The propositions:
1. Support for a strong site alteration by-law, with emphasis on “strong.”
2. Renewed commitment to an annual allocation towards an environmental lands acquisition fund.
3. Standing firm in support of the prohibition against future country lot subdivisions.
4. The City’s Advisory Committees should be genuine bridges between the public and Council.
Liam Maguire: “I don’t have enough information to say I would or would not support these propositions. For example, why in proposition number 3 there is a major concession granted to Cavanaugh Construction? Regardless, I don’t have any where near enough information as to how these propositions affect the rural wards, notably Ward 20 ( Osgoode ) . What I will agree to do is if elected gladly revisit these suggestions and your concerns but I most certainly cannot agree to support this at this time.”
Mark Scharfe:
“…thank you very kindly for this email. As a farmer and property owner, it is necessary for the owner to make these decisions, not the city. I often will have to plant trees for shade for the cattle, yet move the top soil to put in solid earth so I can make a base to store the round bales of hay or other farm produce. I have often had to change the placement of fill to ensure that crops, buildings or livestock are not damaged by water. It is not the responsibility of the municipality to enact bylaws such as this. if elected, I will be putting a motion forward to remove the tree cutting bylaw from the books. I appreciate that this does not help you in your endeavours, however, the community has made it very clear that they do not require any more bylaws to restrict their activities on property they own. please feel free to send this response to your audience. thank you very kindly for your concern.”
George Wright: Full Response Excerpts:
#1: “With respect to public land, I support the recommendation. With regard to private land, I do not see that the Conservation Authority or the City would have any authority to rule or dictate legally, especially when you consider both of their track records.”
#2: “Do not support. The city cannot afford to maintain the properties they currently have, setting aside more money to purchase more land, is not sustainable. Maintenance by abandonment is not preservation.”
#3: “Do not support. I see no problem with developments on very rocky marginal land. … I have real problem with developments on farmable land.”
#4: “Agree. This has really bothered me.”
Kim Sheldrick:
#1: “I agree with this proposition. I do feel that a minimum of a draft should have been written by now. Woodlots are a vital part of our environment and the ‘air cleaning process’. We should not lose all woodlots for the sake of more farming land. There should be strong limits included within the bylaw which allows for some clearing in appropriate and approved areas while maintaining some woodlots for both aesthetics and environmental reasons.”
#2: “I agree that funds designated for Land Acquisition should be used only for such purposes. As for increasing the amount of funding allocated to this fund, I require more information as to amounts being allocated and spent through the fund in years past before giving more to the fund.”
#3: “I agreed with Council when they prohibited future Country Lot estates. Theses estates create problems for services such as road clearing. Residents have also said they feel ‘cutoff’ from the remainder of the community due to the way these subdivisions have been built. I cannot confirm that I will not consider compromises in the future. I would not support bring back CLE subdivisions but with another separate issue that could possibly arise, all aspects of the issue would need to be considered fairly before a decision would be made. It would be irresponsible for me to state ‘no compromises’ without knowing the facts.”
#4: “I wholeheartedly agree with the return of volunteers to Advisory Committees and that meetings should be open to the public. I frequently attended RIAC meetings and had hoped to join but changes to Committees were then made. I believe the public is invaluable in many situations and that more transparency is needed which in turn may assist with accountability. Councillors and Staff are here to work for the community and the best way is to work with them.”
One candidate was not accessible. The remaining six candidates did not respond before the deadline. However, days before the election, Davis Jermacans replied to two of our propositions, in the process somewhat reformulating the questions first:
#1: “The first Official Plan of the amalgamated city, in 2003, included a directive that staff was to come forward with a site alteration by-law. That policy was expanded upon in the 2009 Official Plan. Yet here we are in 2014 and no such by-law is in sight. We note that several Ontario cities include in their site alteration by-law provisions to regulate the removal of vegetation, i.e., such a by-law can help prevent future “tree massacres” as we have seen repeatedly in this city. Will you commit now to bring forward a strong site alteration by-law early in the new term of Council?
I support the efforts of Mayor Jim Watson to get a site alteration by-law in place to protect wetlands, wildlife habitats and other naturally forested areas within the City boundaries including rural areas.
However, as a candidate for a rural ward, I am concerned about the possible impact this might have on land used for farming operations. Therefore, I would encourage that the new by-law be well defined and carefully worded to avoid unanticipated and unintended applications by by-law officers.”
#4: “Many of us who are involved in community groups have found that in the last few years the participation, effectiveness and attention given to citizen advisory committees has declined to a dismal state, with members handpicked by councillors and zero influence. How do you intend to change this state of affairs, and will you commit to that now?
I will make every effort to encourage Council to reinstitute citizen advisory groups at the City level with membership that reflects the the wide variety of expertise available in the City. Further, I am committed to establishing, in Osgoode Ward, advisory committees representing diverse interest groups within the Ward to better understand Ward related issues. Working together, we will collectively develop plans to address these problems and to move Osgoode Ward into the future.”