Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 28 January 2016

Yesterday afternoon, as we are getting into our car in the driveway, I am approached by a complete stranger from Smart Care, kitted out in a blaze of orange, clip-board in hand.

He says he needs to check the air conditioning and the furnace. He is quite assertive. I ask if he is from the Government. Not exactly he says but its official and he needs to check the serial number of our furnace. It is all about up-grading furnaces and air conditioners to meet standards. He’s gotta check it all out.

Whoa! Not so fast.

He senses he caught us at a bad moment and says he will come back. I tell myself that’s the last we’ll see of him.

As we drive off I see him join two other Orange Day-Glo people on the street corner. They work in teams.

Now it is 6.45pm and I am in the kitchen preparing dinner. The bell rings and it is Mr Orange Day-Glo again.

I am at the front door in my apron, spatula in hand. I tell him I am not interested in whatever he is selling and he is not coming in. I tell him I’ve checked the website and he is not coming in. He looks mystified.

What website is that then?

The one that says you are not coming in.

He tells me he is an authorized contractor.

I tell him I am not arguing about it and I close the door.

This kind of door-stepping upsets me. It is predatory and dishonest. The trappings of officialdom are all there but we are talking about private contractors inveigling themselves into people’s homes, presumably to tell them their furnace or air conditioning has to be upgraded (if indeed it does).

The Government wants people to use electricity in an energy efficient way. I have no problems with this.

At arms length sits the Independent Electricity System Operator. It is a not-for-profit body, overseeing the electricity market, whose Chair and Directors are appointed by the Government of Ontario. So far so good.

The IESO also offers programs designed to encourage energy conservation through its website www.saveonenergy.ca.  There is a heating and cooling incentive program for people who have purchased eligible central heating or cooling equipment through a “participating contractor”. They offer a $250 discount encouraging you to upgrade your furnace to a high-efficiency one or $250-$400 to install a new “Energy Star” certified air conditioning system.

The part of the saveonenergy.ca website Mr Orange Day-Glo is not familiar with reads as follows:

The Independent Electricity System Operator (EISO) formerly the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) does not call consumers to solicit participation in its programs. No IESO residential programs require door-to-door sales calls or the inspection of any heating and cooling equipment and the IESO does not charge a fee to participate in any of its conservation programs.

I am all in favour of saving the planet. Energy conservation is a good thing.

But I draw the line at sales people, masquerading as officials, insisting they have a right to enter your home to check serial numbers or anything else.

They don’t.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 05 January 2016

Bob Forrest has spent five long years on the Clock Tower project. Patiently assembling the land he needs for his giant disfiguring condo in the heart of Newmarket’s historic downtown. But has he bitten off more than he can chew?

Like most developers he takes the long view. He is prepared to sit out the opposition, waiting until they tire, give up and move on with their lives. He stays the course knowing the financial rewards are immense.

Bob is an honourable man

The Forrest Group website tells us “Bob is an honourable man, of conviction and tenacity.” And one of his key strengths is “his ability to look at dirt but see development.”

Bob prefers to deal directly with planning staff. If the public gets involved they bring with them new and unwelcome unpredictability and uncertainties. Better to deal with the professional planners direct. No matter how controversial the proposal, Bob can endlessly ask for their views and re-shape the concept and fine-tune his plans in a bid to get their OK.  He needs the planners to recommend approval.

This is the way our broken planning system works.

Planners and Developers are made to tango

The developers and the planning professionals have a symbiotic relationship. They both need each other. Too often, the planners see their role as facilitating development rather than being the community’s first line of defence against inappropriate development. The planners do not owe their primary allegiance to the Town that employs them but, rather, to their own professional planning credo. If they regard a development as “good planning" or, less likely, "bad planning” they are obliged to say so regardless of what their employer (the Town) may think.

Bob Forrest recognizes the importance of this relationship and sings its virtues in his website:

“By leveraging our strong reputation and existing relationships with municipal staff and politicians we have successfully achieved results for both simple projects and those that present complex structural and environmental challenges.”

