Archives
2nd Annual Conference - Ontario De-amalgamation Network
On Saturday, June 11th at 10:00 am at the Fenelon Falls Secondary School, the ODN will be hosting the second annual de-amalgamation conference.
All those interested in joining the citizens of Ontario who continue to fight the good fight for the democratic choice in the re-structuring of our communities, please join us (CFF) in Fenelon Falls, Ontario.
Either fill in the form at www.voconews.com/odnreg.htm
-or - just email us at info@voconews.com with your name.
A Peoples Report Card on Amalgamation
| Click on the "Vote" button to go to the report card. |
CFIB RELEASE
CFIB releases results of Small Business’ overall satisfaction with the Municipality of Hamilton and reminds Mayor DiIanni of their conditions for a New Deal for Municipalities
CFIB also released results from another CFIB survey showing that the majority of Hamilton’s small businesses are dissatisfied with their municipality. When asked to give their perspectives on how well their businesses were being served by their local government on a variety of business issues, the overall results showed 67 per cent felt the City was doing a poor job, 30 per cent thought it was doing a fair job and 3 per cent said the local government was doing a good job. The five business issues on which municipalities were rated included taxation, value for money, government salaries, regulations, and overall awareness of small business issues.
For more information go to à : http://www.fcei.ca/legis/ontario/pdf/Hamilton.pdf
CFIB
4141 Yonge Street, Suite 401
Toronto, ON
M2P 2A6
(416) 222-8022
FAX: (416) 222-7593
Fairness for Flamborough:
by Roman Sarachman,
Chairman CFF
One could say, that this is an example of a city that is unfair and unresponsive to their surrounding communities.
I guess we should be thankful; this year the increase will only be 3.9%, after getting $15.7 million from the provincial government and borrowing $15 million from the Future fund. If you take into account that Hamilton spent $95 million more than they took in taxes, the tax increase to balance the 2005 budget should have been 23.5%.
Is Hamilton is using a credit card to pay the mortgage, deferring the inevitable? Next year, will we once again be honoured with even larger tax increases and threats of discontinuing Area Rating? Don’t forget adjustments to the new Value Assessment due for our 2006 tax year. Expect that Flamborough will see increases double that of the City core.
We know that Dave Braden is fighting for “fairness for Flamborough,” we need our other elected officials Marg McCarthy and Ted McMeekin to show their support and commitment to have a prosperous “Community of Flamborough” that is fairly treated by the City of Hamilton.
How can we put a stop to the profligacy at City Hall?
By Jutta Barlow, GlanbrookThe Hamilton Spectator
I am stunned. After years of watching the fiscal mismanagement and unaccountability at city hall, I was sure nothing the mayor and his crew did would surprise me, but they did.
They can't get a grip on their finances, so rather than face the problems head on, they put them on hold, hoping for a knight in shining armour to bail them out of yet another financial disaster. Somewhere along the line they have forgotten several things.
The knight made it clear last year, when he came along with $19.5 million, that this was a one-time occurrence. And while pleading with the provincial Liberals for a bailout, that they are suing the federal Liberals, which must have some reaction from little brother. While waiting for the life raft, they continue to spend, spend and spend.
We've been forced into being part of this mess for over five years, watching our taxes increase and our services decrease.
We've had our local fiscally reponsible council replaced by one that has no concept of a balanced budget and no concern for the citizens they are pushing to their financial limits.
Prior to this shotgun wedding, we had no knowledge of budgets in the red. Rather the opposite, with a council which, by careful planning and spending, managed to accrue a sizable reserve -- not raising taxes for eight years and maintaining services.
As Glanbrook, we had only one lawsuit, and that settled quickly. Councillors were our neighbours and friends, and treated our tax dollar as if it were their own. They listened to complaints and promptly resolved any issue placed before them.
Now, we have a council that would put a travelling circus to shame with their shenanigans and their careless abuse of the trust given to them by their constituents. Day after day another story on mismanagement at city hall makes the newspapers.
And people wonder why the de-amalgamation movement is strong and growing.
There's more than enough fuel handed to us on a daily basis to keep the flame burning bright.
Urgent Message to Mr. McGuinty
All 401 Rural Revolution: Stop the Destruction Convoy
From Lanark Landowners Association to Premier McGuinty:
On January 3, 2005 the united rural landowners of Ontario delivered a plea for justice to your office. As with all previous pleas and requests the only response has been silence. Historically your government responds only to civil disobedience and is deaf and mute to requests. January 14 is the deadline for a response and solutions.
As the deadline approaches rural people from across Ontario are prepared and ready to begin "Stop the Destruction" convoy and road closures. The first step is a full closure of Highway 401 near Tillsonburg on January 21. Each following Friday the "stop the Destruction " convoy will close up and blockade provincial and international border crossings into Ontario and further 400 series highways.
The tyranny of the present Ontario government is clearly evident to those who shoulder the arbitrary burden of excessive government legislation and over-regulation-Rural Ontario. Through incompetence, and ignorance, cowardly government bureaucrats and inept politicians have abridged our freedom to choose, and deny people the opportunity to earn a living. The evidence uncloaks the hidden government agenda to culturally cleanse rural Ontario of farmers and private landowners. And create an environment for intensive trans - national corporations to thrive and prosper in our place.
Rural people have a moral obligation to protect and defend our heritage, culture lifestyle and property from government imposed injustice-And will. McGuinty you will stop the destruction of the rural economy and culture by February 28, 2005 or our mass convoys of farm tractors, vehicles and implements, and rural people will enter Queens Park on March 9 and reclaim our democracy.
- Rural people demand legislation "to protect the use, ownership, enjoyment, and the right to earn a living from our private property" be passed and enshrined in Canada’s constitution. This right, can only be abridged for the betterment of society, with fair, just, and timely compensation.
- The Fish & wildlife conservation act will be amended so farmers have the legal right to defend against wildlife damage.
- The greenbelt legislation legalizes the theft of 1.8 million acres of private land. It must be withdrawn or include "landowners shall be fairly and timely compensated for the loss of use and enjoyment of private land.
- The marketplace for Ontario tobacco farmers is destroyed by unjust government policy that deny people their most fundamental freedom of "choice," through high taxation and smoking bans. These policies will be withdrawn or a full and fair buyout of tobacco farmer’s quotas is required.
- The Environmental protection act is deceptively employed to close down small rural sawmills. This act will be amended to insure reverse onus is not possible. Full compensation to the sawmills you have arbitrarily closed shall be awarded.
- The MNR has tabled legislation to slaughter Deer and Elk farmers and criminalise the hunting of farm raised wildlife in hunting preserves. This legislation will be withdrawn, or full and timely compensation for the loss of business revenues and inventory value awarded.
- The safe drinking water act destroys all rural business and must be withdrawn or amended to include full government funding for compliance.
- The closure of 100 Ontario Abattoirs has magnified the BSE crisis and caused the bankruptcy of cattle farmers. The Ontario government will harmonize our, meat inspection regulations to allow the free movement of processed meat between provincial jurisdictions.
- The nutrient management act will be withdrawn or include a full funding for compliance.
- The Ontario Cream Producers have been denied a lawful marketplace as government encourages intensification of the dairy industry.
- Amalgamation that swallows the rural voice into the urban fold further diminishes democracy. McGuinty has refused to adhere to referendums and the democratic will of rural people.
- MNR continues to place land use designations, ANSI’s, and buffer zones that deprive people of their property rights. The municipal act must be changed to stop the theft of private property.
President, Lanark Landowners Association
Tel 613-267-6661
Fax 613-259-2741
www.ruralrevolution.com/website/
...and to our Mayor...
De-amalgamation
January 10, 2005Dear Mr. DiIanni,
I have been a resident of Waterdown for 11 years now. I am writing to tell you that since the forced amalgamation, my taxes have increased substantially while services and equipment (providing those services) to Waterdown have diminished. I feel that due to the many years of mismanagement of Hamilton's budget and it's inability to ensure a healthy control of expenditures and proper Capital purchase decisions, we are left having to bear the burden. If the City of Hamilton were a Company, you would have been forced into bankruptcy and out of business a long time ago. You cannot continue to spend what you do not have and fill that 'gap' from the backs of taxpayers (especially those regions that were forced into amalgamation). It is unacceptable and violates what the amalgamation was based on. I feel that the Government knew the Financial state of the City of Hamilton and also knew it did not (or was not willing) have the capacity to assist. Forcing Flamborough (with it's high income generating Race track) into amalgamation was nothing more than a way of 'dumping' the financial burdens onto the back of it's residents.
