John F. Kennedy...history has made us friends!

Dear Readers,

As we approach election day in America, it's time to review the candidates.....

                                              Mitt Romney, the Real Change Candidate?

It's no secret that our friends in America have seen better days and when the Americans get a tummy ache, Canadians too often end up with severe gas. We’ve all heard the numbers. Twenty-six million Americans are out of work and 52 million are on food stamps. The debt is at $17 trillion, over double what it was when Obama was elected; promising his dubious version of change, no less. But it’s not just the size of the debt, it's that they owe too much of it to the Chinese! There can't be many Korean War veterans pleased with this!

So why are American senators getting upset at the prospect of a Chinese state-owned enterprise buying Nexen, a second-tier player in our Alberta oil sands? If they were that concerned about Chinese influence in the North American economy, why is their leader begging Beijing to buy more American Treasuries? It would make more sense for Canadian legislators to worry about America adopting the Chinese flag!

                                  Is this what creeping Chinese influence looks like for Americans?

And there’s the Keystone XL Pipeline and the new bridge at Windsor. Yes, Canada has a lot at stake in how the American election turns out. Two-thirds of everything we export still goes to our American friends.

If the right decisions get made in America, it means substantially more jobs and prosperity for Canada. So what should we hope for in the American election? We could wish for the election of Mitt Romney, but not for the reasons you might suspect. The truth is, Barack Obama cannot be blamed for all the economic woes in the U.S. In 1992, Clinton waived the Glass-Steagall Act giving bankers back the power that they lost after the great depression in the dirty 30's that led to the housing bubble that cratered the American economy in 2008 and further polarized America and Congress when he tried to push through health-care reform led by his wife, Hillary.

                                               Obama giving thanks to wealthy backer?

It was only when Obama tacked to the right and worked with the Republicans that he got some things done. Notably he signed welfare reform, a Republican initiative. He also worked across the aisle to bring in NAFTA and balance the budget. Barack Obama also began his term polarizing Americans and Congress on health-care reform and he hasn’t recovered since. He hasn’t been able to pass a budget in three years, but the economic problems Americans face are immense and can only be tackled with the help of Congress.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is probably the most liberal president in U.S. history, in a country where two-thirds of the population self-identifies as conservatives. Considering his many missteps, he is unlikely to ever get the bi-partisan support necessary to get America back on its feet.

But possibly the most damaging of all is the recent Libyan fiasco. Despite a carefully narrated version of events rolled out late this week by the CIA claiming agents jumped into action as soon as they were notified of calls for help in Benghazi, security officials on the ground say calls for help went out considerably earlier and signs of an attack were mounting even before that. The accounts, from foreign and American security officials in and around Benghazi at the time of the attack, indicate there was in fact a significant lag between when the threat started to show itself and help started to arrive.

As a Republican governor in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney worked across the aisle to balance the budget and, ironically, to bring in health-care reform. Mitt Romney would never knowingly put his staff in harm's way without tactical support. America needs a President who can work across party lines. America needs a President who will stand up.....and make the difficult choice. America needs Mitt Romney in the White House. Canada needs Mitt Romney in the White House.

This being said, i'll leave the final word to America's favourite son, cut down in the prime of his life.....

"Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far greater than what divides us."... John F. Kennedy's address before the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa.. May 17, 1961

....for additional information about the American election, you may want to take a look at this you tube video....
http://youtu.be/OHTjzzsGwbk


...............................................................30..........................................................

Markham condo buyers sue developer over last-minute charges!

Dear Readers,

Niamh Scallan, Staff Reporter for the Toronto Star reports that some Markham Condo buyers are suing backers of the proposed Markham Arena. Below is a verbatim account of Niamh's article along with my response and you'll have space at the bottom for your comments!