The Clock Tower certainly presents huge challenges. He needs Town owned land for the project to proceed as planned. And he faces a large, varied but well organised group of skeptics who believe his condo would be an outrageous desecration of the Town’s heritage conservation district.

The Gospel according to Saint Bob

Fortunately we know what we are up against. The saintly Bob tells us he conducts his business life by following these maxims:

1. “Treat others as you would wish to be treated.”
2. “Make no promises you cannot deliver, then deliver on your promises.”
3. “Never make a deal you would not yourself accept.”
4. “Acknowledge your errors.”

Bob’s hagiographic website celebrates his commitment to integrity and innovation and his abiding commitment to his business partners and to business ethics.

This is the same Bob Forrest who wants to transform Newmarket’s heritage conservation district by demolishing a number of its historic commercial buildings to make room for a giant out-of-place condo.  

Boarded-up Main Street

In December 2013 Bob had the first of a series of discussions with his business tenants on Main Street, all of whom have now been evicted from the properties they rented from him. These properties are all now boarded up and have been for many months.

The business tenants facing eviction wondered if they could be accommodated in the empty King George School round the corner in Park Avenue, just beyond the library. It was sold by the York Region School Board in 2011 to Chrisula Selfe for $1,275,000 and has been gently falling to bits since. Occasionally you can see a light burning in one of the old classrooms. They ask for Bob’s help.

Bob offers to approach the owner – a person he describes as a Bay Street financial type - but is rebuffed. Bob tells his business tenants the owner of the old school is just going to let it sit there and worry about it some day.

Heritage By Law wrong-footed Bob

Bob tells his business tenants he was wrong footed by the Heritage By Law and didn’t see it coming. It takes him completely by surprise. He says he lodged his planning application before the Town inconsiderately passed its By Law. This complicates things. He tells them he had been working with the Town for two years before the By Law was passed (but, astonishingly, had no inkling it was in the pipeline). He says he appealed the By Law although he is not against the Heritage Conservation District per se – only insofar as it may affect his condo project. He tells them he hates to be in this position.

Because of this unexpected hiccough Bob is prepared to let his business tenants stay where they are a little bit longer.

Bob is asked if he has a demolition permit for the properties at 184-194 Main Street South. No he doesn’t but he can evict them anyway. He tells them it is in their separate leases. He offers a six month extension and then go month by month.

Bob stresses he is trying to be helpful. He says the old buildings will be maintained – to the extent of keeping the water out – and the tenants’ rents will be frozen for as long as they are there.

Bob wants his business tenants out but fears boarded-up shop fronts

Now Bob declares that from a totally selfish vantage point he would much prefer them to vacate the properties. He could then board them up. However, he fears the Town would go apoplectic at the sight of a long row of boarded up properties. He tells them this would speed things up but then says there are all sorts of reasons why he shouldn’t do this.

Bob wraps up by telling them:

I don’t want to at all sound arbitrary but it is very real for me. My business isn’t renting stores. My business is building buildings and I want to get to the point that I can build my building at the earliest possible moment.

Bob’s right hand man, Chris Bobyk, told the Business Improvement Area Board of Management in November last year that Bob “plans to proceed with a new application for (the) proposed multi-storey Clock Tower project early in the new year.”

As I say, the Town’s planners, for their own reasons, may recommend approval of Bob’s grotesque Condo plan. Who knows? They are a law unto themselves.

But, given this possibility and the cauterizing experience of Glenway, Councillors should make contingency arrangements now to bring in heritage-aware planning consultants to defend the Town’s heritage conservation district policy if their own paid employees decide not to.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 January 2016

Astonishing as it may seem, York Regional Council does not have a Code of Conduct regulating the behaviour of its members. 

And because there is no Code of Conduct there is no need for a Regional Integrity Commissioner.

In its response last October to the Province’s review of municipal legislation, York Regional Council told the Government “the requirement for a code of conduct and an Integrity Commissioner (should) remain discretionary”.

The Scandal of Michael Di Biase

This jaw-dropping decision was taken after the scandal of Michael Di Biase – the Regional Councillor whose municipal salary was forfeited for three months by his home council of Vaughan because he had inappropriately interfered with the Council’s tendering process.

