ALL IN FAVOUR OF HIGHLANDS DEMOLISHING MELANCTHON?

Regarding the demolition control bylaw that was on a Melancthon Council agenda in December 2009, the following resolution was passed at the May 6, 2010 meeting of Council:

Moved by Hill, Seconded by Crowe:

Be it resolved that: Whereas there has been considerable discussion and correspondence regarding the implementation of a demolition control By-law for the Township,

And whereas Council received a report dated March 29 2010 from Andrew Fyfe providing an update of the By-law,

And whereas the report recommended the creation of an ad hoc committee to establish framework for such a By-law to suit the particular circumstances of Melancthon to include but not limited to,

- the architectural and historical significance of the dwelling

- the potential for relocation to another site

- potential impact on agricultural production

- the cumulative impact of housing stock

- the cumulative impact on the rural landscape, including the proximity to other recent removal of dwellings

And whereas both the planner and legal counsel have stated publicly that a demolition control By-law will not necessarily stop a demolition,

And whereas they have also cautioned about the possible costly appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board,

And whereas subsequent to the April 15th Council meeting the C.A.O. was requested to survey the Counties of Dufferin, Grey and Wellington to request copies of their demolition control By-laws,

And whereas only the Township of Centre Wellington responded, as there is apparently no other Municipalities with demolition control By-laws in those Counties,

And whereas a request was made of Mr. Fyfe to provide a time and cost estimate to complete a By-law,

And whereas he suggested it would be “meeting heavy” with stakeholders, public open house(s), Council, as well as two or three rewrites of a By-law before it is finally presented to Council, with further additional costs of “about $ 10,000,”

And whereas this Council has six months left in it’s term and it is most likely the information and final By-law will not be available for passage within that time frame,

Therefore be it resolved that further discussion of the demolition control By-law be tabled until January 6 2011 when the new Council can review all the correspondence from BOTH open and closed sessions and decide if in their view a demolition control By-law is in the best interests of all of the residents of Melancthon Township and make the necessary budget choices for 2011 depending on their decision.

Carried.

Analysis in tomorrow's blog.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

What anniversary you ask?

Well the one year anniversary of Highland Companies informing Melancthon Council they would be filing for an aggregate licence within 3 to 6 months.

Hm, timing seems to be off a bit.

Wonder if they ran into some problems?

CEASE AND DESIST...OR ELSE....!!!

Under an older posting on this blog is information re: Baupost Group, the Boston based hedgefund company that is allegedly behind Highlands quarry proposal.

Funny thing.

I have been getting reports that when people write the Baupost Group, expressing their concern/displeasure with the Baupost's group investment in an less than environmentally friendly project (you know the 2,400 acre 200 foot deep limestone mine on the headwaters of the Grand and Nottawasaga River systems in Melancthon) they get a letter from.....wait for it.....

Highland Companies. That little company based in Melancthon (or from a post office box from their "head office" in Hamilton). The messaging from Highlands to these letter writers is basically to cease and desist from communicating with the Baupost Group.

Wow. Last I heard Canada and the US were still free countries.

Just as a refresher, if you want to know more about the Baupost Group, google them.

Seth Klarman, however is their founder and here is his picture (hard to get as he is VERY elusive and oh yeah and very rich-on other people's money)

And here is the email address for the Baupost Group. I am not suggesting you email them, that is your own decision. I am only the information broker...

client@baupost.com

And seriously I have no idea what Highlands or the Baupost Group can or will "do to you", but...this IS a free country and the email and their website is in the public domain......

TOO CUTE FOR SUNDAY

Click on the link and enjoy...


http://www.frontiernet.net/~jimdandy/specials/sweettators/

IF ONLY STEVIE COULD FIGURE IT OUT FOR US

Lets see, Stevie has solved many mysteries of the universe.

If only he could explain to us the rationale of Melancthon Council.

The May 6, 2010 Melancthon Council agenda shows that under correspondence to be considered at the meeting is a news release from the Town of Shelburne regarding the Street Carnival & Classic Car Show June 12, 2010.

It has been explained previously in public meetings that the disemination between items ON the agenda and posted/circulated and items on the agenda that are not circulated but available on request at the Clerk's office are:

Items that require Council direction/resolution/action are posted ON the publically discussed agenda and circulated, items that require no action or for information only are listed on file with the Clerk. The final decision lies with the Mayor.

So the Street Festival was information only-NO action.

Yet there were several items listed on the agenda as not being circulated, but available on file at the Clerk's office that Council might have, nay SHOULD have considered/discussed took action, including correspondence from Marni Walsh and Louisette Lanteigne with respect to the Flamborough Quarry issue and their success in opposing it.

But no, that might be AWKWARD for Council considering Highlands paid mouthpiece is at every meeting NOT providing information, but gathering information and Council does not want any debate with them, by golly. They might be sued.

The rest of us who are actually eligible voters (unlike Highlands, Lowndes and Daniher) can....well you figure it out.

Here is the link to the May 6 agenda:
http://melancthontownship.ca/10council/agenda.may6.pdf

HOPPING OR HARPING MAD - YOU DECIDE

Here I go again, harping on and on.....on yet more YMCA woes.

This time in Owen Sound.

They are getting a brand spanking new YMCA....

"Right now, the estimate is Owen Sound will have to come up with 9.35 million dollars LOCALLY for the rec centre project, but that could balloon to 22 million without government grants."

See entire article: http://www.radioowensound.com/news_item.php?NewsID=24085

So lets see, that makes Collingwood, Owen Sound AND Shelburne....hokey smokes, someone is going to be physically fit and it won't be from working out at the Y, it will be because they are running around trying to fundraise to keep all these joints in good shape.

That is a pretty small geographic area to be raising all the money for these Y's. If I didn't know any better I would suspect there will be donor and taxpayer fatigue and in fact the existing facilities will need to be closed.

But then what do I know?

UPDATE FROM THE MUNICIPALITY OF HIGHLAND COMPANIES COUNCIL MEETING

Update: Councillors have stated repeatedly they can NOT and will NOT comment on the Highland Companies 2,400 acre 200 foot mine proposal because there is no official application as yet and it would be improper...