        Samir Sa'd is part of a class-action lawsuit against a Markham devolper over development charges.
                                                   PHOTO: Colin McConnell/Toronto Star 

A group of Markham condo buyers have filed a class-action lawsuit against a developer for allegedly piling on thousands of dollars in what they call unfair and last-minute charges. A statement of claim was filed against The Remington Group — the key financial backer and developer named in Markham’s ambitious NHL-size arena plan — and its alleged subsidiary companies on behalf of condo buyers in Remington’s 95-hectare mixed-used development in downtown Markham.

According to the claim, which seeks more than $5 million in damages, the buyers were hit with about $3,000 each in “increased development charges” as closing day approached, a last-minute demand that saw many pay undue fees. “At that time, we had no choice. We didn’t question it,” said Samir Sa’d, a 69-year-old retiree who said he was surprised to discover thousands of extra dollars in development charges when he was buying a one-bedroom condo in Remington’s Rouge Bijou Terraces in 2006.

The Remington Group and its alleged subsidiaries, Rouge Residences I Inc. and Rouge Residences II Inc., filed a notice of intent to defend the claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Sept. 28, 2011. “The defendants intend to defend this action,” it said. More than a year later, the lawyer representing Remington condo buyers said the parties are nearing a settlement out of court.

“We are negotiating,” said lawyer Sean Grayson with Roy Elliott O’Connor LLP. “I’m hopeful we will come to a settlement relatively quickly . . . within the next couple of weeks.” Neither Remington Group nor the company’s lawyer responded to repeated requests for comment. The class-action suit has come to light over the past few months as news emerged of Remington’s involvement in Markham’s proposed arena deal. At a recent public meeting, residents brought up the lawsuit and spoke about their experience of living in one of Remington’s first developments in the city’s highly-touted downtown.

According to Sa’d, the only plaintiff named in the class-action suit, he and another buyer began to investigate the adjusted charges on their condo agreements and, after discovering “red flags,” decided to pursue legal action. The suit contends that one of Remington Group’s subsidiary companies prepaid the development charges — a government fee that goes toward anything from parks to sanitation systems to education levies — as a way to avoid increased rates over time.

When it came to closing day, the suit adds, buyers were charged the closing-day rate, which had increased from the earlier prepayment fee. According to the statement of claim, the developer paid roughly $300 for each unit, but charged buyers around $3,000 when closing dates arrived. While the purchase and sale agreement notes that fees may increase to compensate for rising municipal levies or development charges, the claim states the developer had no right to jack up the charges given that the increase was not required by the City of Markham.

“It is a convention in the real estate industry that purchasers are only to pay for the development charges that were incurred by the developer,” the claim notes. “The payment is an unjust enrichment.” According to Jim Baird, Markham’s commissioner of development services, the municipality sets the development fee based on infrastructure needs in the area. He said he couldn’t speak further about the lawsuit as the city is not involved.

In a separate case three years ago, two Remington condo buyers took the developer to small claims court after they had allegedly been charged an extra $7,680 to $11,283 for levy increases. In early 2011, the judge ruled in favour of the buyers and ordered Remington Group to repay the levy increases as well as interest and legal costs.

Two months after the ruling, however, Remington Group filed an appeal and the parties later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Toronto lawyer Michael Carlson, who represented both condo owners on the appeals, said he could not discuss details of the settlement. While the outcome is unknown, the case prompted an amendment to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act in January 2011 that prevents developers from charging price adjustments unless they pay the amount to the third party, which in this case would be the City of Markham.

As a result of the regulation change, the scope of the current class-action suit against Remington Group has been limited to condominium developments with closing dates before 2011. Sa’d, still waiting to hear whether the added charges for his Rouge Bijou Terraces unit will be recouped, said he hoped for a favourable outcome not just for the money, but as a matter of principle. “It’s not a money issue,” he said. “It’s unethical . . . they should not take advantage of the little guy.”

With files from Noor Javed, staff write for the Toronto Star and Yorkregion.com


my response.....

.........it is hardly a secret that Toronto's development charges were strikingly low compared to the surrounding GTA. For example, when a two-bedroom condo in Toronto carried a development charge of $8,000, the fee for a similar unit in Markham was about $20,000 higher. This made it prohibitive for some young home buyers to get their start in our community by artificially increasing the value of property in Markham. 