We shall know in March 2016 if Di Biase claimed his York Region salary throughout the period when he was not being paid by Vaughan. But with no Code of Conduct in place at York Region we must assume he was being paid, no questions asked. (On the other hand, he could have volunteered to forego three month’s salary from the Region ($13,255) as a sign of his contrition. We shall see soon enough.)

In any event, did York Region staff raise the issue at all with members? Did they wonder aloud if it was appropriate to pay an elected official in these circumstances? Was it even a matter for discussion? Or did everyone simply look the other way, not wishing to cause any unpleasantness?

No Code of Conduct needed

So, despite knowing all about Di Biase, regional council members, including Newmarket’s Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor, decided at their October 2015 Council meeting that a York Region Code of Conduct wasn’t needed. They said it would largely replicate what was already in place at municipal level and produce unwelcome ambiguity.

“Regional Council members are elected in their constituent local municipalities. Seven out of nine local municipalities have Council Codes of Conduct. As a result, 18 of the 20 elected members of Regional Council are subject to a Code of Conduct. To introduce another municipal Code of Conduct would be redundant and, potentially introduce ambiguity. The seven Codes of Conduct that are in effect vary substantially. It might be helpful for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide a guideline or template stipulating minimum requirements.”

They went on to rubber stamp a staff report recommending that the procedures designed to promote accountability and transparency should be permissive and not mandatory and should be implemented at the discretion of individual municipalities.

Oh dear!

As an aside it is worth remembering that the Chair of York Region, Wayne Emmerson, is indirectly elected by members of the Regional Council and not directly by the voters. He is therefore not covered by any Code of Conduct applying to his "home municipality" as he doesn't have one.

Time for an Ombudsman?

Quite separately, in another part of the forest, the then Provincial Ombudsman, Andre Marin, told a Committee of MPPs in December 2014 when it was taking evidence on Bill 8 which extends the remit of the Provincial Ombudsman (The Public Sector & MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014):

 “There is no will at the municipal level to be accountable. What this legislation brings is that accountability.”

The amendments to the Ombudsman Act come into force today (1 January 2016), extending the Provincial Ombudsman’s remit to municipalities. But municipalities will still be able to appoint their own Ombudsman if they so wish. Those who choose not to appoint their own will by policed, in default, by the Provincial Ombudsman.

Last month,York Regional Council decided to appoint ADR Chambers Inc as the Ombudsman to the Region. Municipalities within the Region are being invited to piggy back, using the same Ombudsman if they so wish.

Newmarket will shortly be considering whether or not to appoint its own Ombudsman or go with the Region (see Information Report 14 December 2015 here). And its Code of Conduct will come up for discussion on 18 January.

Our councillors should take this opportunity to press the Region to bring in its own Code of Conduct and appoint a Regional Integrity Commissioner.

It is perfectly obvious both are needed.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 20 December 2015

Back Story:  1 March 2011 the Clock Tower on Newmarket's historic Main Street was purchased from Premier Retirement Residences Inc for $2,340,000 by 2259613 Ontario Inc also known as Main Street Clock Inc also known as Robert Forrest.

Subsequently, Forrest bought the adjacent commercial properties at 184-194 Main Street South to provide a block big enough for a huge condo in the heart of the Town’s priceless Heritage Conservation District.

On 9 September 2013, Main Street Clock Inc took out a mortgage on the property for $3,000,000 with PACE Savings and Credit Union – the same people who are involved with the Slessors. Forrest put the Clock Tower up for sale on 19 June 2014.  There were no takers (or he changed his mind about the sale) and the story died.

As Forrest prepares to unveil his latest proposal, the Main Street business community has spoken out.

BIA votes to oppose condo plan

The forum representing businesses in Newmarket’s historic Main Street has voted to oppose Bob Forrest’s plan to build a condo at the Clock Tower which it believes would drive a coach and horses through the Town’s Heritage Conservation District policy.