AND yet they can "officially" comment against 401 Energy's proposal for windturbines, despite NOTHING have been officially put in front of them when asked at Council meeting today by Highland mouthpiece as to whether they were against it.

They voted unanamously today NOT to pass the demolition control bylaw because of course Highlands is against it and oh yeah, it would take them too long to investigate what is required to pass it. What the hell does that mean? Well we don't know because of course the meeting was held during the day and they waited until the crowd left before doing this.

If any eligible voter is still considering of voting for ANY SINGLE incumbent you should be ashamed of yourself. Your vote for an incumbent is a vote for Highlands. The only people who should be more ashamed is every single incumbent on Melancthon Council.

SPIN DR. OR DOCTOR SPIN

Great article in Better Farming about NDACT's efforts to battle Highlands-see the link:

http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/minister%E2%80%99s-decision-hardly-precedent-setting-say-quarry-opponents-3105

Within what seemed like "moments" however, Daniher the highly paid mouthpiece, I mean spokesperson for Highlands had submitted a response to the article to yet again point out not only is NDACT wrong but the reporter who wrote the article wasn't (wah, wah, wah) fair..... In fact the headline given to the response is:

"Company representative challenges quarry coverage"

Click here for the link:

http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/land-rehabilitation-planned-3134

Be sure to read all the comments in response to Daniher's prattle and feel free to post your own.

WAH, WAH, WAH...

Last week the Museum Committee passed a motion recommending that County Council pass the draft tree bylaw.

Get this, included on the correspondence to be considered at that meeting was a letter from the very expensive solicitors for Highland Companies and it said, in respect of the committee amending the bylaw throughout various public meetings, at which Highlands were in attendance:

"We view this as a very unusual, secretive, and unfair procedure."

Wah, wah, wah.

In their correspondence they refer to "special interests groups"....this from the company who pays people to lobby the government in support of aggregate over food and water????

This from the company who has 21 demolition permits and when the municipality tried to protect its interests by PUBLICALLY passing a demolition control bylaw who met privately with the Mayor and staff and all of a sudden the bylaw "went away"....

PULL-LEASE.....

Here is the link to the letter:
http://www.dufferincounty.on.ca/documents/2010-04-28__MUS_Addendum.pdf

Here is how I picture Daniher getting ready for a meeting:


diaper - check






bottle - check







bag of money - check








SMIRK - check

Hey, don't forget the soother.....

$3 MILLION DEFICiT FOR WATER/SEWER AND SHELBURNE WANTS TO BUILD A $15 MILLION YMCA

If you haven't read the Shelburne Free Press this week, you missed the headline "Town wrestling with water, sewer costs" and the article goes on to state that:

"A Watson Associates study of Shelburne's water and wastewater capital needs over the next 30 years has placed town council squarely on the horns of $3.9 million dilema."

This would SEEM to say that Shelburne is needing $3.9 in capital repairs, and they may, BUT it is over the next 30 years....

So, while I would like the headline of this blog to read "$3 MILLION DEFICiT FOR WATER/SEWER AND SHELBURNE WANTS TO BUILD A $15 MILLION YMCA" it wouldn't right, fair or honest. And I am nothing if NOT honest, particularly when it comes to how Highlands is screwing local Councils around over the YMCA.

The exercise that Watson did for Shelburne is one that all Ontario municipalities have been mandated to go through. While the fancy word is Tanglible Capital Asset Accounting, in municipal circles it is referred to as PSAB.

In private business the owner/operators know when a piece of equipment, machinery is outdated, when it will need replaced and have the replacement costs in their heads and/or on the books and are always cognizant of what it will cost, when and how they will pay for it.

Councils on the other hand, are the "boss" for 3 or 4 years, depending on their term and some, not all, tend to go for the short fix. The low hanging fruit if you will, you know, something visible that won't impact taxes too much that will get ratepayers attention and if they are lucky, get politicians re-elected. IF not, then the replacement and upkeep of the item becomes the next bosses (Council's) problem. This is NOT just local Councils, this is the pattern of lots and lots of Councils.

An example of this might be a YMCA-you can't help but see it when you drive into a municipality. Repairs to something visible tend to happen, because you can see the paint flaking, the lights blown out, the sign falling down.











With other things, particularly infrastructure that is invisible-like water, sewer lines, etc. under the ground and out of sight, Councils have been tending to put these capital replacement costs off. Particularly since stable funding from province has all but stopped over the past 10-15 years.

You might have heard about this phenomina, called the Infrastructure Gap.

The "PSAB" exercise puts a value on everything owned by municipalities at the time of purchase/construction, including the pavement, stoplights, bridges, pipes under the grounds (as well as buildings, equipment, etc). Then the depreciated cost of the asset over the estimated lifespan of the asset is also given a value. (E.g. a bridge built in 1910 at a cost of $500,000.00 might have a lifespan of 100 years so the value of that bridge is zero today). Not only does the value of the assets get shown on financial statements, but the depreciation value as well.

It is hoped that this will show Councils which capital assets need replacement in order of need, not want, and help them budget for replacement. For example, clearly that 100 year old bridge with no value better get replaced and SOON.

So.....how does this have anything to do with the YMCA?

Well if the YMCA gets built some municipality is going to have to show it as an asset, and also show the depreciated value/lifespan and it is going to impact their bottom line.

Like I say, the cheap part is building it.

And if we NEED a YMCA, then be honest. What other facilities will you close, what is the bottom line cost to ratepayers on an ongoing basis. The entire plan would never have got to the point of a study if there wasn't a business case/plan in place. WHERE is it?



Probably the same place the study to reduce blowing snow on County Road 124 (you know the publically owned road) is located-Highlands head office, I mean a post office box in Hamilton.

STRAT PLAN 101

Okay, so maybe this is more easier to understand.....

