Details

One year ago the Town of Newmarket gave the developer, Marianneville, a tax receipt for $14M in exchange for a donation of land at Glenway West.  

To be clear, this $14M is not picked from the pockets of Newmarket taxpayers. It is, rather, a receipt purporting to reflect the value of the donated land which can then be used by the developer to offset tax otherwise owing to the Canada Revenue Agency.

I blogged about it here.

Work of Fiction

The $14M valuation report is a work of fiction based on “extraordinary assumptions” made by the valuer D Bottero & Associates. It assumes two large stormwater ponds can be drained and filled in to allow townhouses to be built on the donated land. I am unaware of any report by the Town’s planners or engineers saying this is feasible or practicable or would otherwise fit in with the Town’s policies.

When I asked the Town’s new Chief Administrative Officer, Ian McDougall, to commission a new valuation on the grounds the original one was flawed he told me on 14 April 2022 he would only do so if directed by the Canada Revenue Agency.

“The Town would not alter the amount on a Tax (or Donation) Receipt that has already been issued without direction from Canada Revenue Agency. Therefore, commissioning a new valuation report would have no practical purpose and would not be an appropriate expenditure of public funds.  I will be asking staff to look into other municipalities' experiences in these sorts of donated land situations in order to positively evolve our approach from any best practices identified.”

Canada Revenue Agency

In the light of this I wrote to Toni Mancini, the Director General of the CRA’s Charities Directorate, on 22 April 2022 setting out the issues as I saw them. (For sight of this click “Read More” below). 

After chasing them up a couple of times I was eventually told on 17 November 2022 that the CRA does

“not provide feedback or updates once a lead is submitted to us”

and that

“the Charities Directorate’s actions are only made public when they result in a charity being revoked, annulled, suspended or penalised.”

That’s fair enough. There are undoubtedly very good public policy reasons for keeping quiet about CRA investigations. But here we are not talking about the tax affairs of private individuals but rather the process for valuing land and whether the CRA’s own rules were followed. (The CRA stipulates the valuation and donation of land should happen more or less contemporaneously. Here, the so-called “fair market value” was assessed on 26 February 2021 and the tax receipt was issued on 14 December 2021 – an interval of 291 days.)

So, in the absence of any response from the CRA, I am going down the Freedom of Information route again to find out if this sort of thing is commonplace. I am careful not to name names.

Following the rules

I want to know how many times over the past five years the CRA has ordered a new valuation of land donated to a municipality on the grounds that the CRA’s own rules on such charitable donations were not followed.

And I am also curious to know how many municipalities have had their charitable status revoked, annulled or suspended or had suffered some other penalty – again, in each of the last five years.

If this kind of information is not routinely collected by the CRA I won’t get it - unless I am prepared to pay for a tailored search of the records.

And that could cost an arm and a leg.

So, what is the simple answer to this conundrum about estimating the true value of donated land? 

I would run the valuer’s “extraordinary assumptions” past the planners and engineers and test them against the Town’s own policies which regulate development. 

We may then get a valuation which passes muster. 

And not the joke valuation which, for their own very different reasons, the Town and the developer are content to rely on.

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

Below: Stormwater Pond 13 which the valuation report says can be filled in and the land used for townhouses. No other stormwater ponds in Glenway have been redeveloped in this way.

Note: I received the Bottero report following a Freedom of Information request to the Town of Newmarket. When I asked for it to be posted on the Town’s website I was told this would happen after the appraiser had provided the Town with an accessible PDF as required by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It has not yet been posted.

Details

Tomorrow (12 December) Newmarket Council will vote on a motion condemning Doug Ford’s Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. 

The motion says the Town cannot meet Ford’s stated target of 12,000 new homes by 2031. It says the Act will have a “significant negative impact” on heritage and social housing and will undermine environmental protection. It claims taxpayers across the province could be on the hook for up to $1 billion as developers’ costs are transferred to them.

Bill 23 is now law after being rushed through the legislature with many people wishing to comment but unable to do so because of the compressed timetable. 

The Town’s motion will register its formal opposition to Bill 23 which, if passed, will go to the Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister, Steve Clark, and to our local MPP Dawn Gallagher-Murphy who is, unfortunately, a complete lightweight and cipher.

"Efficient local decision making"

Dawn Gallagher Murphy has been running ads in the local press expressing her support for Bill 23. And, last week, in her single contribution to the debate on its sister legislation, Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, she said this:

“The core of this legislation, it is very simple. I’ve read it over a few times now, and it is very simple. It gives local legislatures elected by Ontarians the extra tools that support efficient local decision-making. That’s something I want to reiterate: efficient local decision-making.

It also gives elected officials the tools they need to remove barriers that are stalling development, like housing. I want to reiterate that point: It’s stalling development.”

Majority Minority Rule

The Better Municipal Governance Act was also fast-tracked becoming law in three weeks from start to finish. It got a huge amount of media coverage, panning the proposal to allow the Mayor of Toronto to get his way if only one third of City councillors support his proposals which must be “Provincial priorities”. And, comically, it is the Mayor who decides if his proposals meet that test.

