Troubling...

At the All-Candidates Meeting in Dwight, a question was posed to Shane Baker. In the Huntsville Forester, he was quoted as saying he didn't have a chance to vote for the Mail-in ballots. The questioner asked him to reconsider, given that prior to the last elections in 2006 Mr. Baker was the sitting councillor for Sinclair/Finlayson. That Council did indeed vote to accept mail-in ballots. As did the current Council for this election. Mr. Baker replied that yes, he had in fact taken part in that process. So, yes, he did vote in favour of the mail-in ballot system used in the last election.

We learn every day. During the last election, through no fault of our staff, there was some lack of clarity on the mail-in ballots. As a result, many were disallowed as "spoiled" ballots. That was an issue, absolutely. Mr. Baker lost to Ben Boivin, the incumbent, by @ a 10% spread. In Baysville, the vote between Margaret Casey and Dan Waters was much closer -- a matter of two votes. It is understandable that the latter pair would demand recount. With a 10% spread, however, it is reasonable to assume that the vote results won't much change statistically, but exercising his right, Shane pushed to have the unopened ballots allowed.

As happens in these matters, since the Elections Act takes it all quite seriously, this went straight to the courts. At the end of the day, the ballots were opened. Margaret won by one vote over Dan. The 10% spread held for Ben Boivin. Lessons were learned about improving the mail-in ballots that you will be getting in the mail any day now.

So far, so good. There were problems with the mail-in ballots that time round. There was a cost to the Muncipality -- the courts ordered payments. The payment is insignificant in the context of democracy being served, really.

Then a question came from the floor to Mr. Baker indicating that he had personally cost the Township nearly $25,000.00 through this process.

That's not true. And Mr. Baker was rightfully quick to point out that the questioner was in error. So far, still so good. So far it is pretty much unfolding as one would expect -- with a result so close in Baysville, there had to be a recount. Those candidates, to whom one or two votes was going to make a big difference were naturally anxious to see which way the votes were going in those unopened ballots, so one would expect them to pursue all avenues.

But then it came a little off the rails. When asked if he, Shane Baker, had received money from this, Shane replied that he had not received a penny. That it had in fact cost him money.

This is the wonderful thing about democracy, about transparency and accountability. These documents are part of the public record. The end product of the process ensured that the ballots this time round will be better, clearer, easier. That's the way of it.

The courts ordered the Municipality to make payments. A cheque was written to the Muncipals Election Act in the amount of $21, 469.21. Did Shane cost the Township this? No. The closeness of the vote, particularly in Baysville, probably had more to do with driving this, although Shane did mount a legal challenge as well. He was certainly within his rights to do so.

A cheque was written, through the legal firm holding the money in trust, to Margaret Casey, for $1,000. Another, through another legal firm, was written to Dan Waters for $2,000.00. That's fact, and that's fine. They have never disputed this. Nor do we dispute that they were entitled to this money. There are always legal costs.

But another cheque was written, #07173, in the amount of $2000.00, for the court decision costs awarded to Shane Baker.

We don't dispute that he was entitled to mount a legal challenge. Nor that he was entitled to this court settlement. We don't assert that he was responsible for the total cost to the Municipality -- had the court found the other way, leaving the ballots unopened and unaccepted, these costs would not have accrued. If it is the Municipality's cost, then we have to pay it.

But Shane Baker has to wear it. He received $2000.00 from the Township of Lake of Bays.

Parking in Public Places

There was an All Candidates Meeting Tuesday in Dwight. An excellent turnout, which is promising, and indicates interest in the process. That's a great thing. One of the candidates suggested that elections are about Character. Integrity. That's true. I strive to be open minded and honest. I believe it is no secret where I stand on any given issue. into that decision making goes a lot of thought, a lot of research, a lot of listening, checking facts, learning the history behind the process that got us where we are. That said, when new evidence and argument can be brought to the table, I can be persuaded to change my viewpoint. At the end of the day, if the argument is not strong enough to sway me, I am willing to agree to disagree on issues, and continue to work forward.