Mom & Dad = Council

Staff/Public/Stakeholders = kids/banker/employer/neighbours

Their VISION = take a trip to China

They do a STRATEGIC PLAN = a slow boat to China, a supersonic jet, dirt cheap trip or most expensive possible done on credit cards, a weekend trip or a year long event with input from their banker, kids, employers, neighbours as to the feasibility of their plan

The ACTION ITEMS = tickets are booked, mail is cancelled, bags packs, animals delivered to the kennel, arrangements made with the neighbours to watch the house, etc. etc.

Each “department” (kid) makes their plans based on the VISION/STRAT PLAN/ACTION ITEMS = book their time off work/school, ensure they have their passports, pack their own bags and be at the airport on time.

Therefore, based on this analogy:

Council = VISION

Council/public/staff = STRAT PLAN

Staff (including the Planner) = ACTION ITEMS

YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW????

Yesterday

Today

Tomorrow??

URBAN PRIORITIES vs. MELANCTHON'S PRIORITIES

Funny that the large urban centre of Vaughan is talking about placing a priority on farmland:

"..the north end of Vaughan will remain agricultural, with an eye to trying to cultivate local food production on those lands."

Click for entire article:
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/805355--land-for-food-tough-sell-in-vaughan-councillor-says

Yes it will be a tough sell in Vaughan, but pretty visionary. Imagine then why, with probably THE best prime agricultural land in Ontario, if not Canada, in an agricultural area our local Council doesn't have this vision.

In fact Vaughan's draft OP calls for 6,000 acres in the north end to remain in farm production. That nicely offsets the 6,000 acres Melancthon's planning consultant has designated in the draft OP for aggregate.

It seems urban municipalities are "getting it". We need food to live. Even Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff seems to "get it" when he announced that if elected (cough, cough) the Liberals would enact a national food policy.

"the agricultural food sector is the cornerstone of the country’s economy, he said. This sector provides one out of every eight jobs and generates $42 billion annually, accounting for 8 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product."

Click for entire article: http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/805462--liberals-pitch-food-plan

I wish our local Council would "get it".

We have sustainable jobs now As long as the prime agricultural land remains ON the ground, the farming/agricultural sector will employ people. Once a giant hole is dug and the limestone removed, there is nothing-no farmland, no jobs, no community NOTHING, well except a big hole in the ground filled with water.

Sadly Melancthon Council's main priority seems to be not going to the OMB every for any reason at all. Not over a tree cutting bylaw, not a demolition control bylaw and certainly not over a 2,400 acre 200 foot hole in the ground.

IN CLOSING

Final observation about Bill's most recent letter to the editor:

Bill’s final sentence in his letter states:
“Council has nothing to hide if either of the Malloy’s are not clear about things all they have to do is ask.”

Well he is right; all you have to do is ask.

BUT there are rules about HOW you ask.

If you want an answer in a meeting of Council, so everyone knows what was asked and and the reply/answer gets into the public record via the meeting minutes the rules are:

You get to ask ONE question at each Council meeting;

The question must be submitted in writing, in advance;

There is no opportunity for follow up questions because that would mean you asked TWO questions;

If there is time, then they will accept verbal questions, but again ONE question per person;

Anyone who has attended a Council meeting in the past 16 months knows this because Melancthon’s procedure bylaw, which was revamped in 2009 by this Council (exception to Councillor White) says so.

On the other hand, if you are Highlands you apparently get to submit one written question per employee per meeting AND then the Highland spokesperson who attends every meeting of Council still gets to ask a question at the meeting, which at times is a follow up question to one of the written questions that was submitted in advance.

AND as the spokesperson for Highlands, at times you even get to ANSWER some of the questions that are posed by ratepayers to Councillors.

DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN

You know, this really isn't that hard.

This took about 15 minutes to do. Albeit, it may look like it took 15 minutes and it clearly can use some work, perhaps it could be a starting point for our local Council....??

I would suggest that Council could have a pretty good plan done in a month, even with staff and public consultation.

PRIORITY
Recognize and protect the heritage and social fabric of the community as well as the unique farming soil in the municipality:

ACTION ITEMS
· promote Melancthon through various local fairs by offering a special prize for the most unique antique farming implement displayed
· encourage a special yearly display at the County Museum to celebrate the history of agriculture and how it shaped and formed Melancthon
· sponsor and promote a contest to provide a slogan for Melancthon Township with a slant on agriculture and our unique soil
· conduct the necessary studies to have the land designated specialty crop/soil
· amend the OP to designate the specialty soil lands under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)
· designate homes under the Heritage Designation Act
· pass a demolition control bylaw with respect to barns and houses
· take part in local festivals and events in parades and celebrations promoting Melancthon and its history and heritage

PRIORITY
Promote economic development in the Township of Melancthon through diversification based on the principles of the new economy as well as support of existing business:

ACTION ITEMS
· support existing aggregate operations and new operations in areas that will not impact prime agricultural land
· support through the OP& zoning process home based businesses
· promote Melancthon’s agricultural diversity and uniqueness through a farmers market, partnering with local food and 100 mile food initiatives
· support existing aggregate operations and designate new aggregate areas in Melancthon which do not impact prime agricultural land
· create signage unique to Melancthon and post at all major transportation corridors
· designate a councillor to sit on the Shelburne & District Economic Development Committee
· support the Dufferin Area Chamber of Commerce
· continue to support and monitor existing wind turbines facilities and operations
· ensure that all of the municipality has access to broadband/high speed internet which is integral to the success of existing business as well as the recruitment relocation of the creative class


PRIORITY
Recognize and promote the citizen’s right to a balanced environment and secure source of water and ensure safeguards are in place to protect citizens:

ACTION ITEMS
· declare the municipality one of the most important recharge areas in the province of Ontario and circulate to all Ministries
· ensure that no one industry/business/operation is permitted to jeapordize the environment or water sources through zoning, OP’s and various designations available
· pass a municipal tree cutting bylaw
· do all studies for source water protection, hydrology, etc. as is prudent
· continue to monitor the landfill site closely
· etc. etc.
· ensure that all native species and species at risk are acknowledged and protected

