The Führer over Fluoride

It was an intense evening at London City Council last night. In the gallery and on the floor, tempers flared, heckling resulted and the gallery was reminded to remain quiet and respectful several times. It is no surprise with two hot issues on the table: Reservoir Hill and fluoridation.

The long (and hotly) debated Reservoir Hill vote was first on the agenda. Despite many years of action and pleas to the contrary from a good portion of the public and neighbours of the proposed building site, the vote was passed by a margin of 10-5. This is a decision I truly hope they don’t come to regret in the future, nor do I think we have heard the last of it. Those against the proposed development have vowed to explore legal avenues to have this stopped. If council hoped this vote would put an end to the 20 year battle for Reservoir Hill, I suspect they have another thing coming.

The other hot button item on the agenda was the fluoride debate which was “put to rest” by a decision of the same margin (10-5), with council voting to keep fluoride in the water.  Also hotly debated, it appeared public response was divided, if not slanted slightly on the side of removing fluoride from the water. Despite the fact it was passed, this issue too will not rest. The fluoride issue will rise again, because there is an increasing number of people who feel the addition of fluoride to our water supply is unnecessary and, perhaps, unethical.

My personal feelings on the matter are simple: To be forced against our will to ingest something – anything – that could potentially be harmful is unacceptable. Looking past just the drinking water I consume and to other foods that fluoridated water or additives could be/is present in, I am concerned that we are woefully unaware of just how much fluoride we are consuming in our day to day lives. For example, various bottled beverages, black tea, canned vegetables and meat, and the vegetables we grow that are watered with fluoridated water. How much do you consume in a day? Are you aware of the concentration of fluoride in any of these foods? I didn’t think so, and me either.  If you take antidepressants or medications for osteoporosis, fluoride may also be present. The concentrations of fluoride in any of these products we consume may not be known, or readily disclosed. The symptoms of fluorosis – pain in the joints, abdominal pain, nausea, salivation – look like typical complaints we might put down to “getting old” or working too hard. Or perhaps it was something we ate.

Ahh, yes, perhaps it was.

The fact is, we have no accurate way of gauging how much the average person consumes in a day. So why add insult to injury? Why force the consumption upon us, under the guise of protecting our teeth when topical fluoride is a preferred and safer method of doing so?

Anyhow, I won’t go on about that. My opinion is nothing but that – my own – based on the research I have done and the choices I make for my health and well being. There is plenty of research to be found that can assist you in making up your own mind, just as I have, and I highly recommend you seek the information and decide on the matter for yourself.  While there is much research to support both sides of the debate – which some feel makes it impossible to decide on which side of the coin they fall – there is also quite a bit of propaganda.

Der “Führer” reared his ugly head last night during the debate, courtesy of Ward 4 Councillor Orser. Pitifully, he chose to create and distribute a flyer for the other council members that looked a little (well, exactly) like this:

“Nazi Germany used water fluoridation in concentration camps to sterilise the humans and force them into calm submission.”, the paper reads at the bottom. A picture of Hitler is in one corner, and a girl from a Nazi poster with the words “Jugend dient dem Führer: Alle Zehnjährigen in die HJ“*, which translates to, “Youth serves the leader: All ten-year olds into the HJ.” (*Hitler-Jugend or Hitler Youth), in the other.

Once again, Councillor, you leave me at a loss for words. Your passion for particular subjects – backyard chickens, the banning of bottled water, the squashing of citizen voices and now, contesting fluoride – is admirable. But I must say, you have an odd way of sharing your ideas at times. This poster is in no way appropriate to distribute to any person, citizen or colleague. Not only is it disrespectful to those who survived the holocaust, it is fear mongering at its worst.  As Hitler himself said, “Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.” For as many people who state the claim that Hitler added poisonous levels of fluoride to the water, just as many deny it. Unfortunately, I can’t find compelling or reliable evidence either way to confirm or deny, so reliable sources to either account would be appreciated.

