Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Donna Bush


Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Donna Bush


I am saddened that Markham is even considering a reduction in parkland dedication because there are so many benefits that greenspace provides to local residents. In case not everyone on council has had the opportunity to research this topic, I would like to share some of my findings with you. You may be as surprised as I, to learn that there are huge benefits to parkland. 

Urban parks and open spaces provide many important benefits including improving overall health, increasing social and spiritual wellbeing, and enhancing environmental quality.

Some benefits that I have found include:
1.  Protection of natural environment
2.  Residents’ identity and pride
3.  Community visual appeal and function
4.  Development of strong communities
5.  Individual growth and development
6.  Prevention of social problems
7.  Reduction health problems and costs
8.  Integration of disabled, disadvantaged and socially alienated 

There are also many economic benefits listed in a publication called, “Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line”. It states, “Communities around the country are learning that open space conservation is not an expense but an investment that produces important economic benefits.” 

  1. Attracting Investment: Parks and open space create a high quality of life that attracts tax-paying businesses and residents to communities;
  2. Preventing Flood Damage: Floodplain protection offers a cost-effective alternative to expensive flood-control measures;
  3. Safeguarding the Environment: Open space conservation is often the cheapest way to safeguard drinking water, clean the air, and achieve other environmental goals.

The Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences Deakin University Burwood, Melbourne states:
“...research indicates that ... humans may be dependent on nature for psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs that are difficult to satisfy by other means. Findings so far demonstrate that access to nature plays a vital role in human health, wellbeing, and development that has not been fully recognized.” 

In terms of health, parks and other natural environments have been viewed almost exclusively as venues for leisure and sport. Yet recent research shows that ‘green nature’, such as parks, can reduce crime, foster psychological wellbeing, reduce stress, boost immunity, enhance productivity, and promote healing. In fact, the positive effects on human health, particularly in urban environments, cannot be over-stated. As a result, urban planning should ensure that the communities have adequate access to nature.

Evidence shows that among other benefits viewing nature is positive for health in terms of recovering from stress, improving concentration and productivity, and improving psychological state, particularly of people in confined circumstances such as prisons and hospitals. Studies clearly demonstrate that being in a natural environment affects people positively, particularly in terms of mental health. 

Nature is important to people.


Most relevant to parks and nature are Cardiovascular Health and Mental Health.

Exposure to Nature and Greenery Makes People Healthier
A growing body of research shows that mere contact with the natural world improves physical and psychological health.
One important study reviewed the recovery of surgical patients in a Pennsylvania hospital. The rooms of some patients offered views of a stand of trees, while others faced a brown brick wall. A review of ten years of medical records showed that patients with tree views had shorter hospitalizations, less need for pain killers, and fewer negative comments in the nurses’ notes, compared with patients with brick-wall views.

“...research on recreational activities has shown that savanna-like settings are associated with self-reported feelings of ‘peacefulness,’ ‘tranquility,’ or ‘relaxation,’” Frumkin writes. “Viewing such settings leads to decreased fear and anger ... [and] is associated with enhanced mental alertness, attention, and cognitive performance...”

At this point we do not know when or where reduced parkland dedication may rear its ugly head, but we do know that it will have negative consequences on the young, the elderly, the infirmed, and for everyone in between. And, by proposing to swap parkland from those living in concrete in the sky to lower cost land away from thesParkland Dedication Deputation April 9 2013.pagese greenspace deprived taxpayers is cruel and unhealthy. 

A very interesting fact is that “Park and recreational service use continues throughout the life cycle. Recreational participation declines with age, but park use does not. In fact, people between the ages of 65 and 74 use local parks more frequently than any other age group from those 15 and older.”

Parks Support Play and Brain Development:  For small children, playing is learning. Play has proven to be a critical element in a child’s future success. Play helps kids develop muscle strength and coordination, language, cognitive thinking, and reasoning abilities.