Some residents have become silent (from what I have heard directly from them), due to their frustration that both the Government and City of Hamilton refuse to allow us to democratically choose (via voting) to decide our future. I urge you to listen to what we have been saying for a number of years now. Allow us to vote, and have the honor and decency to support the results of that vote by facilitating the change we ask for.
Regards
Paul O'Connor
De-Amalgamation still a concern
January 10, 2005Dear Mr. DiIanni,
I am concerned with your recent statement about amalgamation not being an issue with people in Flamborough any longer. Needless to say, you do not live day to day on the streets of our town. Citizen's here feel strongly about the unfair increases in taxes, associated decreases in home values, unsafe cuts in services and undemocratic loss of voice at city council.
Although these words seem to fall on deaf ears in Hamilton, in Flamborough they are part of everyday life. Since our councillors have no real voice in your chambers, how would you presume to know that amalgamation is not an issue any longer in Flamborough?
If you are gauging your opinion on the whisper of discontentment, you are making a mistake. The initial shouting of our voices has softened but, our intention remains the same; to reverse the undemocratic union of our town with Hamilton.
Not one politician can stand up in public and say honestly that this entire process was executed in a fair or democratic manner. This forced amalgamation was an injury to the rights of all Canadians.
Flamborough citizens are working diligently with many communities in Ontario to force this issue to the forefront of the next Provincial Election. We will do the same with the next City Election. And we will continue on this path until we are given what should have been given to us so many years ago; a binding referendum on the structure of our towns.
The forced amalgamation of Hamilton, Ancaster, Dundas, Glanbrook, Stoney Creek & Flamborough was a huge error in judgement. This action cannot and will not fix the financial woes of the City of Hamilton. And I'm certain, that after 4 short years, evidence is abound! This plan is not working. At great expense to the amalgamated citizen's, Hamilton's financial haemorrhaging had a bandage put on it.
I hope you can find it within the power of your position to stand up for all citizens of this region and lead the Province to re-visit this action and let the people decide the fate of their towns in a democratic manner.
After all, unless I missed some devastating change in Canadian policy, democracy still prevails. Mr. DiIanni, de-amalgamation is still a very high priority in Flamborough!
Donna Olivieri
From CFF
August 26, 2004
Mayor Larry DiIanni
City of Hamilton
City Hall
71 Main St. W.
Hamilton, Ont. L8P 4Y5
Dear Mr. Mayor
You are probably aware that on December 3, 2003, Mr. Ted McMeekin. MPP for Ancaster and Dundas; Flamborough and Aldershot, tabled in the Legislature, a petition on our behalf, signed by approximately 11,129 voters in Flamborough alone requesting deamalgamation from the Hamilton Unicity. Other petitions signed by 2564 voters from Ancaster, 2600 from Dundas, 3765 from Stoney Creek and Glanbrook were also tabled concurrently, for a total of 20,058. In our door to door signature campaign 98% signed our petition, and wished us good luck.
The petitions therefore represent a very significant portion of all eligible voters and undeniably signify the unrest in the suburban areas forced into amalgamation and their dissatisfaction with the current governance structure.
We received a letter from Mr. McMeekin dated June 8, 2004 advising us as to Mr. John Gerretsen's, (Minister of Municipal Affairs) formal response to the Petitions. A copy of the Minister" s response is enclosed.
You will note that the Minister has made no decision on the issue of the petitions. Instead, he has passed the matter over to you, stating that you are currently in the process of undertaking local initiatives on the concerns of your constituents and are seeking ways to address them. Further, he states he is looking forward to local solutions resulting from your initiatives.
In view of this situation and on behalf of the 11,129 Flamborough petitioners, we now ask you to please outline what those local initiatives are (including time lines for implementation) that Mr. Gerretsen claims you are undertaking and apparently of which he has some knowledge.
Our extremely high City tax levies, indifferent quality of our services and general malaise are only symptoms of a governance structure that is not working. Old established communities can't be dissolved without asking the people permission in a referendum. That should be your local initiative.
We appreciate your attention given to this letter and would be pleased to receive your early reply.
Roman Sarachman,
Chairman CFF
September 14, 2004
MR. Roman Sarachman, Chairperson
Committee to Free Flamborough
P.O. Box 128
Rockton, ON
L0R 1X0
Dear Mr. Sarachman,
Thank you for your letter, received August 26, 2004.
As you know, when I ran for Mayor for the City of Hamilton, my focus was clearly on promoting and supporting all regions of our great city. In fact, I even spoke in my literature of the need to re-create communities and presented a strategy on how this would work.
Currently, I am in discussions with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, John Gerretsen, in reviewing the issues you raised in your letter. Our first step, in partnership with the province, will be to conduct a report card of the city's amalgamation, with the intent of addressing the issues it may raise. These discussions continue and in the near future, we will be announcing a start date for this project.
Just to be clear, my intentions are to make this city work. I encourage you to work along side me on this goal and look forward to creating a prosperous city of many unique communities.
Sincerely,
Larry DiIanni,
Mayor
cc: The Honourable Minister John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs
Ted McMeekin, M.P.P. Ancaster/Dundas/Flamborough, Aldershot
October 28, 2004
Mayor Larry DiIanni
City of Hamilton
City Hall, 71 Main St. W.
Hamilton, Ont. L8P 4Y5
Dear Mr. Mayor:
Thank you for your letter of September 14, 2004.
While we are sure you may have the best of intentions, you will appreciate that the citizens of Flamborough (and the other amalgamated communities) will not take kindly to a report card of the city's amalgamation when they personally live the results daily. (Especially one conducted by an out of town, Montreal firm)
It is clear that you have no local Flamborough initiatives to offer Mr. Gerretsen or the people of Flamborough at this time. The only solution is to offer voters in Flamborough a binding referendum on the option of exiting or remaining in the amalgamated City and resolve the matter once and for all.
We would be glad to work along side of you toward that end.
Sincerely,
Roman Sarachman
Chair, Committee to Free Flamborough
...and with the Minister of Municipal Affairs
October 28, 2004
The Honourable John Gerretsen
Minister of Municipal Affairs
777 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M3G 2E5
Dear Mr. Gerretsen:
We have forwarded several letters to you c/o Ted McMeekin's office in Waterdown. We are now questioning whether these letters might have been misdirected or lost in transit, as we have had no acknowledgements to date.
On December 3, 2003, Mr. Ted McMeekin, MPP for Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Aldershot, tabled in the Legislature, on our behalf, a petition signed by approximately 11,129 voters in Flamborough, seeking de-amalgamation from the City of Hamilton. Other signed petitions totalling 20,058 voters from Flamborough, Ancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek and Glanbrook, were tabled separately on different dates.
It was six months later, in his letter of June 8, 2004, Mr. McMeekin advised us as to your response to the petitions. In essence, your response (according to Ted) was that no decision was made and instead you diverted the matter to Mr. DiIanni, Mayor of Hamilton as he was said to be developing local initiatives.
According to Mr. McMeekin, you advised him that you were looking at different options and would advise him ''as soon as a decision with respect to this issue has been reached." Ted’s statements referring to your postponed decisions were published in the local paper during one of his interviews.
Acting on your response letter, we wrote a letter to Mr. DiIanni on July 11, 2004 asking him to outline the local initiatives that you claimed he was taking to address and resolve our grievances.
On September 14, 2004, he responded (copy attached). We were not surprised to learn his initiative is only a "Report card of the City's amalgamation". You can appreciate that this is hardly an acceptable response to the fundamental democratic issue of wiping out an established community without going to the people with a referendum.
You have declined to render our 11,129 petitioners in Flamborough a decision. The Mayor of Hamilton was supposed to be formulating initiatives, in is letter all he proposes is a "Report card".
On two occasions, we wrote to Mr. McMeekin suggesting he develop in consort with the suburban communities, a committee to formulate guidelines for a referendum on de-amalgamation comparable to Quebec (in his interview with the local paper he did support and showed interest in a Quebec style referendum), but to date he is silent.
We therefore, now request a meeting be arranged with you at a mutually convenient early date to discuss the grievance.