PRIORITY
Promote and provide a balanced and healthy quality of life for residents:

ACTION ITEMS
· continue to support the Mulmur, Dundalk and Shelburne arenas and pools
· support local sports teams
· lobby with other local municipalities to keep the Shelburne hospital site open
· continue to lobby with other municipalities to recruit physicians and nurse practitioners
· support the existing trail system on which there are various recreational activities including snowmobiling, snowshoeing, horseback riding, walking, ATV’ing, etc. etc.
· officially recognize the Township of Melancthon as the home of Aaron Downey, Stanley Cup Champion and Bert Wilson, NHL player through permanent signage
· promote cultural events in neighbouring municipalities including the Shelburne and Dundalk theatre groups

SECOND LAST BLOG ON BILLS MOST RECENT LETTER TO THE EDITOR

For those of you who can't remember, here is a link to recap Deputy Mayor Bill Hill's (Mayoralty Candidate) letter to the editor, doing battle with a ratepayer/declared candidate:
http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-04-22/Mailbox/Suggestions_not_correct.html

Over the past few blogs I have been taking select lines and quotes and doing a play by play analysis.

Bill states in this letter:
"The Official Plan has to comply with Provincial legislation. Council and the public want to have their say as well. The suggestion that we aren’t putting our vision on the report is not correct.

Once the review is done, input digested and
incorporated as the law allows, Council will be able to articulate the views held by them and the ratepayers and it will form part of the plan.

To do it before the report has been reviewed and revised is premature. "

SNAP...

I have done a little bit of research on line (actually in 5 minutes with google and anyone can find this stuff) and most of the sophisticated municipalities, large or small know the strategic (vision) plan process. And with all due respect, Bill has it backasswards.

So here it is broken down step by step:

DEFINITION:
Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital and people. "

A council is elected.

EARLY in their term, usually within weeks of being sworn in, they have strategic planning meetings to each put forth their vision/mandate/plan for the municipality. You know, to formulate the reasons why they ran and what they want to accomplish in their mandate.


Staff and public input are sought as part of the process.

A facilitator works with them to moderate the session and the group comes to a consenus. There are usually 3-5 priorities, under which objectives/action plans are initiated and budget implications are calculated

For instance, lets say for argument's sake one priority agreed upon would be to have THE best agricultural community in Ontario based on specialty soils.

Every report with a recommendation to Council (note to Melancthon: most municipalities do not read the correspondence/requests out loud, staff provide WRITTEN reports with recommendations upon which Council needs to vote) sets out how it ties into the Strategic Plan and the financial implications.

Pretty simple actually.

The strategic plan/vision statement becomes the overarching high level "map" for lack of a better word for the term of Council

That would ALSO mean any Official Plan would be tied into the Strategic plan, NOT the other way around.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the City of Windsor's links. They set a strat plan, THEN did their OP review.
http://www.citywindsor.ca/002167.asp (note the date, 2006)

http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=10375 (note the date, 2007)

The City of Barrie even has their strategic priorities laminated and on the walls throughout their municipal building.

The point here is COUNCIL is to set the direction/policy with input from staff and the public-not the municipal planner, lawyer, staff, public or Highlands and everything ELSE, including the OP, ties into that.

Maybe I am interpreting Bill's letter incorrectly, but he seems to be saying that AFTER the province, the planner and the lawyer tell them what they have to do, then each one of Council will put their "own" vision forward and somehow out of that will come forth a plan for Melancthon.

I have to ask again, if the planner and province are going to tell Council what do to, what do we need Council for? And seriously, FIVE individual councillors are each going to put forth their own vision, as opposed to coming on a consensus as to what the ONE vision for the township should be.

BEST WISHES

Just heard that a former long serving Mayor of Melancthon was taken ill a few days ago.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery Garry.

VALUE FOR MONEY

Do you think an $81,000.00 planner is too expensive? (See yesterday's blog post)

Well, consider this - first of all that is the going rate for planners. (NOTE TO KIDS: go to school and be a planner.)

So lets do the math.

At $81,000.00 a year, based on a 35 hour work week for 52 weeks a year comes to:

$44.50 an hour.

Since we have no idea how many hours the current planning consultant charges us (except for the 7 committed hours a month in office since June 2009) lets be generous and say he charges us for 20 hours a month for 12 months of the year, based on the planning consultant fees paid in 2009 of $65,000.00, comes to:

$270.00 an hour

Which do you think is better value for money?

A full time planning employee at $44.50 an hour who could also draft bylaws, do legislative research, work on the next five year OP review, work with Council to develop a strategic plan (which is a vision statement)deal with bylaw infractions, write reports, hell they could even answer the phone if it is busy....oh yeah and they could also deal with Highlands who are, in their own words, proposing a 2,400 acre, 200 foot deep open pit limestone mine on prime agricultural land.

OR a planning consultant at $240.00 an hour who to date has taken 6 years to work on the OP and still not produced a final draft or maps and guarantees 7 hours per month in the office?

Just asking.

MORE MISTER BILL.....Continued from yesterday

About that letter....

Bill states:
“To suggest Melanchthon needs a full time planner is not accurate. We did 7 severances in 2009. "

FIRSTLY : Melancthon’s own figures for 2009 show taxpayers paid Planning & Development fees of $65,039.08. Bill’s letter seems to intimate that all the planner did was 7 severances in 2009. Wow, if that is true, that is approximately $9,200 per severance in planning fees.

IF however you look at Melancthon’s breakdown in numbers, the OP planning expense was $12,000.00, the wind projects required planning fees of about $12,000.00, and general planning fees of $40,000.00 were paid.

And don’t forget, until June 2009 Melancthon’s planning consultant never stepped foot in the office. It was only in June and ONLY on pressure from ratepayers that Melancthon Council had the planner attend – ONE DAY A MONTH.

And the planning consultant has been “working on” Melancthon’s OP for 6 years and has not produced a completed map or final draft. Seems like he is trying his best to make a full time job out of that.

Bill goes on to state:
“The cost would NOT be a few thousand dollars more but probably two or three times the current amount, because there would not be the work to employ him full time.”