Gallagher Murphy talks about “local legislatures elected by Ontarians” blissfully unaware of the fact that the Bill gives the Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister the powers to appoint the Regional Chair in York region (and in Niagara and Peel).

Our MPP’s democratic credentials are, of course, wafer thin as she was personally selected by Doug Ford to run as PC candidate for Newmarket-Aurora with local Party members entirely cut out of the process. 

As the official PC candidate she boycotted the election debates after claiming she missed the first one because of a “family emergency”. All invented.

Hypocrisy

In an excellent op-ed in this morning’s Toronto Star, Irene Ford draws attention to the hypocrisy of the Government’s approach (How far are Ontarians willing to go to protect the Greenbelt?). At the Provincial election only six months ago Ford was silent on his real agenda. A few bland slogans, echoed by Dawn Gallagher Murphy, concealed the true reality.

Returning lands to the Greenbelt

In her recent newsletter (2 December 2022) Gallagher Murphy says:

“Should these lands be removed from the Greenbelt, it is the government’s expectation that the landowners develop detailed plans to build housing quickly. Significant progress on approvals and implementation must be achieved by the end of 2023, with construction begun no later than 2025. If these conditions are not met, our government will return these properties to the Greenbelt.”

That's a hostage to fortune if ever I've heard one. And it will upset the powerful developers who bankroll the Progressive Conservatives.

Wastewater

This is a very accelerated timetable given that sewage and wastewater treatment capacity in Newmarket and the surrounding area is going to run out in five years. Gallagher Muphy can only deliver her promise if sewage and wastewater from the north of York Region can be directed in double-quick time down to Duffin Creek on the shores of Lake Ontario. 

Personally, I'd like to see the Town invite Dawn Gallagher Murphy to a meeting to discuss the practicalities of delivering Doug Ford’s agenda – and the assault on our democracy.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall, listening to our Mayor and MPP in conversation.

It could be streamed or zoomed quite painlessly but, of course, it will never happen.

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

Click “Read More” below to read Gallagher Murphy’s "Community Update and Greenbelt Message."

Details

Frank Klees is a consultant lobbyist and a former Progressive Conservative Cabinet Minister.  

The Lobbyist Register shows that he has been involved in projects concerning the Greenbelt and in attempts to redraw its boundaries.

Fifteen years ago he told readers of the Auroran newspaper that he was proud to champion the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act and that the passage of this landmark legislation had taken the guesswork out of development applications in the moraine.

“Although we could not stop development that had been approved prior to the implementation of this act, more than 470,000 acres of land – much of it in York Region – are now permanently protected from development.”

Permanently protected? 

Has he spoken recently to his close friend Doug Ford?

Building on the Greenbelt

One of his past clients – the Rice Group – is now embroiled in a huge controversy over its recent $80M purchase of “permanently protected” Greenbelt land in the municipality of King, west of Bathurst and immediately adjacent to Newmarket. (Right: the Greenbelt land purchased by Rice, south of Miller's sideroad between Dufferin on the west and Bathurst on the east. The Oak Ridges Moraine is shown blue).

Klees lobbied for Michael Rice’s development group from October 2019 to September 2020 but we don’t know the details.

The land purchased by Rice is largely agricultural but with core area natural heritage features. The south-western portion lies within the Oak Ridges Moraine (see map). 

Klees didn’t get back to the Toronto Star when they asked what he did for his client. But why not? The whole point of the Lobbyist’s Register is to make lobbying transparent.

What are you attempting to influence or accomplish?

Klees was asked to describe his lobbying goal(s) in detail. 

“What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?”

He replied opaquely:

“The objective of the communications is to brief certain Ontario public office holders on the economic development opportunities represented by a number of the client's emerging projects.”

Is that kind of waffle from Klees even remotely acceptable? 

The register tells lobbyists they should give specific information about their lobbying goals and the intended outcome of the lobbying.

Whatever happened to the specifics and the intended outcome?

Why doesn’t the Integrity Commissioner just ask him?

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 6 December 2022

Click "Read More" for Frank Klees' letter to the Auroran 4 September 2007

See also: From the Toronto Star: Taking Durham Land out of the Greenbelt could cause irreversible damage says Parks Canada in blunt warning 

Below: The Oak Ridges Moraine. "Permanently protected from development" according to Frank Klees in 2007.

 

Details

 

People living in bungalows across Newmarket should know that the Town will not object to a new building going up next door which towers over their home, perhaps overlooking their property and casting shadows over it. 

The Town’s Established Neighbourhoods Compatibility policy is not worth the paper it is written on. Nor the much trumpeted zoning by-laws spawned by it.

The building under construction at 116 Eden Court is 9.7 metres high and looms over its neighbours. There is no dispute about the height of the building – only how the height is measured.

