2009 supporting the development of the City of Midhurst have now withdrawn all those letters. I would think that our council would pause and find out why that happened, but not much was said when the withdrawal letter was received at last Monday’s Planning Meeting.

Keep informed. Read this wonderful newspaper we have. Ask the township to include you on the mailing or email list to receive all information regarding the developments of the Midhurst area. Please come to Council and Planning meetings as you must decide who you think should be running this township when you vote next year in the municipal election.

It is great that many more people are attending the meetings as residents throughout the township are beginning to realize that the mega developments and creation of the City of Midhurst will impact each and everyone of us.

A special mention of all those that did attend the open house and asked some challenging questions to those present. We all must keep informed and start asking our council why are they so convinced that this new City of Midhurst is a positive move for Springwater.

My Opinion-Springwater's Answers to Questions on the Midhurst Mega Development Pt 2

This is Part 2 of a multi part series that will appear every two weeks until I have addressed all the answers to the many questions from the public on the Midhurst mega developments.

 

In this article we will look at more of the questions and then the somewhat distorted and at times misleading answers.

Question 9: Is the 2004 Growth Management Study the foundation of the Midhurst Secondary Plan?

Township answer: Yes the 2004 Report is the foundation of the Midhurst Secondary Plan (MSP)

Question 11: What were the population forecasts for Springwater and endorsed by Council

Township Answer: They refer to page 40 of the council endorsed report and then mention the Places to Grow and associated regulations

My Opinion: the intent in 2004 was to plan for another 3049 units and about 6,000 to 8,000 new residents to 2031. Page 40 of the report is clear that the number of new residential units would be 3049 (not 10,000). It was only through the lobbying efforts of the heads of both this council and the previous council with pressure from influential landowners that the concept of up to 30,000 more people came into play. They simply took the large amount of land that was in the study area, made it a settlement area and maximized the number of homes per hectare. It was never the intent of the 2004 plan nor was it the intent of the Province to build new cities in rural Ontario. If not for the “special rule” of 2012, the MSP could not continue. That “special rule” only occurred because of the lobbying of our current heads of council. Growth was not mandated by the Province but was to be better planned than in the past 50 years.

Question 12: What are the current taxpayers gaining from the MSP?

Township answer: More of a complete community, broader types of housing and so on. They speak of imaginary jobs but no explanation of where they will come from.

My Opinion: The existing taxpayer will pay more for everything as currently we lack services to address the needs of a small city. We will pay for full time contract policing (not the drive through policing we have today), more full time firefighters, added township staff, higher water and sewage rates just like happens in Barrie, Mississauga and Vaughan. As far as jobs, little will come to Springwater in jobs as we are located next to two designated primary settlement areas; Barrie and Wasaga Beach. Currently our Development Charges are high for the services we provide so why would business come to Springwater? The long answer that the township provides to the question is a work of fiction.

Question 18: Why would businesses locate to Springwater instead of Barrie?

Township answer: The answer includes the normal reasons for considering a location, services, land costs proximity to markets etc. No specific USP (unique selling proposition) is mentioned. They also mention their Economic Development Working Group.

My Opinion: If I were locating a business, Barrie would make more sense as it has transportation, access to main corridors and provides all the amenities anyone needs. It also has a large condensed market for goods and services. Don’t get me wrong there are many types of businesses that could be brought to Springwater but as long as you have a council that thinks in terms of urban and not rural we will never attract new businesses. Their working group and the budgeted expenditure of $82,000 for a development officer has borne very little fruit that I can see.

I am of the opinion that there needs to be more diligence as the township proceeds with the most unwanted and most costly venture it has ever encountered. The Midhurst mega developments have the potential of saddling the next few generations of Springwater-ites with the highest taxes imaginable. As the County CAO stated at their Spring Strategy Review, “Growth doesn’t pay for itself”. I guess McLean and Collins our County Councillors missed this point and they were both there.

 

These articles will also appear in the Springwater News.

My Opinion-Springwater's Answers to Question about Midhurst Mega Developments Pt 1

On May 17^th of this year the township held an information meeting and provided documents as an overview for the Midhurst Secondary Plan titled Midhurst 20/20. There was also a public open house on the Midhurst Secondary Plan EA process on May 29^th.