You may not know that this riding is traditionally conservative. In '97 Tony Skarica (conservative) resigned his seat as M.P.P. in protest of Mr. Harris breaking his promise not to force Flamborough to amalgamate with Hamilton. Mr. Skarica had based and won his election on that issue. In the subsequent by-election, Mr. McMeekin easily won the riding due to the backlash against the forced amalgamation. The liberal party retained the riding in the 2003 Provincial election by Mr. McMeekin campaigning on Mr. McGuinty's promise to allow a binding local referendum on de-amalgamation. We now hold Mr. McGuinty to his written commitment to hold a referendum and this promise has been widely circulated.
In these circumstances, should Mr. McGuinty turn his back on his commitment it would be a blunder of monumental proportions should the Liberal Party hope to have a future in this riding and also become the most cynical decision in the annals of Ontario Liberal politics.
Our present municipal structure is not working. The evidence abounds. Flamborough has different problems than the city of Hamilton, different interests, different aspirations, and little empathy exists between the urban and rural communities. There is no community of interest with Hamilton and that is probably a reason why the unified city is not working.
Our petitioners seek a binding referendum on the option of remaining with or exiting the City of Hamilton, followed by a restructuring process if the choice is to exit, and develop a model more in line with the voters’ wishes.
We look forward to your early response on the timing of our meeting with you.
Sincerely,
Roman Sarachman Chair,
Committee to Free Flamborough
ODN Huns Invade Toronto (Film at 11)
More from the ‘Red Casket Relay'
Yesterday's "Red Casket Relay" was the tale of the two Michaels. MPP Michael Prue met us with open arms and home-baked banana bread. He assured us of the continuing support of himself and his caucus colleagues.
From his office on the Danforth we drove along Toronto's main street, Bloor Street, to Dufferin Street and up to Mike Colle's office. The casket had been elevated to the top of the truck box for maximum visibility. We continue to be amazed and encouraged by public reaction to the "Here 'Lies' McGuinty" and "Democracy McGuinty-Style" messages. Passing motorists honk and give the "thumbs up" sign wherever we go.
Arriving at Mr. Colle's office, we parked the truck in the adjacent parking lot and went for lunch at Katz's Deli. Returning to chez Colle, we set up the casket on the grass boulevard adjacent to Dufferin Street and proceeded to take our group photos.
Mr. Colle's office had called on Wednesday, first to confirm our appointment, and then about 2 hours later, to cancel. I advised her that it was very short notice to cancel and since we would be in Toronto anyway, we would keep our appointment and reschedule with Mr. Colle at that time.
At 2 minutes past 1 pm (two minutes late for our (cancelled?) appointment) we approached the front door only to be met by a Colle staffer who scooted forward to bolt the door and then retreat into the inner sanctum. The louvered window blinds between the waiting room and the back office were discreetly closed. A quick cell-phone call to the office received only an answering machine response. In their haste to bar the gates from the (us) barbarians, the office staff forgot to take the "Come in, we're open" sign out of the window.
We will admit that the defenders of the castle keep didn't pour boiling oil on us peasants from the battlements, but the office was on the ground floor so that would have been impossible anyway. One of our people went around to the parking lot at the back of the office. A defender tried to slip out the back way but saw the yellow shirt of the invading "Hun" and retreated back inside.
Incidentally, I was told by a staffer when they phoned to cancel our appointment that Mr. Colle had been called to a cabinet meeting on Friday. Are congratulations in order for Mr. Colle's elevation to cabinet, or was that a fib?
Office staff could not help but notice the reaction of passing motorists to the casket. A good time was had by all (except, presumably, those inside the fortress) and we returned to Victoria full of good spirits and resolve.
Incidentally, Wednesday's trip to Belleville and Kingston received good media attention (three newspapers, two radio stations including CBC radio, and two CBC affiliate TV stations covered the event).
The relay is generating positive reaction and it costs nothing more than a tank of gas and a few hours’ time. The politicians are definitely aware of what's going on out in the hinterland.
John Panter
Lindsay Daily Post "Red Casket" Editorial and...
Bury the ‘Red Casket Relay'
Cindy Woods
Lindsay Daily Post Editorial - Wednesday, August 11, 2004 @ 09:00
Enough, already! The so-called ‘Red Casket Relay’ - that silly road show concocted by VOCO - should be put to death before it completely destroys our communities.
The group has been touring the province with its ‘Liberal red death of democracy’ casket as a gimmick to garner press coverage to further its de-amalgamation cause.
While its original intent was to embarrass the McGuinty Liberals for not recognizing the results of last November’s referendum, what it’s really doing is hurting the reputation of our area.
The fact that this relay began in the City of Kawartha Lakes is not the kind of image we wish to project to the rest of Ontario.
We live in an area steeped in history and rich in recreational and tourism opportunities. We can boast of a selection of communities that offer lifestyle choices that suit people of all ages and backgrounds.
But like other smaller centres in Ontario, we need economic development to keep young people working and provide a fair tax base. We must compete with many other communities that can offer the same lifestyle opportunities and amenities.
What is there to be gained by having a small group of agitators touring the province with a red casket bemoaning yet another one of McGuinty’s broken promises? Do we really want this ‘casket’ to be forever associated with the City of Kawartha Lakes? How can that be good for business and tourism?
This small, vocal group of de-amalgamators can certainly get their message across without resorting to such sensationalistic tactics - tactics that ultimately hurt the very communities they think they are trying to protect.
They do not represent the thoughts and feelings of most residents of our area, regardless of the referendum vote.
It’s time they put this entire issue to rest, once and for all.
...CFF's Reply to the Editor and...
Re: Bury the 'Red Casket Relay'
This is the most biased and one-sided article I have read in many years. Perhaps your reporter, Cindy Woods, is new to the assignment desk and needs further guidance.
The whole point in doing a protest is to get attention. Given the tone of your article, we have been successful. Most political movements fail because they pull back too soon. We will stop protesting when we get what we want. That is, the return of democracy, which your reporter seems to have overlooked in her article. Money, money, money seems to be the tone of her article and she is prepared to have it overrule democracy.
This Red Casket may help to bring back the communities which have been lost to amalgamation. In Hamilton with the whole issue of duplicate street names, Bell Canada is treating those communities as if they no longer exist and has even admitted it.
According to your Post, it is silly to let the government know we are not satisfied with their performance. Where is the influence coming from I wonder?
The relay is a great idea and is having an impact. I cannot wait until it comes to my City of Hamilton. This is democracy at work and should have the consent of the Post.
Let me ask a question: What is the role of a newspaper in democracy? Is it to stifle dissent over a legitimate political cause? This is not the role of journalism in a free country.
Dennis Noonan
Committee to Free Flamborough
Media Relations
...More Reaction
Re: Bury the 'Red Casket Relay'
I am disgusted by the tone and content of Cindy Woods` nauseating column, "Bury The Red Casket". Ms. Woods needs to wake up and stop worrying about endangered tourist dollars and clue in to the fact that democracy itself is at risk here!
The people of Victoria County should be proud of, and congratulated for, standing up for democracy against overwhelming opposition - opposition that ranges from lying politicians and powerful developers to `easily influenced` editorial writers.
The fact that the deamalgamation supporters were able to overcome an unfairly weighted referendum and win is testimony to their desire for democracy. To allow the residents of Lindsay a vote in the referendum is tantamount to giving Tibet a chance to vote on their freedom but, China would have to be included in the tally!
Now Ms. Woods, in her dangerous and narrow minded editorial, advocates that the citizenry should simply accept the blatant Liberal double-cross, and succumb to this travesty of freedom. Thank goodness Ms. Woods was not writing during the Nazi occupation of Europe, or Vichy France might be alive and well today.
Robert L. Brain
Re: Bury the 'Red Casket Relay'
Dear Cindy Woods,
From the tone of your article "Bury the Red Casket Relay" I'm going to hazard a guess at your age. And at your education in the area of world politics and history. Young!
I won't go into detail about how uninformed your article appears. Or how "innocent", for lack of a better term to express your naivety, it reads. But, I will ask that you do some homework on democracy and its slow decline in many of the countries throughout history.
Canada and its citizen's are moving ever so slowly from a democracy to a beaurocratic dictatorship. So slowly it seems, that even the smartest among us is too busy travelling, shopping and more importantly, paying his bills, to notice. Beaurocrats count on that!
Do some reading, Ms. Woods. Don't be a puppet in the hands of your employer and write articles for the sake of brownie points. In the long run, you and others in your field, will lose all rights to freedom of press. And you will have only yourselves to blame. Take a good look at the big picture. Your very future is at stake. And that of all "free" Canadians.
Your article made me sad and sorry for the state of our Canadian media.
