Details

Thursday 19 November. To the York Region Administrative Centre for the big debate on whether the Chair should be elected. Today’s Toronto Star says it’s time voters filled the Region’s top job.

The current occupant of the Chair, the jovial Wayne Emmerson, was not even a councillor when his colleagues backed him in a 16-4 vote in December 2014 over Newmarket’s John Taylor.

Regional Councillor Joe Li from Markham has a motion on the agenda, seconded by Whitchurch-Stouffville Mayor, Justin Altman, urging York Region to back Chris Ballard’s private members bill – currently before the Provincial Parliament as Bill 42 – which would require the Chair of York Region to be elected at-large as from the 2018 election.

Outside the building, I see Darryl Wolk pacing up and down, smart phone in one hand and an electronic cigarette in the other. He is preparing for his deputation – one of seven.

Danny Wolk

Now I am inside and Wayne Emmerson is going through the list of deputations, asking everyone – including “Danny” Wolk to get ready.

First up is Michael Thompson, an Aurora councillor. He tells us 43% of the Town’s tax dollars go to the Region so it is quite a big deal who is running the show there. He says it is all about accountability and transparency. It is a sober and confident performance.

He is followed by 16 year old Benjamin Williamson who invokes the memory of fallen heroes who died to protect democracy. They didn’t make the supreme sacrifice for appointments.

Anthony Pullano from Aurora is up next. He starts well enough but then goes rapidly downhill, tying himself in knots as he struggles to answer straightforward questions from opponents of change such as Markham’s Frank Scarpitti, the highest paid Mayor in Ontario, perhaps Canada.

Yellow Umbrellas

Now it’s Bob Mok, President of the Downtown Markham Ratepayers Association. He reminds us all that Waterloo Region changed to electing their Chair at large way back in 1997; Halton in 2000 and Durham in 2014. The precedents are there. He hints that appointed Chairs have to curry favour with their colleagues to secure re-election every four years. Time for a change. Jim Kwan, also from Markham, echoes Mok. He compares what happens in York Region to Hong Kong and the so-called “small circle elections” which provoked “yellow umbrella” demonstrations and riots in the streets. No sign of yellow umbrellas yet in Yonge Street.

Darryl Wolk addresses the Council in a solid presentation, dense with facts. He handles the questions with ease. He says an at large election would raise awareness of the issues across the Region. The job is too important to be traded in secret deals.

Wolk says Ballard’s Bill 42 is going to go through. So why wait? This is the opportunity for York Region to take a hand in shaping its own rules and procedures. An elected Chair would attract a lot of high profile people and the mandate coming from direct election would give the winner a lot of authority.

Mary Rose is the last speaker. She triggers howls of outrage by describing those council members in favour of the status quo as “arrogant, condescending thieves of the night!”

The guardian of decorum, TonyVan Bynen, cries “Out of Order!”

Mary Rose gathers up her belongings and leaves and some of the other deputants drift away without staying to hear the debate. This is bad form. If people have to get back to work they should tell the clerks beforehand who would have passed the message on.

This allows Emmerson to shake his head sorrowfully, regretting that so many deputants leave as soon as they had said their piece.

Joe Li is now apologizing to his colleagues if they felt offended by any of the comments.

Postpone debate until February

His fellow regional councillor from Markham, Jim Jones, wants the whole matter deferred until February next year. East Gwillimbury’s Mayor, Virginia Hackson, agrees. Newmarket’s John Taylor wants the matter dealt with now, not pushed back to another day. Aurora’s Geoffrey Dawe agrees with Taylor.

The smooth talking baritone, Frank Scarpitti, is against direct election. But if debate is to be put back to the New Year then he wants staff to provide information on how direct elections are working in the regions that now have it. He points to Durham where the current chair runs and “no-one of any consequence” runs against him. He wants to know what the level of voter participation was in Durham. And what would a campaign running across York Region cost? Now he is talking about Halton where there have, apparently, been two acclamations. Yes, so what?

Frank Scarpitti dismisses the argument that the Chair is primus inter pares. Emmerson is just one of 21 people on Council – no more, no less. Everyone around this table, he says, has the same amount of power and authority. This is pure moonshine. Emmerson is full time, shaping and directing regional policy and taking home barrow loads of cash every year as “Regional Chair and CEO”. Scarpitti says direct election may be something to consider only if the Chair had some executive powers, the inference being that Emmerson has none.

Now, bizarrely, he is taking aim at his Markham colleague Joe Li who is responsible for bringing this contentious issue forward. Scarpitti says Li told the readers of a Chinese language newspaper that they “shouldn’t be afraid of Mayor Scarpitti”. Oh dear!