In September the township published its response to the questions posed and held a special council meeting on September 17^th with a hired lawyer to outline the township’s position. I am not sure why the mayor, as head of council, did not disseminate the information rather than having a $300 to $400 an hour hired help do it for her. The report and answers and meeting are on-line so check for yourself.

Over the next number of months, I will outline some of the inconsistencies and what I believe was outright misleading information that was provided at that September 17^th meeting and some of the distortions the published report contains. There were 84 responses to questions so I will deal with a few in each article. The ones I have no issue with, I will make no comment.

Question 1: Who will pay for the new Highway 400 Interchange?

Township answer: It is the responsibility of the developers.

My Opinion: Nothing has been signed signifying the developer will pay for all of these costs. If you read the ALTUS Report paid for by the Midhurst Landowners Group it suggests roads will be $17M. The Township’s director of public works provided a document in March of this year that the Midhurst Landwowners Group are responsible for $79M of road improvements. There appears to be a $62M minor discrepancy. I have got varied answers on this subject so I encourage you to ask your councilor who is paying for what and when.

Question 3: Will the Township rescind the Midhurst Secondary Plan if the financial analysis shows a significant increases in taxes?

Township Answer: No Infrastructure will be approved that has a detrimental financial impact on the Municipality.

My Opinion: The council at the end of the meeting passed a motion not to revisit or consider modifications to the Midhurst Secondary Plan. If they won’t consider rescinding it how can they make such a comment? I am also curious what is meant by “significant increases in tax”. This suggests they are willing to have you and I pay part of the cost of this council’s thirst for unneeded and unwanted growth.

Question 5 : What will the cost of infrastructure be for the first phase of development? and Question 7: The Altus Report does not seem to indicate that the developers would pay for all the infrastructure upgrades.

Township Answer: Q 5The costs are projected at approximately $100M. These costs will be fully covered by the developers. Q 7 The Statement is not correct.

My Opinion: At a public information session on May 29^th when the township consultants were present I asked one of the engineers what the cost for the first phase would be. It was stated the costs could be as much as 70% of the total buildout costs since the main infrastructure must be put in place to service the first phase and has to be designed for the full development. The Hemson Report in 2008 suggested the servicing costs would be about $172M for the full buildout. 70% of that is about $120M. Out of the gate there seems to be a $20M gap. If you read the Altus Report paid for by the Midhurst Landowners Group in 2009 they projected the costs at around $100M for scenario 4 and the report also suggests they will pay about $64M in development fees over the life of the first phase. They will pay $25M for front end costs to get things underway (which to my understanding is part of and not additional to the $64M that will be collected over the life of phase 1). That puts anywhere from a $36M to $56M debt risk on us the taxpayer if the numbers and reports are valid. Our Deputy Mayor says agreements have been signed to pay for all infrastructure. I suggest they produce those documents as I have not seen any signed agreements except for the EA’s which total $300K or .3% of the total cost. The letters that are referred to in the township’s answer to Q7 from the Landowners Group trustee are not signed letters of intent and therefore not binding. To make matters worse all the numbers are from 2008 and 2009 and I would think costs have not declined in that 5 year period.

Even though our council says the Midhurst Plan could result in $100M in lawsuits if cancelled, they must do more than stick their head in the sand and ignore the real plight they are bringing to our wonderful township. They agreed to serve us. If the job is too tough or if they lack the courage, step aside and let someone with some guts move our township in a progressive and well planned manner. The current council is rudderless and we are moving into the storm of the century unlike anything the township has ever experienced. We the electorate need to speak up and put real pressure on 5 of our council members. Only Hanna and Ritchie seem to take their responsibilities seriously and appear to be willing to take the heat to do what is right. The rest seem to like the profile but not the responsibilities that go with the job. As Ritchie said, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

I think that is enough for this article and I encourage you to ask questions and get your own answers from our elected representatives. I am of the opinion that there needs to be more diligence as the township proceeds with the most unwanted and most costly venture it has ever encountered. The Midhurst mega developments have the potential of saddling the next few generations of Springwater-ites with the highest taxes imaginable. Most of this council seem to be of the same mindset as the provincial and federal governments who are now faced with the reality that the debt they have accumulated will never be paid.

Midhurst Mega Development Open House

For those both opposed to or in support the Mega Development of up to 10,000 homes in Midhurst, put this on your calendar. All residents in Springwater Township should attend this as it is the beginning of the end for our rural way of living.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION EVENING

 

Wednesday, October 23rd

Simcoe County Museum

1151 Highway 26, Minesing

6:00 to 9:00 p.m.