So why would City Council think that adding a surcharge would be acceptable? Purchasers are saying that 'increased development charges'.....to fund an Arena where the profits are privatized while the losses are socialized is unaffordable, unacceptable and maybe even unlawful...and they are willing to go to court to prove it!!

                              Graeme Roustan (left), chairman and CEO of GTA Sports and 
                               Entertainment speaks as developer Rudy Bratty (right) and 
                                colleague Randy Pettigrew of the Remington Group look 
                                   on during a meeting in Markham Council Chambers.  
                                            PHOTO: STEVE SOMERVILLE/YRMG

The official Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) responded with a letter to Mayor Scarpitti saying that their builder organization would not support a so-called  'voluntary' increase in development charges and now.....

                  Frank Sarpitti and Jack Heath in Markham Council Chambers                                                        PHOTO: TORONTO SUN

Jack Heath has been quoted as follows, "Many taxpayers are opposed to Markham being involved in any financial aspect of the Markham Sports, Entertainment and Cultural Centre (MSECC).  They see risk and question the need and benefit.  I worry that the “Special Levy,” which is over and above standard Development Charges, may be challenged in the courts sometime in the future.  The proposed financial framework is not appropriate for a fiscally responsible municipality of our size."

This discussion isn't over yet, by any means. There are other Councillors who have not taken Deputy Mayor Heath's stand, as yet so the question becomes...who will be the next Councillor to feel taxpayer wrath and reverse themselves by turning their thumbs down on the dubious 'financial framework', as proposed? It's up to Markham taxpayers to encourage their Councillor to do what's right! 

What say you, Markham taxpayer?

..........................................................30.............................................
 

Community Involvement Defeats Apathy!

Dear Readers,

For the latest about the continuing Markham Sports, Entertainment and Cultural Centre (MSECC) saga, after the promoter came under some very heavy scrutiny lately by a Markham Councillor, it would appear that one of the original proponents has reversed course. But too many taxpayers are wondering if this reversal is for real ...or is it just a smoke screen? The following was just published by our Markham Economist & Sun and I have provided it to you below verbatim so that you can draw your own conclusions!

Markham's deputy mayor won't support arena financial plan

                                                         
 Markham's deputy mayor says he cannot support the financial framework behind a proposed NHL-ready arena. Jack Heath issued a statement today saying the proposed financial framework has become "extremely controversial" and called for discussions on the current financial model to be discontinued. Many taxpayers are opposed to Markham being involved in any financial aspect of Markham Sports, Entertainment and Cultural Centre, he said. "They see risk and question the need and benefit."

The deputy mayor said he worries a 'special levy' on new home and condo construction, over and above standard development charges, to help pay back Markham's share of a $325-million loan, may be challenged in the courts sometime in the future.  "The proposed financial framework is not appropriate for a fiscally responsible municipality of our size," he added.

In the meantime, however, he said the city should continue working on the site plan for the building, which is planned for a location  near Hwy. 407 and Kennedy Road. "Consideration of the site plan should be completely separate from the financial framework. If ties to the financial framework are removed, then I support continuing discussions.

                                                        A Packed Council Chambers!  
                                                     photo/ Sjoerd Witteveen/yrmg 


"Refinements on parking and transportation are still needed, and with those improvements I will vote for site plan approval. "Keeping in mind that MSECC fits the zoning for the property, an approved site plan for an NHL-ready arena would be a major plus if private investors want to build it on their own."

Mr. Heath remained positive on Markham being a prime location for a National Hockey League team.
"Markham Centre would be the perfect location for the GTA’s second NHL franchise," he said. "Consumer demand in Southern Ontario is obvious and our location is excellent. We started this exploratory process with the NHL in mind. Yet there is still no indication that the vision will become a reality anytime soon.

