wildlife

Friday November 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 13, 2020

Don’t give free rein to Ontario’s developers

Doug Ford is moving quickly but quietly to give Ontario’s developers the upper hand over Ontario’s environment.

November 22, 2019

For proof of this ominous change, check out how Premier Ford’s provincial government is stripping away the powers of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities when it comes to approving new development in many of the province’s most vital natural areas.

Since mid-20th century, conservation authorities have been responsible not only for controlling floods but for protecting and restoring the land, water and natural habitats in this province. They’ve done a superb job, too, even if many developers consider them nothing more than red tape that slows or stops a money-making venture.

But in defiance of this long-held mandate, the Progressive Conservatives last week unveiled legislation that would curtail the conservation authorities’ ability to act as environmental guardians. And as if it was hoping the public wouldn’t notice what it was doing, the government slipped its proposals into its fat, omnibus budget bill.

The public, however, should take notice. What we’re witnessing is a direct threat to responsible environmental and land-use planning.

The new legislation would end the conservation authorities’ role in offering an informed response to development applications and how those applications might impact sensitive natural environments. More power to decide the fate of a proposed development, however controversial, would be handed to the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

If, where it still had jurisdiction, a conservation authority refused to issue a permit or imposed conditions for a development, a disgruntled developer could appeal directly to the natural resources minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Until now, someone appealing a permit denial would have to go directly to the local conservation authority’s executive.

December 11, 2018

What the Ford government is doing is politicizing environmental and land-use planning. At the very least, its proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act raise the possibility a developer with a friend in government could one day win approval for a project over well-founded, local opposition.

This shouldn’t happen but the government intends to go even further. The province doesn’t want watershed management and conservation to remain core conservation authority programs, for which municipalities would have to pay. Instead, they would become voluntary programs a municipality could choose to support — or not. 

The Ford government seems to have a grudge against conservation authorities. Last year, it slashed its funding for the authorities by 50 per cent while telling them flood control must become their core mandate. Those shrunken budgets have made it harder for conservation authorities to plant trees, restore forests, and prevent soil erosion and water pollution, all jobs that make for a healthier environment.

May 3, 2018

If the new legislation passes, Ontario’s river valleys, flood plains, wetlands, Great Lakes shorelines — indeed, its water supplies — would be vulnerable to degradation in even more ways. It is also worth noting that the same government is increasingly resorting to ministerial zoning orders which allow it to permit development while bypassing the municipal planning process, environmental assessments and meaningful public consultation.

If Ford truly believes the current process for approving development is too cumbersome, he could streamline the rules, perhaps even imposing tighter deadlines for municipal governments and conservation authorities to respond to a project proposal.

But the interests of the economy, development and money have to be balanced with the interests of our environment. And where they can’t, the interests of the environment should prevail. Ontario should, as the song says, be “a place to grow.” But it should be place to grow for healthy environments, not just developers’ bank accounts. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Reddit: The MacKay political cartoon in today’s Hamilton Spectator couldn’t be better

Saturday February 15, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday February 15, 2020

Sidewalk snow clearing debate demands action

Hamilton’s sidewalk snow removal controversy isn’t going away any time soon. In part, that’s because of an aging population who understand at a visceral level that mobility isn’t something to take for granted.

March 11, 2008

Being able to move around freely outside your home isn’t a frill. Whether for people who have age-related mobility issues, need wheelchairs or have babies in strollers, it’s a critical part of living a healthy and independent life. And that lifestyle can make the difference between remaining independent or falling into a cycle of increasing infirmity, which ultimately leads to losing that precious independence.

And this isn’t a only “soft” issue about quality of life. It’s also a bottom line issue. People who lose the ability to live independently require intervention and sometimes supported housing. And we have a huge problem with long-term care capacity.

In short, there is value on many levels in support of investing in measures to help people remain independent. Year round, not just in spring, summer and fall.

But how should that manifest itself? This week city council directed staff to investigate the matter of sidewalk snow removal. We don’t know what they’ll come back with, but from our perspective there are three potential areas worth consideration.

One is the idea of the city taking on snow clearing on all public sidewalks — all 2,445 kilometres of them. The estimated cost of that could reach $5.36 million. It is clearly the most socially progressive option. But is it practical, and would it be effective? City staff say it would cost $15 per household based on the average property value assessment. The average Hamilton homeowner can afford $15 annually. But put that together with an estimated 3.5 per cent tax increase and user fees increasing across the board plus increased taxes driven by property value reassessment, and it’s clear many taxpayers would not support that option. They’d say it’s just another straw on the camel’s back. And many residents of neighbourhoods that don’t even have sidewalks would certainly balk.

What about a partial solution where main thoroughfare sidewalks and those in designated high traffic areas were cleared? More affordable for sure, but there remains the question of how quickly the city (or contractors) could get certain or all sidewalks cleared. If it’s not very quick either of these two scenarios could prove ineffective. In Burlington, sidewalks are cleared within 24 hours, but when there’s significant snow it can take up to 72 hours. In Toronto, main downtown sidewalks get cleared but not neighbourhood sidewalks.

Another partial solution is less complex. Hamilton should toughen up its existing bylaw that penalizes scofflaw homeowners who don’t clear their sidewalks. The current reporting system results in slow and inconsistent service. Beef it up. Ensure there are enough bylaw staff to respond in 24 hours. If snow and ice are not cleared, have contractors do the work and bill the homeowners, and build in a little markup which the city could use to fund other sidewalk snow clearing measures.

Most homeowners and tenants are responsible and do the right thing. We should not hesitate to come down hard on those who do not. They’re jeopardizing public safety and showing disrespect for their neighbours, most of whom look out over clear sidewalks.

Whatever else happens, the city should toughen up on those who refuse to do the right thing. It’s likely that the only people who would not support that are the ones who are part of the problem. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)