The Midhurst Landowners Group invite you to a Community Information Evening.

We are the landowners – Geranium Corporation and RoseAlliance, on whose properties part of the future of Midhurst will be built.

We want to ensure that Midhurst grows in the best interests of those already here and in the best interests of those families and businesses yet to come. We are dedicated to preserving what’s best about Midhurst.

Come out and see the draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-laws, which implement the approved Midhurst Secondary Plan (OPA 38). Ask questions. Get answers.

Come hear about:

• Community design principles guiding the plans, including sustainability and smart growth.

• Planned parks, trails, and schools.

• Plans to protect the natural environment and water quality.

• Housing to meet the needs of all ages.

• New jobs to be created in construction and building supply industries.

• New revenues and development charges to reduce the tax burden on existing households.

• Expanded tax based to fund schools and parks.

The evening will include a short presentation on community design vision and philosophy followed by an open house format, which will provide an opportunity for one-on-one discussions.

All Welcome.

 

Perspective on Springwater Council

Years ago on X-files, Special Agents Scully and Mulder used to accuse the government of trying to “deceive, inveigle and obfuscate”, lest anyone discover the truth about what was really going on. 

As I watched Springwater Council in action twice this week, including the notorious Special Public Meeting on the 17^th, these iconic words came to mind.  At the Council meeting on the 16th, Rick Webster suddenly withdrew his petty motion to chill public dissent, camouflaged by the proposed naming and shaming, via taxpayer-funded legal action, of anyone indulging in so-called slanderous or libelous innuendo.  Perhaps he read Gary French’s masterful dissection of this motion in the last issue of the Springwater News, and didn’t like his portrayal.  A more alarming and sinister theory is that he lost one of his 4 votes; and thus had no choice but to withdraw his motion to avoid an embarrassing defeat.  Should we believe that’s the end of Council trying to stop commentary they don’t like?

That brings me to Question Period, a 10 minute sop to the long-suffering residents in which 5 members of the audience [I use this word literally] have 2 minutes each to ask Council about something that’s on their mind.  And to which they expect an answer right then or no later than necessary.  Do those public questions get answered?  Usually not.  Regular attendees, like myself, seriously wonder if our questions drop into a black hole, never to see the light of day again.  Then, there’s Council’s latest attempt at ham-stringing voters: they want us to ask questions relating only to that night’s agenda.  That certainly keeps the topics narrow, doesn’t it?  What if your burning interest is not on the agenda or you didn’t have a chance to read the agenda beforehand because you’re busy with real life and it was published late? 

On Tuesday, there was the sideshow of the Special Meeting, advertised to residents online and in the mail as an opportunity for Council to discuss and debate the Township lawyer’s report on the legal issues associated with the Midhurst Secondary Plan and determine next steps.  Right after the lawyer finished, Councillor Hanna asked Council to permit a Question Period.  All-knowing Mayor Collins said this wasn’t required at a Special Meeting and said no.  Clearly, in her opinion, the overflow crowd was just expected to sit there like dumb animals and let Council’s pontificating wash over them unimpeded.  After some testy discussion, it was grudgingly allowed.  Of course, the public had more questions than 10 minutes could accommodate and, therefore, wanted more time.  Well, you’d think Council had been asked to open the vaults!  More wrangling ensued among the Councillors, most vocally Councillor McConkey who said she’d okay a measly 2 additional questions because how much time did we want [read that as deserve] anyway. 

The icing on the cake was Council’s sudden introduction and quick passing – 5 to 2 [Hanna and Ritchie voted no]  - of a motion that could only have been written, let alone understood, by a lawyer [it was] to cut off any further review of past events leading to the MSP as it is today.  One reason given was that staff resources are “finite”. They can’t be expected to keep on finding answers to the many serious questions and concerns the community has about this utter travesty of good planning, can they?  And who pays their wages, again?  Well, talk about being blind-sided! This infamous motion was not listed on the agenda, the public was shocked, and word has it that not every councillor even knew about it beforehand!  Some knowledgeable folks are wondering if this motion is even legal, given the apparent lack of due process.  Whatever the facts, it was not “open and transparent”, as Council likes to describe itself.

Yes, “deceive, inveigle and obfuscate” live on in Springwater Council.  Welcome to your local government. 