So by Bill’s figures it would cost Melancthon about $200,000 a year for a full time planner. And by a full time planner we don't mean a full time planning consultant, but a full time employee.

Lets take a look:

Here is a link to the City of Hamilton’s website advertising for an experienced senior planner:

https://hr.hamilton.ca/psc/hr8eapps/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?SiteId=1&Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&JobOpeningId=6524&

You will note the salary range is from $70,980 to $81,062.00 per year. Lets take the highest amount, add 20% for benefits and Melancthon can have a FULL TIME PLANNER for about $97,000.00 a year-NOT the $200,000.00 that Bill projects.

As for Bill’s statement there wouldn’t be enough work: HONESTLY... this planner would be dealing with the biggest aggregate application EVER proposed in Ontario. And it appears there will be more wind projects. And the next OP review.

And perhaps they could actually get someone who could multi-task, you know produce all bylaws in house as most other municipalities do, instead of paying a solicitor every single time you need a bylaw. Maybe this planner could even do the reports that go with the bylaws, instead of having to hire ANOTHER planning consultant to do that job. The planner could do bylaw enforcement and legislative research. Dare I suggest even work on a Strategic Plan????

Mono has a Deputy Clerk/Planner. Melancthon has a CAO/Clerk/Treasurer. That employee can do three jobs....

Just a thought.

More in another post.

IS IT JUST ME????

Does this picture remind anyone of our current Deputy Mayor/Mayoralty Candidate Mister Bill.....

You know, the Black Knight (aka Bill) in the Monty Python sketch who argues, "tis but a scratch", then "it is just a flesh wound" as Arthur/ratepayers, in disbelief and frustration, cut off limb after limb after limb, leaving the Black Knight, nothing but a torso lying there, spurting blood, still arguing..... "Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!" IT IS THE PROVINCES FAULT!!!!

Moral of the story and someone's potential campaign slogan: If you never give up, you can't possibly lose.

Anyone.....or is it just me????

Maybe it is just me....

MISTER BILL....

Oh no, he is at it again.

You would think Mayoralty Candidate Bill Hill (currently Deputy Mayor) of Melancthon would have enough do to with sitting on Council and various committees and running for Mayor in the October 2010 election and running a business, but no...

It appears he has time to take pen to paper yet again to argue with ratepayers (potential voters) and other municipal candidates.

Bill has never been one to take criticism lying down, well...actually he's never been one to take criticism at all, so this shouldn't be surprising, but surprised I am.

Here is a link to this week's Mister Bill letter to the editor:

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-04-22/Mailbox/Suggestions_not_correct.html

Keep in mind, this is Bill's SECOND letter to this ratepayer (and declared candidate) on the same issue in two weeks. Check out the blog posting for April 15 for the backstory.

So, in the interests of keeping people engaged in the forthcoming rant I will address some of his letter in today's post and some in tomorrow's post. After all I don't want to bore people or tire them out.

Bill states in this week's letter to the editor:
"When I heard Mr. Malloy filed his papers for the position of Councillor I called him to congratulate him for “stepping up” and offered to meet with him at his convenience to have a “big picture” discussion and bring him up to speed on some issues. He wasted no time declining my offer of help."

Read that again-Bill offered to bring this candidate "up to speed" on some issues. NOT that Bill offered to have a mutual dialogue, but rather Bill is going to tell this guy the way it is.

Any wonder why this candidate/ratepayer wasted no time in declining help from Bill????

RUN AWAY!!!

TUNE IN TOMORROW for more....

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??

Advice is ratepayers need to "get along with Council" and work with them.

I know from the conversations around town that people want to do that. I mean we have known each other for years having been neighbours, friends, relatives and involved in business together.

Here is yet another example, however, of why it is very difficult.

Highlands (who are no friends) has taken out 21 burn permits for structures in Melancthon and have demolished 16. They state these homes were in "poor condition".
Bullcrap.

Their spokesperson stated at a June 2009 meeting that in fact these structures were condemned.
Bullcrap.

Their spokesperson stated at the same meeting that people were fearmongering and Highlands had plans to "only" demolish less than double digits.
Bullcrap.

In response to the loss of cultural heritage and tax base, ratepayer after ratepayer after ratepayer wrote and attended Council to implore/beg/plead/demand they pass a demolition control bylaw.

In December 2009 a demolition control bylaw appeared on Melancthon's agenda.

After that, 18 letters of support for passing the bylaw were submitted to Melancthon Council.

One letter in opposition was received from guess who? Highland Corporations.

Who did Melancthon choose to meet with in a private meeting?

Not one of the 18 individuals who wrote in to support the passing of the bylaw.

They met privately with John Lowndes of Highlands and his solicitor. The ONE objector.

Funny that Johnny had time to attend that meeting, because he hasn't been able to find the time to attend a meeting on the invitation of Council to defend the jobs that were projected in their very widely distributed DVD as a result of their proposed 2,400 acre 200 foot open pit mine.

Did the bylaw get passed?

NOPE.

Gee, wonder what happened at the private meeting?

Gee, wonder why people find it so hard to support Council?

EYE ON THE PRIZE

Success stories:

FORCE:
Provincial Order Freezes Zoning ToStop-The-Quarry, April 2010
http://www.stopthequarry.ca/

CARRA:
Puslinch Residents Stop Quarry, January 21, 2010
http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/588689

MELON LAKE:
Environment Wins over Gravel
http://www.wildlandsleague.org/attachments/Final%20Quarry%20denied%20-%20Mellon%20Lake.pdf

CORPORATE WORLD

Charles Harnick and Philip Dewan are shown as registered lobbyist for The Highland Companies (click link for information:

https://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/LRO/RegistrationPublic.nsf/SearchResults/?SearchView&Query=highland&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0

Interesting observations:

Chuck and Phil show their office address as 95 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto. Why is that familiar? Well that is because Daniher's office address for his business Special Situations is ALSO at 95 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto. (google it) You know Daniher, Michael Daniher, mouthpiece/spokesperson for everything Highlands???