Parks Provide Therapy for Attention Deficit Disorder:  Attention deficit disorder (ADD), is a condition that negatively impacts academic performance, peer relationships, and family harmony. In addition, children with ADD are at greater risk than their peers for low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Current treatments of medication and behavioral therapy have serious side effects or limited efficacy. 

Researchers have recently discovered that children with ADD can concentrate on schoolwork and similar tasks better than usual after taking part in activities in green settings, such as walking through or playing in a park. And the greener a child’s play area, the less severe the symptoms.

Research suggests that humans prefer nature in their landscapes because it is a key ingredient of human habitat, it is essential to our psychological and social health, and has an apparent beneficial effect on blood pressure, heart rate, mood, day-to-day effectiveness, social behaviour, cognitive functioning, and work performance.

Parks Promote the Social Health of Communities: Research shows that residents of neighbourhoods with greenery in common spaces are more likely to enjoy stronger social ties than those who live surrounded by barren concrete.
Parks and greenways can mitigate air pollution and increased temperatures. Mature tree canopies can reduce air temperature five to ten degrees and trees filter pollutants out of the air. According to American Forests, trees in Atlanta remove 19 million pounds of pollutants annually, a service worth $47 million.

In presenting this information to you today, it is my hope that this council will realize that a reduction in parkland dedication would be a very negative and short-sighted move that may pacify Markham developers, but it is definitely not in the best interests of any future Markham community. 

And, the only reason that I see for a reduction request is avarice -- in other words developers’ greed. As distasteful as this sounds, I cannot find another benefit to a reduction in parkland dedication. 

I respectfully ask each and every councillor, to vote with current and future Markham residents -- the young, the seniors, the infirmed, and all those who want to extend their good health and say NO to a reduction in parkland dedication. 

Thank you,

Donna Bush 


Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Photo op...

Dear Mayor and councillors,

I wonder if someone can explain something for me, please.


Some time ago, when you and members of council were pressed to explain the financial impact of the GTA Center on our property taxes we were told,


        "While Markham knows that its maximum contribution to the project is capped  
        at$162.5 million there is no guarantee that property taxes will not increase, since   
        funding sources to service the debt ARE NOT GUARANTEED."

This quote was also used in an article from yourself in the Economist and Sun. 

That being said, why are we once again seeing in print the incorrect and MISLEADING statement: "No property tax increase for Markham residents" ? How can it work both ways? Am I missing something??


I respectfully await your explanation(s) on this matter.


P.S. Very clever backdrop for photo.


Regards, 
Marg Ferguson, Ward 4









Taxpayers Money...

We attended the '2013 Celebrate Markham Grants Allocation' meeting on Monday. Following are some comments:

- Clarkson Cup, held this past weekend, 'partnership' dollars were questioned. Committee members asked where the money for this came from, how much was given, and why they were not advised.

  • Brenda Librez said the funds came from the recreation operating budget -- $10,000 
  • Brenda didn't mention the no-charge ice time of approx $4,000-5,000, or the cost of table/s for the Awards Night...
  • it appears that some councillors were unaware of this amount of funding.
- Mayor's Office has their own funding... this was questioned by some of the councillors...

- A councillor stated that there is a 'back-door'way to get funding/additional funding. Apparently, a letter to the mayor is all that is required for table sponsorship.

- Councillors were unaware of how many requests are made or funds provided for a variety of special interest groups. Staff is to report back on the dollars given to these groups.

- Council voted to keep the 2013 recommendation report, as there were not enough funds available for the increases that were requested.
- 2013 Grants Allocation Budget was approved pending final vote at the next Council meeting.



Sunday, March 24, 2013






NEW WARD BOUNDARIES FOR THE 2014 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS










Sunday, January 13, 2013

Council January 29, 2013 at 7:00 pm re Proposed Arena

Website : mvcrpa.blogspot.ca/

Important


Proposed 'NHL-ready Arena'

Council Meeting


Residents URGENTLY Needed


Tuesday, January 29, 2013

 

Dear Markham Friends,

Thank you for your support of the petition calling on the Mayor and City Council NOT to proceed with the proposed NHL-ready arena project, by using taxpayer dollars, for the benefit of private businessmen. 