 

Sandy Buxton

Collins, McLean, Clement, Webster and McConkey Agree: Growth Trumps the Wishes of Residents

On September 17^th at a special Council Meeting, slated as an update and answers to questions of Midhurst residents, turned into a resolution to stop any consideration of this Council reversing the disastrous plans for mega development in Midhurst.

Instead of the Mayor actually responding, it was left to hired legal representation to respond to the questions that were posed to council. Some blatant misinformation was provided. I will not elaborate in this article but in a series of articles I will be publishing over the next number of months, I will dissect the answers provided and outline many misleading and erroneous statements. For example the lawyer said the Province was mandating the growth and the numbers. That is not true. The province have provided forecasts to 2031 and now 2041 for what might be needed. In fact the forecasts were intended to prevent not encourage paving over farmland. The province a number of years ago realized the growth in Simcoe County was poorly planned and they found it necessary to create a special section to control it in the Places to Grow directive. Besides, schedule 7 of the Places to Grow puts a forecast for Springwater to 2031 at 24,000. Considering we are around 18,500 it suggests we will see another 5,500 new residents in Springwater by 2031. If you check the monthly planning report agenda you will see a report that suggests today that we have enough lots and development at various approval stages exceeding that 5,500 number without Midhurst’s 12,000 to 28,000 added numbers. Unfortunately a “Special Rule” unknowingly, promoted by our heads of council and the landowners, have set aside good planning principles for the sake of unnecessary and unneeded growth.

The resolution itself to me is, on one hand ill-conceived but on the other hand allows all residents to know exactly where our elected officials stand. I congratulate councilors Hanna and Ritchie for not caving in to the intimidation of possible lawsuits both against the Council as a whole and individual councilors. I really don’t like that kind of scare tactic which I think swayed the Clement and McConkey vote in the end.

The reality at this point is that the only signed agreement in place to proceed with the Midhurst Secondary Plan and mega developments is an agreement with the landowners to pay for the Environmental Assessments at an estimated cost of $300,000. There are no written agreements for the cost of infrastructure (estimated at $100,000,000 for the first phase), only letters of position. Deputy Mayor McLean has referred to these letters as “Letters of Intent”. McLean with his many years of experience well knows letters of intent, which are always subject to reaching an agreement are only binding if signed by both parties. The letters I have seen are not letters of intent and have been provided by the landowners representative for guidance purposes. If there are any such letters of intent for the cost of infrastructure then produce them.

The Midhurst Plan can be stopped but it needs a political will and that does not exist in this council. Regardless of where you live in Springwater this Midhurst development will have long reaching negative impacts on your taxes and your way of life. Get involved as we have an out of control freight train that is heading for a very dangerous curve and no one is at the controls. If we all get on board we can slow down the process and allow the voters at the next election to make the final decision by replacing those that do not have the best interests of all Springwater Residents in mind.

Why Won’t this Council Reconsider the Midhurst Secondary Plan? Special Meeting!

 

*Don’t miss Sept 16 Council or the Sept 17 Special Midhurst Meetings.* 

I really appreciated the letter from Margaret Prophet from Midhurst in the last edition of SN. Her concern for costs and long term impacts are legitimate and well founded. The one disagreement I have is her assumption that the developers could sue the township if the township stopped the development plans is not totally correct.

It is obvious that the Midhurst Secondary Plan (MSP) would have been cancelled if not for the Amendment 1 and 2 of the Places to Grow Provincial Policy. Both the province and the county objected to the growth numbers of the MSP as they did not meet the population criteria of either the IGAP or original Places to Grow guidelines. If not for the Special Transition Rule for Midhurst, even the first phase of the development could not proceed. It does illustrate how much influence the large development community has on planning in our local municipalities.

It is clear in the Municipal Act and the Planning Act that the council is immune to lawsuits for things that have not been approved. Remember, the worst case scenario saw the approval of a future settlement area in Midhurst even though the people in the know say it was never a settlement area but a planning area. However the Plan which was hastily rammed though by the last Council, which included the current Mayor and Ward 1 Councillor, did not include phasing or controls of buildout such as where and when and what numbers would be permitted. These are all policies that the Township has full control over. The Township can get itself in hot water if it approves site plans and rezones land and then changes its mind. Since none of that has not occurred or been approved, the Township, if there was any political will, can reverse this catastrophic ill-conceived Midhurst Secondary Plan if it chooses to do so. I encourage Midhurst and all residents of Springwater to get into the discussion. The negative impact as noted by Ms. Prophet will increase everyone’s taxes and definitely increase water and sewer rates for those on municipal services in all areas of Springwater.