But THE most interesting observation?

The Highland Companies head office is listed on the Lobbyist Registry as 1063 King Street West, Suite 234, Hamilton, Ontario. NOT the Melancthon address they put on all their letterhead when they write to the locals.

Google map street view shows that 1063 King Street West is a UPS Store and UPS confirms that suite 234 is a letter box. (google it).

I would imagine it is very difficult to have corporate meetings around a board table in a mailing box in a UPS store.

On the other hand, if anyone gets fired it won't take long to clean out their desk.
You can't believe everything you find on the internet, so if anyone can prove this information is not correct, please, please I will post a retraction.

Daniher? Lowndes....r u still out there?

EXPLOSIVE SITUATION

Ratepayers have been unsuccessfully fighting the mega corporation Orica's planned expansion plans for their Grand Valley site for about the past year.

Orica's own website states: "Orica Mining Services offers commercial explosives, initiating systems and Blast-Based Services to the mining, quarrying and construction industries".

When the residents were objecting to Orica's expansion proposal, they were told they were fear mongering, NIMBY, etc. etc.

Orica's website states: "Orica's bulk delivery systems are efficient, effective and, above all, safe."

Imagine our surprise then when the local paper reported this week that this world class company had a driver who ran a stop sign with a truck loaded with dynamite!! (see link for article: http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-04-15/Front_Page/Orica_driver_charged_in_collision.html )

Amazingly here is a letter to the editor almost one year prior to the accident stating: "Nitrate trucking an accident waiting to happen".
http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2009-03-12/mailbox/019.html

A bit of research shows that if you pay enough, you can seemingly do whatever you want: "Orica pays $10,000 for half load repreive (click to link: http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-03-25/Local_News/Orica_pays_10000_for_halfload_reprieve.html )

And finally, the Mayor of Grand Valley seems to have been schooled at the same institution that Melancthon Council attended that being the school of Anything but the OMB, as evidence by his statement:

"It will be taken to the OMB either by (Orica) or by the residents," he said.
In addition, there is speculation among the residents that Orica would sue the township for upwards of $2 million if it were to refuse permanent rezoning, as it had allowed the company to build on the strength of the temporary zoning."

(click link for article: http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2009-04-23/front_page/002.html

Does this sound familiar to anyone in Melancthon? You know, trust the Council and Highlands to get the best deal for the municipality (even if that means a 2,400 acre 200 foot open pit mine) and to NOT to take anything to the OMB.

CHUMP CHANGE

How much did it cost St. Mary's to lose their fight to dig a big hole in Flamborough?

According to the Hamilton Spectator (link attached: http://www.thespec.com/article/753053)

$20 million.

Wow, that is pocket change for Highland Companies. The cost of purchasing the rail line from Orangeville alone is $5 million, PLUS the $2 million signing bonus for a portion of the County owned railline.

Add that to the cost of the YMCA they want to build for us and wow, there is $20 million right there.

PLEA FOR HELP

I just checked out the NDACT blog (click the link: http://mail.ndact.com/blogs/forum/)

It asks the question as posted by "the truth hurts" has Dale has been arrested???

My understanding is Dale is the Chair of NDACT and I am not sure if he has been arrested or not, but just in case: Please, please, please donate money to bail him out of jail. Send your generous donations c/o NDACT, Box 15, Honeywood, Ontario LON 1H0.

In the event that he hasn't been arrested, I would guess that your generous donation will go toward fighting the 2,400 acre 200 foot open pit limestone mine.

THUMP, BACK DOWN TO EARTH

Okay, so Flamborough managed to stop a 300 acre quarry.

What does this mean for Melancthon ratepayers who are fighting a 2,400 acre 200 foot open pit limestone mine on prime agricultural land?

Well, it must be remembered that Flamborough ratepayers had a municipal champion from the very first tree that the corporation started felling. Her name is Councillor Margaret McCarthy. She did what politicians are elected to do, work in the best interests of ratepayers.

The anti-quarry Friends of Rural Communities for the Environment, (FORCE) wasn't alone. The quarry was strongly opposed by Hamilton, Halton, Burlington and Milton councils, medical officers of health, conservation authorities, school boards, farm groups and the Ontario Environment Ministry, as well as hundreds of people in Hamilton, Halton and the Greater Toronto Area.

Article: http://www.thespec.com/article/753053
Councillor McCarthy actually went to Queen's Park, several times to raise the profile of the issue with McGuinty and she courted the media. Hamilton even paid for many of the studies and expenses related to fighting this, thanks to her diligence and perserverance.

Here is her website: http://www.margaretmccarthy.ca/html/issues_-_quarry.html

Now what are Melancthon and County politicians doing to help their ratepayers who have begged, pleaded and argued for assistance in this issue for the past year.

Nothing, no municipal tree cutting bylaw, no enforcement of the County tree cutting bylaw for the past year until two weeks ago when legal action was threatened if they didn't start, no demolition control bylaw, no studies, no money, no trips to Queen's Park, NO PUBLIC SUPPORT for anyone, except well Highland Companies.

What is our Mayoralty candidate, the current Deputy Mayor busy doing? Taking pen to paper to PUBLICALLY ARGUE with a ratepayer who, with all due respect, dared to criticize Melancthon Council.

Here is a link to the original ratepayers letter:
http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-04-08/Mailbox/Information_fell_on_deaf_ears.html

Here is Mayoralty candidate, the current Deputy Mayor's reply:
http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-04-15/Mailbox/Expression_of_views_okay_but_need_facts.html

So we know he knows how to write, but why in the hell isn't he fighting TOGETHER WITH his ratepayers instead of AGAINST them in the quarry battle?

A FLY ON THE WALL

If I could only have been a fly on the wall at the corporate headquarters of St. Mary's Cement when the following information was received about their proposed 300 acre quarry in Flamborough:

"Province Listens, Stops Proposed Quarry in Hamilton"
link to entire article:
http://news.ontario.ca/mah/en/2010/04/province-listens-stops-proposed-quarry-in-hamilton.html

(Just to recap, this is the Flamborough quarry that brother David Lowndes was involved in, sort of the way "our" John Lowndes is involved in the proposed quarry in Melancthon. You know, buy the land, find the investors, tell them it will be a cakewalk, grab the money and ...)