The Councillor spoke to the media today and said he sees nothing wrong with the poster. He’s shocked it’s even being discussed, and has no regrets. To the dear councillor I say this: You cannot invoke Hitler without a solid expectation of backlash. You just can’t. Such a tactic to make others see your point of view is unacceptable and completely unnecessary. Do your homework, Councillor, which includes researching all issues placed in the agenda before you, thoroughly and properly. I support your fight to end fluoridation in the water, but I can’t support such methods of presenting your case. Instead a hailing the spirit of Hitler, a properly researched and presented case could have had you hailing victory last night. Perhaps there is a lesson here to keep in mind for the future on how to win people over to your camp. When it comes to propaganda, just say nein.

There goes the neighbourhood…

‘Lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for.’ Fullan and Hargreaves

I live in an older, quaint, ethnically and socioeconomically diverse neighbourhood. A short trip from the downtown core, at one time my home would have been considered on the edge of the city. We call this area the “Old East Village”, and I can tell you, it is adorable.

When planning our move to London 15 years ago we were warned by nearly everyone we met, “Don’t live east of Adelaide. It’s a bad area.” Ignoring their warnings, we found our first apartment in a 100-year-old home owned by a sweet young family. The rent was cheap, the apartment cute and we could see the potential that was beginning to blossom in the community. Younger professionals and families were buying the homes for a song, and pride of ownership was evident. When it came our time to buy our first home, we knew where we wanted to be, and stayed right where we were: in the Village.

Some of the warnings were correct. There were issues in the Village that the residents could recognize and worked at fixing. The Dundas street corridor from Adelaide to the Quebec Street was a breeding ground for Johns, prostitutes, drug dealers and drunks. The area east of Adelaide had fallen into disrepair, and little effort was being expended by the city to revitalize it. In the last decade, the citizens and business owners have taken it upon themselves to literally “be the change” in the area, but despite our efforts the “East of Adelaide” stigma lingers, along with a few straggling problems. While others may have given up on Old East, we aren’t ready to quit just yet.

At the heart of my neighbourhood rests a school. The school my children and approximately 248 other students attend from junior kindergarten to grade 8, as well as English as a Second Language adults on the top floor. A true community school, Lorne Ave is the pulse of our neighbourhood, and has drawn young professionals in to the revitalization efforts. Built in the 1960′s, it is a large school with the capacity to hold 880 students (why, we aren’t sure), and as a result it is under capacity and has been targeted for closure under an “ARC” (Accommodations Review Committee) process. This isn’t the first time Lorne Ave has been placed on review, having received a ‘stay’ a few years ago. However, this one is the most serious, and for the first time I fear defeat. At the end of this ARC (Accommodation Review Committee) process, a school will be closed, and all indicators point to ours.

So did nearly all fingers of the people who attended and spoke at the first review meeting, and I can’t lie – it hurt. I realized that night that the stigma of Old East lingered on, despite our efforts.

“This is not about targeting a particular community or neighbourhood”, said the Chair of the meeting. And perhaps he meant it. But I don’t believe the parents and residents in attendance from the other areas believed it, or felt the same way. I went in hopeful for support from our neighbouring community, and was sorely disappointed as one by one, they paraded to the microphone and declared their support for the closure of Lorne Ave.

The first speaker of the night was a Lorne Ave parent who told of the value our school brings to the students, and the story of her son who wouldn’t be where he was now, she felt, if not for the support from the staff at the school. It was a story we hear time and again in our school, and one I could personally relate to. Following her were three other speakers, all from our neighbouring community, who’s school is also included in the ARC.

The first, whom I sincerely hoped might stand in our corner, took the microphone and stated that she was a fervent supporter of schools in the core of a city, and the communities they serve. Despite this, she fully supported the closure of Lorne Ave school. It was all downhill from there. One by one, the speakers who took the mic pointed at Lorne Ave and recommended it’s closure. My spirit was crushed until one of the final two speakers of the night from the Trillium Foundation extolled the virtues of our school, the value it brings to our community, students and city as a whole. I found a renewed hope, but my hope was sadly still overshadowed by disappointment.

At the break, a gentleman from one of the other ARC schools approached me. “Do you have children who go to this school?”, he asked. I told him yes, two children, and watched as his face scanned me once and looked surprised. He asked, “Looking around the room, how many parents would you say are from Lorne Ave?”. I responded that likely half the room were Lorne Ave parents, another good portion I recognized as being from the neighbouring school, and a handful I did not recognize. Again, he looked shocked, so I asked him why.