Furthermore, Markham’s financial participation should not be necessary if an NHL team was guaranteed."
The statement also reads: "I commend our mayor, council and staff for their efforts in the matter of MSECC.  My thanks also to the applicants, Remington and Rudy Bratty, plus GTA Sports and Entertainment. They brought us an important economic development opportunity which needed careful review."

my response...............

.......let me begin by saying that it has been a pleasure to meet some fine folks with our best interest at heart! For example, Donna Bush and Karen Rea of the Markham Village City Ratepayers Association have led a public awareness campaign into the dubious MSECC financial framework from the start, and have succeeded, above and beyond the call of duty I might add in shining their light into a very dark space. 

Certainly if we are to believe the Toronto Star, the National Post, the Markham Economist & Sun and the Toronto Sun, the dubious MSECC  financial framework, as proposed has turned Markham into a front-page scandal day after day, week after week and month after month. No doubt, this was not intended but that is the result when due diligence is not a priority, none the less! Thankfully, a couple of Markham Councillors respected the wishes of Markham taxpayers by not approving the dubious MSECC financial framework as proposed; and now with the Deputy Mayor turning thumbs down, too, could the dubious MSECC financial framework proposal be dying?
 

To digress, it had been reported in the Toronto Star, October 6, 2012 that this proposed MSECC contract may include a provision where a promoter was to construct and manage the building, without tendering. What 20,000 seat arena has he constructed and what 20,000 seat arena has he managed? If true, this was misguided, at best and unconscionable, at worst. Is it any wonder why Markham taxpayers were enraged? We had no idea how much the promoter would charge to construct and manage our MSECC. What exactly is the promoter's business history?

It is interesting to note that prior to Deputy Mayor Heath reversing his stance, another Councillor was bringing that very sentiment to light!

No, 'without tendering' was just not going to work for our MSECC! A proposed contract of this magnitude requires an explicit code of practice for tendering, that includes the following...
a- conduct all project tendering honestly and fairly to all parties
b- apply the same conditions for tendering for each supplier
c- avoid any tendering method which provides one party with an improper advantage over another
d- comply with all legislative obligations, whether regional, provincial or federal

                       Toronto's SkyDome, shortly after opening


Without adequate safe-guards in place, 'without tendering' could lead to cost over-runs of gargantuan proportions...just like Toronto's SkyDome. It is no secret that the aging 50,000-seat SkyDome has been steadily going down in value. Too big for the NHL and too small for the NFL, the SkyDome went from a pre-construction estimate of $125 million to build to almost $600 million when it opened in 1989. To add insult to injury, the value went down to $80 million when some American investors bought SkyDome out of bankruptcy court in April 1999 and then in 2004, selling to Ted Rogers for a paltry $25 million. "A very fair price," said Blue Jays CEO Paul Godfrey at the time but the price reflected "the cash flow it can generate. It's value is not on what (it) cost to build it." Not much salve for the wound! 

                              Donna Bush and Karen Rae show their colours in
                                                                 Council Chambers!  
                                                     photo/ Sjoerd Witteveen/yrmg

While our proposed MSECC may look nice in artist renderings, it should be noted that media and taxpayer attention was never diverted away from the dubious financial framework, as proposed and this is a credit to Donna Bush and Karen Rea of the Markham Village City Ratepayers Association who just won't let go until our Council agrees to a simple taxpayer demand.....that our new MSECC be 100% financed by the private sector!  

Yes, voter apathy really is dead in Markham! 
.........These ladies proved it!!


......................................30.............................

Has Markham voter apathy finally bottomed out?

 

Dear Readers,

The Editor of the Markham Economist & Sun on October 26, 2012 asked an interesting question so I thought I would pass it along verbatim for comment....

Has voter apathy finally bottomed out?

Voter turnout. It’s a familiar topic of discussion on this page. We’ve lamented the ever diminishing number of voters who cast ballots during federal, provincial and municipal elections and have made suggestions about how to curb this alarming trend.