There is an important Meeting as follows:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013, 7:00 pm
Markham Civic Centre (corner of Hwy. 7 and Warden)

The following two Notice of Motions will be voted on:
1. financial framework
2. deferral of the site plan

It is important that you attend this meeting and VOICE your concerns, as it affects all Markham taxpayers.

For unknown reasons, Mayor Frank Scarpitti continues to be a proponent of having this arena built.

It appears that the Mayor and some Councillors may have forgotten their role as elected officials in representing the will of their residents. We all need to remind them that taxpayers were never asked if we wanted to support this endeavor and the fact is -- WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK or SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED.

It is imperative that ALL of us attend the Jan 29th meeting. EVERYONE attending will have the opportunity to make a 5-minute deputation. It is time for Markham taxpayers to SPEAK UP.. or risk paying for a white-elephant arena.

Deputations SHOULD be heard at the beginning of the Council meeting.

Please bring your neighbours, friends, and relatives.

This arena should be voted-down on January 29th -- unless our Mayor finds yet another way to stall this from ending.

Just a reminder, if you have not already done so, please write to the Mayor and Council, as indicated below. OUR E-MAILS AND ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS SPEAK LOUD AND CLEAR -- THE ARENA MUST BE PRIVATELY OWNED/OPERATED/FUNDED!

Send an e-mail to the following:
       -   Mayor Scarpitti & Councillors at: mayor&councillors@markham.ca
       -   Acting Clerk:  shuycke@markham.ca
       -   The Economist & Sun Newspaper: boneill@yrmg.com


Thank you for your continued support.

Markham Village City Ratepayers Association
http://mvcrpa.blogspot.ca -- PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE FOR UPDATES...


PS: If you would like to join the MVCRA send us an e-mail: markhamvillagecityratepayers@gmail.com
Follow on Twitter    Friend on Facebook    Forward to Friend 
Copyright © 2013 Markham Village City Ratepayers, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this e-mail because you signed the petition...

Our mailing address is:
Markham Village City Ratepayers
56 Main Street North
Apt. 504
Markham, On L3P 3J3
Canada

Markham residents' letter to Ontario Ministers Re: Proposed Arena





December 20, 2012


Hon. Bob Chiarelli                                                             Hon. Dwight Duncan
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing                         Minister of Finance
c/o 3rd Floor, Ferguson Block,                                          7th Floor, Frost Building South, 77 Wellesley Street, West,                                     7 Queen's Park Crescent
Toronto Ontario,                                                                Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1Z8                                                                            M7A 1Y7


Dear Ministers Chiarelli and Duncan,

PURPOSE 
We are residents and taxpayers of the City of Markham who are concerned about Markham Council's plans to incur a $1/2 billion public debt for a proposed 20,000 seat “NHL-ready” hockey arena. The City intends to enter into a financial arrangement and associated agreements with a private consortium to construct and operate the facility in the hope of successfully competing for a future NHL franchise. 

Markham intends to secure and provide 100% of the facility’s upfront financing to cover the estimated $326 million cost which will soar to $500 million when interest carrying charges are factored in. Markham taxpayers will be legally responsible for servicing the entire debt.

The project was planned and negotiated in secret without an open public process. In spite of the Province's municipal accounting and budgetary guidelines, the project has never been included in Markham’s annual budget or capital forecasts. Contrary to the City's own purchasing policy, Council intends to award all construction and operating contracts for this $1/2 billion project without a competitive tender or open bidding process thereby exposing taxpayers to increased cost and risk.

The facility, including all sports and entertainment operations, will be run by the private consortium while the building will ultimately be owned by the City on land originally intended for public park purposes. Markham proposes to classify the arena as a "Municipal Capital Facility" to avoid the customary taxes, fees and charges that would otherwise be levied on a private facility. This designation is worrisome since the extent to which public access will be permitted is not known at this time. Limits on public utilization of the facility may serve to contravene the regulations to Section 110 of the Municipal Act.