Now we are moving into very murky waters indeed. In a gentle voice with a hint of menace, Scarpitti tells us it is OK to disagree with him in Markham but, let there be no misunderstanding, he will remember their names.

Scarpitti, who often dominates the discussion, closes by saying an elected chair is not going to mean better government. Vaughan’s Gino Rosati agrees. He too wants the debate pushed back to the New Year.

Van Bynen: there are more important things than direct election

In a rare intervention, Tony Van Bynen says there are more important things to be concerned with than election of the Regional Chair, citing the region’s $2 billion budget. He also has a dig at Darryl Wolk though not by name. His reference to “failed municipal candidates having no constituents to speak for” gets a knowing chortle from around the table.

Van Bynen says it is time for a full comprehensive review of the region’s governance model and structure. (Has he started work yet on his review of the OMB which was supposed to be the centerpiece of his third term? I doubt it.)

Now King Mayor, Steve Pellegrini, wants the whole issue deferred until next year. Markham’s Nirmala Armstrong says no. Now is the time. Taylor insists the decision should be taken now. He will support a review of governance but this shouldn’t be an excuse to delay a decision on direct election.

Now Richmond Hill’s David Barrow is having his pennyworth. If Chris Ballard’s Bill 42 makes it on to the Statute Book - as everyone here confidently expects - there will be an opportunity to talk further about representation and executive powers. He tells us that Emmerson provides leadership and direction. Looking at Emmerson he says: “A review of executive powers would give you the powers people assume you have!”

Everyone knows that Emmerson got the job as a result of back room deals, promises and good old fashioned stitch ups. Barrow gets a laugh when he says: “I was lobbied for my vote today.”

Now Van Bynen is pressing his friendly amendment to Jim Jones’ motion to defer consideration to February. Vaughan’s Mayor, Maurizio Bevilacqua, complains that his municipality is under-represented at regional level with an allocation of four and this is something he wants to see addressed in Van Bynen’s proposed review.

Keep it simple

Georgina’s Danny Wheeler is now warning; “This thing is growing a lot of legs here!” Just be careful what you ask for. He pleads to keep things simple. It is up to the MPPs.

Now Emmerson is telling us that the question of representation could be addressed in any review, going up to, say 26 members. He says that Bill 42 is going to go through so let’s make a decision and move on.

Richmond Hill’s Vito Spatafora wants to focus on the election of chair rather than wrapping it up with a huge variety of other issues. Keep it simple. He doesn’t want to make a decision on governance “on the fly”. He doesn’t want an open ended review. Scarpetti agrees. Taylor is in favour of a governance review but it should be decoupled from the vote on Chair.

Jim Jones wants his deferral motion put to the vote but without Van Bynen’s proposed amendment. Jones says he just wants a staff report detailing what happens in those regions where chairs are directly elected.

Now Emmerson asks Van Bynen how he wants to handle his proposed governance review. Van Bynen says it can be dealt with separately in a second motion.

Jones’ deferral motion is carried by 14 to 4 with Joe Li, Brenda Hogg, John Taylor and Virginia Hackson against.

Now Van Bynen is out of order

Now we move into the surreal with Van Bynen’s motion ruled out of order.

The regional clerk advises Emmerson that it concerns a major aspect of policy that was not on the agenda for today’s meeting and, as such, the Procedure By Law requires proper notice of motion to be given but this can be waived if there is a two thirds majority on a vote.

A startled Van Bynen says his proposal would have been put to the vote if he had kept it as an amendment to Jones’ deferral motion. He was only trying to be helpful in proposing a second stand-alone motion.

His weary colleagues give Van Bynen the support he needs to get his review of governance up and running. Who knows where this will take us?

I am certain Van Bynen hasn’t the faintest idea.

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

 

Details

Backstory: The developer Bob Forrest bought the Clock Tower (the old Post Office) in the Town’s Lower Main Street Heritage Conservation District in 2011 for $2.3m and the adjacent properties at 184-194 Main Street from the then owner Michael Bryan a few years later. Forrest wants to demolish historically significant commercial buildings and build a condo in the heart of the historic downtown, casually disregarding the Town’s official policy which seeks to limit any development to three storeys.

The early proposal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newmarket Mayor, the secretive former bank manager, Tony Van Bynen, looks set to cave in to developer demands to build a six or seven storey condo in the heart of the historic downtown, wrecking acclaimed views and panoramas in one of the most identifiable main streets in Southern Ontario.