Sincerely,
Donna Olivieri
Committee to Free Flamborough
An Open Letter to the Voters of Flamborough
To the approximately 13,700 petitioners in Flamborough who have been waiting patiently for a response from the Provincial Government to our petition requesting de-amalgamation from the Hamilton Unicity, tabled in the Legislature by Mr. McMeekin, M.P.P. on December 3, 2003. Mr. McMeekin relayed the formal response from the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs, to us in his letter of June 8, 2004. We quote “Voters in Municipalities across Ontario have recently exercised their democratic right to elect municipal representatives for the next 3 years. I have no doubt that the new councilors are aware of the concerns being expressed in their communities. I encourage all citizens with concerns about their municipal governance systems to bring their concerns to their newly elected councils. I understand that there are concerns among some constituents in the City of Hamilton regarding the current governance structure. Newly elected Mayor Di Ianni is currently in the process of undertaking local initiatives to hear the concerns of his constituents and to seek ways to address them. I look forward to local solutions resulting from the mayor’s initiatives.”
We quote further from Mr. McMeekin’s letter, “For the record. I received the Minister’s response in late February 2004 and saw it for the first time on March 2, 2004. You won’t be surprised, given our history together on this issue, that I have some concerns about both the appropriateness and adequacy of that response. In the two weeks that followed, I had several lengthy discussions with the Minister. Based on these discussions, the Minister, to his credit, subsequently requested more time to consider the issue. He wrote to me stating, “Based on your input, I am continuing to look at different options and have asked the Ministry for input as well. I will advise you as soon as a decision with respect to this issue has been reached.”
The Minister’s response is in fact, that no decision has been made and in full public view has “passed the buck” to the mayor of Hamilton. This is a thinly disguised effort to avoid the issue and we will not permit it to remain in limbo.
Old established communities cannot be wiped out without first asking the people in a referendum. That is why our Committee is demanding a referendum to be held for the suburbs to decide whether they wish to remain with or exit the Unicity. This would settle the matter once and for all and then we could move on with our lives toward a co-operative, settled future.
Our petitions are a test as to whether or not Mr. McGuinty really believes in democracy. He has made a solemn commitment to us. His reputation and integrity are on the line. This riding was originally won by the Liberals (a Conservative stronghold) on the backlash of forced amalgamation and was retained in the 2003 election on the same issue. Should Mr. McGuinty now choose to ignore our petition, it would be the most cynical decision in the annals of Ontario politics.
The CFF Committee will continue to pursue all avenues toward our objective and with the creation of the Ontario De-Amalgamation Network, at the recent Rockton Conference, banding together some 26 communities, we are growing stronger.
Anyone willing to lend support or if you want to be on our email list to be informed of ongoing progress, please contact us at info@freeflamborough.org.
Submitted by The Committee to Free Flamborough
Ancaster responds to Ted McMeekin
July 20, 2004
The Honourable Ted McMeekin, MPP for Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough and Aldershot, Legislative Building, Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1
Re: Referendum on De-amalgamation
Dear Mr. McMeekin:
We have received your letter of June 3, 2004. In it, you explain the delay in conveying a response to our petition and describe the means by which we can ultimately achieve our shared goal – a referendum on de-amalgamation from the City of Hamilton. We are disappointed but are prepared to accept your explanation; let us move on as quickly as possible to set a timetable for province-wide “made in Ontario” referendums comparable (but with some changes) to those held in Quebec on June 20, 2004.
We suggest that a committee be established with yourself and representatives from each of the three formerly autonomous municipalities within your Riding that were merged with Hamilton. The committee would formulate guidelines for a referendum and specify dates to be considered deadlines for action. We think that the referendums on de-amalgamation should be held no less than two years before the next Provincial Election, that is no later than the fall of 2006. The November 2006 municipal elections would provide a suitable opportunity at low cost. We judge that two years is sufficient to put in place the necessary legislation and to implement it. Delay beyond that is unacceptable, not least because the unreliability of campaign promises makes us unwilling to gamble on the de-amalgamation issue at the polling booth in 2008.
A freeze should be imposed immediately on all sales of municipal property, development applications, and merging of Official Plans and Zoning By-laws, and this should remain in force until governance changes required by referendum outcomes are put in place.
Please note that we are sending a copy of our letter to the Minister and to de-amalgamation committees of all of the other municipalities merged with Hamilton. We assume that you and your fellow MPP Jennifer Mossop will collaborate so that a common plan that meets the needs of all five municipalities is formulated.
We look forward to sending representatives to a meeting by mid-September to begin work on this important project.
Yours truly,
I. Brymer for
Steering Group of Ancaster Our Town Committee
Copies: Minister Gerretsen, MPP Mossop, Dundas Again Committee, Free Flamborough Committee, Glanbrook Freedom Train Committee, Battle of Stoney Creek Committee
Faye McGee Sounds Off
Faye McGee (Victoria County) has NOT given up. Follow her example.
Quote by Dalton McGuinty to Ernie Eaves, June 3, 1997: Listening, Premier, is a good thing. It's not a sign of weakness; it's a sign of strength.
Mr. McGuinty:
I appreciate receiving your response to my email and I felt I needed to address some of the statements made in that response.
You say that your government welcomes discussion at the local level and in fact the LOCAL people voted in a referendum that you and others stated would be honoured. This council does not have the right to negotiate anything different than what the people voted. That is what is called DEMOCRACY which of course would be the same way that you got elected. What a message to send to the voters, that you will pick and choose what votes you will recognize.
You also suggest that some of the municipalities could face significant financial pressures, and I wonder why you wouldn't allow those municipalities to negotiate with their neighbouring municipality to see how this could be addressed, because what you have actually done here is made everyone pay for the services in those communities which is not fair to the other municipalities and the people in those areas. The ones that have difficulties could raise their own taxes and not burden the rest of us. The water upgrades are a user pay system so that cannot be part of what you are suggesting would be difficult.
You also say that Minister of Municipal Affairs has been in touch with the council and you are right. I am a member of the COUNCIL and we drove to his office and he drove to this municipality to deliver the word that you were not going to allow deamalgamation at this time. What does that mean? Perhaps at this time or next week or maybe even Canada Day. The minister had no intention of delivering the message to all of council but it was just a coincidence that we had a special meeting scheduled that day so he gave us a few minutes. Certainly, the public did not know that he was here and I am quite sure that many of them would have appreciated having an opportunity to attend the meeting.
Regardless of what you think, the people here are not prepared to accept these statements and intend to keep reminding you that they want their local councils making their local decisions. There are many quotes by you, stating that amalgamation does not work and that Mike Harris ignored the people. How do you feel now, when you are ignoring the people and their democratic rights. Many people fought and died for that right and you do not have the right to take that away.
This is now a bigger issue outside of Victoria County and I am sure that you are aware of that by now, if not you need to pay attention to the province and the people that you are supposed to be working for and not dictating to.
It will be interesting to see what the liberals do in Quebec after June 20/04.
What you said to the people of Victoria County is that they do not matter and some are saying that since you don't recognize them as citizens that count they should withhold their provincial and municipal tax dollar.
You should be very proud of yourself in the way that you fooled the people into believing that you cared about them. I say that you should be proud of yourself because certainly none of us are proud that you managed to scam us all. You proved yourself to be a better politician than I imagined you to be, and we know how most people feel when they hear the word politician. At one time, I had respect for politics and the people involved, but you have certainly changed that.
I know that you will probably never read this, but one of your staff will send me a form letter and doesn't that also speak well for you personally. If your staff were really doing the right job for you,they would make sure you are aware of how the people are feeling about you and your politics, but the bureaucrats won't worry about that because regardless of who is elected most of them will still have a job.
Waiting for the form response,
Faye McGee
Councillor and TAXPAYER!!!!
NEWS RELEASE: Gerretsen's True Response finally revealed
Once again the citizens of Flamborough have been treated like mushrooms, this time by the newly elected Liberal Government and our own MPP, Liberal member Ted McMeekin.
Members of the C.F.F. were surprised to learn that Petition P-9 "The Flamborough Petition", Petition P-15 "The Ancaster Petition" and Petition P-22 "The Dundas Petition", all tabled in December 2003 had received official responses from John Gerretsen on February 20, 2004, nearly 3 months ago.
The official response of February 20, 2004 did not ask for more time or more information as stated by Mr. McMeekin in an interview published on May 7, 2004. Instead it ‘passed the buck’ to newly elected Mayor Di Ianni stating, “he is currently in the process of undertaking local initiatives to hear the concerns of his constituents and to seek ways to address them.”