On September Tuesday 17^th at 5:30 there is a public information session to answer a number of unanswered questions about the Midhurst Mega development plans. You should make a point of being at the meeting regardless of where you live in Springwater.

We are one year away from choosing new leadership in Springater and it is definitely needed. Give yourself an opportunity to judge for yourself what some of these elected officials are doing with your hard earned tax dollars. See if you agree that some of them are destroying the very fabric of our rich rural based municipality through their lack of vision or concern when making decisions. The long term negative impacts of the decisions they are making today will not be easily revered even if we toss them out of office.

Now is the time for all of us to act and put pressure on our elected to make the right decisions to the benefit of all stakeholders. Tell them to not cave into the pressures of outsiders who have no long term consequence of the poor decisions of the 2010-2014 council.

As an added note I also encourage you to attend the next Council Meeting on Monday September 16^th at 5:30 where the infamous Webster/McLean motion will be tabled to have the Township chase people like me and pay lawyers to do so when we write things that they don’t agree with. It is of course under the guise of Slander and Libel a partial duplication of already clearly defined laws and remedies by provincial and federal statutes. The key is that they want to sic lawyers on people without being vetted by council as would be the current procedure. I am still hoping one other person will join Hanna, McConkey and Ritchie to defeat this unnecessary power. I hope saner heads will prevail and the motion is rejected as was the last ill-conceived motion to pay a communication company thousands of dollars to help this council effectively make itself look good. That approach failed miserably for the County with their expensive communication company that was trying to sell Site 41 as a good idea and a number of local Mayors and Deputy Mayors were punished for it..

These two upcoming meetings will also allow you to consider if you think Webster and McLean, the drivers of recent events, are acting like senior leaders in our local government. My opinion is that I expect to see them on the ballot the next time and one or both I suspect will shoot for the highest office.

 

 

Councillor Webster’s Response to Questions

Councillor Webster’s Response to Questions from Bill French posed at July Springwater Township Council Meeting

In fairness here are Springwater Councillor Rick Webster’s answers to the questions I asked at the July Council Meeting as presented at the August 26^th combined Planning/Council Meeting. (As a point of interest I had asked Webster prior to the Monday meeting to send me a copy of his response but I did not receive it from him. A good citizen in Midhurst requested a copy from the Township the morning after the meeting and sent it to me.)

Everything except my comments in italics were written and read by Webster at the Meeting. I had to leave early and did not hear the comments.

For clarification, Deputy Mayor MacLean indicated his intention to me to second my notice of motion and evidently he continues to intend to second it.

Mr. French’s question, as he laid it out, has four parts which I will address individually however additionally he pontificates regarding the need for this motion since, as he stated, the matter of libel, slander and defamation is covered under Provincial and federal Statute. Additionally he refers to “hurt feelings” as the motive of my motion.

Let me be perfectly clear here: insinuations of dishonesty are not about hurt feelings but rather about a breach of decorum that transcends hurt feelings and reaches the lofty height of maligning the reputation of honest hardworking people. Call me stupid, tell me you do not agree with me, tell me you wish you had not voted for me….say what you like in that regard, but do NOT call me dishonest unless you have the proof to back it up and are prepared to do so. (BF Comment-I have never accused Webster of being dishonest.)

 Part 1- Is this not an attempt to introduce pro SLAPP suit control in our bylaws while the province has recently passed legislation to minimize the use of these strategic lawsuits against public participation as such actions on the part of large companies and institutions has been recognized as bullying and intimidation?

I will quote from the Anti SLAPP Advisory Panel Report to the Attorney General, dated October 28, 2010.

Item #4: Participation by members of the community in matters of public interest is fundamental for democratic society. The very fabric of democracy is woven daily from the acts of citizens who engage in public discussion and contribute in countless ways to creating a civil society alive to the interests and rights of its members.