“That’s not what I expected after walking up Dundas Street just now.”, he said. I cocked my head and looked at him, trying to understand his implication. “So, you expected us to look like drug addicts or bums perhaps?” He chuckled and said, “Yes! Oh, no offence.” It was a little too late for “no offence” at that point. I was offended, by the entire evening, and I was ready for it to end.

“This is not about targeting a particular neighbourhood.” That’s what we were told, but sadly I don’t see that as the complete truth. If attitudes from those around us suggest anything, this is all about a particular neighbourhood – mine – and I’m not cool with that. Yes, our neighbourhood has had (and continues to have) it’s issues, but perseverance and determination has seen it come a long way and we are proud of our accomplishments, we are proud of our community members, and we are proud of our school.

The heart of the issue lies on the Dundas corridor, and the inability of the city to invest in the area, talk to the residents and get creative with a plan to turn it around. Being that it is so close to the core, I can’t understand why it has been  virtually ignored for so long. With the correct vision, it could become an incredible extension of the downtown and bring a new vitality to the city. With attention, Old East Village will continue to grow and be the best possible version of it’s diverse, quaint self. But that vision and help has to come from our city fast, before it is too late. The Village needs support from the city both to clean up the area, and to save our school.

The thought of losing our school is eating at me. The dream to reverse the stigma of our area is consuming me. The drive to fight for our neighbourhood is pushing me. I don’t want to begin to imagine what will happen to the Old East Village if our school closes. But when the heart of a community stops beating, well, there goes the neighbourhood.

Reservoir Hill: An uphill battle and a slippery slope.

Did you know: During the War of 1812, a battle was fought in London, Ontario.

It took place at Hungerford Hill (now known as Reservoir Hill), that sits where Springbank Drive and Commissioners Road meet. It is a nicely treed, hilly patch of land that overlooks Springbank Park. Details are few, but the history I have been able to find tells stories of marauding bands who plundered and pillaged through the area during the War of 1812, and an ambush on American raiders by the Middlesex Militia in 1814.

Nearly 200 years later, a battle is being fought at Reservoir Hill once again. This battle isn’t a mere skirmish, however, and might be seen as yet another marauding band, pillaging the Hill. That marauding band is our City Council. By ignoring recommendations of City Planning staff, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and the results of Public Participation Meetings held with respect to the land development, London City Council is virtually setting up to attack the area around the Hill.

The current battle began in 1999 when the original application was made by Ayerswood Development asking the City of amend the official plan and zoning by-law from an “Open Space”designation to “High Density Residential.” Five months later, in March of 2000, Council unanimously rejected the application. This led to an appeal over the next year; the development of the Reservoir Hill Group comprised of neighbours and community members to speak to the appeal; and an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing.

In February of 2001, the decision was received from the OMB which allowed the Developer’s appeal in part. Changes were required to be made in order for the Board to approve the site plan entirely. A very succinct summary of the events that followed up to June of 2011 can be found in blogs written by Gina Barber: London Civic Watch: The battle over Reservoir Hill and Discount days at planning.

Since June of 2011,  there have been more appeals, meetings, recommendations and refusals to comply with the OMB. The site plan still to this day does not conform to the recommendations of the OMB, and there are several engineering concerns surrounding the development, including the safety to hold a building of the proposed size on the site, grading and the potential for erosion. No decision has been made on this battle, that has waged since 1999, but that may change in the next week or so as this matter will once again appear before our Council.

In just nine short months, members of the Council have dramatically changed the approach they have previously taken with respect to this site plan application, and has given itself the authority to approve the application without the support of City Staff, and against previous OMB recommendations. This current Council is looking now at approving the same application it had previously rejected in June of 2009. Why, and how can they do that? These are questions many in the community have.