Our letter writers, too, have weighed in on the topic, suggesting everything from clearer signage at polling stations to better embracing new technology, such as Internet voting.

All good ideas, but the reality is election day is simply too late in the process to push people to vote.
It’s really about community engagement — recognizing government decisions often have a huge impact on your neighbourhoods and lifestyle and you must speak out on the issues affecting you and your family.
And, with fingers crossed, it appears there may be signs this way of thinking is taking hold.

A handful of issues are taking centre stage in York Region these days and residents are speaking out in droves — attending community meetings, writing letters to the editor and commenting on our website, yorkregion.com — to ensure their opinions are being heard.

Some examples:
• More than 200 people filled Richmond Hill’s council chambers earlier this month over plans to build a 10-storey, 225-unit affordable housing  development and youth shelter at Yonge Street and Crosby Avenue. Close to 30 made presentations and, leading up to the session, The Richmond Hill Liberal was flooded with letters from supporters and those opposing the plan.
• Markham residents have been equally outspoken on the city’s plan to build a $325-million NHL-sized arena, the GTA Centre, at Kennedy Road and Hwy. 407. Recognizing the voices of residents, Markham councillors, this week, delayed approving a key part of the development process until after a public meeting last night.
• In Newmarket, residents have been equally outspoken on plans to redevelop the Glenway Country Club on Davis Drive and plans for Slessor Square, a high-rise retirement residence and special needs centre around the corner on Yonge Street. Public meetings have been filled to capacity and letters continue to roll in on the proposals.
• In East Gwillimbury and Georgina, hundreds of residents are attending meetings over the Upper York Sewage Solution project — putting pressure on government to ensure their neighbourhoods and natural resources are protected at all costs.

When combined with voices on a host of other recent issues around the region, it’s truly an encouraging sign.
It suggests voter apathy has bottomed out and, in this region of more than one million people, the voices of residents are playing a greater role in decisions at our council tables.

And it’s high time. Here’s hoping the trend continues and you, the taxpayer, remain politically engaged, particularly after the issue that has you fired up is settled.

From the upcoming regional governance review to traffic congestion to environmental concerns, there are a host of other issues that equally impact your life.

Stay involved and stay vocal. If so, this should translate into better voter turnout and a stronger slate of candidates vying for your vote when we go to the polls again in 2014.

...my response:

Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care! Do these famous words by Jimmy Buffett sum up the the other half of the voters in Markham? It is said that roughly 50% won't bother voting in the next municipal election in 2014 so, being the curious type, I was going to hold a little discussion about voter apathy, but no one was interested! So, being determined, I asked a few questions, promising anonymity and what I heard was very disturbing! It appears that voter apathy can be traced back to three reasons.....

Distrust Politicians - distrust of politicians has reached 'epidemic proportions', driven by specific factors like chronic deafness. For too many area residents, the question for the next municipal election is not whether to re-elect the current council. Instead, the question is, “Who cares?” Citing reasons from lack of interest in politics to lack of trust in the candidates, many voters just don’t plan to become involved. “It really doesn’t matter who wins,” is the popular refrain. “It’s going to be the same old thing,” says another. “I try to stay away from that as much as possible,” said another. “Politics is just too difficult... I feel like a lot of times it`s all just optics.....they’re just saying things people want to hear," said another. "They’re not saying things they actually believe in or know to be the truth,” said another. On a positive note, one said they would be more interested in voting if voting was not an automatic right, but a status contingent on passing an exam designed to demonstrate understanding of the political system. "Look at it this way,  you wouldn't trust an untrained person to drive a car, so why are we allowing the ill-informed to drive the City?" Others say politics "should be a required high school module based on current events and economics to appeal to those less knowledgeable about government; with almost complete apathy toward politicians." What say you, taxpayers?