Proposed condo will dominate Lower Main Street

Forrest recently told associates that his proposed condo will have 139 residential suites and five commercial uses.

The controversial project can only go ahead if Forrest strikes a deal with the Town over a land swap. The Town is, of course, under no obligation to make its land available to facilitate a development of which it disapproves. But I learn the land swap agreement is being drafted and will be reviewed by Van Bynen and senior staff. Forrest says the deal will be put before the Committee of the Whole in closed session but that he already has their agreement in principle. Clearly, we need details of this so-called “agreement in principle”.

Forrest has been examining rental options as well as the alternative, an owner-occupied condo. He expects rental, potentially, to deliver a better deal than the condo option which, apparently, is showing a profit of $10m. Forrest explains the advantages of rental which includes being able to negotiate the amount of Development Charges payable to the municipality which can then be deferred for five years. He also wants to renegotiate the Town’s parking requirements, believing he can save money.

Forrest hoping for seven storeys

Forrest says the development is now settled on six storeys but believes there is a real possibility of getting a seventh storey if the building is rental.

Forrest has been meeting various potential development partners including Rose Corporation where discussions are most advanced.

It is now perfectly clear that Bob Forrest is getting encouraging signals from the Town’s senior planners – who follow their own agenda - and from Van Bynen whose carefully cultivated honest-broker style has long concealed his real intentions. He wants the old buildings demolished. In recent years, John Taylor has been loudly banging the drum for more rental and could be tilting towards that option.

Ward 4 councillor, Tom Hempen, who owns a jewellery shop in Main Street has said his preference would be four storeys while conceding the By Law says it should be three.

Heritage Conservation District policy

If this latest proposal goes through, either in its six or seven storey version, the Town’s Heritage Conservation District policy will not be worth the paper it is written on. It is not possible to protect the integrity and historic character of the area by allowing new apartments to tower over two and three storey buildings. And if approval is given, where does it stop?

There may be some who say the buildings are past their sell-by-date and are falling down. True, they are currently neglected, but they are structurally sound. And, remember, they are historically significant.

It would be a scandal of epic proportions if the Town chooses to become a party in their demolition through an ill advised land swap with a calculating developer whose aim is to sweet talk the Town’s senior planners, mollify councillors, find a development partner, take the money and get out.

Main Street is unique

One business owner who was evicted by Bob Forrest on the grounds that her rented property was to be demolished and redeveloped (a premature assumption at best), tells me she believes Main Street is unique and has the potential to be extraordinary.

“I would never have placed my business there had I not believed in the street and seen the potential in it and its people. I stand by my conviction that this is the wrong development in the wrong place and, as such, has the potential to do more harm to a community that is slowly blossoming.”

So, before councillors do anything rash that they may later regret, they should insist on a second statutory public meeting on the latest, revised proposals and put all their cards on the table. At the end of the day, what is a Heritage Conservation District all about if it is not about protecting our heritage?  

Tony Van Bynen may not owe Bob Forrest any favours but he does owe the rest of us an explanation.

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

The Clock Tower timeline

June 2015: The Clock Tower is coming back again – and we need a second public meeting

9 April 2015: Clock Tower – Here we go again

2 February 2015: Developer appeals to the OMB

6 October 2014: Tony Van Bynen. Does the Mayor have a view on how to protect the historic downtown from predatory developers?

1 October 2014: The Clock Tower and Joe Sponga. The councillor tells us his position is clear.

9 September 2014: Bob Forrest tries to relocate his Main Street tenants. He wants them out so he can demolish and build a condo on Main.

19 June 2014: The Clock Tower is up for sale

26 April 2014: Two months after the Statutory Public Meeting everything has gone eerily quiet.

4 March 2014: Clock Tower eviction threat lifted – for now.

5 February 2014: 9 storey condo gets the thumbs down

2 February 2014: Council can veto Clock Tower development. Forrest needs Town-owned land to proceed.

23 January 2014: Nine storey condo planned for Newmarket’s historic Main Street.

17 January 2014: Clock Tower Statutory Meeting.

26 November 2013: The Town could stop the Clock Tower development dead in its tracks. Don’t make Town land available.

27 October 2013: Heritage District gets designation despite plea from developer

2 October 2013: Forrest serves eviction notices on his Main Street tenants saying the properties are to be demolished and redeveloped. But then, as now, he has no permission from the Town to knock down the historic buildings.