Question: Why did Mr. McMeekin not inform C.F.F. that an official response had been received and why did he not tell his constituents that their concerns were being considered?
Fact: Mr. Di Ianni has had no contact with the Committee to Free Flamborough or a representative group of those who signed the petition either to discuss any concerns or to deal with the problems.
Fact: During his election campaign, Mr. Di Ianni stated that de-amalgamation was not a municipal but rather a provincial matter.
Question: Why is Mr. Di Ianni, who is anti de-amalgamation, now dealing with this issue?
Fact: The provincial Government was responsible for all forced amalgamations in the province of Ontario.
Question: Why is this newly elected Liberal government, which was elected on the basis of a promise to support de-amalgamation, refusing to take the responsibility of addressing this issue and keeping their promise?
Fact: The residents of Flamborough and the other communities elected Mr. McMeekin on the basis of his support for de-amalgamation and for no other reason.
Question: Why, in a meeting with the C.F.F. on February 25, 2004 at 4.30 pm, did Mr. McMeekin deny having any knowledge of a response from Mr. Gerretsen and why did he feel it was necessary to have a solicitor and Arend Kersten from the Chamber of Commerce present at the meeting to “observe the proceedings.”
Question: Why, in his published interview on May 7, 2004 did Mr. McMeekin state there is no deadline for response to petitions in the House of Commons and further state “There’s no official deadline. There’s an etiquette.”
Question: Why does the Government website state “within 24 days of the day on which a petition is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, the government is REQUIRED to file a response to the petition and provide a copy to the MPP?” Is this a misprint on the Government website?
Question: Why, as stated in the media, is Mr. McMeekin responding to new ideas when he has not corresponded with the citizens of Flamborough as to what these ideas might be?
Question: Why, did Mr. McMeekin not produce the note he claims to have received from Mr. Gerretsen on March 22, 2004 and share it with any member of the C.F.F?
Question: Why, on May 6, 2004, did Mr. McMeekin tell the Chair of the C.F.F. that he had “No additional information since the meeting of February 25, 2004?”
Question: Have other local MPP’S participated in the deception by not informing their constituents that an official response from Mr. Gerretsen has been received to their petitions?
Question: What information is being shared and what initiatives are being discussed between Mr. McMeekin and Mr. Di Ianni that is not being shared with the 10,685 citizens of Flamborough who signed the petition in good faith?
Question: Has our democracy been highjacked?
It is the position of the C.F.F. that the 10,685 citizens who signed the petition have been deceived, misled and betrayed by Mr. McMeekin. The C.F.F. is now taking steps to demand his resignation and to request a public inquiry into his actions.
End of Press Release
For a copy of the official response to each petition, please see below:
Petition P-9 "The Flamborough Petition"
Petition P-15 "The Ancaster Petition"
Petition P-22 "The Dundas Petition"
Letter to the Editor
Hamilton Continues to Whip Flamborough
Every week I hear how my property tax dollars are being spent by the City of Hamilton and none of the spending has any positive impact on my neighborhood. This week it's about the trees. Yes, the city is spending $1,660,000.00 to purchase and plant trees. These trees are two inches in diameter and will cost $800.00 each to plant - this to include machinery and labour of course. "Wonderful", you say. How many will be planted in Flamborough from where the city collects 51 million in tax dollars this year? Well, that is where the whips come in. Whips are not really trees but rather single branch, bare root twigs of less than a meter in height. That is what we get in Flamborough and only if we provide the volunteer labour to plant them! Are you feeling whipped again?
Lynn Noonan
Flamborough
A Peaceful Funeral for Democracy!
Wednesday, March 24th - 11 a.m. @ Queen's Park
Kawartha Lakes has recently been delivered an official
"no, not now"
by the Provincial Liberal Government in response to their democratically and Government run referendum for de-amalgamation.
The majority voted "YES" to de-amalgamation.
If the Liberal Government can ignore this democratic
process, which one will be next?
The CFF joined forces with Kawartha Lakes as they demonstrated at Queen's Park on Wednesday.
Democracy is something that should concern all of us; young, old, retired, working.
De-amalgamation is one link in the chain for taking back Local Democracy!
Following is the eulogy which was presented by The Committee to Free Flamborough.
The Death of Democracy
Victoria County Taxpayer$ Coalition
Victoria County, Ontario
February 25, 2004
McGuinty’s De-Amalgamation Denial Doesn’t Hold Water
Afraid that a go ahead to dismantle the City of Kawartha Lakes would open the floodgates of de-amalgamation across the province, Premier Dalton McGuinty has broken yet another campaign promise by denying the will of voters in Victoria County to de-amalgamate back to a two tier government with its 16 local municipalities.
The excuse he’s trying to spin is that it would be imprudent for his Liberal government to subject several of the former municipalities to “significant financial challenges” if they allowed de-amalgamation to proceed.
What a crock!
The 'shock and awe' example they trotted out was Sturgeon Point.
The smallest of our former municipalities with only 129 households, it would be faced with a tax increase of 27 percent ($263 per household annually for ten years) because of upgrades to its water system.
The 27 percent was arrived at using only the local municipal levy as its base. If calculated on total municipal taxes (local and county), Sturgeon Point’s tax increase drops in percentage terms by almost half to about 14 percent.
Compare Sturgeon Point’s time limited increase of $263 to its annual $349 perpetual average residential increase that the provincial government’s Hemson report showed occurred because of amalgamation.
What surprises us is why a time limited 27 percent tax increase in Sturgeon Point, a 17 percent tax increase in Mariposa and a 14 percent tax increase in Woodville, in the eyes of the Liberals, would not be financially sustainable, when ongoing tax increases due to amalgamation in a number of former municipalities are far worse than this.
One has to question why the McGuinty Liberals were not even more concerned about the $415 perpetual annual increase, equivalent to a tax hike of almost 37% in total municipal taxes that according to the Hemson report Manvers taxpayers were hit with because of amalgamation.
If the Manvers increase is recalculated on the basis of the local levy alone, it works out to an increase of approximately 104%.
Considering the number of other double digit tax increases due strictly to amalgamation, such as the 78 percent ($427) increase in the local Ops levy, the 63 percent ($284) increase in Mariposa, the 49 percent ($231) increase in Fenelon, the 40 percent ($187) increase in Emily, the 27 percent ($127) increase in Eldon, the 22 percent ($99) increase in Somerville and the 12 percent ($68) increase in Bexley, it’s a wonder the premier isn’t showing the same level of compassion about their financial well being.
If the McGuinty Liberals, similar to the Harris Conservatives, subscribe to the notion that taxpayers in one municipality whose taxes may rise disproportionately because of provincially mandated water upgrades should be subsidized by taxpayers in neighboring municipalities, `spreading of the pain’ could just as easily have been accommodated by allocating responsibility for water and sewage at the county level.
If, as the premier argues, CoKL cannot be allowed to de-amalgamate because of “significant financial challenges” water upgrades would have caused for the smaller municipalities, perhaps he’d like to explain how the other 55 percent of Ontario municipalities that are still two tier have managed to survive.
Is the premier planning on amalgamating them to bail out those who might otherwise experience “significant financial challenges”?
The premier claims his decision not to de-amalgamate CoKL does not mean he necessarily believes the single-tier megacity solution imposed by the Conservatives is the best possible structure for the Victoria County area.
A Liberal government, he says, might have approached the situation much differently.
You just had your chance Mr. Premier to turn words into action.
Your excuse for inaction doesn’t hold water.
Once again, you’re not telling the truth. It’s as simple as that.
Paul Pagnuelo
DEMOCRACY IS DEAD!
Please take the time to read the article below, respond to it and let the Government know how you feel (for mailing and e-mail addresses go to the
"What you can do" section).
The Committee to Free Flamborough - Citizens for De-Amalgamation
If you think this doesn't concern you, I believe future generations will disagree.
Your silence is your consent.
NEWS RELEASE
Victoria County, Ontario
February 20, 2004
DEMOCRACY IS DEAD!!!
Every citizen in the Province of Ontario should be mourning the death of democracy today. The Ontario Liberals, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty have passed the point of broken promises. They have undermined the very values of democracy itself.
On November 10, 2003 the people of Victoria County voted in their Municipal Election to a Ministers question on whether to de-amalgamate the City of Kawartha Lakes and return to their former municipal governing structure. The question was clear. The result was clear. The majority of people voted "Yes". The majority of wards voted "Yes". The only mayoralty candidate who ran on a "Yes" platform was elected.