Last week the Main Street District Business Improvement Area Board of Management voted 7-1 in favour of a motion calling for the policy’s three storey height cap to be respected. The BIA has also set its face against any land swap by the Town that would facilitate the development. Forrest, who has spent years sweet talking the Town, believes he can get approval for a 7 storey condo if it is rental.

Glenn Wilson, the Chair of the Newmarket Main Street BIA told members yesterday by email that a representative from the Forrest Group confirmed last month that Forrest “plans to proceed with a new application for its proposed multi-storey  Clock Tower Project early in the new year”. 

Wilson continues:

“Surprisingly, he (Forrest’s representative) also announced that meetings and discussions between Forrest Group and Town Staff were already in progress.  A heated debate followed as to whether or not any consultations had in fact occurred and the appropriateness of such discussions happening without an application being in place. Up to this point, it had been the general belief on the street that the developer’s plan to build a 6 to 9 storey complex on its Clock Tower property was effectively dead.” 

The BIA fears the Forrest development would mean the loss of crucial public parking spaces in Market Square over a lengthy construction period which would have “a devastating effect” on BIA Member businesses in the Downtown Heritage District.

Second Public Meeting on Clock Tower “likely”

The BIA says it wants to take a deputation to Newmarket Council. That’s good. But a second Public Meeting is also likely to be called. It is now coming up to two years since the first public meeting (3 February 2014) where the condo plan was condemned for its overbearing bulk and mass and insensitivity to the Town’s heritage district.

Make no mistake, Bob Forrest is determined to blight our historic downtown and get his cash bonanza. The Mayor and councillors, who traditionally bite their tongues on planning applications for fear of appearing biased, should vigorously defend the Town’s 2011 Heritage Conservation District policy. Two years ago, in November 2013, Forrest (or, rather, his alter ego Main Street Clock Inc) appealed to the OMB on the grounds that a rezoning application to redevelop 180-194 Main Street South – which his lawyers say was deemed complete by the Town on 13 September 2013 – could be imperiled by a Town By Law, passed six weeks later, which formally created the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District. For years, Van Bynen, forever the bean-counting bank manager, had dragged his feet on bringing forward an implementing By-Law on the grounds that staff would have to be hired to police it. As I write, no Hearing date has been scheduled for this two year old appeal to the OMB.

Worryingly, the Town’s detached and hands-off Planning Director, Rick Nethery, says applications that do not conform to the Heritage Conservation District policy can, nevertheless, still be approved by councillors. This rather begs the question:  what is the point of having a policy at all?

Meanwhile, there are problems with the Clock Tower that need to be addressed. Masonry by the foundations requires repair.

It seems to me Forrest urgently needs to get approval from the Council for his monster condo or finally admit defeat and get shot of the old Clock Tower building and the historic commercial properties next door to it.

Forrest has very deep pockets but servicing the mortgage must be costing him a small fortune.

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

BIA Motion carried 7-1 on 15 December 2015

That the BIA Board of Management only supports responsible development within the 3-storey height limitations permitted in the Downtown Newmarket Heritage Business District under the Heritage Act, in order to retain the charm, historic character and positive business climate of the District; and, in keeping with this position, that the BIA Board of Management opposes the Forrest Group’s intended plan to build a multi-storey, high-density residential project (“The Clock Tower Project”) in the heart of the Heritage Business District;

and further,

that the BIA Board of Management objects to and opposes any proposed transfer or swap of Town-owned Heritage land (specifically the land on or below the critically-important Market Square parking block) by the Town to the Forrest Group or any other developer for the purpose of providing space to build an underground parking lot for its intended project, the construction of which would have catastrophic effects on BIA Member businesses;

and further,

that the BIA Board of Management objects to and opposes the use of Town-owned Heritage property (specifically the current Market Square parking block) by the Forrest Group or any developer for the purpose of staging its massive proposed private development project because the loss of crucial public parking spaces in the Town-owned Market Square over a lengthy construction period would have devastating effects on BIA Member businesses in the Downtown Heritage District;

and further,

that the BIA Board of Management makes a timely deputation advising the Newmarket Town Council of the BIA’s position on these serious matters;

and lastly,

that this motion be reported verbatim in the Minutes of this meeting.