Distrust Pollsters - the political pollsters are being accused of turning the 'prediction of political results industry' from a science into an art. At a time when all kinds of science appear vulnerable to skepticism and challenge; climate science, medical science, economic analysis, even the scientific data in Markham census, political pollsters are feeling the heat too. “Skepticism is growing, increasingly, everywhere,” said a pollster whose own firm shook up the business with a sharply written assault on what it sees as more questionable 'innovations' from competitors. “Some marginal pollsters count on your ignorance and hunger to make the news to peddle an inferior product. Others are using your coverage to ‘prove’ that their untried methodology is the way forward for market research. Instead of being their own biggest skeptics (which is what pollster training instructs), they’ve become hucksters selling methodological snake oil,” says another pollster. “All of this MUST stop. We are distorting our democracy, confusing voters, and destroying what should be a source of truth in election campaigns; the unbiased, truly scientific public opinion poll.”

Distrust Media - far too many voters say they have little or no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. "Instead of reporting the news, too many in media are suspected of showing their bias, thus alienating the very people they shouldn't...their viewers and subscribers," said one! "Few trust the internet for valid information and have to rely on experienced journalists who have an intrinsic duty to report the news...not make it up on the fly! When the voter suspects bias, the natural reaction invariably is to automatically do the opposite," said another! Which is as it should be, as the virus of instant awareness is upon us, a virus that may well wipe out the propaganda anachronisms first, then go airborne and eliminate even the non-traditional media outlets. At this most critical time, there will no doubt be some in the media who may be frozen on the sideline as this once in a lifetime historic opportunity runs by on the open field. Others will embrace the new reality to their company's benefit! While the lure of turning news into more eye balls may well be a powerful motivator, it behooves media professionals on all sides of the discussion to establish and enforce standards to live by...come hell or high water!

                                                    photo/ Sjoerd Witteveen/yrmg

It has been reported that very few Markham taxpayers attended previous meetings when the proposed Markham Arena was initially presented yet Council Chambers was overflowing last Tuesday. This is a testament to Donna Bush and Karen Rea of the Markham Village City Ratepayers Association...who just won`t let go!

                                  Donna Bush and Karen Rae show their colours at the over-flowing
                                                          Markham Council Chambers!  
                                                        photo/ Sjoerd Witteveen/yrmg

The popular refrain......I was going to hold a little discussion about voter apathy, but no one was interested could just be a sentiment of the past!

The public-private financial aspect of the proposed Markham Arena debate; where the profits stay private while the taxpayer risks subsidizing the loses has awakened the sleeping Markham taxpayer like nothing that i`ve seen in my 13 years living in Markham.

The Editor of the Markham Economist and Sun likes it...and I like it, too!

..............................................................30....................................................................

Witnessing a dichotomy!

Dear Readers,

Seldom do we get the opportunity to witness a dichotomy so profound, it creates a new threshold but in the Markham Council Chamber last Tuesday evening, our mayor tried desperately to stretch a bunt into a triple while hostile taxpayers tagged him out at 1st base!

As so eloquently phrased by taxpayer Toinette Bezant, of the Bayview Glen Residents Association, public participation with a private partner where the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized will be "carried by Markham taxpayers for many years to come" while Donna Bush of the Markham Village City Ratepayers Association demanded that council do their due diligence on all proposed arena private partners!

Yes, on October 24, 2012, our Council Chamber was overflowing with vociferous taxpayers. Folks were standing up and speaking their minds to our mayor and council while a dubious arena promoter with his supporters in tow sat on their collective hands and frowned every time the crowd erupted in support of each and every taxpayer as they begged our Councillors for a fully privatized arena. 

To digress, a year ago, I was covering the Provincial election riding of Oak Ridges/Markham as a blogger for Speak Your Mind, a Toronto Star initiative and despite fine work by many folks doing their best to get their message out, on election day, apathy received a majority, again! So, fearing that council had already made up their minds and this latest public meeting was just about 'optics', what was unfolding in the Council Chamber reminded me of an old story...

In 1887, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

If our mayor is correct in saying that "95% of the people he’s talked to agree with him" about his Arena, as reported by Amanda Persico in the Markham Economist & Sun the next day despite the obvious signs of voter unrest present in council chambers, could we be past the 'apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy and moving quickly toward 'bondage'?