The key word here is CIVIL.  A Civil Society does not make claims that are libel and slanderous. (BF Comment-I do not make claims that are libelous or slanderous but offer opinions on matters relative to good governance)

Further,

Item #91: In Ontario, municipal governments do not have the right to sue in defamation. However, there are several recent cases in which municipal councillors have sued someone for criticisms aimed at the municipality or municipal interests generally. Sometimes municipalities pay the expenses of these suits.       The question arises whether this is a way of avoiding the general prohibition against municipal libel actions.      These cases almost by definition involve matters of public interest, and the resources of an individual or ratepayers group against a municipal government funding an individual politician’s lawsuit  are likely to be unequal. (BF Comment-Webster seems to miss the point that the government is acknowledging that the individual or small group is at a disadvantage)

Item #92: The Panel is not prepared to recommend a blanket probation on such suits as part of the law of defamation, however.   It is prepared to leave such suits to its general remedy for public participation.

Therefore and having admittedly not read the  recently passed legislation that Mr. French has referred to in his question, I will assume that, if such legislation exists at all, it will have not superseded the recommendation of this report. (BF Comment-I think there is some innuendo in here but my feelings aren’t damaged and I will require no therapy)

Part 2 - Is this motion not contrary to the transparency that this council professes?

I believe that my motion when read and understood in its entirety answers this question however for the record I will add, ABSOLUTLEY NOT and this Council’s record stands replete. (BF Comment-He did not explain how it adds to transparency. However he is entitled to his opinion)

Part 3 - Why should we as taxpayers be paying to gag the comments of the taxpayers that you think are uncomplimentary?

The use of the term “Gag” has strong implications. I will assume that Mr. French carefully selected this term as he prepared his question and submitted it in writing. Let me be clear again, “uncomplimentary” is not insinuating dishonesty. It is not the wording or intention of this motion for the taxpayers to pay for legal counsel for anything that is said or written that is merely uncomplimentary. (BF Comment-When you try to control discussion through threat of being sued, it is gagging as we have witnessed with major developers in recent years against resident groups and individuals using SLAPP suits)

Part 4 - Will Councillor Webster withdraw his motion which is a draconian proposal that would find a better place in Iraq or Libya or some third world despot ruled nation?

I think by now, Mr. French will have gotten the notion that I will NOT be withdrawing the motion. It is regretful that Mr. French’s opinion is that the laws passed in this chamber by elected officials have the potential of being “draconian” and that he would compare the result of said passing as making our system similar to countries such as Iraq or Libya.  In fact, as I understand it, in these countries merely posing these statements in public would result in, at a minimum, a long prison term. However, this is Mr. French’s opinion and he is certainly entitled to it. (BF Comment-I stand by my “draconian” description and I only refer to this motion by Webster and make no general reference to other positive laws that have been passed by this council)

I still hope that Webster comes to his senses before the September meeting where this motion will be debated and most likely supported by Webster, Collins, McLean and Clement based on their past history. I expect Hanna, McConkey and Ritchie to oppose it.

Transparency is no longer welcomed at Springwater Township Meetings

I believe the conduct at the Springwater Township is moving to a new time low. We hear the criticism all the time on tightly controlled members of the Harper government. People don’t necessarily agree with me, but I have no problem as it is a party system. On the other hand local councils are to be made up of independently thinking representatives. Not so at Springwater.

This council is on a move to gag opposition both within and outside the council. There are two councilors who are very concerned about the negative impact of the mega developments proposed for Midhurst. Kate Harries filed a complaint with the Closed Session Investigator and it was found that the meeting where the two councilors were berated for publishing articles on a regular basis in the newspaper was not properly conducted. Councillors have every right to address and inform the public as long as they make it clear that unless repeating a council decision they state that they speak on their own behalf and not as council. Politicians do that every day. After that attack one councilor was quite shaken and stopped including comments in the local community section of the newspaper. The other councilor has proceeded as usual.

 

At the July 15^th Council meetings there were two disturbing matters.

The first was a change in the Procedural Bylaw. Effectively they want to lengthen the period for people to give notice of a deputation, they want to reduce the notice periods for most meetings by 50% and they want to restrict the question period to only matters on the agenda. By the way they have already reduced the number of council meetings by 50%.