We believe that the City of Markham is not acting in the best interests of Markham taxpayers. In our view, the Council is attempting to circumvent Provincial legislation, thumb its nose at long-standing principles for open, transparent and accountable municipal government and cast prudent financial management practices out the window...all to the disadvantage and peril of current and future taxpayers of the City
of Markham.

Consequently, we are asking the Province to intervene and suspend the City's dealings on this matter until the Ministries have had an opportunity to review the circumstances surrounding the project along with Markham's questionable actions to date. We are also writing to express our support for Mr. Andre Marin's proposal to include the municipal sector within the purview and mandate of the Provincial Ombudsman's Office to prevent the proliferation of practices such as are now occurring in the City of Markham.

THE "UN-PUBLIC" PROCESS  
Certain politicians and senior administrative staff met clandestinely and exclusively with a few business interests to facilitate the assembly of a private consortium to develop and undertake the project without the benefit of a competitive proposal call.

Neither the project itself nor the proposal to take on public debt was ever subjected to public scrutiny or debate in the context of setting the City's long-term spending priorities or in planning for the City’s infrastructure needs including new investment, replacement, operation and maintenance costs.

After negotiating in secret for over 18 months, a Council meeting was hurriedly convened in April of this year without significant notice or meaningful public consultation to approve a "draft financial framework" committing Markham taxpayers to a $1/2 billion debt obligation.

In response to wide-spread criticism of the process and ratepayer concerns about the   financial deal, Markham hastily mounted a thinly veiled marketing campaign to "sell" the project under the guise of "community information meetings". In an attempt to counteract burgeoning community opposition to the project the City surreptitiously   authorized an incomplete and slanted telephone survey deliberately designed to elicit a higher favourable response for the project.

Markham continues to negotiate detailed cost-sharing and operating agreements behind closed doors. The City has stated that these legal agreements will not be made public.  Taxpayers will only be given the "essence" of the agreements. Markham consistently refuses to make reports and documentation available to the public and has stated that nothing will be released until after the arena is built or the associated site plan application is denied. These actions are completely disrespectful of residents and taxpayers and are contrary to the requirements for open, transparent and accountable local government.

THE FINANCIAL "NON-PLAN" 
To support its assertion that this project will not result in a tax increase, the City is purporting to use several revenue streams to cover the debt repayment. Council's "draft financial framework" calls for a cost-sharing agreement with the private consortium to recoup $250 million, or $12.5 million annually, over a period of twenty years. The agreement, therefore, constitutes a contractual “promise to pay” for half of the project's anticipated costs.

A distinct corporate entity is to be created to enter into all legal agreements with the City, including the associated cost-sharing arrangements, as well as to undertake the construction, operation and management of the facility. This will effectively contain the consortium's financial risk in the event of a breach or default on its part.

By restricting the City's legal reach solely to arena-related assets, Markham's ability to fully recover damages or costs, in the event such legal recourse is ever  necessitated, is severely constrained. This arrangement could exacerbate taxpayers' already considerable financial risk given the well-documented history of financial problems and failures associated with these types of facilities across North America.

Markham proposes to impose a variety of additional fees and charges to cover the balance of the debt including parking fees, tax increment financing, section 37 Planning Act payments and what it calls “voluntary development contributions". The latter revenue stream, so-called “voluntary development contributions”, are intended to raise $140.0 million, or $7.0 million annually, over the twenty year financing period. The charges are to be collected concurrent with the City's approval of development applications. The proposed charges, referenced in a City report, range from $4,000 to $6,500 per residential unit depending on the type of unit and where it is located. The charge will be adjusted over time, in the same manner as development charges. In the City's opinion this will provide an incentive for "early adopters" to pay, in the form of a lower fee.