..........................30....................................

why should Markham taxpayers have to be unwilling partners?

                               Donna Bush and Karen Rae show their colours at the over-flowing
                                                          Council Chambers last night!  
                                                    photo/ Sjoerd Witteveen/yrmg


Considering the positive economic evolution taking place in the GTA, it is clear that should the new Markham pro sports facility become a reality, it could be built solely with private capital for construction, maintenance, and operation. Just because there may be insufficient private sector willingness or ability for risk-taking of this magnitude with the current partners is no excuse to put wary taxpayers at risk! Judging by the reaction of the crowd at last nights Council Chamber meeting, that would appear to be the logical conclusion but Mayor Scarpitti sees things differently! He says that borrowing $325 million because 'government gets a better rate' than millionaires is the right move. Even derisive catcalls from those who filled the chamber couldn't get through to him. Considering the alleged dubious business practices of the arena promoter, as reported by the Toronto Star, is it any wonder why many Markham taxpayers are questioning their Councillors? Even Donna Bush, vice-president of the Markham Village City Ratepayers Association, asked councillors to do their due diligence on each Arena partner. “Markham taxpayers, who is misleading you,” she begged the angry crowd, deferring to a picture of Mayor Scarpitti on the large screen.

Which begs the question...why should Markham taxpayers have to be dragged into this scheme; a potential 'white elephant', kicking and screaming while the Air Canada Centre (ACC) in Toronto was built with private financing. The ACC’s revenue stream remains strong, hosting up to 200 events annually. The Rogers Arena in Vancouver  and the Bell Centre in Montreal were also privately financed. The fact that these three arenas host financially successful NHL teams as their anchor doesn't hurt either. Hell, even Scotiabank Place in Ottawa was also privately financed.

                                  It was standing room only last night as interested residents turned
                        at council chambers to hear more details about a proposed NHL-size arena.  
                                                      photo/ Sjoerd Witteveen/yrmg

No, the GTA; the largest urban centre in Canada, provides the right economic conditions for privately financed pro sports facilities and if dissenting Markham Councillors won't take taxpayer concerns to heart, they may just find it hard to get voted Dog Catcher, in 2014.


.............................................30................................................

Montreal Riots 1

Mayhem in Montreal: A day in the life of a city in crisis,

by: Jonathan Montpetit, The Canadian Press,

 

MONTREAL—When Montrealers wake up these days, the morning calm of the city streets can make the previous night seem like a distant dream. Gone are the perpetual facts of life for anyone near the city centre each night: the rumble of low-hovering helicopters, the makeshift barricades, the riot police, the taunts and chants from the tide of thousands of marching protesters.

The suburbs remain quiet. Even the downtown core returns to the regular rhythm of most other urban centres — at least for another 12 hours. People seeing sensational images from Montreal, now being beamed on newscasts around the world, are witnessing only one small sliver from a day in the life of a city in crisis.


On the morning subway commute, bleary-eyed Montrealers flip through the free dailies answering questions they might be asking about the previous night’s events: How many were arrested last night? How many windows were broken? Some shake their heads in disbelief. Only a small minority of morning metro commuters will be wearing the emblematic red patch of the student movement.

Around noon, groups of co-workers might head out for lunch and catch the latest details of the strike from a 24-hour news channel on the TV hanging on a café wall. They will make quips about the government minister seen answering reporters’ questions. They will do the same during a competing news conferences from the student groups blasting Premier Jean Charest and the police. The day is still young.

In the afternoon, there is water-cooler talk about the lighter side of the protests. Some might be idle gossip about the key players — such as who’s better-looking: the mild-mannered Leo Bureau-Blouin, head of the college students’ association? Or the more strident Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, spokesperson for the hard-line student group C.L.A.S.S.E.?

Or, as someone tweeted Thursday: “You know the conflict has gone on too long when you notice that Bureau-Blouin got a haircut.” As the day drags on, the mood changes.

