Details

At the last election in Newmarket’s Ward 6 in 2010 there were five candidates in the field. Maddie Di Muccio sneaked home with 27.5% of the vote. The runner up, Joe Persechini, was breathing down her neck, 37 votes behind.

A few days ago, she acknowledged for the first time that if she loses Ward 6, she will be sticking around – minus, of course, her $47,000 councillor salary. She will still be keeping an eagle eye on the “Old Boys Club” watching out for any transgressions.

@horses and beer I’ve always found it fascinating that they believe unseating me will make me “go away.” Quite the contrary.

11.03pm – 21 Oct 14

Since her election Di Muccio has carved out a reputation of sorts, mostly for trashing others. Indeed, her most acidic vitriol is reserved for fellow conservatives.

@sashalou2012 @dlkyorkeditor of course not. Dirty politics attracts bottom-feeding scum like @darrylwolk. I stay far away from that poison.

8:32am - 11 Mar 14

No-one should trust a word Wolk says:

+1 "@horsesandbeer @sashalou2012 @csimonwrite Any news outlet relying on @darrylwolk for an article has their integrity lowered immediately"

7:55am - 12 Apr 14

 Furthermore, Wolk is a disgrace

@jimb582 thks for being a good friend. Wolk is a complete disgrace to the political forum; brings a stunning lack of respect towards others.

4:44pm - 3 Jul 14

To the outside observer this seems a bit harsh on Darryl Wolk but, to be fair, he gives as good as he gets.

@MaddieDiMuccio has same 5-6 trolls supporting her. Career is over. I can’t wait until Newmarket fires this toxic human being on October 27

10.46pm – 14 April 14

And, for good measure he sticks the knife in and twists:

@Maddie Di Muccio Playing victim card a bit much and getting old. You are a master of lies, threats, dirty politics and personal attacks!

10.36pm – 14 Apr 14

Ooooh! However, it is slightly more complex than that.

Di Muccio believes conflict in politics is, on occasions, inevitable.

Sometimes a political party needs to have a civil war to mature.

12.42am – 8 Mar 14

But if Ontario conservatives still refuse to acknowledge her sterling qualities, perhaps a new political party is needed. She muses

We need Wildrose Ontario.

10:06pm - 19 Mar 14

She woos her Twitter followers with toe-curling homespun philosophy which produces gems like this:

We find ourselves through our love of others.

12:41am - 17 Jan 14

She directs her venom at her fellow councillors, calling on her followers to help her get rid of ALL of them at Monday’s election. At the same time she tells the rest of us that divisive politics is bad politics.

@anthonymarco agreed. There is more to be gained by working together. Divisive politics is never a winner.

11.34am – 19 Feb 14

Her phoney tweets to her 3,043 Twitter followers gush intimacy ;-) yet comment that is remotely critical is blocked.

She sees herself as a winner with star qualities:

@Bee_Fowlow @Dennis2ride Maturity. Wisdom. Consistent focus. These are qualities of winners.

8:00am - 14 Mar 14

And without a trace of irony she tells her followers

@mistervermin @TraceyKent twitter attracts nasty, angry people sometimes.

3:31pm - 14 Mar 14

But Twitter still has a value in letting us sift the wheat from the chaff. She tells us:

Communication on Twitter is important. One's character can either be truly revealed or truly concealed.

4:58pm - 15 Sep 14

Di Muccio’s Tweets allow us to understand part of her persona. But a few of her longer, more considered, posts are delicious and need to be savoured.

Over two years ago, on 1 September 2012, when her husband was secretly buying up Tom Vegh domain names and gaming the search engines to direct traffic to her website, Di Muccio told us what makes a good politician:

“I believe the ingredients that make up a good politician are very simple: a strong work ethic, common sense, vision and a high moral fibre. On the other hand, the recipe for scandal has just one ingredient: a weak sense of knowing what is right from wrong. When a politician lacks moral fibre, the public has the right to know about it.”

Her husband’s ears must be burning.

But Blommesteyn has a thick skin. He tells us that yesterday (23 October) was “a dark day” for him. He discovers that an employee at the Ministry of Transportation office in Newmarket has been allegedly handing out material critical of him and his campaign for election in Ward 7. He also rails against an anonymous new spoof of Newmarket Town Hall Watch which metronomically fires critical tweets of Maddie into cyberspace every few hours.

Blommesteyn, a born complainer, forgets the old maxim:

“He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.”

For her part, Di Muccio is beside herself with fury. The shenanigans at the Newmarket office of the Ministry of Transportation is seen as proof positive that the Old Boys are out to sabotage Di Muccio's and Blommesteyn's political careers.