A question was posed from the floor to me, about the issue of parking permits at Norway Point Park. Why did I "lead the charge" against this, a potential revenue stream for the township?

Well... here is the thing. I do not believe that the Township is in the business of providing parking spaces on public lands for a select group of people. I believe that anything done at an access point must be equitable for everyone -- it cannot be "more equal" for one group. We received some excellent legal advice on this matter during the process. I listened very closely. Asked questions. The majority of Council felt that this was a not business we were in, as a Township.

One proposal brought to Council involved a very complicated lottery system of parking permits. I did not, nor do I believe now, that system would address the needs of the water access group. Nor did they, themselves. They spoke strongly against that lottery system -- which was the only "fair and equitable" distribution of parking spaces our well-trained municipal staff were able to devise. The alternative Municipal Access User Agreement was a cumbersome concept, that would need to be spread to every water access point in the Township to be fair. It would be difficult to monitor and to administer.

The proposal carried a price tag in the range of $115,790 in the first year. I don't think that's a reasonable amount, nor do I believe it would be just to shift that cost to the water access users involved. I still think there are better avenues, left unexplored through the committee meetings.

Through the Norway Point Advisory Committee meetings we spent (according to figures from Treasury) @$2900 on barriers, $4448 on legal, $4789 on a potential Master Plan, and 50% of the By Law budget, which amounts to @$3300. No other options seemed to be considered other than how to institute a permit system for cars on this site.

I am not a Marina operator, nor can I tell from a glance at their site plans whether they have capacity within their business to take more customers. I rely on their business knowledge for that information. I believe that our marina operators are honest, fair minded folk, with character and integrity, so I do not doubt them when they tell me that they have spaces to fill in their businesses. I also do not doubt that these spaces may not be as conveniently located as Norway Point. Living on Islands brings both benefits and challenges, which is reflected in lower assessments.

In 1999, during my very early days on Council, a small committee was struck, chaired by Janet Peake, to look at this very problem. There was no consensus of opinion, no solution presented at that time that was viable, and the status quo was allowed to remain. For 25 years, we have permitted free long term parking on public lands. Over the years there have been some incidents and questionable behaviour from both sides -- those needing water access who felt the docks and parking spots were their's by right, as well as those who felt they should have equal access to parking and docking spots here.

The record will show a vote 5 to 2, with the two dissenting votes being those Councillors who also sat on the Norway Point Advisory Committee, Marg Casey and Janet Peake. There was no 'charge' to lead -- the majority of Councillors were outspoken that we were not in that business, nor did we wish to proceed with a permit system.

Council has given a reasonable amount of time for alternative arrangements to be made. 72 hour parking will come into effect on this site in May of next year. Is this a perfect solution? No. Is this a perfect world. Don't we all wish.

Perhaps there are some other avenues that can now be looked at, without the blinders of driving towards a permit system that was rejected so strongly at the Council table, but at the end of the day, Public lands are for the Public, and I am willing to stand behind my decision.

Heritage Matters

Heritage was ranked very high during the recent Strategic Plan initiative conducted by the Municipality. So we should all be proud of the Township of Lake of Bays Heritage Advisory Committee.

In the past few years, this committee has -- among other items -- produced a Register of buildings with heritage interest; brought in a Heritage Tax Relief Program -- the only one in Muskoka -- that rebates 40% of the taxes on designated buildings; attracted ten properties who have approached us to request designation and have successfully come through the process; hosted Doors Open; put up an Historic plaque at South Portage in partnership with Heritage Ontario; is currently finalizing another Historic Plaque to be located at North Portage to complete this celebration of the historic little Portage Flyer train and the settlement of Pen Lake; developed a Heritage Walking Tour brochure for the village of Dorset that will be available later this autumn; partnered with Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation; nominated individuals and groups for Heritage Awards from Ontario Heritage Trust -- including Norm MacKay in Dorset, Russ Nicholls for the Portage Flyer; and the group who worked to bring into being the War Memorial in Dwight.