A bartender might see a thinner-than-usual happy-hour crowd, and wonder what’s in store for the coming festival season that in most years motors Montreal’s summer economy. Many commuters have been desperate to avoid the downtown core lately. By 8:30 p.m. it will be taken over by the nightly student march, which begins in the same park every night and whose unpredictable path winds onto the same streets, but at different times, in a different order.

Patrons in bars and restaurants might applaud as the march makes its way past. The process can last more than 15 minutes. While some stand to applaud, others will exchange furtive glances or stare into their plates and quietly mutter. Around dinner tables some parents will argue with children. Even friends will debate each other fiercely, on Facebook and Twitter, or over beers on one of Montreal’s many restaurant patios.

“Are you a red, green or white?” is one common question, referring to the colours that represent various positions on the strike. Throughout the dispute, protesters have thought up some novel tactics. The latest innovation, borrowed mainly from protests in the Spanish-speaking world, has been to organize noisy pot-banging processions in Montreal’s residential areas.

It has been dubbed the casserole-dish protest — from the Spanish “cacerolzados,” made popular in Chile in the 1970s. Every night at 8 p.m., even streets in quiet neighbourhoods will spring to life with the clamour of neighbours gathering on balconies, leaning out of windows and milling about on sidewalks — all of them striking various kitchen implements.

With the racket reaching an ear-rattling crescendo, one neighbour recently asked another in the Plateau neighbourhood: “How long are we supposed to do this for?” The larger march, meanwhile, will be rippling through the downtown streets farther south. It usually remains peaceful, if troublesome for anyone stuck in traffic.

But the crowd thins, leaving behind the more hard-line protesters. Many of them are wearing masks. Projectiles are thrown at riot police. They include stones, bottles, sticks and, on the rarest night, even a Molotov cocktail might be tossed onto the street. Commercial windows — particularly those of banks — will get smashed.

Tear gas is fired. Arrests are made. Sometimes police will exchange angry words with bystanders who gets too close, blast some with pepper spray, or shove them with a baton. The air in the downtown core, and the neighbourhoods near it, will vibrate from the sound of police and media helicopters rumbling so noisily that some people say they can’t sleep.

Eventually the gas clears. The broken glass is swept off sidewalks. The helicopters fly away. And Montreal gets ready to do it all over again.

                                          -30-

..........dear readers, I have included the above article by Jonathan Montpetit of the The Canadian Press, in my blog verbatim who so eloquently describes what 'Montrealers' are facing......and what could very well spread to other centres. With more than 2,500 arrested with several injured, we hear that streets in Montreal were paralyzed! Have these riot organizers not learned that when they call for violence, it only begets more violence inflicted on their followers, as evidenced by the 1,100 G20 folks detained in Toronto! So why have these same organizers called for a huge resistance in Toronto? Is it because Democracy is supposedly "messy" to these folks?

Is this what make charges against our Police egregious as a few stand accused of violating civil rights and using excessive force during the June 2010 meeting of world leaders that brought us scenes of mayhem, buffoons burning cars and shattering glass?

Didn't the G20 riot begin with televised riot leaders exhorting their followers to violence early on that fateful Saturday morning in Allen Gardens, well before private property was smashed, public property was torched and rioters were rounded up? Is it ludicrous for the McNeilly report to not even consider how the crowd was effected by these riot leaders; who, by the way were not wearing masks?

Why was Chief Blair's calm appeal, relayed in the media shortly after the violence commenced mid-Saturday for everyone to leave the area ignored? 

Canada's Criminal Code defines and prohibits both unlawful assemblies and riots but defines the latter in relation to the former, as follows, "A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously." By inciting to riot, wasn't this law broken well before the G20 rampage began? Would the G20 riot not happened if this law was enforced, when the offense occurred? Does our Ontario Attorney General need to enact a new law to speed the issue of arrest warrants to enhance conviction to prevent a G20 riot repeat? These are just a few of my musings....