Seems to me they don’t need any outside help.

Three days to go.

 

Details

John Blommesteyn, the wannabe councillor for Ward 7, has been parading his virtues in front of a sceptical public.

Blommesteyn, who is married to the mercurial Maddie Di Muccio, tells us it takes integrity to campaign on the issues.

Try as I might, integrity is not something I associate with him.

Over two years ago, a duplicitous Blommesteyn bought a large number of Tom Vegh domain names to squat them and game the search engines to direct traffic to his wife’s website.

He says he kept Maddie in the dark about it all:

“I purchased the domain name tomvegh.ca unbeknownst to my wife… She had no idea I had done that because she would never have approved.”

Then, as now, I thought Blommesteyn’s actions thoroughly reprehensible and unethical.

Fast forward to Newmarket Theatre on 7 October 2014. I find Blommesteyn alone at his candidate’s stall surrounded by piles of election literature. When I challenge him to explain why he had bought up a huge number of Tom Vegh domain names he laughs it off, telling me it was simply to encourage Vegh to have a more active on-line presence.

Bizarre? I think so.

Then, on 9 October, in the Newmarket Era on-line debate, he tells us:

I personally don't like the mudslinging and procedural roadblocks (such as "points of privilege" and integrity commissioners) that were showcased this last term on council. These tactics only serve to lower public engagement and encourage apathy.

On the contrary, he dishes out the dirt with relish.

His appearance before Newmarket’s Committee of the Whole last December was an absolute disgrace. Councillor Di Muccio had just been given a rap on the knuckles by the Integrity Commissioner for branding the Mayor a ‘mysogynist”. But Blommesteyn absurdly claimed his wife hadn’t been given a fair hearing. This was manifestly untrue. The Commissioner had approached Maddie Di Muccio on three separate occasions to get her side of the story and was at first rebuffed and then ignored.

As I wrote at the time, he was angry, argumentative and belligerent, demanding special treatment.

Ten months on, a re-invented Blommesteyn, listening and considerate, says that if he is elected councillor for Ward 7 he will drop everything to provide a round-the-clock service.

I own my business and I have the luxury to step away without having to get “the boss’s” permission.  So I can assure you that I will have the time (to) address residents’ concerns no matter what time of day they may occur.  

Too bad that didn’t apply during the Glenway OMB Hearing where he was conspicuously absent.

Clearly, he was busy on more important things.

7 days to go.

 

Details

Over two years ago, Regional Councillor John Taylor told a meeting at Newmarket Public Library that he would bring forward a motion to Newmarket Council to ban corporate funding of election candidates. I am not entirely sure what happened to this noble intention. Probably got lost in the undergrowth somewhere.

And earlier this year Taylor said he would not accept campaign donations from developers. His challenger, Darryl Wolk, has no such scruples.

That’s unfortunate. Cash from developers is tainted. The sums may be modest but every donation comes at a high price.

In the last election in 2010, both Van Bynen and Taylor took money from the Slessors (or rather Dwight Slessor Holdings) and they didn’t declare an interest before voting on the Slessor planning application. The law did not require them to.

But now, when everyone including the Mayor, is banging on about transparency it is probably good politics to fess up.

So why don’t Newmarket candidates list their financial backers now, not afterwards when it is too late to make a difference?

They could follow the example of Toronto’s Mayoral hopefuls who are releasing details before the October 27 election. The law currently requires disclosure – but only five months after the election.

Broadband in Newmarket

Super-fast broadband is a good thing. No doubt about it.

So when Mayor Tony Van Bynen tells us he plans to bring high-speed Internet to Newmarket it is worth a round of applause.

The Town would benefit hugely if we all had lightning fast internet access.

It sounds like a fresh new idea – with Van Bynen claiming authorship – but, in fact, the York Region Broadband Strategy has been knocking around for years and involves all nine of the Region’s municipalities. The latest update was considered by John Taylor’s Planning and Economic Development Committee earlier this year and was approved by the Regional Council in May.

Mayoral hopefuls Chris Campbell and Dorian Baxter give the Mayor’s broadband strategy the thumbs down fearing it would be too expensive and roads would have to be dug up again. Their reactions disappoint me.

Ron Pickett, a technology and business innovation consultant, writing in Ottawa Life says broadband has become an election issue here in Newmarket. He estimates the cost of wiring the Town is around $30m. He says Town staff will be presenting a report to the new Council after the election.

Picket takes a swipe at Regional Councillor wannabe, Darryl Wolk, who has criticized the broadband strategy. Wolk points to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where a similar initiative reportedly cost $330m and generated only 1,000 jobs.