16 July 2013: Clock Tower developer needs Town owned land

21 June 2013: We need a Heritage By Law now – not when it is too late to matter

18 June 2013: Clock Tower plans get a rough ride. Developer accused of misleading people.

14 June 2013: Jackie Playter backs the developer

30 May 2013: Bob Forrest buys the Clock Tower for the knock-down price  of $2,340,000 in 2011. It was on the market for $3,275,000. But he needs more land for his condo project.

30 April 2013: Historic Newmarket needs the protection of a By Law now to keep it safe from developers.

16 April 2013: In 2011 the Town published a Heritage Conservation Plan for Lower Main Street showing how the historic downtown could be preserved. But there was no By Law putting the policy into effect. An astonishing oversight or a deliberate decision?

4 April 2013: Developer promises to bring vitality to Newmarket’s historic downtown. But doesn’t mention the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee has decisively rejected the proposed development.

1 April 2013: Developers propose a brutal new addition to the Town’s historic skyline

See also the Clock Tower traffic impact and Planning Justification Report

 

Details

The desperate bid by the attention-seeking former Newmarket councillor Maddie Di Muccio to extract $5, 000 in damages from Regional Councillor John Taylor for an alleged libel against her first came up for trial at Newmarket Small Claims Court on September 4, 2015.

The trial judge, the ill-tempered Vincent Stabile, ruled the trial should not proceed at that stage to allow Taylor to lodge an amended defence making it crystal clear that, in his view, the action is out of time and cannot go to full trial.

In his amended defence, filed with the Court on 15 October 2015, Taylor writes:

“With respect to my contention that Ms Di Muccio did not provide me with adequate notice of libel, I believe her claim cannot succeed because of this. Section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, a copy of which I have attached to my amended statement of defence, clearly requires Ms Di Muccio to have given me notice of the alleged libel within 6 weeks of it having come to her attention, which was at least as early as March 6, 2014 [Sic 2015]. Accordingly, she had until April 17, 2015. In fact she served me with her notice of libel dated June 9, 2015, some 13 weeks later.”

“Similarly, the Libel and Slander Act also requires Ms Di Muccio to have commenced her action within three months of the alleged libel. Her claim was issued on June 15, 2015, which is more than a week after this limitation period expired.”

“I know that the statement which Ms Di Muccio alleges was defamatory (which I deny was the case, in any event) came to her knowledge at least as early as March 6, 2015 because she was posting comments about it on an internet chat board which was attached to the internet version of the very Era article quoting my statement. For reference, I have attached a print out of her comments to my amended statement of defence. Ms Di Muccio wrote, amongst other things:

“It seems that Mr Taylor and his cabal can only thrive when attacking Maddie Di Muccio, even as a private citizen. These people, and everyone who is complicit in their dirty politics, are nothing but common thugs. They will go to great lengths to destroy families and communities. Taylor should have thought twice before having the audacity to defame me again. This time, he went too far.”

The litigious Di Muccio is, of course, President of the York Region Taxpayers Coalition and, no doubt, has a better idea than most of the many varied ways in which public money can be wasted. Her libel action - which is doomed to fail - is soaking up valuable Court time but, perversely, there is no cost to her in dollars. The intangible cost is to her reputation, such as it is.

As the supposedly aggrieved party in this long running soap opera, Di Muccio is free to drop the action against Taylor at any stage. My guess is that she will hang on in there, waiting for the case to be thrown out on a “technicality” (that the action was not brought within the period stipulated in the Act).

In one sense this is unfortunate.

While Di Muccio will find some inventive way of claiming victim status yet again, it would have been much better for all concerned for the case to go to full trial.

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

You can read the original paperwork here. Navigate to Di Muccio v Taylor

Details

Backstory: Should the Town demolish the 43 year old Hollingsworth Arena and sell the land to a developer - San Michael Developments - to bring high rise residential and commercial to Davis Drive, a stone’s throw from Southlake Hospital?

The Town has been looking at two options for replacing the ageing ice rink. The favoured option is to partner with Pickering College. The alternative is to build another ice pad at the Ray Twinney Complex. (See items 7 and 8 in the Committee of the Whole agenda here.)

Hollingsworth after development

At Tuesday’s Committee of the Whole (20 October) councillors get a presentation from San Michael’s swashbuckling Sandro Sementilli, his black hair tied back in a little pony tail. He is a big, brash, solidly built guy who is making the Town an offer they can’t refuse. He is cut from a different cloth from your average run-of-the-mill developer. He says in a matter-of-fact way that invites no contradiction: “I am a dreamer and I am a doer!” neatly summing himself up in nine words.

I find myself wondering how the Mayor would describe his very essence in nine words.  