In February 2001, Dalton McGuinty committed in writing to the people of Victoria County that "the Ontario Liberals believe in local democracy. We believe that the best solutions are local solutions and that local residents should have the right to decide on the future of their municipality" He went on to say that a Liberal government would be bound by a referendum that allowed local citizens to determine whether or not to dismantle the amalgamated city.
Yesterday, Minister of Municipal Affairs - John Gerretsen arrived in the County to deliver an open letter to the residents telling them that the government will not be implementing de-amalgamation of the City of Kawartha Lakes.
This response by the Premier and his government blatantly ignores the results of this vote and sends the message that they consider any vote subject to review and rejection by a single person or tribunal, and very clearly demonstrates the meaninglessness of democracy.
The people had spoken. They expected the Premier and his party, with their so-called 'democratic renewal' mandate to do nothing less than honour his undertaking and implement the results of the vote.
V.O.C.O. chairperson, Lynne Boldt says "This has now gone beyond the issue of amalgamation vs. de-amalgamation. Almost 33,000 people here in Victoria County voiced their opinion via the most basic form of democracy - the election ballot - and have now been ignored. BOTH sides of the question are, and deserve to be, extremely insulted."
She went on, "After almost a year of diligent preparation, research, campaigning, and right up to the vote itself, ANYONE who participated in our democratic process has now been ignored by this Provincial government."
McGuinty's own words in March 1997 say it all - "Any member of the Legislature who dares to ignore the will of the people, which has been duly expressed by way of referenda...is putting their own political career at risk." We couldn't have said it any better.
V.O.C.O. (Voices Of Central Ontario) is the grass-roots citizens' organization that was formed about four years ago when residents here felt they were ignored when the Harris Conservatives forced the amalgamation of the area without consulting the people. What the McGuinty Liberals did yesterday is even more reprehensible given the promises and platforms that they used to elicit the trust of Ontarians in last October's provincial election. It is morally, ethically and politically WRONG!
Shame on you! The owners and supporters of democracy, we the people of Victoria County, have issued this statement to inform the government that we will not tolerate or accept such offensive behaviour by elected representatives. McGuinty again said it best when he stated "Democracy gives the people a voice, but it also compels those who govern to listen to that voice."
The V.O.C.O. organization, ever-growing in its tireless existence, founded in the roots of democracy, suggests you have failed in your job of governing the people of Ontario. You must step aside.
Osprey Media/SES Poll (June 2003):
Half of Ontario Voters favour Referendum on Amalgamation
To read the full article of the results of a poll of 500 Ontario voters conducted last year, please click here.
Calculate your True Tax Bill when Area Rating Disappears
Based on a home valued at $160,000 in Flamborough, here is a sample of how your taxes were spent in 2003:
Click here
These figures include the Flamborough Area Rating.
If the area rating disappears, the same home valued at $160,000 would be assessed as follows:
Click here
To calculate your tax bill with and without area rating, go to this link and enter your assessed home value.
If you select Flamborough and No under the HSR section, you should see your area rated taxes for 2003.
If you select Hamilton and Yes under the HSR section, you will see the true tax bill if area rating were to be removed.
Property Taxes
To view a copy of your 2003 Tax Bill, click here and enter your street address and community.
Gerretsen Replies to CFF
February 18, 2003
Mr. Ed Brooks
Chairman
Committee to Free Flamborough
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Thank you for your e-mail letters regarding your views on local government restructuring in the City of Hamilton. I trust that you will share this response with the other members of your committee.
On November 10, 2003, voters in municipalities across Ontario exercised their democratic right and elected municipal government representatives, for the next three-year term of office. The voters, I believe, also have the right to expect that their local governments will focus their energies and resources on governing, and that their provincial government will focus on getting a $5.6 billion deficit under control.
I understand that Hamilton's new Mayor Larry Di Ianni is in the process of undertaking local initiatives to hear the concerns of his constituents and to seek ways to address them.
I would encourage you -- and all local citizens who have concerns about their system of municipal governance -- to bring your concerns to the attention of the newly elected council and to work through those issues with council so that the new City can achieve its full potential for all members of the community.
The petition by residents of the former municipality of Flamborough was tabled with the Legislature on December 3, 2003. A response will be provided to the Clerk of the House, as well as the Member of Provincial Parliament that presented the petition when the House resumes sitting.
The meeting with the City of Kawartha Lakes Council was to deal specifically with the results of the Ministry question in the November election referendum. As such, observers were not invited.
Again, thank you for writing to share your views and concerns with me.
Sincerely,
John Gerretsen
Minister
cc: Mr. Ted McMeekin, MPP
CFF Response to Mr. Gerretsen's Letter
March 24, 2004
Mr. John Gerretsen
Minister of Municipal Affairs
777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Dear Mr. Gerretsen:
The Committee to Free Flamborough thanks you very much for your response of February 18 to our previous e-mail letters and looks forward to an early and favourable decision on the submission of the petitions by 51% of the residents of Flamborough when the House resumes sittings this month.
We note your advice to bring our problem to the attention of the newly elected Hamilton City Council. However, with only two Councilors representing Flamborough in a City Council of 16 members, we are really powerless. The Council heavily weighted by City core interests has voted down 2 motions for a referendum and suburban issues are not presented to senior governments in an entirely unbiased manner. The new Mayor, Larry DiIanni has been made fully aware of the problems but presents no way to address them apart from the need to call on the Provincial Government for funds. In any case, amalgamation is a provincial matter and not controlled municipally.
You advise that the Provincial Government will focus on getting the $5.6 billion deficit under control and we applaud this policy. Providing that your Government possesses the political will to act this should not negate opening productive dialog with the citizens groups toward a democratic, positive conclusion to the issue at hand. Furthermore, the best avenue to achieve your worthy focus is by building viable, prosperous and productive communities each contributing to their full potential.
Amalgamated Hamilton is the antitheses of this ideal. This Unicity has proven to be wasteful, inefficient and very costly. Big government is proving not to be the best way to govern municipally.
One of the chief complaints of residents is the extremely high level of tax increases imposed by amalgamation. In three years ended December 31, 2003 taxes have increased an average of 39% exclusive of C.V.A. in Flamborough. Hamilton presently has a $65 to $93 million 2003 deficit problem which could unless severely pruned; translate into a 13% tax increase in 2004 and likely much higher in Flamborough. This is unsustainable. Flamborough with 7% of the population had to pay 42% of the funds to cover the tax increase in 2003. This imbalance with the resulting feelings of betrayal and outrage among citizens, make it impossible to establish a unified and prosperous Unicity and especially so when little community of interest exists on which to base a productive relationship. We have little social capital invested in Hamilton and there is minimum empathy between urban and rural solitudes.
These matters have created tensions and feelings of unease and uncertainty throughout the community that hangs over Council deliberations and is especially damaging to the business climate, which dislikes uncertainty. That is why we advocate a referendum to be held as the democratic way for the suburbs to decide whether they wish to remain with or exit the Unicity. This would clear the air and settle the matter once and for all. We would then move forward as Unicity or as separate entities toward co-operative, productive objectives.
Although your newly elected Liberal Government did not enact the legislation forming the unwanted amalgamation of the five towns, we must remind you that a very important part of your election platform was Mr. McGuinty’s commitments, we quote, “local residents should have the right to decide on the future of their municipality”. This is solely not just a taxation issue. This is also about democracy and the will of the people.
“As for whether we would reverse past amalgamations, the Ontario Liberal position is to allow a binding local referendum when there is a substantial demonstration of public support for a referendum for the de-amalgamation of a municipality.” These are the words of Dalton McGuinty. The petitions submitted to the Legislature are the substantial demonstration of public support.
It is now up to Mr. McGuinty. His reputation and integrity are on the line.
The residents of this riding were given a promise. That is why we re-elected the liberal candidate, Mr. Ted McMeekin as our representative. We remind you that Mr. McMeekin originally won the riding (a Conservative stronghold) on the backlash of the Conservative’s forced amalgamation and it was retained with the help of Mr. McGuinty’s commitment quoted above. Accordingly, you can appreciate it would be shameful in the view of the electorate to repudiate his commitment now.
We realize you have a responsibility to ensure any restructured municipality is viable. The present form is not working. The area has the resources to support six stand-alone, decentralized communities, each working to maximize its own potential, each competing but also co-operating in providing essential services, rather than one municipality feeding off the others.