This is clearly another example of what Councillor Nancy Branscombe has recently referred to as “policy on the fly”. A segment of the Council appears to be giving themselves powers to do whatever they want to do, when it suits them – and they want to do it quickly. Is this wise? Of course not. The allure of the development is that it will create jobs, and that’s what the Mayor desperately wants (read: needs) for this city now. But jobs at what cost? Ignoring the recommendations of staff, the OMB and the citizens who took place in Public Participation Meetings is not only irresponsible, but it could prove to be dangerous.  Should an unforeseen incident occur due to the issues previously listed, the cost will be far greater than any benefit the City would receive from making such a rash decision, especially one that is difficult to undo. It would also set a precedent in the future that would take us down yet another slippery slope.

It should be noted who the Councillors supporting the development are.  With the exception of one, there were no surprises for me in the list of names. They are the usual suspects: Mayor Fontana, Bud Polhill, Joe Swan, Stephen Orser, Dale Henderson, Paul Van Meerbergen, Denise Brown, Sandy White and the surprise (for me) Matt Brown.

This is where you need to get involved. I would encourage you to write to your Councillors to express your concerns with this pushing through of development and ignoring of recommendations by Staff and the OMB. Construction jobs sound appealing to a city that is hurting, but not jobs that could come with a great cost attached to them. And not only at a cost for the residents of the area, but for the rest of us as well. When this development is complete, a patch of land that is pleasing to the eye and segues to our beautiful Springbank Park will be forever changed, and perhaps not for the better. Too high of a density could ruin the landscape and cause catastrophe if the right measures aren’t taken to ensure safety in engineering.

Second, if you have the opportunity, attend the public delegation to voice your concerns over the development of the area, and the hasty policies Council is making in these situations. This is not the first, and if we let this kind of practice continue, it will become the norm.

Finally, the community who has rallied around Reservoir Hill has a petition available to sign, (a copy of which I have and will gladly send to anyone who requests one.  The more signatures, the better.)  The residents of the area could really use the support of the greater public before this goes before the Planning Committee once more. (Which could occur as early as Monday, March 26th, so please act fast.)  **Note:  I have been informed the Reservoir Hill site plan will be heard on April 24th, 2012. You have plenty of time to voice your concerns to council. Please, use this opportunity to get involved.

If we let this kind of policy making become the norm in the City of London, erosion of the Hill may not be our only concern, but the continued erosion of public participation and engagement, which would come at just as much of a cost. There is a process to these kinds of decisions for a reason, and we should all take responsibility for holding our Councillors to that process.

Tangled webs and leaps of faith.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive! ~ Sir Walter Scott

I remember my mum warning me as a child, “Jo-Anne, if you’re going to lie be sure it’s worth it, because I will always find out the truth.” She wasn’t kidding. She always caught me, but I never learned. In my teens, I told a doozy; one that hurt her very much. I couldn’t back up my story when questioned again, and she warned me, “Be sure your memory is long, Jo-Anne.” I suffered the consequences and learned from that mistake. I noted that the truth comes at much less cost than a lie and vowed to find honesty, for my benefit and the benefit of others.

We are surrounded in our every day lives by deception, omissions, half-truths and blatant lies. From parenting to politics, there is no escaping dishonesty. The art of covering one’s butt is nothing new, but I get a sinking feeling it is getting worse with every passing day. This morning alone I heard 3 lies before I knew the time. In one ear my son was telling me he “spilled water” in his bed, in the other the radio was talking of “Robocall” scandals and clandestine lunches. And I realized, this has been the norm for… I don’t know how long. But when I think of it, as long as I can remember.

And I shudder.

I have told my share of white lies, and learned to withhold the truth when the truth had nothing positive or constructive to offer. I undertook many years ago to be a decent, honest person. Sometimes it’s difficult, and other times it can be a detriment. Even if they say they do, not everybody wants to hear the truth because at times the truth can be ugly. But a lie is much more unsightly, especially when the truth is exposed. The hurt is longer and deeper, and trust disappears.

I feel hurt and mistrusting as a result of the lies I am hearing around me. My son is six, so I’ll give him a pass. We’ll downplay this incident to a fib and use it as a learning experience. I’ll instill the consequences of dishonesty, whether a “fib” or a “lie” and help him develop in his character. It is my duty as his parent to protect him, teach him and lead by example. We will value honesty and live life that we can be proud of. This is what I signed up for.