The Town’s Zoning By-law allows 8.5 metres. The applicant says the building is 8.29 metres high. How is it possible to have a disagreement over the height of a building? 

9.71 metres vs 8.29 metres. Surely that is a matter of fact?

It’s not so simple.

Orwellian

In an Orwellian twist, the Town says height in this case should not be measured from the finished grade, where the building meets the ground at the front of the building, to the top of the roof. Instead, we are told 116 Eden Court has a pitched roof (though it looks very flat to me) which is measured from the ground to a “ridge” invisible to the eye.

Using this formula, the official top of the roof at 116 Eden Court is 1.42 metres (or 4' 8") below the actual top of the roof that we can all see with our own eyes. My photo shows a man standing on the top of the roof.

The new house looks way too big and too bulky for its immediate surroundings. 

Compatibility

The Town’s compatibility policies say:

“Where a new building is being constructed within an established neighbourhood it must be designed, massed and located to respect the predominant context.”

The Town’s planners say:

“The applicant is proposing a two-storey building in a pie shaped lot with a moderate size which respects the general characteristics of the neighbourhood and maintains its compatibity.”

And that the application complies with:

“all applicable zoning standards except for lot coverage.”

Green Light

Developers now have the green light to buy bungalows across Town and knock them down in the certain knowledge that an application for a new much bigger building, 9.7 metres high, based on the drawings submitted by the applicant at 116 Eden Court, will be approved.

For its part, the Committee of Adjustment is told by the Town it can only rule on the issue of lot coverage, not height.

And as the new building covers only a fraction more of the lot than it should – 31.5% instead of 30% - they allow construction to proceed.

Way to go!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 30 November 2022

Details

Frank Klees represented Newmarket-Aurora in the Provincial Parliament for 19 years from 1995 – 2014. I’ve blogged about him over the years, most recently over his involvement with Pace Credit Union where he made a mountain of money sourcing and facilitating real estate development projects.

Three years ago Klees told the Globe and Mail: 

“As a consultant, my role was to source and facilitate real estate development projects between Pace, land owners and developers/builders… For those services, the parties with whom I had agreements were invoiced by my company for fees commensurate with the services delivered.”

At the time I wrote:

I am left wondering how many real estate development projects Klees facilitated here in Newmarket, if any. I’d love to know.”

I see from this morning’s Globe and Mail that Frank Klees was hired by the Rice Group in 2019-20 to lobby the Ford Government:

 “on the economic development opportunities represented by a number of the client’s emerging projects” 

What were these “emerging projects”?

The Globe and Mail says

“The contract predated Mr. Rice’s purchase of the land in King Township. Mr. Klees did not return an e-mail seeking comment.

In addition, provincial records also show that a person with the name Michael Rice has donated more than $10,500 to the PC Party since 2018. This individual also donated money to the Liberals in 2018. As well, three donors with the same names as Rice Group executives have given the PC Party thousands of dollars since 2018.”

FordNation posted this encomium about Klees on 14 February 2018: 

Longtime MPP and former provincial cabinet minister Frank Klees has announced his support for Doug Ford as the next leader of the Ontario PC Party. “We need a responsible leader that will take a stand on issues that matter to all Ontarians including lowering taxes. Doug is building a coalition of the full spectrum of conservatives strong enough to beat the Wynne Liberals, and principled enough to earn the trust of Ontario voters. He has the experience in both politics and business to put Ontario back on the road to prosperity” says Klees.

Doug is humbled to have his support. “Frank Klees is one of the great architects of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party. His track record as serving our Party for 19 years speaks for itself, and he is someone who worked closely alongside my father during his time at Queen’s Park. He’s someone our members have always looked up to and I am honored to have him in my corner, advising my campaign.”

What precisely did the lobbyist Frank Klees do for Michael Rice?

And for the "principled" Doug Ford?

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

See also from the CBC (25 November 2022) Prominent developer family linked to more Greenbelt properties slated for housing

Update on 5 December 22: Toronto Star editorial: With so many questions Greenbelt plan must stop

Update on 1 December 2022: From the Toronto Star: How to stop developers from profiting from the Greenbelt controversy and from the Globe and Mail's editorial board: Troubling questions about Doug Ford's move in to the Greenbelt

Update on 30 November 2022: From the Toronto Star: Did anyone tip off the developers?

Update on 29 November 2022: Details of Frank Klees' lobbying activities can be found here. Klees has lobbied on behalf of clients seeking changes to the boundaries of the Greenbelt. He was a consultant lobbyist with Block 21 Developers Group from November 2018 to December 2019, describing his lobbying objectives in this way:

"The client owns lands within the City of Vaughan, adjacent to the planned Kirby GO Station and is seeking an adjustment to the Greenbelt boundary to allow for the said lands to be included in the future growth plans of the Town."

Klees has lobbied for the Stronach Group:

 

 

 

 

and for Castlepoint, Greybrook Huntington Inc:

  • You are here:  
  • Home