Development industry representatives have voiced concerns about the efficacy of the charge and about the potential for abuse, specifically, the City delaying or turning down applicants who resist or refuse to pay. These concerns notwithstanding, City Hall's "arm-twisting" is already well advanced and the "voluntary" charges are already being squeezed from developers. No doubt the increased cost to developers will simply be passed on to new home buyers, further eroding housing affordability in Markham.

In spite of any coerced acquiescence or grudging compliance with the "voluntary development contribution", it is our view that this practice is discriminatory and that it effectively constitutes a development pre-condition, notwithstanding the claimed “voluntary” nature of the charge. It is our contention that there is no legislative authority for this charge.

The so-called "voluntary development contribution", in our estimation, mimics a development charge yet fulfills none of the requirements of the Development Charges Act, 1997.  The Development Charges Act, 1997 requires a background study to be undertaken to determine the amount that can be levied on new development bearing in mind ten-year average service levels. Once the level of the charge has been determined, the municipality can only implement the charge by formally amending its development charges bylaw thereby allowing for public consultation and an appeal process.

It is our view that the legal framework for financing growth-related infrastructure projects is being knowingly circumvented by the City. None of the mandatory provisions of the Development Charges Act, 1997 have been met. This may be explained by the fact that the City's predisposition to secrecy precludes the use of development charges given the legislation's mandated need for public input. Alternatively, the City may have recognized that the proposed arena is predominantly, if not entirely, non-growth related and  therefore could not generate significant development charge revenue.

Irrespective of the reason, the City has opted to levy its' "voluntary development contribution" knowing full well that such a charge has no legal status and all funds collected are perpetually insecure. Consequently, when this charge is challenged in the courts as it surely will be, all funds collected will be at risk and Markham taxpayers will be on the hook for the entire $140 million liability.

Failure to correct this situation could set a precedent whereby we see, in effect, a return to the "Let's Make a Deal" lot levy regime that existed prior to the proclamation of the original Development Charges Act in 1989. Inaction would also allow a massive financial liability to accrue over time imposing a heavy burden on future Markham taxpayers when the courts inevitably adjudicate on the illegality of the so-called “voluntary development contribution" and determine that the landowners and developers were under practical compulsion to pay. 

We also suggest the municipality’s desire to implement tax increment financing lies outside the current municipal finance legislative framework. In spite of acknowledging this fact in a Council presentation on April 20, 2012 which states "the Provincial TIF Act is prescriptive in terms of the types of projects that would qualify and this project does not meet the TIF guidelines", the City still chose to ignore this by proposing to institute an additional charge on future commercial property which would be earmarked to pay a portion of the annual debt servicing costs for the arena.     

CONCLUSION       
Our request, therefore, is that your Ministries intervene to suspend Markham's dealings on this matter until provincial officials have conducted a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding this project and Markham's practices related thereto.

Furthermore we believe the Province should consider a permanent oversight mechanism that allows for the review of local Council actions in circumstances such as this, particularly where local taxpayers are threatened with significant long-term adverse financial impacts. As mentioned earlier, we support the Provincial Ombudsman's proposal to include municipalities within the purview and mandate of his Office.

We would be happy to meet to further discuss this matter.

Sincerely, 

Norman Manara                                 Lorne McCool 

cc. Mr. Andre Marin, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario,
      Bell Trinity Square, 483 Bay St., 10th Floor, South Tower,
      Toronto Ont. M5G 2C9

       Mr. Brian Tuckey, President and C.E.O, BILD GTA
      20 Upjohn Road, Suite 100, North York, Ont. M3B 2V9

Thursday, November 15, 2012

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

There are two important meetings at Markham City Hall that are coming up soon:

November 20, 2012 - 1:00PM to 3:00PM - Development Services Committee meeting to discuss the Site Plan for the proposed NHL Style Arena (aka The Frank Scarpitti Center)

November 20, 2012 - 7:00 PM - Council Meeting where the Arena issue will also be discussed.

There is strength in numbers and we need to demonstrate to the Mayor and Council that we, the taxpayers of Markham, do not support his reckless move to use city funds to benefit private businessmen.