What I did not sign up for was my elected officials attempting to deceive me at every turn. Municipally and federally, I am becoming increasingly frustrated and saddened, day by day. When we elect our officials, we take a leap of faith that they will protect and serve us almost as a parent protects and serves their child. We give them our money, our personal information and our confidence that they will do what is best for us. We give our elected representatives respect, whether deserved or not, because we all know that the job they do must be very tough. But we put them there because they assure us that they can do it, and we take them at their word.

So how do we determine if they are lying when they make that promise? When we take that leap of faith and give them control of our cities, provinces, countries and livelihoods, what is to say they aren’t deceiving us? Nothing. Recent events – and events for centuries – prove it. No wonder voter apathy is at an all time high. No wonder citizens of the world have taken to the streets to protest, from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street and all its offshoots. No wonder people are angry. The world is waking up to the dishonesty, and they’re making it clear they’ve had enough. I’ve had enough, have you? Then stand up!

I want you to say this out loud, now:

“I vow to live an honest life; to lead by example; to spread truth instead of lies, love instead of hate. I make this pledge for the good of humanity.”

I’m not joking, friends, and I hope you will repeat it and live it. It is time we demand honesty from each other. When we have an outbreak of disease, we vaccinate against it and take all precautions necessary to stop it. Consider this vow your vaccination. It is time to adopt and protect one of the most core values of life: honesty. If not, it is a race to the bottom to see who can sink to the lowest of the low. And for what gain? Control. But what good does control do when you lose it? And those who seek control at all costs will eventually lose it. All things must come to an end. And what then, at what cost? Respect, dignity and conscience come to mind.

Today is a leap year, an event that happens once every four years. It is the perfect time for you to take a proverbial “leap” and make a pledge to live an honest, decent life. It is the perfect time to wake up to the dishonesty around you and hold to account those who are purveying it. We have lived surrounded by deception for so long that it has become the norm to us, but it can’t remain that way. Live a good life, lead by example and expect others to behave the same. Most of all, do not be afraid to call them on it. A higher standard has to be set by every single one of us, before we are so tangled up in webs of lies that we are unable to escape. There has never been a better time for us to make this commitment. Please, make the leap, before it is too late.

Turn out the lights.

So, the London, Ontario “Budget 2012” went off exactly the way many of us expected it to, despite our hopes to the contrary. Cuts to programs and services (although not “essential” services, says the Mayor) were made in order to reach a 0% tax increase. Fine. He got his freeze. And hey, there’s nothing wrong with trying to reach the lowest possible tax increase every year. But at what cost? This time the cost was on the backs of the vulnerable, and that’s not a cost I’m personally happy to pay. If you are, that’s for you to justify. But please, don’t try to justify it to me, because I can’t see any justification. What I see is increased tax bills in the coming years like we have seen before when we’ve had a tax freeze. If our economy hasn’t turned around by then – Heaven forbid – the cost to homeowners will be greater than it would have been this year. Mark my words (and pray that I’m wrong).

I’m not surprised with the votes, especially when there are allegations of a “coalition” that includes 8 members of council who seem to vote with the Mayor on many issues that the Mayor is passionate and pushy about. The cuts to Affordable Housing and Accessibility were made to the disappointment of many, but not to our surprise. If the allegations are true, the Mayor has a tight rein on his “coalition”, and unless sensibility suddenly strikes one or two of them, I see more of the same in another debate that rages tonight: Lights.

From March 10-17th, 2013, London, Ontario will host the ISU World Figure Skating Championships. A pretty big event for London’s John Labatt Centre that is “predicted” to draw tourists from all over the world to our fair (but hurting) city. Whether or not that is an exaggeration remains to be seen. Most tourists will likely come from closer to home, but time will tell. Many are thrilled with the event, others are less than overwhelmed. I fall somewhere in between. I enjoy figure skating would attend if finances allow, but single ticket prices haven’t yet been released, with “All Event” packages for the week listed from $1000-1200. That’s out of my price range, to be sure.

There is more to this event that has ‘affordability’ called into question, and associated price tags have come under serious scrutiny from citizens and council members alike. In particular, a $600,000 light show that will be projected on to nearby walls during the 7 day event. Images of skaters, etc. to thrill passersby and give them something to look at as they stroll to and from the arena. Pretty, but necessary?