Since I couldn't be there in St. Mary's big expensive boardroom when the news came through, I let my imagination picture some various scenarious:







OMG-this cost us how much???










Let me get my hands on him, where is he???

Who is going to tell the investors?

Gee, I hope the Baupost Group doesn't find out about this....

Photo: Michael Daniher, Highlands "spokesperson"

TAKE NOTE

At the first Melancthon draft OP meeting, the presentation by Jerry Jorden, the planner, was basically reading word for word the.....entire draft...... OP.....sorry, I dozed off there....

There wasn't even anything like oh say, MAPS, for people to review to keep them awake. I mean seriously anyone who had printed off the draft and read it themselves could have made the same presentation.

And the most common statement by the planner when questioned on anything..."I think" or "I am not sure, I will have to look into that". Seriously, he has been working on this for FIVE years and in the Mayor's own words has been paid at least $100,000.00 for his work on the draft OP alone and he doesn't know and still have to look into stuff. Not very encouraging for sure.

Anyhew things livened up a bit during question period.

Jorden stated that the bottom line was there would be no impact on water for any approved aggregate operation -not quality or quantity.

A ratepayer asked what would happen if Highlands application got approved and there WAS impact on the quality or quantity of someone's water who had never had a problem before a 2,400 acre 200 foot mine was dug.

He replied that it would not be an issue with the municipality, but the property owner experiencing the issues would have go through the courts and PROVE that their problems with water were caused by the 2,400 acre 200 foot mine operating.

Now I am paraphrasing here, but that means if you have a problem, you take your own limited resources, hire a lawyer and try to win a court case against a company with more money than God.

This ratepayer suggested that because of the size of this proposed application, as stated by the company themselves, was beyond any other standard ever seen in Ontario, perhaps Melancthon through site plans and bylaws should set the standard higher and perhaps request money on deposit from this company to assist individuals in their lawsuits. (If people remember, this was suggested in the summer of 2009 by a ratepayer who made an impassioned plea to Council.)

The planner, in his infinate wisdom, however didn't feel that was necessary, citing past precedent that people had to prove their cases in court at THEIR expense.

God help us all.....because Council doesn't seem to be in a position to impose anything beyond the bare minimum because of course it is the province's fault.

And my own opinion, the planner for Melancthon is out of his element and a dinosour in the planning world. Just saying....

DEAF EARS.....

Great letter to the editor this week.

In summary it is a letter to Melancthon Council saying, we warned you, but you didn't listen. The final sentence says it all:

"These same council members will soon be faced with a Quarry application. "

Here is the link to the entire letter:

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-04-08/Mailbox/Information_fell_on_deaf_ears.html

BIGGEST PROBLEM CAUSED BY HIGHLANDS DEFORESTATION PROGRAM???

Thanks to the anon person who submitted this. Still LOL....

PEOPLE POWER

The Shelburne paper is reporting an NDACT fundraiser on May 29, 2010.

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2010-04-01/Local_News/NDACT_fest_May_29_Towns_moved_to_June.html

Watch NDACT's website for updates.

MERRY EASTER

Take a break, enjoy family/church/synagog/chocolate/ ham & scalloped potatoes/easter bunny or all of the above.

Catch you in a few days.

DOUBLE DOUBLE

I bet you thought of Timmy's when you read that, didn't you?

Well now that I have your attention, here I go again about Highland's (and Eddie Crewsons) pet project, a $15 million YMCA to be located in Shelburne, but financially supported by 5 neighbouring munipalities.

What type of financial support? Don't know, no one seems to "officially" know anything. Very peculiar, particularly when they are already discussing a land purchase to accomodate the facility. Must be a business plan somewhere.

Read this article from Collingwood closely. It is about how the taxpayers are on the hook for $1.5 million in reno/expansion costs to their YMCA. AND then the same ratepayers are being solicited to donate/fundraise another $2 million to pay for the $ 3.5 million YMCA reno/expansion.

http://www.simcoe.com/news/article/656035--ymca-kicks-off-fundraising-drive

Talk about a double double.

Same funding issues will happen here if the YMCA goes ahead. Building it is the cheap part.

OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT?

Recently a Melancthon ratepayer asked to videotape public meetings of Council.

(Shhh, The Municipal Act is silent on this issue. It is a local decision as to permit this or not. )

Melancthon Council did not seem to realize the decision was theirs and immediately went into panic mode and contacted their lawyer...DURING the meeting at which the request was made. Wow, this is clearly WAY more important than a 2,400 acre, 200 foot open pit mine, stop the presses, call the cops, get a legal opinion!!!!!

Attached is the legal opinion provided (at taxpayers expense of course):

http://melancthontownship.ca/10notices/2010-videotaping-meetings.pdf

In short, it basically advises Council to adjourn the meeting and to contact the police should anyone videotape a public meeting in a public facility. Do you think they have a panic room? I envision the Monty Python sketch, "Run away, run away"... but I digress.

Mr. Osyany's legal opinion does state that the Municipal Act, 2001 does not speak to videotaping a public meeting in a public venue. What he neglects to mention is that many, many, many Council meetings, even the Provincial legislature are videotaped by local cable programs.

His legal opinion also does not advise that if Council determines that videotaping will NOT be permitted, that they need to include that provision in their procedure bylaw AND/OR in a written policy.

Currently the procedure bylaw provides that the Mayor or Presiding Officer can deal with behaviour that "disrupts the order and decorum of the meeting". Did Council give this ratepayer the opportunity to show that the videotaping would be unobtrusive and not disrupt the decorum of the meeting?

NO. They just threatened to call the police. I am not sure what charge the police would lay???...????

If a member of the public can not videotape within the municipal building, I would presume that would also mean should VR land show up to videotape a good news story on the premises they would be barred. Should someone have a retirement party on the premises, I would presume videotaping would be prohibited?