Mr Sementilli wants to create a big site, ripe for redevelopment, bringing together three adjoining parcels of land: Hollingsworth Arena owned by the Town, 693 Davis Drive at the corner of Patterson and Davis which he owns and land at 713 Davis Drive owned by a certain Dr Lee. There will be 12 to 15 storey towers on the Davis Drive side of the development with townhouses of two and three storeys shading towards the existing residential. And there will be a park.

Earlier this year, the Town dipped its toe into the water but, before taking the plunge and selling the land, it must first (a) decide on a replacement option for the arena and (b) formally decide that the land it owns is surplus to municipal needs.

The developer’s presentation

I am now watching Sementilli gearing up to make a big sales pitch. He knows which buttons to press and the egos to stroke.

“I want to thank the staff that are here and the staff that are not here, behind the scenes. They’ve shown a high degree of professionalism and I appreciate that.

“I want the support of every single councillor here. It is a kind of a bold statement but that’s what I’d like. I also expect that only because there has been no stone unturned. It’s been more than a couple of years that we’ve been working on this.

I’m gonna make it happen

Sementilli says modestly: “Newmarket is a town waiting to happen and I am here to make it happen.”

Now we are looking at the screen and listening to his syrupy commentary. We see a variety of important looking logos.

“Look at McQuat Partnership. That’s a company that’s a second generation firm. They’ve opened up 2,000 locations. 2,000 sites (similar to) what I am proposing. So they have experience. Leanne McQuat, she is in her forties, she’s never driven a car. She has a chauffeur to drive her around. She does not need my money. But she chooses, she chooses to work with me. It’s a choice. And there’s builders and developers they’ve said no to. Even prominent builders and developers.

“The PMS Realty Group. Second generation. Sold $3 billion of real estate. The same. He doesn’t need to work with me; he chooses to…

He takes us to the logo of his construction partner Brookfield: “They are helping me value engineer the site.”

“I believe in relationships. That’s what makes me successful.

Hollingsworth Concept Plan

I have eliminated the risk – but not totally

Sementilli goes on: “Not only have I defined and managed the risk, I have eliminated it…. The risk has not been totally eliminated, it has been transferred onto our shoulders – not the Town’s shoulders.

Now he is talking about getting the money from the banks to make it all happen and the conditions the bank will impose. He personally guarantees any cost over-runs. The bank will insist on proper zoning being in place and verified. And the bank will have to be satisfied Sandro Sementilli has the money. We hear the bank will hire a third party to review the budget and costs. He insists the conditions are very stringent.

"Why do I wanna be a developer after looking at this (the conditions to be imposed by the bank) I don't know. The conditions are very very stringent and when I say this is a no risk offer this is what I mean... until the time that I can come to you and satisfy you that I have all the money in place - not to buy the land - that is insignificant relative to the size of the project - but to build a tower and a town square. Until I have that in place I don't own the land. I don't tear down the arena. I don't do anything. I just continue to spend money. And how much money am I gonna spend? Just to get a commitment from the bank is to cost us about $300,000."

This must remind Van Bynen of his old bank manager days, slapping millions of conditions on borrowers.

“We’ve got a limited time period to execute it and if we don’t it’s too bad for us. It requires a lot of money and the risk has been taken on our shoulders and that’s the only way I can make a deal with the Town. And I don’t have a problem with that because I believe in me. And I believe in my team and I am willing to satisfy you by showing you the money.”

The councillors’ response

Now Joe Sponga tells us he is really impressed with Sementilli having seen him in a local coffee shop talking to business owners. Really impressive! Now he is wandering all over the shop before telling us: “I totally understand the development industry.”

Now an increasingly exasperated Mayor is testily asking Sponga for a question.

Sponga sails on regardless:

"I have total faith in you… (I cringe as I wonder what on earth is coming next) and you and your esteemed partners are going to make a healthy profit.”

Sponga tells us the York Region Fire people are having difficult finding a place for a new Fire Station because of the soaring value of land and there isn’t much left that is undeveloped. He says there is no need to incentivize development, “when money is to be made it is going to happen”.

Now he gets to the nub of it all. 

"I don’t believe in selling public land used for recreational purposes.”

Oh no! Mr Sementilli is not going to like that one bit. He expects the support of every single councillor. He said so only a few moments ago. We are gonna hear his knuckles crack!

Now it is Tom Hempen’s turn. He wants an assurance that these promised high density towers will actually happen. He gently reminds everyone that the Council has approved high density development in that past and nothing materialised. As he speaks I think of Slessor Square in his own Ward 4, one of many over-hyped developments that were little more than promises. Hempen wants the full details of the conditions of financing handed over to the Council and staff.