The London Free Press is reporting today that this number has been reduced (by the magic of finding funds in other places) to $450,000, a price tag that – in my opinion – is still too dear to a city in trouble.

You know what my proposal would be to Mayor Joe, if he really wants to “light up this city!”? Use it’s best and brightest asset: It’s people. You may not think so, but $600,000 (no matter where it comes from) could go a long way in this city, putting people to work for a week. Instead of having a light show that people will likely pass by and not give a second look to, why don’t we invest that money in the people of our city, and give our visitors something tangible to look at and talk about when they leave London.

Invest that money in the biggest, best winter street festival this city has ever seen, and make it a yearly thing from there. Have musicians, performers and artists out showing what makes London, Ontario truly unique. Is an overpriced light show projecting images on walls going to do that? Seriously, Mr. Mayor, if you think it will then our problems are bigger than a spend thrift city council. This shows both a lack of imagination and and inability to think forward.

But we knew that already, and I’m sure the light show will pass without a second thought on the part of some councillors. Why? Because Tourism London and Mayor Joe Fontana say so, so they will smile and nod and say, “Great idea!” and pass it without examining the fantastic possibilities that the money could be spent on.

Or maybe they will surprise us… Wow, wouldn’t that be nice. But don’t hold your breath.

Turn out the lights, City of London. Turn on your brightest lights instead – your people. In the end, it is not the light show visitors will remember. It is not the light show that will make them say, “Wow! London was such a great city, because they had this marvelous light show projected on to the walls!” They will say, we hope, “Wow. London was beautiful, and the people were welcoming, interesting and fun.” That’s how I want tourists to talk of London when they leave, so please – let’s make the right investment and ensure that they do.

 

The Pinnacle of Geekdom

I have always been a geek.  I was the girl you gave “stink-eye” to in high school when I started talking politics at the lunch table.  I was the girl in the University dorm that you didn’t want to be stuck in the shared lounge with if the news was on.  And I was the girl who wanted to know your political views before the end of our first date, to see if you would be granted a second. Yes, I’m a geek and that’s okay. I own it and, quite frankly, I am proud of it.

Earlier today I tweeted, “You know you’ve reached the pinnacle of your Geekdom when your exciting, anticipated night out is at City Council. #ldnont“. Not everyone’s idea of a perfect night out, but for me this is a thrill. (I blame my dad.)

Yes, tonight is budget night at London City Council, and I will be very interested to see what transpires. Some of the proposed cuts have become quite contentious issues over the past 2 weeks, and I think many Londoners have given council members food for thought on each side of the debate, both for and against a tax freeze.

There is an important cut I missed in my last post that I would be remiss if I did not bring attention to. I will refer you to Jeff Preston’s blog on the matter of the $500,000 funding cut to Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities, because I cannot do the topic of accessibility justice as Jeff can.  Jeff, I apologize for my oversight.  Know that I am always with you in your fight for greater accessibility.

I have a feeling the air will be thick with tension tonight, both on the floor and in the gallery. I am certain it will remain respectful, but won’t be surprised if some tempers flare.  I believe my last post hit a nerve with one councillor this week, as it appears he has blocked me from seeing his page on Facebook (which is/was completely open to the public to read).  I’m disappointed for two reasons:

1. I enjoyed reading the comments from his “friends” (and more specifically, his specially trained guard dog) in response to articles he posted;  2. It proves my point – he doesn’t want to hear from us. He would like to silence us. We do not matter.

Thank you, Councillor Orser. I do enjoy being right.

Today in the London Free Press, Councillor Orser is quoted as saying, “If people have a problem, Orser said, they should show up at city hall, lobby councillors, set meetings and send in communications that identify themselves. That’s the problem with social media, you don’t know who you’re dealing with,” he said.”

Look up tonight, Councillor. Put the faces to our names. We are transparent, we do show up, we do communicate and we do lobby councillors. Get to know us, for once, because we aren’t going to go away. We are who you are dealing with, and really, we aren’t so bad. We just want you to listen to us and talk to us instead of at us, or for us. That is what engagement is, and that is what you have been elected to do. That goes for you too, Mayor Fontana. We don’t want any more fluff or window dressing, we want serious discussion and action.