I have to assume that, because there is a lack of a written policy with respect to videotaping.

It IS curious however that Council has NOT passed the demolition control bylaw which they introduced in December 2009. Apparently it is because the bylaw appears to be "directed" at one problem ratepayer (for lack of a better word) and their crack legal team has determined that you can't single out anyone for their actions with a specific bylaw or policy. (If this is not correct, you will have to forgive me, but the issue was dealt with in closed session as well as a private meeting between the Mayor and Highlands, ooops, I mean the "problem ratepayer").

Seems funny then, that Council can direct an unwritten policy and threats of police action against ONE ratepayer who merely asked to videotape a public meeting in a public building which said meetings and premises are paid for with taxpayer $$$$.

HOW MUCH DO TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THE DUFFERIN COUNTY CAO

Public Sector Salary disclosure website shows that for 2009 the taxpayers in Dufferin paid the top bureaucrat at the County CAO a salary of $143,004.12.

Don't believe me?? Check out this link: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2009/munic09.html
This is the same CAO who can't seem to get a coyote bylaw right, who seemingly wasn't able to interpret the County 's own longstanding tree bylaw correctly, but who now is advising:

"At the direction of the Warden and the Chair of the Museum Board we wish to advise that effective immediately, the existing County of Dufferin Bylaw 2006-15 will be enforced to its fullest extent and will apply to all cutting. Applications for minor exemptions under this bylaw will be considered based on the entire area of the woodlands, regardless of property lines.
The County Forester has been directed accordingly.

Linda J. Dean, MPA"

This is the same CAO, who accepted the position as County CAO at the salary offered several years ago, but then within 2 years convinced the County Council that the top bureaucrat should always make more than anyone else in the County and received a raise in keeping with the position;

This is the same CAO who has "allegedly" violated the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) by "reporting" on those nuisance ratepayers to their employers, thereby subjecting the County (and taxpayers) to a potential civil lawsuit;

This is the same CAO who within 2 short years of becoming the County CAO, surreptitiously moved office from the front of the County building to the back of the building, upstairs, out of the way of the pesky public, without notifying Council.

How did she do that? Well she read the policy and realized that if she spent less than $10,000.00 doing it, she wouldn't have to obtain Council permission (and thereby not inform Council BEFORE she did it). How much did the move cost the ratepayers-between $9,000 and $10,000.00.

That is right, just under $10,000 to move an office. Remember, it needed to be in keeping with her position as THE most senior bureaucrat in Dufferin. And I do believe it involved some VERY nice furniture too.

This is the same CAO who County employees don't raise any sort of concerns or objections or they find themselves escorted to the door, without explanation or reason. Not a problem for the CAO, because the taxpayers pay for the wrongful dismissal, all behind closed doors so the public has no idea what is going on or what they are paying for. Is that the kind of organization that you want handling YOUR tax dollars? Where staff who might be in a position to know something is amiss, is afraid to speak out? In my opinion, the show up and shut up method seems to be the County CAO's management style.

This is the same CAO whom I watched in disbelief at County Council as the press were taking pictures of politicians for some good deed they had done and the photoshoot stopped dead, as the CAO, a paid employee NOT a politican, took leave of her dais and took a place in the photoshoot.

Here is a tip: a CAO's job is to carry out the elected Council's policies and directives and for $140,000 be able to advise Council and know when a bylaw is not in conformity with provincial legislation or when the County is obligated to enforce their own bylaws. Their job is NOT to ensure their picture appears in the paper alongside elected officials.

In my opinion this same CAO is stifling any sort of ratepayer involvement or questioning by her belittling answers and her impatient and discourteous manner. The average taxpayer should not have to be a lawyer, a municipal expert or have legislative experience or knowledge to be able to ask a question and expect a response. Being belittled, looked down upon and shut down or out is NOT the type of open and transparent government to which the County of Dufferin ratepayers are entitled or pay for.

I am sure that politicians do not need to be reminded that a municipal employee's behaviour reflects on the politicians and their chances for re-election. The bureaucrats keep their job no matter how nasty they are to the paying public.

Here is something to think about. New Tecumseth (Alliston) pays their CAO $143,571.68 a year. That CAO is also a lawyer, who I can bet does NOT need to pay for a legal opinion on a New Tecumseth bylaw. Dufferin pays their CAO (who's background is the Clerk of Orangeville) $143,004.12. Which ratepayers are getting more value for their money, New Tec or Dufferin?

Just a thought.

WINNING A BATTLE IN THE LONG WAR

Found this posting on facebook:

"The Museum Board Meeting scheduled for last night (Wednesday March 24th, 2010) was unable to go forward due to a lack of quorum. This means further delay in dealing with the proposed new Forest Conservation Bylaw. In the meantime, the County Forester requires direction on the enforcement of the County’s existing Bylaw.

At the direction of the Warden and the Chair of the Museum Board we wish to advise that effective immediately, the existing County of Dufferin Bylaw 2006-15 will be enforced to its fullest extent and will apply to all cutting. Applications for minor exemptions under this bylaw will be considered based on the entire area of the woodlands, regardless of property lines.

The County Forester has been directed accordingly.

Linda J. Dean, MPA
Chief Administrative Officer"

Congratulations to everyone who has long fought this battle against clear cutting Melancthon forests.

I would suggest that if you see ANY cutting in Melancthon/Mulmur or anywhere in Dufferin, in view of this recent edict from on high, that you email the County Forrester ASAP at forestmanager@dufferinmuseum.com My understanding is they no longer accept verbal complaints, they must be in writing.

MUSEUM TREE CUTTING MEETING

The committee was unable to deal with the bylaw last night. Unfortunately they didn't have a quorum and couldn't hold a meeting. And these things do happen and it is unfortunate, but sometimes that is the way things go-not as planned.

The Chair did ask for comments/questions from the public for discussion only and not for the purposes of a meeting, and there were some good comments.

It looks like they will have to consider the issues next month at the next committee meeting.