“I’m gonna be straight with you” says Sementilli. 

One tower or two?

The presentation and the artwork from architect Harry Kohn clearly show two towers not one. Yet Sementilli keeps stressing one tower. I am wondering why no-one picks up on this. (It must be something discussed in the secret session.)

“I want to get confirmed money from a lender. It’s open book. I won’t hide it from you. My offer is based on the fact that only until such time as one tower and the town square – and you don’t really care about the back so that doesn’t matter – the main concern is… my understanding is at least having one tower going and town square and I am willing to provide evidence of that before we close on the land. So if I can’t provide evidence of that I don’t want it. Why would I want it? It doesn’t make sense. But I am willing to spend all the money to get there. So that’s why I say it is no risk. We will spend the time and money necessary to satisfy you. You will get the Tower. You will get the Town Square.

Hempen insists he will be looking for evidence that everything stacks up.

“In the offer in the Letter of Intent, our legal relationship, it is going to be right in there. If I can’t do that then I don’t buy the land. But if I can, I do. If I can do what I propose to do I am gonna do it. And nothing will stop me – not in a bad way. What I mean is this. What I show you also. If, for any reason, I can’t do it the bank will step in and I have provided Bob Webb with evidence of more than one bank, more than one lender. What they do is this. The reason we sign everything over is because, if for any reason my brother and I cannot finish what we started, the bank will finish what we started. So you can rest assured that once a shovel goes in the ground and a bank is engaged there ain’t no turning back. It is gonna happen. So there should be no fear on your part. That’s what is gonna happen and it will be legal. I am not just coming here telling you a story. It will be legal. It will be in our legal agreement.

Predictably, the developer’s friend, Dave Kerwin, says he has no qualms selling off property the Town no longer needs. There are precedents which he cites.

Pear-shaped

Christina Bisanz gets down to basics. She says the big concern is selling off public land. That's what makes everyone nervous. She doesn’t want to sell four quarters for a dollar. She wants a measurable benefit for the community. But if the deal with the Town goes pear-shaped and doesn’t proceed, would Sementilli develop the land at the corner of Patterson and Davis Drive that he owns? She says it is in a prime location and is valuable.

The theatrical Sementilli is clearly expecting the question:

“We will develop that (land) but it is not in my heart.… I could have developed that a long time ago; I could develop it tomorrow. I am totally in conformity with the Secondary Plan, Official Plan… I could do it with my eyes closed. But that’s not why I am here. You know when we look at this – you mentioned with or without me – there is a big difference. With me it is up here. Without me it is down there. Let me show you why. It is pretty simple. There is the Town land. There is Dr Lee. We have assembled three parcels of land.

Now he trains his gaze on Joe Sponga. With the braggadicio that comes easily to him, Sementilli continues:

“ So I don’t agree with you Cllr Sponga because yes you could always do something with that Town land. But what are you going to do with it? It is my back yard. I know it is Dr Lee’s back yard. And we are here today and we are here now. It is an incredible, perfect opportunity that won’t last forever. And what are we here to do? We are here to do a lot of things. The back land (the land owned by the Town).… Very wisely the new Secondary Plan gives a provision for density transfer so what that means is that even though the back will not have a lot of density we can take that density and put it on the front. Now what does that mean? (Newmarket’s former senior planner Marion Plaunt explains here.)

Developers make a lot of money, so what?

“Does the developer make money. Absolutely. But relative to what we make – we make a 20% return – it is not that much for the risk. Monetarily it is a lot of money. Sure. I you are gonna spend $100m you are gonna make a lot of money. It is just a monetary thing and I am sorry you don’t look positive towards developers because I look positive to them. But anyway, regards the opportunity here, is this. There’s three pieces of land I have assembled and I have assembled them today and that is why I am here.

“I will develop the front. So if I develop the front what is going to happen? I can guarantee  Dr Lee, until he dies,  will not develop that ugly building and if he was here he would agree. He won’t do it. He’s been there since 1973 and he bought it in 1976. He makes a quarter of a million dollars every year by doing nothing just opening up the doors. So he is not going to change. But when I went to see him and it took three meetings, three hours and I shook his hand. We made a deal and he said, you know, I love what you are doing. Newmarket needs it. I love Davis Drive. I love Newmarket. I became wealthy in Newmarket. It has been good for me and I want to stay on this corner and I am gonna be part of your development. I am going to live and work in your development.