Our Committee believes strongly that it represents the views and feelings of the majority of voters in Flamborough. People of Flamborough were undemocratically forced into an unwanted amalgamation and we are now being abused with exorbitant taxation with little empathy shown for our rural values. We are now seeking redress through you to do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Roman Sarachman
Chairman
Committee to Free Flamborough
cc: Mr. Ted McMeekin, MPP Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot
cc: Ed Brooks, Past Chairman, CFF
In January, we have received a reply to our correspondence from Mr. John Gerretsen, MPP, Minister of Municipalities. The CFF is encouraged that Mr. Gerretsen has acknowledged our correspondence as well as our petition.
Excerpts from his correspondence read as follows:
"Thank you for your email ....
It will not be possible for you to be an observer at my meeting with the Mayor and Council of Kawartha Lakes since this is a meeting to deal specifically with the results of the Ministry question in the November election referendum.
I will be dealing with the Flamborough petition within the near future and I will advise you of the government's position with respect to it at that time".
The Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building
Oueen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
December 1, 2003
Mr. Ed Brooks
Chairman
Committee to Free Flamborough
PO Box 128
Rockton, Ontario
LOR 1XO
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Thank you for writing to share with me the Committee to Free Flamborough's support for a referendum on municipal restructuring in the Hamilton area. I am grateful for all the letters I receive from people who offer advice on vital issues facing our government and our province.
It is a privilege to be chosen as Premier of Ontario. As your newly elected government, my colleagues and I are committed to working with all Ontarians to make our province vibrant and prosperous for you, your family and your community. I assure you that your views will be taken into consideration as we move ahead with our plan for real, positive change. Together, we will build a stronger Ontario.
I can appreciate the importance of this matter to you. As the issue you have raised would be of interest to the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have passed along a copy of your correspondence to him for his review and consideration.
Thanks again for sharing your views with me.
Yours truly,
Dalton McGuinty Premier
cc:The Honourable John Gerretsen
The Committee To Free Flamborough
Attention: Mr. Mel Sufren
Secretary of The Ontario Press Council
2 Carlton Street, Suite 1706
Toronto, Ontario
M5B 1J3
Telephone: (416) 340-1981
FAX: (416) 340-8724
E-mail: info@ontpress.com
Dear Sir,
Re: Complaint about The Hamilton Spectator
The Committee To Free Flamborough (CFF), which is a publicly recognized body dedicated to the right of Flamborough residents to hold a binding referendum on the question of removing themselves from the forcibly amalgamated City of Hamilton, wishes to complain to The Ontario Press Council that The Hamilton Spectator has failed to uphold the following principles established by that Council:
Newspapers should be prepared to publish rational criticism of their own performance as long as it is not defamatory.
Newspapers have an obligation to publish a correction promptly on a substantive error, whether they spot it on their own or have it drawn to their attention, particularly if it reflects unfairly on an individual, group or organization.
The Press Council rejects any suggestion that the press should be limited in its editorial freedom but it emphasizes that a newspaper that is the only one in its community has a special responsibility to inform its readers fully on all aspects of local issues.
Thie complaint refers to the refusal of The Hamilton Spectator to publish a rejoinder (see Appendix B) to an article (see Appendix A) written by Andrew Dreschel, who is a columnist employed by The Hamilton Spectator.
Such refusal not only contravenes the principles of conduct mentioned above, but is also an abuse of the newspaper’s monopoly position in Hamilton, while contravening the inherent principle of the right of reply to correct errors of fact and logic.
Yours sincerely,
Bill West,
Media Sub-Committee, CFF
Millgrove, ON L0R 1V0
(905) 659-2547
Att: Appendices A & B
Nov.11, 01:11 EDT
Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator
If anything, the results were even more devastating for mayoral candidate Dick Wildeman and his team of six suburban deamalgamation council candidates. Wildeman wasn't just defeated, he was humiliated. Not only personally, but as the leader of a slate which, with the exception of incumbent Braden in Ward 14, was rejected in every ward in which a candidate was fielded. Unless the Liberal provincial government is blind to the election results, it looks as if the issue of deamalgamation can finally be laid to rest. Even elected suburban councillors with conflicted loyalties will have a hard time arguing there is substantial support for breaking up the new city given the rough and dismissive handling Wildeman experienced at the ballot box.
Right from the beginning, Di Ianni said this election was about choices. Certainly the electorate has spoken decisively on two big, divisive issues. In the process, they've also given this city its first ethnic mayor. That's three landmark decisions in one day of voting.
Andrew Dreschel's commentary usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
From: Bill West
To: Editorial Comments – The Spec
Cc: Dana Robbins; Jagoda Pike; J. Robert S. Prichard; Andrew Dreschel
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:47 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor - For inclusion in Saturday's Paper
Since the Spectator had no qualms about (ab)using its monopoly power to support Harris/Clement’s forcible annexation of the five towns against their wish, it was only to be expected that you would use the latest election results from a stacked deck as a fig leaf to cover your lack of principle.
Demands for annexation in Hamilton have only ever come from the Spec, from the power brokers, from developers and from business interests. When asked why he amalgamated Hamilton, Tony Clement said because Terry Cooke wanted it. The people were never consulted, and the argument that Cooke, Bob Wade or Larry DiIanni received a mandate for amalgamation is bogus.
What those who decide Hamilton’s future behind closed doors have never understood is that Canada is a democracy. Democracy means government by consent, and without consent reflecting the will of the people there is no legitimacy. The Spec can use every trick, such as printing Frank Carrocci’s laughable claim that “it’s a myth that tax rates have risen since creation of the supercity’; such as endorsing Larry DiIanni; and such as printing Andrew Dreschel’s belief that the electoral fate of Dick Wildeman proves de-amalgamation is a bust. By the same Dreschelian logic I guess Baldasaro’s lack of votes proves no one smokes pot.
But try as it might the Spec cannot make the facts disappear.
- The people in Flamborough have never consented to amalgamation
- Taxes in Flamborough have gone up 30 to 40% since 1999. We are paying $1,000 more in taxes for a house of the same value than in Burlington
- Our representation has been cut by 80% - 8 councillors down to 1.5 - while the annual cost of representation has doubled from $100,000 to $200,000
- More than half the eligible citizens of Flamborough have signed a petition asking for de-amalgamation, and many have still to be approached
- The re-elected councillors Marg McCarthy and Dave Braden, Ted McMeekin MPP, and premier Dalton McGuinty all agree that a binding referendum will be held in forcibly amalgamated communities where substantial support exists for de-amalgamation. They know the meaning of principle
- Only a binding referendum can resolve the issue of forced amalgamation
- The form of municipal government is a provincial and not a municipal responsibility, and
- Respecting the principles of democracy and fairness, for which the veterans shed their blood, is the responsibility of everyone including the Spec’s editors.
Flamborough, with democrats everywhere, is therefore relying confidently on the new provincial government to step in and free us through a binding referendum.
Bill West,
Media Sub-Committee, CFF
Millgrove, ON L0R 1V0
(905) 659-2547
End.
Dear Mr. West:
Thank you for your email complaint against the Hamilton Spectator. The constitution of the Ontario Press Council requires that the newspaper be given an opportunity to respond to, and possibly redress, your complaint before the Council decides whether to adjudicate it. Accordingly, this correspondence is being sent to the Spectator. Please let me know whether its response redresses your complaint.
Mel Sufrin, Executive Secretary
Press Release by Ted McMeekin
October 25, 2003
WATERDOWN - A recent media report “McMeekin cools to de-amalgamation” has led the ADFA MPP to publicly clarify his position on this important issue.
In a statement released on Saturday, McMeekin states, “lest there be any misunderstanding of my views on the forced merger of six independent, autonomous and historic communities into one ‘new’ City of Hamilton – I believed it was the wrong thing to do in the year 2000 and continues to be wrong in 2003.”
MPP McMeekin added, “over the last several months, a number of citizens have banned together and mounted an effort to indicate, by way of public petition, that there is ‘substantial support’ to have the issue of amalgamation revisited. Many remember, with concern and anger, the Harris governments’ three-fold promise that amalgamation would result in better government, better services and the lowering of both costs and taxes. The perceived failure to deliver on these promises has fueled efforts to hold a binding referendum to settle the issue once and for all”.
FOR THE RECORD, the ADFA MPP also stated the following;
-
I believe citizens have the right to determine the form, style and structure of their municipal government. There is an old-fashioned word for this – it’s called democracy.