I’m looking forward to this night, for many reasons. I care about this city, I care about cuts that could hurt it’s citizens, and I care about our Mayor and councillors taking civic engagement as seriously as I do.

Tonight I stand proudly on the pinnacle of my Geekdom, with my feet firmly planted. London, I’m not going anywhere, so I hope you can get accustomed to my voice.

 

London: City of Opportunity, or City of the Lost?

Picture your future in the city of London
Picture your dreams as you want them to be
Picture the things that you can accomplish
In London, the city of opportunity – Jim Chapman’s Incontinentals

London, Ontario: the ‘City of Opportunity!’ We have our own song to prove it, so it must be true. A city that can boast a 0% tax increase, with zero cuts to services. Our Mayor campaigned on that promise, so it must be true. It is also the city of citizen engagement, where all citizens have an equal voice and are free speak and be heard. Our Mayor set up a Community  Engagement Task Force (CETF) to make sure of it, so it must be true! 

But it isn’t true. The truth is, London is becoming a city of missed opportunity, depleting services and eroding citizen engagement. Our city is lost and in crisis, and it must be addressed.

On February 3rd, it was reported that the unemployment rate in London had dropped from 9.6% to 9% – still one of the highest rates for a city of it’s size (ranked the 10th largest) in Canada. The drop was somewhat significant, but the relief was short lived with the announcement in the following hours that the Electromotive Diesel Plant (EMD) would be closing it’s doors for good, putting approximately 700 people out of work. A blow to an already hurting city that we didn’t need, and could do nothing about.

Mayor Fontana campaigned on promises of job creation, frozen taxes (without touching services), opportunities for families, and the improvement of cultural and recreational facilities. Since 2010, more “good paying” jobs have been lost than created. While an initial tax freeze promised for 2011 did not affect services, that will not be the case in 2012, as proposed budget cuts for this fiscal year extend to cultural spending and recreational funding.

Included in the proposed cuts to reach a 0% tax increase are the closing of several wading pools in the city, and early closing of select public pools; reduction of cultural funding; a reduction of maintenance and garbage collection in city parks during the fall and winter months; $1 million yearly cut in funding to Affordable Housing; and a $1.3 M dip into the city reserves (against the advice of city staff). All this to save home owners an average of $30 per year with an approximate 1.5% tax increase, or $6.97 with an approximate 0.3% increase.

“London’s residential tax rates are lower than the urban
average – affordable housing prices and low tax rates
assist in attracting talent to our city.“

My home was affordable to buy, and my taxes are – as the city website proclaims above – much below the urban averages of other cities. It’s one of the reasons I bought a home and continue to live in this city. I appreciate the services I receive for the taxes I pay, and I wish to keep them. Not just personal services that benefit me directly like winter maintenance, but those that benefit the greater community, like affordable housing. The people of a city are, after all, it’s greatest asset.

As I stated in my opening, the Mayor created a task force to address the issue of citizen engagement. How could we make it better, and what could be done to get Londoners to get involved in city politics?

I sat on the task force for the first few weeks. I wasn’t sure how effective it would be in the end, but was willing to give it a shot and see what contribution I could make to the discussion. I became disillusioned and disheartened with the entire process one evening while sitting in the gallery at city council. I believe the debate was around backyard chickens that day, and Councillor Joe Swan, in response to a request for citizen input to the matter, said in no uncertain terms, “You have your say on election day. After that, I speak for you.” Very “father knows best” of him. It turned me off completely.

It seems to be a sentiment held by many on city council. The voice of the people who elected them is not being heard, and others are being deliberately tuned out. Citizens are not having their voices treated as equals, if they happen to hold a position of ‘respect’ in the community, whether it be as a priest or an employee of the not-for-profit sector.

After the proposed cuts were announced, Sean Quigley, Executive Director of Emerging Leaders, posted a blog expressing his anger over the cuts, especially to Affordable Housing. It was not inflammatory, but it was passionate. He went on to post Councillor Sandy White’s response to concerns he raised. Somewhere in this time, Councillor White contacted Sean’s former and current employers to determine if he was speaking on behalf of them or himself. Why, we aren’t exactly sure.