Comparing Chattanooga with Newmarket is I think wide of the mark. Picket writes:

Chattanooga has a population of 170,000, twice that of Newmarket. Chattanooga is over four times the geographic size covering 370 sq km compared to Newmarket’s 38 sq km. In addition, the Chattanooga service footprint covers five times the city area, which is just less than 1,000 sq km. That is over 26 times the geographic size of Newmarket.

It seems to me if the private sector wants to roll out high-speed broadband across York Region then let them get on with it.

But if, as seems likely, the internet providers cherry pick by post-code, going for the fattest profits with the least effort, leaving slow-speed pockets and dial-up deserts, then this is an issue for all of us.

Super-fast broadband increases productivity, promotes growth and generates jobs.

How curious that Darryl Wolk - one of the most wired-up politicians on the face of the planet – can’t make that connection.

8 days to go.

 

Details

The Mayor’s latest glossy election leaflet arrived today. But why isn’t there a flattering photograph of the great man himself with a mop of hair on top of his head?

Answer: He doesn’t look like that now.

So why is he still using an out-of-date artist’s impression of Davis Drive where the hydro poles have been air-brushed out in a manner worthy of the old Soviet Union?

The fact is the hydro poles and the cat’s cradle of cables will be there long after construction ends. They give Davis Drive a frontier town look. We are left with an eyesore after spending an eye-watering $143 million.

Curiously, the buildings seem to be on a human scale. But after the changes made to the Secondary Plan in June this year, this, too, is another artful deception.

(Go to schedule 4 on page 128 of the final version of Newmarket’s Secondary Plan - June 2014 -  to see the changes on height and density recommended by officials at York Region and accepted by our councillors.)

The hydro poles have been talked about for ages.

So why does the Mayor continue to recycle a vision of Davis Drive that is simply inaccurate? 

Is it just laziness? Or can’t he find anyone with a sharp pencil to update the earlier artist’s impression?

Does any of this matter?

In the wider scheme of things, probably not.

However, my eye is drawn to the Mayor's claim that Newmarket is an effective council "with a culture of transparency and accountability".

Now that is inaccurate. And it takes a certain chutzpah to say it.

Details

My Freedom of Information request for documents relating to the Town’s position on Glenway has been turned down by Town Officials (see letter below). The material is to be kept under lock and key.

However, I am told I can make a deputation to Council to ask for this decision to be set aside and I fully intend to do this.

For us to understand what really happened on Glenway we need access to key documents. The OMB adjudicator has already ruled in favour of the developer, Marianneville, though we await her written decision and reasoning.

Until we get the OMB’s written decision there is little point in holding the “lessons learned” meeting that was promised by the outgoing Council in April 2014. In this context, it would be totally weird if reports, minutes and documents, explaining the thinking of councillors and their advisers, were kept secret.

What lessons could be learned in these circumstances?

I hope all those running for election will support my FoI request. But, if not, I’d like them to explain why.

---------------------------------------------------

Town Officials refuse FoI Request

October 8, 2014

Dear: Mr. Prentice

RE: Request for Information A17-14-54

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

This letter is in response to your request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to the confidential memorandums listed as a) b), c), that were presented to the Special Council meeting on 7 April 2014, and to examine d) the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) meeting on 7 April 2014.

Access to these memorandums and minutes is being denied based on Section 6(1) (b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This section states: that “[a] head may refuse to disclose a record, that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public”.

These meetings were held in Closed Session under the authorization of Section 239(2) (a) of the Municipal Act. This section authorizes holding a meeting in closed session if the subject matter being discussed is “the security of the property of the municipality or local board” and the confidential memorandums were discussed in closed session under Section 239(2) (e) of the Municipal Act. This section authorizes holding a meeting in closed session if the subject matter being discussed is “litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board”.

The decision to disclose a record related to a closed meeting is made by Council (i.e., Clerk does not have such authority). You have the option to make this request in writing to Council, or by making the request yourself by making a deputation to Council at a Committee of the Whole or Council meeting.

(The letter goers on to tell me I can ask for this decision to be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.)

And what I am asking for:

(1) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Ruth Victor, Ruth Victor Associates, regarding Application for Official Plan Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval, Marianneville Developments Limited (Glenway)

(2) the confidential memorandum dated 3 April 2014 from Mary Bull and Johanna Shapira, Wood Bull LLP regarding Marianneville Developments - Phase 2

(3) the confidential memorandum dated 4 April 2014 from the Assistant Director of Planning regarding Marianneville Developments Limited

(4) the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Closed Session) on 7 April 2014.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home