Most recently, the committee nominated the entire village of Dorset, and that has been accepted by Muskoka Heritage Foundation. The award will be presented to the Dorset Museum, at the AGM in Gravenhurst on Saturday Oct. 2.

This committee and the staff that work with us, have developed an excellent relationship. Meetings are relaxed and fun, and best of all, productive. While I have Chaired this committee since its inception, special thanks must go to ALL the committee members who bring their wonderful ideas, energy, talent, enthusiasm and expertise to the table. None of this work would have happened without the partnerships and team-work of the entire committee.

Other than myself, two committee members from the Heritage Committee are running for Election this year. Marie Poirier has been a tremendous resource helping bring several of our by-laws to fruition; and Ruth Ross must get a round of applause for the work she has done on the Dorset Historic Tour brochure and her ability to bring together co-operation from both Algonquin Highlands and Lake of Bays in this lovely village that is divided down Main Street by the two municipalities.

It has been an absolute treat to work with this Committee, and I hope their ideas for future projects will continue!

Something to Consider

There was some debate at the Candidates Meeting in Baysville, with a question asking candidates how many environmental committees they sit on. Sitting on committees is a commendable thing, be it for the environment, or helping fundraise for a community project.

All the same, it crossed my mind that one can sit on every committee on the planet to promote environmental awareness, lobby for septic upgrades to protect water, encourage recycling and composting, and all the other good things that all of us are doing... but if we don't have good facilities to accept, handle and dispose of those waste products, we are in a bind.

So here's a cheer for the District of Muskoka -- and the folk like Bob Lacroix -- who have worked hard to ensures that the Lake of Bays (and all of Muskoka) have good, efficient, well run Waste management, transfer stations, recycle centres, septic lagoons, and water and sewer systems.

After all, if we want to keep it clean and green, if we want to reduce, reuse, recycle, we need to be able to put garbage in its place. My brother sits on the Muskoka Watershed Council, I am a Friend of Algonquin Park, a member of Eco-Watch, Ontario Nature, World Wildlife Fund, etc., but all of us at Bondi work hard to educate our guests about ways to soften their 'footprint', and we have long been advocates and leaders in composting, recycling and now solar energy. Like the local volunteers from the Lion's Club and the local Volunteer Firefighters (both incredibly valuable assets to our community) we have participated in Roadside Clean-up every spring along our section of the District Road for over 40 years. That's simply a given -- everyone needs to be paying attention to this, and doing their part.

Government policies are also critical. I sat on the Environment Committee during the development of the Lake of Bays Vision, and worked to bring our Official Plan into existence, with it's emphasis on the environment. No-one works alone on these projects - they are big, and involved a huge number of volunteers from the Lake of Bays. One such volunteer is Marie Poirier, recipient of many environmental awards over the years, incluing one from the city of St. Catherines for developing their Green Plan.She's got a long history of environmental work, through the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Short Hills Provincial Park, and here, closer to home, in assisting the development of the Development Permit System which works to protect our fragile shorelines. We're going to have development, so it is imperative that we have people who understand the planning process working to ensure that development is as environmentally sensitive as it can possibly be.

What I'm Hearing, What I'm Thinking!

Shane Baker wants to promote a hydro generating plant at the Baysville Dam, citing it would bring it $500,000 /year to the Township. Which might be an interesting project, if... Shane says the government is guaranteeing eighty cents/kilowatt hour for the next twenty years. They are not. It was clawed way back, earlier in the year. Now, for hydro-g, it's about sixteen cents/kilowatt hour, which means a longer payback time. Shane had no number for the business plan, the cost of the new infrastructure or for taking over the management and costs of the whole dam, since MNR doesn't do that once someone else puts a generation station there. Baysville community would have to decide if they want to lose the ability to fish, boat and swim above and below the dam, since those activities are not permitted currently around any generation station, no matter how modern or unobtrusive is the design. I'd feel better about the proposal if it had been advanced with correct numbers, and more information on the background costs. There are way too many issues, including environmental studies, economic impact, infrastructure debt, for this to be a good election platform. In my opinion...