Also on the agenda was an extremely draconian proposal. It is effectively a pro-SLAPP suit bylaw. The last phrase is the most frightening, “Notwithstanding our unbridled support of stakeholders, where a stakeholder publishes slanderous unsubstantiated innuendo suggesting wrongdoing by elected and Township Officials, that were unsupported allegations and innuendo or wrong doing is distributed or published, that the Township engage legal services to seek relief from such irresponsible behavior, such as but not limited to authorities and the Courts”. It then goes on further to propose that the township spend money to pay legal services to provide comment on how they can apply the Libel and Slander Act. Sounds intimidating to me! The Notice of Motion was tabled by Councillor Webster and seconded by Deputy Mayor Dan McLean and was received. It will be on the next agenda for discussion and ruling and I suspect will pass unless saner heads prevail.

Here are the questions I posed of Mayor Collins and Councillor Webster at the meeting:

Question to Mayor Collins as Head of Council related to Item Agenda item 7.7: Since council has reduced the access at council meetings by 50% by having only once a month meetings.

Part 1- Is the procedural bylaw not just a guise to further reduce public comment by restricting comments in question period and reducing notice periods for delegations by 3 days and meeting notices from 48 to 24 hours which makes it more difficult to participate in the public forum?

Part 2 - Will council consider deferring this new procedural bylaw to allow councilors to properly consider what the clerk suggests are “refined” when in fact are significant changes and consider a public meeting as this is a paradigm shift on transparency?

Part 3 - Since the council is to further the business of the municipality possibly the mayor can explain how these restrictions assist in the promise of transparency that you all profess to support?

Collins responded to Part 2 and said there have been discussions and that changes will be made. No other responses however.

 

Question to Councillor Webster related to Agenda Item 11: Before my question a clarification please. Who seconded this motion to get it on the agenda in accordance with section 8.12.1 of the current bylaw? (Note: According to the Procedural Bylaw this was an incorrectly accepted motion as it was not signed by the seconder)

Since libel, slander and defamation are covered by provincial and federal statutes why would the township attempt to duplicate laws by passing an unnecessary bylaw that will cost the township taxpayers money to respond to the possible hurt feelings of a councilor who may be unkindly dealt with in the media which is private matter not a council issue?

Part 1- Is this not an attempt to introduce pro SLAPP suit control in our bylaws while the province has recently passed legislation to minimize the use of these strategic lawsuits against public participation as such actions on the part of large companies and institutions has been recognized as bullying and intimidation?

Part 2 - Is this motion not contrary to the transparency that this council professes?

Part 3 - Why should we as taxpayers be paying to gag the comments of the taxpayers that you think are uncomplimentary?

Part 4 - Will Councillor Webster withdraw his motion which is a draconian proposal that would find a better place in Iraq or Libya or some third world despot ruled nation? 

Webster did not respond. The fact that the Notice of Motion was tabled and received suggests he is not withdrawing it but he could very well do so at the next council meeting which I hope he does.

I wish that was the end of the craziness, but no! Unexpectedly Deputy Mayor McLean on a Point of Order read a long speech on the creation of two resident groups in the Midhurst area. Apparently at the last Planning Meeting there were some unexpected changes to members and Councillor Hanna and McConkey spoke strongly against it. At some point McConkey questioned the ethics of the motion but did not direct the comment at anyone specifically according to a number of people I have spoken to as I could not attend that meeting. McLean’s Point of Order demanded that McConkey retract the statement. After some 40 minute recess and a closed meeting with McConkey, Mayor Collins and the Clerk, McConkey refused to retract any statement as she felt she had not directly accused McLean of being unethical which is the premise of his Point of Order. The Mayor (acting as Judge and Juror which she is entitled to do) then ejected McConkey and told her she could not return to council until she retracted the statement. The Mayor, I think by accident, said McConkey must apologize but that is not what McLean requests in his written statement. Talk about bullying and intimidation! I checked and no one knew that McLean was going to table this non-agenda Point of Order. I have requested information on whether McLean’s Point of Order wording was coached by either township staff or paid legal services and at this point have received no response.

People and constituents must start attending local council and planning meetings or councils will veer off in tangents that are not beneficial to anyone. I believe for the most part our councilors and elected officials are good honest people. But sometimes there develops a “group think” mentality that is dangerous to all stakeholders including those elected officials that institute matters of this nature.

You need to start paying attention as in the case of Springwater this council is travelling in a much more disturbing direction than the last. That my friends is frightening.

I understand that Councilor McConkey may attend the July 22 Planning Meeting at 5:30 at the Township Administration Centre on Nursery Road and ask to be reinstated with an apology. I encourage anyone reading this to come out and show that the public will no longer tolerate heavy handed actions by senior elected officials.