Town owned land not that valuable says Sementilli

“That’s the deal I made with him. That is what we are talking about. That is exactly what we are talking about. So will I develop? Sure. If I have to do it I will (develop just the land he owns). But guess what? I really don’t see why. I can’t see why. You own a piece of land. The Town owns a piece of land. I don’t really think it’s that valuable. What is valuable is what I put together. The Masterplan. You can have other people assess it and look and see what it is worth. I don’t think it is that valuable.

Now the Mayor thanks him for his presentation.

Councillors retreat into closed session

After a long closed session running from 3.30pm – 5.15pm the Council reconvenes in public. This is what we learn.

Taylor for a deal

John Taylor is in favour of the proposed development, but with qualifications. He wants staff to “continue negotiations” with San Michael Homes Developments rather than “finalise” them. This gives the Town more room to consult the public and win over a few doubters such as Kelly Broome-Plumbley.

Taylor says it is important to pursue this opportunity…

“We have a real opportunity here to take a building that is near the end of its life cycle – the Hollingsworth Arena – and to take a piece of Town owned land on the Davis Drive corridor that can help us achieve the kind of growth we want which is not to impact existing neighbourhoods but to direct development to the corridor which we have been saying for a decade now through our Official and Secondary Plans…”

Taylor talks about new housing opportunities for seniors and others. The development could kickstart others and help finance a replacement for the Arena. But he warns they have to do due diligence and hear from residents. He wants to know more about the proposed built form. And the Council must do everything it can to mitigate risk.

Kerwin for a deal

Next up is Dave Kerwin, always ready to sing the developers’ tune. And this time is no different. He believes Canada was built by developers, by people taking chances. He has “no hesitation” in backing the proposal. The Town needs apartments. Houses in his Ward 2 are packing the tenants in and they have no place to park except on the road. He says we need development on the Davis Drive corridor and echoes much of what Taylor said.

Twinney against a deal

Jane Twinney strikes a different position. Surprisingly, after all these years she is breaking free from Taylor’s gravitational pull and is charting her own course. “I won’t be supporting the recommendations. This facility was put in place for this community when it was built… I don’t believe in selling it off.”

She goes on:

“I don’t believe we have explored other possibilities for this land that we can use it for. I am not saying there has to be an arena for ever. I do believe there could be exciting opportunities for the public in that area to be used for the benefit of the community…”

“We are looking at buying green space along the corridor so I am struggling with the fact that we are looking at buying green space for breathing space along the corridor but we are selling this land. Taking down an arena is not an issue and creating a Riverwalk Commoins was wonderful but it is not what we are doing here. We are taking down an arena, selling the lands and developing it. So I won’t be supporting it.”

“I strongly believe we are going down the wrong road with this. If we sell it (the land) its gone. We will never get it back.”

Twinney gives herself an escape clause though.

“Maybe the public will support it (the proposal) and I shall change my mind.”

Sponga against a deal

Joe Sponga, too, is against. He agrees with Taylor that lots of residents are looking for expanded housing options but when the time is right the developers will play their hand. There is no need to incentivize them. “Developers will come when it is profitable to develop regardless of whether there is municipal land or not.” But he wants to engage the public and get a steer from them.

“There is an arena and there is land. The arena needs to be replaced but the land cannot be. So for me it should be the public that gives us the direction in declaring the land surplus.”

Broome-Plumbley for a deal, for the moment

Now it is the turn of ward 6’s Kelly Broome-Plumbley who seldom speaks, preferring to keep her thoughts to herself. A year after the election it is time for her to dive in at the deep end and start making waves.

“Up until now I have been opposed to this simply because I am not comfortable with selling Town land especially Town lands that are so closely intertwined with the residents.”

I am not entirely sure what she means by this but, for the moment, she drops her opposition, persuaded by Taylor’s promise of public consultation on a “detailed concept plan provided by the developer”.

She adds hesitantly:

“I like the way the decision is not final. We can change it at any time.”

Bisanz for a deal, for the moment

Christina Bisanz will also vote in favour. Echoing Broome-Plumbley, she says they are not doing the deal now but looking at a Town asset to see if it could potentially offer greater value to the community. The arena will have to be demolished at some stage and the question is: What can be done with the asset? She, too, wants to engage the public and get their input.

Hempen for a deal

Now it is Ward 4 councillor, Tom Hempen, who like Broome-Plumbley took ages to find his voice. He is in favour.

“We owe it to the public to look at potential redevelopment especially after all the work that has taken place along Davis Drive. The Province has spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating that transit lane.”

Echoing Taylor, he says it is in an excellent location, close to the hospital, and can kickstart development along Davis Drive. He says the detailed concept plan called for by Taylor will engage the community.

