Thunder Bay City Council
and its municipal administrative apparatus seems to have embarked on its Roman imperial
phase with respect to community relations with its taxpayer base. In response to those who provided input ( my
input here ) on the 105 Junot Avenue South Rezoning application and following
the October 21st decision to uphold the rezoning in a 7-5
vote, the Office of the City Clerk provided a Notice of Passing decree that
begins as follows:
“The Thunder Bay City Council passed By-law 94/2019 on the 21st
day of October 2019, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 as
amended.
Public comment has been received and considered
and had no effect on Council’s Decision as the application is consistent with
all relevant planning legislation and represents good planning.”
I suppose all that was
missing at the end of this statement was a simple “All Hail the Glory of the Emperor”
to convey the full message of conquest and victory. The implied message seems to be that any resistance
to the edicts of City Council is futile and has no effect. Whatever
is decided is consistent, represents good planning, and the final collective decision
is ultimately infallible.
The entire public
drama and division over 105 Junot was amplified by The City of Thunder Bay
because they encouraged the Ontario Aboriginal Housing Corporation to expand
the scale of the transitional project from 20 to 58 beds to “maximize” the use
of the site which one suspects probably really means greater property tax revenues for
the City - assuming that the OAHC pays property taxes. A smaller scale facility more
in keeping with other such projects around the province would have been more
suitable given the many concerns raised by residents in the area and generated
less discord.
Unfortunately, the
Aboriginal Housing Corporation was caught in the middle of this unfortunate
situation and making it into an emotional issue that attracted the attention of
the Globe
and Mail
did not serve anyone’s long-term interests.
What the City of Thunder Bay should have done in response to the input
received was return to the original proposal of 20-beds but that would have
required actually listening and accepting at least some of the arguments made
by those who presented their concerns. Really,
how can a facility approved on a much larger 58-bed scale in a neighborhood
with the social and crime issues that were raised be “good planning?"
In the end, it is
water off a duck’s back because many members of council believe they have been
annointed as “progressive” thinkers who love their community. The strength of their love means that they are
doing good and therefore the ends always justify the means. If that means tacitly implying that opponents
to their good works are insensitive to poverty or diversity, then so be
it. They constantly solicit input from constituents
but listen through a set of political noise cancelling headphones so that the
discordant notes from any input not coinciding with their vision of fighting
social and economic injustice is politely filtered out.
Those in Thunder Bay who
uncritically champion all social injustice issues with unquestioned fervour and
feel they have the ear of City Council and its municipal-corporate apparatus
should be cautious. In the end, any dispensed
progressive works are to be accepted on The City’s terms because they know what
is best for you. Take the example of
Dease Pool as a case in point. Here, a
long-standing community pool in what is considered a disadvantaged neighborhood
was closed because it was old and needed substantial and expensive
renovations. There is continuing opposition
to the closure but The City forges ahead.
The proposed new draft
plan (available here) will
essentially replace the pool area with a tennis court and a community
garden. Given that swimming pools accommodate
a greater and more diverse number of users than a single tennis court, it seems
like an oddly elitist rather than progressive use for the site. However, consciences will be soothed with a multi-user
community garden – which also atones for the environmental sin of an asphalt
surface on the tennis court. If all this
redevelopment was designed to somehow deal with the rising costs of an old and
aging pool, those of us with a more fiscally conservative bent could be understanding. However, this will still cost a lot of money and in the end not fully serve the
needs of the area.
As for the money that
will be spent, it does not seem to matter because a “progressive” council that wants to
do great things will simply raise the tax rates on its residents - who by the
way are now responsible for the lion’s share of property tax revenue given the
declining industrial and commercial base.
Be prepared this year for an initial budget proposal that stakes out a high
increase in the tax levy. This will be blamed
on the provincial government who, being conservative rather than progressive,
are the source of all fiscal evil. After
a cleansing public ritual of debate and input of appropriate length, The City will then retreat
to an increase of between 3 and 4 percent thereby demonstrating that it is both
fiscally responsible and generous in matters of expenditure.
We should not complain
too much. We elected them.