-
I do not believe that municipalities should be amalgamated without the consent of local electors.
-
I admire and affirm the resiliency of individuals committed to the principal of a restoration of their historic community.
-
Consistent with previous commitments on this issue, I will proudly and without reservation present any community-based petition on the issue of de-amalgamation to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and, in the presence of “substantial support” urge the new government in Ontario to establish a process by and through which the holding a binding referendum on this issue might be advanced.
Letter of Congratulations
October 17, 2003
The Premier Elect of Ontario
The Rt. Hon. Dalton McGuinty
Room 381
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, ON
M7A 1A4
Dear Dalton,
We send you and your team our heartiest congratulations on your huge win. It is everything we wanted and worked for in our small way.
We like to think Ted’s election to replace Toni Skarica in 2000 was the small cloud the size of a man’s hand that grew into the hurricane for the Tories, and blew away all our bêtes noirs: Michael Harris, Tony Clement and David Young.
You said in your victory speech there is much work to do. We agree. The Committee to Free Flamborough has now signed up in excess of half of Flamborough on the petition. We believe that this fulfills your quote that "substantial support" exists in our forcibly amalgamated community calling for a binding referendum on an emergent basis.
We also wish to protect our friends, in addition to Ted McMeekin - Dominic Agostino, Marie Bountrogianni, Judy Marsales and Jennifer Mossop - from the unremitting and no-holds-barred campaign in favour of forced amalgamation waged without restraint by The Hamilton Spectator and the developers.
We have put our trust in democracy and decency, and are very happy to know you will live these same ideals when holding the reins of power. October 2 was the first of a new era for us all.
We welcome the opportunity to deliver the balance of the petitions personally to you or your representatives as early as possible in November and commence the dialog on the crafting of the exit strategy from the New City of Hamilton.
Yours very sincerely,
Ed Brooks
Chairman of the Committee to Free Flamborough
Letter to Dalton McGuinty
September 2, 2003
Dalton McGuinty MPP
Liberal Leader of the Official Opposition
Room 381, Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A4
Dear Mr. McGuinty,
Re: De-amalgamation
In light of our reviewing your letter to us of June 26/03 and your concurrent e-mail to Mr. Bill West, please treat this letter as superceding the one dated July 16/03.
It is our understanding that when Premier you will:
· implement “ a binding local referendum when there is a substantial demonstration of public support”. By “local” we understand you mean not only in Flamborough but also (and while we cannot speak for them) in the other four towns of Ancaster, Dundas, Glanbrook and Stoney Creek.
· interpret the presence of substantial support for a referendum from the existence of petitions and letters (such as this) that are “signals of a community’s wishes”. Also, you do not have a “cast-in-stone, one size fits all numbers or percentage or cut-off for holding a referendum”.
· ensure that “all residents of an amalgamated municipality will have a say in what happens to their city”, but you will prevent any situation where “the residents of one former community in an amalgamated city have a veto over the democratic desires of another former community”. Our interpretation is that the voters of the old City of Hamilton could not veto Flamborough’s desire to depart the Unicity.
· not exclude the opportunity for each municipality to restructure its local municipal government to get back their own identity and control. “My plan for resolving the future shape of our municipalities recognizes that each community is different and requires a unique system for democratically determining their future”.
We would like to make the following points:
1. We thank you very much for responding so positively to the destructive frustration and bitter anger of the people of Flamborough and for giving us renewed hope.
2. We would now ask you to please advise what your time-line would be for holding a referendum. Flamborough residents are carrying heavy burdens under the Unicity form of government and as an early exit is a matter of urgency, we would look for your time line to have a six-month horizon following the election. Please advise us on this important matter and confirm our interpretation of your above-mentioned letter to us of June 26/03 and concurrent e-mail to Mr. West is in line with your Party’s committed policies. Your positive assurances will restore people’s faith in the decency of government. Further, your assurances of the foregoing will place the Liberal Party as the only political party firmly committed to providing our community with the opportunity to make a choice pro or con to reversing amalgamation via a fair and binding referendum.
3. Flamborough was badly abused by Harris, Eves and Clement. Our local democratic rights were virtually eliminated and their written promise that taxes will “stay the same or go down” has resulted in an increase of 44% to date with every indication of at least a further 20% annually over the next two years. Flamborough taxpayers representing 7% of the tax base, paid 42% of the City’s increase in tax levied in 2002. The future course of our taxation is not sustainable. Meanwhile reserves are nearly exhausted and debt balloons from 252 million in 2002 to 413 million in 2006.
4. We believe Flamborough has demonstrated “substantial support” for withdrawal from Hamilton through a petition signed to date by 6,000 of the 20,700 eligible voters. When invited to sign our petition over 95% have done so reflecting virtual unanimity. For good order, however, and because all residents need the opportunity to sign, we intend to complete the petition campaign. That does not mean we doubt substantial support has already been demonstrated.
5. We look forward to the fulfillment of your commitment to a binding early referendum on Flamborough’s future and that of our neighbouring suburbs, as a positive avenue to de-amalgamation and restructuring of local municipal government in line with the wishes of its people. We offer help in any way we are able to do so.
6. We are not unmindful that our brethren in Hamilton face very difficult problems, which are longstanding and exacerbated by forced amalgamation and downloading of provincial social programmes.
7. Our independence is not demanded in any mean spirit of desiring to wash our hands of our neighbour’s big-city social problems. In the previous two-tier system of government, Flamborough and the other independent municipalities lived the belief that there are broad-based responsibilities held in common. We contributed a significant and disproportionate amount to the solution of these problems without complaint. We have, however, little community of interest with the city of Hamilton to make a merger succeed.
8. We look forward eagerly to a restoration of our democracy, and to the re-establishment of our beloved town. Should you be the instrument to achieve this, we would want it to be marked by council’s awarding you and Toni Skarica the freedom of the Town of Flamborough. Certainly you can be assured of a real Flamborough welcome whenever you have the time to visit.
We propose, in addition to our website, to publish in the media your letter to us of June 26/03 as well as this letter along with your response to it, which we look forward to at an early date.
Yours truly,
Chairman Committee to Free Flamborough
cc: Ted McMeekin M.P.P.
Letter from Dalton McGuinty
June 26, 2003
Chairman, Committee to Free Flamborough
Thank you very much for your letter regarding the issue of the future structure of Flamborough. I appreciate the deep feelings you have for your community.
I believe in local democracy. Local residents should have the right to decide on the future of their municipality. Unlike Mike Harris and Ernie Eves - I will not sit in my Queen's Park office and dictate the future structure of our communities. As for whether we would reverse past amalgamations, the Ontario Liberal position is to allow a binding local referendum when there is a substantial demonstration of public support.
As to how we would determine if there was substantial support for a referendum for the de-amalgamation of a municipality, we will take into account all signals of a community's wishes - petitions, letters, and municipal council resolutions. We do not have a cast-in-stone, one-size-fits-all number or percentage or cut-off for holding a referendum. Similarly, we will not dictate a province-wide formula that insists that this minimum cut-off for a referendum applies to only one former community in an amalgamated municipality, a certain percentage of former communities, or every community in that amalgamated city.
Lastly, I do not believe in unilateral separation - all residents of an amalgamated municipality will have a say in what happens to their city. But that does not mean that the residents of one former community in an amalgamated city have a veto over the democratic desires of another former community.
It was the Harris-Eves government's dictatorial style that resulted in these sometimes unwanted amalgamations - we will not change these amalgamations with a similar "made-in-Queen's Park" forced resolution. Unlike Ernie Eves, we realize that each community in Ontario is unique. A set of referendum rules that may work for the community of Kawartha Lakes, Meaford or North Grenville may not work for Flamborough or Chatham-Kent. My plan for resolving the future shape of our municipalities recognizes that each community is different and requires a unique system for democratically determining their future.
In my team, I want MPP's who care passionately about democracy as well as the health and well-being of their communities. Ontario needs more MPP's who are not afraid to speak up when doing so is in the best interest of their community. In this regard, the residents of your community are fortunate to have Ted McMeekin, MPP, Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot as your representative at Queen's Park. Ted has been a constant advocate for the issues and concerns of his constituents and the communities he represents. Knowing him well, I can assure you that he will continue to be tenacious in this regard.
The strength of our province depends on the strength of our communities. It is admirable that you and your organization are so committed to your community.
Again, thanks for taking the time to share your concerns with me.
Yours truly,
Dalton McGuinty, MPP
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party