Vegh for a deal

Tom Vegh is also on board, for largely the same reasons.

Our retired bank manager Mayor and bean-counter-in-chief, Tony Van Bynen, brands the project “exciting”.  He is salivating at the thought of: 

"$750,000 a year in tax revenues each and every year and we won’t need to shovel one additional sidewalk or lay one additional pipe.”

Two councillors are opposed. Joe Sponga and Jane Twinney.

What happens next?

The Town’s Council meets on Monday 26 October to ratify the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (scroll to item 5). These include a motion put by John Taylor (seconded by Joe Sponga) which carries calling on staff to investigate the potential for an outdoor arena in Newmarket. "The analysis should include options for the rink, including amenities, costs, location criteria and potential funding sources." He expects the report in 120 days.

If land is in short supply and costs a fortune, as Councillor Sponga asserts, this may be quite the task. So far as I am aware, the Council does not have a huge land bank - unlike speculative developers who hoard land and wait for its value to rise.

On Hollingsworth, it seems to me that if the public is to be invited to express a view, a lot more needs to be put on the table than the detailed concept plan from the developer as envisaged by Taylor.

What are the other options? What are the pros and cons of keeping the land in Town ownership and building a new ice rink on the site of the arena?

How much is the Town going to get for the lands if they are declared surplus? This was discussed in closed session but is it the case, as Sementilli asserts, that the Town owned land is worth little? (He would say that, of course.)

What if the approach to Pickering College falls flat? Is it realistic to put a new pad at Ray Twinney given the huge amount of new development coming on at Glenway? What will be the implications for the road network?

The public, of course, only gets half the story. What else, I wonder, is being kept from us?

Former councillor Chris Emanuel told the Glenway Lessons Learned meeting earlier this year that there was too much secrecy at the Town Hall. The Glenway developer bought the Glenway lands for $10m and is now making hundreds of millions. Council decisions can turn on a dime and deliver millions to developers.

Councillors should ask themselves what precisely needs to be kept secret - and for how long?

For everything else, put it out there and get a conversation going.

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

Update on 17 November 2015: John Heckbert made a presentation to Council on 16 November 2015 on Hollingsworth Arena. You can watch the video here. It is at agenda item 8.

 

Details

Newmarket councillors are being invited to a special workshop on the future of Davis Drive on 26 October.

A background paper circulated earlier this month asks councillors to

“consider ways in which the Town can encourage the ongoing transformation of this vital economic corridor”.

There will be a discussion led by N. Barry Lyon Consultants. (The Town must spend a small fortune on outside consultants. Like mushrooms, they spring up everywhere.)

With the end of construction in sight, VivaNext says they are now on the home straight.

Back in March this year, councillors asked staff to come up with ideas within 90 days “to advance the redevelopment of Davis Drive properties”.  A leisurely 191 days later councillors receive an Information Report setting out staff thinking, promising more studies, more plans and, inevitably, more analysis.

Back from the dead

Bringing Davis Drive back from the dead is no easy task. It would test the finest brains on the planet. Developers such as Peter Czapka have been on an investment strike for years, unwilling, for their own reasons, to go ahead with developments which have already received planning approval from the Town.

The precise nature of the redevelopment of the GO rail station at the Tannery is still unclear but this will be of huge long term significance. We do not know as yet if there will be grade separation between the railway and Davis Drive but if we are stuck with a level crossing with its quaint bells and flashing lights we can say goodbye to the possibility of all-day two-way GO trains every 15 minutes.

Compensation for lost trade

As the endless construction took its toll, the shutters came down and businesses vanished.

Speaking like the cautious retired bank manager that he is, Mayor Tony Van Bynen told the Era on 29 August 2014 there were initiatives under way to help businesses cope with the construction, pointing to compensation available through York Region.

“It’s a very delicate balance between being mindful of the impact of the construction and due diligence… for the taxpayer. The compensation is judged fairly on the merits of each situation. What’s important is that there’s a fair and equitable process in place to consider the issues and impact.”

Even now it is still not clear to me how many struggling businesses on Davis Drive got any help at all.

Finally, now that the layout of the new Davis Drive is discernable, I hear Cassandras predicting all sorts of terrible calamities. The lanes seem to be narrower. What about the U turns? Are we going to see more accidents as winter takes its hold? How will the snow be cleared? I am pretty sure the traffic engineers will have thought all this through. And people get used to new ways of doing things pretty quickly.

Members of the Newmarket Economic Development Advisory Committee are being invited along as observers but it seems to me the doors should be thrown wide open for all who are interested and have something positive to contribute.

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

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home