The Mayor contends it is normal to do this now and then, and perfectly acceptable. Others see it as a form of intimidation. Emerging Leaders is partially funded by the City, and White has been vocal in the past about not-for-profit leaders speaking out and criticizing.

Councillor Sandy White, February 2011 Council meeting:

“I guess one of the things I have a pet peeve about the fact some of the (non-profit) leaders in this city, and certainly we’re entitled to free speech, but the way that they conduct themselves, and we’re handing them money from the city, you know they’re in the paper, they’re on their blog. I mean they’re, you know, after councillors, they’re after you Mr. Mayor. I mean these kind of professional, ah non-professional behaviour needs to be addressed. Because it is the taxpayers’ money we’re giving out, and yet this kind of behaviour is acceptable? I mean these are some of the things in terms of professionalism that we look at and I don’t want to be accused of whining it’s just a fact. If I did that at my job they would say, you know, there’s the door what’s your hurry, here’s your pink slip and don’t look back, we’ll get you a box and see you later. And I think these are some of the issues we need to address in terms of the standards that we set in our non-profit sector in London. Thank you.”

Nathan Smith wrote a blog post in defence of Sandy White yesterday that I don’t disagree with, but don’t entirely agree with either. It’s a tough call to make. Sandy contends it was not done with any ill will, and perhaps we should take her at her word, but her actions speak louder than words as evidenced above in her criticism of non-profit leaders speaking out. In the past she has had no problem with criticism of City Hall with her participation in producing a play called “Sandbox” which is based on White’s own foray into City Hall (or, “Silly Hall”).

The social media exchange in this London Free Press piece  is also very important to look at to determine if London is really a city concerned about “engaging” with citizens. Apparently, we must not only refrain from speaking and criticizing council decisions if we are a not-for-profit leader, but if we are a church leader as well (thankfully, I am neither). The exchange between Councillor Orser and private citizen/priest Marty Levesque is even more troubling to me. Despite Mr. Levesque’s profession, he is a citizen first and foremost. To be silenced because he is a priest? It goes without saying, it is completely wrong. Mr. Orser suggesting he should not speak out disturbs me, and it should disturb you too.

Based on the above, can we really fault our leaders and ordinary citizens for being timid to come forward and speak out for what they believe in? Should they be separated from the other common tax payers, simply because of their job and position in the community? The simple answer is, “No”. Every tax payer and resident of this city should have an equal voice. End of story.

Is our city a “City of Opportunity”, or “City of Opportunists”? Frankly, it’s hard to find the opportunities our Mayor and theme song speak of. We can imagine all we like, but the reality is clear. Our city is broken on many levels, and it’s citizens are feeling lost. We must change the direction it has taken of late. We must stop trouncing on those who are hurting, and we must stop silencing those who are trying to speak up for them. If we don’t, our own personal rights are going to slowly erode. I, for one, am not ready to sit back and let that happen. Not now or ever.

Speak up for yourself and those around you. Remember, to others you are the “those” around them. We need to stick up for each other, before it’s too late. Do not silence us, Councillors. Listen to us, and truly engage with us. Please, don’t intimidate our people – leaders or otherwise – into not wanting to use their voices. If this truly is the City of Opportunity, extend those opportunities to all.

I implore our city Councillors to listen, engage and respect it’s citizens. That’s all we are asking of you and once we receive it, you will surely get it back.

A poll on polls

In my last post about polls, I cautioned “Don’t believe the hype.”  And I meant it.  I’ve become a little skeptical about the accuracy of opinion polls in the last few years due to the increase in trend in homes abandoning landlines for cell phone service.  I’ve never had a call on my cell phone or home phone, and not many people I speak to have either.

I decided to do a little ‘unscientific research’ into the matter.  Out of my

I was assured by Frank Graves of Ekos Research, however, that they do call cell phones

Then election 41 happened.  Anyone who has been following it closely knows these last two weeks have been all about “they hype”.  The surge of the NDP in the polls and the sharp decline of the Liberal party, and the unwavering support of the Conservative faithfuls.  It has been, quite frankly, quite exciting.